jehovah witness knocks at my door

[Pepband_Mom]

reslight

about the discrepancies in WTBTS published bibles. Which one is accurate? which is inaccurate. What does one do with an inaccurate Bible?

“the Word was a god” versus “the Word was God”. Infinite difference in meaning - you cannot have both…

“I have been” versus “I AM” and you know what that means “I AM”…

Which one is an honest, accurate version, which is not?

Problem is both published by WTBTS; what does that say about the capability & integrity of it’s Bible Committee?

 

[Bezant]

and to this Bezant says ((((overkill))))

There is no such thing as overkill in a situation such as this. The evil one(s) can state 99 truths in order to slip in the ONE LIE. We need to be wise but blunt & inform our brothers and sisters no matter how shocking the Non-Christian Man-Made American Sect material may turn out to be.

po18guy hits the nail square on the head. The path of spiritual & emotional CARNAGE this SECT has left in it’s 130+ years path is something else OTHER than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Charles Taze Russell died on a train dressed in his Halloween outfit - a roman toga made from a bed sheet - appropriately on Oct 31, 1916 - a delusional end to be sure. FUNNY how later on they buried him in Pennsylvania complete with a pyramidal headstone (2 tons???) & a rather large with a CROSS on it. But never mind you don’t find a pyramid let alone cross on any of their literature now. I do enjoy finding the occasional Christmas cards on the internet the Watchtower used to put out - they were rather lovely!

They won’t say much about Johannes Greber, Ex- Catholic priest turned spiritist cited by the Watchtower as a* translator*. Greber was “assisted” by spirits to help him translate the New Testament. (See The Watchtower, 15 February 1956, pages 110-110 as per Jason Everts Book “Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses” page 153, also page 30 on Russell)

I wonder if Russell STILL believes in the POWER of the PYRAMID *wherever he is * :whacky: OR now believes more so in the POWER of the CROSS??

Straight out of the Essential Catholic Survival Guide. I have my suspicions. They can be insidious.

I disagree with both of you in this particular case. Not every potential battle has to become one, even if you’re in the right.

There are different ways to diffuse the problem that are appropriate to a situation. Montj has little experience with Witnesses and their religion, the girls approached him politely, and maybe they’re willing to respect his lack of interest. The most appropriate answer is along the lines of, “No thank-you, I’m not interested.”

I believe Jesus called it, “turning the other cheek”?

 

[po18guy]

I disagree with both of you in this particular case. Not every potential battle has to become one, even if you’re in the right.

There are different ways to diffuse the problem that are appropriate to a situation. Montj has little experience with Witnesses and their religion, the girls approached him politely, and maybe they’re willing to respect his lack of interest. The most appropriate answer is along the lines of, “No thank-you, I’m not interested.”

I believe Jesus called it, “turning the other cheek”?

Excuse me, but they do not normally stop. If they stop, others will arrive. They are trained to be absolutely persistent. They believe that they are on a mission from God. Perhaps, you have not had them insinuate themselves covertly into your group. I have had this happen in personal email, as well as seeing it occur here. There is a JW posting in this thread right now. They rarely identify themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. More often, in my experience, they use some form of euphemism. They target the Catholic Church, as does every other false religion, and they desire nothing more than to lure you away - by wearing your resistance down if they have to. Learn about them. Study their history. Know their tactics. You will not treat them the same when you know what they desire to do with you.

 

[po18guy]

reslight

about the discrepancies in WTBTS published bibles. Which one is accurate? which is inaccurate. What does one do with an inaccurate Bible?

“the Word was a god” versus “the Word was God”. Infinite difference in meaning - you cannot have both…

“I have been” versus “I AM” and you know what that means “I AM”…

Which one is an honest, accurate version, which is not?

Problem is both published by WTBTS; what does that say about the capability & integrity of it’s Bible Committee?

Another “bible student” has arrived! Perhaps he can answer this: Why does he or she place any faith at all in one man’s opinion of the bible? CTR was neither theologian, nor visionary. Contemporary accusations called him a “con man.” And, the “con” part of that term is short for “confidence.” The British call such a “confidence trickster.”

Oh, and what about the 100% failure rate of each and every Jehovah’s Witness “prophecy”? Even Harold Camping has had the good sense to stop such nonsense.

 

[Bezant]

Excuse me, but they do not normally stop. If they stop, others will arrive. They are trained to be absolutely persistent. They believe that they are on a mission from God. Perhaps, you have not had them insinuate themselves covertly into your group. I have had this happen in personal email, as well as seeing it occur here. There is a JW posting in this thread right now. They rarely identify themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. More often, in my experience, they use some form of euphemism.

They target the Catholic Church, as does every other false religion, and they desire nothing more than to lure you away - by wearing your resistance down if they have to. Learn about them. Study their history. Know their tactics. You will not treat them the same when you know what they desire to do with you.

Oh, I’m very well aware of Witness messery.

However, many of them in fact possess a minimum of courteous behaviour. In my neighbourhood, once you make it explicitly clear that you’re not interested, they’ll leave you alone.

But you only have to be polite the first time. Any harassment after that and as far as I’m concerned, anything is fair game.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Can Jehovah Witnesses even keep friends from other religions?
/QUOTE]

I read that they can’t.

I had a problem too with a girl I was friendly with and she kept visiting me with pamphlets. I was getting really irritated because they always came unannounced and would expect to be invited in every time as if I have to wait on them. I felt that it was abusive of my hospitality. The last time, I just walked out on them after less than thirty seconds and they got the hint.

Another thing that really irritated me was that my friend (if we can call her that) would bring a companion with her, and the companion would never talk to me even when I directly addressed “hello” to them and would try to talk with my mom. That repeated when she brought another companion. I thought it was so rude; you’re in my living room, it’s only polite for you to introduce yourself.

Anyway I later read up on them and read that they actually aren’t allowed to have real friends who aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses. I feel as if she was being friendly with me just to get in my house (even before that she was being chummy with me in a rather needy way and it got on my nerves but I didn’t want to be mean about it so I put up with it).

I guess their door-to-door work has this frankly deceptive methods. You might want to nip it in the bud with those people who have been visiting you. With my experience, they’re only excessively chummy so they can do their work. I admire that they can put in the effort, patience and risk to go door-to-door for their work (how many Catholics can we say would do that? not many) but she knew I’m very Catholic and very proud of it.

I politely took their literature the first couple of times and I did want to read through it for the sake of dialogue. I realise that as an active Catholic, in my own little way, I do represent the Church to these people, so I have the duty to dialogue and be hospitable. But they abused it. They haven’t come knocking again after that.

So they may seem friendly but it’s their method of getting converts. Better to just say that you’re not interested whatsoever in joining their religion and their visits would probably stop, proving to you that they were only friendly because you were a potential member.

 

[JohnOneOne]

John 1:1 states in the New World Translation “and the word was a god.” However, WTBTS printed in 1981 the Stephen Byington translation of “The Bible in Living English” mostly because it say Jehovah but there is especially a couple major, glaring, big Problems:

#1 John 1:1 states in Byington’s translation page 1365 “…the Word was God.”
vs. New World “…and the Word was a god.”

#2 Another foul up: in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 1969 edition says on page 467 of John 8:58: "Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”- have been whaaaaat? silly, delusional, off-base, what? why throw stones at “I have been”

vs. Byington’ Living English page 1379 printed by the Watchtower John 8:58 "Jesus said to them “Verily, verily I tell you, before there was an Abraham I am.” NOW, I AM is something to throw stones at someone, don’t ya’ think?

Now a infinite difference between “I have been” and the great “I AM”.

Soooo you have “the Word was a god” versus “the Word was God” both coming from the Watchtower. Which Bible do you destroy? Both cannot be right? Both are printed by the Watchtower. This is scripture twisting at it’s worst. AND never underestimate the power of a SINGLE LETTER to completely throw off a scripture’s true meaning.

Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with “a god”), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 2/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, “What About John 1:1?”

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, “and the Word was God,” and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use “a god” within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

 

[po18guy]

Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with “a god”), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 2/2012), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, “What About John 1:1?”

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, “and the Word was God,” and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use “a god” within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Kudos to you for being honest enough to claim that you are a follower of Charles Taze Russell’s opinion of scripture. In my experience here, very few JWs demonstrate that. Please re-read the forum rules, particularly conduct rule #5.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

What happens as a result of a JW knocking at your door when you walk into the local Kingdom hall for the 1st, 2nd, 10th, 20th time?

By then is your garb changed into dresses & suits? Facial hair shaved? Still asking the HARD QUESTIONS? Buying their material to exclusion of everything else? Love bombed as " brother or sister so & so"? Attending their abundance of training sessions? Starting to turn away from your former (pagan) life as you knew it? Pulling away from (apostate) family & friends because you now have the “truth”? Drop all the prayers you used to say, ex. rosary? Feel like if you don’t conform, Jehovah won’t love you & you won’t live paradise on earth?

Is this a snapshot of how things pretty much progress?

 

[venite_adoremus]

Keep a small package of inexpensive rosaries near the door, and instructions on how the rosary is prayed in both Swedish and Spanish. The next time they drop by, hand one to them and offer to pray with them. You can expect them toward the end of March and first part of April, when they’ll be celebrating some special “holy times” by inviting you to their “remembrance” meetings. Pray for them, audibly. Then close the door, politely, reminding them that yours is a Roman Catholic household, that you belong to the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and that they too should belong to that Church because it teaches Truth. Good luck!

 

[reslight]

Having many things to attend to, I have to rotate my time spent in various forums; this causes some delay in answering.

Another “bible student” has arrived! Perhaps he can answer this: Why does he or she place any faith at all in one man’s opinion of the bible?

Being a Bible Student, I do not place my faith in one man’s opinion of the Bible.

CTR was neither theologian,

Theologian: a person versed in theology, especially Christian theology; divine.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/theologian

Theology:

1. the systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings

2. a specific branch of this study, undertaken from the perspective of a particular group: feminist theology

3. the systematic study of Christian revelation concerning God's nature and purpose, esp through the teaching of the Church

4. a specific system, form, or branch of this study, esp for those preparing for the ministry or priesthood

dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology

Russell certainly presented a systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship and influence upon other beings. He also certainly presented a systematic study of Christian revelation – as recorded in the Bible – concerning God’s nature and purpose, not as through any outward organization, however, but as through what God has revealed in the Bible. Russell, however, generally seemed to consider the term theologian as representative of teachers of human tradition. Although I could not find any statement of Russell in which he applied the word “theologian” to himself, he certainly did present a systematic study of the existence and nature of the divine and its relationship to and influence upon other beings, and he certainly presented a systematic study of Bible as related to God’s nature and purpose.

nor visionary.

I am not certain as to why this is being mentioned; however:

Visionary
dictionary.reference.com/browse/visionary

1. given to or characterized by fanciful, not presently workable, or unpractical ideas, views, or schemes: a visionary enthusiast.
2. given to or concerned with seeing visions.
3. belonging to or seen in a vision.
4. unreal; imaginary: visionary evils.
5. purely idealistic or speculative; impractical; unrealizable: a visionary scheme.
6. a person of unusually keen foresight.
7. a person who sees visions.
8. a person who is given to audacious, highly speculative, or impractical ideas or schemes; dreamer.

I would say definitions 1,2,3,4,5,8,9 certainly do not at all describe Russell. Only defintion #7 could apply with any degree, without any thought, however, of claiming that Russell’s foresight was perfect, or infallible.
See:
Did Russell Claim Infallibility?
ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/infallibility/

 

[reslight]

Contemporary accusations called him a “con man.” And, the “con” part of that term is short for “confidence.” The British call such a “confidence trickster.”

Russell was certainly not a “con man”, regardless of how much those who would misrepresent and twist facts so as to make it appear that he was such. Those who hated the fact that Russell was bringing forth truths from the Bible that exposed doctrine of men, being frustrated at not being able to refute Russell on scriptural terms, sought instead to destroy the reputation of the servant of Jesus who was showing these things from the Bible.
See:
Charles Taze Russell and Alleged “Scams”
ctr.reslight.net/?cat=679

Russell was in no wise perfect, and he made mistakes as do all of us, and he stated such. Nor would I defend him in absolutely everything he said, did, or taught. I do believe that God used him to restore many truths that had been suppressed in favor of the doctrine of men. Nevertheless, one who proclaims truth often steps on the toes of others, so that all kinds of evil reports are made up concerning such a person.

This happened also to Jesus. Jesus’ contemporaries falsely said or presented of Jesus:

He casts out devils through the prince of the devils. – Matthew 9:34.

They have called the master of the house Beelzebub. – Matthew 10:25.

Your disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath day. – Matthew 12:2.

They took counsel together that they might take Jesus by deceit, and kill him. – Matthew 26:4.

He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. – Matthew 26:65.

The chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death. – Matthew 28:59.

He has Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casts he out devils. – Mark 3:22.

Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. – Mark 14:55.

“You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" They all condemned him to be worthy of death. – Mark 14:65.

Behold, a gluttonous man, and a drunkard. – Luke 7:34.

This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what kind of woman this is who touches him, that she is a sinner. – Luke 7:39.

We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar.-- Luke 23:2.

You have a demon! – John 7:20.

You seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this. – John 8:40.

This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath. – John 9:16.

We know that this man is a sinner. – John 9:24.

We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God. – John 10:33.

Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ – John 10:36.

If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over. – John 18:30.

Of course, in the case of Russell, the method was that of character assassination rather than actually seeking to kill him. But it is as Jesus said:

If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more them of his household! – Matthew 10:25.

 

[reslight]

Oh, and what about the 100% failure rate of each and every Jehovah’s Witness “prophecy”? Even Harold Camping has had the good sense to stop such nonsense.

I am not with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor was Russell. Russell, however, never gave any prophecies. He disclaimed being a prophet, and he disclaimed that he was infallible in his expectations. As a Bible Student, he claimed only to be a student of Bible prophecy.

Were all his expectations 100% failures? No, his expectation that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 and that in 1914 the time of trouble was to begin, I do believe came true, although he did not expect the time of trouble to last as long as it has. And yet Russell also stated that he did not know how long the time of trouble would last after 1914. Russell died in 1916, still with the belief that the time of trouble (Armageddon) had begun in 1914. (Russell did not believe in the JW kind of Armageddon).
See:
The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell
ctr.reslight.net/?p=1556

His expectations concerning Israel have partly come true, although Satan has not yet been abyssed, and God’s Kingdom has not yet filled the earth. - Daniel 2:35,44; Isaiah 2:2-4; Habakkuk 2:14; Revelation 20:3.

However, the difference is that Bible Students in the days of Russell had freedom to either reject or accept what Russell stated, at least as far as Russell himself was concerned. Indeed, there were several different viewpoints amongst the Bible Students in the days of Russell concerning Bible chronology and time prophecies. Russell even presented some of these in the pages of the Watch Tower, although he disagreed with their conclusions. Unlike the JW leadership, he did not demand and threaten others with excommunication and/or condemnation to the second death if they did disagree with him on such matters.

Nevertheless, very few of the children of God ever overcome the tendencies of the carnal mind; the natural tendency of the carnal mind is toward sectarianism, and such sectarianism had become apparent even in the days of Russell amongst many of the Bible Students. Russell did not seem to realize that some of his own teachings (especially as related to the harvest) were actually influencing a sectarian spirit. As far as his expectations regarding dates were concerned, Russell once stated something to the effect that the prophecies of the Bible would be fulfilled, whether he had the date right or not.
Beginning of the Time of Trouble - Quotes From Russell:
ctr.reslight.net/?p=1301
mostholyfaith.com/bible/CRS/1912b.asp#CR292:9

In 1915 (about one year before he died), Russell was still denouncing sectarianism:
rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/09/xf01-catholic-church.html

 

[T_More]

I am not with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor was Russell. Russell, however, never gave any prophecies. He disclaimed being a prophet, and he disclaimed that he was infallible in his expectations. As a Bible Student, he claimed only to be a student of Bible prophecy.

Quotes of Russell:

"Then, we were content to say, “606 B.C. seems a well authenticated date for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and B.C. 536 the date when the seventy years’ appointed desolation of the land ceased.” .As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, “Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1–the previous year B.C. 2, and so on.” Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years’ cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915. Since this question is agitating the minds of a considerable number of the friends, we have presented it here in some detail. We remind the readers, however, that nothing in the Scriptures says definitely that the trouble upon the Gentiles will be accomplished before the close of the Times of the Gentiles, whether that be October, 1914, or October, 1915. The trouble doubtless will be considerable before the final crash, even though that crash come suddenly, like the casting of a great millstone into the sea. (Rev. 18:21.) The parallel between the Jewish Harvest and the present Harvest would corroborate the thought that the trouble to the full will be accomplished by October, 1915." Watch Tower 1912 December 1 pp. 377-8

“In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915. Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the “battle of the great day of God Almighty” (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of the earth’s present rulership, is already commenced. **The “Gentile Times” prove that the present governments must all be overturned about the close of 1915 A.D.” **Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is At Hand 1915 ed. pp.99, 101, 242

From 1915:

“Be that as it may, there is evidence that the establishment of the Kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten years later than we once calculated.” Studies In the Scriptures Series VII - The Finished Mystery p.128

There are many others…

 

[T_More]

Were all his expectations 100% failures? No, his expectation that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 and that in 1914 the time of trouble was to begin, I do believe came true, although he did not expect the time of trouble to last as long as it has. And yet Russell also stated that he did not know how long the time of trouble would last after 1914.

“Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, **but for the end of the time of trouble.” **Zions Watch Tower 1894 July 15 p.226

 

[po18guy]

Itching ears and false prophets.