Posts by Disillusioned JW

38

Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

by Sea Breeze in

does anyone know when and how the change took place?

is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

Disillusioned JW

Hi Sea Breeze. I think what you say is interesting. The WT definitely has some teachings which agree with atheism (such as no Trinity, no inherently immortal human soul, the human mind is a product of the human brain and thus when its brain dies its mind ceases, no hell in the sense of eternal torment after the human body dies, ghosts are not spirits of the dead and thus ghosts in the sense of spirits of the dead are not real, Rutherford's teaching that "religion is a snare and a racket", the universe is billions of years old, and organized non-JW religion has done much harm to humanity). As a result in some ways being raised as a JW prepared me for secularism and atheism.

But I think had I been raised in a mainstream (theologically liberal) Christian church I would have been an atheist decades sooner. I also think that if I had been raised in a neutral manner in regards to religion (instead of as a third generation JW) I would have been an atheist decades sooner. That is because since my preteen years I have loved science, independent thinking, and critical thinking (and I have a natural tendency towards free thinking), and at least by age 12 I began to have skepticism/doubts about supernaturalism - it was hard for me to believe supernaturalism was real since my entire life was (and still is) completely devoid of supernatural experiences. But, the constant indoctrination by the WT literature (including it attacks on evolution, in numerous Awake! articles from 1979 - 1981) greatly dissuaded me from reading evolutionist literature prior to my baptism and it caused me to avoid taking college introductory courses in anthropology (especially physical anthropology), geology (especially historical geology), and biology. It deeply emotionally pains me that I let the WT convince to not take such courses (including philosophy of religion, including an analysis of philosophical arguments for and against the existence of a personal God and of any other type of god and regarding miracles) at university/college.

Furthermore, both my high school physics teacher and my high school chemistry teacher made a joint statement to one of my classes saying they examined evolution and concluded it is false. If they hadn't said evolution was false I probably would have investigated it much more than I had prior to baptism and as a result I would have avoided becoming a baptized JW. In my high school biology class (which was only a one quarter course) my biology teacher told me I could not take the biology textbook home to study (saying there are not enough copies of the book for the classes if students take them home), as a result I retained little information of what I had read (in the classroom) from that book about evolution. When I was in grade school and high school there was very little mention of millions of years and of evolution in school - the only references to such I am aware of are from the high school textbook on world history (which said a little about evolution) and from the high school biology textbook (a few years ago I purchased a copy of each of those books, of the same editions I read in school). I wish that in school I had been I been exposed to the teachings of evolutionism (cosmological, chemical, and biological) as much as you had. I wish that prior to my baptism date that I had gone to the libraries and looked for and read books promoting evolution (similar to the ones I recommended to you), atheism, and critiques of the Bible and Christianity (such as done by parts I and II of Thomas Paine's book "The Age Of Reason"). From my current perspective my life would have been so much better had I done so.

I think it was a part of my inborn nature to become an atheist and nonreligious, that in a sense due to my biology (made by nature, not by a god) I was born to become an atheist (due to the way I think and due to my natural love of reason and of science). It greatly saddens me that the WT's influence on my mind blocked me for so long from becoming what I was meant to become - an atheistic philosophical/scientific naturalist. I feel that becoming a JW and remaining a believing one for 20 to 26 years, instead of becoming an atheist by the time I graduated from university, ruined much of my life. I think that my having absorbed JW teachings since very early childhood severely impaired my critical thinking skills (much of the WT literature uses subtly craftily faulty logic) for decades, and as a result made me much less successful in life (outside of the responsibilities I received in the JW congregations) than would otherwise had been the case. After I finally became an atheist, I sometimes think of myself as having become, metaphorically speaking, 'born again' as an atheist.

Though I have not read the book by Sarfati which you refer to, after I stopped attending JW meetings and before I became an atheist I purchased and read some Christian apologetic books, including McDowell's book called "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and his book called "More Than a Carpenter" (in the edition which is bound with the book called "The Life of Jesus"), and Lee Strobel's book called "The Case for Christ". Years after I became an atheist and an evolutionist I purchased the book called "Scientific Creationism (General Edition), Updated and Enlarged" (Edited by Henry M. Morris) in order to challenge my conviction of evolution, as part of my effort to reevaluate my beliefs/ideas from time to time (and to remain open minded to evidence and reasoning that is new to me) to see where my current ideas might need modification. I still own the "Scientific Creationism" book.

27

Jehovah's Witnesses can now VOTE!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

jw
friends

jehovah's witnesses were raped and tortured by the thousands in malawi because they obeyed the watchtower society's rules, and they broke caesar's law and refused to purchase a political card in a country that only had one polictical party.

now (since 1999), jehovah's witnesses are allowed to vote in political elections!

i would love to hear everyone's comments.

Disillusioned JW

My impression of when I read the article about voting in the year 1999 was that the WT Society was now saying that voting is a conscious matter.

But, regarding the article about voting I remember that some time (months?) after it came out a traveling overseer in a talk to the congregation told us that the article does not mean it is OK for JWs to vote for a human in a political election. Instead, the overseer said the article was about what may be done in countries where the law requires people to go the voting polls. He said the article was saying in those situations JWs may go to the polls and even cast a ballot, but that they are not to vote for a human. I think he said they can vote for "Christ the King". He also said they can do something to their ballot (such as by marking it a certain way) to make it invalid. I thought his comments about this (representing the WT Society) went way beyond what the article itself said. To me it became an example of how the WT Society says one thing in writing that is accessible to the general public (including the governments) and something contrary to that to JWs in settings that the vast majority general public (including government officials) has(have) no exposure to. Interestingly, during at least one election after the November 1999 article I heard on TV that some ballots in my country (maybe specifically in my general locality) had write-in votes for "Christ the King".

38

Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

by Sea Breeze in

does anyone know when and how the change took place?

is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, while I think you are probably correct in thinking that the Genesis chapter one account of creation has in mind a literal 6 solar days of creation (followed by a day of rest for Yahweh Elohim [Jehovah God]), I am convinced that such an interpretation is completely incompatible with modern scientific evidence. I invite you to read and study the following two books since they both point out the major problems with the ideas of young earth proponents of creationism (so called 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism'). The two books also point out the overwhelming modern scientific evidence for evolution (both biological and cosmological). The books are:

The books also document how the young Earth 'creation scientists' don't come to their creationist views from scientific knowledge, but rather they start from a position of biblical faith and heavily distort/twist (mislead and sometimes even lie about) some cherry picked scientific evidence (often out of context) in an effort to support young Earth biblical creationism.

Please see also the book called "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" (copyright 2008) by Kenneth R. Miller (who is both a devout Catholic, a cell biologist and molecular biologist, and a biology professor who is convinced of evolution and who has written scientific papers). That author believes in the existence of the Christian God (at least a Catholic concept of it) and is a view I don't share, but the scientific evidence he provides for evolution and against intelligent design are excellent. Also please see the book called "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" (copyright 2006) by Michael Shermer. That author is a former born-again evangelical Christian and a former creationist who had accepted "... that the biblical story of creation was to be taken literally", but who know accepts evolution and who no longer believes the biblical god exists and he is a skeptic. He is also a former professor. He says as a result of studying evolution in graduate school that he discovered "... the preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of scientific inquiry--geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, population genetics, biogeography, embryology, and others--all independently converge to the same conclusion: Evolution happened." In the prologue of his book he says his book "is about how we know evolution happened, in the context of the challenges to evolution mounted by twenty-first century creationists and Intelligent Design theorists."

38

Watchtower Change On Origins from 42,000 Years to the "Day Age" Theory

by Sea Breeze in

does anyone know when and how the change took place?

is the "day age" theory still the current position of watchtower?.

Disillusioned JW

Though some WT publications have said something to the effect that "the Earth might be as old as scientists say" and/or that "the universe might be as old as scientists say', at least one WT publication specifically said some undisturbed rock formations on Earth are billions of years old and at least another WT publication said the sun is billions of years old. Note the following examples.

Paragraph numbered 13 on page 10 of "Life Does Have a Purpose" (copyright 1977) says "Yet for billions of years, with apparently little or no change, the sun has steadily produced light and heat.' Paragraph number 7 on page 8 of the same book says "The heavenly bodies have revolved in their vast orbits at tremendous speeds, with astounding precision, for untold millions of years." [The italics are that of the book, not mine.]

"Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years." Regarding the word "day" used in Genesis chapter 1, the next paragraph says 'The term used allows for the thought that each "day" could have been thousands of years in length.'

"The Bible's narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following days.*

ACCORDING to their kinds

Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No."

BluesBrother, that you quote you gave from the Watchtower 2015 1st June is fascinating. I am surprised that the WT said such. It seems that in the print edition the quote appears somewhere within pages 3 - 5. It can be read online at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015402 . Besides saying the words you quoted the article also says:

"Scientists estimate that the earth is about 4 billion years old and that the universe was born some 13 to 14 billion years ago. The Bible sets no date for the creation of the universe. In no place does it affirm that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The very first verse in the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That general statement allows scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to sound scientific principles." [Note: Instead of about 4 billion years, the scientific estimate is more accurately stated as about 4.5 billion years old for the age of the Earth.]

Sea Breeze, though Genesis 1:14 in the NKJV says "... for signs and seasons, and for days and years" and thus expresses the wording you stated of 'so that there could be "seasons, days, and years', some other Bibles (though ones less literal) express the idea of signs marking the time frames. Note that the REB (copyright 1989) says "... serve as signs both for festivals and for seasons and years." The HCSB (copyright 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003) says "serve as signs for festivals and for days and for years." The NIV (1984) says "... let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years" and the TNIV of 2005 says the same The NLLT (1996) says "... will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years." The NAB (copyright 1970 for the Genesis), a Catholic Bible not to be confused with the Protestant NASB, says "... Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years".

Whether the passage means 'for signs, season, days, and years' or whether it means 'for signs of seasons, days, and years' I don't know for sure, especially since since I can't read/translate ancient biblical Hebrew and ancient biblical Septuagint Koine Greek. It would be helpful to know what the specific wording is in the corresponding Babylonian and Assyrian creation accounts since the ancient Jews/Israelites were in captivity in Babylonia for a time and later many lived in Persia for a time, and it appears that the the Jews/Israelites adopted the cosmology of those ancient civilizations.

72

How many TRUE BELIEVERS do you think are left in the Organization?

by pistolpete in

i have a few jw relatives who are true believers.

by this i mean, they believe with all their heart that 1914 was the beginning of the last days, that this is the last generation, that we are in the very last of the last hour of this system of things, and that you should obey the governing body even if it does not make sense.

all of them are in their 60s and up into their 90s there is nothing you can say or show them to convince them or even cause a small doubt that the wt is not god organization.

Disillusioned JW

In this post I provide an update to my words of a prior post in which I said "Br. Russell in at least one of his old books said Jehovah might have used evolution to create nonhuman life (but not for human life since Genesis chapter two says Jehovah fashioned Adam from dirt)." Though in a number of places in some of his writings Russell says that evolution is wrong, in chapter 2 in at least one edition of The Divine Plan of the Ages book, he does say that nonhuman species could have been made by God through some sort of theistic evolutionary creationism that ultimately results in the kinds of life becoming fixed. For example see http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/plan/chapter2.html (its website seem to have been created by a devout one of Jehovah's Witnesses). There the book (as transcribed on the website) says:

"Surely if unintelligent nature were the creator or evolver she would continue the process, and there would be no such thing as fixed species, since without intelligence nothing would arrive at fixed conditions. Evolution would be a fact to-day, and we would see about us fish becoming birds, and monkeys becoming men. This theory we conclude to be as contrary to human reason as to the Bible, when it claims that intelligent beings were created by a power lacking intelligence. One theory regarding the creation (excepting man) by a process of evolution, to which we see no serious objection, we briefly state as follows: It assumes that the various species of the present are fixed and unchangeable so far as nature or kind is concerned, and though present natures may be developed to a much higher standard, even to perfection, these species or natures will forever be the same. This theory further assumes that none of these fixed species were originally created so, but that in the remote past they were developed from the earth, and by gradual processes of evolution from one form to another. These evolutions, under divinely established laws, in which changes of food and climate played an important part, may have continued until the fixed species, as at present seen, were established, beyond which change is impossible, the ultimate purpose of the Creator in this respect, to all appearance, having been reached. Though each of the various families of plants and animals is capable of improvement or of degradation, none of them is susceptible of change into, nor can they be produced from, other families or kinds. Though each of these may attain to the perfection of its own fixed nature, the Creator's design as to nature having been attained, further change in this respect is impossible. It is claimed that the original plants and animals, from which present fixed varieties came, became extinct before

32

the creation of man. Skeletons and fossils of animals and plants which do not now exist, found deep below the earth's surface, favor this theory. This view neither ignores nor rejects the Bible teaching that man was a direct and perfect creation, made in the mental and moral image of his Maker, and not a development by a process of evolution, probably common to the remainder of creation. This view would in no sense invalidate, but would support, the Bible's claim, that nature as it is to-day teaches that an Intelligent Being ordered it, and was its first cause. Let human reason do her best to trace known facts to reasonable and competent causes, giving due credit to nature's laws in every case; but back of all the intricate machinery of nature is the hand of its great Author, the intelligent, omnipotent God. We claim, then, that the existence of an Intelligent Creator is a clearly demonstrated truth, the proof of which lies all around us: yea, and within us; for we are his workmanship, whose every power of mind and body speaks of a marvelous skill beyond our comprehension. And he is also the Designer and Creator of what we term nature. We claim that he ordered and established the laws of nature, the beauty and harmony of whose operation we see and admire. This one whose wisdom planned and whose power upholds and guides the universe, whose wisdom and power so immeasurably transcend our own, we instinctively worship and adore. To realize the existence of this mighty God is but to dread his omnipotent strength, unless we can see him possessed of benevolence and goodness corresponding to his power. Of this fact we are also fully assured by the same evidence which proves his existence, power and wisdom. Not only are we forced to the conclusion that there is a God, and that his power and wisdom are immeasurably beyond our own, but we are forced by reason to the conclusion that

33

the grandest thing created is not superior to its Creator; hence we must conclude that the greatest manifestation of benevolence and justice among men is inferior in scope to that of the Creator, even as man's wisdom and power are inferior to his. And thus we have before our mental vision the character and attributes of the great Creator. He is wise, just, loving and powerful; and the scope of his attributes is, of necessity, immeasurably wider than that of his grandest creation. But further: having reached this reasonable conclusion relative to the existence and character of our Creator, let us inquire, What should we expect of such a being? The answer comes, that the possession of such attributes reasonably argues their exercise, their use. God's power must be used, and that in harmony with his own nature - wisely, justly and benevolently."

137

Masks Are Coming Off

by minimus in

jw
friends

a number of states are allowing people to not wear a mask.

some think this is disastrous!

what’s your view?.

Disillusioned JW

I think that until Covid-19 case numbers (and Covid-19 related deaths) drop to less than 5% of their peak level and also until at least 50% of the population is vaccinated from Covid-19, people still should be required to a wear a mask. I think that dropping at this time the requirement to wear a mask would be disastrous.

17

"Modern Bibles" New World Translation - Part II

by Perry in

behold, the days come, saith the lord god, that i will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the lord .

amos 8: 11. .

most of us who have been raised as jehovahs witnesses since at least the 1960s were occasionally reminded of the scholarship of fred franz and his command of eight or more languages, including the biblical languages of hebrew and greek.

Disillusioned JW

The WT booklet called ' "The Word" - Who Is He? According to John' (copyright 1962) specifies the edition of Greber's NT quoted by the WT. It is the one listing (in the Explanation) which verses Greber alleged were translated by assistance of spirits. That is because a footnote on page 5 says "The New Testament--A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, by Johannes Greber (a translation from German into English), edition of 1937, the front cover of this bound translation being stamped with a golden cross."

40

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Wrong Regarding Staying Out of Politics?

by minimus in

jw
friends

we were told we were part of the world if we got involved in politics.

if we had employment that had political involvement we were instructed to get another job.

we were told we might be considered disassociated if we voted and then it became questionable.

Disillusioned JW

Rocketman123, actually according to some verses in the Bible, Jesus did say his disciples (at the least ones who were his faithful apostles) are no part of the world (though physically in the world). John 17:6 first part, 9, 11 first part, and 14 - 16 (NKJV) say: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. ... I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. ... Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. ... I have given them, Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."

Verses 14 and 16 (NWT of 1984) says "... no part of the world ..." instead of "... not of the world ...".

23

The Emphatic Diaglott, still being published by the WTB&TS for the benefit of ... NOT JWs but for Christadelphians, Church of God Holiness and Abrahamic Faith folks.

by illoowy in

jw
friends

there are english speaking denominations that actively use the emphatic diaglott.

the wtb&ts is the only publisher providing new printings of this nt interlinear.

the r&f jehovah's witness doesn't use the diaglott (not even the jw version of it "kingdom interlinear translation" that supplanted it).

Disillusioned JW

Where I said "... about have the various ..." I should have said "... about how the various ...".

23

The Emphatic Diaglott, still being published by the WTB&TS for the benefit of ... NOT JWs but for Christadelphians, Church of God Holiness and Abrahamic Faith folks.

by illoowy in

jw
friends

there are english speaking denominations that actively use the emphatic diaglott.

the wtb&ts is the only publisher providing new printings of this nt interlinear.

the r&f jehovah's witness doesn't use the diaglott (not even the jw version of it "kingdom interlinear translation" that supplanted it).

Disillusioned JW

I "bought" my first KJV (a WT edition) and ASV (a WT edition) I think in the early 1990s. I had to wait years before the WT announced in a KM that they were available again for ordering. It was easy for me to order them (when they were available) since I was the literature dept. servant at the time. [The booklet which listed the items that could be ordered classified them, the leather/deluxe Bibles, and the KIT as controlled stock items, meaning the KH was not to stock up on many of them (if any) as inventory at any given time, but could order them if people in the congregation requested a copy to be ordered for them.]

When I started looking up WT "proof texts" in the KJV for a number of WT doctrines I noticed that many of the verses in the KJV were incompatible (or more difficult to use) for proving some of the WT doctrines. That made me concerned for awhile. As a result, after learning that, from that point on when I witnessed door-to-door I only used in my reasoning those verses which also worked in the KJV, since I knew people at the door respect the KJV and don't use the NWT. I didn't manage to place much WT literature or start many studies.

dropoffyourkeylee and slimboyfat that is very interesting what you both say about the controlled stock items are no longer available for being ordered from the WT. It is also interesting regarding what was said about the WT having a severe money shortage. Br. Russell (I still use "Br." when referring to him) said something to the effect of 'if the time ever comes when the Lord doesn't support the work financially and that thus the WT Society can't pay its bills without pleading for money, then it would cease operations.'

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/russell2.html is very interesting. I wonder how much of it is true. So far I have only read the very first part of it since the page is very long. It is about have the various legal entities of the JW religion (or 'business") are set up legally and suggests how they are controlled, perhaps even in a way for personal profit.

Last time I checked the Diaglott (other than old editions prior to the 1940s) typically receive about $10 plus shipping cost in eBay auctions. I plan to keep my Diaglott and 1985 KIT, for now, for personal study of the Bible and to see how the NWT and other Bibles compare to the Greek text and Diaglott's and KIT' interlinear renderings of the Greek text. If I write a book with the aim to convincing JWs to leave the JW religion I would probably quote from WT editions of those books, thus I should keep them for that purpose.

The Byington Bible I have is one I bought at a local Goodwill Outlet thrift store. I don't like the translation of that Bible, since to me it is considerably harder to understand. As a result, I don't plan to keep that Bible.