Can Apostates Be Trusted

StandFirm has once again argued himself into a corner in his efforts to defend the Watch Tower Society and it's adherents, Jehovah's Witnesses.

His latest post states;

Apostates Are Not to Be Trusted

The Internet abounds with apostates on discussion forums talking about their congregation, what Bethel was like, their elders, or any of their experiences while Jehovah's Witnesses. These stories are without fail negative and discouraging. Are these stories accurate? Notice what Bryan Ronald Wilson, Ph.D. at the University of Oxford, says about apostates from the so-called new religious movements:

"Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth." [1]

What StandFirm is doing is called "poisoning the well", and it's a often-used tactic of the Watch Tower Society. Here's how it works;

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A (the target) is presented by another. ("Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")
2. Any claims person A then makes will be regarded as false, or taken less seriously.

A subcategory of this form is the application of an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. ("That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then apply the tag to him/herself in the process.

A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:
1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)
2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

This logical fallacy, however, can be used against the very people StandFirm is endeavouring to defend on his blog. For example;


- a Muslim becomes a Christian, making him an apostate of Islam; does this mean that everything he says about Islam is to be viewed with suspicion? Can his views be trusted?
- a Roman Catholic becomes a Jehovah's Witnesses, making him an apostate of Catholicism; should Catholics dismiss what he has to say as being necessarily untrustworthy?

Alternatively, what if a Jehovah's Witness through honest study and research of God's Word concludes that there is no way to know when Christ will return, let alone set the year of 1914 as the commencement of the Lord's parousia and heeds the advice of the June 2009 Awake! magazine article "Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?" and changes his religion, becoming a Christian?

Are all of his opinions of the teachings of the Watch Tower Society to be viewed as unreliable?

Once again, StandFirm, you've argued yourself into a corner.  As a large percentage of Jehovah's Witnesses evangelists are, by definition, apostates of the religion of their birth (whether Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, etc), how can you expect them to be taken seriously when they proselytise to those who still hold those religious beliefs?

StandFirm Continues to Wilfully Miss the Point on 237.

StandFirm has replied to my questions on his justification of the Governing Body adding Jehovah 237 times to the Greek scriptures;

No need to justify what is accepted practice.

By 'Hebrew Translations' I was referring to translations of the New Testament from Greek into Hebrew, and I have clarified the original post.

My entire point is that what we did is standard practice. Are you willing to admit that the New World Translation is not 'apostate' for doing this? Are you?

So let me understand this, the basis for inserting YHWH (transliterated into the erroneous Jehovah) is by looking at Hebrew versions of the Greek manuscripts, rather than looking at the actual extant Greek manuscripts themselves?

In other words, the Greek manuscripts (from which the New Testament is translated into, let's say, English) don't contain YHWH, but the Hebrew translations of the Greek do? Therefore by referencing translations of the original manuscripts, the NWT is somehow accurate?

Can you cite these Hebrew translations of the Greek scriptures, please? Are you sure you aren't confusing them with the Jesuit translations into Hebrew of the Greek scriptures, translations that date from around the 1300s?

If these Hebrew translations added YHWH where it isn't found in the extant Greek manuscripts then, yes, they are apostate. And so is the NWT for relying on them.

The rest of your argument is one big red herring, I'm afraid; the issue is whether the name Jehovah (I'll even grant you the possible full YHWH) is found in the extant Greek manuscripts, not whether other versions of the Bible add Jehovah to the Hebrew scriptures or use paraphrasing rather than word-for-word translation techniques.

I have to say, I'm really disappointed that this is your justification for the Governing Body sanctioning the insertion of a false name for God 237 times into the Christian Greek scriptures.

It seems that StandFirm is of the opinion that many other Bible translations have added Jehovah into the Christian Greek scriptures. Yet, he fails to cite one example of this taking place. And even if he were to have such an example (or examples), would its (their) existence suddenly make the practise of adding words to the extant Greek manuscripts justified?