Talk:Studies in the Scriptures

German original
Schriftstudien. Request pending on German-English translation requests. Tearlach 21:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Working on repairing the English. Thank you, Tearlach. Respectfully, Evident 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a attempt at rewriting the section describing the six books -- but please correct me where I went wrong! ArglebargleIV 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Russell's Will
Russell's will doesn't say what some have claimed it says. Editors should be careful. Read it at Wikisource.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ceased publication
This quote I found particularly interesting.

"In 1927, during Rutherford's presidency, the Watch Tower Society ceased publication of all seven volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, as several core doctrines had been changed from what Russell had taught."

I realize that the source given is a Watchtower from 1967, but, as one of many examples of this being incorrect, I point you to the Watchtower of October 15, 1929 first page where it states

"Those who desire to find an excuse to oppose the Society's work make the charge that we are not putting the Studies in the Scriptures, written by Pastor Russell, in the hands of the people. The Society has decided to designate the week beginning November 10 as a special drive week for the sale of Studies in the Scriptures. Consignments are being shipped to the classes. The price of the full set of seven volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, for that week, will be $1.25 in the United States and Canada, and a corresponding price in other countries. Let all the class workers, pioneers, and colporteurs prepare for this special drive."

While the Studies had taken a beating in the literature by this time, and would not be mentioned once in the 1930 or 1931 Watchtowers (I didn't check any other years), clearly at least as late as 1929 the Studies were being published and sold (even if because of people getting upset). Vyselink (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good spotting. Demonstrates the dangers of primary sources. BlackCab  ( TALK ) 05:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone requested a citation for the statement that the Bible Student movement still publishes Studies in the Scriptures. It is readily evident that there was at least a 1996 printing by the "Bible Students Congregation of New Brunswick", but I'm not sure if Amazon is suitable as a (non-promotional?) source to use in the article. Any thoughts/objections?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you go to this website (https://chicagobible.org/product-category/books/) you can see that the Chicago Bible Students still print and sell/distribute the SIS, and the Dawn Bible Students group also still print and sell SIS, see here: http://www.dawnbible.com/dawnpub.htm. As these two links are not (in my opinion) being used to promote the respective groups but merely show that they do indeed still print and sell/distribute the books, I would think they could be used as sources. Vyselink (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disputed changes
An editor is claiming that his edits are being unfairly reverted. He is invited to calmly discuss his changes here without resorting to personal attacks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The recent changes I have made, including reversion of the other editor's input are summarised below. As there a number of changes reflected in the recent edits, it may be helpful to reply directly under each matter rather than longwinded paragraphs attempting to deal with all issues at once. (Please remember to properly indent and sign responses.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Origin section, merged three references to one publication to a single reference for that paragraph.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Refactored content under Purpose section and moved from redundant Viewpoint and Theology section. (Primarily refactoring independent of the other editor's changes.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Contents section, replaced a seemingly arbitrary sample of chapter headings (but actually copy and pasted from Jehovah Witnesses&mdash;Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 52) with a simplified summary.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored reference to specific Watch Tower Society publications that have referred to Studies in the Scriptures rather than mention in the Watch Tower Society's publication index. (I would not object to completely removing either form of what are actually fairly mundane statements indicating that later Watch Tower Society literature has mentioned the earlier works.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * (This has been removed, as it is mundane that a publishing company might occasionally mention its previous works in its later works, and the point is not directly related to the section about the books' withdrawal.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Contents
The contents section does indeed need work. Don't get me wrong, it looks good. However, The only source we have is for the first book. Everything else is said without any backing. We have to remind ourselves of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Perhaps we should link the actual volumes as sources? I strongly disagree with Jeffros edits of the first books contents, and I'm unsure what the need was to completely undo the former contribution. The reason being is the plan of salvation ties into every single volume. It's just too generic of a term. Think of it, I could literally write that for any of the other volumes and it would fit. Plus that term isn't even mentioned in the source. I do believe the source we have sums up the first book perfectly. It gives us some of the key topics (though no where near to all of them! 16 are covered, all on various subjects). I can see Jeffro shortening the previous contribution slightly (the topics do get a tad long), but besides that there wasn't much point. Gosh, if anything "elementary topics and attempts to show God has a clear purpose for mankind;" sounded much better and was much more accurate. Whoever wrote that clearly had read the book. 14 January, 2021
 * I have restored the more accurate summary, with a quote from the original volume indicating that 'God's plan' is indeed the focus of the work. Since it is the first volume, it is hardly surprising that it summaries fundamental concepts that are elaborated on in the later volumes. Aside from that, it is genuinely quite odd that you would restore a smattering of chapter titles that don't help readers much at all, when you say you yourself preferred something else ("elementary topics and attempts to show God has a clear purpose for mankind") as a more accurate summary.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society literature mentioned Watch Tower Society literature
An editor continues to re-insert a statement that Watch Tower Society literature occasionally mentions Studies in the Scriptures, though it is mundane that a publishing company would occasionally mention previous works. Inclusion here implies that the Watch Tower Society discusses the volumes' content, but almost all references to the works in later Watch Tower Society literature simply mention their existence and original distribution. The cited index is particularly selective in indicating which references to the books to highlight, completely omitting references to Studies in the Scriptures that appear in Revelation&mdash;Its Grand Climax at Hand.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)