I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to help me to explain to JW's that the "New Light" isn't CLARIFICATIONS but, ARE CHANGES.
I was really impressed by the response. It was very solid, and factual. Here it is below:
My question to ChatGPT:
I
need help with understanding something. I have some religious friends who
belong to Jehovah's Witnesses. When the leaders of the religion change a
doctrine, the members say that “the teaching was clarified.” For example, consider
the way they have changed back and forth the teaching about whether the men of
Sodom and Gomorrah be resurrected. As I have cited the changes as published by
the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the teaching isn’t clarified as time
went on, rather, it kept flip-flopping back and forth from yes to no again and
again. The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t deny this history. However, they quote a
Bible verse from Proverbs 4:18, which says, “But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows
brighter and brighter until full daylight.” And then they say “God was using
the governing body to make clarifications to what they understood at the time.
And, the governing body isn’t perfect, but Jesus is the one giving them “new
light,” (they are referencing the quote from Proverbs), so sometimes they might
not always get it right the first time. It takes time, like when you see an
object on the horizon. As the morning light gets brighter you at first think
it’s one thing, but later you realize it’s another.”
1879 – Yes, according to The Watchtower magazine.
1952 – No, The Watchtower.
1965 – Yes, The Watchtower.
1967 – No, The Watchtower.
1974 – Yes, according to the Awake! magazine.
1988 – No, The Watchtower.
1988 – Some will, according to their religious
encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures, p. 616.
1988 – Yes, Insight on the Scriptures, p. 985.
1988 – No, according to the publication, The Revelation
Climax, p. 273.
1988 – Yes, according to the publication, You Can Live
Forever, p. 179 (old edition).
1988 – No, You Can Live Forever, p. 179 (new edition).
So, I am stumped. Can you help me to explain to them that
these aren’t actual clarifications, but are changes? Can you also give me
examples of real-life clarifications, as well as how a clarification differs
from a change?
ChatGPT 3.5 answer:
Addressing the difference between a "clarification" and a
"change" in the context of religious teachings, especially within the
framework of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be nuanced. Let's break it down to help
you articulate your point.
Clarification
vs. Change
1.
Clarification: This
involves providing more detail, explanation, or refinement to an existing
teaching without altering its fundamental meaning or stance. It's akin to
adding more information to help understand the original message better. For
instance, if a religious group initially teaches that "prayer is
important," a clarification might specify "prayer is important
because it strengthens one's relationship with God and provides guidance."
2.
Change: This
involves a substantive alteration in the teaching or doctrine itself, where the
new position differs from or contradicts the previous stance. Using the same
example, if the initial teaching states "prayer is the only way to
communicate with God," but later changes to "there are many ways to
communicate with God, including prayer, meditation, and acts of kindness,"
this constitutes a change, not a clarification.
Examples
from Jehovah's Witnesses
The changes you've listed regarding the resurrection of the
men of Sodom and Gomorrah within Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings over the years
do not appear as mere clarifications because the stance shifts back and forth
between "yes" and "no." A clarification would entail
providing more detail or reasoning without reversing the stance, such as
further explaining why they would or would not be resurrected based on
scriptural interpretation without changing the ultimate conclusion.
Real-life
Clarification Example
A real-life example of a clarification might involve
scientific understanding, such as the nature of Pluto. Initially classified as
a planet, further clarification of what constitutes a planet led to Pluto being
reclassified as a "dwarf planet." The fundamental understanding of
Pluto didn't change—it was always a celestial body orbiting the Sun. What
changed was the criteria for planet classification, refining our understanding
without fundamentally altering what Pluto is.
Explaining
to Your Friends
When discussing this with your friends, you might
acknowledge the sincerity and faith that leads them to view these changes as
"new light" or clarifications in understanding. However, you can
gently point out that a true clarification would not reverse a position but
rather expand upon it. Changes in doctrine, as evidenced by the shifting stance
on a specific topic, reflect a more significant evolution in understanding or
interpretation rather than a mere refinement of existing beliefs.
Emphasize
that recognizing these as changes rather than clarifications doesn't have to
undermine faith; rather, it can be seen as a testament to the dynamic nature of
spiritual understanding and interpretation. It's also worth mentioning that the
ability of a religious organization to adapt and change its teachings can be
seen as a strength, showing responsiveness to deeper understanding or new
insights, albeit acknowledging these as changes is crucial for transparent
communication.
You
Yes, thank you. Can you please give me 3 more real-life
examples? Please use a different field for each example. Also, please drill down
a bit more in depth into the flip-flopping. I want to help them understand more
clearly, and make it concise and succinct so as to enable them to see for
themselves that their leaders are using semantics a little to coax them along
and not "think for themselves."
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Certainly, providing diverse examples can help illuminate
the distinction between clarification and change across different fields. Here
are three examples from technology, law, and health guidelines, each showcasing
the difference more vividly.
Technology:
Definition of "Broadband" Internet Speed
1.
Clarification: The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) periodically updates its definition of
"broadband" to reflect advancements in technology and user needs. If
the FCC initially defined broadband as a minimum download speed and later
provides detailed criteria including upload speeds, latency, and reliability,
it's clarifying what broadband means in a modern context without altering the
fundamental concept that broadband refers to high-speed internet.
2.
Change: If the
FCC initially defined broadband as any internet connection faster than dial-up
and later changed it to specifically mean connections with download speeds of
at least 25 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps, this is a change. The
fundamental criteria for what qualifies as broadband have shifted.
Law:
Legal Definitions and Rulings
1.
Clarification: A
legal clarification might occur when a higher court provides a more detailed
interpretation of a law without changing its original intent. For example, if a
law prohibits "using electronic devices while driving," a
clarification might specify that "using" includes not just texting
but also browsing the internet, without changing the law's intent to improve
road safety.
2.
Change: A
change occurs when new legislation amends or replaces existing laws, altering
their scope or application. For example, if a new law is passed that explicitly
allows for the use of hands-free devices, contradicting a previous blanket ban
on all electronic device use while driving, this represents a change in legal
standards.
Health
Guidelines: Dietary Recommendations
1.
Clarification: If
initial dietary guidelines recommend "eating more fruits and
vegetables" and later clarifications specify "at least five servings
of fruits and vegetables per day," it's refining the advice without
altering the fundamental recommendation to increase fruit and vegetable intake
for better health.
2.
Change: A
change would be if initial guidelines recommended avoiding all fats for heart
health, but later revisions endorse the consumption of certain fats (like those
from avocados, nuts, and fish) for their health benefits, clearly changing the
stance on fat consumption in diets.
Addressing
Flip-Flopping
In the context of the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings you
mentioned, the flip-flopping over the resurrection of the men of Sodom and
Gomorrah isn't a series of clarifications but rather changes, as the stance
reverses from "yes" to "no" and back. This indicates not
just a refinement of understanding but a fundamental alteration in doctrine
each time the position changes.
To help your friends see beyond
semantics, focus on the essence of what a clarification should be—a deeper,
more detailed explanation that doesn't contradict previous statements but
builds upon them. In contrast, a change, especially one that flip-flops,
indicates a significant revision or reversal of understanding.
Highlighting
these distinctions can encourage critical thinking and self-reflection,
suggesting that while seeking truth or understanding, it's crucial to
differentiate between refining one's knowledge and fundamentally altering one's
stance. Encourage them to consider whether the changes they observe are
genuinely clarifications that add depth to existing beliefs, or if they
represent significant doctrinal shifts that should be acknowledged as such.
Would
you please comment in a similar way to another example as noted below:
Who
are the people who make up the generation that Jesus mentioned at Matthew
24:34, which says, “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means
pass away until [the end].” The generation applies to:
1886 – People who lived during the 100-year span from
1780 to 1880.
1952 – People living since 1914.
1968 – People at least 15 years of age.
1969 – Babies born since 1969.
1980 – People 10 years old and up.
1988 – Most of the generation of 1914 have passed away,
but there are still millions on earth who were born in that year.
1988 – Not the span of many human generations, but rather
a single generation, that of those alive in 1914.
2010 – Special “anointed” Jehovah’s Witnesses who were
alive in 1914 that overlap with other “anointed” ones living from 1992 onward.
2014 – Jesus was referring to two groups that make up one
generation.
You
Would you please comment in a similar
way to another example as noted below: Who are the people who make up the
generation that Jesus mentioned at Matthew 24:34, which says, “Truly I say to
you that this generation will by no means pass away until [the end].” The
generation applies to: 1886 – People who lived during the 100-year span from
1780 to 1880. 1952 – People living since 1914. 1968 – People at least 15 years
of age. 1969 – Babies born since 1969. 1980 – People 10 years old and up. 1988
– Most of the generation of 1914 have passed away, but there are still millions
on earth who were born in that year. 1988 – Not the span of many human
generations, but rather a single generation, that of those alive in 1914. 2010
– Special “anointed” Jehovah’s Witnesses who were alive in 1914 that overlap
with other “anointed” ones living from 1992 onward. 2014 – Jesus was referring
to two groups that make up one generation.
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
This example illustrates how the
interpretation of "generation" in Matthew 24:34 by Jehovah's
Witnesses has undergone multiple revisions, which reflect changes rather than
clarifications over time. Each revision represents a significant shift in the
understanding of what constitutes the "generation" that will not pass
away until the end comes, according to their interpretation of this biblical
prophecy.
Analysis of Changes
- 1886 Interpretation: The generation is defined as a 100-year span
from 1780 to 1880. This is a clear, time-bound definition.
- 1952 Interpretation: Shifts to people living since 1914, marking a
significant change from a historical 100-year period to a new starting
point based on a significant date in Jehovah's Witnesses' eschatology.
- 1968 Interpretation: Changes to people at least 15 years of age,
adjusting the criteria for who is included in this generation based on
age, rather than a specific historical period or event.
- 1969 Interpretation: Adjusts again to include babies born since 1969,
further altering the definition to encompass a new demographic.
- 1980 Interpretation: Specifies people 10 years old and up, again
tweaking the demographic criteria for who constitutes the generation.
- 1988 Interpretation(s): Offers multiple views in the same year,
initially noting that most of the generation of 1914 have passed away but
millions born in that year are still alive, then asserting it refers to a
single generation alive in 1914. This reflects internal inconsistencies
and adjustments within a very short period.
- 2010 Interpretation: Introduces the concept of overlapping
"anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses from 1914 onward, significantly
altering the conceptual framework for understanding the
"generation."
- 2014 Interpretation: Expands to include two groups making up one
generation, further complicating the definition and indicating another
significant change in interpretation.
Commentary
These shifts over time represent
changes in doctrine rather than mere clarifications. A clarification would
involve providing additional detail or explanation to an existing interpretation
without contradicting it. However, each of these interpretations fundamentally
alters the criteria for identifying the "generation" mentioned in
Matthew 24:34, indicating substantial changes in understanding rather than
refinements of a single, consistent teaching.
The varied interpretations over time suggest an evolving
understanding that is redefined as previous interpretations become untenable or
as new theological insights are developed. This process reflects a natural
aspect of religious belief and interpretation, where understandings can evolve.
However, acknowledging these as changes rather than clarifications is crucial
for an honest appraisal of doctrinal development.
Encouraging Critical Reflection
When
discussing these changes with your friends, focus on the nature of doctrinal
development as a dynamic process that can lead to significant shifts in
understanding. Encourage them to consider whether the evolving interpretations
of the "generation" in Matthew 24:34 represent refinements of a
single idea or fundamental changes that redefine the concept each time.
Highlighting the distinction between clarification and change can help foster a
more nuanced view of how religious teachings can evolve and the importance of
acknowledging these shifts transparently.
