bump.
New here
by Tuber 98 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
InterestedOne
Ok. I see the thread is not that badly broken. Sorry about that, Tuber. I won't try to paste from MS Word again. Page 3 is still messed up, but at least you can continue the conversation on this thread if you want. I sent you a PM with plain text of the "Jehovah" info from the Reasoning book. Let me know if you have a problem accessing it.
-
djeggnog
@Tuber:
First, a disclaimer: I'm an [atheist].
Having said that, for anyone on here who holds a belief in the bible, I'm not here to attack you.
I'm here because I need help.
I work overseas, and my stepmother and two little half sisters are being steadily indoctrinated into the JWs.
I had been hearing bits and pieces from other family members, but today when I was on facebook, I saw not just some generic christian post from my stepmother, but this:
Religion has been mankinds biggest problem world wide throughout history. Jesus said to love God and one another even your enemies not kill, maim and persecute. [ [Matthew] 22:37&38]
I am currently reading Crisis of Conscience, and have been lurking around here for a while reading up on the WTS.
I don't want to be seen as directly attacking the religion or organisation and end up being a "tool of satan", but I would like to say something to plant a seed of doubt in her mind.
Unfortunately subtlety and tact aren't my strong points when it comes to religion.
If anyone has any suggestions for an appropriate reply, or on a larger scale, how to combat the indoctrination, I would really appreciate it.
(From what I hear, she is [committed] to 30 hours a month field service, so she is already in pretty deep).
You quoted Matthew 22:37, 38, for the proposition that "Jesus said to love God and one another even your enemies" and "not kill, maim and persecute" them, but Matthew 22:37, 38, doesn't say this, but at Luke 6:27, 28, Jesus did urge his followers to 'continue to love their enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing then and to pray for those insulting them.' But Jesus began by saying, "But I say to you who are listening," meaning that he wasn't speaking to everyone, he wasn't speaking to atheists, but only to those that were listening to him.
It seems evident to me that your stepmother believes that Jesus was speaking to her so why would you want to get in the way of what she believes as a theist? Would you want someone else trying to interfere with your right to believe that there is no sovereign Lord of the universe, no Creator, no God? Many of the folks here on JWN will tell you that they believe in God, but what they believe in this regard doesn't threaten in any way your right to believe what it is you have chosen to believe, does it? If there is something about Jehovah's Witnesses you don't like, other than the fact that they believe in God and engage in field service activity as a part of their sacred service to God, why not share those things with me and I will answer your questions?
You indicate that you have been lurking here on JWN "reading up on the WTS," and that you have also been reading the book, Crisis of Conscience, but I wonder if you happened upon any of my posts. Many of the posts here on JWN are posted by folks that were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses, and of those that are still actively Jehovah's Witnesses, many of these are hypocrites that are faking it, pretending to be Jehovah's Witnesses when their heart is far removed from the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. I am actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so maybe this message will provide a point of view that you have not yet read through the many messages that you have read here on JWN.
You mention that your stepmother has committed to volunteering some 30 hours/month in field service, which Jehovah's Witnesses view as engaging in sacred service to God as far as their formal worship is concerned, which is roughly 7-1/2 hours per week and much less than the 40 hours/week what Olympic gymnasts spend in perfecting their craft, so that your stepmother spends roughly 130 hours less time engaged in sacred service to God with the hope of pleasing God that I understand an atheist like yourself would consider to be fanatical than gymnasts spend putting their bodies through grueling training sessions with the hope of winning an Olympic medal, which hope the world doesn't seem to regard as being fanatical and maybe you don't either.
Personally, I believe in people being permitted to make their own choices, and what some might view as indoctrination someone else might view as intense vigorous training, especially if we are talking about adults and I assume that your stepmother is an adult and you do not begrudge her right to make our own choices in life no more than you would appreciate someone else trying to dictate the choices you make for your life. As an atheist, I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend, but you cannot learn about the religion to whom your stepmother belongs by reading the viewpoints of folks like Raymond Franz, the author of Crisis of Conscience or Don Cameron, the author of Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion), since these men are opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses and cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased explanation to you of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as someone like myself who is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I invite you to put your questions and concerns to me.
@Cameron_Don:
I would recommend "Captives of a Concept." It focuses on the organization's most important teaching - "the Society is God's organization" - which is based on their interpretation of the most important Scripture in their theology - Matthew 24:45-57
I don't agree with you that Matthew 24:45-47 -- I realize you typoed in what you wrote to @Tuber, since (a) Matthew chapter 24 contains only 51 verses in it and (b) in your own book, Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion), which you claim to have been "derived" from Ray Franz' book, Crisis of Conscience, when imo it is a restatement of Franz' book, you include in your list on page 7 "Matthew 24:45-47" as being an "important term," and, for some unknown reason -- cluelessness, I think -- you go on to describe this Bible passage as being "the most important Scripture in Watchtower theology because its claim that it is 'the only true religion' is based upon the way they interpret this passage." Who exactly is the "it" to which you refer that claims to be "the only true religion"? You cannot possibly be saying that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society claims to be "the only true religion"? I don't believe so.
In your book, you describe yourself as having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, someone that formerly served as an elder, so I have to believe that you cannot really be saying that you believe the publishing corporation that is staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be a religion, a religious body of any sort, which is pretty much what you are saying, even if it wasn't your intention to do so, with this reference to "Watchtower theology." So who is the "it"? I'm just guessing here, but I believe by "it" you were referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious body that claims the form of worship that it advocates as a Christian group to be "the only true religion," for no one that has ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses would claim that they were members of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, unless they were staffed and housed there, right?
Personally, were I attempting to complete a form regarding my religious affiliation, such as at a hospital, I would check the box next to the designation, "Jehovah's Witnesses." I wouldn't expect there would be a box next to "Watchtower," or "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society," as if it were contemplated by the form maker that either of these would designate someone's religious affiliation. You having formerly been one of Jehovah's Witnesses might be acquainted with the phrase "Watchtower people," but I'm sure you also know that "Watchtower people" was a euphemism for "Jehovah's Witnesses."
I don't know if you would self-identify by checking the box next to "Christian," if such a box existed on such a form, or if would check the box next to "Jehovah's Witnesses" and write in "ex," or if you would just check the box next to "Atheist," but once one has made the decision to leave the light to become swallowed up by the darkness of a world that God has commanded to repent by obediently following the lead of the man that he appointed as Lord and Christ, it wouldn't make much difference what box one has checked, right?
It might be argued that the most important Scripture, not "in Watchtower theology," but according to my reading of the Bible is found at Romans 10:6-10, which scriptural passage speaks of the "'word' of faith" that Jehovah's Witnesses preach every day, which you should have been preaching, but clearly you weren't motivated from the heart to exercise faith for righteousness, so your public declaration, which may have been heard by some, was void as far as your salvation was concerned. I'm sure right now, were you to read Romans 10:6, 7, that you would have no clue as to what the apostle was there referring. Most active Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't explain using their own words the point that Paul makes at Romans 10:6, 7, which are preliminary to what he says in the entire passage at Romans 10:6-10, but at least they are still actively associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and so will eventually come to understand this passage fully.
Be that as it may, they do acknowledge Jesus, not as some dead guy that said some nice things, but as their personal Lord, and they are the ones that make public declaration of their faith in Jesus as their living Lord, who God raised up from the dead as a guarantee that the day appointed for this man -- this living Lord -- to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness has indeed been set by God. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones today that are out there explaining to people that the "appointed times and the set limits" to which the Bible speaks that were established by Jehovah for the dwelling of men were made by decree in order that mankind might not only seek God, but find him, that is to say, that they might find what God's will is for them, that they might repent of their present life course as humans alienated from God and turn around, by making their minds over through Christ so that they might become reconciled to God. (Acts 17:24-31)
Your comments to @Tuber here in plugging your book is shameless as if your words in that book to the effect that your former religion is based on Matthew 24:45-47 have any more weight than your words here on JWN to this effect are ridiculous. In chapter 2 of Captives of a Concept, which is four pages in length, you provide as an important note to the reader "[f]or the purpose of this study," on page 18, that "it is only necessary to understand their interpretation of this passage of Scripture—not to agree or disagree with it." You then go on to write that "[w]hether it is Biblically correct doesn’t matter. The only concern here is if it is historically correct," as you then go on to give us your review of God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, a 416-page book encapsulated in four pages of your book to help folks to understand our interpretation of Matthew 24:45-47. Right.
What you wrote seemed to me to be a dissent to what you read in chapter 17 of the God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached book, entitled "The 'Slave' Who Lived to See the 'Sign,'" as to an event that Jehovah's Witnesses spiritually discern occurred in the spring of 1919, but contrary to what you ascribe to Frederick Franz, the then president of the Society and the uncle of Raymond Franz' (how sweet!), this chapter wasn't just the belief of the Society's president, but represented the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, and none of Jehovah's Witnesses believe what you describe in your book as having occurred in 1919 to be "The Most Important Event in Watchtower History," and we still don't!
You view the truth as being a Russell vs. Rutherford vs. Knorr vs. Franz kind of thing, a trivial dispute, but the truth is a Jesus kind of thing. Evidently you want the readers of your book, like @Tuber here, to believe what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach to be a matter of we embracing the beliefs of these dead men, but Jehovah's Witnesses embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ, our living Lord, no matter what you believe and teach.
You sound to me like Ray Franz so I consider you to be one of his disciples (and there are many of Franz' disciples here on JWN), a disgruntled bitter man that cannot accept the fact that God had set an appointed time when those that have not become reconciled to him will perish from the face of the earth. If you cannot repent, if you are unable to change your current course in opposition to God's will, then you already know what the future holds for you, and that's too bad for you. You cannot undo the work of God; your book may the excuse for which some were looking to leave our ranks.
Your book targets weak-minded individuals and those that are spiritually immature, and you may, in fact, be successful in drawing these disciples of Jesus to yourself. Good for you, but you have to also know they will die along with you. The truth, @Cameron_Don, is that those obedient to God's will are those that will survive Armageddon and become the nucleus of the new earth; those disobedient to God have already been condemned and will not be saved. It's that simple.
@djeggnog
-
No Room For George
Your book targets weak-minded individuals and those that are spiritually immature, and you may, in fact, be successful in drawing these disciples of Jesus to yourself. Good for you, but you have to also know they will die along with you. The truth, @Cameron_Don, is that those obedient to God's will are those that will survive Armageddon and become the nucleus of the new earth; those disobedient to God have already been condemned and will not be saved. It's that simple.
-
Tuber
@Interested One: I get
Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request.
When I try to access the message :(
@djeggnog: My problems are many.
I never said I want to stop my stepmother being a theist, I want to stop her being a Jehovah's Witness.
Watchtower publications teach that all other religions, to the extent of all other demoninations of Christianity even, are being used by Satan to lead people away from the "one true religion".
Watchtower publications teach that "true christians" don't accept blood transfusions. I worry about what would happen if my step mother or one of my little sisters were to be put in a situation where a blood transfusion was necessary to save their life.
Watchtower publications label those who disagree with their teachings as apostates, and state they must be disfellowshipped and shunned.
Watchtower publications teach that only with the help of watchtower material can one understand the bible.
Watchtower publications quote scientists and other sources out of context, making it seem like they support watchtower teachings when they do not- this is nothing short of deception.
The WTS has foretold the end of the world numerous times, each time this has proven false. So they are the very definition of the false prophets the bible tells of... the bible they supplant with their own teachings.
"As an atheist, I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend, but you cannot learn about the religion to whom your stepmother belongs by reading the viewpoints of folks like Raymond Franz, the author of Crisis of Conscience or Don Cameron, the author of Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion), since these men are opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses and cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased explanation to you of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as someone like myself who is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I invite you to put your questions and concerns to me."
You say these men are biased against the Jehovah's Witnesses, but from everything I see, they have good reason to be. And I think it is fair to say they are no more biased against the WTS than the JWs are for the WTS. The JWs and WTS change their stance on doctrine, then try to cover up the changes... at this point in the discussion, the JWs/ WTS do not come across to me as particularly trustworthy.
Also, please don't say things like "as an athiest I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend".
You may not have meant to come across this way, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it makes you sound... well, since I am trying to be civil, let's say it makes you sound rather rude. -
InterestedOne
Hi Tuber - The error in the PM's is a quirk of this site. When you get that error, if you hit back page and re-load the message, it usually works. Let me know if you can read it. In the meantime, I'll work on posting it in this thread in plain text in hopes that it doesn't cause an error. Also, I found something else about it in the NWT "study Bible" that will give you some idea of what you are dealing with.
-
InterestedOne
Here are some excerpts from the WT book "Reasoning From The Scriptures" about "Jehovah."
Jehovah
Definition: The personal name of the only true God. His own self-designation. Jehovah is the Creator and, rightfully, the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. “Jehovah” is translated from the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, (tetragram), which means “He Causes to Become.” These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.
(My note: It might be worth checking "He Causes to Become." Perhaps it is correct, but I'm not sure. I seem to recall hearing other meanings.)
(. . . skip first section . . .)
Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?
The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)
Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.
(My note on the section below about the “Christian Greek Scriptures”: JW’s believe the original New Testament writings, although we don’t have them to check, had “Jehovah” where the NWT uses it, although the earliest extant copies do not have it. They believe that the NWT translators have restored the use of the name in places where it was lost by the tampering of apostate Christendom's scribes. This makes me ask what else apostate Christendom's scribes tampered with and why a person should trust the other things in the copies of the New Testament we currently have. Note the statement on the WT website at http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/article_06.htm which reads, “Did something happen to the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures before the fourth century that resulted in the omission of God's name? The facts prove that something did.”)
Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.
Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of the Septuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.
In Journal of Biblical Literature, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write (tetragram) within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.
Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?
No human today can be certain how it was originally pronounced in Hebrew. Why not? Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, no vowels. When the language was in everyday use, readers easily provided the proper vowels. In time, however, the Jews came to have the superstitious idea that it was wrong to say God’s personal name out loud, so they used substitute expressions. Centuries later, Jewish scholars developed a system of points by which to indicate which vowels to use when reading ancient Hebrew, but they put the vowels for the substitute expressions around the four consonants representing the divine name. Thus the original pronunciation of the divine name was lost.
Many scholars favor the spelling “Yahweh,” but it is uncertain and there is not agreement among them. On the other hand, “Jehovah” is the form of the name that is most readily recognized, because it has been used in English for centuries and preserves, equally with other forms, the four consonants of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.
J. B. Rotherham, in The Emphasised Bible, used the form Yahweh throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. However, later in his Studies in the Psalms he used the form “Jehovah.” He explained: “JEHOVAH—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name . . . in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahwéh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended.”—(London, 1911), p. 29.
After discussing various pronunciations, German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler concluded: “From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments, second edition (Stuttgart, 1882), p. 143.
Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: “In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French.”—Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (Rome, 1923), footnote on p. 49.
Most names change to some extent when transferred from one language to another. Jesus was born a Jew, and his name in Hebrew was perhaps pronounced Ye•shu'a?, but the inspired writers of the Christian Scriptures did not hesitate to use the Greek form of the name, I•e•sous'. In most other languages the pronunciation is slightly different, but we freely use the form that is common in our tongue. The same is true of other Bible names. How, then, can we show proper respect for the One to whom the most important name of all belongs? Would it be by never speaking or writing his name because we do not know exactly how it was originally pronounced? Or, rather, would it be by using the pronunciation and spelling that are common in our language, while speaking well of its Owner and conducting ourselves as his worshipers in a manner that honors him?
Why is it important to know and use God’s personal name?
Do you have a close relationship with anyone whose personal name you do not know? For people to whom God is nameless he is often merely an impersonal force, not a real person, not someone that they know and love and to whom they can speak from the heart in prayer. If they do pray, their prayers are merely a ritual, a formalistic repetition of memorized expressions.
True Christians have a commission from Jesus Christ to make disciples of people of all nations. When teaching these people, how would it be possible to identify the true God as different from the false gods of the nations? Only by using His personal name, as the Bible itself does.—Matt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6.
Ex. 3:15: “God said . . . to Moses: ‘This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, “Jehovah the God of your forefathers . . . has sent me to you.” This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.’”
Isa. 12:4: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.”
Ezek. 38:17, 23: “This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘ . . . And I shall certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’”
Mal. 3:16: “Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.”
John 17:26: “[Jesus prayed to his Father:] I have made your name known to them [his followers] and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”
Acts 15:14: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” -
Tuber
@Interested: Yeah, this forum seems to have a few quirks, can't seem to get it to work, so thanks a lot for the huge post, will have a read through.
-
InterestedOne
Regarding George Howard, consider the way the WT uses his work in the NWT "study Bible" in appendix 1D. Note especially their comment at the end:
Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, (tetragram) (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Ky'ri·os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”
We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a “theory,” rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts.To get some perspective on his work, consider this excerpt from wikipedia:
Howard's theory has not been publicly supported or advocated by any other scholar. Howard has qualified it: "My theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example, Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton_in_the_New_Testament
Furthermore, look at the following letters attributed to him. I don't know how credible these are, but if you really wanted to dig, you could probably look him up and see what he thinks of the way the WT uses his work.
The University of Georgia
College of Arts & Sciences
June 5, 1989
Bob Hathaway
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
Dear Mr. Hathaway:
My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are:
1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord." Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark.
Sincerely,
George Howard
Professor
The University of Georgia
January 9, 1990
Steven Butt
P.O. _____
Portland, ME 04104
Dear Mr. Butt:
Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for some time about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications. My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.
Sincerely,
George Howard
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm#Howard -
djeggnog
@Tuber:
I never said I want to stop my stepmother being a theist, I want to stop her being a Jehovah's Witness.
I see. How do you imagine that you will be able to accomplish this? By taking a crash course in theology a la ex-Jehovah's Witnesses? I've read some of the "advice" that others have been given you here and someone advised you to become an undercover Bible student so that you will learn in stealth at least some of the major teachings of the Bible, teachings that some here have suggested are in reality the major teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses that are not based on Bible at all.
I don't think your having an ulterior motive to accept a Bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses to be a bad idea at all. Under ordinary circumstances, I would be willing to study the Bible with you, but what no one told you, our publications aren't really designed with atheists in mind, and I'm pretty sure that many of those giving you advice would have mentioned this had they paid closer attention to the things that those that studied the Bible with them would have told them (or should have told them). The majority of the people to whom Jehovah's Witnesses preach in the world are familiar with the Bible, and by this I'm talking about theists that might fancy themselves as being Christians, Muslims or Jews.
Your stepmother seems a bit tied to our publications, so that she might quote from our publications extensively whenever she speaks to you, but I make adroit use of the Bible, from which I will only be paraphrasing in what I am saying to you in this response. From what you have written in this thread, your stepmother doesn't speak to you as I believe she ought to speak when she knows that you are an atheist. An atheist comes to the Bible having no belief in God, so it would be daunting for most Jehovah's Witnesses with little or no experience attempting to study the Bible with an atheist to do so since our literature is designed for the most part to appeal to those that either believe that God exists or is an agnostic that believes the existence of God to be a possibility. You are free to think I don't know a thing about atheists though, but I'll still be competent in what things I say to you.
Watchtower publications teach that all other religions, to the extent of all other [denominations] of Christianity even, are being used by Satan to lead people away from the "one true religion".
This is what the Bible teaches. I won't quote the Bible texts here since I'm not sure that you have the same appreciation that I do as to the infallibility of God's word and its truthfulness. The Bible teaches, for example, that God raised Jesus, a man that was put to death, from the dead on the third day after his execution. Because Christians believe what things the Bible teaches, they accept this teaching on faith in the Bible, which they believe to have been written under divine inspiration, but you couldn't be expected to believe that a dead man came back to life after having been dead for parts of three days rose from the dead.
Although the earth may have been existence for many thousands of years, perhaps aeons, the Bible provides a history of mankind that only dates back to a little over 6,000 years, and because Christians hold the Bible to be inerrant, they would have no difficulty rejecting the idea that man evolved from primates as a result of evolution (based on the Darwinian premise of natural selection) or rejecting as absurd the notion that man has been walking around on this planet for 10,000, 50,000 even 100,000 years or longer, believing as we do that the human race began as the result of the direct creation of Adam and Eve by God. If you should decide to accept a Bible study with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this point will be made using the Bible and you will, of course, be free to reject what you read in the Bible as incredible.
Watchtower publications teach that "true christians" don't accept blood transfusions. I worry about what would happen if my step mother or one of my little sisters were to be put in a situation where a blood transfusion was necessary to save their life.
I've never seen such a statement in any of our publications. The reason Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions ought to be because of what the Bible teaches as to the sacredness of life, and how they learned from the Bible that blood represents life, which is why God put blood on animals on the altar in the first place to represent the life of the human being that provided such to atone for his or her sins, which animal sacrifices, mind you, foreshadowed the perfect human sacrifice of Jesus whose shed blood for the sins of mankind. Just as God had commanded Noah, one of the eight survivors of the global deluge about which the Bible teaches, to pour out blood so as not to eat unbled meat, the command to abstain from blood is incumbent on Christians to obey because, as I just stated, blood represents life and so is sacred.
However, this prohibition on blood transfusions doesn't extend to the use of blood fractions, since such are derived from the four major components of whole blood four (4) components of whole blood(i.e., plasma, white cells, red cells and platelets), and so the transfusion of same would not be the same as transfused blood, and thus not regarded by some Jehovah's Witnesses as being a violation of God's law, so it is a matter of conscience for the Christian to decide to accept the transfusion of such blood products as some Christians might find it to be repugnant to accept one or more blood fractions in connection with the medical treatment they might receive.
From blood plasma, for example, are produced various fractions, such as clotting factors VIII and IX, to treat hemophilia, albumin for massive bleeding and liver failure, and to treat burns; also Tig to treat tetanus and HRIg to treat rabies; as well as globulin to provide passive immunity after exposure to certain diseases. From platelets, are produced fractions like IPF (immature platelet fraction) and TPO (plasma thrombopoietin). My point here is that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem accepting blood fractions.
Gasoline, for example, is a component of crude oil, but plastics that come from crude oil would be a fraction since it is a byproduct of crude oil. That plastic bottle of water from which many of us drink today would be a crude oil "fraction," which hardly resembles what it was before it was processed from it into plastic and no one would point to such a plastic bottle littering the highway as crude oil, would they?
Here's the point I want to make though: The risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain. When asked whether there are any risks associated with a patient's receiving a blood transfusion, Aryeh Shander, M.D., Chief of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in Englewood, New Jersey, responded: "Absolutely. If you can't demonstrate benefit, all you are offering the patient is risk."
So, then, my question to you, @Tuber, would be: How much risk would you be willing to accept for yourself? How much risk would you be willing to subject one of your own children that a doctor wants to give a blood transfusion? Is 50% risk too high for you? How about 25%? 10%? 5%? 1%. To most Jehovah's Witnesses, a 1% risk is too high for them to subject their children to the invasion of their immune system by a blood transfusion. I realize that you specifically had the lives of your two half-sisters in mind, but to how much risk do you think your stepmother ought to subject them?
Watchtower publications label those who disagree with their teachings as apostates, and state they must be disfellowshipped and shunned.
Yes and no; disfellowshipped, yes, but shunned, no. Many Jehovah's Witnesses will and do shun disfellowshipped persons, but not all of them do, for Christians are scripturally required to cut off spiritual association with the disfellowshipped individual, which means we would not associate spiritually with them while they are in a disfellowshipped state, and would avoid unnecessary social contact with the disfellowshipped person for as long as they remain in a disfellowshipped state, but if we should see someone not disfellowshipped for apostasy at meetings, we can greet them, talk to them, arrange to give them a ride to meetings at our Kingdom Halls, even have meals with them.
While the elders in a congregation do speak consolingly to disfellowshipped individuals all of the time, it's true that some Jehovah's Witnesses decide on their own to shun and have nothing to do with the person, which is his or her choice to do, and I'm sure it hurts the feelings of the disfellowshipped individual, but (1) shunning is not the policy of Jehovah's Witnesses, and (2) the feelings of those that do shun disfellowshipped persons may change should he or she be reinstated as a brother or as a sister. However, if one has been disfellowshipped for apostasy, Christians do not greet such apostates, talk to them, arrange to do anything at all with them, including having a meal with them.
Now you might think such treatment to be cruel, but Jehovah's Witnesses are more concerned with what God thinks about the individual that is being disciplined to not take lightly their obligation to live up to their vow of service, their dedication. Our hope is that they will repent of the wrongdoing that led to their being disfellowshipped and seek reinstatement soon, but we also realize that it does takes longer for some to return to their senses, if they return at all. While disfellowshipped, the individual is still our brother or sister, and should they be reinstated, they are not rebaptized since disfellowshipping doesn't sever the vow that they made to God at baptism to do his will.
You may not understand the need for Christians to live by the moral standards outlined in the Bible, including our abstinence from blood, but adherence to Bible standards is protecting us from many of the loathsome diseases that non-Jehovah's Witnesses are experiencing, like genital herpes, Herpes simplex, HIV/AIDS, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpes virus (HHV-8), things that are rarely contracted by Jehovah's Witnesses, young and old alike, and usually only plagues married Witnesses when one of them "cheats" on his or her spouse than it does those who are unmarried (although it is unfortunate that some of our children that have disobeyed God and their parents have quality of life issues as a result of such disobedience).
Watchtower publications quote scientists and other sources out of context, making it seem like they support watchtower teachings when they do not- this is nothing short of deception.
Please cite an example. I don't care to hear unfounded allegations that you read somewhere, maybe here on JWN or in that book you mentioned you were in the process of reading. What scientist did Jehovah's Witnesses quote in any of our publications, who was taken out of context to make it appear as if they either supported the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses or supported some point being made in one of our publications. Your statement sounds like one of those boilerplate allegations that apostates make against Jehovah's Witnesses, but if you prefer to believe this allegation to be true, then don't bother citing an example. I'm only interested in hearing what you can prove and I'm certain that you won't be able to do so.
The WTS has foretold the end of the world numerous times, each time this has proven false. So they are the very definition of the false prophets the bible tells of... the bible they supplant with their own teachings.
So you, an atheist, are now thinking that you are qualified to tell me what things the Bible teaches about false prophets? Really??? I didn't self-identify here as an atheist; that would be you, for I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't mind telling you that I'm qualified to teach others what things the Bible teaches more convincingly using just the Bible than can many Jehovah's Witnesses that must rely upon our publications to assist them. Is it me that needs a Bible study or would that be you?
When did Jehovah's Witnesses ever predict the end of the world? If you are able to provide a citation that points to the prediction of a specific date when the end of the world was to come, something that would constitute proof, I'd be interested in seeing it. Again, this is just another one of those boilerplate allegations that apostates make against Jehovah's Witnesses, but, again, if you prefer to believe this allegation to be true, then don't bother citing an example, for I'm only interested in hearing what you can prove and I'm certain that you won't be able to do so.
@djeggnog wrote:
Personally, I believe in people being permitted to make their own choices, and what some might view as indoctrination someone else might view as intense vigorous training, especially if we are talking about adults and I assume that your stepmother is an adult and you do not begrudge her right to make our own choices in life no more than you would appreciate someone else trying to dictate the choices you make for your life. As an atheist, I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend, but you cannot learn about the religion to whom your stepmother belongs by reading the viewpoints of folks like Raymond Franz, the author of Crisis of Conscience or Don Cameron, the author of Captives of a Concept (Anatomy of an Illusion), since these men are opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses and cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased explanation to you of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses as someone like myself who is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I invite you to put your questions and concerns to me.
@Tuber wrote:
You say these men are biased against the Jehovah's Witnesses, but from everything I see, they have good reason to be. And I think it is fair to say they are no more biased against the WTS than the JWs are for the WTS. The JWs and WTS change their stance on doctrine, then try to cover up the changes... at this point in the discussion, the JWs/ WTS do not come across to me as particularly trustworthy.
Ok.
Also, please don't say things like "as an [atheist] I would think reading anything that relates to religion would be rather difficult to comprehend".
You may not have meant to come across this way, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it makes you sound... well, since I am trying to be civil, let's say it makes you sound rather rude.
Listen carefully: I do not apologize for the statement I made that you found to be decidedly rude; it was not my intent to be rude to you and I don't care to be rude to anyone. However, I do apologize to you for what I can see, now that you've brought to matter to my attention, as a bit condescending, though it was not my intention to be condescending (or, as I just said, rude). You said a few things in this last post that weren't kind, and were arguably rude, but you're going to have to grow a thicker skin, ok? I'm not deliberately trying to be rude to you, but if I should say something that makes you cry, you are going to have to man up.
Believe it or not, @Tuber, I am being civil toward you, but I'm civil toward everyone. If you thought you could join a thread here on JWN and dictate what and how I say here, or dictate what anyone else says on here, you should give serious consideration to logging out immediately and never coming back, for <whisper> some here use profanity and will clown you and won't care to nurse your feelings with a little tenderness </whisper>. There are no children on JWN.
@djeggnog