[net.origins] Scriptural Authority

agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (09/30/84)

I'm kinda new at this game, but have no real complaint with getting my
shorts burned off, so here goes:

> Those of you who intend to refer to the passages cited should be aware that
> the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is the publishing arm of the
> Johovah's Witnesses.  The NWT is likely to differ significantly from any
> of the familiar translations due to the influence of JW doctrine. (As an
> example, John I:1 reads "... and the Word was a god")  Therefore it should
> be read with a certain caution.  (The RC church and most protestant
> denominations do not accept it as a scriptural authority.)
> --- C Wingate

I find it a little hard to swallow that there is *A* scriptural authority.
My feeling has always been that the Bible is used as a reference, but not
as an authority. I don't think anybody has the right or knowledge to
claim "That isn't the *right* version of the Bible, and I therefore
won't accept that statement." (It certainly is warm in here) I've always
believe that the Bible was a book, pure and simple. The contents of the
book are a reference on which to base your moral judgements and
spiritual opinions. I don't think you can read it as law! There has been
so much changed in the translations and the meanings of what was said
may have changed, so it can, at best be considered a vague authority.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banta			{decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz
Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tell me true, tell me why 
 was Jesus crusified.
 Was it for this that daddy died? ... "