On their website the Watch Tower Society answers:
'No. A comparison of ancient manuscripts shows that the Bible is basically unchanged despite millenniums of recopying on perishable materials. Does this mean that mistakes in copying were never made?
Thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts have been found. Some of these contain a number of differences, indicating that mistakes were made in copying. Most of these differences are minor and do not change the meaning of the text. However, a few significant differences have been discovered, some of which appear to be deliberate attempts made long ago to alter the Bible’s message.'
The two examples they give are 1 John 5:7 and the removal of the Name from the Bible. They go on to quote three reputable Bible scholars to demonstrate the Bible we have today is reliable.
They do a good job of defending the Bible while strongly qualifying their endorsement of the Holy Text. As Tony Hancock commented when reading the opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities, ‘I wish he’d make his mind up!’
Apart from pointing out the plural of ‘millennium’ is ‘millennia’ not ‘millenniums,’ (you’re welcome) how would you respond to this? Three points come to mind for me.
Quoting Scholars
Firstly, they quote the Princeton Old Testament scholar William H Green, the British biblical scholar FF Bruce, and the British palaeographer, biblical and classical scholar Sir Frederick G Kenyon. This demonstrates they quote mainstream, reputable Bible scholars when it suits them. It is a pity they don't attend fully to what these men have to say about the Bible. Not one would agree with inserting the name of God in the New Testament. Nor would they add the word ‘other’ to Colossians 1:16 and still consider themselves scholars of any reputation.
The Watchtower appealing to these men as authorities is rather like me appealing to the Watch Tower Society as an authority. In both cases, there is a chasm between the theology of one and that of the other. They are simply appealing to what is convenient, not what is authoritative in their religion.
In their article they are both speaking a message about the Bible’s reliability while giving a message on its being particularly unreliable when it comes to what they disagree with. This is known as speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Their own Bible, of course, is singularly unreliable since they bring their doctrine to it and make the text fit that.
Warts and All
Secondly, they write in the article:
‘Both Jewish and Christian copyists preserved accounts that expose the serious mistakes made by God’s people. (Numbers 20:12; 2 Samuel 11: 2-4; Galatians 2:11-14) Likewise, they preserved passages that condemn the Jewish nation’s disobedience and that expose man-made doctrines. (Hosea 4:2; Malachi 2:8,9; Matthew 23:8,9; 1 John 5:21) By copying these accounts accurately, the copyists showed their trustworthiness and their high regard for God’s sacred Word.’
This is a good point. No on can say the Bible isn’t a warts-and-all record. From the murderer Moses, through the adulterer and murderer King David, to Peter’s denial of Christ, the Bible pulls no punches when it comes to portraying the serious mistakes of its main characters.
A pity, then, that the Watch Tower Society doesn’t follow the Bible’s example. From smuggling liquor across the Canadian border for Joseph Rutherford during prohibition (Bethel leadership have had a drink problem ever since), to a raft of false prophecies, doctrinal changes, and the current sex abuse scandal, the Society has a lot to be candid about. They appear to have decided discretion is the better part of valour, their motto apparently being ‘admit nothing, deny everything.’
Altering the Bible
Third, we come to those examples of ‘altering the Bible’s message.’ I would suggest we deal with the easy one first but these are both easy.
1 John5:7, known as the Johannine Comma, is an interpolated phrase in John’s first letter, added in the fourth century. It is a gloss someone decided might be helpful to put into the text to strengthen the case for the Trinity. The gloss is in italics in the following text from the KJV:
‘For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.’
Modern Bibles omit the Johannine Comma and Bible scholars and translators recognise and, like the Bible itself, are candid about translation and transmission errors over the generations. Indeed, modern scholarship strives to use the most up-to-date manuscript evidence to bring us the most accurate Bibles possible (See Green, Bruce, and Kenyon above)
The Name isn’t Jehovah; for more on this visit our website. Jesus never used the Name; for more on this see this article. Contrary to JW teaching, using the Name is not how we sanctify it; See here for more.
Jehovah’s Witnesses became Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 at the instigation of their second president, Joseph Rutherford. They regard themselves unique in ‘recovering’, using, and making known the Name of God, Jehovah. They are Witnesses of Jehovah, but…
Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, ‘he will testify about me.’ John 15:26.
Before the resurrected Christ ascended he charged his disciples, ‘you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses…’
At Pentecost, the message of Peter was, ‘be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ…’ Acts 2:38
Paul wrote to Corinth, ‘I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified’ 1 Cor,2:2
The examples are plentiful to the honest Bible student. The Christian witness is a witness about Christ.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are right in saying the Bible is reliable, and we have generations of excellent Christian scholarship to show as much. It is such a pity they don’t trust it as it is, don’t know it as they think, and don’t follow it as they claim.
Comments