Lotus65, since you are a self proclaimed atheist, then why are you wasting your time at all on the JW's"
To answer your question though. The New World Translation has twisted several scriptures around, they have added very small words, such as "other" "a" and some more. Sometimes all it takes is one small word and you can alter the meaning of a scripture.
I personally believe in the Trinity, there are several scriptures that seem to indicate it. There are also several scriptures that seem to disprove it.
The JW's accuse the KJV bible of not consistently rendering words from the original greek and hebrew, yet the New World Translation is guilty of the very same thing.
The harm that this religion does to lives (especially children) is reason enough to avoid it.
Whats Wrong With the JW doctrines
by Lotus65 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Junction-Guy
-
drew sagan
As many have already mentioned, their entire theology rests upon believing that in 1914 Jesus Christ returned invisibly and then 4-5 years later specifically chose their organization as the only true church on earth.
Another non biblical doctrines include believing that only 144,000 are part of the New Covenant. -
OnTheWayOut
One of my favorite links to easily refute the doctrines is found at jwfacts.com.
In a nutshell, though- Jesus Christ appeared invisibly in 1914 and appointed the Watchtower Society
as his Faithful and Discreet Slave in 1919. Jesus is only a mediator for 144,000 people.
The last days started in 1914, and proof is in a sign from Jesus. You should shun family members
who stop believing this stuff.
ALL OF THIS CAN BE SHOWN TO BE TWISTED AND MOST OF IT TO BE PLAIN FALSE.Rather than say, "...they follow the Bible." start from a different position. They use the Bible to
promote their own doctrines. Could I use the Bible to promote different doctrines? -
WTWizard
Here are some of the many things wrong with JW doctrines:
Holidays and birthdays. They make celebrating a holiday a big deal. What is so wrong with displaying a Christmas tree or wreath in your own home? What is wrong with enjoying Christmas songs on the PA or radio, or even in your own stereo?
The cross. They claim that this glorifies the murder of Jesus, and that one would not want to carry an instrument that was used in his murder. The thing I see wrong here is: Are you slaughtering Christ anew by wearing or displaying a cross? Are you capable of killing Jesus again (who is supposed to be immortal) by displaying a cross?
Going out in service. Where does it say that we need to put in so many hours in service that it becomes a burden? I remember the Blble saying that Christ's yoke was kindly and his load light. I do not call it light when you have to put in more than 100 hours a month between meetings, service, and study plus preparing for the above, and it is still not enough. Nor do I call it light when children have to sit still for 8 hours at a Puke Assembly, sit still for almost 2 hours at the regular meetings plus get home at 10:30 PM or later on school nights, or have to go out in service every weekend while everyone else is playing. Nor is it light when they have to stay out in service when it is bitter cold or steamy hot and muggy, and they don't get a break.
Education. Where does it say in the Bible that the Internet, higher education, and reading older publications is wrong? Does the Bible God really want people to be uneducated? What about thinking on your own? If a religion is the truth, then most people that study the Bible independently should come to the same or similar conclusions, and most apostate discussion will be specious and seem out of place.
Sex. Who's business is it if two people that are seriously committed to one another agree to have sex on a trial basis? Isn't that sort of like test driving a car, which most people that are seriously committed to buying it will do before finalizing the purchase? And whose business is it about heavy petting, kissing, or all that other nonsense that accompanies dating? Sex between married couples should not be censored by others--no one is going to be affected if they do oral or anal sex, except the people involved. And yet, this religion spends about 50% of the time trying to put up walls between the sexes to prevent this. (And the other half, they bash the Internet, higher education, independent thinking, apostate Web sites, and not getting enough service or missing meetings).
Meeting attendance. What other church has meetings on three different days every week? And did they insist that people were weak because they only had time for one a week? I believe that they used to have meetings weekly, not three times a week.
Dress and grooming. While it's important in any religion to wear neat and presentable clothing, where in the Bible does it say that a suit and tie or dress have to be worn? Where does it say you need a white dress shirt or a skirt of a certain length? Aside the Jews, they didn't have much to say about the specifics. While one might not want to go to meetings in ratty looking, smelly sneakers and shorts that look like they are better for the rag pile, having strict dress codes is excessive.
Language. And no, I am not talking about swearing and dirty jokes here, either. I have heard that words like "Gee", "Gosh", and "Golly" are bad (directly from the old Theocraptic Misery School handbook). Darn, Geez, and even occasionally words like Shucks and Shoot are looked down on. Also phrases like Bless You, Good Luck, and Happy Holiday (or any of its variants) are banned. They use the phrase "Fortunate Figures" for Lucky Charms, even though Lucky Charms is a trademarked name.
You can doubtless find many others. A study abour everything Rutherford added to the cult is enough to locate many other doctrines that are religiously wrong. I definitely do not recommend joining, if you are looking for the real truth.
-
Terry
Here is a simple and straight answer.
Which version of Little Red Riding Hood's story is the "Truth?"
Is it:
A. The wolf eats Little Red's Grandma
or
B. The wolf ties up grandma and puts her in the closet?
Now I know you are wondering what the heck this has to do with JW doctrines, right?
Both are versions of a story which is fiction. Neither are true Truth.
You could best spend your time reading about how we got the Bible and the stories in it to determine this.
The BIBLE is the real problem here.
The MAJORITY of Christianity likes grandma put in the closet (so to speak) and Jehovah's Witnesses come along and convince you Christianity is lying.
Here is how they do it.
Remember when the wolf stops Little Red Riding Hood on the road to Grandma's house? He asks her where she is going and she tells him about Grandma's house? Remember that? Jehovah's Witnesses will ask you a LOGICAL QUESTION here:
Why didn't the wolf just eat Little Red Riding Hood there on the road?
Why go through all the trouble of rushing to Grandma's house, tying her up and putting her in the closet and dressing in her clothes? Why engage Little Red in a conversation about how big the wolf's eyes are (and Teeth!)?
The story, the JW's will tell you, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE...unless the wolf intended to eat Grandma first and engage in a MASTER PLAN of trickery, cross-dressing and cat and mouse because SATAN had possessed the wolf!! Satan was toying with Little Red in the genuine version! He loves to deceive!
I know you think I've lost my mind.
But, my point is simple.
There WAS no Little Red Riding Hood! It never happened!
Jehovah's Witnesses take advantage of the fact that much of Christianity is based on myths, fables, twisted scripture and tradition.
The JW destroys your confidence in Christianity and SUBSTITUTES their own ___more logical__narrative.
You start to feel like you know something special!
But--hear this if you hear nothing else I've said:
THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS for either version of the story of mankind and God's dealings and long range plans that end in Jesus return in 1914.
Please consider this.
Read WHO WROTE THE BIBLE by Richard Friedman. Study the history of textual criticism.
Read MISQUOTING JESUS by Bart Ehrman.
And, most of all USE YOUR INTELLECT TO THINK about all this!
Your premise (the Bible) leads to false conclusions!
Read history and you'll see that there are quite literally thousands of ideas, opinions, conjectures, versions and orthodoxies (called denominations, sects, cults, etc.) who peddle their own proprietary version of Little Red Riding Hood (THE BIBLE) and pass it off as TRUTH.
There is no one thing called TRUE CHRISTIANITY!
-
glenster
Lotus65: what I have so far on the JWs leaders' literature that's meant to
show that their stances (archangel Michael and impersonal spirit), not the
mainstream ones about the Trinity, are better indicated to be the originally
intended ones by a conservative interpretation of the Bible and related history
is on pp.4 and 7-10 of GTJ Brooklyn at the next link:
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/gtjbrooklynindex.htmBasically, the JWs leaders' case looks cooked up.
-
greendawn
Their concept of two classes of loyal faithful, the anointed and the great crowd, does not have any Biblical backing. There is only one class of faithful and not two, the 144 000 is a symbolic number within a symbolic context.
Likewise there is no paradise on earth concept in the Bible even the pre christian faithful looked forward to the heavenly city of God as their destination.
Also the idea of Christ being their head doesn't go down well with the JWs and refering to Jesus as the Lord of the JWs can get someone in serious trouble with the WTS. Yet the apostles saw Jesus as their immediate head and often refered to him as their Lord.
Are the JWs a Christian religion at all or a Judaic one?