A change in understanding Deu.6:4
While I may be wrong, I believe that today's WT study article was the first one to say the Deu. 6:4 was not written to refute the Trinity. I found it odd to say the least, since for all the years I've being going to meetings (over 50+ in actuality) the verse written by Moses, has always been used to counter the Trinitarian Gods of the Egyptians and the Trinity today. And just to check that my mind wasn't slipping, I checked the 2015 JW Library and found at least 43 references citing this scripture as the key text against that concept. (June 2016 p19 para 4)
Can you post that quote and what issue (June 2016) that is and what page and paragraph? The WTS uses the qualifier "does not appear" to leave room to back away from this interpretation of what they said.
THE ONENESS OF JEHOVAH
4 Unique. The word “one” in Hebrew
and many other languages can mean
much more than a simple number. It
can imply being unique, the one and
only. It does not appear that Moses was
here refuting the false religious teachings
of a triune god. Jehovah is the Maker
of heaven and earth, the Sovereign of
the universe. There is no real or true
God but him; no other god is like him.
(2 Sam. 7:22) Thus, Moses was reminding
the Israelites that their worship of
Jehovah must be exclusive. They were
not to follow the peoples around them,
who worshipped various gods and goddesses.
Some of those false gods were
viewed as ruling over certain parts of nature.
Others were separate forms of a
Not to hijack your thread this entire article was contradictory in many ways.
It made this statement, ". . .it is clear that his fundamental requirements for true worshippers(they spelled this word wrong) remain the same today." Yet the governing body changes the rules every few months or so.
Then, "To give Jehovah exclusive devotion, we must be careful not to allow anything to take, or even to share, the place in our life that Jehovah alone should occupy." That's why JW's basically worship the governing body, branch members, circuit overseers, elders, pioneers etc.
Or this, "Or the love of the world might involve. . .the pursuit of higher education." Let's see them fight their legal battles with only high school graduates. Or any of the engineering needed for their Warwick compound using only high school graduates. Or any of their dental, medical work including surgeries performed by only high school graduates.
While it's clear that weasel words were used in this context, the sentence didn't really have to be included as part of the writing committee's reasoning in that paragraph. This was why I felt that is just odd that they included it. As if was a genuine change and the GB was just softening us up by dropping a one line statement, as I have seen before.
And in regards to the comment on higher education ... well I knew that someone else for sure would pick up on it. But it's a really stupid view, that's for sure.
Only the WTS could use a study about the glory of God to lead into counsel about accepting those of other races and ethnicity.
From what I see and hear, that is a growing problem in the congregations today.....
Not to hijack your thread.....
It made this statement, ". . .it is clear that his fundamental requirements for true worshippers(they spelled this word wrong)
Seems like WT are just following the Associated Press Stylebook?