Jump to content
The World News Media

Did everyone notice another book added to the Watchtower Library "CD" and the WOL?


JW Insider
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

By WOL I mean the Watchtower Online Library via JW.ORG ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol )

I'm sure that a lot of us got very used to doing the Bible reading on the computer screen through the Watchtower Library "CD" because we could turn our NWT into a Study Bible so easily. All we had to do was simply click on the verse number and get instant access to the WT Publications Index for either 1930-1985 or the more recent one (now, 1986-2021).

I was pleasantly surprised recently when I clicked on the verse number and got a link to a book that hadn't been linked before. (Pre-1970 Awake! and pre-1971 books and pre-1950 Watchtowers are still not linked.)

See it?

image.png

image.png

So I checked the WOL, and it's there, too, of course!

image.png

The wol.jw.org is better because you get both the indexes in only one click, and you also don't have to use a pull-down menu to choose between them. They just come right up into the right-hand column. And it's also closer to the format of the new Study Bible.

The additional book, is "ad" -- Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971.

The Aid book is rarely much different from the Insight book, but there are times when it gives a more historical perspective, more information from outside commentaries and supporting Bible dictionaries, and sometimes a less dogmatic or more "neutral" perspective. I've found that most entries still don't have even a single word changed between Aid and Insight. But now and then the differences are useful:

Take for example a question about "Dodanim" vs. "Rodanim." The Aid book's entry for "Rodanim" is twice as long as Insight.

And sometimes the differences are major:

Take for example the Aid book article under "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This article in the Insight book was almost identical to the Aid book when it first came out, but the Insight article has since been updated when the doctrine changed. (The printed Insight book is different in several places from the online and CD Insight book.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 3.3k
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good analogy. But if you shot yourself in the foot once, would you not be extra careful from then on so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again? I mean if you shot yourself in the foot at least thr

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL. This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than t

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.

Posted Images

  • Member
18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Pre-1970 Awake! and pre-1971 books and pre-1950 Watchtowers are still not linked.)

I wonder it this is still being worked on. I am assuming it takes a lot of work to change PDF files to put them into the WOL.

This is probably unrelated here, because it's doctrinal rather than technical, but I want to mention it because I was looking at this recently,and what you said above reminded me of it. 

Awake October 15, 1968

As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here. We have all discussed this on this forum many times....the "certainty" of these kind of claims, and how this could quite rightly make us wary of more recent claims of "certainty". In any case, in view of this article, can anyone be blamed for being skeptical?  I would love to pose this question to the members of the GB, with the attached Awake. This Awake is not even the last one that mentioned the adjusted Generation concept, there were subsequent WTs as late as 1995 (I think) that revised our understanding. (I am not even talking about the overlapping generation, which I think was first mentioned in 2008) But of course all these are available on WOL

(In case anyone is interested, if you want to access pre 1970 Awakes and pre 1950 WT and many other publications not found in WOL this is s good website:

https://archive.org/details/WatchtowerLibrary

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Anna said:

Awake October 15, 1968

I think all you guys on here who live in the past - without context-  have something missing from your thinking processes - to state it bluntly.  History mongers - looking through past actions and words with a fine tooth and judging it by today's standards. To look to the past without a historical context.  I did many things in the past which embarrasses me thinking of it today because it was done in a different time frame when values and many more things were different etc.

I look at Rutherford and realize he understood that the last world government will be fascistic.  I see he made the right conclusion but for the wrong time period.  I can learn something from that.  Do you learn something from the past or are you just embarrassed?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
52 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I think all you guys on here who live in the past - without context-  have something missing from your thinking processes - to state it bluntly.  History mongers - looking through past actions and words with a fine tooth and judging it by today's standards. To look to the past without a historical context.  I did many things in the past which embarrasses me thinking of it today because it was done in a different time frame when values and many more things were different etc.

I look at Rutherford and realize he understood that the last world government will be fascistic.  I see he made the right conclusion but for the wrong time period.  I can learn something from that.  Do you learn something from the past or are you just embarrassed?  

 

Many times it can be heard that some people, when asked about their lives, say that they would repeat everything and would not change anything. They are very happy with their marriage, their job, their achievements, etc.
My opinion on that is such that I would not really agree with such conclusions. Maybe I think so because I’m not happy with my life (for a very, very long time).

But regardless of me, Arauna said it well when she says that she herself has many things from her past that she is ashamed of today. So, it could be that some other people today conclude that their "historical context" is such that they can be completely satisfied with everything they have achieved before and therefore would not change anything if they could be born again or get another chance for another lifetime.
In a religious sense, perhaps even GB today thinks, that the "historical context" of WTJWorg is such that they should feel no shame for anything. Judge for yourself if it makes sense for GB and JW members to look at their past (as an Organization and active members inside) that way.

On the other hand, repeating, once or more, your life in exactly the same way would mean depriving yourself of new experiences, new delusions, new lies, new successes, new truths, new sorrows and joys in some unique, new and different context.

Sometimes a man “holds on” to what he has, because he is afraid of the different, because he is afraid of the unknown. Maybe it’s just a sign that we’ve stopped being young. :) 

Yes, one should look at the past in the context of the past. And it should be said, publicly, how that past (from the Organization) is full of misconceptions. And don’t forget, your past is the cause of your present. And the present will define your future. Do we have a chance to save ourselves? As individuals? And you as an Organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, one should look at the past in the context of the past

I liked many thoughts you wrote above.  We are human and imperfect, so we will always make mistakes.  If we are afraid to move on and try new things or say new things to inspire others we may be be too paralyzed to do anything positive.  Busy people make many mistakes. Lazy people make few mistakes.  We can learn from the past and move on - grow as humans.  We may even make a similar mistake again but from a different perspective..... life is complicated.

I think of Paul - who really cringed at his past and he was open about it,  to be a teaching moment. Our organization made mistakes in the past. However, to dwell on the past mistakes could give one a paralytic state in the present - too afraid to say or do new things. The present defines the present and future - as you said. Oh Jehovah, if you only looked at mistakes - where would any one of us be! 

As we all serve Jehovah - we must give our best no matter ow flawed it is. I go on field service and speak my mind (carefully) but I am open about who I am, what I believe and what I am.  This gives me the freedom to really talk convincingly and be sincere.  Do I make mistakes - for sure!  But a friendly, kind spirit overcomes many obstacles. I also am super aware of the audience reactions - so I can adapt.  

With mistakes and all - I guard the truth and spread the truth.  I am sure this was the main goal of the slave.  With warts and all - I love what they do for us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you learn something from the past or are you just embarrassed? 

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.

Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
53 minutes ago, Anna said:

saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion"

A good thought. But many of us were often absolutely sure of something and it turned out to be different.  It does not mean we are wrong 100 percent of the time.  Maybe 20 percent wrong and 80 percent right. So should we focus on the 20 percent or the 80 percent?  Since most of the core teachings (Jehovah's name, mortality of the soul etc.) cannot be faulted.....  It then means that 20 percent of teachings ( which are not the most important teachings) may have been understood incorrectly. As I said, Rutherford understood the type of regime to come (spot-on) - he just had the time wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I will stipulate that among Jehovah's Witnesses the basic core truths are infinitely valuable, as well as the discipline afforded by advice of the Governing Body as to virtue, morality and righteous principles.

The 20% of teachings you mention may have been understood incorrectly .... because they taught things that were wrong, self-aggrandizing, silly, and grossly inconsistent, stupid, or just plain creepy.

This makes their credibility crash and burn.

It's like the son who gets good advice from his father from time to time, but most of the time the father is a drunk, a bully, and proclaims that the Planet Mars and Mars Candy Bars have a common heritage, and produces charts and graphs, and millions of words to "prove" it.

Can you imagine Jesus on the Mount of Olives, with his Disciples all around him, when asked when his Kingdom would be established, holding up a Bro. David Splaine "Overlapping Generations" chart and lecturing from that?

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

A good thought. But many of us were often absolutely sure of something and it turned out to be different.  It does not mean we are wrong 100 percent of the time.  Maybe 20 percent wrong and 80 percent right. So should we focus on the 20 percent or the 80 percent? 

My guess is that the actual percentages are closer to 15% being right and 85% wrong.

In warfare, this is known as a massacre.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

My guess is that the actual percentages are closer to 15% being right and 85% wrong.

In warfare, this is known as a massacre.

If we transfer this assessment now to the question in the title of the topic, Did everyone notice ... then we need to notice at least two, three things:
1) That a large part of JW members will not notice the differences between text in the paper form and  in digital form of already published publications.
2) That newer generations of JW members have no idea what happened and what is happening to them “right under their noses” about history of own Organization.
3) That changes to the official text on WTJWorg applications can happen in an instant, and that what you read this morning may look different if you read in the afternoon. So, for some readers, it may create insecurity in their own mind and memory, which means the mental and emotional instability of an individual.
4) That digital technology enables a great possibility of manipulation

.., etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

most of the time the father … proclaims that the Planet Mars and Mars Candy Bars have a common heritage, and produces charts and graphs, and millions of words to "prove" it.

You’ll just have to learn the hard way, I see.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion

It actually is, for an emergency worker. 

When you shoot yourself in the foot, you just grimace as you patch the wound and carry on. You don’t resolve never to shoot again.

When de Vienne & Shultz ran their early book past the organization, it was received without comment. She speculated as to why this might be. One possibility she raised was that they “are incurious as to their own past.” Tamp it down just slightly and I would agree. They don’t do past too much there, they do the future. 

Should they “lead by apology,” which is all the rage today? They don’t want to find themselves in the shoes of Lot, issuing counsel only to find that his sons-in-law think he is joking. 

It may have been the same organization back then, but it was different people. There’s no sense in tearing your hair out over what they did or didn’t do. I’m amazed people have the time to persevorate over the old stuff as much as they do. That’s not to say I disapprove of it. In fact, I somewhat envy it. But there is so much forward and in the present that limits overly-ruminating on the past. They’re humans and humans can screw up. Since the beginning of time it has been so. It was so in Bible times and can be easily seen in the scriptures. Acknowledge it, and move on to meet the present.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Since most of the core teachings (Jehovah's name, mortality of the soul etc.) cannot be faulted..... 

should we focus on the 20 percent or the 80 percent? 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That changes to the official text on WTJWorg applications can happen in an instant, and that what you read this morning may look different if you read in the afternoon.

It is not as though the digital world is their invention. They adapt to it. They’d be dinosaurs not to. Everyone fixes glitches on the fly now. Should they be the only ones to buck that trend? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, Anna said:

As we see, there are a number of rather embarrassing statements made here.

 

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

I think all you guys on here who live in the past - without context-  have something missing from your thinking processes - to state it bluntly.  History mongers - looking through past actions and words with a fine tooth and judging it by today's standards.

JWs are promoting the organization’s embarrassments by advertising their website in your letter writing campaign.  It is a cauldron of confusion.  How can you so confidently say "all you guys on here who live in the past...have something missing from your thinking process", when you encourage people to enter the website that includes its past teachings?  Do you warn them not to do research from 1990 back?  Do you apologize ahead of time for the embarrassing doctrines, before a newly interested one opens the sugar-coated cover, that appears as light and truth?  What was once a true teaching is now a lie.  What was once a lie, is still a lie.  Researching the timeline of the generation teaching is like watching a game of ping pong...and there is yet to be a winner. 

There is no clear path to solid lasting truth - "fruit" -  in the website. (Matt 7:15-20) Making excuses for their blunders by saying "Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food" ...is a lie, and JWs have fallen for it.

 

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

6 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will lastand so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.    John 15

If an anointed teacher asks for truth - fruit that lasts - would Jesus disappoint one of his disciples by giving them understanding that turns out to be an embarrassment?  Making excuses for the organization's historical blunders, is demeaning the power of truth in Jesus Christ.  John 14:6

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.