Posts by Vanderhoven7

27

I think I may be becoming an X-X-JW

by joe134cd in

i think i may be moving on shortly.

i officially joined this web-site 12 years ago as pimo about to exit the organisation.

i had spent about a year before that, as just a none commenting member.

Vanderhoven7

Happy trails Joel! Wish you all the best as you continue on your life journey❣️

21

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Vanderhoven7

Here is one by P. Kelly

The wtbts cherry picked scripture to support the ban on beards for brothers who had congregational duties.

Decades later, cherry picked scripture to support there's wasn't any reason why brothers shouldn't have beards.

The same brothers that preached anti-beard, now are all wearing beards. All because of the new mandate handed down by their leadership.

Hilarious!

Ultimately, there never was any precedent set in the bible to wear or not to wear.

21

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Vanderhoven7

TTWSYF brought this up as well AM. I wonder how they interpret the fact that we can grieve the Holy Spirit?

And what scriptures do they use to determine Jesus is a created angel?

21

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Vanderhoven7

Matthew 24:45–47 provides with another flagrant example of Watchtower self-authenticating eisegesis.

45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food [i]in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.

Here is their”scholarly”interpretation of this passage which was only discovered in 2012 by the then current Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

“Who Really is The Faithful and Discreet Slave?”

Jesus was referring, not to an individual, but to a composite “slave”—a group working together as one body. Jesus said that the slave (1) is appointed to a supervisory role “over [the master’s] domestics” and (2) gives the domestics spiritual “food at the proper time.”

From 1919 on, there has always been a small group of anointed Christians at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have supervised our worldwide preaching work and have been directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food. In recent years, that group has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The evidence points to the following conclusion: “The faithful and discreet slave” was appointed over Jesus’ domestics in 1919. That slave is the small, composite group of anointed brothers serving at world headquarters during Christ’s presence who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food. When this group work together as the Governing Body, they act as “the faithful and discreet slave.”http://www.jw.org/en/news/events-activities/annual-meeting-report-2012/

Here is some of the fine spiritual food the Watchtower was dispensing in 1919

Jesus presence began in 1874
Jesus was made king in 1878
The archangel Michael is the Pope
‘Sleeping saints’ were resurrected to heaven in 1878
Russell was the ‘faithful and wise servant’
The Great Pyramid of Giza confirms biblical chronology
Christmas should be celebrated
The ‘time of the end’ began in 1799
That Armageddon would happen in 1925 and the gradual general resurrection would be well underway in 1926
The ‘Jews to be restored to their homeland’ is literal
The ‘great company’ (great crowd) has a heavenly hope
Jesus died on a cross
Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE
Congregation discipline should be determined by the whole congregation
The prohibition on eating blood is only a “suggestion” to gentile Christians
Birthdays could and should be celebrated

Gillies Gray writes:

The only valid reason to believe something is true is when there is sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The burden of proof to back up the assertion that a group of religious leaders were appointed by a supernatural being, second only to the Almighty Himself, would be astronomical. The evidence required would need to be of the highest order.

As things stand, Jehovah’s Witnesses lack valid arguments for the assertion that the Governing Body was ever appointed by Jesus. The best they have is extremely weak abductive reasoning which fails to demonstrate the claim.

Contrast the Governing Body with the examples of God’s appointed representatives found in the Bible, all of whom had some kind

The claim that the Governing Body were appointed by Jesus is a baseless assertion motivated by mere wishful thinking.

21

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Vanderhoven7

WATCHTOWER OTHER SHEEP

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)

The words “other sheep” on the lips of Jesus in John 10:16 are not defined for us...so admittedly there is a certain amount of ambiguity which both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons capitalize on. Now there is a reason for the ambiguity, which I won't go into now. But, letting scripture interpret scripture, we remember Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel....not to the Gentiles. It was actually some time after Pentecost that the disciples came to realize that Jesus also laid down His life for the Gentile nations and that the gospel was intended for them as well as the Jews; that they both would be one body in Christ as Paul brings out in Eph 2:16 and they would share one hope Eph 4:4 of their calling.

That's the Bible interpreting the Bible. But the WTS feels it has the authority over the Bible to add to or impregnate this passage with all kinds of extra-biblical teaching: According to the WTS Jesus was intending in Jn 10:16 to communicate much more information. To Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus was actually saying here:

And other sheep have I, which are not of this fold: no, because:

1. They will only begin being called early on in the 20th century...not before.

2. They will not be saints of God,

3. They will not have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

4. My righteousness will not be imputed to them.

5. They will not be justified to life,

6. They will not merit being raised in the first resurrection

7. I will not be their personal mediator;

8. They will not be part of my New Covenant arrangement.

9. They will not be entitled to partake of the emblems of my death.

10. They will not have a heavenly hope

11. They will be not Spirit Begotten Son's of God.

12. They will need to be affiliated with the Watchtower Society to be saved from ultimate destruction at Armageddon.

That's what this verse means to Jehovah's Witnesses.... But none of this is in the Bible. So where do the JWs get these ideas about the other sheep? You guessed it...from men. Their trust is in men, not the Bible.

21

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Vanderhoven7

Asking Jehovah’s Witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse

Got any clear examples?

33

Do JWs see the org falling apart?

by ThomasDam21 in

i have been away from the jw cult for many years.

i don't have any family i talk to that are in it.

so i don't know if the jws as a whole are seeing the cult fall apart or if they or the majority of them are head in the sand la la la the end is neigh.

Vanderhoven7

@Journeyman,

"JWs don't even believe the "soul" is something that can be "inserted" or can "fly up to heaven".

True. So out of curiosity then, what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe goes to heaven at death of one of the 144,000, if there is no such thing as the soul?

33

Do JWs see the org falling apart?

by ThomasDam21 in

i have been away from the jw cult for many years.

i don't have any family i talk to that are in it.

so i don't know if the jws as a whole are seeing the cult fall apart or if they or the majority of them are head in the sand la la la the end is neigh.

Vanderhoven7

First of all, Jehovah's Witnesses believe so called anointed or born-again Christians go right to heaven when that die. Really! You see, Jesus paid for the sins of those in the New Covenant. They believe the first resurrection began in 1918 and that's when Peter and Paul saw the light of day once again.

Apparently non-anointed Jehovah's Witnesses who die anticipate to be resurrected in the second resurrection, i.e., of the unjustified, along with just about all unrepemtant adulterors, drag-queens and extortioners who have done evil and granted asylum in an earthly paradise having paid fully for their own sins by dying. They therefore will be subjected to no further punishment for their past sins. Then they all, 8 million JWs and billions of common sinners, will be given a chance to reform and obey Abraham, Issac and Jacob and other Old Testament worthies in the new system of things. If they pass a test at the end of one thousand years, after attaining righteousness, they will be granted eternal life on earth.

However, if the billions of unrepentant adulterers, drag-queens and extortioners are still alive when the Great Tribulation starts they will be forever destroyed and will not be raised into the New System. Sinners best die before the GT leading to Armageddon.

So you don't have to die repentant before the GT starts, but you do have to repent afterwards or you will be toast.

80

Flee to the Mountains......What Mountains?

by liam in

may 2025 study article 21 seek the city that will remain.

what i remember was, when you see the romans, flee to the mountains.

now the wt is saying that's not enough.

Vanderhoven7

@Vidqun

Oops...I forgot to answer your first question. There are essentially four views on Revelation. Idealist, Historist, Preterist or Partial Preterist and Futurist.

Idealists look for the lessons being taught, while historists trace the chronological events of history from the first century to the culmination. Preterists see everything in Revelation as fulfilled in century one, while Partial preterists, like myself, tend to relegate most of Revelation to the first century.

Preterists and Partial Preterists opt for the early writing of Revelation usually early 60s, giving warning of God's judgments coming and the Great Tribulation Christians would experience throughout the Roman Empire under the various emperors. This Tribulation would include the Jewish Wars that Jesus informed Christians to escape from as God's wrath was to be released upon the nation.

44

Apostate Logical Fallacies -- Part 1

by logansrun in

jw
friends

let me start out by saying that i would like nothing better than to see the society totally disappear one day and lose its controlling grip upon its members.

this forum is probably one of the most frequented sites for doubting jws and lurkers so i think it is important to be as skilled at combating the witnesses as is possible.

not every argument made against someone or something is a good one.

Vanderhoven7

Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses not answer some questions and change the subject?

Gilles Gray writes

They do this for a variety of reasons. Here are a few of the most common.

Avoiding bad publicity

For example:-

It is well known that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. When the following question is put to a Jehovah’s Witnesses, the standard response is highly revealing:

“Would you put your beliefs first and allow your child to die if they required a life saving blood transfusion?”

If Jehovah’s Witnesses were to be completely candid, they would admit that in a situation where their child required a blood transfusion to save his or her life, and blood was all that was available, even if there were no risks and the procedure was guaranteed to save the child’s life, the JW parents would nevertheless choose to allow their child to die, rather than go against the doctrines of the Watchtower Organisation.

However, such an admission would be totally shocking, causing outrage and disgust in the minds of most reasonable, rational members of society. The result would be extremely damaging for the reputation of the Watchtower Organisation, with the vast majority of people condemning the fanaticism of this religious belief.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are acutely aware that if they were to be honest about their position, it would evoke horror and revulsion and therefore damage the public perception of their religion, so they routinely deflect away from the fundamental issues of the topic. Instead, as they have been taught to do, they use deflection tactics such as claiming that blood transfusions can be harmful, arguing that there are now various safer alternatives.

By switching the focus, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid condemning themselves and their religion, which they would do if they answered the subject directly and honesty.

Avoiding the issue

A similar example is the way Jehovah’s Witnesses react when they are confronted with their previous ‘false teachings’.

If Jehovah’s Witnesses are challenged with the fact that their Organisation has been forced to make multiple changes to their teachings, when their former doctrines have proved to be untrue, they invariably again immediately deflect away from the issue.

Mostly they twist the narrative, usually by praising their Organisation for being ‘honest’ enough to change their teachings when they have ‘new information’. However this is merely a lame excuse given to cover for the indisputable fact that many of their past teachings have proved to be untrue. They portray the ‘adjustments’ as a virtue, deliberately ignoring or concealing the fact that the changes were only made as a direct result of their failure, and were required by necessity.

They then deflect the focus away from the failings of their religion, by pointing the proverbial finger at other denominations, condemning them for retaining ‘false teachings’ over many years, claiming that other faiths are too arrogant and proud to change.

This argument allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to completely sidestep the issue of reconciling their own ‘false teachings’ by shifting the focus of attention onto the ‘false’ doctrines of rival denominations.

Similar flawed defences are very commonly used by JWs. They are under the misapprehension that highlighting the false teachings of other religions is, in some undefined way, evidence that their own religion must therefore be true. They also have the mistaken impression that the fact that other Christian religions teach ‘false doctrines’, somehow diminishes the guilt of the Watchtower for doing the same.

Jehovah’s Witnesses fail to acknowledge that the ‘false beliefs’ of other denominations do not in any way minimise the fact that they too are guilty of promoting ‘false teachings’, and that they are therefore equally as condemned.

It is truly staggering how many times you see Jehovah’s Witnesses making this false argument. Just a basic understanding of logical fallacies would disabuse them of such absurd and irrational arguments.

Avoiding facing the fact that they lack sufficient evidence for their convictions

This last example is also extremely common, and happened in my recent exchange with JW apologist Andrew Shaw.

The link can be found here.

One of the most ‘compelling’ claims which convinces Jehovah’s Witnesses that theirs is the only true religion, is their assertion that uniquely, their beliefs are wholly based on the bible. They propose that the bible translates itself, and therefore, having extensively studied the scriptures, they proudly proclaim that their teachings are in fact, those found in the bible.

From the perspective of a JW, as far as compelling evidence goes, there is no finer argument to prove beyond a doubt, that they are the true religion.

However, this assumption is clearly based on faulty reasoning.

The contradiction to their argument is the fact that all of the Watchtower’s former, now discarded teachings were also at the time, confidently declared to be ‘from the scriptures’. These former teachings were taught as bible truth with precisely the same conviction as are the current beliefs.

Logic dictates that merely claiming that one’s beliefs are ‘from the bible’ does not verify that those teachings are correct.

This clearly leaves Jehovah’s Witnesses with no sure means of knowing whether their current teachings are true or not. All their current beliefs could in future be subject to being replaced with ‘progressive understanding’ (otherwise known as ‘new light’).

When Andrew Shaw was confronted with this obvious contradiction to his position, he decided to ignore the question by arguing that the current ‘understanding’ is more convincing than the one previously taught by the Watchtower. He then deflected our exchange into a discussion over which of two ‘bible based’ explanations seemed the most plausible.

This allowed Andrew to avoid the question being put to him regarding by what means he could be certain that the current teaching on the subject in question is anymore provable than the previous one. Merely asserting that one is more convincing than the other completely failed to address the question.

Andrew decided to repeatedly avoid directly answering the question, because he knew that if he had answered honestly, it would compromise his position as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He would have to concede the point that the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be considered true merely because they are based on the bible. He would also be forced to acknowledge that he lacked sufficient evidence for his beliefs. Not a comfortable position for a loyal JW.

Wishing to avoid facing this reality, Andrew chose the logical fallacy of circular reasoning to defend his position (arguing that the reason he knows the latest teaching is true, is simply because the latest teaching is true). This allowed him to circumvent both the question and the challenge to his position by avoiding the subject altogether.

JWs focus so much of their energies on an effort to uphold their current theology and prove their religious convictions are true, that they completely neglect to take the time to consider the soundness of their epistemology.

This leaves them as sitting ducks when it comes to an exchange with an outsider who is able to identify false reasoning and fallacious arguments. They fail to realise that the arguments they present to uphold their beliefs are logically flawed, and also that the beliefs themselves are irrational.

The only way Jehovah’s Witnesses can survive the onslaught of objective criticism that they are currently faced with is to deliberately choose to avoid examining the flaws in their position. Other than that, their only survival tactic is to avoid answering challenging questions by changing the subject.