Who can explain why the "Two Witness" rule is wrong, in the simplest term?

by DATA-DOG 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    With all the legalese being tossed around, and the expert manipulation on the part of the WTBTS, who can explain why the "two witness" is being perverted by the WTBTS?

    I don't care if you're a Bible believer and want to approach this from a biblical standpoint, or if you simply use logic and reason. How would you explain this subject to a J-dub, or even a non-Dub?

    DD

  • Chook
    Chook

    There is NOTHING wrong with the two witness rule because nearly all nations judicial systems have checks and balances so someone can't accuse a person of something without supporting evidence. The problem with WT is it has to be two humans, a court of law allows other factors which can support the accuser , such as e.g body damage to support a assault charge. Doctor evidence regarding rape.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow

    What Chook said.

    Forensic evidence is a 'witness'. And, it is a more reliable witness than a human. Forensics don't lie. Humans do.

    But, then again...that could be exactly why they won't cave in on this rule. Forensic evidence doesn't allow for weaseling. Actual, provable "truth" scares the crap out of them. They can't handle the truth*.

    *to add - they don't want the truth. If they were really concerned with finding out if an accused is guilty or innocent, they wouldn't hesitate to call in authorities - experts who can collect evidence. Evidence is a witness that does not lie but the WT guys don't want that. They are not concerned with real evidence/truth

  • azor
    azor

    The crime in question rarely if ever has two witnesses.

  • LevelThePlayingField
    LevelThePlayingField

    1.) Two elders can witness a brothers car parked outside a sisters home over night and not need two witnesses to say they committed fornication. THAT's why the two witness rule doesn't make sense.

    2.) Also Angus Stewart mentioned in case 29 that in Deut 22:25-27 if a woman is raped in the field, she didn't need two witnesses to have the raper stoned to death. Another reason why the two witness rule doesn't make sense.

    3.) But let us not forget this important thing. Sure, the org needs two witnesses, but that's to perform their own internal judicial trial process. They should still inform the authorities even if they can't move forward internally. IF the authorities find the perp guilty THEN they can move forward internally. How hard is that?!

  • jwleaks
    jwleaks

    The "faithful and discreet slave" cannot provide two witnesses that they were appointed by jehovah in 1919. Not one single member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses can provide two witnesses that they were anointed by jehovah. Yet collectively and individually they insist on the two witness rule to establish all things.

  • StarTrekAngel
    StarTrekAngel

    Read Deut 17:8-9. I believe it clearly states that in cases of assault you can just go around looking for a second witness and you should rely on judge. Sure, Israel was a theocratic nation but I believe the principle is clear. Two witness rule was for mundane issues like who stole your cow.

  • blondie
    blondie

    This is based on an ancient OT law code before forensics of today. The elders are not qualified forensic people, not trained nor have the equipment. That is why you report it to the properly trained people. Forensic evidence acts as that second witness along with the victim's testimony. Law enforcement can gather evidence and put the pieces together. Elders don't have the skills.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    The ARC into child sexual abuse case 54 ,they need to be made aware that the 2 witness rule is not a 2000 year old scriptual requirement but actually a 4000 year old law given by Moses Deut.17:6

    "at the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death .He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness."

    Surely society has come a long way in caring for children and adults these past 4000 years. , if anyone condones this then they might as well condone the barbaric actions of Isis , Muslim extremists for adherring to hundreds of years old scriptures.

  • OrphanCrow
    OrphanCrow
    smiddy: Deut.17:6
    "at the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one dying should be put to death .He will not be put to death at the mouth of one witness."

    Just reading the "law" like that, it appears like it concerns the seriousness of capital punishment. The death penalty could only be given if there were two witnesses. It says nothing about establishing guilt.

Share with others