2011 Watchtower publisher statistics with analysis

by jwfacts 220 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    Thanks Azazel, I sent a reply.

    I hope I do not appear too harsh with David. He seems very pleasant. I also understand where he is coming from, as I would have written very much the same if web forums existed when I was a starry-eyed teenage JW. In all honesty, I thought I had done thorough research. It really was an ah-ha moment when I comprehended that I only believed as I did because I had filtered all knowledge down to accepting only what was in the Watchtower publications.

    I was shocked to start reading information from other religions that was actually far more logical, and with more substance. The whole idea that anyone that does not believe Witness doctrine is "blinded by Satan" crumbled, and it was amazing to feel the wall of indoctrination falling around me. Posters on JWN like Narkissos and Leolaia knew so much more about the Bible than any JW I had ever met, GB included, and from them I came to realise that the Watchtower is like a badly written tabloid in comparision.

    David is still simply quoting off what he has been indoctrinated to believe from the Watchtower, but hopefully he will expand his research and feel the excitement of being able to think rather than recite.

  • cedars
    cedars

    Hello David

    Thanks for taking the time to offer more answers, although I notice you have yet to offer a scriptural precendent to support the Society's concept of "increasing light". As I see it, when God gives direction to his servants historically it is always right first time. That is essentially how one is to recognise a true prophet of God, by how factual his statements turn out to be. There is no room in the scriptures for saying one thing, and then needing to retract or change it.

    As far as the strip club analogy is concerned, you don't really seem to get where I'm going with it. Regardless of your initial reasons for registering and participating on this site, surely once you discover that it is predominantly frequented by so-called "false teachers" you would make every effort to avoid any further participation? That's where my analogy comes in. You have entered a building that says "Good Times Bar" or something over the entrance, and on finding out that it is a strip club, you have hung around to see what happens. I'm not advocating going to a strip club, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this site, and I'm not criticizing you for being here - in fact I welcome your presence. However, it does raise questions as to how seriously you take the direction of the Governing Body whose authority you purport to recognize.

    You also said the following:

    How do you not know that they do not communicate with other members of the anointed or even the great crowd, which they are their helpers? Because Ray Franz said so?

    No, that statement had nothing to do with Ray Franz. I actually got that information directly from the Society themselves. Please read the following quotes and check them for yourself on your Watchtower Library, or in your latest magazines.

    Watchtower, June 15th, 2009 - pages 23-24

    "Are all these anointed ones throughout the earth part of a global network that is somehow involved in revealing new spiritual truths? No. Although as a composite body the slave class is responsible for feeding the spiritual household, not all individuals of the slave class have the same responsibilities or work assignments."

    Watchtower, Aug 15th, 2011 - page 22

    "We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones."

    So again, how can the Governing Body call themselves "representatives" of a group of people that they don't talk to, and can't even identify? I understand that you have learned to automatically equate the Governing Body with the First Century apostles, but when you think about it even for a short while, the differences are glaringly obvious. Here we have 7 individuals who are self-appointed and who chose eachother, making decisions on behalf of nearly 12,000 individuals with whom they have no contact. Think about it.

    Cedars

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    One of the points you did not address is the inclusion of the word Jehovah in the New Testament, which gets almost universal condemnation from anyone with a knowledge of the Bible

    I think that's not the best argument to use. There are a couple of scholars who support the idea that the New Testament originally contained the divine name, and I for one find them persuasive. There are also many versions of the NT that use the divine name.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Slimboy, I am currently agnostic on the issue of inclusion of the Name, would you be kind enough to post who the scholars are, and if poss. where they discuss their support ?

    (If you think this is side-tracking this thread then PM me, if you can, thanks)

  • jwfacts
    jwfacts

    Slimboyfat, I think I recall you mentioning that in the past. I am interested in who does support the inclusion and their reasons, other than George Howard, who the WTS quotes, but who only presents the concept as an untested possibility.

    Regardless, the point was that the majority of people researching the Bible prior to any contact with Watchtower publications will not find the word Jehovah in the New Testament, and will find the word worship associated with Jesus, and hence will not come to the same idea about God that the Watchtower teaches. It is far more likely that anyone not believing the Trininty will come to a binitarian or modal concept of God.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Apart from George Howard, David Trobisch is the other scholar who supports the divine name in the original NT. See his book The First Edition of the New Testament. The reason he gives is that the Septuagint contained the divine name during the period the NT was composed and he views the use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviated forms of divine names) in the NT manuscrupts as a conventional practice that followed the removal of the divine name. He also explains why this makes sense with reference to a couple of passages in particular.

    Although Jason BeDuhn does not agree with using Jehovah in the NT he does argue that JW theology is the result of a simple reading of the Bible which ignores historical Christian dogma since Nicea.

    There is also quite a long list of versions of the NT that use Jehovah or some other form of the divine name. Since you're Australian, one that springs to mind is the translation of the New Testament by the former Bishop of Brisbane J W C Wand, which uses Jehovah a few times in OT quotations.

    There is a list of some of the NT versions that use the divine name here:

    www.4yhwh.com/Bible-Files/jhvh.html

  • cedars
    cedars

    David, if you're out there it would be great to hear back from you on those points I mentioned.

    Look forward to you getting back in touch.

    Take care,

    Cedars

  • scooterdoody
    scooterdoody

    I was released from the bondages of their lies decades ago. Praise God!

    I can't believe there are still people inside the organization that believe the crap that is being presented as legitimate. It amazes me that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can't see through the manipulation and distortion of information.

  • steve2
    steve2

    When the view is trotted out that people who read the Bible by itself end up agreeing with basic JW teachings, I realize how unscholarly the conclusion is. For starters, the Watchtower itself lifted many of its basic teachings from religious groups that predated it: Adventists (often referred to as Millerites), Unitarians and their close cousin in religion, The Christadelphians.

    It is a nonsense to say that JWs have opened the eyes of readers to the basic teachings of the Bible. It really does depend on what you mean by "basic" or the lens you use. How any intelligent reader can get passed the foul-stench of genocide in the Old Testament or the pro-slavery mentality of the New staggers me. People can leaf through scores of utter blood-drenched maniacal chapters of primitive-minded "inspired"madness of so-called "Holy" Scripture and find one or two slim passages that appear all sweetness and light. Talk about selective attention. The most hysterically over used line of believers goes something like this, "Now I realize what the Bible really teaches". Yeah right.

  • Scott77
    Scott77

    most Witlesses aren't bright enough to research the Watchtower online. Porn, video games, and money are bigger threats.
    metatron

    I could not agree anymore.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit