Can 'truth' change?

by wholewheat 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Farkel

  wholewheat,

  : The argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water. According to Random House Webster's Dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".

  : The word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".

  I'm going to approach your argument a little differently. You've made a fatal flaw with word definitions in your argument and it is so elementary, I'm surprised you can't see it. You take only ONE WORD out of a phrase of only ONE of the definitions of truth and then use the dictionary to get a meaning of only that ONE word and then use that meaning to put forth another definition of truth.

  I see cognitive dissonance in your argument because you've made such a BIG point about not wishing others to play semantic games with you. I guess I can't fault you because that is exactly the same kind of linguistic truck the Watchtower Printing Corporation frequently uses to flummox its readers.

  I'll pick a rather absurd example off the top of my hat to illustrate how this kind of reasoning is fallacious:

  "Heat" - a property of thermodynamics. See "hot."

  "Property" - real estate, as in a personal residendece.

  Therefore, all houses are hot.

  Furthermore, you take take your own argument further into left field by stating this:

  : If 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?

  You need to know more about science that what Awake! teaches you before you venture into this area. It is not without good reason that some lambasted you for that statement.

  Now, despite what they CLAIM the Watchtower Corporation obviously believes that truth DOES change. They even have CLASSES of truth: present truth, former truth and future truth. How they can have the arrogance to say something like this in view of the scriptures which say God never changes and God is a God of truth, i.e. real truth never changes, never ceases to amaze me.

  It is a sad thing to see attempts at apologetics like this to justify a religion which views truth as a cork bobbing in a stream and going in whatever direction the stream takes it, yet at the same time claiming to be the guardian of ALL truth by the God of truth.

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 2 July 2002 9:25:50
• 

  Windchaser

  Farkel, I am speechless. What a great post.
• 

  wholewheat

  Farkel,

  Nice reply, but the statement that 'houses are hot' makes no sense, but my statement makes total sense. If tommorrow, it was announced that the 'Law of Gravity' was found to be innaccurate and inncorrect, and was 'updated', how would this viewed in the scientific community?

  Since you seem to be well versed in the Society's publications, do you know of a publication by the Society that was published after 1980, that gives a totally erroneous teaching which the Society claims to be 'truth' from Jehovah?
• 

  In_between_days

  Nice reply, but the statement that 'houses are hot' makes no sense, but my statement makes total sense. If tommorrow, it was announced that the 'Law of Gravity' was found to be innaccurate and inncorrect, and was 'updated', how would this viewed in the scientific community?

  Wholeweat,

  You are amusing, please stick around. I'll let someone else answer this. *chuckle*
• 

  LB

  Good Grief wholewheat there are so many. I"ll give you just one. Back a few years go the society changed it's view on the meaning of the word "generation" right? But then they went along and published articles on how the end of the system would certainly occur before the end of the 20th century. So they were trying to paint themselves out of a corner, and then painted themselves right back into it.
• 

  funkyderek

  If tommorrow, it was announced that the 'Law of Gravity' was found to be innaccurate and inncorrect, and was 'updated', how would this viewed in the scientific community?

  That couldn't happen. I presume you mean Newton's Laws of Gravitation. They are "laws" because they have been used consistently and repeatedly to make accurate predictions about the universe, no other reason. The idea that tomorrow they will stop doing so is absurd.

  However, it was known for a long time that under certain circumstances (most notably, predictiong the orbit of Mercury) Newton's theories gave slightly inaccurate results. That's where relativity comes in. Einstein's theories predict reality more accurately than Newton's. Newton's theories are not "wrong" and are still taught in schools and colleges and still used by scientists, but they are incomplet and there are certain conditions under which they do not give the correct results.

  Wholewheat, you seem to be confusing the idea of truth as divine revelation and the "functional truth" of science and you show a shocking ignorance of the realities of science. Theories aren't just picked up and then randomly discarded, replaced by a diametrically opposed theory. Your religion, however, does exactly that, and still claims divine revelation. The light of science is getting brighter and brighter. The light of your religion is switching on and off like a strobe light, and pointing in the wrong direction.
• 

  larc

  Wholewheat, LB mentioned one, the change in the definition of a generation. Here are some others. It was not until 1987, that the Society gave grudging recognition, in print, that some college education might be necessary. Before that, there was a very strong discouragement against college. Also, it was not until some time in the 90's that they said a person could do alternate government service when faced with military service. Before that, prison was the only alternative. Also, the number of allowed blood fractions has increased since 1980.
• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  If tommorrow, it was announced that the 'Law of Gravity' was found to be innaccurate and inncorrect, and was 'updated', how would this viewed in the scientific community?

  WholeWheat,

  Notice the highlighted word, LAW, above.. A law in science means it has been tested, and PROVEN to work under certain conditions.. As long as those conditions are met, the LAW applies... Therefor, the LAW of gravity will always apply under certain conditions. By updating I believe you mean to add new conditions, I'll go back to my example of the 'law of gravity' and the Feather/Bowling Ball analogy.

  Newton calculated that there is an acceleration from gravity, and hence given the mass of an object and the distance from the earth, you can calculate how long it will take for the object to hit the earth, and what speed it will be traveling when it does.. Guess what, this formula appearrs to be incorrect for objects that are either very light (feather) or for objects that are falling a great distance... The reason is something called wind resistance... (That's why a bowling ball and a feather do not fall to earth at the same speed).. In fact, I an experiment was done on the moon with a feather and a hammer, and they DID hit the moon at the same time, as predicted without wind resistance.

  http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/index2.htm

  But, and this is the important concept that you seem to be missing WholeWheat, the law of gravity (acceleration) WAS NOT INVALIDATED by the finding out about wind resistance.. The LAW still works, but they did find out that under certain circumstances that another law must also have been acting on the objects. The underlying LAW was not changed, it stayed a 'fact', however, they did realize that they needed to account for another force (the wind resistance). The 'light' in this case did get progressivly brighter.. The 'foundation' was strong, and they realized there needed to be another story added to an already strong foundation law...

  In the case of the WT, can you tell me one DOCTRINE that you have that cannot change and reverse itself, and hence builds your 'foundation' of which to make new 'stories' upon? I'll give you an example of a foundation that recently was broken; the foundation that the new system of things was to happen within 'this generation'. That foundation was so prevelant in the organizations thinking that they even put it in writing in the Awake! Magazine (Before Nov 1995) stating that it was "God's promise" that he will usher in the new system before the generation of people who saw the events of 1914 would pass away! That was a 'foundation', something you KNEW to be true, a "LAW" if you will..

  Well, in Nov 1995 that foundation law was changed, and now the word Generation is basically meaningless in your new defintion. People based their entire lives on the fact that the wicked system would end before the people that saw the events of 1914 would pass away; and suddenly that 'LAW' was dissolved. Therefor, it wasn't a law, it wasn't truth, it was at best a hypothisis that was proven wrong. The LAW of gravity has been proven right, and it cannot change, new conditions can be found where it doesn't seem to work, and in those cases new 'stories' will need to be added to it to find out the reason for it not working correctly (as is the example of wind resistance), but it will always work.. The scientific community can RELY on the fact that the law of gravity is a given..

  What "LAW" or doctrine can you rely on from the GB that can never change, as that is how you build 'knowledge'.. You start at the base, build the foundation, and then add 'stories' to that foundation as time goes on, and knowledge increases. What foundation has the GB layed for you that you KNOW and have ABSOLUTE faith in that will never change, and you can build upon that "LAW" or "TRUTH"? Can you name me just one?

  From another thread: (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=31262&site=3)

  ``At times explanations given by Jehovah's visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case. This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as "tacking." By maneuvering the sails the sailors can cause a ship to go from right to left, back and forth, but all the time making progress toward their destination ... -- The Watchtower December 1, 1981, page 27

  ``Seeing the strenuous efforts needed to succeed in the race for life, Paul went on to say: "Therefore, the way I am running is not uncertainly" (1 Corinthians 9:26) ...Hence, to run "not uncertainly" means that to every observer it should be very evident where the runner is heading. The Anchor Bible renders it "not on a zigzag course." If you saw a set of footprints that meanders up and down the beach, circles around now and then, and even goes backward at times, you would hardly think the person was running at all, let alone that he had any idea where he was heading. But if you saw a set of footprints that form a long, straight line, each footprint ahead of the previous one and all evenly spaced, you would conclude that the footprints belong to one who knows exactly where he is going. -- The Watchtower, August 1, 1992, p. 17

  Oh, and here's an interesting tidbit I learned while looking up Newton on the Internet

  Newton was a bible scholar, and predicted the return of Christ from the book of Daniel (somewhere in 1997): http://www.prophecycountdown.com/articles/newton.html

  Of course, he did so only with Bible Chronology, never did he utter the words, "These are the words of Jehovah" or even imply that god was behind his interpretation of Daniel!
• 

  ItsJustlittleoldme

  WholeWheat,

  What is the purpose of the society? What are they trying to accomplish? And thus far, what have they accomplished? In it's 120+ year history, what body of knowledge do they have that is unwaivering and cannot change and is to be used as the building blocks of Christianity that they have been building on for all those years? What do they know now that they did not know 120+ years ago (Again, concrete knowledge, something that you can build upon without having to knock down the foundation and start all over, as with the 'generation') Can you answer these questions for me please?

  In science, we can easily track knowledge and 'new light' over the ages..

  * We learned about fire (That hasn't changed, we may be able to make better and more efficient fires, and may be able to start fires with more ease than our ancestors, but the basics of fire still apply - We can still light a fire by rubbing two sticks together)

  * We learned about structures, and buildings (That hasn't changed, we can make more efficient structrures, stronger, etc, and use better building materials than our ancestors in biblical times, and better techniques to build them in less time, but the basic concepts of how to build a structure haven't changed - brick layers can still do it the old fashioned way)

  * We learned about anti-biotics (The antibiotic application hasn't changed, we have been able to find/develop better antibiotics than just Penicillin, but the basic application of the antibiotic hasn't changed, just the fact that we can now apply anitbiotics to other problems -- Penicillin still works just fine for what it was designed for)

  Those are examples of progressive light. Can you compare these examples of progressive light with the record that the JW's have on learning bible truths?

  Edited by - itsjustlittleoldme on 3 July 2002 12:22:58
• 

  Farkel

  wholewheat,

  Doctrines changed since 1980? Why 1980? Was Jehovah on vacation before 1980? Did he return and inspect his FDS and pronounce them "clean" in 1980? Nevermind.

  Here are few of many:

  The whole 607-1914,1918, 1919 chronlogy is anchored on a date that no Babylonian scholar supports.

  The 2,300 evenings and mornings prophecy is still believed to be fulfilled when the WTS changed its corporate charter and put Jehovah as a member of the Corporation.

  The timing of separating the sheep and goats has been changed since 1980. It is no longer taught that door knocking and magazine-selling is effecting that seperation.

  The 7,000 year creative days are still WT doctrine.

  It is no longer doctrine that the US/British Empire is the "King of the South."

  Alternative military service has no longer becoming a DAing offense since 1980.

  The blood doctrine has been modified a number times since 1980.

  Elders are/are not "appointed by holy spirit" has been changed and changed again.

  And, as has already been pointed out a major CORNERSTONE of dubland, i.e. the "This Generation" that saw 1914 doctrine has been scrapped. That is major stuff.

  Since 1980 the WTS crawled in the bed and fornicated with the Wild Beast and then sheepishly and lyingly crawled out of bed with that same beast when they were finally exposed.

  Farkel