Response from the Society
TRUE BUT THATS DANGEROUS MANY OF U HAD THE TRUTH THEN SLID OUT WHERE THE DEMONS LURK JEHOVAHS ORGANIZATION MESSES UP BUT COMPARE THAT TO THE EASY GOING CHURCHES ON THE BOAT TO ARMEGGEDON THERES NO COMPARISION YET U ALL CRY AND MOAN AGAINST JEHOVAH ITS THE ISREALITES IN THE WILDNERNESS ALL OVER AGAIN U CAN PONDER ABOUT TRUTH ALREADY REVEALED BUT ITS A WASTE OF TIME COMPARE AGAINST THESES SAD CHURCHES NO COMPARISION BUT IF U STRAIN TO FIND SOMETHING AGAISNT JEHOVAHS PEOPLE U WILL ITS IMPERFECT BUT AS OTHER PEOPLE OF JEHOVAH DAVID MOSES......OTHERS THAT JUST BECAUSE U SCREW UP SERIOUSLY DOSENT BAN U LOOK AT IT AS A WHOLE AGAINST THE WORLD PERIOD ONLY A PHILISOPHICAL FOOL BITTER AGAINST JEHOVAH COULD BE BLIND TO ATTACK THE TRUTH THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE SEVERE NASTY BUT U ALL NO THIS.
I love how the WT develops a belief and THEN goes about finding experts to support it. Heck, you find some expert to support just about anything you want. There are even so-called "experts" who will state that the Holocaust never happened.
I have found that when it comes to explaining a religious belief, the longer the explination, the more BS it usually contains.
typical answer from someone influenced by the world sad soul u say jesus is not the saviuor even tho the bibles says so so all that extra crapola you spew means nothin but demonic proclamations have fun
Of course, the Watchtower also teaches that Jesus is not the savior, except in a very limited sense of the word; according to them, Jehovah is primarily the savior. So I guess that means that the Watchtower is spewing out "nothin but demonic proclamations," too. But then, we already knew that...
"The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
I just wanted to thank you for your post. I needed to see a lot of the things in your original letter as I am just starting to research the Society and the apparent lack of Gods Spirit therein.
Some of your points were absolutely brilliant (ie. the birthday thing). I need to re-read there response to you when I get home so I can look up the articles they refer you to. Right now I just dont understand their response. Can anyone tell me in plainer english what they are saying in regards to adding the name Jehovah? I've always considered myself a fairly intelligent person but I just dont understand it. Either I'm stupid or they are just trying to make it very complicated so that we just accept it cause we dont understand. That,i think is what a lot of witnesses do.
again thank you Sirona, this is a great post
You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
Now why would they use references from BABYLON THE GREAT to prove their points?
I thought the sources that they quoted from is the harlot which is false religion!
All of their own research comes from sources other than their own.
Only THEY can quote and read from babylon....NOT the publishers.
Im really glad you found it helpful.
I can give a brief summary of the Gods name query, I think this is reasonably accurate and you will find confirmation of it if you look at the society's explanations as they state in their letter (in the NWT with references).
Basically, the Society justifies putting the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament by saying that 1. they are quoting from the hebrew scriptures, and we know that the tetragrammaton was used there (YHWH) 2. they believe that in the first century the superstitious practice of abbreviating the divine name or replacing it with dots in copy translations lead to the name being removed from the Greek scriptures, and substituted with Kyrios (Lord).
The problems that I pointed out with their adding "Jehovah" to their translation are: 1. There are no new testament greek manuscripts in existence which have the name Jehovah in them. All we have are translations of the Hebrew scriptures (OT) which have Jehovah as Gods name. The society admit this - see the Divine Name brochure - it actually states that there are no greek new testament manuscripts with the name in them. I think that the reason there are none is because the NT writers didnt intend to put Jehovah in there...if Jesus had emphasised Jehovah then surely that name would be maintained by Christians as a fundamental teaching of Jesus? Of course thats my speculation, but in the absence of manuscripts with Jehovah in, how can the NWT add the name? 2. They claim to add the name Jehovah into the NT where it is quoting from the OT. In the case of 1 Peter 3:15 they do not do this. The quotation in Isaiah says Jehovah of Armies, and at 1 Peter they say "Christ". Why? Because they cant put Jehovah in this instance because its too obvious that the scripture is about Christ.
I hope that gives an idea on the issue.
With regard to colossians 1:15 - 20 you will notice that the article you are referred to does not actually answer the question. The plain truth is that they added the word "other" without justification, based on their belief that Jesus is not God. There is no greek word for "other" in that section of scripture, so no amount of reasoning should prompt us to add words where they shouldnt be in the bible.
Thank you for posting this information.
The problem with many of the issues dealing with WTS doctrine and chronology etc. that you note, is that the Bible is not 100% clear about them.
For example the weight of evidence is against the idea of there having been an inclusion of the Hebrew tetragrammaton in the writings of the early Christians, but no-body knows for sure. You might say that the weight of evidence against its usage is 90%, but this allows for a 10% margin if error.
It is on these 10% margins of error that the WTS base their more eccentric intepretations. At one time most of us on this Board were convinced that the doctrines based on this 10% margin of error were actually the 'Truth', witheld from mainstream Christianity by Gods will. We felt exalted for being the ones whom God chose to identify what was true from what was false. This feeling of exclusivity gave the WTS the fuel it needed to self-perpetuate.
So weight of evidence is an important phrase Sirona. Are we 100% sure that the Hebrew tetragrammaton was not used in the C1st, No. Are we 100% sure that Acts 15 precludes the use of blood transfusions, No. Are we 100% sure that Jeruslam did not fall to the Babylonians in 607BCE, No. Is the weight of evidence against these doctrines, most definately, Yes.
'Weight of evidence' though, is a meaningless phrase to those who feel that they have an exclusive relationship with God which precludes them having to present unbiased evidence for their conclusions.
So, the bottom line is do we trust that the GB, who are responsible for WTS doctrine are being exclusively used by Christ as his 'channel of communication', or do we not trust this. It is upon this choice that lives are built and others are broken.
I many years ago lost my trust in them.
Best regards - HS
Good points. One thing I can feel sure of myself though, is that in the light of "not being sure" about whether "Jehovah" should be included in the New Testament, we should base our translations on EXISTING manuscripts. The NT existing manuscripts say "lord" or "god" so that is what we should translate. We can comment on the possibility that Gods name should be there, but not alter the bible to suit.
As you say, they believe that they have Gods spirit, so they believe they have the right to decide what to put into their bible.
With regard to Peter, the society seem to insinuate that I thought that the apostles would declare Christ as Jehovah. No, I simply think that they saw the OT being fulfilled in Christ - hence they refer to scriptures in the OT which are referring to Jehovah God and applying it to Jesus christ.Just wanted to say that I agree with your conclusion here. In my reading of the NT, it seems clear to me that this was the approach taken by Bible writers.
I am just totally shocked that they answered your questions at all, no matter how badly they answered them.
Everytime I wrote a letter, it got sent to the elders to answer my questions.
Marilyn (a.k.a. Mulan)
"No one can take advantage of you, without your permission." Ann Landers