Posts by Journeyman

27

Examples of Watchtower flawed interpretation of Bible passages?

by Vanderhoven7 in

asking jehovah’s witnesses to interpret specific passages is a great way to demonstrate their interpretive abuse.

got any clear examples?.

Journeyman

Of course, there are a number of teachings from the GB which I have my doubts about. But for me, there are also a lot of teachings from the JWs which are possible, but not dogmatically the only way of interpreting matters.

For some on here though, no JW interpretation of a scripture is ever acceptable and they "move heaven and earth" to prove everything they teach has to be wrong, probably to validate their own rejection of JWs.

A lot of Trinitarians tend to take that view too. They refuse to accept the wealth of scriptures that indicate the trinity is a wrong, coming up with increasingly far-fetched or stretched "explanations" to negate every verse that contradicts the trinity, or at least suggests that it may not be a correct understanding.

It's that kind of "counter-dogmatism" that I don't like either, any more than the GB's own dogmatic view that they themselves are right in everything.

For example, Biahi says:

My Bible, The Living Bible, has a footnote for that scripture. It says, “this scripture reflects Solomon’s discourage opinion at the time. It does not reflect God’s truth on the matter.”

What makes that quote in the LB any more valid an interpretation than the NWT using Ecclesiastes 9:5? The writers/translators of the LB have simply asserted that.

The JWs have at least developed a doctrine based on numerous scriptures regarding the dead which is internally consistent. Is it 100% absolutely correct? I don't know - I'm not God, and I've never died and been resurrected to "test" the idea. But it is no more or less valid that simply saying "yeah well, what Solomon said doesn't reflect God's truth".

Also, regarding this:

I wonder how they interpret the fact that we can grieve the Holy Spirit?

In Genesis, God says to Cain that his brother's blood is "crying out" to Him. Does that mean blood is a Person? https://biblehub.com/genesis/4-10.htm

Also, the Holy Spirit is said to be "poured out" in numerous Scriptures. Can a creature or person be "poured out" to a crowd of people? Two examples:https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/39-29.htm , https://biblehub.com/acts/10-45.htm

This article has more under the heading "Impersonal attributes of the Holy Spirit": https://www.ucg.org/learn/bible-study-aids/who-god/who-god/holy-spirit-not-person

So assuming personification from a phrase like "grieve the spirit" is, while superficially understandable, not necessarily correct. You need to read the rest of the context of how the Spirit is used, described and/or appears in heavenly vision, etc, throughout scripture. And of how God himself speaks and acts. For me, doing so makes it clear the Holy Spirit is something God uses, not a separate, independently thinking and acting entity equal to God and Jesus.

33

Do JWs see the org falling apart?

by ThomasDam21 in

i have been away from the jw cult for many years.

i don't have any family i talk to that are in it.

so i don't know if the jws as a whole are seeing the cult fall apart or if they or the majority of them are head in the sand la la la the end is neigh.

Journeyman

So yes, the question is valid

I'm not saying the question is not valid, and of course a child's question is perfectly reasonable because they (usually) want to learn and understand.

I was more perplexed by the supposed answer from the mother which, in JW terms, is completely "wrong". It's not even slightly off, as perhaps being a bit confused or missing some detail - like you say, a lot of JWs can't properly explain their own beliefs, especially in recent years. But no, it's the complete opposite of what they teach about the soul and death - as any glance at pretty much any "bible study" book they've produced in the last 50 years or more would show. It's basic "JW 101", as Americans might say - along with "what's God's name" or "who wrote the Bible".

You yourself almost kind of summed up the JW belief in the last paragraph in simple terms that could be used to explain to a child, when you said "God converts their [...]spirit into something that then goes to heaven". I would perhaps reword that as "God recreates/re-forms the person in the heavens as a spirit - with their memories, personality, etc" - to make it clearer from the JW theology perspective that strictly speaking they don't believe anything "goes up to" heaven - that humans don't have any eternal floating part of them that drifts off, and they don't take their physical body with them.

According to JW theology, what "returns to God" is the ability for a man to live again, the "breath" that He gives a human at the start of their life. In the Insight volume on Soul, it's explained as:
Eccl. 12:7: “Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit [or, life-force; Hebrew, ruʹach] itself returns to the true God who gave it.” [...] The text does not mean that at death the spirit travels all the way to the personal presence of God; rather, any prospect for the person to live again rests with God. In similar usage, we may say that, if required payments are not made by the buyer of a piece of property, the property “returns” to its owner.) (KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy all here render ruʹach as “spirit.” NAB reads “life breath.”)

That's also linked with Psalm 146:4 "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." (KJV) - so there is no thinking, no consciousness, that lives on separately. Only if God recreates the man - as either a spirit being in heaven or back as a material fleshly being on earth - will he live and have consciousness again.

Any JW who was even half paying attention to what they were studying should be able to answer that in brief at least, along the lines of the sentence you said, even if they can't go into detail about nephesh or ruach or whatever (which would not be necessary or meaningful to a young child anyway). But for a JW to say "a soul was inserted" that could then "go up to" heaven I just thought was... very odd.

Apologies, I'm not intending to derail this topic, but Vanderhoven did ask me to elaborate and I thought Anony Mous's comments were also worth following up on.

80

Flee to the Mountains......What Mountains?

by liam in

may 2025 study article 21 seek the city that will remain.

what i remember was, when you see the romans, flee to the mountains.

now the wt is saying that's not enough.

Journeyman

In past decades wasn’t WT teaching that the “modern fulfillment” of this fleeing to the mountains was Fleeing ,to, taking refuge in God’s Kingdom - the Mountain of Jehovah (Micah 4 :1,2)..?

Yes,, I believe that's right.

There are two types of reliance on "mountains" the WT org has mentioned. In both cases, "mountains" are claimed to be associated with earthly organisations. On the one hand, God's Kingdom - and the earthly expression of it in the form of the JW Org and its congregations - are seen by WT to be the "mountains" that "righteous ones" would flee to.

In contrast, the "worldly ones" would call upon human "mountains" to try to protect them in the end - any sort of human organisations separated and alienated from God. Obviously, those "mountains" would not provide the needed protection. They use Revelation 6:15-17 for this:
Then the kings of the earth, the high officials, the military commanders, the rich, the strong, every slave, and every free person hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. And they keep saying to the mountains and to the rocks: “Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

Isaiah 2:2 was also used to contrast these two types of mountains: "“And it must occur in the final part of the days that the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains" God's organisation supposedly represented by JW Org becomes "established above" other organisations. One WT from the 1980s I just looked up said:
"The symbolic mountain of Jehovah’s pure worship is becoming more prominent, so that meek persons can see how it contrasts with the sectarian “hills” and “mountains” of Satan’s permissive world. They “get out” of false religion and flee in growing numbers to Jehovah’s mountain of worship"

That's how I've always understood the Org to interpret these verses and the symbolism of "mountains".

It doesn't surprise me that they're "refining" this to increase emphasis on listening to and obeying the GB (to know which "mountains" to flee to), since that's the way everything is going now in their teaching.

33

Do JWs see the org falling apart?

by ThomasDam21 in

i have been away from the jw cult for many years.

i don't have any family i talk to that are in it.

so i don't know if the jws as a whole are seeing the cult fall apart or if they or the majority of them are head in the sand la la la the end is neigh.

Journeyman

The simple answer to the OP's question is that, no, no JWs who are even slightly PIMI are likely to imagine the Org falling apart. They may think it will be attacked ("persecuted") - in fact, if they're "real" JWs they should be expecting that - but they would never dream that it might be caused to break up or falter, because they believe unquestioningly that Jehovah God and Jesus Christ are 100% with the organisation.

As mentioned earlier, most are probably unaware of the looming legal cases against the Org in many countries, but even if they knew of them they would just say it's part of the anticipated attack on them by Satan's system.

However, for reasons that have been discussed before, I think that's arrogance and hubris. In fact, as time goes by I expect the Org to be caused to totter, if not collapse altogether, certainly in its current form. That's because I don't think it is "fit for purpose" nor is it properly doing God's will, and all the evidence from the past is that anyone claiming to serve God but who proves false to that has to be "disciplined" by him, and the more their falsehood is the result of arrogance, stubbornness or even blasphemy, the more severe is the discipline that God provides.

The other way of looking at it which many exJWs would say is, it's just a group of men anyway, in which case, yes, it's even more likely to just be broken up or to fall apart sooner or later. No organisation stands forever.

Vander, when I was a child, a sister at our hall died... etc

That whole account sounds very weird, since none of what you describe has been part of JW beliefs for decades, if at all. "Inserting a soul" into the body? JWs don't even believe the "soul" is something that can be "inserted" or can "fly up to heaven". And there is nothing in JW theology that is problematic about seeing a fleshly body in front of you after someone has died, not even if they're supposedly one of the 144,000. Sorry, I'm confused...

What can happen with many JWs is they simply mistakenly substitute the concept of "soul" with "spirit". By that I mean, they might talk about someone becoming a spirit being or being "raised a spirit" as Paul mentioned (as in the case of one of the anointed) but actually picture it in a similar way to what someone who believes in immortality of the soul thinks of when they talk about the "soul ascending".

It's actually very hard for us as humans to comprehend "nothingness", so holding onto some idea of a "part" that continues on and "goes out" of our body is very persuasive and can easily become ingrained, especially if the JW has had a previous upbringing of believing in an immortal soul too.

3124

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

This case could (and probably will) sit there until 2028 as the court will not close for failure to prosecute until 6 years from the date of the incident.

Ah, thanks for that update, Kim. I figur3ed it would be more likely years not months before any open case would be automatically closed, since most jurisdictions allow plenty of time (and even cases that are progressing can take a long time for documents and depositions to be made, etc). But there has to be a finite time, to prevent vexatious claims. Six years is very generous really.

However, the longer goes by, the more clear it is that the whole thing is dead in the water. With almost a year since any updates from the "plaintiff", and him apparently dodging being served papers by the court, the trail and the impetus have gone cold long ago. It's highly unlikely he will have the motivation, information or money required to keep going.

He's presumably just going to leave it to lie dormant then when it eventually expires, he will claim he was waiting on the court for something and the "glacially slow" Croatian system failed him. (Although SIX years is plenty of time to present a full case if there was one). Classic Lloyd move: do as little as possible then blame others for failure at the end.

21

Oral and Anal Sex flip flop? March 2025 Announcements and Reminders

by ukpimo in

just in.

a jaw dropping announcements and reminders for elders this month.

how can you serve as an elder and believe this organization is spirit directed after reading this letter?.

Journeyman

It's amazing how long they agonized over how to deal with something that could have been easily dealt with by minding their own business and staying out of the marital bedroom.

Well said.

"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19:6/Mark 10:9 (NIV)

How much more intimate could two people become than "one flesh"? So of who else's business is it what sexual acts they mutually agree to engage in with each other? "No one", the verse clearly shows.

Were they 'scriptural principles' being expressed in the 1983 article or the 2025 article?

Good question. I don't know about the 1983 article - I haven't looked it up - but I would imagine it was more proscriptive back then. The recent 2025 article actually says nothing particularly helpful anyway. There's just a footnote that says:

The Bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean. A Christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor Jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience. Generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage.

Hardly much help to elders really. Better to just say something like "don't involve the elders in this aspect of your marriage unless there is an issue of non-consent", as there's not much "advice" they can - or should - provide in general. And of course from a secular viewpoint, if non-consensual sex acts in marriage are illegal in the country (as they are now in most advanced nations) that should be a matter for authorities trained in supporting victims of sex crime, not a bunch of unqualified "elders".

The only points I can make out that might provide the basis for advice are:

Paragraph 9: "Being sexually demeaning. Some husbands pressure their wife to engage in sexual acts that are demeaning and that make her feel unclean or unloved." That's linked to Ephesians 5 about husbands loving their wives as their own bodies, and

Paragraph 17: "He will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience. He too will strive to maintain a clean conscience before Jehovah." The verse used there is Acts 24:16 about keeping a clean conscience.

It's true there is a significant strand of porn these days which focuses on degradation and humiliation, and the extreme forms of BDSM would seem to fall into that - many "worldly" authorities too are worried about the rise of those, for example with schoolkids now viewing stuff like that and thinking that's normal sexual activity. But beyond that, it doesn't really rule anything out. Certainly not "typical" oral or anal sex.

3124

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

The above link includes this:

Which according to Google translates as:

THE COURSE OF THE PROCEDURE

Date of initiation of procedure - 02.05.2022
Date of last award - 13.06.2024 - judge Ljuba Crnković
Date of the decision -
Date of shipment -
Date of archiving -
Term of keeping files -

(Edited due to accidental double post)

3124

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars (continued)

by Simon in

jw
friends

uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.

Journeyman

The link for his case in the Croatian legal system is dead.

Interesting! According to this page, there were still no updates since the last submission and the change of judge in the case last summer?

https://e-predmet.pravosudje.hr/predmet?sud=5044&upisnik=K&predmet=252&godina=2022

10

Why GB Distorts the Story of Job

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/lpwusxk8ckc?si=d4nb1ciwccql8dox.

a man, like new gb member jody jodele, dripping in wealth—$20,000 rolex, freemasonry ring, cushy life in upstate new york—pontificating about job’s suffering.

it’s a fair jab to question how someone so detached from hardship might approach a story of utter loss.

Journeyman

In Job 1:6-12, Satan, not God, initiates the challenge. God’s response—“Have you considered my servant Job?”—isn’t a gleeful setup for a torture session but a recognition of Job’s existing faithfulness (Job 1:8). God isn’t itching to test someone; He’s responding to Satan’s accusation that Job’s righteousness is merely a byproduct of his prosperity (Job 1:9-10). God’s permission for the test (Job 1:12, 2:6) comes with limits—first sparing Job’s life, then his body (initially)—showing restraint, not relish.

To be fair, that's always how the JWs historically taught the account, at least back in the far-off days before Herd, Lett and the rest of GB2.0/2,5 anyway!

I hadn't watched the full Jody Jedele talk but my curiousity was piqued so just now I checked it out. I didn't detect at all that Jelene's talk "portrays God as a 'nasty, vindictive, exacting' deity" or that Job should've suffered more or anything like that.

However, I did note he made one glaring error about Job at about 0:50, which in doing so undermines Job's faithful example.

Job did not "blame" or "criticise" Jehovah as Jedele claims. The account at Job 2:10 clearly says Job did not sin with his lips in saying what he did - including the statement that he believed God was the source of his suffering - so that proves that Job wasn't "blaming" God in his heart, he simply didn't understand the full picture, as raymond frantz pointed out (and the JWs have always traditionally taught).

Job's error that needed correcting was over-defending himself NOT "criticising" Jehovah.

Jedele even contradicts himself in this point when he admits around the 2:30 mark that Job "loved Jehovah and didn't want to break his integrity".

I've noticed this a lot in recent talks by GB members. They make direct statements about Bible characters or events that are contradicted by scriptures and even by their own comments later on, betraying a shallowness of thought, preparation and research that the older generation of speakers never demonstrated.

The speculatory bit near the end about how and why Jehovah used Job's name rather than waiting until Moses(? Not sure even of what the relevance of that is supposed to be) is odd too and - in line with what I mentioned above - completely out of kilter with the account in Job as far as I can see - but the end result point about letting Jehovah train us as humans and to counter Satan's attacks is still broadly a valid one, it could just have been made in a much more scripturally consistent way in line with the actual account.

It really does seem these days that the current crop of GB like to add their own pet ideas and comments or illustrations even when they don't fit the scriptures at all. Seems symptomatic of a greater or lesser form of egotism to me. Obviously, Splane is one of the worst for this kind of Biblical "ad-libbing", but Lett has often been guilty of flights of fancy too, and others. They've all clearly forgotten (or disregarded) the admonition at Revelation 22:18, 19 about not adding to, or taking away, anything in scripture!

44

New GB member Judy Jedele critizing Job's "humility" while wearing $20,000 Rolex, gold cuff links, coloured suit. Incredible!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

i swear, you can't make this shit up!

for years and years growing up in this cult, i had to constantly hear from my parents, from the stage, in the literature, about "keeping your eye simple", not being "materialistic", not "having a showy display of one's wealth.

" of course, this never seemed to apply to the wealthy business owning elduhzzzz who ran and lorded it out over the congregations, but i digress.

Journeyman

This raises a good point which, IMO, validates once again actual Bible principles vs the WT interpretation and implementation of them.

The Bible makes it clear that it is the underlying materialism itself - not the valuable objects - that are the problem. In doing so, it encourages Christians to actually go to the root of the issue and deal with it there. If you do not desire these things in the first place, then you won't be put in a compromising situation.

Now look at the GB. They become caught in the following dilemma while recommending others should "keep your eye simple" and not pursue "material things":

1) You purchase expensive items for yourself because you desire them.

Do you wear/use them while preaching to the "flock" live or on broadcasts? If so, you appear at best insensitive to the relative poverty of your followers, and at worst, a hypocrite.

Do you decide NOT to wear/use them while preaching so as not to offend others? Then again, you appear a hypocrite. If you are seen wearing/using items you are not prepared to wear/use in front of followers, people will inevitably ask "why?"

2) You are given expensive items as gifts and keep them for yourself because you desire them.

Do you wear/use them? If so, you again risk appearing greedy and hypocritical. People will rightly wonder why such items haven't been "donated" for the worldwide work, as many others are expected to do with their "valuable things".

Either way, choosing to wear/use such items any time, wherever they came from, compromises your position.

What if you decide to keep the valuable items without wearing/using them? What's the point? What motive would you have except to take them out sometimes and gloat over the fact you have them? Would it not be better to sell them if you are not going to use them for the purpose they are intended?

There are also other risks. Having those expensive items around you becomes all about image and vanity. It also means you become afraid of losing them, perhaps to the extent of being mentally dependent on having them. Like Gollum with his "precious" ring!

So if you are supposed to be advocates for "keeping your eye simple", the only solution to putting yourself in that situation is to take the original scriptural line and not desire what is materially excessive in the first place. As WingCommander said, you can wear a watch that does the job and still has a good inherent value without it being a massively expensive status symbol. Likewise with the kind of clothes you wear, car you drive, and so on.

As Tonus added, it's about the motive and the example you set (two things which again, they are constantly counselling the R&F about) and it always looks bad when the GB appear like this while promoting "self-sacrifice" and "modesty" and showing pictures of the elderly and little children putting their last pennies in a contribution box.