How far back?

[HollyW]

In the course of several discussions here, I've received a certain amount of resistance and even criticism for referencing the older publications of the WTS, and even for referencing current publications (2014) that reference older publications (1914).

What I need to know is how far back, then, is it appropriate to go when quoting from WTS publications?

For instance, is 1981 too far back?  Consider this quote from the WT of 2/15/1981 in the article on pg. 19 "Do We Need Help To Understand The Bible?" and please note the part I've bolded:

Our View of the "Slave"

If we have once established what instrument God is using as his “slave” to dispense spiritual food to his people, surely Jehovah is not pleased if we receive that food as though it might contain something harmful. We should have confidence in the channel God is using. At the Brooklyn headquarters from which the Bible publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses emanate there are more mature Christian elders, both of the “remnant” and of the “other sheep,” than anywhere else upon earth.

True, the brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe. Over the years, as adjustments have been made to that body of truth, it has become ever more wonderful and applicable to our lives in these “last days.” Bible commentators of Christendom are not inspired either. Despite their claims to great knowledge, they have failed to highlight even basic Bible truths—such as the coming Paradise earth, the importance of God’s name, and the condition of the dead.

Rather, the record that the “faithful and discreet slave” organization has made for the past more than 100 years forces us to the conclusion that Peter expressed when Jesus asked if his apostles also wanted to leave him, namely, “Whom shall we go away to?” (John 6:66-69) No question about it. We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the “faithful and discreet slave” organization.

[Evacuated]

For me at least it matters not how far references go back either in Watchtower (WT) or any publications cited in these postings. I quoted from an 1823 publication in a recent post myself because I felt it relevant to a point I was making.

I suppose I have an advantage over some in that I am able to check the context of any of the old WT quotes because I have a pretty extensive archive of publications, although of course anyone can build or access a pretty comprehensive electronic library these days if they wish.

I suppose what is more important than the vintage of the quoted references is the point they are being used to substantiate and I suspect that this would be more the cause of irritation for some rather than the age of the quotes themselves.

I think the point  referenced in the WT of 2/15/1981 which is quoted above is relevant: "at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe."

Corrected views? I see it as a continuation of the process described at Acts 18:26 regarding Apollos "Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him" and similar to what Paul said at 1Cor 9-13 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially,"

So for me, apart from satisfying my curiosity in the development of understanding amongst Jehovah's Witnesses and it's historical context, little more is gained from these "hoary, old chestnuts" of WT quotes apart from proof of the italicised statement above. They are often used to support veiled or overt inferences to some sort of conspiracy theory scenario enacted by "old men in Brooklyn" (not so old these days). These arguments abound on the internet and their appearance on a public forum such as this is unsurprising. But even this designation will need a refinement soon to "old men in Warwick" won't it? These innuendos I do find offensive, but then I can choose to ignore them quite easily.

Let freedom of expression prevail, but if you do claim to represent the Master Teacher, let his style of expression dominate also:

"And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth"    Luke 4:22

[Janice]

Very good Joyce

[Menrov]

It is not uncommon to be told by (fellow) JW's that only new magazines or books are to be used. Why? Well, for the reasons already expressed: these book contain "old light" or expressions similar to this.

Just consider this; The WBTS is the only source of the material that JW's use. So, all JW's know, believe and accept comes from that source. In other words, the WBTS is accountable for what they published as truth. (even if a JW would disagree, he runs the risk of being DF'ed).

Further: the claim is that the WBTS has been selected to act as FDS since 1919 (was 1918....). Though apparently not appointed (WT 2013) but still FDS and that God has used them (WBTS) as the ONLY channel to educate so-called Gods people. So, one might expect that at least basic doctrines would be correct, without needing one or more corrections. Would God allow people to learn WRONG things?
So, if the WBTS can be wrong, can it be that for example l am right? In other words, could I be the FDS? What scriptural proof is there that directs me to the WBTS as the source of my bible education and explanations?

And who says that what is published today is good?

I therefore believe that when the WBTS tries to block old (pre 2000) books and magazines to be used or reviewed ,it is proof they do not even believe their own material. If the Revelation contained so much truth and explanations valuable for all of us, why is it no longer vaiuable ? According to the WBTS we are close to the end, right? Would such a book then not be most useful?

Apparently not.

[HollyW]

On 9/8/2016 at 7:42 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I think the point  referenced in the WT of 2/15/1981 which is quoted above is relevant: "at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe."

Corrected views? I see it as a continuation of the process described at Acts 18:26 regarding Apollos "Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him" and similar to what Paul said at 1Cor 9-13 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially,"

Thank you, Eoin, for helping to adjust my view of just exactly what is meant by " the record that the “faithful and discreet slave” organization has made for the past more than 100 years"

I've been interpreting it to mean the faithful slave had been teaching the truth for the past 100 years, but the point you bring out from the article itself (and Janice's agreement) brings me to the realization that to JWs it doesn't mean the record of the faithful slave will show it has been teaching the truth for the past 100 years but that it has been continually changing and refining what it has been saying is the truth.

No wonder my referring to what has been written in the older publications has frustrated and irritated some on this forum. 

On 9/8/2016 at 7:42 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Corrected views? I see it as a continuation of the process described at Acts 18:26 regarding Apollos "Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him" and similar to what Paul said at 1Cor 9-13 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially,"

Your appeal to Acts 18:26 with Priscilla and Aquila explaining the way of God more accurately to Apollos, evidently means to you and Janice that Jehovah and Jesus have been explaining the way of God more accurately to the WTS all these years, hence the "continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe", as the article points out.

And this "continual refining" then causes (actually the article says "forces") you to apply to the WTS the words of Peter to Jesus:

 “Whom shall we go away to?” (John 6:66-69) "You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 

So its the record of a 100 years of changing its teachings that cause JWs to view the WTS as the sole channel of communication between God and mankind.