My Bible Research Notes

These pages are my personal notes and the result of decades of study of the Bible and the doctrines of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS). It is dedicated to testing the claims of the organization. Why would or should someone do this? Well, it is based on several reasons:

• They claim to be God’s channel of communication
• They claim to be the only ones who have the truth
• They claim that only Jehovah’s Witnesses have God’s approval and can be saved

If anyone makes such high and lofty claims for themselves then it is not unreasonable to ask for evidence that can be verified. If people are being asked to trust such claims then it is reasonable to expect these claims are able to pass rigorous testing. Truthful claims can pass critical examination. Indeed, it is only after being tested that claims can be trusted. Self assertions do not inspire the same level of trust as successfully passing a rigorous independent test. Independent testing undergirds much of our modern standard of living and few of us would think of trusting our lives on mere claims of trustworthiness by manufacturers without their products passing rigorous tests. Trust but verify. Trust is not antithetical to asking for verification.

But how do we apply these principles to the topic of religion? Can this be done? There are thousands of religious groups, each with their own unique claims. Well, one of the first principles you could use is, how does a group respond to the prospect of having their claims tested? Do they welcome it or do they avoid it and only pay lip service to it? Are they intellectually honest about their teachings and their history or do they selectively choose to test only those things they know will pass an examination and ignore the rest? Are they consistent in using logic or do they practise “special pleading?” [Special pleading is a selfish form of using logic and can be defined as: “if X then Y, except when it hurts me.”] Are their unique claims based on self-assertion or can they pass critical inspection?

Here are some principles I accept and that are used in this website.

1. Objective truth exists.
2. Love of the truth is the most important attitude to have. But it is not easy to be committed to it. Many things like tradition, habits, peer pressure, sloppy thinking, logical fallicies and more can conspire to keep us from testing and then following what we know to be true.
3. Human limitations preclude us from knowing anything as absolutely true. Despite this I still believe that it is possible to come to a very high assurance that some things are true.
4. Truth is not a private commodity. Something doesn’t become true simply by someone declaring it to be true. Evidence is required. In this regard the quantity and quality of the evidence is of great importance. Someone’s interpretation of scripture cannot be used as proof or evidence. So, just because someone says “this means that” doesn’t yet make it true and can’t be used as “evidence” for something else. Just because I agree that someone’s opinion is true doesn’t mean that all other things this person says must then also be true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
5. “Truth does not contradict itself or deny the facts. It does not go contrary to reality, nor is it one thing to one person and another thing, even a contradictory thing, to another person. The one truth applies to all persons, whether they recognize it or not. It does not change because of location or time. The truth is provable by actual fact. The truth endures, persists, because it is genuine, actually existing, in harmony with reality.” — Things in Which it is Impossible for God to Lie 1965 p. 2
6. Truth is not a fragile thing. It can withstand the most rigorous examination successfully. It does not need to be protected from being challenged. Indeed, it welcomes it for it is only through such an examination that the truth can actually be revealed. Just like ore mined from the ground gets purified by fire, the truth gets separated from untruth by questions and challenges.
7. Truth does not change. What was true last year is true also today. What is false today was also false a hundred years ago. Thus, new light that is true cannot contradict old truth. If it contradicts something then either the old light or the new light is false. Or possibly even both. My understanding of something can increase or even correct my old understanding, but when I pass on (or teach) my understanding of something I should always explain clearly that it is my understanding and not declare it as “the truth.” Wisdom and discreetness dictate that I not equate my understanding of scripture as being “the truth” for the simple reason that I am a limited human being who doesn’t understand everything.
8. Scripture declares that God cannot lie and does not change, therefore, changes are due to man’s understanding of the truth. Claiming to speak for God is a very risky thing. If it turns out that what was said was not true or if it changes, then the claim to being a spokesman for God is, logically, revealed as being a lie.
9. It is error that tries to avoid an examination. “Error always seeks the dark, while truth is always enhanced by the light. Error never desires to be investigated. Light always courts a thorough and complete investigation.” – Judge J.F. Rutherford in Millions now living will never die (1920). Thus, if someone urges you not to do an investigation or independent research they have something to hide. Other signs of hiding something include: not answering questions, omitting relevant details, deflecting and minimizing, deception and outright lying. Sometimes these actions are not immediately obvious and take time to become apparent. For example, withholding information, deception and lies are not always immediately apparent.
10. The principle of “testing all things” is encouraged by the Bible (and the WBTS), so this is what I will do.
11. The truth doesn’t mind being questioned, a lie doesn’t like being challenged.
12. I try to “follow the evidence” even if it is hard to do. Often it is easier to follow “eminence” than “evidence”. But, what do you do when eminence contradicts evidence? If any “eminence” demands that I trust them just as I trust scripture or God, then that is a definite red flag, for scripture itself says multiple times not to put your trust in man.
13. I do not want to tell you what you should believe; I only want to explain what I believe and why I believe it.
14. I want to base my faith on the strongest possible foundation that I can find. I want to be able to understand it personally as much as I can and not rely on someone else’s faith, understanding or assertions that something is true. Obviously I am not an expert in all (or even any) things but to the best of my ability I want to understand things. Relying on someone’s social status as a religious leader is not sufficient for establishing truth, even though there are many who accept this.
15. I want to build my faith on “accurate knowledge” of scripture. This is greatly facilitated by using a computerized Bible search program that lets you search for words in any language, including Greek and Hebrew, or other translations. There are websites that offer this ability for free, like Blue Letter Bible, Bible Web App, or Net Bible.
16. Pursuing truth requires a certain level of humility, especially if someone has any social position of authority such as teaching. Scripture tells us that teachers will be held accountable to higher standards for what they teach. Such people need to be faithful (to scripture) and discreet (or wise) because they should recognize that they also are limited and can make mistakes. To make dogmatic pronouncements based on theories, speculation or interpretations of “this means that” that goes beyond what is written in scripture is neither faithful nor discreet. To elevate human interpretation to the level of God’s Word is presumptuous.

We should not ask those we disagree with to have higher standards of proof or evidence than we accept for our own positions. If I want my own beliefs to be based on the strongest evidence then our own standards should be the highest and most rigorous. For example, if our doctrines are based on reasoning from scripture can we demand that our opponent’s doctrines must be stated literally in the Bible? We should also not be satisfied with sloppy or weak logic or contradictory principles (one for us and a higher standard for those we disagree with) or special pleading (if X then Y, except when it hurts me). We should be willing to hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we hold others to account (not: it’s wrong if they do it, but it’s justified if we do it). If we accuse others of being biased, are we aware of, and admit to, our own biases? If we accuse others of blindly accepting what their church leaders teach, do we recognize and admit the loyalties we are committed to? If we accuse others of not following what the best and oldest manuscripts attest to, do we ignore the manuscripts when it benefits us? If we would hate being misrepresented (either our words or what we have written), would we condone misrepresentation when it can be used in our favour? If we think we should not minimize the errors of other church’s doctrines and the shortcomings of their leaders, do we ignore or hide from an examination of our own?

My preferred method of doing Bible study, as will be apparent by those who peruse this site, is to do comprehensive listings of biblical passages pertaining to a topic or word, as the case may be. I am not satisfied by finding only one verse and using it as a “proof text” when I can find more. Only in extreme cases will I limit myself to representative examples when a comprehensive approach would be too burdensome. There is a danger in using only a sampling of biblical verses when doing a Bible study: you can miss out on nuances that can contribute to a fuller understanding of a particular topic, and you can fall prey to being given a “guided tour of scripture” by those who have a preferred religious view. These people will show you only those verses which agree with their interpretations and carefully avoid any other texts that could lead you to question their interpretation. Most of the biblical material I reference is in the form of verse references which can be read by hovering over the link with the mouse.

Principles of textual interpretation

So, now let’s think about how we can interpret the Bible well. There are many principles (books have been written about this topic) but often we can discover good principles of interpretation by analyzing interpretations we disagree with and identifying the reasons why. For example, suppose someone who doesn’t believe in the miracles of the Bible used the following interpretation to support their beliefs:

The supposed miracles of Jesus healing blind people (Mat 9:30; 11:5;15:30;21:14; Mark 8:23; Luke 4:18; Luke 18:35-43; John 9:1-6) don’t really refer to physical eyes because in Eph 1:18 “eyes” are used in a figurative manner. Therefore, because the word “eyes” can be used figuratively, we can say that Jesus cured people’s eyes figuratively and not literally. In the same way, because “blindness” can be used figuratively (John 12:40) means that all references to healing blind people means that God only gave them sight figuratively.

Do you agree with this interpretation? Why or why not? Well, here are some reasons why I think this kind of interpretation is unsatisfactory. The context of the passage in the book of Ephesians is a prayer of Paul for the Ephesians and he is not speaking of physical eyes but literally says “may the eyes of your heart be enlightened, so that you will know...” He is talking about knowledge, which is by nature immaterial and therefore invisible. It’s a metaphor. In the stories of Christ healing people, there are references to real people with real eyes and there is nothing in those passages that indicate that the eyes are figurative or that they were not literally blind. So, using the Ephesian passage in this way is wrong because it is not compatible with stories of real people. The passages belong to different genres and refer to different kinds of things. The more passages have in common (such as topics, subjects, people, objects, events) the more they can be used to complement each other. Passages that are completely different (except for one word) cannot be used to augment or limit the meaning of another passage. Just because a word can legitimately be interpreted as figurative in one passage does not give the modern interpreter license to interpret any other occurrence of this word as also being figurative in other passages. There must be reasonable grounds for interpreting a word in a specific passage as being figurative. This does not mean it is useless to study and compare common words (such as “eyes”) in order to understand the range of meanings in the language. Each language is unique and its words can have either single or multiple meanings—in different contexts. Word studies are useful to discover the semantic range of individual words. Where there are multiple meanings then care must be taken to identify the meaning used in a particular passage and not (mis-) apply the meaning of one passage onto another one.

So, if I agree that using the above principle of interpreting the Bible is wrong (at least for that example) would I still think it would be correct to use a figurative usage of “eyes” to re-interpret an unrelated passage that gives no indication of a figurative usage of “eyes”? For example, when scripture says that “all eyes will see him” is this figurative because the word “eyes” can be used figuratively elsewhere?

Now another example. What if trinitarian translators would keep the verse 1 John 5:8 in their translation because it supports their convictions even though it isn’t in the oldest manuscripts? Would that be a good principle? Why not? What if they would make the text even clearer and add the word “God” to the part that reads “and these three are one [God]”? Would that be an acceptable translation principle? Why not? They could explain it with something like “thus it is shown” that there is a trinity. Not in the text itself but elsewhere as a justification of their translation practices. Would this be an example of what the apostle Paul warns about not “corrupting the word of God” in 2 Cor 2:17? Would this not be putting their theological convictions into the text rather than letting the manuscripts dictate what they translate and leave the interpretation of the text to another person such as a theologian or preacher? Is it not important to translate accurately what the oldest and best manuscripts actually contain? The ones who do the “corrupting” could bring very convincing arguments and would want you to believe them. But saying something is true doesn’t make it true, does it? We need to have better reasons than merely claims of authority or tradition or loyalty to our theological position.

If I were to become a Jehovah’s Witness, would the following be said to me: I am only allowed to ask approved questions using approved sources that lead to approved conclusions? Can such methods lead to an accurate understanding of a topic? If these are valid methods then any group can use them for themselves as well.

Thus, given the choice of having either accurate knowledge or having a guided tour of answers from the Bible, I would say that I would choose accurate knowledge every time.

The pursuit of truth

There is a well-known saying that goes: “It’s very difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it”. But there are more forces than just a paycheck that can influence what we accept as truth. It’s also difficult to convince someone if their religious or political affiliation, social status, reputation, job, career, business or business model, social network or their standard of living depend on him not understanding something. Those are all forms of self interest or peer pressure. All of these forces can exert pressure to inhibit our ability to search for or discern truth.

Philippians 2:21 (NASB) For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus.

The biblical standard for loving truth entails being willing to go against any of these forces. The love for truth must be absolute, even to our own detriment. For it is only if our commitment to truth is rock solid that we will be able to discover error and deception.

John 3:19-21 (NASB) “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Psalm 15:4 (NWT 2013) He rejects anyone who is contemptible, But he honors those fearing Jehovah. He does not go back on his promise, even when it is bad for him.

Galatians 1:8 (NASB) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

These verses can give us a standard for detecting when someone is not telling the truth. The process of “coming into the light” is an indication of truth telling. Light reveals everything; the good along with the bad and the ugly. Any time you can detect a retreat into darkness rather than into the light is a sign that someone is not telling the truth. The variations of dishonesty can range from direct lies, to denial, manipulation, misrepresentation, to simply silence and omitting to discuss the relevant details. The commitment to telling the truth must rise to the willingness to reveal details that are negative. For God knows them anyway and there is no way that he will condone them. Therefore, we must also admit them. Many times in scripture details are revealed about people that are not flattering. This level of honesty speaks to the credibility of the accounts. Romans 3:4 (NASB) ...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar...

Any person who claims to follow the One who said “I am the truth” must also be meticulously truthful. Any organization that claims to be the channel of communication for God must show a strong commitment to telling the truth. If an organization claims to be the only one who “has the truth” (out of all the thousands of other Christian organizations) then it is not unreasonable to expect that this organization will show the highest commitment to speaking the truth. There should be no evidence of deception, denial, misrepresentation or cover-up.

2 Corinthians 4:2 (NASB) but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.

The apostle Paul claimed that his ministry rose to that kind of level of truthfulness. His commitment to speaking the truth was no mere self-assertion. It could be tested by “every man’s conscience” according to God’s standard of truthfulness. Each person has a built-in conscience that can detect when someone is making things up or telling the truth. “Walking in craftiness” or “adulterating the word of God” are two of many ways that manipulators operate. Sooner or later these schemes are revealed. When they are it is always evident that truth has a lower priority than some form of self-interest.