Vanderhoven7: Thanks for sharing. BTW, spoken like a true WTS apologist."
Me a "WTS apologist"? I don't consider myself their apologist. When I think of a WTS apologist, names like Greg Stafford, Rolf Furuli, scholars who at one time defended the WTS fully, throughout, come to mind. Not me! I agree with the WTS on certain doctrines: the Trinity has pagan roots, the soul is not inmortal, there is no hellfire, and perhaps a few other things I can add to that.
Notwithstanding, there are a lot of WT issues I cannot harmonize with the Bible, like: their application of "the faithful slave" of Mt 24.45, where it is used in a sneaky way to displace the role of both Christ and spirit. The way they apply their modern history with minute details to Bible precedents are nonsensical, for the most part. The overboard repetition of dates such as 1914, 1919, 1925, 1975, etc., and "the end is around the corner" dribble, are tiresome and fruitless. The Bible command to "abstain from blood" made mandatory for each individual in the blood transfusion matter, regardless of their personal conscience, is uncalled for. Their eagerness to sacrifice any individual in the altar of keeping their reputation holy by defending the WTS 'at whatever cost,' even to the point of lying, are some of the things hard to swallow for any Christian. The extreme disfellowshipping practice created to keep the flock scared of the mother organization has created a lot of pain in untold thousands, even death by suicide in some cases. Many families are thus broken with no existing communication among family members, including mine. Jotting down the preaching hours in a monthly report is just there to assuage people to more regular action, and keep them in line for income security. One cannot leave the WTS honorably by simply submitting a disassociation note, which leads to the worst inhumane treatment by others in the community and even by the family.
The WTS misapplies Acts 20.20, to the point that they have demanded for decades that each individual in the borg preach "from house to house," or else such ones will be found lacking "spirituality." Preaching can be done in many ways - hello! The WTS has created a system that rivals the Pharisees with their religious extremes. Thus, the WT members are quick to judge and criticize anyone not up to their standards. The Society quickly grabs praise from people who think their leaders, and they alone, can speak truth, not realizing God, Christ & the Bible are foremost the source of truth. They rarely make public acknowledgement that they owe a lot to the scholarship efforts of hundreds of mainstream scholars. I could go on and on.
My friend, the way I see this, one cannot simply side with one religious entity, and conclude that only they have the truth. We humans by norm have limited knowledge, we learn from others all the time, and everybody makes mistakes. We cannot just brush off the WTS as a total failure either. They may be right in some areas and wrong in many places. The same can be said of mainstream religions. They may be right in some doctrines and wrong in many others. I think it is better to stay humble, and be willing to analyze religious statements regardless of their source. It was Jerome (who the Catholics claim as one of their own) who translated the Bible into Latin, which served the needs for millions of Christians for more than a thousand years, until the modern European languages took over in translation. The Protestants too deserve their place in honorary lists by being at the forefront of Bible translation making. We are in debt to untold thousands of individuals who labored night and day, risking their lives to translate the Bible into modern languages -- Tyndale, Wycliffe, Servetus and many others who defended Bible truths.
Although the WT people have been the laughing stock of the religious world for decades, they have some brownie points in their favor. They have championed religious freedom for decades worldwide by spending huge amounts of money before the courts, and all religious people should be grateful for that. Too bad the WTS now has a disdain for religious freedom among their members.
When the NWT NT was first published in 1950, the religious folks scolded the WT effort to no end. However, some scholars took notice. One, if my memory doesn't fail me, was Paul Kahle, who was intrigued by the photos which appeared in the NWT Foreword. This led some to question the WT theory that the Divine Name was in the original NT. Most laughed at them. Nonetheless, as time passed by, more scholars have reached the same conclusion, as others in this forum have pointed out. This is no laughing matter. It is not wise to ignore this issue altogether.
Also, John 1.1 was the number 2 issue that drove Evangelicals wild in particular, to accuse the WTS of inept Bible translation. They often said: No Greek scholar would ever translate this verse as the WT has done. Then, a strange thing happened. Due to the power of internet, many began to notice that dozens of other reputable translators have rendered John 1.1 in a similar manner. Haven't you noticed that the criticism surrounding the NWT and John 1.1 has abated somewhat. I remember the fiery accusations of ineptness leveled at the WT by hundreds of preachers and scholars alike after 1950. But hey, they found out they criticized too soon, exposing their state of being uninformed on the subject.
And then the WTS has done the unthinkable, translate their own NWT into dozens and dozens of other languages, even into the rarely known languages of the globe. They came up with the first translation anywhere of the complete Bible into Sign language. You have to give merit where it is due. Just like I have called out the WTS failure for not acknowledging enough the efforts of scholars worldwide (Catholics, Protestants, & Jewish alike), for providing us with such valuable Bible material for many decades. They pick and choose quotes from these works, even ignoring the names of the authors, or where specifically in the books they take their quotes from. Not fair!
Hence, the whole religious matter to me is not a simple black or white, day or night thing. There is a lot of gray area in between. We don't have all the answers, and may never will. We don't have to shut the doors to different opinions, even if they come from unexpected sources. The truth is important, even if it hurts.
