JWs and higher educ.

[edteach]

I used to be in a cult called Jehovahs witnesses, The constantly tell their people to not seek higher education, The end of the world is to close you know. I hate this cult it does so much damage to people.

[Susan Gerbic]

I always wondered why they bothered doing anything long term at all anyway. Why invest money? Why eat healthy? Why exercise or get medical checkups?

I asked one of my employees why...and she said that you don't know when the end of the world is coming.

As far as the higher education is concerned I would think it has nothing to do with the end of the world is coming soon, but everything to do with the more educated you are the more likely you are going to leave us, kinda thing.

What made you leave the JW's if you don't mind telling?

Susan

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I had a couple of JWs at the door yesterday. You'll be pleased to know that, after multiple failures, they have ceased predicting the end of the World. "We made a mistake and don't do it any more." :confused:

[rjh01]

Of course the end of the world is coming. It is predicated it would happen in our lifetime. Pity it was written in the Bible almost 2,000 years ago. The word 'our' means people living almost 2,000 years ago.

[krelnik]

I used to be in a cult called Jehovahs witnesses, The constantly tell their people to not seek higher education....

Was there a final straw that convinced you to leave? Or was it simply a slow build up over time?

I'm interested in how people find their way away from "woo". There's always something to be learned about how to teach others to think more critically about what they invest their time in.

--Tim Farley

[Susan Gerbic]

Edteach seems to have disappeared. I noticed that he started a bunch of threads at the same time as this one.


Tim - I, like you am interested in understanding what finally makes these people wake up to the nonsense of their woo beliefs. Guess we won't be hearing about Edteach's experiences.


Susan

[Tokenconservative]

Edteach seems to have disappeared. I noticed that he started a bunch of threads at the same time as this one.


Tim - I, like you am interested in understanding what finally makes these people wake up to the nonsense of their woo beliefs. Guess we won't be hearing about Edteach's experiences.


Susan

How is it much different from what Global Warmingists believe?

Tokie

[TuftedPuffin]

How is it much different from what Global Warmingists believe?

Tokie

Interestingly enough, it's the "Global Warmingists" who primarily believe that global warming can be stopped. Only those who believe that global warming is not caused by human action believe it to be totally unstoppable.

[edteach]

I was a JW for 30 years, I was raised into it the religion and did not know there was anything else.
It took the internet and people who were into to it and researched it out for me to start to question it.
The JWs are a cult plain and simple, I could go on for hours about all that is wrong with this religion, but it would only be interesting to people who were in it. Kind of like when you know some idiot and you try to talk about it to someone who does not know the person.

[ravdin]

I was a JW for 30 years, I was raised into it the religion and did not know there was anything else.
It took the internet and people who were into to it and researched it out for me to start to question it.
The JWs are a cult plain and simple, I could go on for hours about all that is wrong with this religion, but it would only be interesting to people who were in it. Kind of like when you know some idiot and you try to talk about it to someone who does not know the person.

Yes, but there are many more questions.

What made you change your mind about the JW?
Was it a gradual change, or was there a "final straw"?
Do you still consider yourself a Christian? Have you joined a more mainstream church?
How did your friends and family react to your decision?

[Tokenconservative]

Of course the end of the world is coming. It is predicated it would happen in our lifetime. Pity it was written in the Bible almost 2,000 years ago. The word 'our' means people living almost 2,000 years ago.

LOL!

I love people who "read the signs" and find that things going on around us today, portend the Last Days and whatnot.

There's a national radio yakker named Glenn Beck who is always going off about "I don't want to alarm anyone, but..." then telling us how "the signs" suggest the approaching Rapture and Apocolypse...just as people have done every day of every week during every month of every year for the past at least 5000 years in the West.

Somehow, though "the signs" are always pointing to "the End Times" we never actually end.

Or maybe have ended and the media was too wrapped up with Paris or Lindsay or Tom or Bradgelina to notice?

Tokie

[Leicontis]

Back on topic...
I'm rather surprised by edteach's experience. One of my close friends from high school was a Jehova's Witness, and he and I openly discussed religion and religious differences. He never struck me as being sheltered or isolated - heck, I think I had a more sheltered childhood than he did. As far as higher education, he's currently studying robotics at the graduate level. Perhaps edteach's parents and their associated faith community were a stricter group and/or the religion has changed its practices since then. I'd say the latter is unlikely, given the typically glacial pace with which most religions change anything.

[Tokenconservative]

I'm always puzzled by laments like this.

If you don't agree with the way a particular church does things....don't be a member of that church!

We have a thing in America (Europe, too) called "freedom of association" and in America, freedom FROM religion. Once you are an adult, nobody does or CAN force you to be a member of this, that or the other church, no matter how much you might whine that this, that or the other thing forces you to remain.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Back on topic...
I'm rather surprised by edteach's experience. One of my close friends from high school was a Jehova's Witness, and he and I openly discussed religion and religious differences. He never struck me as being sheltered or isolated - heck, I think I had a more sheltered childhood than he did. As far as higher education, he's currently studying robotics at the graduate level. Perhaps edteach's parents and their associated faith community were a stricter group and/or the religion has changed its practices since then. I'd say the latter is unlikely, given the typically glacial pace with which most religions change anything.

Sounds more likely to me, too. My wife's best friend is a 7th Dayer....she is pretty damned normal as far as I can tell.

And I know lots of Mormons...they seem pretty average to me, too. Now Scientologists....and Global Warmingists....yeah, not much difference, I know (both base their faith on science fiction stories), but...brrrr! Scary folks.

Tokie

[edteach]

Lets start off with the questions asked first,
What made me decide to leave, Well in the JW teachings, Jesus came to earth invisibly in 1874 and saw that Charles Taz Russell and his band of bible students in Pennsylvania were the only people on earth doing gods work, and the end of the world would come in 1914, He originally got this time from measuring the inside passageways of the pyramids of Giza, When 1914 came with only ww1 starting he thought it was the beginning of the end of the world, and changed his date from Jesus came invisibly in 1914 and got this date from a different way of calculating. He got it by counting a semi complicated time times and half a time in the bible as days for years and coming up with 2520 days or years and counting back from what he thought was the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 608 bce, he found an error that there is no 0 year and revised it to 607, this leads to one major problem, all the tablets and lines of cross referencing time lines as bible time and ours our not the same, shows that the temple was destroyed in 586 or 87, this throws their time way off and they to this day will not discuss it with their people, most JWs do not even know of this one discrepancy or the changes for the end of the world, 1874,1914,1916,1918,1925,1941,1951,1975 and the famous inside the cult "not past 2000" Now it is just "we are very close."
This is just to give you a small part of the history of JWs so I can explain why I left. When the apostles asked Jesus what will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things, he replied that "truly I tell you that this generation will by no means pass away before all these things have taken place." Now the JWs believe that this refers to the generation that saw the beginnings of the end "pangs of distress" as indicated in the bible. and that this 1914 generation would not die before all the end time beliefs had taken place. Time was running out as this generation was approaching 90 years old.
I had some reservations in the mid 90s and said if they some how change the meaning of "generation" I would leave as it would indicate to me that something was very wrong. In 95 an article came out in the watchtower that the generation of which Jesus was speaking was a contemporaneous generation and we are all part of it. So without saying it in words they kicked a hole in the wall they had backed into as an escape rout.
I left in 95.
This was the straw. since many things have happened.
It is a deep and complicated religion cult. and many people get board when talking about it. If you were not part of it you just don't care.
Now as for your friends who are going to collage or you knew in school don't let this fool you,
They are not witnesses in the respect of what we would have called People in good standing, meaning there are some who live normal lives and go to a few meetings. A true witness who goes to all 5 meetings a week and knocks on doors or as we called it goes out in "service" studies the bible and follows all the witness teaching,When you "study" the bible you do not read the bible you read on of the thousands of books printed by the watchtower society by all the live in free labor that you are encouraged to do instead of going to collage.
Then there are the 4 assemblies a year 3 two day and one 4 day assembly located around the country and world. At these assemblies there are talks and dramas, kind of like a skit about what ever the bible subject is. I can remember many many talks or dramas about not going to collage, one in particular was two kids talking about what they were going to do now that they had graduated school. one said, I am going to collage and the other said I am shoveling potato's to support my career in the pioneer service, Let me tell what being a pioneer and these people are given things and looked upon like royalty in the congregation, A pioneer is a person who goes in service knocking on doors as a job, you work what part time you need to support your real "job" knocking on doors, You have to put in 40 hours a week knocking on doors, and if you are a special pioneer you have to put in over 180 hours a month knocking.
Now all the books and pamphlets you see being given out is printed in Brooklyn NY. where the society owns many many millions of dollars of buildings, If you pioneer and are regarded as a good witness you can have the privilege [all work related things in the society are a privilege] of applying to go to their complex in Brooklyn called bethel, at bethel you are paid nothing, you are assigned a room of 10x12 to be shared by another bethelite, you are assigned a job, could be washing dishes or working on one of the press units or any number of support jobs to keep the books and pamphlets pumping out.
I have several cousins at bethel a typical 12 hour work day goes much like this, 7:30 you get up put on a coat and tie go to breakfast, unless you work on the kitchen crew then you are up early to prepare, you say a group prayer and eat, then go to your room and change for work, you do your job for your 12 hours shift then go back to your room and study for one of the many meetings to study society books.
You are also assigned to got to surrounding congregations for meetings to give them encouragement and stay the on the path.
Now This is just a glimpse of what the JWs are about, a person going to higher education would not even be looked at to go to bethel or even apply, he/she would not be allowed to be a pioneer or give talks, yes all witness in a hall give talks, not just one person as a priest would do in main stream religion.
A person who would not follow all society teachings would not be allowed to be a ministerial servant [the first level of rank in the congregation] the ranking goes like this, women are the lowest and they have not levels, men are publishers, meaning you put in the min, amount of time knocking on doors, 8 hours a month, then if you do more and show good conformity you may be given some privileges like holding the mike during the question and answer portion of the study meetings a week, or working behind the counter giving out the bulk books and pamphlets for service. then if you show great dedication you can be given the rank of ministerial servant, after years of this you can be bumped up to elder, this is as high as most go, but if you do not have children and having children is discouraged, then you may have the opportunity to be a circuit overseer which travels around a circuit, You see the system is busted up like this, you have a publishers in one congregation, with a group of elders at its head, then so many congregations are a circuit, so many circuits are a district and so on , then if you show good work as a circuit overseer than you may become a district overseer, not the top top dogs are in a closed circul, they are called the governing body, a group of 12 old men who say that they are gods chosen to direct all his earthly works, any new changes to belief or doctrine comes direct form these men in Brooklyn, they run the multi billion dollar empire from Brooklyn world wide, These men decide things like you will be disfelloshiped if you take blood to save your life, and then they changed it to only whole blood is bad, you can have some blood parts, bla bla bla, it would take me an hours to explain just this one doctrine, or things like a man and his wife could be disfellowshiped for having oral sex, or you can not have privileges or hold a position [elder or MS ] if you are caught seeing an R rated movie, these are just a few of the many many rules they live by.
Now one more to show you what a true witness lives like, not these sudo witnesses, And I took a small offence at [Maybe just your parents were strict] comment, I let it go because you just do not know.
Disfellowshiping, is when you do something that is against the rules, There are rules and then principals, a principal is like not going to see R rated movies, you can have your position removed from you or not get a position given to you and the rest of the witnesses will generally talk to you but you will not be invited over to others homes for dinner ect. Now lets say you break a rule, you took blood because your life was in danger, First off all congregations have leazion comities, they are a group of elders and MS who will act like a volunteer fire dept. if a fellow witness is known to be in a situation of needing a blood transfusion they will meet up and make a mad dash for the hospital, they stand next to you telling you to keep faithful and stand with Jehovah and do not take blood, even if it means you will die, or you kid will die, I have had a cousin loose her life in child birth because of refusing to take blood. Now lets say you give in and take the blood, you will probably be disfellowshiped,It is a bit more complicated than just breaking a rule, I has to do with attitude, combined with breaking a rule, but to keep things simple lets say you got disfellowshiped, now no one in the congregation can talk to you, not your mother, brother, sister, friends or they can be DFd for talking to you, or having a meal with you. The only time this is waived is if there is a family emergency and you had to talk to your brother lets say because your mom was in the hospital and business needed to be taken care of.
How long does this last, OK, you are DFd, you usually can not be "reinstated" before one year, you must attend most if not all meetings, come in late and sit in the back leave early so no one has to accidentally talk to you, after a year you would approach an elder and ask for a meeting to see if you can be reinstated. Once you are reinstated you can be talked to again. But for a long time you get the looks of "he/she" was DFd.
Now I hope this small glimpse into the cult will show you how controlling this group is, and that the few people you cited as being able to do this or that are by far not a witness.

As far as leave if you dont agree, well it is simple for someone like you on the outside looking in, when you have extended family and all are in the cult, and would not talk to you if you left or at least not openly it is much harder, when you are raised from a small child to be in the cult and you dont know any different [thank the internet for helping many of us] How do you just leave, mom and dad said this was gods true religion, and we are part of gods people, all others will shortly die. Your statment does not really hold water, Just leave is for people who casualy walked into the religion and looked at it and said, its not for me, those who are mentaly trapped do not have the luxury of waltzing out with no expected feelings of guilt or fear. When you are raised from birth to believe you are a bad person if you read anything critical of the society, or talks against it in any way, or even question it.
I do loose it with people, but try to understand they just dont know what they are talking about.
This religon has destroyed many familys, Since I and my wife left, my family has not talked to me, and my wife was not even called to be told her grandmother died, she found out by reading the paper, her mother and father lived 4 miles away and they have not visited for 5 years since we left the cult. This is a very normal way of treating people who leave, if you shoud still think you know what is going on and that maybe I lived in a strange congergation, This could not be farther from the truth, the society controls all congergations, even owns the property and buildings, being titled in the societys name.
All talks are given the same around the world all watchtowers are studied the same around the world, No elder or MS when giving a talk away at another congergation, can think up his own, the talk outlines are sent from brooklyn and you only have the how you want to word or phraze it. the ideas are the same world around and things are run the same world around, I have been part of congergations in michigan, Wyoming,Florida and Arkansas, and once inside the Kingdom hall, their word for church, the dress code and way things are done are identical. I was part of this cult for 30 years and there is not much any one can tell me about it that I have not seen or talked about with others who have even more experiance than I do. If you want to see a form for people who have left and things they are going through, family break ups due to leaving, or hounding by the elders to return to the fold, here is a good site.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx
This next site is randy waters, he was at bethel for 30 something years and left when he saw his fill of the cult, he now runs freeminds.com

http://www.freeminds.org/

If this is all to boring to you I understand, but if you are interested these sites will help you to pull back the curtin and see what is really behind the org.
But with all due respect do not say, that people who leave the cult are just isolated or do not know what the main stream of their religion are about, it is very insulting for people who have been or are going through hell.

[Tokenconservative]

Lets start off with the questions asked first,
What made me decide to leave, Well in the JW teachings, Jesus came to earth invisibly in 1874 and saw that Charles Taz Russell and his band of bible students in Pennsylvania were the only people on earth doing gods work, and the end of the world would come in 1914, He originally got this time from measuring the inside passageways of the pyramids of Giza, When 1914 came with only ww1 starting he thought it was the beginning of the end of the world, and changed his date from Jesus came invisibly in 1914 and got this date from a different way of calculating. He got it by counting a semi complicated time times and half a time in the bible as days for years and coming up with 2520 days or years and counting back from what he thought was the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 608 bce, he found an error that there is no 0 year and revised it to 607, this leads to one major problem, all the tablets and lines of cross referencing time lines as bible time and ours our not the same, shows that the temple was destroyed in 586 or 87, this throws their time way off and they to this day will not discuss it with their people, most JWs do not even know of this one discrepancy or the changes for the end of the world, 1874,1914,1916,1918,1925,1941,1951,1975 and the famous inside the cult "not past 2000" Now it is just "we are very close."
This is just to give you a small part of the history of JWs so I can explain why I left. When the apostles asked Jesus what will be the sign of your presence and the conclusion of the system of things, he replied that "truly I tell you that this generation will by no means pass away before all these things have taken place." Now the JWs believe that this refers to the generation that saw the beginnings of the end "pangs of distress" as indicated in the bible. and that this 1914 generation would not die before all the end time beliefs had taken place. Time was running out as this generation was approaching 90 years old.
I had some reservations in the mid 90s and said if they some how change the meaning of "generation" I would leave as it would indicate to me that something was very wrong. In 95 an article came out in the watchtower that the generation of which Jesus was speaking was a contemporaneous generation and we are all part of it. So without saying it in words they kicked a hole in the wall they had backed into as an escape rout.
I left in 95.
This was the straw. since many things have happened.
It is a deep and complicated religion cult. and many people get board when talking about it. If you were not part of it you just don't care.
Now as for your friends who are going to collage or you knew in school don't let this fool you,
They are not witnesses in the respect of what we would have called People in good standing, meaning there are some who live normal lives and go to a few meetings. A true witness who goes to all 5 meetings a week and knocks on doors or as we called it goes out in "service" studies the bible and follows all the witness teaching,When you "study" the bible you do not read the bible you read on of the thousands of books printed by the watchtower society by all the live in free labor that you are encouraged to do instead of going to collage.
Then there are the 4 assemblies a year 3 two day and one 4 day assembly located around the country and world. At these assemblies there are talks and dramas, kind of like a skit about what ever the bible subject is. I can remember many many talks or dramas about not going to collage, one in particular was two kids talking about what they were going to do now that they had graduated school. one said, I am going to collage and the other said I am shoveling potato's to support my career in the pioneer service, Let me tell what being a pioneer and these people are given things and looked upon like royalty in the congregation, A pioneer is a person who goes in service knocking on doors as a job, you work what part time you need to support your real "job" knocking on doors, You have to put in 40 hours a week knocking on doors, and if you are a special pioneer you have to put in over 180 hours a month knocking.
Now all the books and pamphlets you see being given out is printed in Brooklyn NY. where the society owns many many millions of dollars of buildings, If you pioneer and are regarded as a good witness you can have the privilege [all work related things in the society are a privilege] of applying to go to their complex in Brooklyn called bethel, at bethel you are paid nothing, you are assigned a room of 10x12 to be shared by another bethelite, you are assigned a job, could be washing dishes or working on one of the press units or any number of support jobs to keep the books and pamphlets pumping out.
I have several cousins at bethel a typical 12 hour work day goes much like this, 7:30 you get up put on a coat and tie go to breakfast, unless you work on the kitchen crew then you are up early to prepare, you say a group prayer and eat, then go to your room and change for work, you do your job for your 12 hours shift then go back to your room and study for one of the many meetings to study society books.
You are also assigned to got to surrounding congregations for meetings to give them encouragement and stay the on the path.
Now This is just a glimpse of what the JWs are about, a person going to higher education would not even be looked at to go to bethel or even apply, he/she would not be allowed to be a pioneer or give talks, yes all witness in a hall give talks, not just one person as a priest would do in main stream religion.
A person who would not follow all society teachings would not be allowed to be a ministerial servant [the first level of rank in the congregation] the ranking goes like this, women are the lowest and they have not levels, men are publishers, meaning you put in the min, amount of time knocking on doors, 8 hours a month, then if you do more and show good conformity you may be given some privileges like holding the mike during the question and answer portion of the study meetings a week, or working behind the counter giving out the bulk books and pamphlets for service. then if you show great dedication you can be given the rank of ministerial servant, after years of this you can be bumped up to elder, this is as high as most go, but if you do not have children and having children is discouraged, then you may have the opportunity to be a circuit overseer which travels around a circuit, You see the system is busted up like this, you have a publishers in one congregation, with a group of elders at its head, then so many congregations are a circuit, so many circuits are a district and so on , then if you show good work as a circuit overseer than you may become a district overseer, not the top top dogs are in a closed circul, they are called the governing body, a group of 12 old men who say that they are gods chosen to direct all his earthly works, any new changes to belief or doctrine comes direct form these men in Brooklyn, they run the multi billion dollar empire from Brooklyn world wide, These men decide things like you will be disfelloshiped if you take blood to save your life, and then they changed it to only whole blood is bad, you can have some blood parts, bla bla bla, it would take me an hours to explain just this one doctrine, or things like a man and his wife could be disfellowshiped for having oral sex, or you can not have privileges or hold a position [elder or MS ] if you are caught seeing an R rated movie, these are just a few of the many many rules they live by.
Now one more to show you what a true witness lives like, not these sudo witnesses, And I took a small offence at [Maybe just your parents were strict] comment, I let it go because you just do not know.
Disfellowshiping, is when you do something that is against the rules, There are rules and then principals, a principal is like not going to see R rated movies, you can have your position removed from you or not get a position given to you and the rest of the witnesses will generally talk to you but you will not be invited over to others homes for dinner ect. Now lets say you break a rule, you took blood because your life was in danger, First off all congregations have leazion comities, they are a group of elders and MS who will act like a volunteer fire dept. if a fellow witness is known to be in a situation of needing a blood transfusion they will meet up and make a mad dash for the hospital, they stand next to you telling you to keep faithful and stand with Jehovah and do not take blood, even if it means you will die, or you kid will die, I have had a cousin loose her life in child birth because of refusing to take blood. Now lets say you give in and take the blood, you will probably be disfellowshiped,It is a bit more complicated than just breaking a rule, I has to do with attitude, combined with breaking a rule, but to keep things simple lets say you got disfellowshiped, now no one in the congregation can talk to you, not your mother, brother, sister, friends or they can be DFd for talking to you, or having a meal with you. The only time this is waived is if there is a family emergency and you had to talk to your brother lets say because your mom was in the hospital and business needed to be taken care of.
How long does this last, OK, you are DFd, you usually can not be "reinstated" before one year, you must attend most if not all meetings, come in late and sit in the back leave early so no one has to accidentally talk to you, after a year you would approach an elder and ask for a meeting to see if you can be reinstated. Once you are reinstated you can be talked to again. But for a long time you get the looks of "he/she" was DFd.
Now I hope this small glimpse into the cult will show you how controlling this group is, and that the few people you cited as being able to do this or that are by far not a witness.

As far as leave if you dont agree, well it is simple for someone like you on the outside looking in, when you have extended family and all are in the cult, and would not talk to you if you left or at least not openly it is much harder, when you are raised from a small child to be in the cult and you dont know any different [thank the internet for helping many of us] How do you just leave, mom and dad said this was gods true religion, and we are part of gods people, all others will shortly die. Your statment does not really hold water, Just leave is for people who casualy walked into the religion and looked at it and said, its not for me, those who are mentaly trapped do not have the luxury of waltzing out with no expected feelings of guilt or fear. When you are raised from birth to believe you are a bad person if you read anything critical of the society, or talks against it in any way, or even question it.
I do loose it with people, but try to understand they just dont know what they are talking about.
This religon has destroyed many familys, Since I and my wife left, my family has not talked to me, and my wife was not even called to be told her grandmother died, she found out by reading the paper, her mother and father lived 4 miles away and they have not visited for 5 years since we left the cult. This is a very normal way of treating people who leave, if you shoud still think you know what is going on and that maybe I lived in a strange congergation, This could not be farther from the truth, the society controls all congergations, even owns the property and buildings, being titled in the societys name.
All talks are given the same around the world all watchtowers are studied the same around the world, No elder or MS when giving a talk away at another congergation, can think up his own, the talk outlines are sent from brooklyn and you only have the how you want to word or phraze it. the ideas are the same world around and things are run the same world around, I have been part of congergations in michigan, Wyoming,Florida and Arkansas, and once inside the Kingdom hall, their word for church, the dress code and way things are done are identical. I was part of this cult for 30 years and there is not much any one can tell me about it that I have not seen or talked about with others who have even more experiance than I do. If you want to see a form for people who have left and things they are going through, family break ups due to leaving, or hounding by the elders to return to the fold, here is a good site.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx
This next site is randy waters, he was at bethel for 30 something years and left when he saw his fill of the cult, he now runs freeminds.com

http://www.freeminds.org/

If this is all to boring to you I understand, but if you are interested these sites will help you to pull back the curtin and see what is really behind the org.
But with all due respect do not say, that people who leave the cult are just isolated or do not know what the main stream of their religion are about, it is very insulting for people who have been or are going through hell.

Ah.

And therefore, what?

Tokie

[ExMinister]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that, edteach. I had no idea about any of that and maybe I'll be a little less irritated when the JWs come knocking, knowing that some of them have been raised this way and what a complicated type of indoctrination they receive. I will also have new respect for anyone who manages to unentangle themselves from this group.

Just curious, why are people like Leicontis' friend less indoctrinated? When they attend meetings, do they not feel the same pressure to conform? Is there some information that is only revealed to people after they have "proved" themselves over time?

I'm also curious, do you practice a different religion now, or has this experience soured you on religion completely? And do you think you would ever be tempted to go back to it, with so much of your family still involved?

Thanks for sharing your story on the forum. JW actually seems to have more in common with Scientology than with other traditional Christian religions, or even Mormonism. What a nightmare it must be to try to get out of something like this.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Thanks for taking the time to type out your story, edteach. Don't worry about boring your audience - those who are not interested generally won't read or respond. Those - like me - who like inside info, will appreciate it.

That said:

Ah.

And therefore, what?

Tokie

You know, TC, not every post on a message board such as this is meant as a blow in some sort of cage match. IOW, not everything is "fightin' words".

But for one thing, it is a counterexample to this statement of yours:

Once you are an adult, nobody does or CAN force you to be a member of this, that or the other church, no matter how much you might whine that this, that or the other thing forces you to remain.

Coercion does exist and is a factor in a lot of things. Sometimes in religion, too.

And I know lots of Mormons...they seem pretty average to me, too. Now Scientologists....and Global Warmingists....yeah, not much difference, I know (both base their faith on science fiction stories), but...brrrr! Scary folks.

(bolding mine)

I'm with you. I prefer religion to be based on high fantasy stories as well. Anything with elves...

[supercorgi]

If this is all to boring to you I understand, but if you are interested these sites will help you to pull back the curtin and see what is really behind the org.
But with all due respect do not say, that people who leave the cult are just isolated or do not know what the main stream of their religion are about, it is very insulting for people who have been or are going through hell.

Not boring at all, in fact quite fascinating. I never really knew much about JWs except that they believed that the world would end soon and that they were really annoying when they came to the door.

I always thought of it as just another flavor of Christianity and had no idea how cultish it was. Thanks for sharing.

[Susan Gerbic]

Thanks EdTeach for your insiders story. I can almost feel the pain you must be experiencing. The one bright light I can see is that you and your wife BOTH left. I think it is more common for one to lose faith and the other to remain, in turn tearing up the family unit. Do you have children? I suppose if you do they are young children, and they aren't seeing their grandparents? How very sad.

Did your wife also leave for the same reason you did?

Sorry so many questions, but we don't often see a JW that has lost faith and moved onto these forums.

I hadn't heard about the working for free stuff, sounds a lot like the Scientologists and the Mormons.

Now I wish I had a JW to talk to...they rarely come to our door these days. If they did, what would you suggest would be the best questions I would ask? Something that might make them think. Do they still knock on your door? And what do you tell them?

Thanks, Susan

[edteach]

Thanks for the posts, My wife felt like I did and had many questions that we were told to "wait on Jehovah" which is another way of saying shut up and don't ask questions.
One of the funny things I tell the JWs when they approach me now is why would you be disfellowshiped for teaching any thing that C.T. Russell taught in 1914? Every thing has been changed and if Jesus came invisibly to earth in 1914 and saw that he was the only one on earth who had it right, why did the people who became his successor have to change his teachings?
This coupled with the questions on why the use secular time lines to get part of the date system for the release of the Jews by Cyrus the great to rebuild the temple but reject the same time lines when calculating the destruction by the king of Babylon in 586-7 This one send them for a loop.
As far as my religious belief, I have become an atheist, Well today I am an atheist, some days I am more agnostic, Evolution some days just does not explained things other days it seem quite reasonable.
I just bought Julia Sweeney's "letting go of god" and she asked herself the same question, Can I go back to church just for the association? I agree with her answer and have thought about this years ago. No I could not live a lie so that I could associate with people.
I never did go to college and now regret it, I have done ok as I saved and worked many long hours. I have a brother that got out just in time to go get his assoc. deg. and become a nurse. First in our family to get a higher ed.
The religion has so many rules it would take a month to go through them all, from what you can or should wear, like no color shirts when giving talks, some congregations over look this, to no beards, you can have a mustache but if you have a beard than no talks or privileges for you.
The kind of sex you can have with your wife, Sodomy would be grounds for disfellowhiping, either the wife or the husband would have to turn themselves in, and I have seen this, there is a rule that is weird and causes many problems they try to sweep under the rug. It is the two or three person rule, To take action against a member, Lets say one member saw another smoking a cigar, a disfellowshiping offence, and went to an elder and told, the elder got another elder to go visit you and ask if it was true, you said, NO I never. they could take no action as they need 2 or three witnesses to the offence. So here is some the problems this creates, You have wrong sex with your wife, she gets all guilt feeling and goes to an elder, the elder gets another elder and comes to you, you say no way she is lying, the elders will take action against your wife but can not do anything to you, this is the minor problem, the big problem is that when a child molester does something to a child, they tell their parents and they go to an elder, the elder gets another and visits the child molester, the molester says, heck no I never touched the kid, You are told you can not go to the police, and you have to treat the person who touched your child with all the respect of member in good standing because there are not 2 or more witnesses, There is a former elder his name escapes me at the moment, but he founded the "silent lambs" movement, it is a place where molested witnesses can go to get help. He was of course DFd for doing this.
You can not do anything against the society or put it in a bad light.
I once had a cousin, who busted into a storage shed and stole a 1/2 case of explosives and blasting caps, I saw them hooking 9volt battery's up to the caps and watching them blow holes in the ground, I am a live and let live but I quietly called the cops and gave them the scoop. One of the local elders found out and I was called on the rug for going outside of the org. I was told to never go to the police about anyone in the org. I pretended not to have known and was off the hook.
I learned how to use the rules to my benefit, like the rule of "a member can not work for another church" but if you work for someone else and they have you work on a church it is now up to you if you feel you can work on a "place of false religion" So I was always working for some one else other than the church.
This is interesting, The person who took over from Russell was named Judge Rutherford, He was not a judge he just took the rank. He was an alcoholic and ran the org. during the 18th amend. to the cons. probation,He had Canadian whiskey ran across to NY bethel, the brothers were worried he was going to make a problem, they had a 5000 sf mansion built in san Diego cal. sent him there because "he was ill " and the weather was good for him. They had two 16 cyl, caddy's at the property, the only other people who had these cars were al jolson and Marlina detric, the property was titled to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because in 1925 they were going to come back to life and need a place to stay to usher in the end of the world. and the judge was just care taker until they came back, except they did not come back. The society quietly sold the property years later.
I have talked with many old time witnesses who had never heard of the property named bethsharim or its sister property a farm near bethsharim named bethshan.
The young ones of today's org. have no idea of all the history of the org. they follow, or why older ones seem to hate modern medicine, If you have read any of the 30 witness published books it used to be rule that a member could not take a vaccination, It was called horse puss, Aluminum was the devils metal, The list is very long, but the religion is over 100 years old and was a fringe one at that. the beginnings can be traced to the millerite movement, Miller was a revolutionary war vet. who thought he could decipher when the world was going to end based on the bible. He said it would come in 1846-47, a few hundred people followed him and did not sow corps and sold their farms waiting for Jesus, When 1848 came and no Jesus it became known as the great disappointment, Barber and Russell followed the teaching of miller and barber went on to form the 7th day Adventist, and Russell went on to found the JWs.
Even though I do not believe in the bible as anything more than a group of book written by people who were trying to understand the world around them, I still love the history of religion. The books "the book your church does not want you to read" and Christianity the greatest story ever sold are very good reading for any one interested in the history of the great western religion.

[Susan Gerbic]

Wow even more stuff I didn't know.

Could you give me a simpler question to ask my JW's when they come to the door?

Susan

[edteach]

I would just ask why if they are gods only people on earth today and god uses the watchtower bible and track society as his only mouth piece, have they never been correct in any of their end of the world dates. To pin down a JW is nearly impossible. They are much like the scientoligists, if you want to believe nothing will change your mind. If you simply do not want them to knock at your door you can ask to be put on the do not call list. they will write you on the map card they have of your area and your house will be put as do not call for six months, after that they usualy do a check back to see if you still feel the same way or if you have moved and a new house owner is there. the only job of the whole org. it to make converts. other then the beliefe system scientoligy is a lot like the JWs.

[Tokenconservative]

Thanks for taking the time to type out your story, edteach. Don't worry about boring your audience - those who are not interested generally won't read or respond. Those - like me - who like inside info, will appreciate it.

That said:

You know, TC, not every post on a message board such as this is meant as a blow in some sort of cage match. IOW, not everything is "fightin' words".

But for one thing, it is a counterexample to this statement of yours:

Coercion does exist and is a factor in a lot of things. Sometimes in religion, too.

(bolding mine)

I'm with you. I prefer religion to be based on high fantasy stories as well. Anything with elves...

The OP essentially expressed the asseertion that JW's (all) are so indoctrinated in their faith that they cannot seek higher education.

Outside the most extreme circumstances, anyone who has left the parental home, and has not come into contact with the outside world where such coercion is not in effect, indeed has so very serious psyho-emotional problems. The answer is, of course, leave that church/sect/cult, whatever and seek some other route.

Included in this answer is NOT the typical response to religion by zealous atheists (there are a lot of those in here): eschew and indeed HATE all religion because some do stuff like this.

Most sects of Christianity do not do this, though most people cannot tell this because they rely on slacious and extreme stories in a decidedly (and self-admitted) left-advocacy media that hates Christianity even more than most zealot atheists.

That said:

You can't beat having SF writers devise your dogma. I mean, look at Dianetics as not so much a "bible" but rather a SF story. The plotline is a little dull, but had the author applied a little more of his extraordinary story-telling skills to it, it would've made a pretty good SF (more like science fantasy, tho) story. That said, he took the route he did and that proved the better course. He made a reasonably good living grinding out his novels, but became very well-off with his religion.

Just as he planned.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I would just ask why if they are gods only people on earth today and god uses the watchtower bible and track society as his only mouth piece, have they never been correct in any of their end of the world dates. To pin down a JW is nearly impossible. They are much like the scientoligists, if you want to believe nothing will change your mind. If you simply do not want them to knock at your door you can ask to be put on the do not call list. they will write you on the map card they have of your area and your house will be put as do not call for six months, after that they usualy do a check back to see if you still feel the same way or if you have moved and a new house owner is there. the only job of the whole org. it to make converts. other then the beliefe system scientoligy is a lot like the JWs.

We only rarely get these folks in our neighborhood.

The way I deal with them is--no, I do not loose the hounds--is to politely thank them, assure them that my family is alreadyChristian, and very happy with the church we currently attend, and that yes, I'd be happy to look over their materials, but that no, there's no point in their calling again.

Now, when leftist politicians are carpetbombing my neighborhood in election years, I have a...different approach.

Tokie

[Leicontis]

To be fair, the JW are far from the only religious group to protect child molesters, nor are they the largest or most mainstream.

That would be Catholicism.

I happen to live in one of the most hard-hit archdioceses (Boston), where the policy for pedophile priests was "When people start complaining, don't let the cops find out - move him to a parish that hasn't heard about him yet." This would be why the victims and their families won such a huge settlement against the church.

[articulett]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (tokenconservative), edteach. Every party has it's pooper...

The information is fascinating. Congratulation on thinking your way out. I hope you plant the seeds of thought for other kids who have been brainwashed to think that faith is a means of finding "truth". It makes you convinced you have a truth while being blind to your own ignorance and fearful of questioning.

[ThatSoundAgain]

The OP essentially expressed the asseertion that JW's (all) are so indoctrinated in their faith that they cannot seek higher education.

Outside the most extreme circumstances, anyone who has left the parental home, and has not come into contact with the outside world where such coercion is not in effect, indeed has so very serious psyho-emotional problems. The answer is, of course, leave that church/sect/cult, whatever and seek some other route.

Well, I disagree, except with your quantification of "all". We don't know that. But:

An 18-20 year-old in the situation edteach describes, contemplating to go to college would face the prospect of never talking to their parents, siblings, many friends and extended family again. That's essentially their whole network, gone overnight!

So yes, it is possible to leave the cult, but it's not anywhere near as easy as you make it out to be.


You can't beat having SF writers devise your dogma. I mean, look at Dianetics as not so much a "bible" but rather a SF story. The plotline is a little dull, but had the author applied a little more of his extraordinary story-telling skills to it, it would've made a pretty good SF (more like science fantasy, tho) story. That said, he took the route he did and that proved the better course. He made a reasonably good living grinding out his novels, but became very well-off with his religion.

Just as he planned.

Tokie

Well, if you want dull, just try to read through all the begatting in the Old Testament in one sitting.

[articulett]

I don't understand how Tokie can conclude that other religions are "made up" and "mythical" without concluding that his own stories are about as likely to be true.

In any case, I'm sure edteach et. al. are glad that they aren't afflicted without meme infusion he's afflicted with. I know I am. Can you imagine such a personality teaching your child. "shutter".

[Tokenconservative]

To be fair, the JW are far from the only religious group to protect child molesters, nor are they the largest or most mainstream.

That would be Catholicism.

I happen to live in one of the most hard-hit archdioceses (Boston), where the policy for pedophile priests was "When people start complaining, don't let the cops find out - move him to a parish that hasn't heard about him yet." This would be why the victims and their families won such a huge settlement against the church.

I believe they did that all over the nation, and probably the world. I would guess this is far worse in countries where the Church has even more power than it does in the US, and we are not hearing about it.

I guess the only answer is to find that giant spider at the vatican and get some things changed.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, I disagree, except with your quantification of "all". We don't know that. But:

An 18-20 year-old in the situation edteach describes, contemplating to go to college would face the prospect of never talking to their parents, siblings, many friends and extended family again. That's essentially their whole network, gone overnight!

So yes, it is possible to leave the cult, but it's not anywhere near as easy as you make it out to be.

Well, if you want dull, just try to read through all the begatting in the Old Testament in one sitting.

1. I agree. That's a tough row to hoe. But I did not say it would be "easy." I just said nobody in America forces adults (not legally, anyway) to remain in a religion--or leave it for that matter.

2. All that fornicating is "dull." You seem not to know what the Internet was invented for....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I don't understand how Tokie can conclude that other religions are "made up" and "mythical" without concluding that his own stories are about as likely to be true.

In any case, I'm sure edteach et. al. are glad that they aren't afflicted without meme infusion he's afflicted with. I know I am. Can you imagine such a personality teaching your child. "shutter".

I love when "rational" secularists operate on pure assumption.

Please, Arty...tell me what my beliefs are? I misremember....

Oh, and throw in some more of those nify terms you learned this semester in college. That always spices things up!

Tokie

[elaine]

Hey edteach and WELCOME!

Congrats on leaving "The Truth"! It's hard, but it's so much easier (I've found) to live an honest life.

I also was raised as a Witness, but I got out in my early 20's. My Mom converted when I was a baby. I haven't seen her in years.

Regarding the higher education thing, it's my understanding they've been less restrictive over the last few years. The practical thing of folks needing to make money and such.

I remember asking A LOT of questions growing up, especially when they would read from the scriptures and their interpretation just didn't make sense with what the scriptures were saying. I remember being told to just accept what I was being told, I would understand it later. I finally understood that I was been fed crap :).

And really, folks around here truly are interested in these histories. We're skeptics, we ask questions and we want to learn.

P.S. In case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't take long for threads to go off on tangents around here.

[edteach]

I am building a new home and do not have internet as of yet so I am using the local coffee shop for my on line needs. Elaine, you are partly correct in the so called "easing" of higher education, but it is the public faint. where they say in a public way that they do not stop their people from getting a higer education, and then say that they can get just enough to get a job and use for expample going to a trade school to learn to be an electriction, then all the talks still push for you to become a pioneer full time.
So they have not really changed. And you are on the money that they do not like questions unless they are the kind an idiot would ask, like why are JWs gods people. or some such question, But never ask about their history or the failed predictions of the end of the world, and forget about the piramid scandle, or the wheat scandle, or Russell getting a divorce, or any of the hundreds of bones in their closet. Or the problem with all the gays at bethal. BTW, I was not trying to say that the JWs have a lock on child molestation, but it is just another birck in the wall that makes up all the things that are horrible about this cult. They use mind control and presure to keep you in line, I cant tell you how many people I know that still go to meetings but live a secret life so they can talk to their family.
There is something very wrong with any group of people who tell you not to talk to you family because they do not think like you. They use the scripture "do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers" to push this thinking through, and when paul said not to eat a meal or say a greating with one who has left the faith.
The big thing I can not stand about this cult is the way they come into homes, find lonley people and get them to come into the cult, then they tell them to stop celebrating christmas, all holidays, birthdays, and association with family who are not believers.
I had a partner in my business who had not talked to his brother for 24 years because his brother had married a nonJW and left the cult. I asked him if he would ever feel guilt for not talking to his family, he said his brother was the one who left him, I said your borther left the cult, you left your brother. We split up 6 months later. As for peoples posts, I do not pay attention to people who have opinions on the way to do things when they have not walked the line.
When you have walked a mile in some ones shoes then you can have an opinion on the way things should be done.
When you are raised in the "truth" as elaine said, and this is just one of the thousands of catch frazes they have, "are you one of the friends, do you listen to mother[the society],do you speak the pure language, are you in the truth,do you appreciate meat in due season," just to name a few. it is not easy to just up and leave if all your family will treat you like an outcast, but if you came into the religion and have extended family who support you if you leave it is not a big hurddle to jump. I had to move from my boy hood home because I ran into the problem that all the non JWs thought I was still one and the JWs started to get the idea that I was not coming back and I was called an apostate, the name given to any one who leaves the "truth" and does not show he /she wants to come back.

[Susan Gerbic]

EdTeach, I love reading your story. Could you please make paragraphs so my tired eyes could follow the story better. My eyes keep following the line before or after and I have to re-read what you wrote.

Thanks for going the extra effort for us by going to a cafe to write.

They use mind control and presure to keep you in line, I cant tell you how many people I know that still go to meetings but live a secret life so they can talk to their family.

This reminds me of a story my sister in Ohio tells about the Amish. She said she knows of one Amish woman who got divorced, the leader of their group said she was never to eat at the family table again. So they pulled a small table up next to the big family table and put a tablecloth over all the tables so you can't tell they are really separate tables. The divorced woman ate at her smaller table alongside the rest of the family.

My sister has lots of stories about the Amish. She tends to fib so I don't know how much to believe.

Susan

[Tokenconservative]

I do not pay attention to people who have opinions on the way to do things when they have not walked the line.
When you have walked a mile in some ones shoes then you can have an opinion on the way things should be done.
When you are raised in the "truth" as elaine said, and this is just one of the thousands of catch frazes they have, "are you one of the friends, do you listen to mother[the society],do you speak the pure language, are you in the truth,do you appreciate meat in due season," just to name a few. it is not easy to just up and leave if all your family will treat you like an outcast, but if you came into the religion and have extended family who support you if you leave it is not a big hurddle to jump. I had to move from my boy hood home because I ran into the problem that all the non JWs thought I was still one and the JWs started to get the idea that I was not coming back and I was called an apostate, the name given to any one who leaves the "truth" and does not show he /she wants to come back.

LOL. You got nothing on me, son.

We are a nation of "victims," being "victimized" by one person or group or hell, ask any lib, the entire "conservative" culture all the time.

Watch Oprah.

We all have our particular crosses to bear, some heavier than others. The assumption that because someone tells you to grow a pair and move on it's because why, they've certainly never dealt with any issues in their life, is at least as bad as someone assuming it's "easy" to just up an leave your cult.

Ignoring them is typically the best approach anyone unable (still) to deal with reality should deal with realty. Instead, find kindred souls who'll pat your hand and cry with you.

Who knows...maybe they'll know a producer down to Oprah!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

EdTeach, I love reading your story. Could you please make paragraphs so my tired eyes could follow the story better. My eyes keep following the line before or after and I have to re-read what you wrote.

Thanks for going the extra effort for us by going to a cafe to write.



This reminds me of a story my sister in Ohio tells about the Amish. She said she knows of one Amish woman who got divorced, the leader of their group said she was never to eat at the family table again. So they pulled a small table up next to the big family table and put a tablecloth over all the tables so you can't tell they are really separate tables. The divorced woman ate at her smaller table alongside the rest of the family.

My sister has lots of stories about the Amish. She tends to fib so I don't know how much to believe.

Susan

This is a far more difficult situation than EdTeach's. These people tend to be nearly completely isolated in their little enclaves, whereas JWs are out there on our front stoops every day.

This is called "shunning" in the Amish community and it's simply a way of enforcing conformity to the community's ways.

But even the Amish in the most isolated communities know that OTHER communities exist...it's not really like that movie, "The Village."

Tokie

[edteach]

As I said above I do not converse with people who do not have a clue of what they are talking about. My post is for those who are or have been a JW, or just interested in the story behind the front.
I have always noticed also how these type of people always seem to have the last word in a post. They seem to be starving for any kind of attention and try to get it by being neg. Oh well we all are in a point of growing mature some just farther behind others.
SG8 The amish are much like the JWs, They isolate their people by removing the whole comunity from the out side world.

The JWs do the same by telling their people that they are not to associate with any one not a JW, They are not to have dinner with anyone not a fellow JW.

We are told that when we are in school we are not to be part of any functions after school, not partys,sports is right out. No band,No friends out side of the cult.


I can remember growing up we lived in a small town of 500 people and it was not until grade 6 another JW family with kids my age moved in.
We were isolated as the amish and they to do the shunning thing we just call it DFing.

I would have to say the JWs are a cross between the sciontoligst and the amish.
In france the government has called them a dangerous cult and has a special tax on them to the tune of 53 million, they are fighting it and we were told when I was still in, that if every person a JW at the time gave an extra 5$ it would cover the tax if they had to pay.

It truley makes me glad to see people interested in learning about this cult. Mostly because they hid behind this Every one hates us and we are just a loving bunch of good hearted people who want to do good for others crap.Nothing is farther from the turth, they only have one thing in mind and that is to convert to the cult. This is what every meeting is for, we even used to do stage skits where we would have two people one act as a home owner called a house holder and the other a JW knocking and do different ways of getting around the closing the door in our face.

As with all cults they are what I call the kramer, they are discusting but you cant look away.

[Susan Gerbic]

That must have been awful living in a small town as a JW! How did you participate in church functions, was there a nearby place?

Funny you say that everyone hates JW's or at least that's how it felt to you. Being an atheist it seems like we are the most hated group. Gays are even ranking better than atheists.

From what I can see the Amish are a big business. The non-Amish (called English) are always talking bad about the special treatment the Amish receive. Most Amish families (near Millersberg, OHIO) are very wealthy, and that just pisses the English off more and more. BUT the town receives tons of tourist dollars because of the Amish. The tax revenue they make off Amish hand made goods are also impressive. Also Amish do not join the government groups so you won't see them asking for a hand-out for medicare or welfare or ect.... so the people living near the Amish love and hate them.



Thanks for the more readable paragraphs. My eyes are happy!

Susan

[ixolite]

One of the funny things I tell the JWs when they approach me now is why would you be disfellowshiped for teaching any thing that C.T. Russell taught in 1914?
Do they still have the rule that forbids members to read anything from the Watchtower society which is older than 5 years?

(I myself never have been a JW, but a friend of mine is. Luckily she's not a good JW.:p)

[Juustin]

This made for an interesting read. My in-laws are all JWs; my wife was 16 when we met (and not yet baptised). She was at the point where they were pressing her pretty hard to be baptised, and she was having her doubts. Then she met me, and she didn't simply take on my feelings on JWs/religion in general, but it did at least give her an outsider's perspective. She now identifies herself as Agnostic generally,and she was never baptised.

We did have to hide out relationship for about a year and a half. Eventually I met her family, and besides disagreeing on their religious views, they're good people. I get along with everyone in her family and they've always been good to me as in-laws. They do seem to be more moderate than some people I've heard of though. I'd like to at least let myself think I've influenced them in some small way. I have no desire to convert everyone I know to my own way of thinking; but I'm happy to think I've at least shown them that once you get to know people who are "worldly", it doesn't mean they're bad or immoral people. It's also taught me that not everyone who belongs to a religion that most people would view as "cultish" are crazy. it's simply a cycle. You're raised in something, it's all you know, it becomes hard after 18 years of only knowing one way of life to simply say "maybe it's all wrong".

What's awkward is she still is friends with her cousins and old friends. They're all nice kids too, and I get along with them. The only time it gets weird is when you're in a room with 8 of them and someone on tv mentions evolution and they start saying how it's silly that anyone can believe that. I'm usually in no mood to try to combat a room full of groupthink.

[edteach]

Yes, justin, Many JWs associate with relitives that are not fellow JWs, but it is on the QT, they do not publicly tell others about it as it is frowned on by the elders and MS.
As you said when there are other JWs around they change the way the do things, there is a public face and a private face.
As with all cults they rank and file are afraid of punishment if they go against the cult.
And yes it is still a big very big nono to read anyting that is critical of the society.
The do not even encourage reading anyting that is not society printed, saying from the stage of the halls "would it not be better to spend your time reading the food[society printed material] that Jehovah has lovingly provided for us?"

[UnrepentantSinner]

edteach, thanks for sharing your story and the details about JW.

If you want an interesting story of an escape from Scientology, check out Dan Garvin. He spoke at TAM1 about how he spent 20+ years working his way up eventually making it into Sea Org but when they revealed Xenu and all that to him he just left.

[Foolmewunz]

Hey, welcome Edteach (and kudos for a nice and gentle pwning of Tokie)!

Interesting stuff. I work with a very intelligent, bright, and inquisitive JW in my office. I had no idea The Truth had gotten as far as Turkmenistan, but that's where she picked it up (she joined up - no family members are Witnesses).

I say she's very intelligent, bright, and inquisitive... but should've added, "except when it comes to matters of faith". I'm born Jewish, raised Jewish and Catholic (mom's family v. dad's family) and dabbled in most of the Protestant religions when I was in my early teens, looking for somewhere to "belong", and finally a confirmed atheist by the time I was about 16. We have great running debates on all the variations of the bible, but she only falls back on the Watchtower-published variations and interpretations.

She's told me many of the things you mentioned, but of course she's far from Bethel. There seems to be a kind of JW-Lite circulating in some areas.

Thanx for sharing with us.

[UnrepentantSinner]

A little tangent about Seventh Day Adventists which should not be confused with JWs since they pass Nicean muster when it comes to offshoot denominations vs. cultish or heretical sects (for Protestantism that's mainly JWs and Mormons).

For those of you not familiar with modern Creationism (and I suggest Numbers' excellent book The Creationists if you're not), the roots of it are in Seventh Day Adventism and in the writings of George McReady Price.

Through a Reality TV mockery site I became friendly with a woman who had been raised SDA and married to a man who really was into the religion. She asked me once to detail counterarguments to the "America is a Christian nation BS" that she'd been fed growing up. We didn't discuss evolution much in chat, but I made her aware of Price and the SDA influence on modern Creationism that many mainstream Protestants weren't even aware of.

She has an MBA from Case Western and she's very intelligent and is serious about learning all those things her upbrining didn't tell her about and more importantly is doing simlarly with her kids. She was proud of her son one night during a ghost hunter show when he turned to her and said it was a load of crap.

I know there are atheist orthodoxy people who have joined this forum recently confusing it for an extention of AA or FFRF, but do not underestimate the power of simply talking to people who are religious - even if they are in mildly or even very kooky religions - about topics like science, evolution and skepticism and leaving their kooky religious beliefs off the table while you work on them regarding things like Creationism, ghosts, UFOs or AltMed.

Making the individual think critically (and perhaps having them pass that on to their children) is more important than telling said individual they are delusional, crazy or child abusers because they are religious.

[Radrook]

I consider Catholicism and Protestantism serious heretical-cultish deviations from first-century Christianity. In contrast, I find the biblically based moral teachings and expectations of Jehovah's Witnesses to be far more in harmony with what was originally taught back then then these so-called orthodox sects.Mormons also deviate from first century Christianity too much for my taste

IMHO of course.

BTW

Not looking, seeking, or willing to participate in heated debates about religion. Just giving my opinion-that's all. Also, since the subject has strayed from education theme, shouldn't this thread be relocated to the religion forum?

[ponderingturtle]

I know there are atheist orthodoxy people who have joined this forum recently confusing it for an extention of AA or FFRF, but do not underestimate the power of simply talking to people who are religious - even if they are in mildly or even very kooky religions - about topics like science, evolution and skepticism and leaving their kooky religious beliefs off the table while you work on them regarding things like Creationism, ghosts, UFOs or AltMed.

Skepticism can not speak to creationism as a whole only to creation science. If a creationist has beliefs that account for a total lack of evidence supporting those beliefs they are fine as a skeptic.

It is when they make claims about there being physical evidence for the flood instead of leaving it as an entirely supernatural event that they come into problems.

[Henners]

Skepticism can not speak to creationism as a whole only to creation science.

You seem to be saying that it's perfectly valid to be anti-reality as long as that anti-realityness doesn't claim to have a scientific basis?

I cannot see the distinction that you are trying to make.

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to be saying that it's perfectly valid to be anti-reality as long as that anti-realityness doesn't claim to have a scientific basis?

I cannot see the distinction that you are trying to make.

How is saying that there is supernaturally contrived evidence against the real events something that can be dealt with at all with science? It is a belief that there is no way to support or refute in any fashion. In that it is just like any theistic position that does not make claims that can be refuted.

[fishbob]

I think he is saying that it is OK to have fantasy based beliefs as long as one recognizes the fantasy. Trouble starts with denial or falsification of reality in support of the fantasy.

ETA: Sorry for butting in.

[ponderingturtle]

I think he is saying that it is OK to have fantasy based beliefs as long as one recognizes the fantasy. Trouble starts with denial or falsification of reality in support of the fantasy.

More or less. It is that you can not simply categorize beliefs in ways most people want to. There are plenty of beliefs that can with minor restating be either a belief that can not be proven or disproven or one that is disproven.

Someone claiming that the physical evidence supports a young earth creationist position is clearly just wrong.

But if you believe in supernatural cover up and substitution of evidence of an old earth, that is not objectively distinct from say a deist position, and a deist position is a perfect example of the sort of position that US was arguing to many people here rail against to the detriment of their real goals.

[krelnik]

do not underestimate the power of simply talking to people who are religious - even if they are in mildly or even very kooky religions - about topics like science, evolution and skepticism and leaving their kooky religious beliefs off the table while you work on them regarding things like Creationism, ghosts, UFOs or AltMed.

Making the individual think critically (and perhaps having them pass that on to their children) is more important than telling said individual they are delusional, crazy or child abusers because they are religious.

Hear, hear!

Very well put.

--Tim Farley

[UnrepentantSinner]

Skepticism can not speak to creationism as a whole only to creation science. If a creationist has beliefs that account for a total lack of evidence supporting those beliefs they are fine as a skeptic.

It is when they make claims about there being physical evidence for the flood instead of leaving it as an entirely supernatural event that they come into problems.

Agreed, I used a capital C on Creationist as shorthand for YECism. I should probably start using YEC explicitly in the future.

[ponderingturtle]

Agreed, I used a capital C on Creationist as shorthand for YECism. I should probably start using YEC explicitly in the future.

I was talking about Young Earth Creationism. There is no difference between that and a deist position if you have a supernatural cover up of the evidence and replacing it with evidence for an old earth.

There are no facts that dispute this idea, it is just the idea of god or satan so intentionally misleading people to that extent is aesthetically unpleasing to many people and not what they want in a divine being. But it is no more incompatible with skepticism than any other unsupported belief.

It is the YEC believers who claim that the real evidence supports them that are truly in a different class than say deists.

That is what got me, there is hypocrisy in this very statement
know there are atheist orthodoxy people who have joined this forum recently confusing it for an extention of AA or FFRF, but do not underestimate the power of simply talking to people who are religious - even if they are in mildly or even very kooky religions - about topics like science, evolution and skepticism and leaving their kooky religious beliefs off the table while you work on them regarding things like Creationism, ghosts, UFOs or AltMed

Because you are treating all beliefs in certain things the same. AltMed sure that is something that if true should always produce some testable prediction and can be disproven. But UFO's, ghosts or creationism that all depends on the exact way the belief is framed as to if it is something that can be shown to be incorrect or just be no different from a kooky religious belief.

[UnrepentantSinner]

PT, we're going to have to agree to one more degree of disagreement then because I don't put AltMed, UFOs or, say, Cryptozoology or even some forms of PSI like telekenesis in the same category with ghosts, Creationism (meaning YECism) or whether a deity exists or not because I conisider the former group to be paranormal and if we could get some evidence, like water retaining "memory", alien technology, a bigfoot or even someone being able to move stuff with brain power, there would be some, eventually, natural explanation for it. That is things that are within the perview of the scientific method.

I just don't see that being the case for ghosts, small c creationism - and I include TEs in this group, or whether deities exist. Capital C Creationism, be it in it's rehashed 7th Day Adventist theology derived from George McReedy Price or from kooks like Hovind, Ham, Gish, etc. has been utterly and completely falsified. As a weak atheist I just don't see how I'm supposed to falsify small c creationism other than with anti-apologetics I find as questionable as I find apologetics.

As always, your atheist mileage may vary. :)

[ponderingturtle]

PT, we're going to have to agree to one more degree of disagreement then because I don't put AltMed, UFOs or, say, Cryptozoology or even some forms of PSI like telekenesis in the same category with ghosts, Creationism (meaning YECism) or whether a deity exists or not because I conisider the former group to be paranormal and if we could get some evidence, like water retaining "memory", alien technology, a bigfoot or even someone being able to move stuff with brain power, there would be some, eventually, natural explanation for it. That is things that are within the perview of the scientific method.

I just don't see that being the case for ghosts, small c creationism - and I include TEs in this group, or whether deities exist. Capital C Creationism, be it in it's rehashed 7th Day Adventist theology derived from George McReedy Price or from kooks like Hovind, Ham, Gish, etc. has been utterly and completely falsified. As a weak atheist I just don't see how I'm supposed to falsify small c creationism other than with anti-apologetics I find as questionable as I find apologetics.

As always, your atheist mileage may vary. :)

But you are again ignoreing those who belive in a creation 6000 years ago, but think god or satan hid the evidence for that and planted all this false evidence for an old earth. THat is not the belief of Hovind and Ham they believe that the evidence supports them and can be shown to be wrong. But the specifics matter.

[Fizzer]

An 18-20 year-old in the situation edteach describes, contemplating to go to college would face the prospect of never talking to their parents, siblings, many friends and extended family again. That's essentially their whole network, gone overnight!


A JW would not be disfellowshipped for going to college. I know many JWs with college degrees, some of which are Ministerial Servants or Elders.

[Fizzer]

Do they still have the rule that forbids members to read anything from the Watchtower society which is older than 5 years?

(I myself never have been a JW, but a friend of mine is. Luckily she's not a good JW.:p)


There is no such rule.
In fact there's a CD-ROM produced each year that has all the various publications going back several decades.

[Pyrts]

To be fair, the JW are far from the only religious group to protect child molesters, nor are they the largest or most mainstream.

That would be Catholicism.

Well, there's also the Mormons with their scandals and let's not forget the multiple Protestant denominations. There are many cases where a pastor leaves (and his wife knows why) and he shows up again in a new church to abuse children and/or women.

However, because the membership in individual denominations is much smaller than the total membership of the Catholic Church, we seldom hear a fuss or lawsuit about these.

[UnrepentantSinner]

But you are again ignoreing those who belive in a creation 6000 years ago, but think god or satan hid the evidence for that and planted all this false evidence for an old earth. THat is not the belief of Hovind and Ham they believe that the evidence supports them and can be shown to be wrong. But the specifics matter.

No I'm not because I lump them in with "C" Creationists. They're YECs in deed even if they try and deny it in name. There's a crazy - and I'm not using hyperbole, he's like mad-scientist crazy - guy on Christianforums who tries to claim the Universe and Earth is 13.7/4.3 billion years old and was created that way 6,000 years ago. He's been confronted with the logical and theological problems with his, what amounts to, Omphalos argument for two years and just keeps on repeating his same crazy claims.

He can try and claim he has a different argument from YECs, but ultimately him and Gappers are in the same bed together because they say Biblical claims trump our "interpretation" of reality. Even OECs like Hugh Ross, while accepting an ancient Universe and Earth try and pull a DOCesque conflation of a literal Genesis and what science tells us about the Universe, Earth and life on it.

I differentiate "c" creationists who are TEs because most of them accept standard Cosmology, standard Astrophysics, standard optical Physics, standard Geology and standard Biology - including Common ancestry and even up to Adam being an archetype or metaphore for when humans achieved sentience as we know it today.

Those TEs are nothing like the YECs, Gappers, OECs who believe in a recent, non-evolutionary humanity, or funky hybridizers like that Omphalos arguer and whether they believe in YHVH/Jesus being hands off or involved in evolution (like Behe'esque evolution) they can't be called deist "c" creationists in the dame was classical deists are theologically.

As I noted above, I think our disagreement is a matter of degrees and perhaps semantics rather than polar opposition. :)

[Juustin]

Has anyone noticed the JWs are shifting their stance on evolution a bit? When my wife and I were dating as teens, her parents heard I believed in evolution, and arranged for me to get a copy of "Life, How Did We Get Here?" and I read it a bit at the time. In all honesty, I wasn't too into science when I was younger, aside from taking it in school. So the book didn't do much for me one way or the other.

Now, after understanding more about biology, I found it in my house, and I can't believe they would even give it to anyone. It doesn't even try to address the science of it, it just simply quote mines to show that scientists don't really believe in evolution anymore. (Some gems: "Most scientists today agree that Lucy was just a chimpanzee"; "Most scientists today agree that Neanderthals were just humans with arthritis"; "Most scientists today realize Archeopteryx was just a bird").

Everyone is free to believe whatever they want as a religion, I respect that. I just don't know what they were thinking when they made that book; that people who knew anything about science were going to think something other than "Is this book aimed at 5th graders?"

Now on their website, you can find this article: http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609/article_01.htm

Read the "Are Jehovah's Witnesses Creationists?" part at the bottom. While not really saying what they think, it seems to be shying away from Creationism (or at least trying to distance themselves from the image Creationists have).

Also, there's this article: http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609a/article_01.htm

It basically states that the Bible is vague enough to still be supported by science. If science says the Universe is 15 billion years old and Earth is over 4 billion, you have to remember that a "day" to God can be any amount of time, so Genesis is still correct. As far as evolution, it states that the Bible says "animals reproduce according to their kind", but it doesn't say what a "kind" is. So while they admit they don't believe in evolution, they don't specify what amount of evolution they would still consider "within a kind".

[Radrook]

It basically states that the Bible is vague enough to still be supported by science"

Your statement constitutes a misrepresentation of what JWs believe. Ask any Witness and he will tell you that their belief in harmony between science and the Bible is not based on biblical vagueness. Specific examples are always provided when illustrating that harmony both in public meetings and in their literature. Neither are they attempting to bring the Bible into more harmony with evolution. That would be contrary to what the Witnesses believe about evolution itself. That it is a baseless unscientific speculation, sustained and perpetuated via biased manipulation and subsequent misinterpretation of data which is then offered up as supporting evidence. So in view of this, the statement about kind can oinly be viewed as a simple clarification and not the all encompassing evolution-permitting concept you
believe it indicates.


BTW

You are confusing the preparatory earth creative days with the indefinite time period immediately preceding them.

[Fizzer]

You are confusing the preparatory earth creative days with the indefinite time period immediately preceding them.

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but JW's do not believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and they do not believe that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days.

[Radrook]

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but JW's do not believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and they do not believe that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24 hour days.


Agreed! They view each day as seven thousand years duration. The time period preceding the first earth-preparatory seven-thousand-year-long day permits the billions-of-years-old universe concept.

[Fizzer]

Agreed! They view each day as seven thousand years duration. The time period preceding the first earth-preparatory seven-thousand-year-long day permits the billions-of-years-old universe concept.


As seen here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
there is no definite time period for each creation day
Is a day in the Bible always literally 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.—2 Peter 3:8.

[ponderingturtle]

No I'm not because I lump them in with "C" Creationists. They're YECs in deed even if they try and deny it in name. There's a crazy - and I'm not using hyperbole, he's like mad-scientist crazy - guy on Christianforums who tries to claim the Universe and Earth is 13.7/4.3 billion years old and was created that way 6,000 years ago. He's been confronted with the logical and theological problems with his, what amounts to, Omphalos argument for two years and just keeps on repeating his same crazy claims.

Just because an idea is ridiculous does not mean it is falsifiable. This idea is not falsifiable and can not be disproven. It is like a non intervening god in that respect.

He can try and claim he has a different argument from YECs, but ultimately him and Gappers are in the same bed together because they say Biblical claims trump our "interpretation" of reality. Even OECs like Hugh Ross, while accepting an ancient Universe and Earth try and pull a DOCesque conflation of a literal Genesis and what science tells us about the Universe, Earth and life on it.

I differentiate "c" creationists who are TEs because most of them accept standard Cosmology, standard Astrophysics, standard optical Physics, standard Geology and standard Biology - including Common ancestry and even up to Adam being an archetype or metaphore for when humans achieved sentience as we know it today.

But you are not differentiating them based on their evidential claims You think any YEC must think that the physical evidence supports them, now most do, and are thus wrong, but what about say that Phd student in astronomy, he worked in a scientific world but believed in YEC, but as long as he makes no claims of evidence how do you refute him?

You are basing your difference on doctrine not on claims.

[Radrook]

As seen here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
there is no definite time period for each creation day

Please note that I am not basing my statements on one solitary article but on a thorough intimate knowledge of the organization and its teachings. Please note also that the article allows for an interpretation of the creative days as being not just 24 hours, or one thousand, but thousands of years long each.

Actually, seven thousand years per creative day concept is based on the duration of the seventh day of rest which is still in progress and which is calculated to terminate at the seventh thousand year when all earth will have been transformed into a paradise. This forms the basis for the JW conviction that we are indeed in the last days and that the thousand year reign of Christ is soon to commence when the sixth-thousand year of the seven-thousand year day of rest ends. This seven-thousand-year day concept is what led to the 1975 expectancy.

*** Public Address by Bro. Fred W. Franz in early 1975 in Australia ***

And now we are living in this seventh creative, uh, day, of Jehovah God. And the question arises therefore, how far along in this seventh creative day are we?

Now we know that, uh, that this seventh creative day, being, uh, seven Millenium in length, it can therefore be divided up into, uh, seven periods of one thousand years each.

This belief is not unique to JWs

From Bible chronology it can be determined that the seventh creative day is 7,000 years in duration and culminating with the 1,000 years of restoration.

Although some might prefer the assumption that each creative day is of varying lengths covering aeons of time, it seems logical to conclude that the creation week consists of 7 days that are all uniform in length. There are independent scriptural lines of reasoning that indicate the creation week would total 49,000 years—ample time for God’s miraculous yet complex creation work.

http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/evol_4.htm

[edteach]

The JWs believe that the earth could be many thousands of years old, that a day to god is not a 24 hour day, they believe that man has been on earth 6000 years as of 1975 which is where the end of the world came in at that date.
As far as Darwin they believe that there is no evidence to support such a theory.
They use and twist quotes from others to try to support this belief.

Among the JWs when I was in we used to wonder if they would change their stand on things like blood, birthdays, higher ed. ect.
They never have, they just dig in deeper.
When things fall apart for their teachings they blame it off on the members for reading to much into the teaching.
They did this in 1975 when they were told that this would be an "appropriate" time for the end of the world and that one should not be putting time and money into higher ed, homes and having children because this would only slow you down when the end came, many moved to the country, I lived in north Michigan and my father in law was one who quit General Motors with only 10 more years needed to have a retirement, to live in the country and wait for the end.
When it did not come they said that some over zealous members jumped ahead of Jehovah.

Just like a cult, blame the members when things go wrong. LOL.
They still do this and the last date set was 2000 when they said it was possible but not very likely that this "system of things" as they call it would go past this date.
Now it is "we are very close to the end.
My mother was not supposed to go to school before the end, she was not going to have enough time to get married or have children [she had 4]. I would not graduate school,I made fun of people preparing to go to college and now I am the stupid one.
I would not get married or have time to have children, I am now 46 and the world is still chugging along.
All the wrong predictions and people still follow.
I was one and can tell you I owe a lot to the internet and the giants who studied and put all the information on the net to inform those of the JW movement that did not know what was behind the Curtin

[Radrook]

You seem to be a victim of persons who didn't truly understand what they were being taught and went to unchristian extremes based on their misconceptions. I did that too once and it was because I really didn't understand what I was being taught and had a tendency toward fanatical conduct at that time. Others who were hearing the identical info and had made the same formal commitment were living a very normal lives. Me? I had to go for the whole hog. Which meant that I had to write my own agenda which was wayyyyy off in left field.

Some individuals, during certain facets of their lives are that way. Incapable of receiving info without adding their own idiosyncratic twist to it. That is sad since it generates a world of pain for the person and for those who are unfortunate enough to come into contact with him. The mistake, IMHO, is to confuse these idiosyncrasies with official organizational policy. But of course that's inevitable if we assume that all persons claiming membership within an organization are indeed qualified to properly represent it. That is the ideal, but in the real world where people tend to remain people regardless of their ideals-such is not the case and constitutes an unrealistic expectation. Among JWs, as in all other religious organizations, mistakes are made and as in most other religious organizations, they are regretted. Perhaps that is a bitter pill for some to swallow. But that's the way it unfortunately is.

As for the 1975 date, at no time were members of the organization told outright to cease their education, leave jobs, sell homes or to do any of these drastic specific things. Those doing this, of course were sincerely believing that the date would bring Armageddon. This they took to mean that they should take drastic action. But such were a minority since the vast majority of the Witnesses continued on as they had except for perhaps increased enthusiasm in preaching and a sense of heightened expectation.

In reference to this I had a conversation with a JW in Chicago and he wisely brought to my attention what Jesus said, that no-one knows the time when such a thing will happen. From that moment onward I viewed the 1975 issue in a more biblically balanced perspective.

Actually, all the criticisms brought to bear on JWS can also be brought to bear on all other denominations and with far greater force if the historical facts are thoroughly examined with an unbiased mind. The problem arises when we approach the subject in the heat of anger and a vendetta motivated mentality which clouds cogent reasoning.
That's when we tend to whitewash horrendous histories of other religions claiming to be Christian and focus all our repressed animosity toward our perceived antagonists. A true pity since such an approach is transparent.


First century Christians believed that the end of this world would come in THEIR lifetime and were preaching this to others. The Catholic Church expected the end to come in the year 1000 AD and told its members so. So if we are to be severe, let's be equitable in our condemnation. Otherwise we will come across as a bit biased or perhaps motivated by misinformation based on hasty conclusions or sheer bitterness.

As for their digging in deeper, as you so colorfully describe it, so do other religions. Have the Catholics ceased in their Mary veneration? Have the Moslems cast aside their virgin reward idea?
Have the Buddhists ceased promulgating their Nirvana goal concept? No. I guess they are digging in deeper from your standpoint? Evolutionists dig in deeper. So you see, your semantics are really just that-semantics geared to set the matter in a bad light. Or better put, the use of words in order to denigrate a common religious activity simply because YOU disagree with it.

BTW
Your accusation that the WBTS demands that its members not go to college, or that they not marry until a certain age is a blatant lie. That was YOUR PARENT's personal interpretation and requirements. Nothing more since you certainly didn't read it in JW literature or hear it at the KH.

Also, it seems to me that you are pinning your social failures all on a religious organization and using it as a crutch. Perhaps you should look inward instead and in that way you might see where the real problem resides, fix it-and forge a life for yourself with the little time you have left. Otherwise you will finish your days in the very condition which you claim to abhor but which you seem to be unwilling or unable to remedy and choose instead to blame it all on your early childhood.

In short, dust yourself off and get back on the horse! Remember time waits for no one. IMHO

[Henners]

Neither are they attempting to bring the Bible into more harmony with evolution. That would be contrary to what the Witnesses believe about evolution itself.

Sure would. It's just as well that they don't allow loonies like that to vote.

[Henners]

BTW
Your accusation that the WBTS demands that its members not go to college, or that they not marry until a certain age is a blatant lie. That was YOUR PARENT's personal interpretation and requirements. Nothing more since you certainly didn't read it in JW literature or hear it at the KH.


Mind you, they're not exactly rooted in reality, are they?

Ranting on about how blood transfusions are against the will of god and "end-is-nighing" at the drop of a hat doesn't exactly make them look like model citizens.

Don't get me wrong, though. I like nutters. In my opinion the world should have more of them. They can help me paddle my canoe up the Swannee.

[Henners]

Now we know that, uh, that this seventh creative day, being, uh, seven Millenium in length, it can therefore be divided up into, uh, seven periods of one thousand years each.


I think Brother Fred missed off the 's' in 'Millenniums'.

...or is this just another case of that extraordinary coincidence between Fundies and poor English?

[Radrook]

Aha! A fully dedicated drivel-spewing stalker/heckler combo! A rare and noxious breed fully qualifying for the gnore category. WEll, ummmm, OK.

[Henners]

Aha! A fully dedicated drivel-spewing stalker/heckler combo! A rare and noxious breed fully qualifying for the gnore category. WEll, ummmm, OK.

I quite agree with your attitiude.

I always think that the best thing to do - when I've been caught out by thinking that other stupid people are smart, and then I quote them, thereby making myself thick - is to rattle of a couple of sentences of unsubstantiable insult. It means that I don't have to deal with the issues, and I can pretend to be a victim.

So well done, for that, rooky.

[Juustin]

Your statement constitutes a misrepresentation of what JWs believe. Ask any Witness and he will tell you that their belief in harmony between science and the Bible is not based on biblical vagueness. Specific examples are always provided when illustrating that harmony both in public meetings and in their literature. Neither are they attempting to bring the Bible into more harmony with evolution. That would be contrary to what the Witnesses believe about evolution itself. That it is a baseless unscientific speculation, sustained and perpetuated via biased manipulation and subsequent misinterpretation of data which is then offered up as supporting evidence. So in view of this, the statement about kind can oinly be viewed as a simple clarification and not the all encompassing evolution-permitting concept you
believe it indicates.


My comment about "witnesses" stating that the Bible is vague enough not to be contradicted by science was only a comment on the specific article I linked to, which lists the following paragraph, for example:

Under paragraph "When Was The Beginning?"
Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1 (javascript:showCitedScripture('ge','1','1');)? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

I don't believe I misrepresented what the article says.

[Cueshark]

I find this thread extremely interesting.

My boss is a devout JW and also one of my best friends. Through our time in business together we have grown extremely close and thus I have complete and utter freedom in how I speak with him regarding my views on religion.

Edteach's post regarding the inaccuracies of the 'fall of Babylon' prediction was the most relevant because this is exactly what I was told by my JW friend as strong supporting evidence of the validity of the bible.

A part of me feels somehow obliged to encourage my friend to open his mind to concepts outside of his indoctrination, as if doing him a favour. To fight for truth at all costs.

A part of me feels it's no use. He has such stability and contentment and a strong family and social network. A change like this would have severe consequences in all aspects of his life. Why would he want to seek the truth when there is so much to lose?

The way we left it today was that I was going to research these predictions in the bible that are so accurate according to him and come back to him with my feedback.

Edteach - If you could spare some time. I would be very interested in more information about the inaccuracies of the bible predictions seeing as this is an extremely strong part of my friend's beliefs. You mentioned a discrepency with secular time and bible time. Do you have any links or more info on this?

[JWideman]

I'm a former JW as well and my experience is kinda similar to EdTeach's. I'll support everything he's said in this thread about them.
I left nearly 20 years ago, but it took most of that time to "recover". Reconciling one's former beliefs with reality isn't something that happens overnight.
Now, onto addressing some points:
True, they don't disfellowship for going to college. However, it is STRONGLY discouraged, and they look for excuses to disfellowship you.
Researching old material IS against the rules. It falls under the heading of "apostate literature". That there are archives and everyone is supposedly allowed to access them is irrelevant. If you are caught reading them - or worse, if you dare discuss them - you risk being disfellowshipped. They are not to be read unless you can demonstrate specific need. Try ordering a CD from the oldest archives, without being an elder, and you'll be having a little chat with a couple people.
Some JWs seem perfectly normal and rational. These people are "leading a double life". To behave like a proper JW, to be above scrutiny, requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and the link between schizophrenia and Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be ignored.
I'd post links to back up my statements, but sadly this board will not permit it yet.

[Radrook]

The official policy isn't to disfellowship someone for reading what is perceived as apostate literature. It isn't considered a practice that will set you up as an example for others to emulate as you say and that can mean perhaps not being assigned to a position of responsibility. But it's not a disfellowshipping offense.

However, if you read the literature and proceed to disseminate its contents as truth-THEN you might get disfellowhipped. But only after it has been brought to your attention and you disregard the counsel and insist on continuing.

It isn't a policy to discourage reading old WTBTS literature. In fact, the congregation I assisted had a library full of it and it was accessible to all of us. Volumes written by Rutherford and books written by Russel were included in the collection.

So I suspect that your experience is a local phenomenon.

Also, I am not aware of a rule against link posting. I post links all the time.

[skepticalbeliever]

The next time the JWs come to my door, I intend on asking them how many people have had to die because of their beliefs about blood transfusions. They seem like a harmless group, but they are really very dangerous.

[Radrook]

The next time the JWs come to my door, I intend on asking them how many people have had to die because of their beliefs about blood transfusions. They seem like a harmless group, but they are really very dangerous.


Do you count the people that died due to the Catholic Inqusition? Or those that have died due to Protestant liberal abortion views. Or those that have died due to clergy-encouraged wars such as the numerous Crusades? Or clergy silence or outright coo
peration with Nazi Germany's extermination policies?

Or is this conveniently irrelevant in your evaluation of certain religious groups and therefore you feel no need whatsoever to ask them?

[rjh01]

Most religions are dangerous in part. Fundamentalism in any religion is deadly.

If you do not have 15 posts you cannot post links.

[Juustin]

Do you count the people that died due to the Catholic Inqusition? Or those that have died due to Protestant liberal abortion views. Or those that have died due to clergy-encouraged wars such as the numerous Crusades? Or clergy silence or outright coo
peration with Nazi Germany's extermination policies?

Or is this conveniently irrelevant in your evaluation of certain religious groups and therefore you feel no need whatsoever to ask them?

Not that I need to speak on behalf of skepticalbeliever, but since "The next time JWs come to my door" was in the reply, I don't think the Catholicism comparison is needed. Perhaps if Catholics came to someone's door and tried to convert them, that would be a discussion worth having with them.

[Radrook]

Not that I need to speak on behalf of skepticalbeliever, but since "The next time JWs come to my door" was in the reply, I don't think the Catholicism comparison is needed. Perhaps if Catholics came to someone's door and tried to convert them, that would be a discussion worth having with them.

So it's the coming to the door and not the lives lost that really is the issue-isn't it? To me that's the height of hipocrisy.

BTW
Try applying your skeptisism in all directions. It will protect against suspicions of bias.

[Radrook]

Most religions are dangerous in part. Fundamentalism in any religion is deadly.

If you do not have 15 posts you cannot post links.

Fundamentalism? It depends on how we define the term. If by fundamentalism we mean doing things as Jesus instructed us to do them, then calling fundametalism deadly is tantamnount to being an antichrist-isn't it?

[volatile]

Fundamentalism? It depends on how we define the term. If by fundamentalism we mean doing things as Jesus instructed us to do them, then calling fundametalism deadly is tantamnount to being an antichrist-isn't it?

That's just about the most circular 'argument' I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

It was a series of discussions with a JW that finally pushed me from weak theism to strong atheism. The Watchtower is an evil, coercive, anti-intellectual, sexist, racist, lying, manipulative, dangerous apocalypse cult, and the more people know and understand this, the better.

[Radrook]

That's just about the most circular 'argument' I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

It was a series of discussions with a JW that finally pushed me from weak theism to strong atheism. The Watchtower is an evil, coercive, anti-intellectual, sexist, racist, lying, manipulative, dangerous apocalypse cult, and the more people know and understand this, the better.


Anyone can say anything about my statements. Opinions will vary of course and I am reasonably tolerant of opposing views and willing to engage in an invigorating give and take of argument and counterargument. Unfortunately, your diatribe has absolutely no bearing on the subject and constitutes a viscious hate motivated rant. Which of course you are definitely entitled to as you are entitled to use this forum to engage in your self-appointed hate campaign against the Witnesses. However, and this is a very fortunate however, mind you, I am not obligated to waste my time either reading or respomnding to your aberrant feedback. So I might just opt for the ignore option. Which of course can be nullified by a moderator who might consider your ranting relevant. But it's worth a good try in your obnoxious case.

[volatile]

Anyone can say anything about my statements. Opinions will vary of course and I am reasonably tolerant of opposing views and willing to engage in an invigorating give and take of argument and counterargument. Unfortunately, your diatribe has absolutely no bearing on the subject and constitutes a viscious hate motivated rant. Which of course you are definitely entitled to as you are entitled to use this forum to engage in your self-appointed hate campaign against the Witnesses. However, and this is a very fortunate however, mind you, I am not obligated to waste my time either reading or respomnding to your aberrant feedback. So I might just opt for the ignore option. Which of course can be nullified by a moderator who might consider your ranting relevant. But it's worth a good try in your obnoxious case.

You can ignore all you want - but it's a shame you do. Your cult lauds and encourages ignorance, and I've seen it first hand.

Nevertheless, let's post a few links to back up my assertions, shall I?

I maintain that the Watchtower are:

coercive (http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm) (see the section on "Disfellowshipping"]
anti-intellectual (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051015/article_02.htm)
sexist (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm) ("Like many conservative faith groups, women are excluded from all positions of authority, except the teaching of other women who are recent converts. The leaders of the local congregation, the elders, are all men. Members are taught that men and women are to hold different roles within the family; they teach a complete separation of responsibilities and duties by gender. The husband is expected to play the leadership role; wives are expected to be submissive to their husband"),
racist (http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm),
lying (http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/29000.html),
manipulative, dangerous (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm)
apocalypse cult (http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw83.html).

That they are evil is a subjective opinion based on the other traits listed above.

[elaine]

You can ignore all you want - but it's a shame you do. Your cult lauds and encourages ignorance, and I've seen it first hand.

Nevertheless, let's post a few links to back up my assertions, shall I?

I maintain that the Watchtower are:

coercive (http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm) (see the section on "Disfellowshipping"]
anti-intellectual (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051015/article_02.htm)
sexist (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm) ("Like many conservative faith groups, women are excluded from all positions of authority, except the teaching of other women who are recent converts. The leaders of the local congregation, the elders, are all men. Members are taught that men and women are to hold different roles within the family; they teach a complete separation of responsibilities and duties by gender. The husband is expected to play the leadership role; wives are expected to be submissive to their husband"),
racist (http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm),
lying (http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/29000.html),
manipulative, dangerous (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm)
apocalypse cult (http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw83.html).

That they are evil is a subjective opinion based on the other traits listed above.

Agreed, unfortunately it's followers don't see the organization for what it is. As a way to protect it's members from wrong thinking, the organization strongly discourages it's members to partake in a real discussion with non-believers. The "seed-planting" is always to be one-sided.

BTW - My mother hasn't spoken to me in years, since I've left the organization.

[elaine]

WoW....going back through the thread, I wonder how the Elders of Radrook's congregation would say about his/her engaging in discussions of the religion with non-believers. ESPECIALLY disfellowshipped/disassociated folks.

[rjh01]

That's just about the most circular 'argument' I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
<snip>

Thanks for making that post. I have difficulties recognising a circular 'argument'. I can however, recognise a personal attack. Your post was not a personal attack.

[Wavicle]

So I suspect that your experience is a local phenomenon.


As someone who has relatives that are devout JWs and has done research on this group (to figure out why we always had a visit within a week of moving)... This is the single most hypocritical thing espoused by JW apologists. "Local phenomena" are epidemic among JW congregations. This hiding behind the "it's just a local thing" rings hollow. I've never heard of anyone reading apostate literature in full view of an elder and not tremble in fear of getting disfellowshipped. It's nice to know it isn't "official policy." Too bad it's de facto policy.

There is no genuine effort of the Governing Body to reign in all these local issues. This is why you get a "local phenomenon" where a young woman who is raped by the son of an elder results in a word of reprimand for the boy and disfellowship for the girl (because she didn't scream loud enough, or fight back hard enough, or some other nonsense). The official Watchtower publications on the matter tended to switch back and forth as to how much blame to assign the victim.

[elaine]

And you won't see anyone reading apostate literature in full view, without consequences, anyway. On the outset, reading apostate literature may not be a disfellowshipping offense, but you can be sure that a person doing so would be counseled against such activity; and watched more carefully as well as their associations.

This is why I posted the part about what the elder's would say about Radrook's associating with us, here on the forum. Hanging with us ex JWs would definitely merit concern.

People are assigned to their congregations, and the congregations are intentionally kept smallish. It's easier for the cult to track those who may be "falling away from the truth".

[Radrook]

Clarification

The latest reaction to my commentary about the accuracy of statements concerning JWs on this thread indicate that I am being perceived to be participating in order to defend the organization regardless of argumentative validity of evidence presented. That isn't so. The sole purpose of my participation on this thread is to make sure that the skeptical principles applied to JWS are also being applied to other organizations which exceed the accusations being made against JWS. In short, to assure that the accusations aren't merely part of a hate campaign and that the claims of truly being disgusted annoyed, irked, peeved., or revolted by the alleged JWs vices is truly genuine and indeed justified and not a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Why do I harbor suspicion that such can often be the case and that this can also occur here? Well, it seems to be the modus operandi of many people who feel disgruntled with the WTBTS to go out of their way to misrepresent. Now, not all the misrepresentation is purposeful. Sometimes it is based on what the person has heard from others who are themselves not properly informed and who propagate things based on their vivid imaginations or based on what they in turn have heard.

At other times it's based on a need for revenge against a true or perceived wrong. Note that I say a real, or true wrong since these wrongs do happen and I am in no way trying to whitewash reality by sayiong that they don't. But such wrongs in themselves IMHO do not justify organizational policy or doctrinal misrepresentation.

To me such misrepresentation isn't truly being skeptical as required by the Randi board, it is merely a need to vent pent up emotional steam by using any means at disposal. So in order to keep the subject clean of such deviations I will strive to clarify any doctrinal issues based on my personal and extensive experience with the teachings of the Witnesses as well as with their general policies.

Now, please note that if this causes ire and the need to diatribe, I will not engage anyone in an extended exchange of heated irrelevant barrage of words. I will simply purge my screen of the irrelevancies and proceed from there. This isn't done out of malice nor hatred, nor to deprive any one of their opinion. It is dome simply to permit the person to continue his insulting modus operandi if he so wishes but to diminish it's distracting effect on my ability to respond to those who are genuinely interested in engaging in a calm discussion.

Now, please note that recently here I have deviated a bit from my own principles by mentioning hypocrisy. Please keep in mind that if you claim to have been a JWS and begin to misrepresent then you are definitely not honest but dishonest in the basest of ways since your misrepresentation isn't caused by ignorance. so my reaction to those might be a bit more direct. I will try my best to keep such a reaction to a minimum. However, if I do violate my own principles please feel free to bring it to my attention so I can correct myself.

Having said this, I have hope that the discussion can now proceed in the fashion it is meant to proceed, via a calm respectful exchange of opposing views.

[Radrook]

Thanks for making that post. I have difficulties recognising a circular 'argument'. I can however, recognise a personal attack. Your post was not a personal attack.


The reason you had trouble identifying my statemnent as a circular argument is because it isn't a circular asrgument at all. The only way it becomes a circular argument is by creating a strawman via a premise which isn't mine. A frequently-used dishonest, ineffective and annoying tactic.

[volatile]

Radrook - I lived with a Witness. Others on this thread are ex-Witnesses. I also posted links to back up all my assertions.

I, and the others in this thread, are not making this stuff up, nor are we "misrepresenting" the Watchtower.

[volatile]

The reason you had trouble identifying my statemnent as a circular argument is because it isn't a circular asrgument at all. The only way it becomes a circular argument is by creating a strawman via a premise which isn't mine. A frequently-used dishonest, ineffective and annoying tactic.

Errrmm... it is a circular argument. You said that we shouldn't condemn fundamentalism because adherence to fundamentalist beliefs is absolutely necessary. You're justifying fundamentalism through recourse to a fundamentalist idea!

"We have to be fundamentalist, else Jesus will say we're antichrists" is a circular argument!

[Radrook]

This is why I posted the part about what the elder's would say about Radrook's associating with us, here on the forum. Hanging with us ex JWs would definitely merit concern.


That's assuming they even know that I am alive and still consider me a JW. Please try to refrain from conjecture. It diminishes credibility.

[Juustin]

So it's the coming to the door and not the lives lost that really is the issue-isn't it? To me that's the height of hipocrisy.

BTW
Try applying your skeptisism in all directions. It will protect against suspicions of bias.

No, that's not what I'm claiming at all. I am not known for holding back my criticisms of Catholicism or any other religion, I'm just stating the following as it applies to this situation:

-Blood transfusion refusals are still costing people their lives. The Crusades, inquisition, etc, are not. If you had instead focused on something like the Church's disinformation campaign against safe sex practices to promote an abstinence-only viewpoint, I might've seen your point more clearly.
-Again, I can think of problems I have with a lot of religions, but I have better things to do than sit at home calling a local priest telling them the problems I have with their establishment. However, if they show up at my door and start a discussion about how I feel about Catholicism, I'm going to ask them why the Church as a whole was allowing accused child rapists to simply relocate to another town who was none the wiser.

[Radrook]

As someone who has relatives that are devout JWs and has done research on this group (to figure out why we always had a visit within a week of moving)... This is the single most hypocritical thing espoused by JW apologists. "Local phenomena" are epidemic among JW congregations. This hiding behind the "it's just a local thing" rings hollow. I've never heard of anyone reading apostate literature in full view of an elder and not tremble in fear of getting disfellowshipped. It's nice to know it isn't "official policy." Too bad it's de facto policy.

There is no genuine effort of the Governing Body to reign in all these local issues. This is why you get a "local phenomenon" where a young woman who is raped by the son of an elder results in a word of reprimand for the boy and disfellowship for the girl (because she didn't scream loud enough, or fight back hard enough, or some other nonsense). The official Watchtower publications on the matter tended to switch back and forth as to how much blame to assign the victim.

I don't see what devoted relatives have to do with this subject. I have two daughters and a son and uncle two first-cousins who are self proclaimed devoted JWs. Out of these only one is really a truly knowledgeable devoted Christian, The others are people who claim to understand what Christianity is all about but who misunderstand everything they read and apply it as they see fit. So please spare me the devoted relative shpiel.

Is there fear of disfellowshiping? Of course there is. I see nothing abnormal about a person agreeing to abide by an organizational rule wanting to remain within that organization, and feeling uneasy if he then chooses to flaunt his breaking those rules in front of those in charge of making sure that the rules are being adhered to. That reaction happens in all institutions which have strict rules of conduct and is a NORMAL HUMAN reaction when one is attempting to deceive or to violate his agreement to cooperate.

As for the governing body and local issues issue, you are right, a certain amount of leeway is allowed each congregation in its handling of local problems. However, those in responsible positions are provided with the necessary guidelines in order to assure a just resolution. Now, do injustices occur while using such a system? Yes, mistakes are made and injustices occur. Is this unique to the WTBTS. No! It is evident in all organizations be they religious or secular in varying degrees. Can it be minimized within the WTBTs congregations by providing more direct supervision? Perhaps it could. It all depends on the accurate knowledge, humanity and sincerity, of the individuals assigned to do the supervising.

And that's where I believe the crux of problem lies. The individual and the criteria used to appoint the individual to a position of judicial responsibility. Perhaps elders shouldn't qualify for the judicial role by default but should be required to undergo rigorous special training for it. A course in ethics, and logic, would do wonders in this respect, since deontological reasoning alone is not sufficient. IMHO.

BTW

Not everyone claiming to be a JWs is sincere just as not every Catholic, and Protestant and Hindu and Muslim is sincere. Some are there merely for the social benefits. Others are there temporarily until they find a mate. Others are there to attain positions prominence and feel important. Others because they were born into it are not of age yet to leave. Still others whose hearts are corrupt but who enjoy feigning to be righteousness for their own personal reasons. This isn't unusual since Jesus mentions it in his harvest parable where tares are sown in among the wheat and Jude mentions it as a warning.

However, I do sincerely believe that the gist of their message is the closest you will get to true first century Christianity and that is a very important positive which should not be discounted. IMHO of course.

[elaine]

That's assuming they even know that I am alive and still consider me a JW. Please try to refrain from conjecture. It diminishes credibility.

My apologies, Radrook. Given your rabid defense of the JW's, I assumed you are currently involved with the organization. Having said that, you admit to at least having had been a witness. My credibility on this subject is not at risk. However as you continue to act as an apologist for the organization, yours is.

[volatile]

Is there fear of disfellowshiping? Of course there is. I see nothing abnormal about a person agreeing to abide by an organizational rule wanting to remain within that organization, and feeling uneasy if he then chooses to flaunt his breaking those rules in front of those in charge of making sure that the rules are being adhered to. That reaction happens in all institutions which have strict rules of conduct and is a NORMAL HUMAN reaction when one is attempting to deceive or to violate his agreement to cooperate.

If I leave the Boy Scouts, does the BSA mandate that those within the Boy Scouts refrain from speaking to me, or cross the street when they see me (http://members.tripod.com/lee_hardiman/soc-death.html)? Are ex-Boy Scouts banned from attending parties that their friends who are still in the organisation hold?

Mrs. D. states that these scriptures have encouraged her friends and family to shun her. Old friends cross the street or look away if they see her. She has not been invited to family weddings or other gatherings. Her mother who is also a Jehovah's Witness does not call even when it was know that she was having major surgery. Her family is not permitted to pray for her and when she dies she will not be allowed to have a Witness funeral. If she were to attend a meeting she knows she will be shunned.

Although Mrs. D. realizes that other Witnesses are bound by the norms established by the Witnesses, she states that what made the disfellowshipping even more difficult was that as a Witness she was encouraged not to have friends outside the Witness community. As a result of the lack of social support from the outside and the shunning from the Witnesses themselves she was left in a position of no social support whatsoever. There was no one she could discuss this matter with. Contributing to this problem was that even other ex-Witnesses could not be contacted. There was no way of knowing who else may have been disfellowshipped and of forming friendships with them.

If a practising Catholic decides that he doesn't believe in the Catholic doctrine of Sainthood, say, is he prohibited from visiting Catholic friends?

Didn't think so. The Watchtower is a cult, pure and simple, and uses disfellowshipping as a coercive tool.

[Radrook]

Agreed, unfortunately it's followers don't see the organization for what it is. As a way to protect it's members from wrong thinking, the organization strongly discourages it's members to partake in a real discussion with nonbelievers. The "seed-planting" is always to be one-sided.

BTW - My mother hasn't spoken to me in years, since I've left the organization.

The organization discourages exposing of oneself to what are rightfully considered as anti-Christian ideas. So you see, how one chooses to describe a phenomenon makes a big difference.


BTW
My daughters and son haven't spoken to me in six years. So I guess we are in the same boat there now aren't we? Do I consider them true Christians despite their claims? Of course not. These are misguided individuals who don't really understand what the Bible message is.
Actually, they don't even understand what the WTBTS policy is since they seem to interpret the rules according to convenience. But their conduct isn't necessarily official WTBTS policy.
IT can very often simply be THEIR interpretation of WTBTS policy.

[Radrook]

My apologies, Radrook. Given your rabid defense of the JW's, I assumed you are currently involved with the organization. Having said that, you admit to at least having had been a witness. My credibility on this subject is not at risk. However as you continue to act as an apologist for the organization, yours is.


You may classify me as you see fit, rabid, apologist, ex-Witness. Non of which I am 100% in agreement with-of course. But that's what interchange of ideas is all about-agreement and disagreement and perhaps a bit of illumination as a consequence with a hopeful modification of erroneously-held views.


BTW
I assumed zero credibility when I decided to participate in this "discussion". So if my credibility is now merely at risk, then some progress has been made. LOL

[elaine]

Thge organiization discourages exposing of oneself to what are rightfully considered as anti-Christian ideas. So you see, how one chooses to describe a phenomenon makes a big difference.


BTW
My daughters and son haven't spoken to me in six years. So I guess we are in the same boat there now aren't we? Do I consider them true Christians despite their claims? Of course not. These are misguided individuals who don't really undrerstand what the Bible message is.
Actually, they don't even understand what the WTBTS policy is since they seem to interpret the rules according to convenience. But their conduct isn't necessarily official WTBTS policy.
IT can very often simply be THEIR interpretation of WTBTS policy.

First, I'm sorry to hear about your family situation. It must be very painful for you.

But, Radrook, let's be honest here. While the written policy may say it's ok to associate with family members who are ex-JW's, it's always in context of let your conscience be your guide and how it will affect the brothers and sisters,and your relationship with Jehovah, if you're seen associating with ex-JW's. I call it the guilt factor. The intended outcome is certainly isolation from non-believers, when not required to be "in the world".

[Radrook]

First, I'm sorry to hear about your family situation. It must be very painful for you.

But, Radrook, let's be honest here. While the written policy may say it's ok to associate with family members who are ex-JW's, it's always in context of let your conscience be your guide and how it will affect the brothers and sisters,and your relationship with Jehovah, if you're seen associating with ex-JW's. I call it the guilt factor. The intended outcome is certainly isolation from non-believers, when not required to be "in the world".


First, thank you for your decent reply and for acknowledging my deeply felt pain.


Before I continue, I think I should clarify what my present religious belief is in order to avoid any misunderstandings and in this way increase the possibility of a more productive exchange of ideas. First, I do not consider everyone who claims to be a JW%2

[elaine]

First, thank you for your decent reply and for acknowledging my deeply felt pain.


Before I continue, I think I should clarify what my present religious belief is in order to avoid any misunderstandings and in this way increase the possibility of a more productive exchange of ideas. First, I do not consider everyone who claims to be a JW%2

Your welcome and I hope things change for you and your kids, someday.

Thank you for clarifying your position as well.

[Radrook]

No, that's not what I'm claiming at all. I am not known for holding back my criticisms of Catholicism or any other religion, I'm just stating the following as it applies to this situation:

-Blood transfusion refusals are still costing people their lives. The Crusades, inquisition, etc, are not. If you had instead focused on something like the Church's disinformation campaign against safe sex practices to promote an abstinence-only viewpoint, I might've seen your point more clearly. -Again, I can think of problems I have with a lot of religions, but I have better things to do than sit at home calling a local priest telling them the problems I have with their establishment. However, if they show up at my door and start a discussion about how I feel about Catholicism, I'm going to ask them why the Church as a whole was allowing accused child rapists to simply relocate to another town who was none the wiser.

I appreciate your relevant detailed response. Yes, I see the point you are trying to make and if I am misunderstanding you please feel free to correct me.

1. You feel that other religions also deserve to be criticized and would do so if their members come to your door.

2. Lives lost in the past are irrelevant in evaluation of a present organization.

3. An organization guilty of innocent bloodshed in the past is less reprimandable than an organization causing loss of human life in present.

Now, what I find fallacious about such arguments is the inconsistency of policy that their premise constitutes within the parameters of this discussion. Not the parameter of door-knocking and your obligatory response alone, but of the whole guilt via bloodshed issue you brought up. These arguments seem to skirt the issue of present religion approved military campaigns which cause the death of thousands of lives. The issue of religiously approved abortions. And of religious policies which increase poverty sickness and death via the prohibition of anti-contraceptives. The doorknocking/reponse scenario seems to relegate these to the balmy realm of the innocuously irrelevant while justifying the focusing of the Witness blood issue on this forum. Now, did a JWs knock on your computer screen?

[Radrook]

Your welcome and I hope things change for you and your kids, someday. Thank you for clarifying your position as well.

Thanks.

BTW
I just noticed that my detailed explanation of my present beliefs didn't show up on the post. Why? Beats me.

[Radrook]

First, I'm sorry to hear about your family situation. It must be very painful for you.

But, Radrook, let's be honest here. While the written policy may say it's ok to associate with family members who are ex-JW's, it's always in context of let your conscience be your guide and how it will affect the brothers and sisters,and your relationship with Jehovah, if you're seen associating with ex-JW's. I call it the guilt factor. The intended outcome is certainly isolation from non-believers, when not required to be "in the world".


First, thank you for your decent reply and for acknowledging my deeply felt pain.
Before I continue, I think I should clarify what my present religious belief is in order to avoid any misunderstandings and in this way increase the possibility of a more productive exchange of ideas. First, I do not consider everyone who claims to be a JW a true JW. As I said, there are insincere individuals in all religions. Second, I do not consider everyone who isn't CLAIMING to be a JW at present to be evil and to be automatically rejected by God and condemned to death. That is for God to decide not us. We were clearly told to preach and teach anything beyond that-such as classifying someone as being condemned to eternal death constitutes presumptuousness. Third, I still do believe that the message which JWs bring is the closest to first-century Christianity. Fourth, I do not condone any misconduct based on misunderstanding, lack qualifications, or any other reasons simply because they might be committed by members of the WTBTS.

Ok, now that is out of the way, yes, the society has to be very careful in the emphasis it gives biblical scripture lest it be misunderstood and applied erroneously. My suggestion is that the present effects of these misunderstandings be immediately addressed and that a shift in emphasis via constant clarifications in favor of the humane aspect of biblical teachings be instituted.

[Wavicle]

I don't see what devoted relatives have to do with this subject. I have two daughters and a son and uncle two first-cousins who are self proclaimed devoted JWs. Out of these only one is really a truly knowledgeable devoted Christian, The others are people who claim to understand what Christianity is all about but who misunderstand everything they read and apply it as they see fit. So please spare me the devoted relative shpiel.

Fine, you stop yammering on about Watchtower giving halfhearted "Guidelines" or "official policy" and then undermining them through back channels, and I'll drop the devoted relative thing. We should evaluate them based on the aggregate actions of fact by their members and congregations, not their lip service to shape public perception.

Is there fear of disfellowshiping? Of course there is. I see nothing abnormal about a person agreeing to abide by an organizational rule wanting to remain within that organization, and feeling uneasy if he then chooses to flaunt his breaking those rules in front of those in charge of making sure that the rules are being adhered to. That reaction happens in all institutions which have strict rules of conduct and is a NORMAL HUMAN reaction when one is attempting to deceive or to violate his agreement to cooperate.

You are intentionally minimizing disfellowship. If you disagree with JW theological interpretations (quite likely seeing as how they change every decade or so) you are DF'd. They are very up front about this "gradual revelation" (or whatever they call it) where it takes time for them to figure out what scripture says. If they say that the pyramids are important to God's word, better agree with it, or you get DF'd. Oh wait, that was a mistake, now if you say the pyramids are important, you get DF'd.

In all this confusion you suddenly say "I can't agree with you guys until you settle on your theology" then you are consciously choosing not to be JW. At which time your friends and family must stop associating with you. That is, all JWs are obliged to shun you under threat of DF if they don't. Sorry, but this reaction is not NORMAL or HUMAN in your average "strict" group.

As for the governing body and local issues issue, you are right, a certain amount of leeway is allowed each congregation in its handling of local problems. However, those in responsible positions are provided with the necessary guidelines in order to assure a just resolution.

Horse pucky. Here's one of those half-hearted guidelines again. Officially WT claims all sorts of "oh yeah, if there's any accusation of molestation, elders must report it to the police" while WT through back channels encourages it to be ignored. In the face of such damning evidence the excuse is always "local phenomena" or "single misguided individual." Let's see a local congregation try and take control of an issue like abortion and see how quickly WT brings the smack down on them. But molestation? Eh, local issue. Or better yet: "were there TWO witnesses to this? If not do nothing."

Now, do injustices occur while using such a system? Yes, mistakes are made and injustices occur. Is this unique to the WTBTS. No! It is evident in all organizations be they religious or secular in varying degrees.

That's just plain dishonest. Rigorously following WT doctrine has lead to injustices. Once again I refer to a young woman getting DF'd for failure to feel guilty about being raped when it was clearly partly her fault because she didn't scream and fight enough. The injustice was applied by men trying their best to interpret various Awake! articles.

However, I do sincerely believe that the gist of their message is the closest you will get to true first century Christianity and that is a very important positive which should not be discounted. IMHO of course.

And IMHO I think that is nonsense. But just so we're on the same page, what do you find to be the gist of their message?

[rjh01]

Fundamentalism? It depends on how we define the term. If by fundamentalism we mean doing things as Jesus instructed us to do them, then calling fundamentalism deadly is tantamount to being an antichrist-isn't it?

Errrmm... it is a circular argument. You said that we shouldn't condemn fundamentalism because adherence to fundamentalist beliefs is absolutely necessary. You're justifying fundamentalism through recourse to a fundamentalist idea!

"We have to be fundamentalist, else Jesus will say we're antichrists" is a circular argument!

Now I understand. Volatile is saying there is only one way of living and that is living by strictly by what Jesus said. Anyone else is evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Christ). A very weak argument, so weak that Volatile could not defend it. Worse for Volatile's argument since the argument has been put that someone is evil or antichrist and we know it is not those that reject that argument then it must be those that put up that sort of argument. Conclusion - further evidence for my statement that Fundamentalism is deadly.

[volatile]

Now I understand. Volatile is saying there is only one way of living and that is living by strictly by what Jesus said. Anyone else is evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Christ).

No I'm not... :confused:

[Radrook]

Fine, you stop yammering on about Watchtower giving halfhearted "Guidelines" or "official policy" and then undermining them through back channels, and I'll drop the devoted relative thing. We should evaluate them based on the aggregate actions of fact by their members and congregations, not their lip service to shape public perception.

How does the WTBTS undermine its own policies via back-channels?

I agree that lip service is worthless if it isn't backed up by action. So you'll have to find another area to disagree with me on apart from that.

You are intentionally minimizing disfellowship. If you disagree with JW theological interpretations (quite likely seeing as how they change every decade or so) you are DF'd. They are very up front about this "gradual revelation" (or whatever they call it) where it takes time for them to figure out what scripture says. If they say that the pyramids are important to God's word, better agree with it, or you get DF'd. Oh wait, that was a mistake, now if you say the pyramids are important, you get DF'd.

Not minimizing it at all. It is a very powerful policy with very significant congregational influence. About the situatrion you describe however, I see no problem if we proceed to handle it logically. The solution to the predicament you are describing is exceedingly simple. If you aren't a Witness and know how the organization operates and disagree with it don't join. If you are a member and begin to disagree with the way the organization operates then leave it formally. However, if you are a member and want to impose your way of doing things on an organization which you promised to abide by its rules, then expect to be the recipient of the promised consequences. In this case restricted privileges and if you refuse to comply then disfellowshipping as promised. Rather simple solutions-don't you think? Actually, I only found out about the disfellowshipping rule a few days after I was baptized at a Baltimore district assembly.


In all this confusion you suddenly say "I can't agree with you guys until you settle on your theology" then you are consciously choosing not to be JW. At which time your friends and family must stop associating with you. That is, all JWs are obliged to shun you under threat of DF if they don't. Sorry, but this reaction is not NORMAL or HUMAN in your average "strict" group.

It's not an easy rule to follow and I surmise that many don't abide by it to the letter in one way or another. But it's not as strict as you suppose. One isn't required to totally abandon all family contact unless the family member a serious danger to one's spiritual welfare. If not, then you are encouraged to try and bring the person back to his senses with the hope of reinstatement. At least that was the last I read on the subject in one of the Watchtowers. There is a danger there though since anything might tend to be interpreted as a danger to one's spiritual welfare. So IMHO a shift should be instituted to teach family members of the disfellowshipped how to bring back these supposedly lost souls. This would significantly shift the emphasis from avoidance to one of rescue. Make sense?


Horse pucky. Here's one of those half-hearted guidelines again. Officially WT claims all sorts of "oh yeah, if there's any accusation of molestation, elders must report it to the police" while WT through back channels encourages it to be ignored. In the face of such damning evidence the excuse is always "local phenomena" or "single misguided individual." Let's see a local congregation try and take control of an issue like abortion and see how quickly WT brings the smack down on them. But molestation? Eh, local issue. Or better yet: "were there TWO witnesses to this? If not do nothing." That's just plain dishonest. Rigorously following WT doctrine has lead to injustices. Once again I refer to a young woman getting DF'd for failure to feel guilty about being raped when it was clearly partly her fault because she didn't scream and fight enough. The injustice was applied by men trying their best to interpret various Awake! articles.

First, the WTBTS ius a biblically based organization and all its doctrines, as you refer to them, are solidly based on scriptural principles. How do I know? Because I examined the documents upon which they base their judicial decisions and each guiding principle was solidly supported by quoted scripture.


However, if in spite of this safeguard such a modus operandi as you describe has occurred or is being erroneously implemented, then it should be immediately addressed and corrected. The problem, IMHO, is the inability to deal with deontological reasoning[reasoning via rules]-or to properly perceive when deontological reasoning should be secondary to the exigencies of ethical principles.

Therefore my recommendation of Ethics and logic courses as a strict requirement for those involved in the judicial aspect of congreational service.

About basing decisions on personal interpretation of previously read Awake Articles, that's not the way the congregational judicial process operates. There are stringent biblically based rules principles provided by the WTBS as guidelines for those making such decisions. So they are definitely not based on what might happen to be each individual's interpretation of previous Awake Magazines. Who told you that?

Actually, I once found an article on the Internet outlining these decision-making rules. I'll try to find it for you so you can examine it yourself. Nevertheless, as I previously said, a course in ethics and logic should be required of anyone serving in a judicial committee capacity in order to minimize injustice of the kind you mention. That is my recommendation. I would also recommend a thorough background check on anyone who will be assigned a ministerial role which might put him or her in contact with children. In short, this would tend to weed out anyone who seeks such a responsibility simply to gain an opportunity to make his move.


And IMHO I think that is nonsense. But just so we're on the same page, what do you find to be the gist of their message?

Well, here is a synopsis:

As all Christian organizations, the primary message is forgiveness of sins via faith in Jesus Ransom sacrifice in order to open the way for eternal life in heaven as part of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation or under God's Kingdom under Christ here on earth. Also, that we are nearing the time when this kingdom will take full control of earth's affairs after the removal of earth governments during a conflict called Armageddon as spoken of in the book of Daniel chapter 2. This is to be followed by the thousand year reign of Christ as described in the book of Revelations during which the resurrection of the dead will occur and the gradual elevation of obedient mankind to perfection will begin.

A very prominent feature is the belief that each Christian is the assigned duty as described in Matthew 24 and 28 chapters to tell others about the kingdom that is soon to come. This is what drives the house to house ministry effort and the preparatory Theocratic Ministry School feature.

BTW

Just to show you how people can go off on a tangent without authoriuzation and based soely on their interpretation of some rule, I was once told that I would never be allowed to be a ministerial servant because I had a mustache. Several months later, the overseer who had said this to me had a bigger mustache than I had. In his mind it had suddenly become OK.

[skepticalbeliever]

Do you count the people that died due to the Catholic Inqusition? Or those that have died due to Protestant liberal abortion views. Or those that have died due to clergy-encouraged wars such as the numerous Crusades? Or clergy silence or outright coo
peration with Nazi Germany's extermination policies?

Or is this conveniently irrelevant in your evaluation of certain religious groups and therefore you feel no need whatsoever to ask them?

You make a good point. There isn’t any one faith that people haven’t committed atrocities in the name of. But the inquisition and nazi Germany are tragic episodes that happened in the past. I’m more concerned with events that occur now.

And now we have a situation where Jehovah Witnesses are clearly causing people to die by not allowing them receive basic medical treatment and that is wrong.

What disturbs me is that the Jehovah Witnesses sometimes succeed in preventing minors from receiving blood transfusions. It’s bad enough when an adult would refuse a blood transfusion and die needlessly, but when adults force their dogma on children that can’t decide to leave The Jehovah Witnesses you have an intolerable situation.

[Radrook]

You make a good point. There isn’t any one faith that people haven’t committed atrocities in the name of. But the inquisition and nazi Germany are tragic episodes that happened in the past. I’m more concerned with events that occur now.

And now we have a situation where Jehovah Witnesses are clearly causing people to die by not allowing them receive basic medical treatment and that is wrong.

What disturbs me is that the Jehovah Witnesses sometimes succeed in preventing minors from receiving blood transfusions. It’s bad enough when an adult would refuse a blood transfusion and die needlessly, but when adults force their dogma on children that can’t decide to leave The Jehovah Witnesses you have an intolerable situation.

Then you must also be concerned with the present deaths which are clearly caused by religiously-approved abortions, religiously-approved wars, and religiously-approved of anti-contraceptive policies which cause poverty and death-right? All these religiously approved deaths far out-number the ones caused by blood transfusion refusal.

In these too children are needlessly involved. They are needlessly maimed, needlessly disfigured, and needleesly starved to death. Also, although you might disagree, many of us consider abortion murder. So that too is OK from your standpoint because it isn';t needless?


The fact is that many clergy and their organizations openly approve of such policies. This makes them clearly culpable via approval. So to remain consistent, one would have to feel as irate over those clearly caused deaths which are far more numerous, than those due to blood transfusion refusal.

Of course the argument can be made that aboirtions are needed, wars in which children die are needed and anti contraceptive rules are needed. So the debate would then focus on what is the meaning of "needed".

[Radrook]

Now I understand. Volatile is saying there is only one way of living and that is living by strictly by what Jesus said. Anyone else is evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_Christ). A very weak argument, so weak that Volatile could not defend it. Worse for Volatile's argument since the argument has been put that someone is evil or antichrist and we know it is not those that reject that argument then it must be those that put up that sort of argument. Conclusion - further evidence for my statement that Fundamentalism is deadly.

You might be understanding what "Volatile is saying" but that doesn't mean you are understanding what I am saying since "Volatile's understanding" of what I am saying or postulating via what I said is flawed. At least that's the impression I get from what you say Volatile is saying and from what you are saying as well. : )

[Radrook]

You can ignore all you want - but it's a shame you do. Your cult lauds and encourages ignorance, and I've seen it first hand.

Nevertheless, let's post a few links to back up my assertions, shall I?

I maintain that the Watchtower are:

coercive (http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm) (see the section on "Disfellowshipping"]
anti-intellectual (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051015/article_02.htm)
sexist (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness3.htm) ("Like many conservative faith groups, women are excluded from all positions of authority, except the teaching of other women who are recent converts. The leaders of the local congregation, the elders, are all men. Members are taught that men and women are to hold different roles within the family; they teach a complete separation of responsibilities and duties by gender. The husband is expected to play the leadership role; wives are expected to be submissive to their husband"),
racist (http://www.freeminds.org/african/discrimination.htm),
lying (http://www.pressbox.co.uk/Detailed/29000.html),
manipulative, dangerous (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm)
apocalypse cult (http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw83.html).

That they are evil is a subjective opinion based on the other traits listed above.

First, my apologies for having placed you on ignore. Being human I sometimes tend to carry over moods generated by my discussions on other forum topic boards and this might have been what happened here.

Second: I am not denying that unchristian conduct occurs among JWS since I myself have personally experienced it on various occasions. So please try to get that assumption out of the way so we can proceed to discuss any other issue in a calm rational manner.

However, and this is a very important however, I have also been on the receiving end of injustices at the hands of Pentecostals, Catholics, and Protestants. So whenever I tend to focus solely on JWS as some kind of anomaly, I am constantly brought back to reality by the memories of my experiences at the hands of members of these other denominations.


Conclusion? Well, I have concluded that it is best to evaluate people on an individual basis regardless of religious affiliation. Why? well, because anyone can claim to be anything since words are cheap. Neither is movement of body and cpious flapping of tongue evidence of a good standing with God. Such can easily be a veneer behind which evil can operate. So motives must be taken into consideration and only God can determine motives with accuracy needed to judge in relation to evil or good.

So I leave that aspect of judgment in God's hands because I simply don't qualify. However, and this is another very important however, I am not opposed to pointing out any unchristian policy constituting a violation of human rights and Christian principles. Neither do I feel that any organization regardless of its claims is beyond criticism. In fact, any organization which truly desires to please our creator is glad to receive criticism so that it can correct itself and bring itself to be more in line with what Christianity is all about. This is something which the governing body of JW is said to be constantly striving to do. So I have confidence that the present complaints will be investigated and an effort made to remedy any problem.


So with this out of the way, perhaps a fruitful discussion can take place after all.

And again sorry for my hasty action.

BTW
I have also been treated well by many JWS as well as by many members of other denominations.

[elaine]

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!

I love saying that ;)

[rjh01]

No I'm not... :confused:
Sorry. I named the wrong poster.:o

See post 84 for what I was referring to.

[volatile]

First, my apologies for having placed you on ignore. Being human I sometimes tend to carry over moods generated by my discussions on other forum topic boards and this might have been what happened here.

No problem. Thanks for taking me off, and I appreciate the apology. :)

I may come across as slightly abrasive on this topic, but it's one that's very close to my heart. I do not say what I say lightly, but trust that whilst this discussion will be robust, it will certainly not proceed with any malice on my part.

Second: I am not denying that unchristian conduct occurs among JWS since I myself have personally experienced it on various occasions. So please try to get that assumption out of the way so we can proceed to discuss any other issue in a calm rational manner.

However, and this is a very important however, I have also been on the receiving end of injustices at the hands of Pentecostals, Catholics, and Protestants. So whenever I tend to focus solely on JWS as some kind of anomaly, I am constantly brought back to reality by the memories of my experiences at the hands of members of these other denominations.

The key difference here (not that I'm uncritical of other religions, you understand) is that all these things I mentioned are official church doctrine. These are not the actions of a few bad apples in an otherwise good barrel; the coercion, anti-intellectualism, sexism and racism are built in to the doctrinal teachings of the faith. It's institutionally coercive, manipulative and, yes, dangerous. The Watchtower cult works through a combination of these methods, and they are at the core of its operational practice, as far as I can (and a great deal of other observers) can see.


Conclusion? Well, I have concluded that it is best to evaluate people on an individual basis regardless of religious affiliation.


I heartily agree. That does not mean I must remain objective about their faith, particularly if that faith is cultish, damaging and destructive. Did you read any of those links about disfellowhipping? It rips people's lives apart. Did you read the link about blood transfusion? People die because of their (misguided) faith in the Watchtower. I can't be silent about that.

As for "God's judgment" etc.; given that we disagree about the fundamental nature of reality I don't think a discussion on those issues are fruitful. Let's keep it secular and material - I have posted links which demonstrate why, to the best of my understanding, that the Watchtower are a cultish and worrisome organisation.

I wonder if you'd care to address the specific allegations?

[Radrook]

Well, your concerns are certainly understandable and noble since all perceived injustices should never be taken lightly. Like yourself, I also have serious concerns. But mine include the possibility that a rejection and trashing of the Kingdom Message will result based on the perceived misdeeds. Also, that this in turn will cause the acceptance of false teachings based on heretical interpretations of apostate religions passing themselves off as Christian.

My serious concern also involves the description of certain legitimate Christian practices as cultish. I find for example the accusations of propaganda, indoctrination, systematic brainwashing, ad infinitum totally unwarranted.

Are you willing to apply the same criteria to ancient Israel and Early Christianity with its constant emphasis on strict adherence to a dedicated life and the strict usage oif sacripture as its sole authority? To remain consistent you must since the modus operandi in this area is identical.


Also, there is a difference between accusations of scriptural misapplication and accusations of no scriptural justification. Once the latter claim is made then the statement demasnds a biblically-based response which I am refraining from giving as you requested. However, please note that the constant attack on the JWS doctrinal scriptural legitimacy directs the thread toward the religiously-predominant discussion whivch you say you prefer to avoid.


Without citing scripture here is an example of how things can be looked at from differing angles:

Let's consider disfellowshipping policy: as an example since this seems to be one of the main issues. Such a practice can be misrepresented as an attempt at humiliation and cruelty. However, that ignores the official motive: the-preventing those who are intent on being disruptive via spreading unchristian doctrine or encouraging the living of a non-Christian life via example from negatively influencing those who are there for sincere reasons. There is also a secondary motive: demonstrating the seriousness of the person's decision via shunning. Not to say that individual members don't go overboard. As I said previously, not everyone claiming to be in church is in church because he loves righteousness.
So when these individuals are presented with an opportunity to humiliate and satisfy their sadistic or cruel tendencies they will jump on the opportunity with relish under the guise of doing God's will when in fact it is Satan's will they are accomplishing. So the policy is one thing-keeping it from being abused by the unscrupulous or even those who well-meaningly interpret it in their own ignorant but unchristian way is another. And that's why this issue should be given immediate attention by the governing body.

As for the misdeeds and other such issues-as you can see my agenda is to protect the message itself from getting caught in the controversy. So culpability or lack of it is irrelevant to me from this perspective. However, I will still try to clarify any misunderstanding so that those making a decision will at least not base it on misinformation.




In conclusion, I separate the biblical message from the alleged misdeeds.
To me they are not inextricably bound and the condemnation of one need not automatically include the condemnation of the other.

[volatile]

That all amounts to a total non-answer really though, doesn't it?

All you're saying is that all the horrible, destructive and cultish things the Watchtower does are OK, because the Watchtower says they are. You're back in circular-argument territory again, and using your premise to justify your conclusion.

With the WT, the misdeeds are bound up in the message, because it is the particular (and arbitrary) theological decisions made by the organisation's hierarchy which are the most destructive things about it (and I refer you to my previous links). For example, if what you say above is correct, you believe disfellowshipping is OK because the Watchtower have told you that it is. That's not an argument, it's just more illustration of the hold this belief system has over you. It seems as if you accept shunning (despite previous expressions that shunning is "local") and the doctrinal aims it is meant to achieve, and that this is the case because you have been told by WT that to disagree is to go against God.

The problem is, of course, is that it is precisely this type of coercion which means that the JW is a cult. You might not like the label, but the use of these types of behaviours to control thoughts and deeds is the very definition of cultish behaviour. Individual JWs are allowed no lee-way in their theological conception, actively prohibited from engaging with apostate literature (which includes some writings of the WT themselves) and are told, not asked to decide for themselves, what Scripture means. The penalty for freedom of conscience on theological issues is disfellowshipping, the end result of which is isolation from your family and friends.

I wonder how you square that with the operational practices of the Watchtower - a cabal of men (and only men!) in Brooklyn decide, on a whim, what everyone who claims to be a JW is to believe, and they change their mind frequently. How can an organisiation who has incorrectly predicted the end of the world numerous times, and frequently flip-flopped on core beliefs on the whim of a group of guys in an office, still be seen as "close to the early Christians", when it is they themselves who tell their members what the Early Christians believed?

Step outside the box.

[Skeptical Greg]

..........These are misguided individuals who don't really understand what the Bible message is....

You don't say ?

[Wavicle]

How does the WTBTS undermine its own policies via back-channels?

You have google, use it. Basically there are recordings out there of a person who called up WT Legal and asked "I think one of our members is molesting kids" "are there any witnesses" "no" "then say nothing." THAT is undermining its own policies via back-channels.

If you aren't a Witness and know how the organization operates and disagree with it don't join. [...] Actually, I only found out about the disfellowshipping rule a few days after I was baptized at a Baltimore district assembly.

It's amazing that you still don't refer to them as a cult.

So IMHO a shift should be instituted to teach family members of the disfellowshipped how to bring back these supposedly lost souls. This would significantly shift the emphasis from avoidance to one of rescue. Make sense?

Oh a lot of shifts for them makes sense. But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about how abusive they are right now.

First, the WTBTS ius a biblically based organization and all its doctrines, as you refer to them, are solidly based on scriptural principles.

No they aren't. They had a bunch of guys with no formal training in ancient languages re-translate the bible for them to fit their doctrine. You can't claim "solidly based on scriptural principles" if you go around mistranslating scripture.

How do I know? Because I examined the documents upon which they base their judicial decisions and each guiding principle was solidly supported by quoted scripture.

You might want to check again.

About basing decisions on personal interpretation of previously read Awake Articles, that's not the way the congregational judicial process operates. There are stringent biblically based rules principles provided by the WTBS as guidelines for those making such decisions. So they are definitely not based on what might happen to be each individual's interpretation of previous Awake Magazines. Who told you that?

You're dancing around the fact that a bunch of guys in Watchtower HQ decide what scripture means and then communicate it out to the local congregations. Awake and The Watchtower are two ways of accomplishing this.

As all Christian organizations, the primary message is forgiveness of sins via faith in Jesus Ransom sacrifice in order to open the way for eternal life in heaven as part of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation or under God's Kingdom under Christ here on earth.

Oh that one. I like how you said all Christian organizations and then went on to describe a theological issue that only JWs accept (that only 144,000 will ascend to Heaven).

Well, goody. Too bad I won't be one of the 144,000 because I'm not a male Jewish virgin.

A very prominent feature is the belief that each Christian is the assigned duty as described in Matthew 24 and 28 chapters to tell others about the kingdom that is soon to come. This is what drives the house to house ministry effort and the preparatory Theocratic Ministry School feature.

So what is the Christian belief that justifies DFing? Sounds rather un-Christlike to me.

[Radrook]

You don't say ?

Is that concept really that hard to fathom? I heve personally met individuals who appear to understand basic Christian principles but who on closer examination reveal that they
don't. Haven't you?

[Radrook]

That all amounts to a total non-answer really though, doesn't it? All you're saying is that all the horrible, destructive and cultish things the Watchtower does are OK, because the Watchtower says they are. You're back in circular-argument territory again, and using your premise to justify your conclusion.

Not at all! Why would I say something as amoral as that? Actually, I see absolutely no justifiable basis to make that accusation based my response.

With the WT, the misdeeds are bound up in the message, because it is the particular (and arbitrary) theological decisions made by the organisation's hierarchy which are the most destructive things about it (and I refer you to my previous links).

I was referring to the biblical message called the Good News of the Kingdom. I was not referring to organizational decisions made by the WTBTS governing body.

For example, if what you say above is correct, you believe disfellowshipping is OK because the Watchtower have told you that it is. That's not an argument, it's just more illustration of the hold this belief system has over you. It seems as if you accept shunning (despite previous expressions that shunning is "local") and the doctrinal aims it is meant to achieve, and that this is the case because you have been told by WT that to disagree is to go against God.

I am not a mindless automaton that unscrupulously accept whatever any organization tells me simply because the organization tells me. In fact, if indeed you have read all my previous comments, then you should have noticed that I admitted that mistakes are made and that such mistakes or the policies which generate any of those injustices should be given immediate attention. I also made educational recmmendation which I believe would decrease mishandling of congregational judicial issues. Why do you ignore this and choose to accuse instead?

The problem is, of course, is that it is precisely this type of coercion which means that the JW is a cult. You might not like the label, but the use of these types of behaviors to control thoughts and deeds is the very definition of cultish behavior. Individual JWs are allowed no leeway in their theological conception, actively prohibited from engaging with apostate literature (which includes some writings of the WT themselves) and are told, not asked to decide for themselves, what Scripture means. The penalty for freedom of conscience on theological issues is disfellowshipping, the end result of which is isolation from your family and friends.

Well, it's not that I simply dislike the term. If I sincerely felt that the term applied using the criteria you mention then I would agree that it applies. However, I don't believe that the criteria you are using automatically makes the term applicable. In short, your perception of the policy can be viewed in a different manner and in fact, is viewed in a different manner by millions of JWS who abide by the policies you mention.

For example, the advice offered that JWS should be careful on what they read or that they should listen to the correct interpretation of scripture instead of delving into it on their own can be viewed not as a cunning attempt at mind control via coercion, but simply as an effort to help the members maintain their spiritual health via avoiding behavior which might gradually lead to what is considered apostasy. Actually, first century Christianity demanded the same from its members, a total acceptance of scripture as interpreted by the Apostles who wrote the NT and any deviation was discouraged for the same reasons which the Witnesses claim to discourage it. So as I asked before, if indeed the cult accusation applies to the Witnesses based on that criteria then in order to remain consistent you would have to apply it to ancient Israel and first- century Christianity as well. Are you willing to do that?


I wonder how you square that with the operational practices of the Watchtower - a cabal of men (and only men!) in Brooklyn decide, on a whim, what everyone who claims to be a JW is to believe, and they change their mind frequently. How can an organization who has incorrectly predicted the end of the world numerous times, and frequently flip-flopped on core beliefs on the whim of a group of guys in an office, still be seen as "close to the early Christians," when it is they themselves who tell their members what the Early Christians believed?

Step outside the box.

Not inside a box!

It's actually a matter of seeing the glass half full or half empty. Here is how I view it. Despite all that you have mentioned, the Good News of the Kingdom is essentially being preached accurately.

Please keep well in mind that First Century Christians believed that the end would come during their lifetime. In fact, many believed that the apostle John would not die before the return of Christ and the fulfillment of the kingdom prophecies. Did this misunderstanding based on their fervent desire to see things change automatically make Christianity a cult? Did it mean that they should not be listened to when they spoke the Kingdom message? If indeed we apply the criteria equally then you would have to say yes. Are you willing to do that?

BTW
My loyalty is to God and his purposes and my salvation is dependent on my acceptance of Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice.

[Radrook]

You have google, use it. Basically there are recordings out there of a person who called up WT Legal and asked "I think one of our members is molesting kids" "are there any witnesses" "no" "then say nothing." THAT is undermining its own policies via back-channels. It's amazing that you still don't refer to them as a cult.

The requirement that there be more than one witness to a wrongdoing isn't a WTBS policy. It is a biblical policy recommended by Jesus himself. The WTBTS has always adhered to this biblical requirement when an accusation against a member is made. So I really don't see how their continued adherence to it constitutes an undermining of trier own policy.


Oh a lot of shifts for them makes sense. But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about how abusive they are right now.

Shifts make sense for the Catholic Church as well and such changes are met with praises admiration. RThe USA Constitution has undergone nu,merous changes. That too has met with no criticism. Care to explain why?

As for abusive, please understand that I am not attempting to if justify any particular incident.

No, they aren't. They had a bunch of guys with no formal training in ancient languages retranslate the bible for them to fit their doctrine. You can't claim "solidly based on scriptural principles" if you go around mistranslating scripture.

Well, that's a matter of opinion and mine differs from yours. By and large the organizations which are mistranslating scriptures in order to justify heretical ideas borrowed from paganism are the sects you refuse to tag as cults. But of course provision of evidence pro and con would lace the thread in the religious forum where it would be converged upon by a host of atheists which are foaming at the mouth to do just that.

You're dancing around the fact that a bunch of guys in Watchtower HQ decide what scripture means and then communicate it out to the local congregations. Awake and The Watchtower are two ways of accomplishing this.

I have no delusions concerning the governing body. They are men just as the first century Apostles who initially decided what was and was not to be taught were. In fact, those Apostles are described as disputing among themselves as in the case of Barnabas and Paul and Peter with Paul. As misunderstanding scripture Peter did when he tried to force new members to get circumcised and initially refused to associate with gentiles. So human they were and being human-what else can we expect? Faultless behavior? The Apostles left Jesus alone in the Garden and Peter denied him three times. Neither were they all present when he was being crucified since they wee cowering in fear. So I guess they were a bunch of guys too-right?


Oh that one. I like how you said all Christian organizations and then went on to describe a theological issue that only JWs accept (that only 144,000 will ascend to Heaven).Well, goody. Too bad I won't be one of the 144,000 because I'm not a male Jewish virgin.


Actually, and to my own surprise, in my surfing the net I have several times come across non-JW sites which support the 144,000 understanding concerning who goes to heaven. I will see if I can locate them for you so you can see for yourself.

About being Jewish and a virgin-those terms-as explained in the Epistles of Paul, are used symbolically. In short, those writing provided the key to understanding the terminology used in REV in that instance just as the OT figurative use of other terms lals provided the means to understand the rest of Revelation. At the risk of deviating from the main subject, virginity refers to being spiritually untainted or not spotted with sin. Jewishness refers to the new spiritual Israel which replaced the literal Israel after Jesus' death as Paul explains in epistle to the Hebrews.


So what is the Christian belief that justifies DFing? Sounds rather un-Christlike to me.

There is scriptural basis for the practice. I will try to provide you with a scriptural reference.

Well, here are some scriptures:

1 Corinthians 5:11 (King James Version)
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

2 John 1
10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds


Of course the understanding must be tempered with other scriptures which urge compassion as part of the practice::


2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 (King James Version)
13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


(King James Version)
Public Domain

Luke 15

1Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

2And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

3And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

5And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

[Skeptical Greg]

Is that concept really that hard to fathom? I heve personally met individuals who appear to understand basic Christian principles but who on closer examination reveal that they
don't. Haven't you?

My comment was with regard to your reference to misguided individuals who ' don't really understand the bible '..

The implication is that you have some revelation not available to others ( unless they hearken to you ) ...

Not hardly the message that Jesus brought.
However, it is the message we hear from self righteous church leaders who reinterpret ( or cherry pick ) scripture to suit their needs when it comes to keeping the flock corralled ..

[Radrook]

My comment was with regard to your reference to misguided individuals who ' don't really understand the bible '..

The implication is that you have some revelation not available to others ( unless they hearken to you ) ...

Not hardly the message that Jesus brought.
However, it is the message we hear from self righteous church leaders who reinterpret ( or cherry pick ) scripture to suit their needs when it comes to keeping the flock corralled ..

Well, just a simple misunderstanding. So let me clarify:

I didn't mean to imply such a an offensive thing. I am not a church leader nor am I attempting to be one. Neither do I feel emboldened to go about twisting scripture simply based on adesire for it to fit my ideas. However, that doesn't mean that I have absolutely nothing of value to convey or that if I do I should keep my mouth shut for fear of being suspected of ulterior motives. That would be a bit paranoid and irresponsible on my part.

BTW
Scripture isn't really open to all and every whimsical interpretation.
Many interpretations are based on non-existent or false premesis,
inporance of linguistic and historical an textual context, or sheer imagination, or unfounded things previously heard. In short, the conclusions reached may be valid given the premise but since the premise is false the interpretation is false by default.

[Fizzer]

Researching old material IS against the rules. It falls under the heading of "apostate literature". That there are archives and everyone is supposedly allowed to access them is irrelevant. If you are caught reading them - or worse, if you dare discuss them - you risk being disfellowshipped. They are not to be read unless you can demonstrate specific need. Try ordering a CD from the oldest archives, without being an elder, and you'll be having a little chat with a couple people.

The CD-ROM that is produced each year, which pretty much every JW with a computer gets each year, has literature going back many decades. It's heavily indexed and searchable. The fact that beliefs have changed over the years is not hidden and specific cases are mentioned in the Watchtower magazine from time to time.
There is a large book of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses (intended mainly for JW's but anyone can get one) that even shows some of the old pyramidology stuff.
Most Kingdom Halls have a library of current and rare older books, many of which are old enough to be crumbling to pieces if it weren't for tape and glue. These are out in the open where anyone can look at them.

[Skeptical Greg]

.........
BTW
Scripture isn't really open to all and every whimsical interpretation.
Many interpretations are based on non-existent or false premesis,
inporance of linguistic and historical an textual context, or sheer imagination, or unfounded things previously heard. In short, the conclusions reached may be valid given the premise but since the premise is false the interpretation is false by default.Why does God's word need interpretation ?

[Fizzer]

If I leave the Boy Scouts, does the BSA mandate that those within the Boy Scouts refrain from speaking to me, or cross the street when they see me (http://members.tripod.com/lee_hardiman/soc-death.html)? Are ex-Boy Scouts banned from attending parties that their friends who are still in the organisation hold?

You comparison is invalid. When you are disfellowshipped, you're being kicked out for unrepentant wrongdoing (although you may still attend meetings). Leaving on your own is not the same as being disfellowshipped.

[Radrook]

Why does God's word need interpretation ?

It really doesn't since it is quite clear in its moral exigencies and doctrinal message. However, the parts which use figurative language do. But contrary to popular belief-the sincere student isn't left on a lurch since the key to understanding such language is within the Bible itself. Which makes spurious explanations easily detectable by the discrepancies they automatically generate.

Let me give you a brief example:

In the book of Daniel we are presented with a vision which describes seven beasts. Then we are told that each beast represents a nation rising to world power. Now, in Revelation we are show a beast with seven heads. What should come immediately to mind is the vision of Daniel. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that we are told by John that the revelation is given in symbols, some individuals proceed to ignore that key to understanding and proceed to take the beast literally or else go off on a wild biblically unjustifiable tangent.

Another example in the same book is the mention of virginity. I have come across persons understanding this as literal sexual virginity. However, the key to understanding that term properly was offered by the Apostle Paul himself when he explained that virginity means freedom from sinful practices-or spiritual virginity.

The list is really very long but the pattern of symbol and key to understanding the symbol is interwoven into the very fabric of both OT and NT.

[Skeptical Greg]

....
In the book of Daniel we are presented with a vision which describes seven beasts. Then we are told that each beast represents a nation rising to world power. Now, in Revelation we are show a beast with seven heads. What should come immediately to mind is the vision of Daniel. ...
It wouldn't come to my mind..

There is a clear difference between a beast with seven heads and seven beasts ..

Your 2nd example could work.. It should be pretty easy to determine if the original text really meant ' spiritual ' virginity, or if that interpretation just makes for better reading...

[Radrook]

It wouldn't come to my mind..

There is a clear difference between a beast with seven heads and seven beasts ..

Your 2nd example could work.. It should be pretty easy to determine if the original text really meant ' spiritual ' virginity, or if that interpretation just makes for better reading...

The understandfing of this bbeast as representing a composite politoical entity isn't exclusive to JWs. It's a generally accepted view.


Isaiah 57:20
But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

Daniel 7:3
And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.

Daniel 7:17
These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.


Revelation 13:1
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns,

excerpt


..... Daniel asked an angel to explain what the vision meant, and the angel told him. "The four great beasts," the angel said, are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth" (Daniel 7:17). When Daniel asked about the fourth beast that differed from the others, the angel said: "The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth" (Daniel 7:23).

This passage from Daniel shows that when the word "beast" appears in prophetic Scripture it refers to a powerful governmental authority-a kingdom, an empire, or a superpower. Daniel used the word "beast" in writing about the vision he had, and John uses the word in the same way.

http://www.beast-of-revelation-666.com/beast_ch1.html



If the reader's agenda in Bible reading is to prove that it isn't one harmonious book, then the reader will reject the concept biblical internal harmony providing interpretational precedents for biblical figurative language and claim that one interpretation as as good as the other.

BTW

The Apostle John doesn't claim authorship for the book of Revelations. In the introduction he clearly explains that he was merely recording what he was hearing and seeing and that the source of the information was Jesus via an angel sent to transmit it.


Revelation 1 (King James Version)
Public Domain

Revelation 1
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

[Skeptical Greg]

I find it intriguing how the word of god sounds a lot like the ramblings of your average fortune teller ..

" And you shall know the true beast by the crimson propeller beany upon the fourth of his 11 heads .. ! "


Any god worth his salt would just come out and tell you exactly what he meant..


" Big earthquake in San Francisco, April 18, 1906 .. Try to be somewhere else, if at all possible .. "

[Radrook]

I find it intriguing how the word of god sounds a lot like the ramblings of your average fortune teller ..

" And you shall know the true beast by the crimson propeller beany upon the fourth of his 11 heads .. ! "


Any god worth his salt would just come out and tell you exactly what he meant..


" Big earthquake in San Francisco, April 18, 1906 .. Try to be somewhere else, if at all possible .. "

Well, OK. : )


I only responded with scripture based on the assumption that you sincerely were interested in the basis for biblical understanding of figurative language.


In any case, I am not willing to engage in fruitless time-wasting back-and-forth arguments about your personal distaste for anything or everything religious. Actually, for that the Randi Board provides the Religion/Philosdophy forum.

BTW

Figurative language is part of all literature worth its salt and all authors worth their their salt use it.

[Skeptical Greg]

I only responded with scripture based on the assumption that you sincerely were interested in the basis for biblical understanding of figurative language.
Sorry for the confusion .. What I'm interested in, is why God has to resort to figurative language..
( in a rhetorical sense actually )


...Figurative language is part of all literature worth its salt and all authors worth their their salt use it.
Good to know God is in such good company ....

You can't have good acolytes trying to figure stuff out, without the enlightened to sort things out for them...

[Radrook]

Sorry for the confusion .. What I'm interested in, is why God has to resort to figurative language..
( in a rhetorical sense actually )



Good to know God is in such good company ....

You can't have good acolytes trying to figure stuff out, without the enlightened to sort things out for them...

Excellent question:

I think that would make a good thread for the literature/ Arts forum where it can be discussed at length from a purely rhetorical standpoint. From a religious standpoint it would fit in best at the religion/philosophy forum. : )

[VulcanWay]

edteach, thank you for all of this eye-opening info. I have to admit that I don't know very much about JWs beyond what you've now written and those that have either come to my door or tried to hand me a Watchtower while I was waiting for a bus.

And, is it me, or does it seem like you have to be a hottie, female JW to qualify to hand out Watchtowers? Just my local observation... :p

[Radrook]

Curious how everything is 100% believable as long as it's negative while everything positive is 100% unbelievable as long as it's positive.

Interesting phenomenon!

[VulcanWay]

Curious how everything is 100% believable as long as it's negative while everything positive is 100% unbelievable as long as it's positive.

Interesting phenomenon!
I'll bet Scientologists love the heck out of you!

What is it, specifically, that you are disputing? What negative subjects are lies and what positive things have been counted as lies?

[Radrook]

I'll bet Scientologists love the heck out of you!

What is it, specifically, that you are disputing? What negative subjects are lies and what positive things have been counted as lies?


Well, I didn't know Scientologists are that reasonable.

Everything isn't either black or white or totally black and totally white as some comments which you choose to believe depict. In order to get a balanced view of a subject, one has to consider both the pros and the cons, consider whether the source has an ax to grind and is grinding it via posting on the net, whether source is in a state of reason blinding agitation etceteara. To know my opinion please read my responses to others on this thread. If you still have a question after reading then I'll be more than happy to clarify.

[JWideman]

Well, I didn't know Scientologists are that reasonable.

Everything isn't either black or white or totally black and totally white as some comments which you choose to believe depict. In order to get a balanced view of a subject, one has to consider both the pros and the cons, consider whether the source has an ax to grind and is grinding it via posting on the net, whether source is in a state of reason blinding agitation etceteara. To know my opinion please read my responses to others on this thread. If you still have a question after reading then I'll be more than happy to clarify.

I won't deny that I feel bitter about being raised a JW. And it's fair to say that many who say negative things about them feel the same way. However, this does not invalidate our statements. Rather, these are the things that have made us bitter!
Many JWs will recognize the statements here as facts, but will either make excuses for them or outright deny them. But here's a fact that isn't denied: The organization has stated that it, not Jesus, acts as God's mediator for mankind. Of course, I doubt you see or will accept the implication here.

[edteach]

radrook,You are a JW apoligist plain and simple. Lets go to one of the biggest reasons the JW religion it totaly wrong.
The JWs believe to this day that [after many changes from 1874 to 1914] that Jesus came invisibly to earth and saw that Charles Taz Russell and his small band of bible students were the only people on earth living acording to gods will.
So much so that he gave authority over his earthly orginzation to C.T. Russell, They still call them selves [the 11old men who have never been laied]lol, The faithful and descrete slave, This is taken from the parable of the slaves that were given talents to invest and some burried them and were called worthless slaves when the master came home, but the one who invested the money and made a proffit was called the faithfull and descrete slave, they have taken this title with no bible based authorty at all for them self to prop up their authority.
Now one of the main legs if not the main leg that props up all this clap trap is how do you get 1914 as a special date? Because unless I missed it in history class, I do not remember Jesus comming back to earth and doing a snap inspection in 1914 or any other date for that mater.
So here is the story, I copied it and pasted it. It is a long read but this one arguemnt brings down all the crap the watchtower teaches as nothing more than that, CRAP!!!

607: The Shaky Foundation of the 1914-doctrine
By Jan S. Haugland



The Watchtower Society (WTS) has provided what can be called a theological framework for the Jehovah's Witnesses. As we will see, this framework rests entirely on the date 1914. Currently, Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) hold that in 1914, Jesus Christ was put upon a throne in heaven, and started to 'rule in the midst of his foes' (Psalm 110:2). The end of the world started that year.

Until the November 1st issue of the Watchtower, the WTS also argued that some of those who witnessed the events in 1914 would also be alive to see the end. When this doctrine now is abandoned, the importance of 1914 is reduced. Still, quite a few key doctrines are built on the 1914 date:

The WTS claims that the JW leadership, the so-called "anointed," were selected by Christ to be his sole channel of communication to mankind, and that this happened in 1919. This is based on the premise that Christ returned in 1914, and did an inspection of Christian groups three and a half year later, sent the WTS leadership in "Babylonian captivity" (actually, prison) then and finally selected them in 1919. Without 1914, the WTS has no specific position relative to Christ.

JWs claim that they alone fulfill Matt 24:14 by proclaiming the 'good news' all over the world in our time. This "good news" is that Christ started to reign in 1914, and the end will come "soon." If this is false, JWs have been preaching a false gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

The JWs interpretation of most parts of the Bible is based on the idea of Christ's invisible presence since 1914. If it is wrong, their interpretation is a false one, and any claim to being directed by God will be proved horribly wrong.

There is no evidence that our time has any specific Biblical prophetic importance if the 1914 claims are wrong.

Even doctrines like the "two-class" system, which is a unique interpretation by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is actually dependent on the 1914 date. The WTS claims that the "gathering" of the "great crowd" (non-anointed living on Earth) started around 1935, and that this happened after the "time of the end" had started. So without this chronology, this strange doctrine also falls.

JWs claim that the year 1914 was predicted by Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the movement, from the 1870s, and this is used as a major evidence that Russell was directed by God.

'Gentile Times' - The History of a Doctrine
It is true that Russell had 1914 as an important part of his Chronology. He predicted the end of the world and the full establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth for this date. This was not what happened, but yet JWs argue that something important happened when World War I started.

What chronological evidence did Charles Taze Russell use? His chronological argument was borrowed completely from the second-adventist Nelson Barbour. They had a long list of dates, one of which was 1914.

Nelson Barbour built all his arguments upon his complete Bible chronology, which placed the creation of Adam in 4127BC. Barbour (and Russell) thought that different Bible verses containing numbers were 'coded' messages from God about the dates of various events.

One of these texts were Daniel chapter 4. The prophet Daniel here says to king Nebuchadnezzar:

Dan 4:24,25 "And you they will be driving away from men, and with the beasts of the field your dwelling will come to be, and the vegetation is what they will give even to you to eat just like bulls; and with the dew of the heavens you yourself will be getting wet, and seven times themselves will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it." [NWT]

Somehow, Barbour (and JWs today) interpret this to mean something more than years (or 'seasons') of insanity for Nebuchadnezzar. The English expression "times" is also used in translations of Revelation 12:6, 14. Here it can be interpreted as if three and a half "times" equals 1260 days. One "time" is defined as 360 days, and seven times will be 2520 days. The WTS then appeal to the "year-day" rule, based on Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 (which interestingly is no longer applied to the WTS interpretation of Rev 12!) and get 2520 years.

But what lasted for 2520 years? Barbour, without any further evidence, applied this period to Jesus' words about the fall of Jerusalem, fulfilled in 70AD:

Luk 21:24 "and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."

Dispite the fact that Jesus words "will be" informs us that the start of these "times of the nations" or "gentile times" (most translations) would be when Jerusalem should fall in the future, Barbour argued that these "gentile times" started when Jerusalem fell to Babylonians centuries earlier, in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 52:12) When was this?

Barbour said Jerusalem was destroyed in 606BC.

Counting 2520 years from 606BC gives us 1914, right?

Wrong.

Barbour was, like Russell, very ignorant about chronology and history. When the calendar we use (Julian, later improved to the Gregorian) was created, there was no zero year, so 1 BC was followed by 1 AD. 2520 years from 606BC would give us 1915, which Russell actually used instead of 1914 for a few years. But then World War I started in 1914. Russell had predicted something for 1914, something did indeed happen, so Russell thought he had been right. Russell then 'forgot' about the zero-year, and changed the chronology to 1914 again.

But sooner or later this had to be corrected. How? By moving the destruction of Jerusalem by one year, from 606 to 607BC. This is easy to do on paper.

The Watchtower book Revelation - Its Great Climax is at Hand! (1988) quotes the old Barbour booklet on page 105:

"'It was in B.C. 606, that God's kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles. 2520 years from B.C. 606, will end in A.D. 1914.' - The Three Worlds, published in 1877, page 83."

A footnote informs us:

"Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 BC, the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914." - See "The Truth Shall Make You Free," published by the Watch Tower Society in 1943, page 239."

Isn't this quite impressive? "Providentially" - by God's direction - they had made two errors cancelling each other out!

What new "research" changed this date? None, of course. If you examine the WTS' books, you will find no evidence whatsoever for this new date.

This change was necessary to keep the 1914 date, on which the whole superstructure of Watchtower doctrine is built.

Fact is, Jerusalem fell to Babylonians in 587BC, not 607. Barbour's and Russell's ignorance in chronology and history has given the WTS a tremendous problem. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (online-version), a source often used by the WTS, says :

"In 587/586 BC the city and Temple were completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, and the captivity began. It ended in 538 BC when Cyrus II the Great of Persia, who had overcome Babylon, permitted the Jews, led by Zerubbabel, of the Davidic house, to return to Jerusalem."

Of course, the WTS admits that they are pretty alone in the world claiming that Jerusalem fell in 607. They argue that this is because they alone really hold the Bible above "secular" sources.

The WTS, in the book Your Kingdom Come (1981) page 187, says:

"Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be used as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. "

This may sound very nice to a Christian, but is it true? Does the Watch Tower Society really hold the Bible to be 'accurate and reliable'? Do they use the Bible as a measuring rod?

Does the Bible teach that Jerusalem fell in 607BC?
The Bible contains no absolute dates, since our calendar was not invented when any part of the Old Testament was written. It is not possible, therefor, to date events directly. The Bible does, however, provide many relative dates.

One example can be found in

Dan 1:1 "In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it."

Then follows an account of how the holy things in the temple was taken to Babylon, and also some prominent Israelites - among them Daniel - were taken captive. Jerusalem was not destroyed at this point. In Daniel 2:1, we likewise find an event dated in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. Logically, this means that the deportation of Daniel and others occurred in the accession year (or, theoretically, the first year, but verse 5 shows otherwise since a three year education is betweeen 1:1 and 2:1) of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

This was how events were dated in the Biblical times. If we can date the reigns of the Kings, in this case Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, we can date the events.

Any dating therefor requires some independent non-Biblical evidence. Only relative dates can be taken from the Bible itself. We will look at how these absolute dates are obtained later.

Does the WTS defend Bible chronology?
As we have seen, the WTS claims they follow the Bible and defend it against criticism. Is this true? Sometimes, but not in this case.

We noticed that Daniel 1:1 said that Nebuchadnezzar took prisoners from Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim (accession-year system).

According to Watchtower chronology, this is not possible.

The WTS Bible encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures (hereafter: it), Volume 1, page 1269, states:

"Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1. It could not be Jehoiakim's third year of his 11-year reign over Judah, for at that time Jehoiakim was a vassal, not to Babylon, but to Egypt's Pharaoh Necho."

"Evidently," they say. A person not versed in the Bible may find it possible that Daniel refers to "the third year" since a specific event of a king's reign. But when we know that this was the way time was counted in those days, we understand how extremely unlikely this is. To use an example: Is it likely that any person living in our days will date the start of World War II to 1869, simply because he meant the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans was a more interesting event to initiate the start of our calendar? If Daniel had made such a strange statement, he would have known he would almost certainly be misunderstood. Also, Daniel like many other Bible writers use this dating frequently (Daniel 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1).

Daniel 2:1 has the prophet interpret the dreams of Nebuchandezzar in his 2nd year. Again, the WTS must appeal to acrobatics, when the text itself says "in the second year of the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar" which is extremely unambiguous.

This refusal to put Scripture ahead of dogma becomes especially embarrassing in Your Kingdom Come (hereafter:kc), which in an appendix tries to refute criticism against WTS chronology. On page 188 they try to refute the value of the Babylonian chronicles by Berossus:

"Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this."

Isn't it astonishing to see that just a few paragraphs after the WTS heralds itself as the sole defender of the Bible, they purposely fail to acknowledge that the Bible itself, in Daniel, supports Berossus against the WTS chronology?

These are certainly not the only examples. The prophet Zechariah delivers the most striking blow against the WTS chronology.

Zec 1:7 "On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, that is, the month Shebat, in the second year of Darius, the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah the son of Berechiah the son of Iddo the prophet.

This time, the WTS agrees with every source that the event must be dated in February 519 BC. After all, the 607 date of the WTS uses the reign of Cyrus as an "anchor point," so it would be unwise to deny this.

What did the prophet Zechariah see and hear?

Zec 1:12 "So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?""

Yes, for 70 years God had denounced the cities of Judah. This takes us back to 589BC. According to Watchtower chronology, nothing of significance happened this year. In the established chronology, this was the year when Nebuchadnezzar started the siege on Jerusalem (2. Kings 25:1; Ezek 24:1,2; Jer 52:4).

Moreover, it would have been meaningless for this angel to say the cities had been denounced for "seventy years" if this period started eighteen years after the complete destruction of the capital! On the other hand, if this angel was talking about a seventy year period from 607 to 537 - as a JW no doubt will argue - why should the angel ask "how long?" These very words demonstrate that at this point the period of denouncing had not yet ended. And since they still continued, they must have started with a major event in 589BC.

As if this was not enough, Zechariah later delivers an even more fatal blow to Watchtower chronology:

Zec 7:1-5 "Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Darius the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah, on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, in Chislev. And Bethel proceeded to send Sharezer and Regem-melech and his men to soften the face of Jehovah, saying to the priests who belonged to the house of Jehovah of armies, and to the prophets, even saying: "Shall I weep in the fifth month, practicing an abstinence, the way I have done these O how many years?" And the word of Jehovah of armies continued to occur to me, saying: "Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, 'When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?"

The chronological evidence in these verses is astonishing and gives a wealth of information. Even WTS literature must agree that these events the Jews were mourning and fasting are clearly marked in the Bible. They had been fasting in the fifth month "in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar's bodyguard, after two days of inspection, burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple," as stated in the WTS book Paradise Restored to Mindkind - by Theocracy! (hereafter: pm), page 235. They also fasted in the seventh month "to commemorate the assassination of Governor Gedaliah, who was of the royal house of King David and whom Nebuchadnezzar made governor of the land for the poor Jews who were allowed to remain after the destruction of Jerusalem." (pm, p. 235).

This runs the WTS into an obvious problem, since they claim this happened in 607BC. November 518BC, in the 4th year of Darius, when Zechariah had this vision, is 90 years after 607BC. The WTS agrees that the seventy years of mourning started when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Bible text above shows as clearly as any text can do, that the seventy years ran up to the year 518. The Israelites asked if they should continue this fasting. If they had stopped twenty years earlier, this question would not make sense. Also, in 1:12, the seventy years were called "these seventy years" as opposed to "those seventy years" which would be the choice of word if they ended twenty years earlier (in Zec 7:5 RSV says "for these seventy years", NIV says "for the past 70 years").

How does the WTS answer this serious objection to their chronology? With respect to the Angel in Zechariah chapter 1, they say:

"So did Jehovah's angel mean that those seventy years had not yet ended, or that they had just now ended? This could not historically be true." (pm, p. 131; bold added)

Yes indeed! Every historian and every Bible commentary, backed by thousands of cuneiform documents, ancient documents and inscriptions, states that 586/7BC is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem. Now, when God himself and God's Angel says the same thing through the prophet Zechariah, the Watchtower Society boldly states 'This could not historically be true.'

Further examples should not be necessary to demonstrate to what degree the WTS supports the Bible.

Yet, let us examine the arguments used by the WTS to establish the date of 607BC.

The Seventy Years for Babylon
To counterbalance the wealth of evidence against their chronology, the WTS appeals to some Bible scriptures. Your Kingdom Come (kc) page 187-8, says:

"The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He added: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jeremiah 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23) We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate."

The 70 years of Jeremiah is here fully applied to the period from Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar until the Jews were permitted to return home from Babylon. The fall of Babylon to Cyrus was in 539BC. This is not in dispute. The WTS argues that the Jews came home in 537BC. This is possible, even though 538 is a more probable year. It then follows, the WTS argues, that Jerusalem fell 70 years earlier, in 607BC.

The seventy years is a prophetic period used by Jeremiah, so it is natural to first examine how this expression is used in his book. As we have seen above, the first mention is in Jeremiah 25:11. This text does not say what the WTS claims it does say.

Jer 25:11 "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

We will immediately note that Jeremiah nowhere says that Jerusalem will lay desolate for seventy years. These seventy years were a time of servitude, not desolation. Even though the context speaks about the devastation, the seventy years themselves applies to servitude only. The text in kc quoted above ignores this completely. Moreover, the servitude was not limited to the Israelites, "these nations" naturally includes many, if not all, nations in this Syro-Palestianian area.

What did Jeremiah mean with the words "seventy years?" Naturally, the expression can refer to a period of exactly 70 years, as opposed to 71 or 69 years. This is the way it is understood by the WTS, and it is quite possibly correct.

However, it can just as well be a round number and apply to an approximate period. One example is the text in Psalm 90:10 "In themselves the days of our years are seventy years." Nobody will based on this text argue that the lifetime of a human being is exactly seventy years. In Isaiah 23:15 we see that "seventy years" is equalled to "the days of one king," which naturally is approximate. This principle, being known by Jeremiah, can simply mean he said the nations would serve Babylon for a lifetime, approximately seventy years.

"These nations" started serving Nebuchadnezzar no later than 605BC, when - as we have seen - he even took prisoners and booty from Jerusalem. This year Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharao Nechoh (Jeremiah 46:2), and the nations in this area had to pay tribute to the king of Babylon from this year. The period ended abruptly in 539BC, when Babylon fell to Cyrus. This period of servitude is sixty-six years, which nobody can deny is approximately seventy.

It is quite possible, however, to apply the start of these seventy years on the year 609BC, giving exactly seventy years. This year Harran fell, and the Assyrian empire had definately given space for Babylon as the dominating power in this area. Thus, in 609 the dominion of "these nations" shifted from Assyria to Babylon. Some nations came under Babylon immediately, others followed soon. [Footnote 1]

It is of course not possible to know for sure what Jeremiah meant. Note, however, that no matter what interpretation we choose for the seventy years, the "most natural reading" of Jeremiah 25:11 gives the seventy years to end in 539BC when Babylon fell to Cyrus. Also, the start of these years has nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem, but the supremacy of Babylon.

Jeremiah mentions the seventy years in another verse.

Jer 29:10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.'" [NWT]

At this point, the New World Translation shows its bias toward WTS interpretation. It must be noted, however, that in the discussion of "the seventy years" this is the only place the NWT is controversial.

With the sole exception of the King James Version (or Authorized Version) from 1611, and newer translations derived from it, the NWT is completely alone in stating "at Babylon" here.

For every other translation we have been able to lay hands on, the texts says "for Babylon" or similar:

Jer 29:10 "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place." [RSV]

Carl Olof Jonsson sent a letter to a number of acknowledged Hebrew scholars in Scandinavia, asking what was the exact meaning of the Hebrew expression "LeBabel" which occurs here. With no exceptions, they answered that the translation "for Babylon" was correct. These scholars were Dr. Seth Erlandson in Uppsala, Dr. Hans M. Berstad, Prof. Tryggve Mettinger and Dr. Tor Magnus Amble. Hebrew scholars are unanimous on this question, which should be obvious from the fact that every modern translation has this meaning.

That aside, it is not at all possible to interprete this text to mean that the seventy years ran from Jerusalem's destruction until Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylon. The context of this verse is that it is a part of a letter sent from Jeremiah to those who were taken captive from Jerusalem in the second (of three) deportations (2. King 24:10-17;2. Chron 36:10).

This was ten years prior to the destrcution of Jerusalem.

In this letter (Jeremiah 24:9-11) Jeremiah tells the captives that they should settle in Babylonia and not expect a quick return as a few false prophets have predicted. They would stay in Babylon until seventy years "are completed for Babylon." Only then would they return.

This only makes sense if the seventy years had already started.

This interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is supported by Dr. Avigdor Orr:

"The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered thus: 'After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are accomplished, etc.' The seventy years counted here evidetly refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity. They mean seventy years of Babylonain rule, the end of which will see the redemption of the exiles." [Footnote 2]

If the seventy years should begin in the future, ten years after Jeremiah's words were written, it would mean God had already decided that Jerusalem would be destroyed. In this case, the later warnings of Jeremiah would have no meaning:

Jer 38:17,18 "Jeremiah now said to Zedekiah: "This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said, 'If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire, and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape out of their hand.'""

If God had already decided to burn the city ten years before he did it, such a warning would have been futile. The example in the book of Jonah shows that God will change his plans when met with repentance.

We have seen that Jeremiah never talks about seventy years of devastation for Jerusalem. We should have this in mind when we examine the next two references, where Daniel and Ezra applies these words. Naturally, no interpretation of these texts should be contrary to the words of Jeremiah himself.

The prophet Daniel experienced the dramatic fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. He was possibly among the Jewish captives who received the letter from Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29:4-14). At least he knew the contents of this letter, promising a return to the holy land after 70 years of Babylonian supremacy.

On a night in 539 BC, the time was up for the mighty Babylonian empire, when the King of Babylon saw the writing on the wall - literally. Daniel interpreted these mysterious writings:

Dan 5:25-28 "And this is the writing that was inscribed: ME'NE, ME'NE, TE'KEL and PAR'SIN. "This is the interpretation of the word: ME'NE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and has finished it. "TE'KEL, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient. "PE'RES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.""

Yes, God had "numbered the days" of the kingdom of the Babylonians. Exactly seventy years after they finally defeated the Assyrians, the Medes and the Persians under King Cyrus put an end to the Baylonian dominance. Daniel concludes: "In that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed" (v30).

There is no doubt that this refers back to the prophecies of Jeremiah. This "numbering of days" was of course revealed in advance and not kept secret:

Amos 3:7 "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets."

Note the order of events as described by Jeremiah:

Jer 25:11,12 "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."' "'And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah.""

First the seventy years had to run out, and then would the king of Babylon be called to account. According to WTS interpretation, the seventy years ended two years after the king was called to account. This is, as anyone can easily see, a contradiction of the text.

The Jews who were in the Babylonian exile no doubt appreciated the end of the Babylonian empire. They knew that this would have to happen before they could return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple and the city. Then, as Jeremiah had said, they would return. God had promised "I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place." (29:10)

This was what Daniel found when he started to examine these prophecies immediately after the fall of Babylon:

Dan 9:2 "in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years." [NWT]

The WTS has often used these words to support their interpretation of the seventy years, namely that these years were the years from Jerusalem's destruction until the Jews returned. In some translations (NIV is one example), the wording is inaccurate and gives the impression that seventy years had to pass while Jerusalem was in ruins. The NWT, however, faithfully retains the somewhat ambiguous wording of the original.

Daniel simply says that seventy years had to pass before Jerusalem's devastations could end. He does not say that these seventy years started when Jerusalem was destroyed. Note this leading translation:

Dan 9:2 "In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, was studying the scriptures, counting over the number of years - as revealed by Yahweh to the prophet Jeremiah - that were to pass before the desolation of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years." [NJB]

Another accurate translation:

Dan 9:2 "in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years." [RSV]

Note that RSV and NWT uses plural, "devastations." The WTS argues that the devastation of Jerusalem occurred when the city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. But Daniel talks about several devastations. The Jerusalem Bible even use the expression "the successive devastations of Jerusalem."

The word for "devastation" is chorbah. It does not, as we will see, mean complete destruction. We have seen that Nebuchadnezzar took prisoners and booty from Jerusalem already in 605 BC, his accession year. Every year after this his army passed through the land, no doubt casuing more destruction, and the Bible even speaks about marauder bands from different nations causing havoc in this time (see 2 Kings 24:2; Jeremiah 35:11).

If we look at how this expression is used elsewhere in the Bible, the WTS argument falls completely down. The prophet Ezekiel speaks about "the inhabitants of these devastated places" (Ezekiel 33:24, 27), which then makes it pretty obvious that the word need not necessarily refer to places that are completely devoid of people. When we also see, in Nehemiah 2:17, that the Bible calls Jerusalem devastated even after the Jews had returned to it, we realize that the WTS application of this word is in error.

We have now seen that Daniel 9:2 gives no support to WTS interpretation. First, Daniel nowhere states that the seventy years started when Jerusalem was finally destroyed. Second, the devastations of Jerusalem started many years before the final destruction in 587 BC.

The final Bible verse we will examine in regards to the seventy years is also concerned with the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. Again, the text must be examined with the words of Jeremiah himself in mind. Ezra the scribe concludes his chronicles about the kings of Judah with these words:

2Chron 36:20,21 "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; to fulfill Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years."

Again, these words can imply that the land was desolated for exactly seventy years. As we have seen above, the devastations started before the final destruction of Jerusalem, so this lends no support to the WTS interpretation anyway.

Moreover, Ezra did not say that the period of seventy years ran parallel with the period the country laid desolated. He simply said that the seventy years had to end before the time of desolation was over. This also applies to Ezra's reference to the sabbaths.

Jeremiah nowhere mentions sabbath years in relation to the seventy years. Ezra no doubt refered to the prophecy in Leviticus 26:33-35. Ezra does not equal the time needed to pay off sabbaths with the seventy years. He refers to two different prophecies, and states that two periods had to be completed before the Jews could return: the sabbath rest and the seventy years of Babylonian supremacy.

There are two principles in relation to the sabbath rest worth remembering. If the land had to rest for seventy years, this would have to mean that for 490 (7*70) years, the Jews had not kept sabbath. This takes us back to 1077 BC (or 1097 in WTS chronology). This was before the reign of the rightous David, even before Saul who was the first king. Is it likely that the country did not hold Sabbath for a single year during the reigns of eg. Saul, David, Solomon and Josiah? On the other hand, using established chronology the country was desolate (in this sense, not being used for agriculture) for 50 years. This (7*50 years) brings us back to 937 BC, very close to the time of the division of the Kingdom, which is attributed to the faithlessness of the king. Too much emphasis on details in this prophecy has a doubtful value, but it is a factor worth consideration.

The Bible teaches 587 BC as date for destuction
The conclusion of the above must be that there is nothing in the Bible contradicting the established ("secular") chronology dating the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar as 605 BC. The Bible states that the final fall and destruction of Jerusalem was in the 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:12; 2 Kings 25:1-4; 2. Chron 26:11,19).

This is 587 BC. [Footnote 3]

On the other hand, the WTS has failed to make a system that is internally consistent with the Bible testimony about the seventy years. Moreover, their chronology directly contradicts clear statements in Daniel and Zechariah.

While the Bible itself is sufficient to reject the Watchtower Society's chronology, we will take our time to examine the enormous amount of archeological evidence for established chronology.


The Archeological Evidence
(See summary of evidence and timeline below)

As we have seen earlier, the Bible contains no absolute dates. It contains relative dates and timespans, and only if we can pinpoint at least one of the events and relative dates to our calendar, do we come up with an an absolute date.

This problem of course faces the WTS as well. They have focused on one key-date, an event that is witnessed in both secular historical sources and the Bible itself: The fall of Babylon to King Cyrus in 539 BC.

How was this date arrived on? Historians have used the regnal lists of Ptolemy and Berossus. These are considered accurate and reliable, and they date the reign of Cyrus over Babylon from 539 BC. This has been confirmed by the most reliable dating method known in history: contemporary documents with astronomical observations.

Astronomical observations
The most secure source of absolute dates comes from contemporary inscription with astronomical observations. Babylonians did, like many other people, place much emphasis on astrology, and they carefully observed the celestial phenomena and wrote down the exact placement of planets relative to the zodiac. These inscriptions were accurately dated relative to the reign of the king. Many such observations can be found on single inscriptions, forming a unique "finger print" for a year, since the observations could not possibly occur any other date for thousands of years in either direction. Astronomers today can accurately calculate the astronomical phenomenon described in the astronomical inscriptions, and will verify that it is impossible that these observations are fake or can apply to any other year.

So, the only chance for an inscription with correct astronomical observations to be "fake," is to have be dated wrong. Since WTS chronology is consistenly off with twenty years, the contemprary astronomical records would have to be dated twenty years wrong. Can anyone imagine astrologers and chroniclers in the neobabylonian era to do such a thing? The work involved in forging just one of these astronomic tables is enormous, considering that they mention numerous dates and events in a king's life, and just one change in the observations themselves or the dates would make these observation fit no constellation of astronomical phenomenoms in known history.

The WTS consider such astronomical calculations to be extremely reliable:

"A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: "Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2/3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached." (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date." (it-1, p 453; bold and italic as in original)

This astronomically confirmed date must be beyond doubt. Without it, the WTS key date, 539 BC for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus, has no foundation in fact. We have no wuarrel with this. But the WTS is grossly dishonest when they accept this piece of evidence as definite and beyond doubt, when they discard exactly the same type of evidence, for the Neo-Babylonian era. As we will see, the astronomical evidence for Neo-Babylonian chronology is more direct and then even stronger.

A comprehensive astronomical diary, VAT 4956, dated in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, gives definite aobservations that cannot fit any other year but 568 BC. This is beyond any doubt; not a single year thousands of year before or after this year can fit all evidence, and the chance of fabricating observations that by accident fits this year is not even worth considering. Since the Bible establishes that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:12; 2 Kings 25:1-4; 2. Chron 26:11,19), this must have happened in 587/6 BC, and certainly not 20 years earlier.

The WTS cannot accept this. They try to discredit this diary:

"VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid period." (kc, p 186)

This is indeed a copy, but it is by no means "possible" that the historical information is what was accepted in this mystical "seleucid period" which we again see is assumed to be a dubious period for extensive forgery of chronological evidence.The copyist did not add information, which is evident from the fact that in two places where the table is damaged, the copyist inserted the words "broken off, erased." This shows how extremely unlikely it is that the copyist should insert some later, "accepted" chronological details. Also, there are about forty dates in the text, and it should be beyond consideration that a copyist who is so conscientious that he indicates where the original source is illegible, should be engaged in wholesale forgery by inserting the name of a king who was dead in 568 BC in a historical record.

This is even beyond discussion, for quite recently the astronomical diary named BM 32312 was discovered. It contains exact astronomical observations from 652/51. Here, no copyist could have made any change to the date, because it is broken off! However, the table mentions the battle of Hirit on "month 12, day 27" where the King of Babylon was involved. And a more well-known diary, the Akity chronocle, states that this date occurred in the 16th year of king Shamashshamukin's reign (667-648 BC). So, we have a late and independent confirmation, including two solid pieces of evidence, that the established chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era is correct. As an added curiousity, we can add that this Babylonian text informs us that the king of Babylon lost this battle, seriously undermining the WTS' stock claims that Babylonian chroniclers were dishonest.

What we have seen, is that the WTS accepts evidence that support their chronology, while rejecting the same sort of evidence when it contradicts their ideas. Moreover, the table from Cambyses II's reign establishes the date for Cyrus' conquest of Babylon only indirectly, by consulting regnal lists to find out how long Cyrus ruled and that he was succeeded by his son Cambyses II in 529 BC. VAT4956, on the other hand, establishes Nebuchadnezzar's reign directly, and a person who will not allow himself to doubt the Bible's chronology can't possibly reject this. So if the WTS were correct when they claim that the Bible stated 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem to the return of the Jews (which, as we have seen, they are not!), they would have to deny 539 not 587/6. Then, of course, they would lose 607 as a key date, and it would be naive to believe all this distrortion of evidence from the WTS is for any other reason than keeping the 607 date, again to save 1914.

Regnal lists
One major piece of evidence against the WTS chronology is the regnal lists we have after Berossus and Ptolemy. Berossus was a Babylonian priest living in the 3rd century BC. He wrote a three-volume history of Babylonia, of which only fragments are known through quotations in later works, like those by Josephus and Eusebius. Ptolemy (70-161AD) was a multi-faceted scholar who lived in Egypt. Ptolemy wrote a mathematical work known as Almagest in Latin, where he included the canon, a regnal list. The Encyclopedia Britannica (on-line version) says:

"The source from which the exploration of Mesopotamian chronology started is a text called Ptolemy's Canon. This king list covers a period of about 1,000 years, beginning with the kings of Babylon after the accession of Nabonassar in 747 BC. The text itself belongs to the period of the Roman Empire and was written by a Greek astronomer resident in Egypt. Proof of the fundamental correctness of Ptolemy's Canon has come from the ancient cuneiform tablets excavated in Mesopotamia, including some that refer to astronomical events, chiefly eclipses of the Moon. Thus, by the time excavations began, a fairly detailed picture of Babylonian chronology was already available for the period after 747 BC." (under the headlines "The Study of History, Babylonian and Assyrian, Mesopotamian chronology, 747 to 539 BC.")

Berossus and Ptolemy, living in different parts of the world at different times, and both being respected as reliable sources by both early and modern historians, give the same regnal data:

Kings Berossus Ptolemy Date BC
Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 625-605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 43 years 604-562
Evil-Merodach 2 years 2 years 561-560
Neriglissar 4 years 4 years 559-556
Labashi-Marduk (9 months) - 556
Nabonidus 17 years 17 years 555-539

It is no surprise, then, that the Society is trying to discredit these sources. Even this would not help much if these sources could be demonstrated to be independent of each other. So in Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971, the Watch Tower Society flatly claimed that Ptolemy had copied Berossus:

"In preparing his canon Ptolemy is thought to have used the writings of Berossus" (page 328)

The passive wording hides the fact that only the Watchtower Society's own writers have ever "thought" this! There is substantual evidence that Ptolemy built on earlier records. After this argument had been debunked, the WTS had to use another:

"Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. It thus is not surprising that Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period." (It-1, page 455; same text in kc page 186)

It is hard to understand how linking Ptolemy and Berossus with the "Seleucid period" can discredit them, as if this was a time when records were forged wholesale. The Watchtower Society itself depends 100% on the date 539BC. As we have seen, this comes from Ptolemy and Berossus as well. Seeing this problem, the WTS has gone to strange quarters to find additional support after having discredited Ptolemy:

"The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy's canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus' first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus' last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.)." (It-1, page 454)

This is quite interesting, since Diodorus (1st century BC) lived right after the "Seleucid period," and used sources from this period. One of the problems with Diodorus is that he often does not mention his sources, reducing the possibility to check him. Africanus is a Christian writer from the 3rd century AD. He uses Diodorus as a source. Living in the 3rd and 4th century we find Eusebius, who says he uses Diodorus and Africanus as sources!

This does not mean, of course, that the 539BC date is not well established. But fact is, it is less secure than 586/7BC as the date for Jerusalem's destruction.

Business documents
One of the most extensive and overwhelming pieces of evidence is the enormous amounts of business and administrative documents unearthed from the Neo-Babylonian era. These are contemporary documents, not later copies, and there can be around 50,000 (!) of these documents, many of them stored at British Museum in London. Some thousand of these documents are documented. The WTS admits:

"Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period." (kc, p 187)

So for every known year in this era, there are such contemporary documents. However, the WTS claims twenty years are missing. Where is the business documents covering this period? They do not exist. If some king reigned for more than the years assigned to them in the established regnal lists, or if some unknown king reigned for twenty years (or a combination), there must have been hundreds if not thousands of business documents dated in this period. There are indeed none. The documents contains details of hundreds of thousands of trivial and not-so-trivial business transactions -- buying and selling -- and the idea that this did not happen during this period is absurd. Moreover, we can track business transactions from delivery of goods to payment of the same goods. We can establish who is head of the company in the given year. It is patently obvious that to believe that the WTS chronology can be defended against this evidence, makes the infamous "illuminaty conspiracy" seem likely by comparision. It would involve not only hundreds of scribes, chroniclers, officials and astrologers from the Neo Babylonain period onwards through the centuries, it would also require a conspiratory silence from thousands of business man in a whole empire!

It is more than obvious that there are no records for the "missing twenty years" because they never existed. Not a single piece of cuneiform text has ever hinted that they existed. No chronicler or astrologer had heard of them. And as we have seen demonstrated above, if they existed the Bible itself would contradict itself on many chronological details, and Jeremiah's prophecy would have failed.

Contemporary royal inscriptions
More direct evidence from the Neo-Babylonian era has also been found. A inscription from the Seleucid era, The Uruk King List, discovered in 1959/60, confirms the reigns of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk and Labashi-Marduk. Other parts of the text is unfortunately damaged. While we have no such king lists from earlier eras, we have a number of inscriptions that confirms the chronology in the most direct way.

Nabon No. 18 mentions a lunar eclipse establishing Nabonidus' second year to 554/53, thus confirming established chronology.

Nabon No. 8 (Hillah stele) confirms the chronology for the whole era from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus, giving the total period of the kings as established from all other sources. It also gives details of astronomical events further establishing the exact dates of Nabonidus' rule.

Nabon H 1, A and H 1, B. The WTS admits:

"Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy's Canon." (kc, p 186)

The later copy of the same stele (B), gives us details of which had been damaged on the original find.It also gives details of the Assyrian king Assurbanipal and Nabopolassar, thus establishing Neo-Babylonian chronology yet again.

The Nabonidus Chronicle (BM 35382) is often used by the WTS to argue the Bible's correctness in historical details (see it-1 pp 148, 283-4, 566 and many other places). It's obviously not ignorance that causes them to never mention this famous chronicle in this debate. Fact is, this chronicle gives the reigns of all kings in this era, and they are exactly the same as those given by Ptolemy and Berossus. All arguments that later chroniclers only used "popular" chronology in their lists is thus shattered, because this chronicle is contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian kings themselves! No wonder the WTS will not mention this devastating piece of evidence, dispite being well aware of what it says.

Lunar eclipse (saros) texts
As we have seen, the WTS is more than eager to accept "secular" evidence for the later Persian era, which they are dependent on for their own chronology, but they reject the same -- and stronger -- evidence establishing the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era. Now we will examine a piece of evidence untouched by the WTS, which carries us directly from the Neo-Babylonian era into the later Persian era without any possibility for "interruption" from the "twenty missing years" the WTS need to keep the 607 date.

Some Babylonian texts known as "saros" texts, or moon eclipe texts, contains details of lunar eclipses. The eclipses occur in groups, which repeat at approximately 18-year intervals. They can be assigned precisely to specific absolute dates, because the precise observations are unique and cannot be repeated for thousands of years.One particular document spans the time from Nabopolassar's 17th year all the way down to the 18th year of the Persian king Artaxerxes!

King Regnal year Date (BC)
Nabopolassar 17th 609/8
Nebuchadnezzar 14th 591/0
Nebuchadnezzar 32nd 573/2
Nabonidus 1st 555/4
Cyrus 2nd 537/6
Darius 3rd 519/8
Darius 21st 501/0
Xerxes 3rd 483/2
Xerxes 21st 465/4
Artaxerxes 18th 447/6

The impact of this evidence is by itself overwhelming. We see a continuous record of astronomical observations. These can all be pinpiinted to an absolute date, and because of the very nature of our solar systems nothing can be shifted twenty years without breaking this long list of lunar eclipse date leading into a period where the WTS agrees with the "secular" chronology. Again, we have an independent and secure confirmation of the established chronology, leaving no room in reality for the WTS' 607-date.

Agreement with Egyptian chronology
As we have seen, Neo-Babylonian chronology rests solidly on its own feet. However, we have an excellent opportunity to test this body of evidence against a wholly independent set of evidence. The contemporary chronology of Egypt has been established based on different evidence. We have already used much space to go into detailed evidence for Babylonian chronology, so for this treatise it is sufficient to note that this evidence consist of several grave steles, the Greek historian Herodotus and the Egyptian priest Manetho (third century BC), and several papyri, including some astronomical details (ie. Demotic Papyrus Berlin 13588). This chronology is solidly founded, and even more, it is fully independent from Neo-Babylonian chronology.

The Watch Tower Society is consistently off by around 20 years also relative to Egyptian chronology.

There are several synchronisms between Biblical, Egyptian and Babylonian chronology, and in these it is evident that the WTS chronology is wrong. 2. Kings 23:29 let us know that Josiah died during Pharao Nechoh's reign. Nechoh started his reign in 610 BC, but according to the WTS Josiah died 19 years earlier. Jeremiah 46:2 informs us of a battle between Nebuchadnezzar and Pharao Nechoh in Jehoiakim's fourth year. In WTS chronology this would be 625 BC, but as we have seen Nechoh didn't start his reign before 610! Jeremiah 44:30 informs us that shortly after the death of Gedaliah, Pharaoh Hophra (elsewhere called Aphries) was king in Egypt. He ruled Egypt 589-570, so this fits perfectly with dating Jerusalem's fall in 587 but not 607. Finally, we have the cunieform text BM33041, telling us that Nebuchadnezzar makes a campaign against Egypt's Pharao Amasis in his 37th regnal year. Amasis ruled 570-526, so this cannot have happened in 588/87 as WTS chronology claims.

The WTS have to admit:

"The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho's time." (It-1, page 450)

It would be a coincidence beyond anything we have seen if the WTS' chronology was correct and all this evidence was wrong. It reminds us about the proud mother of a boy scout who exclaimed during a great parade: "Imagine, three thousand boy scouts, and only my boy is in step."

Summary of archeological evidence for established chronology
Chronicles, historical records, and royal inscriptions from the Neo-Babylonian period, beginning with the reign of Nabopolassar and ending with the reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, show it ran from 626 to 539 BC, not from 645 to 539 BC as the Society claims.
Berossus
Ptolemy
Various Babylonian chronicles such as the Nabonidus Chronicle
Nabonidus No. 18
The Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8
The Adda-Guppi stele, Nabonidus H1,B
Business and administrative documents
Tablets exist that are dated from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period as established by Berossus, Ptolemy and contemporary stele; no tablets are inconsistently dated. About 5000 have been published and about 50,000 remain. These are contemporary documents from the Neo-Babylonian period.
Astronomical diaries
VAT 4956 fixes the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 BC by a unique set of astronomical observations, establishing his accession year in 605 BC.
BM 32312 plus the Akitu Chronicle pin the 16th year of Shamashshumukin (a Babylonian king before the Neo-Babylonian period) to 652/1 BC This, combined with business documents, Ptolemy's canon, the Akitu Chronicle and the Uruk King List combine to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 605/4-562/1, with his 18th (destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. 52:28-30) year in 587/6 BC.
Saros (lunar eclipse) texts
Four independent texts provide absolute dates within the Neo-Babylonian period. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is fixed at 587/6 BC.
Synchronisms with contemporary Egyptian chronology show Watchtower chronology consistently off by 20 years.
Josiah died during Pharaoh Nechoh's reign, which began in 610 BC. The Society dates Josiah's death to 629 BC.
Some Jews fled to Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) immediately after Jerusalem's destruction. Since he began to reign in 589 BC, Jerusalem could not have been destroyed in 607 BC.
A fragmentary cuneiform text mentions a battle by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year against Pharaoh Amasis, who began to rule in 570 BC The Society claims Nebuchadnezzar died in 582 BC.
Timeline - an overview
JW Chronology Dates BC Established Chronology Evidence

640



|



630
100,000nds of cuneiform tablets, incl. business documents
628: Jehoiachim's accession year |


624: NBUs accession year 620


617: NBU take Jewish prisoners in in Jehoiachim's 3RD YEAR (!). Da1:1,2; 2Ki24:10-17; 2Ch36:10 |



610 609: Fall of Harran. Babylon world power. Possible START OF 70 YEARS. Josiah killed in battle with Pharao Nechoh (2Ki46:2)

607: FALL OF JERUSALEM; start of 70 years | 605: NBU's accession year. First deportation of Jews (Dan 1:1,2; 2:1).


600 597: NBU takes prisoners. Second deportation. Jehoiachin in exile; Zedekiah's reign starts. BM21946:11-13; 2Ki24:10-17; 2Chr36:10.

|



590 587: FALL OF JERUSALEM


|



580



|



570
BM33041. Agreement with independent Egyptian chronology

|
VAT4956: accurate astronimical obs. for 568/67 dated as NBU's 37th year.

560 Evil-Merodach 561-560 Hillah stele

| Neriglissar 559-556 Nabon no 18

550 555: Nabonidus' accession year BM35382. Nabonidos' Chronicle

|
Nabon H 1, B
539: Fall of Babylon 540 539: FALL OF BABYLON to Cyrus; 70 YEARS END. Pharaoh Hophrah rules Egypt in this time; Jer 44:30

537: Jews return from exile, 70 years end. |



530



|



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:
Accession year. In Babylonian chronices, the year a King ascends the throne is called accession year, the following year is the first year and so on. This is called the accession year system. Jewish chronicles, following a non-accession year system, counts the starting year as the first regnal year, the next as the second and so on. The third year of Jehoiachin's reign in Babylonian chronicles would be the fourth year in Israel's chronicles.

Abbrevatiations:
NBU King Nebuchadnezzar (also called Nebuchadrezzar).

NWT New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Bible translation by the Watchtower Society. Quotes from CD-ROM version, 1993. All Bible quotes in this document from the NWT except if otherwise noted.

NIV New International Version of the Holy Bible, by The International Bible Society 1973, 78, 84.

RSV Revised Standard Version. The built-links refers to this translation.

NJB The New Jerusalem Bible (1985). Catholic.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:
Footnote 1: The fall of Harran in 609 BC is often understood in relation to the book of Jeremiah. See Professor D. J. Wiseman in The New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed, 1982, p. 101; and Prof. Guy P. Couturier in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968, p. 300; Dr. J. A. Thompson: The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980, p. 21, 533.

Footnote 2: Avigdoz Orr: The Seventy Years of Babylon, Vetus Testamentum, Vol VI, 1956, p. 305. The same argument, that the seventy years was for Babylonian supremacy and not Jewish exile, is also emphasised by other experts. See Dr. Peter R. Ackroyd in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol XVII, 1958, p. 23; Prof. Norman K. Gottwald: All the Kingdoms of the Earth, New York, Evanston, London 1964, p. 265, 2666; Dr. Otto Plöger: Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, 1971, p. 68.

Footnote 3: Actually, some sources say 586 BC, which is only caused by an apparent contradiction between 2. Kings 24, 25 and Jeremiah 52:12 on one side and Jeremiah 52:28-30 on the other hand. Since the book of Jeremiah was obviously completed by a Jew living in Babylon, he is likely to have used the accession year system while Jeremiah who wrote Kings would use the Jewish system.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos:
The person responsible for 99% of the research behind this page is Carl Olof Jonsson. His book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Commentary Press, Atlanta, 1986), which unfortunately is out of print, contains the most extensive and exhaustive discussion of this topic available.

[edteach]

If you have the time a patience to read this, you will have the information to make any JW knocing at your door to send them running, they can not answer this with any credibility, BTW Carl Olof Jonsson was the head of the sweedish JW head quarters, he sent a letter with his findings [he started to research this topic as he wanted to answer the questions people were sending into him] to the WTBS, they responded by telling him that if he talked to any one about what he had found, he would be disfellowshipped, He is now a disfellowshipped person, So much for your other argument that this punishment is to keep the apostates out, or is it to keep the real truth out? I think the later.

[Radrook]

I won't deny that I feel bitter about being raised a JW. And it's fair to say that many who say negative things about them feel the same way. However, this does not invalidate our statements. Rather, these are the things that have made us bitter! Many JWs will recognize the statements here as facts, but will either make excuses for them or outright deny them. But here's a fact that isn't denied: The organization has stated that it, not Jesus, acts as God's mediator for mankind. Of course, I doubt you see or will accept the implication here.

1. I never said that bitterness automatically invalidates the truthfulness of any statement.

2. I never denied or made excuses for any specific or even general wrongdoing.

3. The WTBTS does not teach that it replaces Jesus as the primary mediator between mankind and God. That statement as you have expressed it cannot be found in any of its publications.

BTW

That sounds similar to the statement that JWS teach that Jesus is a mere archangel. Which of course gives the impression that Jesus as mediator and savior is rejected. Which of course is blatantly untrue.

[Radrook]

radrook,You are a JW apoligist plain and simple.


Plain and simple if you ignore what I said and invent your own convenient interpretation in order to begin an ill concealed diatribe against issues that you feel that I am vehemently going to defend.


If I am the fanatical apologist that you claim I am, then I am certainly a strange one since I did recommend certain adjustments in order to improve the organization and no fanatic would do such a thing lest he be struck down by lightning. Neither did I approve of any wrongdoing inflicted on anyone or claim that the organization is infallible as Catholics do with their Pope and with their organization by extension.

Lets go to one of the biggest reasons the JW religion it totaly wrong.

Did I say that JWS have always been totally right? If not then you are arguing against yourself. Be my guest.



snip! snip! Now one of the main legs if not the main leg that props up all this clap trap.... snip! snip!

Sigh! Bye!

BTW

I'd be careful in cut and pasting lest you get a copyright infraction warning from a mod.

[Radrook]

....So much for your other argument that this punishment is to keep the apostates out....

Argument? I don't remember arguing with anyone on this thread about that issue. Are you sure we are reading the same thread?

BTW

Truth can be a subjective thing. Catholics believe and teach many things as truth which Protestants consider outright lies or heresies. An apostate to you might be a truth-seeker to me and visa-versa. It's similar to how they use words to write history. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's illuminator is another's spreader of lies ad infinitum. So I see nothing really innovative or highly unusual in all this. As a matter of fact--Yawwwwwn! : )

[Henners]

Truth can be a subjective thing. Catholics believe and teach many things as truth which Protestants consider outright lies or heresies. An apostate to you might be a truth-seeker to me and visa-versa. It's similar to how they use words to write history. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's illuminator is another's spreader of lies ad infinitum. So I see nothing really innovative or highly unusual in all this. As a matter of fact--Yawwwwwn! : )

By the examples you provide you clearly demonstrate not that "Truth can be a subjective thing", but that religious people perceive "Truth" in different ways.

Clearly, all but one of these Truths must actually be Lies.

...and even the one true Truth looks a bit iffy by association.

[edteach]

"3. The WTBTS does not teach that it replaces Jesus as the primary mediator between mankind and God. That statement as you have expressed it cannot be found in any of its publications."

This statment is total totaly untrue, I will admit only one thing, that the society does not put it in big bold print.
If you want to read how the society believe's that they are the mediator between man and christ, you need to read Ray Franz book crisis of conscience.

Ray Franz was the nephew of one of the biggest idiot presidents of the WTBS or JWs org., Fred Franz.
Ray was put onto the Governing Body and left the org. in the early eightys becasue of all the crap that was bing put onto its people.
In his book he states that in fact the posistion of the society is that they are definatly the mediator between christ and man, they are the anointed that gives all our "meat in due season" as they like to put it.
Then christ is the mediator between god and the anointed.

In his book Ray says when he was going on a "zone trip" [ a zone trip is when a governing body member want to use Watchtower money to go on vacation to exotic places, they say that suddenly an island in the tropics needs a "special talk" by a GB member and off they go with kingdom money in their pockets]
That a woman ran up to him in the place he went on Vacation, and asked is it true when I pray that god does not hear my prayr? He had to keep his mouth shut and keep on walking.
If you want to know more buy the book, I did and it was a great read to reveal the truth about the cult.
I believe Ray knows a bit more about the goings on behind the curtian than you do.
We who were once in the cult like to refer to the org, as the silliy old man you see when you pull back the curtian. There is not big and powerful OZ, just a bunch of silly old men who try to make you think they have some sort of special power, and a special kingdom message, there is no "good news" only a hook they set if you let them and take the bait.

[JWideman]

3. The WTBTS does not teach that it replaces Jesus as the primary mediator between mankind and God. That statement as you have expressed it cannot be found in any of its publications.


:jaw-dropp
I make a statement that cannot be denied (because it is backed up by what the society itself has published) and here you are denying it.

Worldwide Security under the “Prince of Peace” (1986) p.10 - “Likewise, the Greater Moses, Jesus Christ, is not the Mediator between Jehovah God and all mankind. He is the Mediator between his heavenly Father, Jehovah God, and the nation of spiritual Israel, which is limited to only 144,000 members.”

[articulett]

edteach, thanks for letting us in on radrooks apologist leanings. We knew he was a woo; we just didn't know which brand. The woo are always very careful not to lay their own beliefs on the table... instead they just knock down all the science and arguments that threaten their beliefs in their head in order to make their beliefs seem more true.

[edteach]

I will not even reply to the statement from JWid. not worth arguing with a borg from the society. If he can not see that it is not worth fighting for an org. that has never been right on one of its many many predictions. I be he is not even old enough to remember the "STAY ALIVE TILL 75" rant that the society pushed or the mansion that was built for the whacked out pres. of the WTBS Rutherford, in California. Mostly because he was a boozer and they wanted to keep it quiet. He imported a lot of whiskey from Canada during the proabhition era.
The Jehovah's witness are so full of things that are so far out there, like the teaching that Jehovah lives in the pleadies star cluster.
Aluminum is the devils metal. and the list goes on and on.
Now they limit it to the end is sooooo close because they have been wrong time and again.
They forget the scripture in their own book [bible] that says if a profit shall say a prophecy that does not come to pass he is a false profit and should be killed.
by their own book they leaders of the this cult should be stoned. And not by smoking pot.
He even shows his disloyalty to the society he trys so vainly to protect or defend, according to WTBS teaching you as a witness should not be here posting, You are among people who are hostile to the teachings of your cult.
Is there not a so called "new cult book" you should be borging over?
Maybe one day you will mature enough in your life to see what is really going on and how you are not being tought or let to think for your self, you may thing you are but you are tought to just regurgitate what you are told to.
You are as a JW fed pablem and then told to spit it back out on demand. This is not thinking it is Mind control at its finest.

[edteach]

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5499/dsc0270qj8.jpgBTW your statment above proves what the truth is about the society, if jesus is the go between for god and the "144000" who is this 144000? well acording to the 12 old never had a lay men in brooklyn bethel it is........... THEM there is a small remneant some 5800 left on earth suposidly, but they do not have a say in where the billions of extorted $ go.
it is the 12 NBL old farts in brooklyn that have all the power and make up the rules and change tham as they go.
And the lemmings just keep running off the cliff. Keep sailing bob.

[elaine]

Happy Happy Birthday, Edteach!!!!!

[edteach]

Thanks, Elaine.

[JWideman]

I will not even reply to the statement from JWid. not worth arguing with a borg from the society. If he can not see that it is not worth fighting for an org. that has never been right on one of its many many predictions. I be he is not even old enough to remember the "STAY ALIVE TILL 75" rant that the society pushed or the mansion that was built for the whacked out pres. of the WTBS Rutherford, in California. Mostly because he was a boozer and they wanted to keep it quiet. He imported a lot of whiskey from Canada during the proabhition era.
The Jehovah's witness are so full of things that are so far out there, like the teaching that Jehovah lives in the pleadies star cluster.
Aluminum is the devils metal. and the list goes on and on.
Now they limit it to the end is sooooo close because they have been wrong time and again.
They forget the scripture in their own book [bible] that says if a profit shall say a prophecy that does not come to pass he is a false profit and should be killed.
by their own book they leaders of the this cult should be stoned. And not by smoking pot.
He even shows his disloyalty to the society he trys so vainly to protect or defend, according to WTBS teaching you as a witness should not be here posting, You are among people who are hostile to the teachings of your cult.
Is there not a so called "new cult book" you should be borging over?
Maybe one day you will mature enough in your life to see what is really going on and how you are not being tought or let to think for your self, you may thing you are but you are tought to just regurgitate what you are told to.
You are as a JW fed pablem and then told to spit it back out on demand. This is not thinking it is Mind control at its finest.

ME?!? WTF?