howdy all,.
has anyone noticed that some jws (prematurely) will run to debate the "trinity", "hell", "immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the watchtower's present claims which are supposed to show why god approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
i find that when jws do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch.
MYOHNSEPH,
Thank you for the insight.
When talking to JWs it is almost like they are trained only to hear selectively and this, in turn, modifies the subject into something they have been "coached" on. They are then able to give their responses to the "straw man" which has been erected in the place of the actual subject. They may also use it as a segway to go on the offensive against "Christendom" or to shift focus in another direction.
Thank you,
David Race(ProveAll)
howdy all,.
has anyone noticed that some jws (prematurely) will run to debate the "trinity", "hell", "immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the watchtower's present claims which are supposed to show why god approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
i find that when jws do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch.
Farkel and Mum,
It is true that the burden of proof lies on the one who affirms something.
It must also be pointed out that even if one does not find the argumentation of an opponent to be valid, it does not automatically mean that the opponent's position is any more tenable. It appears that JWs feel that if the trinity, for example, is not established in their mind then it automatically defaults to their position on God. This does not logically follow.
I have found that even when a debate is not fashioned after the "affirmative/negative" format JWs still think that it is.
An example of this occurred in a "debate" I had on paltalk some time back.
I set up a room for the debate with the title:
"Views of God: Unitarian or Trinitarian"
I don't think it will surprise you to know that my opponent declined to defend his position. He simply attacked mine.
Both sides had a position which they were to defend. My opponent did not set forth his particular unitarian position. This was certainly a mistake on his part for even if the trinitarian position is dismissed, it does not automatically fall to a unitarian one. There are other positions that could be held(binitarian/tritheism, etc). The title of the debate could have been made more specific since there are also differing views of unitarianism and various trinitarian nuances.
If I take part in a future debate I would suggest the subject be: "The Watchtower's view of God" where they are the ones affirming what they believe. Now think of it this way; If I did not find my opponents argumentation to be convincing does that mean that my position of necessity is correct? Of course not. The JW more than likely would point that out and demand that I defend my position, but he would never dream of defending his if the tables were turned. Of course I am generalizing. I am sure that some JWs may not be this way, but they appear to be in a distinct minority.
Thank you,
David Race(ProveAll)
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 5:19:25
howdy all,.
has anyone noticed that some jws (prematurely) will run to debate the "trinity", "hell", "immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the watchtower's present claims which are supposed to show why god approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
i find that when jws do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch.
Howdy,
I guess the next question becomes, "What were the dangers of evolution that the WT was supposedly warning us about"
Well, it couldn't have been evolution in general. They did not have any quarrel with the idea that God may have used evoltionary processes in the creation of vegetation and "lower" animals. The only thing I have found would be on the idea that "man" evolved. They really were not much different from the clergy at the time who believed God used evolution to make man. The Roman Catholic position has been for a while that God may have used evolution for the creation of all things except the "Soul" of man.
The JWs will jump all over this, but the only issue which I believe kept them from saying that God used evolution to create man is the idea that man IS a living soul, not a body possessing a soul. Of course this would get into the idea of the evolution of the soul, which the WT objected to.
If, as they believed, the lower animals are "souls" that could have developed from the earth and/or one another, why could they not have said the same thing about man? After all, man is said to have been created from the dust of the earth. Anyone with an evolutionary mindset could use that to say that man evolved. I believe the reason they stop short of man is because he was said to have been created in the image of God. The thought becomes, "If man's soul had evolved that would posit the evolution of God's image."
I believe that this was the major "danger" of accepting the idea of man's evolution.
The WT currently gives the impression that all forms of evolution are wrong and that they were warning against the dangers of evolution prior to 1918. This certainly was not the case. One can see that evolution in general was not objected to even AFTER 1918.
One also wonders about the early WT teaching concerning certain "races" being less developed.
This is another topic altogether.
It is ashamed that there were some in our nation's history who believed that certain "races" of men were less than human. (I am not saying that this is what the early WT was saying, although there are some indications of racism based on a belief in a special degradation-i..e curse of Ham/Canaan)--see below.
Thank you,
David Race(ProveAll)
*********************************************************
"Question. In Gen. 1:28 and similar passages the
word "replenish" seems to indicate that the earth had
been peopled before Adam's creation. Is there anything
in the claim of a pre-Adamic race? or that some
of the more barbarous nations are not Adam's
offspring?
Answer. You would find it of advantage when
such questions come up to consult Young's Concordance
and show the advocate of any erroneous view
the definitions there given, and also other passages in
which the word in question occurs. If "replenish"
be the meaning here, it should fit the other instances
in which the word is used; but it does not. The
proper rendering of the word is fill.--See margin.
The Scriptures are positive in the declaration that
Adam was the first human being. In 1 Cor. 15:45,47,
he is called the first man. In Acts 17:26, it is
stated that God "made of one blood all nations of men
for to dwell on all the face of the earth;" in other
words, all the peoples of the earth are descended from
Adam, no matter how different in color, stature, intelligence,
etc., they may now be.
Furthermore, the entire testimony of the Bible
must needs be set aside to give color to such a theory:
for the Scriptures record that present races had their
start in father Noah and that only his descendants survived the flood.
And in the New Testament our Lord
and several of the Apostles corroborate this record--
of Noah and the flood. The negro race is supposed
to be descended from Ham, whose special degradation
is mentioned in Gen. 9:22,25."
Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, August 1, 1898, p. 230, reprints 2344
*********************************************************
P.S.
Author is not an evolutionist
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 4:32:11
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 4:34:34
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 5:46:57
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 6:2:0
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 8:7:13
howdy all,.
has anyone noticed that some jws (prematurely) will run to debate the "trinity", "hell", "immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the watchtower's present claims which are supposed to show why god approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
i find that when jws do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch.
dmouse said:
"I have one question though, what was the Society saying about evolution before 1918?"
I had an idea someone would ask that. :>)
The following comes from (actual paper)correspondence I recently sent to a JW elder:
*********************************************************
Now what exactly was the Watchtower's teaching on evolution prior to 1918? It is true that the Watchtower objected to the idea that man evolved from a common ancestor of the apes/monkeys. In the 1913 Convention Report under the section "The Harvest: Its Privileges Great and Small" on p. 343 of Pastor Russell's Convention Discourses (1906-1916) the following appears:
"Is it not true that all the pulpits of the educated ministers are either giving something about the latest novel, or some other foolishness, or they are giving them the latest deductions along the lines of higher criticism, undermining the Bible and the things of the Bible? Or, they are giving them the doctrine of evolution, and saying: This is what you are to believe: Your grandfather some distance back was a monkey. You should be glad you are not monkeys, but you are getting away from it. Now, I said, it seems to me we have made a mistake if any of us thought that would satisfy a hungering soul. There is no soul that is going to be satisfied with being told that his grandfather was a monkey. If he is satisfied with it, it shows he is a very poor creature in his own intellectuality."
The following is from Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence, June 1901, p.205, reprints page 2836:
"We agree that the Scriptures do not teach that the earth and all its creatures were created in six twenty-four hour days. There is nothing said in Genesis respecting the length of these periods called 'days,' but we have clearly set before us the fact that the term 'day' is properly applied in Scripture to various periods. (Luke 1:80; John 8:56; Phil. 2:16.) Our Golden Text, rightly understood, indicates that the work of the six days mentioned in Genesis was a work of ordering and filling the earth, rather than a work of creating; for it plainly declares that the creation of the earth was 'in the beginning'-- that it "was" before the matters and affairs described subsequently, but in a chaotic condition. In harmony with this again is the statement, 'Now the earth was without form and void.' (Verse 2.) This was before the six creative days began, whatever their length; they merely set the earth in order and supplied it with living creatures.
Neither do we insist that anything in the narrative necessarily involves the thought that the creation of the lower animals, fish, fowl and beasts, was in the same manner as the creation of man; rather, since their creation is merely mentioned in a general way, the inference might be drawn that God used certain (possibly evolutionary) processes in their development up to the point where they reached fixity of class, nature, genera. But we do insist that the Scriptures specifically mention man as a direct creation of God, and not as an evolution."
In volume six of Studies in the Scriptures, The New Creation, on pages 35 and 36 we find:
"What a swarming there must have been when those untellable trillions of little creatures were born, and, dying dropped one by one their little shells! We read that--God blessed them in multiplying. Yes, even so lowly an existence and for so brief a time is a favor, a blessing.
Let us not contend for more than the Scripture record demands. The Bible does not assert that God created separately and individually the myriad kinds of fish and reptiles; but merely that divine influence, or spirit, brooded, and by divine purpose the sea brought forth its creatures of various kinds. The processes are not declared--one species may, under different conditions, have developed into another; or from the same original protoplasm different orders of creatures may have developed under differing conditions. No man knoweth, and it is unwise to be dogmatic. It is not for us to dispute that even the protoplasm of the palaeozoic slime may not have come into existence through chemical action of the highly mineralized waters of the seas. What we do claim is, that all came about as results of divine intention and arrangement, and hence, were divine creations, whatever were the channels or agencies."
More is said on page 37:
"Here, again, we need not quarrel needlessly with Evolutionists. We will concede that, if God chose, he could have brought all the different species of animal life into being by a development of one from the other, or he could have developed each species separately from the original protozoan slime. We know not what method he adopted, for it is revealed neither in the Bible nor in the rocks. It is, however, clearly revealed that in whatever way God chose to accomplish it, he has fixed animal species, each 'after his kind' in such a manner that they do not change; in such a manner that the ingenuity of the human mind has not succeeded in assisting them to change. "
Pages 37, 38
"In view of our remarks, foregoing, that the Scripture language does not forbid the possibility of the plants, water-creatures and land-creatures being more or less developed or evolved, in their various kinds, it may be well for us to note the wide difference in the language used when referring to man's creation. The latter is a specific declaration of the direct exercise of the divine creative power, while the others are not, but rather imply a development"
Page 39
"Here is the battlefield between God's Word and the so-called Modern Science, to which the whole world, especially the learned-- including the leaders of thought in all theological seminaries, and the ministers in all the prominent pulpits, are bowing down-- worshiping the scientific God called 'Evolution.' The two theories are squarely at issue: if the Evolution theory is true, the Bible is false from Genesis to Revelation. If the Bible is true, as we hold, the Evolution theory is utterly false in all its deductions as respects man."
The Watchtower of January 1, 1907 on page 13, reprints page 3921, says:
"As for the lower animals we will not on their behalf quarrel with the deductions of evolutionists, although we do hold that the fixity of species today is not very favorable to their contention. If an evolutionary process did take place in the past we hold that it was so under divine supervision and guidance--that different species of plants and animals were brought to perfection, so that no further evolutionary processes in them are possible. On the other hand be it noted that the Scriptural account might be understood to rather favor the Evolution theory in respect to the lower creatures. "
Next from The Golden Age, November 12, 1919, p. 103
"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 as far as nature or kind is concerned"
"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."
The Golden Age of February 18, 1920, p. 341 states:
"Only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special, direct creation of God. The statements of Genesis in respect to lower creatures rather favor something along the lines of specialized evolution"
*********************************************************
Aside from that one might point out to a JW that the WT did make the statemenet, "Only in respect to man does the Bible declare a special, direct creation of God."
Does that mean that God could have used a process (possibly evolutionary)when creating the angels and other spirit beings??
Of course the objection probably would be that what was being said in the quote dealt with the creation associated with the earth. Perhaps, but it is telling to note that JWs believe that only the Logos was the only begotten Son. This supposedly shows that the Logos was the "only direct creation" of God. Well, if we accept the above statement from the Golden Age, then I guess the Logos and man were the only direct creations. Would that mean that there were two "only begotten sons"?
Just a thought.
Thank you,
David Race(ProveAll
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 4:35:44
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 4:37:9
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 5:24:21
howdy all,.
has anyone noticed that some jws (prematurely) will run to debate the "trinity", "hell", "immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the watchtower's present claims which are supposed to show why god approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
i find that when jws do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch.
Howdy all,
Has anyone noticed that some JWs (prematurely) will run to debate the "Trinity", "Hell", "Immortality of the soul", but they head for the hills when someone brings up the Watchtower's PRESENT claims which are supposed to show why God approved and appointed them over all his belongings?
I find that when JWs do become unwittingly involved with such a discussion, they practice a method of bait and switch. It is a game of substitution. The Witness mentally substitutes what he perceives the issue to be in place of the real issue. I believe this is a conditioned response where they don't even realize they are doing it.
An example would be:
I would state the following:
"The Watchtower teaches that they were warning of the dangers of evolution in the time preceding 1918. What were the views of the WT concerning evolution at this time?"
The JW would reply by saying something like this:
"I am not concerned with what the WT taught before 1918, I am only concerned with what they are teaching now."
My statement does deal with what the WT teaches NOW.
The JW ASSUMES that the issue has to do with a change in teaching. The Witness thinks it is laudable for an organization to change when it discovers a wrong understanding. I would agree that it is always good to give up error for the truth, however this is NOT the issue.
Actually my statement above doesn't mention anything about what the WT was teaching about evolution. The Witnesses have been so conditioned to believe that when someone mentions a date that this must involve the idea of showing that their beliefs have changed from that time till now.
I didn't mention what the WT taught prior to 1918 because I want the JW to actually answer the question. This will expose the JW to the actual teaching of the WT prior to 1918.
It should be noted that the substitution which takes place in the WItness mind is done in order to dismiss the subject. After all, if they admit that a teaching has changed and the organization is now closer to the truths that Jesus taught while He was on earth, it is better than all those other organizations which continue in error and don't change. This is a common ploy used to shift attention away from the issue or to move onto another subject altogether.
Now what IS the ISSUE?
The ISSUE is what I stated prior to my question:
"The Watchtower teaches that they were warning of the dangers of evolution in the time preceding 1918"
The Watchtower has mentioned in CURRENT publications what they were doing prior to 1918, the time when Christ supposedly began to inspect all of professing Christendom. They TODAY claim that they were doing something in which God found approval.
The March 15, 1990 WT, p.13 says, " On arriving to inspect his slaves in 1918, therefore, whom did the Master, Jesus Christ, find giving to his body of attendants their measure of food supplies at the proper time? Well, by then, who had given sincere truth-seekers the correct understanding of the ransom sacrifice, the divine name, the invisibility of Christs presence, and the significance of 1914? Who had exposed the falsehood of the Trinity, immortality of the human soul, and hellfire? And who had warned of the dangers of evolution and spiritism? The facts show that it was the group of anointed Christians associated with the publishers of the magazine Zions Watch Tower and Herald of Christs Presence, now called The Watchtower Announcing Jehovahs Kingdom."
The WT is not being totally honest. They currently are being deceptive in order to justify their claimed basis of authority. It should also be noted that around the same time, other Bible Student groups believed the same as the WT concerning all of the things mentioned above. The striking difference is that such groups have basically held to those same doctrines up until the present, yet the WT claims that NOW they are NOT approved by God.
Aside from my above statement and question on evolution, it should be noted that the so-called correct understanding of the ransom sacrifice, the divine name, the invisibility of Christ's presence and the significance of 1914 are now discarded by the WT. I figure IF God was looking at these things as a basis for approving the WT for a "greater work", then they must have become the "evil slave" since they gave up all those things which God approved of. In effect, they would have to believe that God's standards change and He now approves of what He disapproved or He now disapproves of what He once approved. This does not offer a solution just creates more problems. If God did NOT approve of what the WT was teaching up to the time of the so-called inspection of Christ, then God would not have appointed the WT and that would effectively rid the WT today of any authority over the lives of millions of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The JW may say, but even if God disapproved of many of the things they were practicing, including the WORSHIP of a creature on an equal basis with God, what other organization would God have appointed? After all, the other organizations were practicing many things which God did not approve of. So God must approve of one, the one which is least corrupt. They would claim that this would have been the WT (which can be shown not to be the case). Actually this is a strong argument against the idea that God must use only one centralized visible organization. God is NOT dependent on a fallible institution to act as His sole mouthpiece and channel of communication on earth. The Bible says that God has "made us accepted in the beloved." We are accepted in the sight of God because we have been placed in Christ, the Beloved. He is the one who has God's total approval. We do not go to a fallible earthly organization for acceptance, but to the infallible Christ.
This can also serve to demonstrate that Matthew 24:45 has to do with something completely different from what the WT makes it out to be.
Thank you,
David Race(ProveAll)
"Beware of 'organization.' It is wholly unnecessary.
The Bible rules will be the only rules you will
need. Do not seek to bind others' consciences, and do
not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far
as you can understand God's Word to-day, and so continue
growing in grace and knowledge and love day by day."
C.T. Russell, Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence, September 15, 1895, p. 216 (reprints p. 1866)
Edited by - ProveAll on 12 January 2003 4:23:8
i have heard this mentioned before, but wondered if anyone could enlighten me about this - please?.
what exactly do jehovah's witnesses believe about the return of christ - do they believe that it was an invisible return and if so, when - and has this belief changed at all?.
any links to relevant publications and quotes would be much appreciated - or links to where this has been discussed previously :o).
Hello,
The WT currently teaches that Jesus has been invisibly present since 1914. The old doctrine, from the WT, was not completely done away with at least up until 1943(God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, 1973, pp. 209,210). They originally taught that Christ's invisible presence began in 1874, and was 40 years prior to the end of the world in 1914. It seems that in the 1920's they began to shift from 1874 date where it was the beginning of Christ's presence, but the 1914 doctrine was being altered and fashioned, where it was kind of the consummation of His presence in which he would ready himself to rule and reign over this system.
"From 1874 to 1914 the prophecy concerning the Lord's coming was being fulfilled and could be understood, and was understood, by those who were faithful to the Lord and who were watching the development of events; but not by others." (Creation, 1927,[700,000 edition--back cover IBSA,p.310] [2,753,500 edition--back cover WT, p. 290])
They still were publishing that Christ's invisible presence began in 1874 and that the time of the end began in 1799(ibid. IBSA, p. 319/ WT, p. 298). Of course, these two dates have been discarded. The date 1914 is now taught to be the beginning of the time of the end, whereas it used to be taught that it was the ENDING of such. 1914 is also now considered to be the beginning of Christ's invisible presence.
The current teaching is that Christ returned in 1914 and after 3 1/2 years, an inspection of professed Christians was carried out. In 1918 Jehovah supposedly came to his spiritual temple with Jesus as his "messenger of the covenant". This was when "Christendom" was examined and rejected. This was also a time of testing for those associated with the WTBTS. God is supposed to have appointed a "faithful and discreet slave" class composed of anointed members of the Watchtower Society. Then in 1919 this organization is said to have "moved zealously forward to proclaim Jehovah's Kingdom by Christ Jesus as the hope for mankind."(Revelation-It's Grand Climax at Hand, 1988, pp.31, 32.
I hope that this helps a little.
Thank you,
David Race (ProveAll)
