Can we understand the Bible without the Watchtower?

by brotherdan 111 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  brotherdan

  Not according to C.T Russell. In the September 15, 1910 WT he made these shocking claims regarding the 6 Scripture Studies that he wrote:

  "That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself..."

  He also goes on to say "If he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for 10 years, our experience shows that witin 2 years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and not read A PAGE of the Bible, he would be in the light at the end of the 2 years..."

  He takes it a step further in ridiculing Bible readers. He says, "We would, therefore, not waste a great deal of time doing what we know some people do, reading chapter after chapter, to no profit. We would not think of doing it. We would not think we were studying the Scritpures at all...We would not see the neccessity of reading the New Testament every day or every year; we would not consider that necessary. We would consider that the Scrpture which says, "They shall be all taught of God," would imply that in his own appointed way God would bring to our attention whatever feature of divine truth would be "meat in due season for the household of faith."

  He qualifies this a bit further towards the end of the article by saying, "We are not wishing in this to say anything against one's poring over chapters that he does not understand and others do not understand, hoping that he might light on some truth... He has a right to spend weeks and years in this way if he chooses, but the chances even then are that when he does light on something HE WILL HAVE IT ALL WRONG."

  Shocking, and horrible.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  That dude would be disfellowshipped for his beliefs if he tried to preach them at a KH today.
• 

  brotherdan

  Yes, but the implications are still there today. There is more value given to the society's publications than to the Bible. They still say much of the same today. While they don't say that it is not necessary to read the Bible, like Russell did, they say that reading the Bible alone can lead you into thinking like Christendom.
• 

  zoiks

  It's interesting that (almost?) every single doctrine changed, but that know-it-all attitude is alive and well.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  It's because the doctrine is ancillary to the real goals of the Borganization. Self-preservation will always come before doctrine, unfortunately.
• 

  brotherdan

  I liked Ray Franz's stance on this issue when he likened it to a servant that was delivering a message for his king.

  Imagine a slave sent forth by a king to deliver a proclamation. If impressed with his own importance, lacking humility, the messenger might feel free to add to the message or make adjustments, while insisting that all hearers should accept what he presented as a bona fide royal order. If people questioned him on certain points, he might become resentful , seek to awe them with his royal backing in order to override any doubts about the authenticity of his statements. By contrast, a truly humble messenger would avoid any alteration of what came from the royal source. He would not be resentful if asked for proof of full authenticity for what he said, nor would he criticize if someone took steps to confirm that the message he delivered was free from alteration. Rather than condemn such investigation as an abusive lack of respect for himself (the mere slave), he would accept it, even welcome it, as evidence of the inquirer’s concern and deep respect for the will of his master.
• 

  booby

  Can we understand the Watchtower without the watchtower study. Nope.
• 

  leavingwt

  The author was trying to start his own religion. Moreover, he needed to give his readers a reason to buy his journal.

  With this in mind, his comments are not surprising at all, to me.

  "Look at me! I have special knowledge! I'm smarter than all of the other pastors! You need me!"
• 

  brotherdan

  It's interesting though. I'm reading the first "Scripture Studies" from 1886 (1908 edition) and the tone seems so different. It seemed like he just wanted to direct the increasing number of atheists to a closer examination of the Bible.

  But apparently that was a total lie. It was a bait and switch technique.
• 

  leavingwt

  It's interesting though. I'm reading the first "Scripture Studies" from 1886 (1908 edition) and the tone seems so different.

  Be careful Dan. If you read those old books, you might turn into an apostate. Oh, wait, nevermind.