Greg Staffords books

Oldhippie

Has anyone read the book by Greg Stafford in defence of Jehovah's Witnesses? Care to give a book review?

Kent

Greg is just your kind of guy, my friend. He has exactly the same sense of "truth" and "objectivity", and you are both on the same level.

I bet the book will be one of your favorites. Great book :-)

Yakki Da

Kent

"The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org

Oldhippie

Uuuhhh....Thanks Kent?...Seriously, is the book simply a regurgitation of WT arguments or does he present ANYTHING new or interesting?

Kent

Gregs book is crap, my friend. Greg is a lunatic and a fanatic, and he doesn't see the forrest for trees.

Nothing there of interest. AlanF knows the guy only too well, and he hangs around this board as well - with different aliases.

Yakki Da

Kent

"The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org

I am a JW and to tell you the truth, Gregs books are a bit over my head. Kents review can't be taken serious, the guy hates everything proGod and proWitness. Greg Stafford has done extensive research and studies before writing his books. I think they are very interesting.

JanH

Using the opportunity to quote an old H2O message from Cygnus:

(quote follows:)

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that I thought he misquoted a Watchtower article dealing with 1975. I referred to a post from Tom (Zach) last year which brought out the misquotation. Greg told me that the 2nd edition of his book was different. Now, Greg has accused AF of misquoting and abusing the WT. I'd like now to see if Greg has done just that in the following page of his book.

Here is what the Watchtower said, in full context:

*** w68 8/15 500-1 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man's existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. (bold and underlining mine)

What is the Watchtower writer advising, to use Greg's word? Caution? Hesitancy? Is the Watchtower writer advising that JWs not toy with Jesus' words because the End is fast-approaching (i.e., "We know it is soon, so don't use Jesus' words to pretend that we don't or can't know"), or is Stafford right in saying that the Watchtower writer here was presenting an attitude that JWs shouldn't have great expectations regarding the nearness of the end of the 6000 years?

Before Greg accuses anyone of misquoting the WT, perhaps he should repair this particular paragraph in his third edition.
(quote ends)

- Jan
--
"People are apprehensive when they meet me. They think I'm going to eat
them. But underneath it all, I'm quite shy." - Freddie Mercury

Kent

Yeah, sure. As long as you "study" long enough - even though your findings came out of the ass of someone - it's interesting, eh?

Well, having to read the Watchtower, I guess it's a way to stay allive to see the problem like that...

Yakki Da

Kent

The most significant difference between Prime Minister John Howard and Hitler, is the fact that Hitler is dead.

Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org

Norm

Someone by the name of Zack posted an review of Staffords book on H2O i think. Here it is:

A Commentary on the new apologetic book on Jehovah's Witnesses

Posted by Zack on March 22, 1998 at 22:15:54:
I am not, in this post, attempting to either encourage or discourage anyone from purchasing and reading Greg Stafford’s Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer To Scholars And Critics (1998 Elihu Books) as anyone with even a passing interest in Jehovah’s Witnesses and their beliefs will more than likely want to read it anyway. With any apologetic work however, there are bound to be both strong and weak areas and Stafford’s endeavor in this regard is certainly no exception. With that thought in mind, I offer the following observations after having read his book:

First of all on the up side; this book represents a marked departure from anything that has been produced by either the Society or the Witness community et.al. to date. Stafford makes an honest effort to substantiate his contentions from a variety of sources, providing detailed annotation throughout the text. Despite what criticisms against the Witnesses anyone may feel are justified, most would agree that any move on the part of the rank and file towards independent research and thought is a positive trend, provided the powers that be will allow it to continue. Certainly no one can fault Stafford on the amount of his research.

Primarily, Stafford’s book is a rebuttal to Ron Rhode’s Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1993 Harvest House Publishers) Rhode’s arguments are specifically referenced throughout most of Stafford’s book where he easily devotes 80% of the text to the scholarly consideration of the deity of Christ in light of the usual questions that come up with regard to Colwell’s Rule, the Granville-Sharp Rule, as well as a review of the majority of the Trinitarian proof texts offered by Rhodes in their original languages. Stafford does a credible job of presenting his (and the Society’s) side of this never-ending dispute.
In Rhode’s book, there are a number of places where his arguments are barely on par with those of Walter Martin, so as might be expected, Stafford repeatedly takes him to task for his shallow presentation of Watchtower teaching and quotes, which are arguably taken out of context at times. Also, as Stafford points out, a great deal of Rhode’s criticism of the New World Translation has dishonestly been portrayed as wholly idiosyncratic to that translation alone when many times (not all) the same criticisms can be leveled with equal force at any number of other modern translations.

However much anyone might enjoy seeing Rhodes hoisted on his own petard though, this approach in some ways detracts from Stafford’s book. Many, (myself included) were hoping that Stafford would at least attempt some sort of excursion into the more troubled waters of Witness theology today (e.g. the chronology problem, uncertainty over the great crowd teaching, ect.) Stafford avoids those areas.
Also on the down side; Stafford comes across as one who has been a Witness for less than a decade. This becomes a handicap in chapter 9 “The Watchtower and False Prophecy: An Undeserved Reputation.” where Stafford’s work borders on the sophomoric in places. One wonders if Stafford ever laid eyes on, let alone met any of the people he endeavors to defend. (e.g. Fred W. Franz, Hayden Covington) It’s obvious that he did not associate with the Witnesses, did not attend the conventions, did not hear the talks given by the traveling overseers or participate in the Watchtower studies either as a conductor or student at all during the period prior to 1975. For example, Stafford makes the ridiculous claim that the reference to “the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end” from page 3 paragraph 9 of the May 1974 “Our Kingdom Ministry” was not and should not have been understood as a reference to the short time before 1975. (pp. 307- 308) He then proceeds to commit the exact same thing he takes Rhodes and other unnamed critics to task for, by taking a Watchtower quote completely out of context. Stafford says in conclusion to the 1975 issue:

“Even though some in the organization may have put too great an emphasis on the chronology put forth by the Society, the Society itself always maintained the proper outlook: “This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that ‘concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens or the Son, but only the Father.’ (Matt 24:36)” Those who ignored this advice, and who served Jehovah only because they believed Armageddon would come in 1975 should have given closer attention to Jesus’ words and to what the Society actually said, rather than allow a certain date to provide the impetus for their sacred service.
(p. 308)

In actuality the Society in the August 15, 1968 issue of The Watchtower which Stafford here quoted argued for an attitude completely opposite to what Stafford suggests, as a consideration of the complete quote in context shows:
*** w68 8/15 500-1 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! (bold mine)

Study question: Why is this no time for indifference and complacency?

Only someone who is either being intentionally dishonest with themselves and others or who simply was not around at the time could possible construe this paragraph as anything other than what it was-----a warning against dismissing the 1975 chronology on the basis that nobody knows the exact day and hour.
Further, Stafford dismisses the charge of false prophecy on the basis that the Witness leadership does not make predictions that qualify as prophecies themselves---merely interpretations of Bible prophecies “which are neither inspired or infallible, and which were always considered open to reevaluation and correction.” (p.265) As far as the terms “guidance” and “direction” are used by the Society, he states that “the key concern is how do Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term in relation to themselves.” (p.279) The Society’s claim to divine guidance and direction is thereby relegated as existing strictly in the passive sense----similar in nature to the type of guidance one would receive by consulting a road map or other reference work. Stafford states: “Jehovah’s Witnesses know what message God wants them to proclaim, not because they are inspired prophets like Ezekial, but because what Jehovah told them to say is in his written Word.” (p. 281)
Therefore while the Society may speak in terms of being directed by holy spirit, what they really mean is that they take in information from the scriptures which are inspired and form their own uninspired interpretations thereof, some correct, some not.

However as most thinking Witnesses are aware, the Society’s own special claim to uniqueness------that by virtue of being Jehovah’s selected channel of communication, they alone have been granted the correct interpretation of Bible prophecy by Jehovah himself----renders Stafford’s argument meaningless. Far from being merely passive, the guidance and direction required here would be active, providing knowledge which would not have been obtained merely by study alone No amount of hand waving can change the fact that guidance where God is taking an active part in what is being done is direct and therefore satisfies the basic definition of divine inspiration. This recurrent theme, that the Witnesses’ unique interpretation of prophecy has been given to them by Jehovah, is not hard to find in the Society’s publications either:

W37 2/15 52
Christ Jesus at the temple is Jehovah's great Servant and Interpreter, and by God's permission and direction he gives to the faithful ones an understanding of God's prophecies and his coming to the temple. Those who attempt to run ahead of the Lord and try to interpret prophecies to suit their own ideas never get the proper interpretation thereof.

W38 5/1 143
The interpretation of prophecy, therefore, is not from man, but is from Jehovah; and Jehovah causes events to come to pass in fulfillment of the prophecy in due time. It is his truth, and not man's ; and when men attempt to give the honor and glory for the message of truth to a man or men, such make fools of themselves. Jehovah provides the machinery, the printing presses, and all materials for the purpose of preparing his fiery message that must be poured out or scattered upon "Christendom.”

*** w52 4/15 253 Aids for Understanding Prophecy ***
Jehovah as the great Interpreter makes known the meaning of his revelations in his due time, and speculation by men cannot bring to light the true meaning of prophecy before time. Jehovah has provided a channel, the “faithful and discreet slave” class, who are given spiritual “food at the proper time”, and this spiritual food includes among other things the understandings of the prophecies in the course of their fulfillment’s. (Matt. 24:45, NW) Jehovah’s witnesses themselves are not nor can they be interpreters of prophecies. But as fast as the “superior authorities” Jehovah and Christ Jesus reveal the interpretations through their provided channel that fast do God’s people publish them the world over to strengthen the faith of all lovers of righteousness.

Stafford dismisses some of the bolder claims made in the Rutherford era (e.g. angels transmitting information to God’s anointed people) on this basis:

“Regarding those quotes from Preparation, it should be noted that Rutherford is simply showing that in the Bible (note his references to Zechariah, Revelation, and other Bible books) angels were used to convey information to faithful men of old. He then surmises that such must likewise be true with regard to God’s people on earth today. However, he does not specify any particular interpretation of prophecy where such has been the case! There is no claim of having received inspired information from an angel regarding any specific interpretation. Rutherford did not know for a fact that angels had communicated to anyone in the organization; he was assuming that such communication had taken place based on biblical precedent.

Here again though, this appears to be more a case Stafford’s own wishful thinking than fact as
Rutherford most certainly did make specific prophetic application in those quotes:

Preparation pp. 27,28
“Zechariah inquired of the Lord the meaning of these men on horses, and the angel talking with him explained it to him: “THEN SAID I, O MY LORD, WHAT ARE THESE? AND THE ANGEL THAT TALKED WITH ME SAID UNTO ME, I WILL SHEW THEE WHAT THESE BE.” (1:9) This question is propounded for the benefit of those faithful ones of the remnant now on earth, and the angel of the Lord brings to them the needed information in answer to their questions. (Rev. 1:1) This is proof that the interpretation of prophecy does not proceed from man, but that the Lord Jesus, the chief one in Jehovah’s organization, sends the necessary information to his people by and through his holy angels.”

Preparation pp. 36,37
“Certain duties and kingdom interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which include the transmission of information to God’s anointed people on earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it; and the Scriptures and the facts show that it is done. (Matt. 25:31; Jude 14,15; Zech. 14:5) This conclusion is fully supported by the following words of Zechariah’s prophecy: “AND, BEHOLD, THE ANGEL THAT TALKED WITH ME WENT FORTH, AND ANOTHER ANGEL WENT OUT TO MEET HIM, AND SAID UNTO HIM, RUN SPEAK TO THIS YOUNG MAN, SAYING JERUSALEM SHALL BE INHABITED AS TOWNS WITHOUT WALLS FOR THE MULTITUDE OF MEN AND CATTLE THERIN.” (2:3,4) There the angel of the Lord is commanded to make haste and to tell the message of comfort to the inquiring saints on the earth. Many will recall now that in the year 1919, when the faithful were disconsolate, the Lord gave to his people an understanding of the Elijah and Elisha pictures (1 Ki. 19:13-21; Mal. 4:5,6) that had troubled them for a long while, and this brought to them consolation.”
In appendix C “The Watchtower Society and Johannes Greber” Stafford attempts to diminish the fact that the Society continued to use Greber’s translation in support of their own rendering of John 1:1 for years after it was known that he was a spiritist on the basis that “It is, of course a fallacy to argue that Greber, being a spiritist, is therefore incapable of apprehending the sense of the original language of the New Testament, at least in some instances.” (p. 339) Stafford makes no attempt to explain the factual incongruities in the Society’s correspondence with William Chamberlin, Helen McAllister, and the Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation during the period prior to the 1983 Questions from Readers (W83 4/1 p. 31)

However, lest it seem like I’m being too hard on Stafford, I do sympathize with the difficulty of the task he undertook most particularly in writing chapter 9 and give him high marks for effort. Stafford’s book is light years ahead of the verbatim quotes from the publications many Witnesses fall back on when asked to defend their beliefs and in that respect is a welcome change--in my opinion at least.

Zack"

--------------------------------------------------------

For those who are waiting for Rolf Furuli's alleged "refutation" of C.O. Jonsson's book about the WT chronology I pity you. I once read Furuli's "secret" refutation of the Jonsson book and that was really pathetic. First of all it had to be read in Furuli's presence, and you had to put on dark glasses and look the other way while reading and it was very important that you hadn't read Jonssons book first.
What a "scholar" Furuli is!

Norm.

ArgCampeon

Oh Kent, hate is not healthful.

Kent

ArgCampeon;

Oh Kent, hate is not healthful.

What hate?????

Yakki Da

Kent

The most significant difference between Prime Minister John Howard and Hitler, is the fact that Hitler is dead.

Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://watchtower.observer.org

Greg Staffords books

Share this