"Questions From Readers" or "Questions From Writers"?

by logansrun 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  NeonMadman

  Even as a JW, I pretty much assumed that the QFRs were made up, although at the time I gave them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they had distilled the essence of inquiries they had been receiving into general questions in a format that they could answer in the magazine. It does seem to me that if they are receiving a high number of letters asking questions on a certain topic, they might phrase the question in a general way and answer it in a QFR. If this is the case, then the questions may not be completely bogus, even though they may not represent exactly what was written by any one questioner.

  The answers, on the other hand, are totally fictitious.
• 

  Gordy

  I think that sometimes the answers in QFR are obviously statements by the WT. Usually clarifying some point or slipping in a doctrinal change. The number of times I heard "Didn't you know that there's a "new thought" on that subject, it was in QFR " from some Elder.

  Or as stated above sometimes if enough questions com in on a subject it must warrant an answer so they publish one in QFR. If the answer is in the WT it carries more weight than if they sent a letter to someone. Then somewhere a publisher will think "Hey! Thats the question I sent in. Isn't the GB great in answering it in the Watchtower."
• 

  AnnOMaly

  There was one this year - "Is it wrong to take the life of a very sick or old pet?"

  Oh come on! Please stop wasting our time!
• 

  greatteacher

  Ray Franz strongly implies in "Crisis" that the "questions from readers" are "questions from writers." I don't have the book with me to give you the page number.
• 

  A Paduan

  Made up or not, one thing for sure is that they are "selected questions from readers".

  Bias, seeking their own agenda and closemindedness - however you look at it.
• 

  Earnest

  If it were still possible to have conversations with Dubs questioning their beliefs, I'd like to ask one about some of these so-called QFRs. Take, for example, the QFR in the July 1 2003 WT: At Hebrews 2:14, why is Satan called "the one having the means of death"? Are we seriously expected to believe that a R&F Dub stayed awake at night wondering that one?

  I agree that the QFRs are probably a mix of QFWs and a distillation of questions received from readers. But I do think the example that Stephanus gives probably was a genuine QFR. I know several JWs, including myself, who take a real interest in Bible translation and will write to the WTS at the drop of a hat if they believe the NWT to be inaccurate or misconceived.

  In the past people were willing to risk death in order to make a Bible translation available to others. Why is it a cause of sarcasm that some might lose sleep over a concern that a translation is correct ?

  Earnest
• 

  Euphemism

  I've got to agree with Earnest here. In any case where the NWT's rendering of a verse is a significant departure from other translations, they are likely to receive correspondence about it. In fact, I think that the same could be said for a lot of other issues that are addressed in QFRs. The published questions are probably not word-for-word quotes from particular letters, but they often are on subjects the Society has undoubtedly received correspondence on.