Has anyone refuted this JW's answers to the "101 Questions.."?

by FaeriePrincess 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • FaeriePrincess


    Just when I was going to use them against someone....

    I see a JW has answered the 101 questions. So does anyone know if his answers have been refuted?


  • jwfacts

    The answers are a classic example of a JW answering everything from the premise that the WTS is right, and so finding an answer or 'excuse' for each question that fits with current Watchtower teaching.

    Doctrine can be argued endlessly, hence 30,000 Christian sects. i.e. Q. But the bible says the earth will be burned with fire. A. Thats figurative.

    How do you resolve it? By realising discussing doctrine with a JW is pointless until they realise that the WTS can not be trusted. To do that a JW needs to look at the history of the WTS, the significant changes in teaching, and the large number of inaccurate information presented in the Watchtower. Only then will they open their mind to think about the other side of the doctrinal story.

    I wrote http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/5min.htm (How to find truth in 15 minutes) to help point a person in the correct direction to start with.

    An approach to take if a discussion is going in circles around doctrine would be, "we seem to be getting no where, we both have many scriptures to prove our doctrines are right, so how do you know Holy Spirit is directing the WTS apart from doctrine". They will give answers about

    1; preaching (everyone preaches, how else do other religions grow)

    2. blood (that is one of the most hypocritical teachings they have and JWs can easily be made to look totally stupid over it)

    3. use of Jehovahs name (they will be shocked to know it NEVER appears in a single New Testament document)

    4. Love (every religion says that)

    5. War (nice, but a number of smaller religions dont go to war)

    Then hone in on their changing teachings, pagan beliefs such as pyramids, failed prophecy, lies about blood transfusion risks and earthquakes, stance with the UN. Show them that they match Lifton's identifiers of a cult.

    Only once they realise they may not have truth will they be prepared to see that there may be other points of view about doctrine.

  • IP_SEC

    64. Since the WTS has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their views on this, does this mean that all the former Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted back into fellowship again? Were these ex-Witnesses in fact disfellowshipped for what is now taught as "the Truth"?

    I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped over such a trivial matter as that—although it is possible that some were disfellowshipped over related issues.

    It is not really correct to say that the Watchtower completely changed their view—not voluntarily anyway. They were forced by reality to revise their previously held teaching. Leading up to the closing years of the last millennium, it was assumed that the generation that would not pass away could not exceed the biblically delineated 80 years, which is mentioned in the Bible as the days of our years and fits into the present 75-year average lifespan. 1994 was the end of 80 years from 1914, so the Watchtower was forced by circumstances to make some sort of accounting. Until those 80 years elapsed, no one could say with any certainty that the generation was not what the Watchtower assumed it was.

    Of course, the last chapter remains to be written.

    Forced by reality eh? Not Holy Spirit?

    Welcome to this board FP.

    To me arguing doctrine like this is about like arguing whether the cat in the hat wears white or blue underwear. A lot of these questions are contrived, and there are always 2 sides to every story.

    There is plenty beside doctrine that proves to me that the troof isnt the troof.


  • Hellrider

    All of those arguments offered by the JW in response to the 101 questions, can be easily refuted, but it would take a heck of a long time. I looked at counterargument nr.1, and the scholars and Bible-translators mentioned there, who have spoken about the NWT in favorable terms. All of these statements offered by the scholars, can be explained, they are not so favorable towards the WTS after all, if read in its proper context. Prof. Benjamin Kedar from Israel, for example, is a hebrew-expert, and his statements are adressed to the OT in particular, this is where his expertise lays. It`s not so strange that a scholar in Hebrew would be pleased to see the tetragrammation (although mis-spelled) put back in the OT. Further, Kedar has since this one statement long ago, refused to say anything more on the matter. Dr.Goodspeed,who had at first spoken favorably about the NWT, when asked later, if he would reccomend the NWT, said "`No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar." Still they see no problem in using him as a source. And then there`s of course all the rest of the scholars and Bible translators of the world, who have pretty much condemned the NWT as a travesty.

    (lol, wtf happened to the colours here..)

  • Mr. Kim
    Mr. Kim

    Does ANYONE have positive proof ?

Share this