The Ever Changing World of Jehovah's Witness Beliefs

This is interesting.

In the first column we have some doctrines as believed by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the second column we have the unique beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding these doctrines during the 1914-1918 time period when, according to the unique beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses (as published by the Governing Body in the publications produced by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) Jesus was inspecting "Christendom" preceding his selection of the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses in 1919.

StandFirm Proves that Jehovah's Witnesses "stand condemned"

I've pointed out that Jehovah's Witnesses preach a different gospel from that of the 1st century, and therefore stand condemned, per Galatians 1:8.

StandFirm has kindly affirmed my position:

What Galatians 1:8 and other such scriptures are speaking about is the overall message that someone might be preaching. If an individual's or group's overall message is different than the one the Christians of the 1st century preached, then they fall under that condemnation.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Say Their Policies are Divinely Inspired?

StandFirm has issued the following challenge:

Apparently so, according to this comment:

"The other churches do not claim to be exclusively chosen by Jesus in 1919. Because your religion does make such a claim, every single piece of information, doctrine, policy etc etc published by the Watch Tower Society comes from God himself, according to your faith's beliefs."

I challenge the author of this to prove his assertion.

Can Someone Address This Discrepancy Please?

I'm going to keep this really simple so that the Governing Body apologists don't need to run down little rabbit holes of distraction.

Firstly, what the public sees:

For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29. [emphasis mine]  - Watchtower, 1997. 1/1 p. 29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked 

StandFirm's Little Pejoratives

Dear StandFirm,

You need to be careful with the stones you're throwing at specific individuals.

First of all you've called Bill Bowen a liar.

Now you've called me a slanderer.

What If a Person's Been Accused of Child Abuse and Then Moves Kingdom Hall?

What are the policies from the Watch Tower Society, under the leadership of the Governing Body, that the elders need to follow if a person has been accused of molesting a child, but the accused denies the allegation and there are no witnesses to the alleged abuse?

More Duplicity From the Watch Tower Society Regarding Child Abuse

Previous articles;
- The Watchtower and it's Duplicity Regarding the Abuse of Children

- Does the Watchtower Society Protect Pedophiles From the Authorities?

- Do Jehovah's Witnesses Think Molesting a Boy is a "Homosexual Sin"

The Watch Tower Society continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth regarding the subject of child abuse with Kingdom Halls around the world.

For example;

For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29. [emphasis mine]  - Watchtower, 1997. 1/1 p. 29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

Shepherding the Flock; Can You Say "High Control"?

I'll just let this letter from the Watch Tower Society to all elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world speak for itself. I've highlighted in bold what I feel are the pertinent parts.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Think Molesting a Boy is a "Homosexual Sin"

UPDATE - Please also read this new post regarding further Watch Tower duplicity revealed in the "Shepherd the Flock" "secret" elders' manual.

Jehovah's Witnesses show tremendous levels of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the proven subject of the systematic abuse of children within their organisation, the publishing corporation Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. This publishing corp. has for years vilified the Catholic Church's cover up of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, yet fails to adequately face up to the same abuse taking place within the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses around the planet.

Evidence of this cognitive dissonance can be see here and here. Rather than facing up to the destroyed lives of children at the hands of elders and other Jehovah's Witness men, men who were seemingly protected by a layer of secrecy and 'sealed envelopes' and phone calls to the Branch office rather than phone calls to the authorities, Jehovah's Witnesses like the one linked to above, focus in on technicalities. Rather than looking squarely at the Governing Body's claim that the "spiritual food" contained in the magazines and books printed by the publishing corporation is from God himself, which means that Jehovah God himself is behind the Watch Tower Society's duplicity regarding child abuse (according to Governing Body logic), a Witness will doggedly "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel" to defend a group who say they speak for God, but do so without evidence.

Yet, disturbingly, Jehovah's Witnesses will turn a blind eye to that lack of evidence, while at the same time turning an eagle-eyed lawyerly frown towards any claim that their religious order, incorporated in the United States, has poor child protection policies; "where's the evidence?", they growl.

Sometimes in my opinion, however, they take their defence of the publishing company that dominates their lives too far. Such as in this response from StandFirm;

The lying Bowen's letter is saturated with falsehood. Many of these lies are documented at Thirdwitness' website.

Here's but one example:

Bowen:
"This policy was again stated to the public in The Watchtower 1995, 11/1 pages 28-29 in the Article, ”Comfort for Those With a Stricken Spirit”, under the heading, “What Can Elders Do?” it plainly states:...If two different persons recall abuse by one pedophile, how could he be viewed as “an innocent” man?"

Here Bowen makes it seem as though if two separate people testify that someone abused them, their testimony will be ignored unless it is to the same act of abuse (which is of course impossible). That is a total lie. The 1995 Watchtower was talking about repressed memories (note how "remembers" is in quotes). The elders' manuals make clear that two witnesses to the same type of sin on differentoccasions is acceptable as a basis for judicial action. ("Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" p. 111; "Shepherding the Flock of God" p. 71.)

As for the Thomas Gold case: Homosexual acts are simply sexual acts performed with a member of the same gender. Thomas Gold molested a boy, thus it was homosexuality; albeit worse than consensual sex. Put 2 and 2 together, note that the elders told him to go to the police. Clearly they saw it as more than just homosexuality, since homosexuality is not illegal.

The elders may have messed up in not ensuring that the abuse was reported. However, in so doing they went against organization policy. One also wonders why the victim or his family did not report, as it is really primarily their responsibility.

There is no systematic cover-up of child abuse in the organization. You knew this before your leaving the Witnesses. The elders are people too and so hate child abuse just as much as you and I. This letter to elders sums things up nicely.

My intention was to reply to StandFirm's comment within the comments of the blog post. However, it's my opinion that his mindset so clearly reflects the very worst of mental leaps a Jehovah's Witness will make to defend a handful of business-suited men in North America that it bears closer scrutiny.

The lying Bowen's letter is saturated with falsehood. Many of these lies are documented at Thirdwitness' website. 

But is Bill Bowen lying about the children who have been abused within the Watch Tower Society or about the elders who were instructed not to contact the authorities unless there are 2 witnesses to the abuse, yes or no?

Homosexual acts are simply sexual acts performed with a member of the same gender. Thomas Gold molested a boy, thus it was homosexuality; albeit worse than consensual sex. Put 2 and 2 together, note that the elders told him to go to the police. Clearly they saw it as more than just homosexuality, since homosexuality is not illegal. 

 Molesting a child is homosexuality because the child is a boy? Are you actually serious? "Albeit worse than consensual sex"? Are you actually serious?

"Put 2 and 2 together" and get what? The problem with StandFirm, and the men who make up the rules at the publishing corporation's headquarters in North America, is that they thing abusing children is just another sin, much like getting drunk or "copping a feel" of your girlfriend.

But perhaps the reason they are willing to belief such an absurdity is because the Watch Tower Society policy is to treat it as such;

• sin has been committed
• sin has been reported to the elders
• does the sin have 2 witnesses to prove that it was committed
• if no, dismiss report and warn the accuser of the sin to remain silent about it for fear of themselves committing the sin of gossip
• if yes, hold judicial hearing whereby the accuser has to face the one whom they are accusing

It doesn't matter to this process if the "sin" is abusing children or getting drunk.

But abusing children isn't "just" a sin; it's a crime. And all crimes should be left to the authorities who are trained and qualified to investigate the crime. You let them decided whether there is a case to answer, not the "elders who are people too".

Let's face it, and I'm speaking from experience, Jehovah's Witness elders have little or no training on how to deal with the "big stuff". They're unpaid, volunteers and what little training they do get is all based around perpetuating the unsubstantiated premise that they're part of the true religion, chosen by Jesus in 1919 (although proving that date isn't actually possible).

 One also wonders why the victim or his family did not report, as it is really primarily their responsibility.

And now we get down to classic Watchtower apologist fare; apportion some sort of blame on the victim.

StandFirm, are you able to place yourself in the shoes of someone who has either been sexually abused within the Watch Tower Society, or has a child who has been abused? Can you put yourself in their shoes as they go to the elders and ask to speak to them about something, something they want to get off their chest? Can you try and imagine plucking up the courage to unburden yourself about the abuse that's happened to you or your child, doing so while you sit in a small room at the back of the Kingdom Hall, facing all of the elders in their business suits, with their large briefcases full of Watch Tower Society policy and dogma?

Can you imagine listening to the elders telling you that, because there's no witnesses to the abuse, they can't do anything about it? Can you picture yourself hearing the news that, because there's no witnesses to the abuse, you can't discuss the abuse with anyone? Can you feel your heart sinking as you know you'll need to carry the weight of what's happened on your own for fear of "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name" by taking the story of your abuse outside the walls of that small room at the back of the Kingdom Hall and going to the authorities? I mean, why would the authorities believe you when the most important thing in your life, the Watch Tower Society, has told you via it's representatives that they can't believe you because you don't have two witnesses?

Can you understand why, when you honestly evaluate the amount of power and dominance the elders have over your life or the lives of the people you love, that someone would choose not to go to the police?


You see, "one also wonders" about the people involved in this case;

• who were the elders that told Thomas Gold to go to the police?
• what were their opinions on Gold before the accusations were brought up?
• did they have any intuitive misgivings about the man?
• how did these elders feel when they told the victim and his family that there was nothing they could do about the abuse as they didn't have two witnesses?
• did this make them feel uneasy, or where they happy that they were protecting the "name of the congregation"?
• did they start treating Gold differently after that?
• did they start keeping a close eye on him around children, their own children perhaps?
• did they have a sealed envelop in the congregation's "permanent file" with Gold's name on it?
• did they contact the British branch office with the allegation levelled against Gold?
• if so, what was the response of the branch? Did it already have info on Gold, per Society policy?
• did Gold remain in the congregation where the abuse occurred, or did he move on to pastures new?
• if so, did the elders notify, even unofficially, the elders in the new congregation that there had been an accusation of abuse concerning Gold?
• how do the elders feel now that Gold has been convicted and their congregation, and "Jehovah's name" is in the news?
• how do the elders feel now that it looks like they 'covered up' his abuse by not going to the police about it themselves?
• do they see that they are no better than the Catholic Church, long vilified by the Watch Tower Society, and its handling of abuse?

StandFirm, and other Jehovah's Witnesses reading this, what lengths will you go to to defend the Watch Tower Society, a publishing corporation that claims, without any corroborating evidence, to speak for God?

Does the Watchtower Society Protect Pedophiles From the Authorities?

Bill Bowen's letter of resignation as an elder and (as they were then known) Presiding Overseer;

12-31-00

Watchtower
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to resign as an elder and Presiding Overseer effective the date of this letter. I bear no ill will or malice toward anyone in the congregation or the Body of Elders. In my twenty-plus years of special service I have enjoyed many privileges, of which there have been many fond memories. So, it is with sadness I must make the following statement: I simply cannot agree with an organizational policy that as an elder I am required to enforce. This policy, in my opinion, has harmed thousands, is leaving many unprotected, and provides refuge to outright criminals.

I am referring to Watchtower policy to keep information about pedophiles confidential. Pedophiles are protected by a code of silence and in many cases remain, Ministerial Servants, Elders, Pioneers, Circuit, District Overseers, members of the Bethel Family, etc., while their victims suffer in silence or face sanctions. This policy is unethical and immoral in my opinion.

As an elder, I am instructed (1994 Elder School) if it is one person’s word against another and not two witnesses to the wrong, no action would be taken and no authorities would be notified. The victim? Cautioned to keep silent or face discipline within the congregation that could go as far as being disfellowshipped for slander.

This policy was again stated to the public in The Watchtower 1995, 11/1 pages 28-29 in the Article, ”Comfort for Those With a Stricken Spirit”, under the heading, “What Can Elders Do?” it plainly states:

“If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2Cor.13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19) Even if more than one person “remembers” abuse by the individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such “memories” are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.”

Does this offer comfort to those with a stricken spirit?
How often are there witnesses with “supporting evidence” to an act of child molestation?
If two different persons recall abuse by one pedophile, how could he be viewed as “an innocent” man?
How hard would it be for a person with the disposition to molest children to deny the act when accused?

The 3-14-97 Letter to Bodies of Elders, page 2, paragraph 5, states:


“It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.” Paragraph 6 continues at the end: “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.”

The only way a person within the organization can be guilty of child molestation is by confession, conviction by a court of law, or by the mouth of two witnesses who were there for the same event. For the individual who meets this criteria, the above information states the “body of elders should not query individuals” and “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.” For those who do not meet the above criteria, as in the case of a victim who accuses a person of molesting them, the code of silence is even more strictly enforced. What about potential victims, parents of children who do not know of these accusations? They are left in the dark without any knowledge that their children could be exposed to an accused sex offender on a regular basis.

These directives make the Watchtower organization a pedophile paradise, where children can be freely molested, as long as there is not substantial evidence or two witnesses to the same event, pedophiles are protected by Watchtower policy which is enforced by the Body of Elders.

How often are there witnesses to an act of child molestation? How can there be evidence of molestation, when 90% of the time the crime is reported weeks or sometimes years later? How many pedophiles will tell the truth, knowing if they do they could go to jail?
Does the fact that the average pedophile will molest seventy children in his lifetime and is never convicted of a crime mean we should allow them anonymity within our organization?

Due to this organizational policy, we have become saturated with pedophiles holding positions from top to bottom within our organization, in my opinion. In my forty-plus years in the organization, I have yet to find one congregation that did not have serious problems with children being molested.

The most incriminating fact lay with it not even being a matter of record, as in many cases when it is one word against another, not one word is recorded within the congregation file. Watchtower policy gives no direction in this regard. When elders call or write the Service Department for home office direction on how to handle matters involving child molestation, they are instructed that they will have to make the decision locally as to whether it should be taken care of judicially. The Service Department in effect lets local elders make the decision and as a result, the locals will take the responsibility if anything goes wrong. Thus protecting the Watchtower legally. How often will local elders in effect, “take care of a fellow accused elder,” protecting him from a judicial meeting using technicalities as an excuse? But when it comes to the victims, they are discredited, humiliated, and told to be silent. There is a silence of the lambs, the little ones, who look to You and Bodies of Elders for protection, but instead are crushed and ostracized by an organizational policy when they needed help the most. The Watchtower is protected; the pedophile is protected, too bad for the silent lamb.

How bad is it? With this policy you will allow one out of three “witness children” to be molested in their lifetime, in my opinion. I can no longer serve as an elder in an arrangement that promotes unethical and immoral behavior toward children. I refuse to support a pedophile refuge mentality that is promoted among Body of Elders around the world. Criminals should be ousted, identified, and punished to protect the innocent and give closure to the victim.

Each day that passes, more children are being molested, and victims suffer as abused lambs with a shepherd who seems not to care. For myself, I feel I can trust no one within the Watchtower organization with my children. If my children were to accuse a pedophile of molestation, all he would have to do is deny it and as a father I would be silenced with the threat of disfellowshiping if I were to try to say something (slander of a perceived innocent man) in a way of warning to protect others who may be in harms way. I state for the third time, this is wrong it is unethical and immoral to not protect children.

It is my sincere hope that this letter will result in an adjustment to completely overhaul Watchtower policy to address this horrific stance of protecting pedophiles and exposing children to danger.

Sincerely,

William H. Bowen

Source.
Why aren't more Jehovah's Witnesses upset and angry about the Watch Tower Society's policies regarding the abuse of children?
Perhaps they think this sort of thing is made up, that the elders aren't discouraged from alerting the authorities to accusations of molestation? Maybe they don't believe that a man (or woman) within the Society can be accused of molestation, but because there are no witnesses to the abuse/assault no action by the elders is taken, not even contacting the authorities so that they can do their job and investigate the allegations?

If that's the case, maybe this news story from the BBC will open your eyes;

A Jehovah's Witness who groomed and sexually abused a boy has been jailed for six years and eight months.

Thomas Gold, 45, of Alloa, Clackmannanshire, was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh.

He previously admitted committing indecency at a house in Tullibody between November 1996, when the boy was seven years old, and November in 2003.

Unemployed Gold took the boy canvassing for the Jehovah's Witnesses and to the Kingdom Hall.

When he became a teenager, the victim told elders at his church about the abuse.

Advocate depute Alison Di Rollo said the church leaders told Gold his behaviour was wrong and warned that if it continued he would be "disfellowshipped", or expelled, because the church disapproved of homosexual behaviour.

They also tried to persuade Gold to go to the police.

'Systematically groomed'

The judge, Lord Bannatyne, said it was clear Gold's criminal conduct had "a considerable impact" on the victim.

He said that a background report on Gold had described him as having "systematically groomed" the youngster in order to sexually abuse him.

Defence solicitor advocate Brian Gilfedder said: "As far as the offence is concerned it is very difficult for me to stand here and say anything that could be described as mitigation.

"The accused is well aware and has been well aware that this was wrong. It is accepted by him that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable."

Gold was placed on the sex offenders' register for the rest of his life and given a supervision for 40 months after his prison sentence.

"church leaders told Gold his behaviour was wrong and warned that if it continued he would be "disfellowshipped", or expelled, because the church disapproved of homosexual behaviour."


Since when is abusing a child "homosexual behaviour"? By all means "disapprove'' of "homosexual behaviour", but don't lump abusing a child in with it.


And elders? Man up. Rather than trying to persuade a man who's been accused (and I'm guessing admitted to) of abusing a child to go to the police do it yourself.

Proof? It Shouldn't Be This Hard

The easiest task for any loyal Jehovah's Witness (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject) should be to provide proof that his religion is the only true one. Jehovah's Witnesses believe their religious order was chosen (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject), according to their unique interpretation of Malachi 3:1*, in the year 1919 by Jesus Christ himself.

Providing proof that this happened should be incredibly simple, straight-forward and second nature to all Jehovah's Witness.

Why am I still waiting for one shred, then?(JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject)

* Jehovah's Witnesses start with the presupposition that Christ returned, invisibly, in 1914. From this presupposition comes the belief that Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled in 1918 when Christ returned to "his temple" and undertook an inspection of all Christians on earth at the time. His satisfaction with the Bible Students, a sect of the Adventists, led by C.T. Russell, himself a failed haberdasher, was such that he selected them to be God's only channel of communication on earth, the "faithful and discreet slave" "class".


This presupposition assumes the following unique teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to be true;

• Christ returned in 1914
• based on that date, Christ inspected all of Christianity in 1918
• Matthew 24:45-47 applies to a "class" of Christians
• that "class" of Christians was found only within the membership of the Bible Student sect

Obviously, only Jehovah's Witnesses believe these things. They do so because they are taught them by the Governing Body, which itself claims to be the 'voice piece' of the above mentioned "faithful and discreet slave" "class". The reason Jehovah's Witnesses believe what the Governing Body teaches them (the afore mentioned unique beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses) is because they believe in the above 1919 selection of the Bible Students. And the reason they believe in the 1919 selection of the Bible Students is because of their unique beliefs, including Christ's return in 1914 and his subsequent inspection of Christianity in 1918. And the reason they believe that.... 

By now you can hopefully see the circular logic that keeps faithful Jehovah's Witnesses blind to the truth: there is no proof for any of this (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject).

Would Jehovah's Witness Elders Protect a Murderer?

As professed "true Christians" one wonders how the Watch Tower Society instructs the "gifts in men", who oversee the "Christian" congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world, when they discover a murderer is in their midst.

Will they advise the elders to report the matter to the authorities so that justice can be served? Perhaps this letter provides the answer.

Now, what if a Jehovah's Witness has confessed to molesting children? What would the elders do then? Any Jehovah's Witness apologist wish to take this one on?

Paying For It; A Watchtower Double-Standard That Cost Lives

From Marvin Shilmer's blog;
The Watchtower organization teaches that Witnesses do not join political parties and do not accept military training.

In the 1960s and 1970s Witnesses could not walk around showing this:

But in the 1960s and 1970s Witnesses could walk around showing this:
















Comments;
This is one of the "biggies" in my opinion. Anyone who is interested in learning more, Google "Malawi Mexico double-standard". Be prepared to be appalled and disgusted at how Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi were 'allowed' to suffer horribly by Governing Body decree versus how Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico were 'allowed' to use a loop hole...

Who Are You Saying Preaches a 'Different Gospel'?

"Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah's Witnesses since the end of World War 1 in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah's Witnesses is really the "gospel" or "good news," as of God's heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914."


Translation; Jehovah's Witnesses preach a different gospel than that preached - and believed - by Christians in the 1st Century.

Galatians 1: 6 I marvel that YOU are being so quickly removed from the One who called YOUwith Christ’s undeserved kindness over to another sort of good news. 7 But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses the New Irish?

"Fear has a great hold on the Witnesses. Witnesses are afraid of what their neighbors, their friends, relatives and Watchtower Society leaders might think if they were even so much as to read the Bible on their own. For over a century the Watchtower Society leaders have dominated their lives, told them what they can read, what they should believe and do. To ask a sound religious question is a demonstration of lack of faith in God and the organization, according to the Watchtower Society leaders. As a result, Jehovah's Witnesses do very little independent thinking. They are victims of the Watchtower Society leaders and fear; but freedom is in sight."

Read the full article, including Watchtower publication quotations and decide for yourself whether the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, under the uninspired, error-prone direction of the self-appointed Governing Body use fear to control Jehovah's Witnesses.

Is it Later Than You Think?

Apparently it is. Notice, this magazine was published 42 years ago in 1968.

And the questions asked on the cover?

• is it later than you think?
• is time running out for this generation?
• what will the 1970s bring?

It turns out that, no, it isn't later than Jehovah's Witnesses were led to think in 1968. 42 years later this "old system" keeps lumbering onwards. Imagine being 18 years old when you received your copy of this Awake! magazine. You'd now be 60. Has your life turned out as you expected it to at the end of the 1960s?

And during those 42 years it became clear that the answer to the second question is 'yes', time had run out for 'this generation'. Thrice, in fact. First, in 1995 when the Governing Body decided that Jesus evidently meant 'this generation' referred to all of the wicked people who refused to repent since 1914. 

Then in 2008 the Governing Body decided that Jesus evidently meant the anointed on earth right now where 'this generation'.

And now, in 2010, again the Governing Body has decided that 'this generation' is actually two overlapping generations, as illustrated by the life of Fred W Franz (baptised in 1913) and the lives of the current members of the Governing Body, some of whom were born many years after 1935.

Of course, with each 'new'* iteration of what Jesus evidently meant by 'this generation', 7 million Jehovah's Witnesses automatically, by default, change what they evidently understand 'this generation' to mean.

But then they are instructed to view the words of the Governing Body as being the words of Jehovah God himself.**

What about the answer to the third question? Well, quite simply, the 1970s brought another failed prophetic expectation from the Governing Body, as published in magazine articles such as this 1968 Awake! With the failed expectations, many left the ranks of the Watch Tower Society.

I wonder what the rest of this decade will bring?

* the change in understanding published in 2008 was actually a re-hash of what they understood Jesus to evidently mean back in 1928.

** see references to the September 2010 Study Edition of the Watchtower magazine.

Which Truth is "the Truth"?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that in the latter part of the 19th century Jehovah God used a young man named Charles Russell, a haberdasher, to find truth in the Bible. Russell eschewed all organised religion and started his own Bible study group, publishing the findings of his studies in a pamphlet that he paid to have printed and distributed.

In time Russell sold his business interests and eagerly began preaching the message that Jesus Christ had returned, invisibly, in 1874 [1]. He believed this was a truth revealed to him by God. He absolutely believed that Christ would end the present age with Armageddon in the year 1914. However, 1914 came and went and nothing happened other than World War 1 (then known as the Great War) started. But no Armageddon and no 'rapture'.

But Russell doggedly believed he alone had the truth. He went on to publish a series of books called "Studies in the Scriptures". Via these tomes he developed and taught his idea that through studying the Great Pyramid of Gizza, literally measuring it's passageways, man could ascertain God's divine plan for mankind down through the ages. Again, Russell believed that was truth revealed by Jehovah God. He was to claim that his "Studies in the Scriptures" was like the Bible in topical form and that only by reading his books one could fully understand God's inspired Word. In fact, if a person were to choose to only read the Bible, he would not be able to hold onto the spiritual light of truth. He actually claimed that "Studies in the Scriptures" practically was the Bible. [2].

However, what if a Jehovah's Witness in 2010 were to start preaching from the platform or from door-to-door that Christ had actually returned in 1874 and that God's plan for mankind could be ascertained from measuring a pyramid*? What if a Jehovah's Witness were to source the entire "Studies in the Scriptures" series and base their Christian beliefs on what was contained therein? Asides from believing things like Michael the Archangel is the Pope, would they be in step with "present truth"? Could they said to be in "the truth"?

You see, the question needs to be asked which truth is "the truth"? Russell thought he was in "the truth", but he obviously wasn't as Jehovah's Witnesses have rejected all of his "unique" beliefs as being false. Rutherford wasn't in "the truth" when he proclaimed that 1925 was more set in scripture than 1914. None of Rutherford's bold predictions came true. He wasn't in "the truth".

Yet Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that they are in "the truth". But how do they know? Russell thought he was, Rutherford thought he was and Witnesses in the late 80s thought they were in "the truth" when they believed the Governing Body's teaching that the generation of 1914 would still be alive when Armageddon came. Yet none of them were in "the truth"; what they believed was false.

Again, I have to ask, how do you know you're in "the truth"?

* this practise is known as pyramidology and is certainly a questionable practice for a Christian. 

[1] "Proclaimers" book pages 46-48

[2] "If the 6 volumes of 'Scripture Studies' are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes- 'The Bible' in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself...Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' ... after he has read them for 10 years-if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone...out experience shows that within 2 years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he has merely read the 'S.S.' with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years." (Watchtower, Sept 15, 1910)

Answering StandFirm's Defence of 237

In this post I want to address, point by point, the defences made by Jehovah's Witness apologist StandFirm of the addition of the word "Jehovah" 237 times to the Greek text from which New World Translation is based.

Before I do so, it's important for readers to understand why this matters. The word Jehovah is a transliteration of the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH. YHWH was one of the names the Lord and God of Israel made himself known by. In the 13th century a monk named Raymundus Martini Latinised YHWH and thus it became Jehovah. However, as there is no J or V in the Hebrew alphabet, Raymundus was in error. In other words, God isn't, and never has been known as Jehovah. Perhaps Yahweh more closely transliterates the tetragrammaton, but there's no way of knowing how the Jews pronounced YHWH as by around 300BC they had a superstitious fear of saying the name and instead preferred to use 'adonai' or 'elohim'. Therefore, whenever the Gospels depict Jesus reading or quoting from the Hebrew scriptures, he most certainly would not have said "Jehovah" or even YHWH, no matter how it was pronounced (and as noted above, it definitely wasn't pronounced as "Jehovah" due to two of the letters not existing in his language). He would have kept within Jewish tradition by saying 'adonai' or 'elohim'.

In the Greek text of the New Testament the word 'kyrios' is used frequently and is translated as "Lord" in English. Within the text, Jesus is identified as 'kyrios' or Lord. The belief that Jesus is Lord* is an absolute corner stone of Christianity, and any deviation from holding up Jesus as Lord, and recognising that he alone holds this position, would be an act of apostasy**.

So, when the translation committee of the NWT, as endorsed by the Governing Body, decided to replace the word 'kyrios' with Jehovah in the Greek text, they significantly altered the meaning of the inspired word of God, shifting the focus away from Jesus as Lord and onto the name Jehovah. This is an act of apostasy and as such makes the NWT an apostate Bible, a Bible that cannot - and should not - be trusted***.

It is from this position that I requested that StandFirm defend the 237 times Jehovah has been inserted into the Greek text. His defence can be found here.

The thrust of his defence focuses on my accusation that the NWT is an apostate Bible for adding Jehovah to the Greek text, and he aims to expose my accusation as inconsistent by citing 7 other Bibles that use the word Jehovah also. In fact, he calls it a "massive double standard" Therefore I'll address this first.

"1. Translations into native African, American, and Pacific languages-Many of these contain 'Jehovah'. These translations have drawn many to Christianity. Are they apostate?"

Where do they contain Jehovah? In the Hebrew, or Old Testament? And if they do contain Jehovah in the Greek, or New Testament, is it 237 times? Do these Bibles specifically shift the focus and attention away from Jesus as 'kyrios'?

"2. The Emphatic Diaglott-It contains God's name multiple times in it. Is it apostate?"

Where, exactly, does the Diaglott (a Greek interlinear New Testament translation) use Jehovah (let's not get confused by referring to it as "God's name" when it clearly isn't)?

"3. Translations of the New Testament into Hebrew-These contain the Tetragrammaton (God's name). These are the sources for the Name in the New World Translation. Are they apostate?"

As already explained in this rebuttal, using translations of the Greek into another language, such as Hebrew, as the basis for replacing 'kyrios' with Jehovah is an act of intellectual stupidity at best, dishonesty at worst. If the Greek text says 'kyrios' why appeal to a translation in a completely different language that uses a totally different form of alphabet to justify changing the text - and therefore, meaning - of the inspired word of God?

"4. Today's English Version-It adds the name 'Jesus' at Revelation 22:12, even though that is not in the original Greek at all. Is it apostate?"

First of all, what is "Today's English Version"? I've Googled it and find no reference to it. However, does the addition of Jesus completely change the meaning of the text, and by extension, the Christian belief that Jesus alone is Lord (kyrios)? The text says "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done." Who is coming soon? The Lord (kyrios) Jesus, as is adequately borne out by the context.

"5. The Douay Version-The Douay Version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate. Similarly, the New World Translation where God's Name appears is a translation of the aforementioned Hebrew versions. Is the Douay Version apostate?"

Once again, appealing to Hebrew translations of the original Greek manuscripts is not how to answer the accusation of the 237 insertions of Jehovah. And then we have the need for evidence; where, exactly, does the Douay Version use Jehovah? I think you may be mistaken in citing it as a Bible containing Jehovah. Lastly, the Douay Version was the Bible favoured by Catholics for many, many years; are Jehovah's Witnesses now appealing to the Catholic faith to back up their insertion of Jehovah 237 times into the Greek text of the New World Translation?

"6. The English Standard Version-It is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, itself a revision of the American Standard Version, yet again iself [sic] derived from the Revised Version, itself a revision of the King James Version. The New World Translation's Divine Name is taken from the Hebrew versions mentioned. Are all these translations apostate?"

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, other than to notice that you're again appealing to Hebrew translations of the Greek manuscripts.

As for the likes of the ESV (my preferred choice of Bible version as it's a word-for-word translation) being apostate, only if they are abandoning religious beliefs; ie. are they taking attention away from Jesus being Lord and placing the focus of the reader elsewhere.

"7. The Living Bible-It is a paraphrase and translates many verses much differently than the original Greek. Is it apostate?"

Does the paraphrasing of the Living Bible lead people away from the teaching that Jesus is Lord (kyrios) by significantly altering the text of the extant Greek manuscripts to place the focus on the name Jehovah? If not, then no, it's not apostate.

StandFirm then concludes his defence of the NWT by making this statement;
"As is obvious by now, the New World Translation does not add to God's Word at all. Rather, what it did is perfectly acceptable by the standards applied to other Bibles. Could it be that opposers call the New World Translation apostate simply because they hate Jehovah's Witnesses, who made it?"

Firstly, it's obvious that the NWT does add to the God's Word. It does so by replacing 'kyrios' dozens of times with the Latinsed word Jehovah, thus taking attention and focus away from Jesus as Lord. This is serious and throws all teachings based on the NWT into question. It is also far from "perfectly acceptable".

As yet StandFirm has not addressed the other occasions whereby the NWT adds to God's Word, such as at Philipians 2:9,10 (adding the word 'other' to change the meaning of the original text) and Colossians 1:16,17 (again adding 'other', which changes the meaning of the text, removing Jesus from his position of Creator of all things in heaven and on earth).

I have to take issue with this accusation;
"Could it be that opposers call the New World Translation apostate simply because they hate Jehovah's Witnesses, who made it?"

That's quite a statement, and it's in error on a couple of counts. Firstly, Jehovah's Witnesses didn't "make" the NWT. The NWT was "translated" by a committee appointed by the Governing Body. As the Watch Tower Society refuses to name the translators, let's assume that it was a team of 20 individuals. Let's also assume that the Governing Body at the time consisted of 18 members. That makes around 38 men who were involved in the translating and approval of the NWT. Jehovah's Witnesses number around 7 million today. But even based upon their numbers back in the 1950-60s, 38 men is a minute fraction of the over all sect. Therefore, "Jehovah's Witnesses" didn't "make" the NWT. A very tiny minority of their number did on the authority of the Governing Body, who will one day render an account for misleading millions of sincere people.

And since when is questioning the honesty of a Bible translation equatable to hating the group who use it? This is a huge red-herring and certainly places doubt over the intellectual honesty of the one making the claim.

If a small group of men get together and significantly alter the text and meaning of God's inspired word, and then push forward their apostasised version as the only accurate translation of the Holy Bible, then the ones who have placed their trust in these men aren't to be hated, but rather pitied.

In fact, it is incumbent upon those of us who have found the truth of Jesus Christ as Lord to expose the dangerous lies and falsehoods found in religious organisation such as the Watch Tower Society, which itself bears this out in their publications;
"It is not a form of religious persecution for anyone to say and to show that another religion is false. It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing person to see the difference between false religion and true religion. (Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1963, p. 688)"

"We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with Gods Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what Gods will is for us, and then to do it." John 8:32 (The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life, 1968, p. 13)

"Consequently, is it unchristian today to offer Bible-based comments about another's religion? The scriptural answer must be No. True, criticism that reveals faults in the teachings or practices of someone's religion might at first seem severe. Yet, how should one react? Not like those who became violently enraged over Stephen's criticism. Rather, note the fine reaction of some Athenians who heard Paul's comments. They accepts the Bible truth and became believers, to their eternal benefit. Compare Acts 17:11, 12. Far from being rejected as unchristian then, criticism based on gods word should be carefully considered, for it can bring real benefits". (Awake! Nov. 22, 1974, p. 28) "


StandFirm has attempted to rebut my concerns about appealing to Hebrew translations of the extant Greek manuscripts by stating;
"What if they led Jews to Christianity?"

Indeed, but does that make it acceptable to change 'kyrios' to Jehovah, drawing attention away from Jesus as Lord? Could the same argument be applied to Islam? Would it be acceptable to translate the Greek manuscripts into Arabic, changing 'kyrios' to Allah, or worse, Muhammad?

He then continues;
"Obviously it is not, and you know that full well. That was a short debate, huh? Are you happy now that I've said it?"

I'm not sure if to interpret that statement as petulance due to realising that both his arguments and his Bible are in error. However, the point remains; the NWT is an apostasised version of the Holy Bible and StandFirm, by his own admission, realises that Jehovah is not found anywhere in the Greek text of the Bible. So, why defend its insertion? And why trust a version of the Bible that has been corrupted to take attention away from Jesus as 'kyrios'?

Finally, he concludes;
"By the way, you must admit, by your own standards, that all 7 of the Bibles I mentioned are apostate also; or else demonstrate how your standard does not apply."

I believe I have done so in this text.

* Romans 10:9, 2 Cor 4:5
** apostasy is defined as "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief."
*** if Jesus is 'kyrios' and is to be revered as such, then to shift the focus away from Jesus onto another person is an abandonment of 1st century Christianity.

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses: Governing Body?

Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious faith group that are "fed" via "spiritual food" printed, published and distributed by a corporation named the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught via this corporation that God is using only one organisation on earth today, and that the Watch Tower Society is it.

The "spiritual food" printed and published by the Watch Tower Society is compiled and approved for distribution by a group of men known as the Governing Body. Jehovah's Witnesses are taught by the Governing Body that they represent a group called the "faithful and discreet slave".

However, this concept is not found with any degree of clarity in the Bible.

So, my question for Jehovah's Witnesses is this; can you show me the Governing Body in the Bible?

Where is the Evidence for This Claim?

And what does it do to the Bible, overall?

This is a screen shot from a YouTube video that claims such things as YHWH (or Jehovah) "appears in the Christian Greek Scriptures but was quickly removed and replaced with ky'rios or The-os (God, Lord*).

This is a massive claim. It means that before the New World Translation was published in the 1950s, all Bibles were corrupt. But where is the actual evidence that YHWH (or Jehovah) was "quickly removed" from the original Greek copies of the Gospels and epistles? And where is the evidence that Paul, Peter and the other evangelistic apostles taught Gentile Christian converts a Hebrew name for God when they spoke so frequently about the Lord Jesus? The Greek language is massively different from Hebrew. Do Jehovah's Witnesses honestly expect us to believe that when Paul wrote his epistles he inserted four Hebrew characters into his Greek text rather than simply use the Greek word kyrios, as is found in the extant Greek manuscripts?

And what about the apostles Peter and John? Between their 5 letters they mention YHWH (or Jehovah) not once! If the four Hebrew letters were used so frequently among 1st century Christians, whether of Hebrew descent or Gentile, why didn't these two faithful followers and witnesses of Christ use them in their letters?

The reality is that the Governing Body has infused an obsession with the name Jehovah into all Jehovah's Witnesses. But the evidence found in the Bible points to the name Jesus as being the most important name in the universe - literally in heaven and on earth. The name Jesus is the name that brings salvation to men, not the name Jehovah.

If the name Jesus is the most important name, who has inspired the Governing Body to put such an overwhelming evidence on the name Jehovah?

* actually, it's the other way around; kyrios = Lord and theos = God.