Jehovah's Witnesses No Longer Participating In the Work of a Bible Society

[Logically]

Delson,

No they should not teach falsehoods and this is one of the reasons I can’t accept this belief system. Their ideas about Catholics are totally erroneous. I actually view this group as more of a cult than a religion. I think there is a lot of human ideas in their beliefs that have nothing to do with God.

Hi Cricket.

“A lot of human ideas” would be a sad road for us to be on. Colossians 2:8 says: “Look out for… the philosophy and empty deception according to traditions of men…”

However I have always found their teachings are based on the Bible, - which we believe is God’s Word. Do you agree the Bible is God’s word?

What ideas of the JW’s do you feel are just human ideas?
Do you mind giving me one or two and I will see if they are in the Bible?

If they are there, and the Bible is God’s word, - then logically they are from God. No?

Which teaching of Jehovah’s Witness do you doubt is in the Bible?

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Cricket.

“A lot of human ideas” would be a sad road for us to be on. Colossians 2:8 says: “Look out for… the philosophy and empty deception according to traditions of men…”

However I have always found their teachings are based on the Bible, - which we believe is God’s Word. Do you agree the Bible is God’s word?

What ideas of the JW’s do you feel are just human ideas?
Do you mind giving me one or two and I will see if they are in the Bible?

If they are there, and the Bible is God’s word, - then logically they are from God. No?

Which teaching of Jehovah’s Witness do you doubt is in the Bible?

Logically,

Welcome to CAF… please stay around.

We both agree that the bible is inerrant and inspired, although we disagree on how to intrepret it. My question is … how do you know the books in your bible are all inerrant and inspired? In other words, how do you know that there is not a writing in there that shouldn’t be there, and a writing outside of the bible that should be included in it?

 

[Logically]

Logically,

… My question is … how do you know the books in your bible are all inerrant and inspired? In other words, how do you know that there is not a writing in there that shouldn’t be there, and a writing outside of the bible that should be included in it?

That’s a fair question PorknPie.

We have quite a good publication available to us called: “All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial.” (a quote from 2 Timothy 3:16.) It has a chapter on each book of the Bible, and in each chapter lists evidence the particular book is inspired.

There are several reasons we might conclude a book of the Bible is inspired.

1. Jesus said. If Jesus quoted a book and called it inspired. For example, at Matthew 24:15 he quotes “Daniel the prophet.” So obviously the son of God considered Daniel an inspired book. This can also be applied to books quoting earlier books. If Daniel quotes Isaiah and Jeremiah as prophets – and we have already established Daniel is an inspired book – then there we go.
2. Prophecies. A writer says he is writing from God, and the prophecies he says God gave him come true.
3. Harmony. Does the book fit with the rest of the Bible? Does it fit with the Bibles overall theme of sanctifying God’s name and the Kingdom?
4. Candor. If you have ever read Josephus or Caesar you will see that ancient writers bragged, claimed credit for others success, played down or omitted their mistakes and so on. All very human traits. But the Bible is unusual in that it’s writers often include embarrassing details about themselves, their leaders and their people! Very honest. Logically what we would expect of God’s word. Consider how Peter admitted he denied Christ! Or Moses that his sin ruined his chance of entering the promised land!
   Also, these ones were prepared to die for what they wrote. (and many did) I for one wouldn’t face death for something I just made up.
5. Scientific accuracy. Ancient books are full of scientific inaccuracies. But the Bible books of Exodus, Job, Isaiah and Ecclesiastes are examples of books that contains scientific truths not believed until thousands of years later. If a book says the world is flat or the Atlantic can’t be crossed; obviously it is not inspired by God.
6. Survival. The Bible has survived inquisitions, wars and bans like no other book. People have been burned at the stake for even owning one! There are books referred to in history that have vanished. Julius Caesar supposedly wrote a dozen, but only a few survive. If God inspired a book of the Bible, no human plot can destroy it.
7. Distribution. The complete 66 books of the Bible is the most translated and distributed collection in human history. It has remained the best seller. Logically, that is what we would expect of the means God has used to guide mankind.

And I could go on. But those are some examples. Logically then, like in a court case, the evidence builds until we can’t deny it.

Below is a link to some other reasons Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible is God’s word:
jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/the-bible-a-book-from-god/

Thanks for your question. I hope I answered it OK. Logically.

 

[pacloc]

Logically, it is great that you want to discuss the made up doctrines of JWs. Let me ask you a few since you think that they do not exist.

First, how do explain the fact that JWs teach that we are not judged based on our current human lifes? They teach that most people will be resurrected to live during the 1000 year reign only to be judged during that time whether they will live forever, or will be destroyed forever. I don’t think I need to quote many scriptures for you to know that the Bible you claim to follow is full of passages showing that judgement will be based on our current lives, what we do in secret. Heb 9:27 is clear that the judgement is after we do only once, not twice.

Second, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as told to us by our Lord, are in the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 8:11), why do you teach that there are 2 classes of Christians and that none of the 3 above really are in Heaven, but Charles Taze is?

More to follow.

 

[Logically]

Logically, it is great that you want to discuss the made up doctrines of JWs. Let me ask you a few since you think that they do not exist…

More to follow.

You do not sound as respectful as PorknPie.

I seriously considered not replying since your first statement called my beliefs “the made up doctrines of JW’s”. What kind of way is that to talk to someone?

If you are serious about an answer to your question, try asking more politely.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Hi Cricket.

“A lot of human ideas” would be a sad road for us to be on. Colossians 2:8 says: “Look out for… the philosophy and empty deception according to traditions of men…”

However I have always found their teachings are based on the Bible, - which we believe is God’s Word. Do you agree the Bible is God’s word?

What ideas of the JW’s do you feel are just human ideas?
Do you mind giving me one or two and I will see if they are in the Bible?

If they are there, and the Bible is God’s word, - then logically they are from God. No?

Which teaching of Jehovah’s Witness do you doubt is in the Bible?

The teaching that you have the true religion and that true religion must be based on the Bible.

If you follow the Scriptures, do you not follow this one:

Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.–2 Thessalonians 2:15.

These traditions are found in the Catholic Church that has preserved them, along with the Scriptures, for 2000 years

While Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religion solely on the Bible, Catholics base their beliefs on a Person–Jesus Christ. True religion is not based on the Bible, it is the other way around. The Bible is based on and a product of true religion. This religion came first, the Bible was produced by it.

Jesus taught the true religion to his apostles who in turned made true disciples with these teachings. The Scriptures are a product of true religion, not its origin. If the Scriptures are true, it is because those who wrote them were already practicing the truth–otherwise what were they writing about if it were not about having the true religion? God wouldn’t inspire those who were not practicing true religion to write the Christian Greek Scriptures, would he?

Which Came First? The Bible or True Religion?

Christ revealed the truth that saves people before any of it was written down. If this was not so, wouldn’t the world have had to wait for the Scriptures to be composed and canonized before true religion would exist? And it there was not true religion without Scripture, who would be around to write it? Who would copy it down? Who would distribute it? And without a true religion to declare what books were and were not inspired, how would any of its books be canonized?

The Church was founded by Jesus. and a functioning religion resulted from it. This religion did not compose the Scriptures to develop its doctrines from. It wrote down the texts to explain where its doctrines originated. The doctrines came first, right? From where? Scripture itself answers:

The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.–1 Timothy 3:15.

Consider this about the Hebrew Scriptures. What came first? Judaism or the Hebrew Scriptures? Were the Scriptures written by the Jews who practiced true religion? Didn’t the religion come first, then members of that religion composed the Scriptures they held as holy? I know it happened that way because I am a Jew. The nation of Israel didn’t just wander around hopelessly until it discovered the Bible. No, the Bible is composed of Scriptures based on their religion.

True Religion Practiced Before There Was a Bible to Base It On

True religion originates with God. The religion of the Jews came first, then the Hebrew Scriptures. The same with Christianity. The first century congregation, the Church, came first. Members of Christianity wrote the texts, and eventually the Church decided which books were inspired and which were not. The true religion had to exist first, otherwise who was there to decide which books belonged to the Bible?

Members of my family, of the tribe of Judah, were first-century Christians during the time of the apostles. Did they join the true religion? There were no Christian Scriptures to follow. The Hebrew texts did not directly name Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, but my family still followed Christ. Was their religion false? It was not based on the Bible as we have it today. On the contrary, the Bible is based on their religion.

The Catholic Church is that very same religion. It developed the Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church’s faith. So, no, our religion is not based on the Bible. It is based on Jesus.

I agree that the Witnesses base their beliefs on the Bible. Catholics base their beliefs on the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ.

And besides, if all religious teaching are based solely on the Bible, then were do JW elders get the authority to preside over weddings? Were does it say in the Bible that elders can or should do that?

Where does the Bible say what books belong in it? Is there a list in the Hebrew text authorizing more books to be added? Where does the Bible teach that reading and studying it is a requisite to eternal life (those who don’t read and study it condemned)? If that were so, doesn’t that mean that the apostles and the first century Christians are doomed since some of them died before all the books of the Christian Scriptures were completed and canonized?

 

[pacloc]

I don’t really want an answer to the questions as to really get an understanding, but it as expected you know that these are strange doctrines, made up by your leaders in New York. I wasn’t very rude to you, but rather a little stern against your religion, which your books and mags are not afraid of doing with Christianity, calling us the whore of Babylon and false.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

While I would like my questions answered by Logically, I have started another thread for more general discussion as this one has gone off the track.

It is also here in the “Non-Catholic Religion” section, entitled: “Ex-JW Elder, Now Catholic: Thank You, Catholic Church!”

 

[dronald]

Since this is becoming the official, “Ask a JW” thread I would love to pose a question if you don’t mind! Not many Jehovah Witnesses come around these days but I love when they visit my door and drop by CAF.

Something has always got me scratching my head, logically and it’s Colossians 1:16-17 which states:

16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now, in the NWT they added all [other] things consistently in order to change its meaning. The two words for “other” in Greek are allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which means another of a different kind.*

Recently the brackets have been removed from the new Bible’s and it blatantly says, “all other things.” So my question is, if Paul didn’t write “other” why did JW’s put the word in brackets and then recently remove the brackets? Why not just leave it how Paul wrote it?

 

[Logically]

…
Jesus taught the true religion to his apostles who in turned made true disciples with these teachings. The Scriptures are a product of true religion, not its origin. If the Scriptures are true, it is because those who wrote them were already practicing the truth–otherwise what were they writing about if it were not about having the true religion? God wouldn’t inspire those who were not practicing true religion to write the Christian Greek Scriptures, would he?

Which Came First? The Bible or True Religion?…

Good post!

 

[Logically]

…

Something has always got me scratching my head, logically and it’s Colossians 1:16-17 …

Now, in the NWT they added all [other] things consistently in order to change its meaning. …

So my question is, if Paul didn’t write “other” why did JW’s put the word in brackets and then recently remove the brackets? Why not just leave it how Paul wrote it?

That’s a good question! (complicated one too) I asked it myself once.

The best answer I found wasn’t in any JW publication, but in “Truth in Translation” by Jason Beduhn.

Chapter seven explains it well. But it is 14 pages long! I will quote bits in green

Basically Beduhn quotes Col. 1:15-20 in 9 different translations of the Bible and points out that all the translators add words they believe make the meaning of the original Greek clear for a modern English reader. Greek needs that to be done.
The NWT (which JW’s prefer) adds the word “other” twice (as you said) and identifies the word as an addition by putting it in brackets. (Though they have stopped doing this recently except in the reference addition)
Ironically all the other translations also add words that change the meaning of the text, but they do not draw attention to most of these words! (the modern reader will assume Paul wrote them)

Beduhn notes: “When the Bible says something that does not match their religious understanding there seems to be little resistance to the temptation to make it say something more in line with what they expect and are comfortable with.” (page 86)

Adding words to the Bible! Dangerous eh? You are implying that the NWT does this to fit JW beliefs, yes?

Beduhn then adds when referring to the New World Translation: “It is ironic that the translation that receives the most criticism is the one where the “added words” are fully justified in the original Greek.” (also page 86)

It seems that in Greek Paul often didn’t need to explain that he was talking about “other” things.
A good example of this is where 1 Corinthians 15:27 starts by saying of Jesus: “for God subjected all things under his feet.”
But then Paul catches himself and adds: “But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
Or may I put it another way? Paul says: “Obviously add the word ‘other’ here unless you speak good Greek.”

Beduhn adds this logical argument regarding Col 1:16-20: “So what exactly are the objectors to “other” arguing for as the meaning of the phrase “all things?” That Christ created himself? (v. 16),That Christ is before God and God was made to exist by means of Christ? (v. 17) That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v. 20) When we spell it out what is denied by the use of “other” we can see clearly how absurd the objection is. “Other” is implied in all and the NWT simply makes what is implicit explicit…I think …those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase “firstborn of all creation.”” (page 85)

I Beduhn right? Do Trinitarian translators object to the NWT’s rendering of this verse because it further contradicts the Trinity?

 

[dronald]

That’s a good question! (complicated one too) I asked it myself once.

The best answer I found wasn’t in any JW publication, but in “Truth in Translation” by Jason Beduhn.

Chapter seven explains it well. But it is 14 pages long! I will quote bits in green

Basically Beduhn quotes Col. 1:15-20 in 9 different translations of the Bible and points out that all the translators add words they believe make the meaning of the original Greek clear for a modern English reader. Greek needs that to be done.
The NWT (which JW’s prefer) adds the word “other” twice (as you said) and identifies the word as an addition by putting it in brackets. (Though they have stopped doing this recently except in the reference addition)
Ironically all the other translations also add words that change the meaning of the text, but they do not draw attention to most of these words! (the modern reader will assume Paul wrote them)

Beduhn notes: “When the Bible says something that does not match their religious understanding there seems to be little resistance to the temptation to make it say something more in line with what they expect and are comfortable with.” (page 86)

Adding words to the Bible! Dangerous eh? You are implying that the NWT does this to fit JW beliefs, yes?

Beduhn then adds when referring to the New World Translation: “It is ironic that the translation that receives the most criticism is the one where the “added words” are fully justified in the original Greek.” (also page 86)

It seems that in Greek Paul often didn’t need to explain that he was talking about “other” things.
A good example of this is where 1 Corinthians 15:27 starts by saying of Jesus: “for God subjected all things under his feet.”
But then Paul catches himself and adds: “But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
Or may I put it another way? Paul says: “Obviously add the word ‘other’ here unless you speak good Greek.”

Beduhn adds this logical argument regarding Col 1:16-20: “So what exactly are the objectors to “other” arguing for as the meaning of the phrase “all things?” That Christ created himself? (v. 16),That Christ is before God and God was made to exist by means of Christ? (v. 17) That Christ, too, needs to be reconciled to God (v. 20) When we spell it out what is denied by the use of “other” we can see clearly how absurd the objection is. “Other” is implied in all and the NWT simply makes what is implicit explicit…I think …those who object want to negate the meaning of the phrase “firstborn of all creation.”” (page 85)

I Beduhn right? Do Trinitarian translators object to the NWT’s rendering of this verse because it further contradicts the Trinity?

I’m sorry my friend but you didn’t prove anything. You’re saying that (the most used?) translations of the Bible add words in Colossians and other areas in order to change the meaning and yet JW’s get the most scrutiny. I see no evidence of this, could you post some?

Also, you’ve stated it’s implied but no one else seems to think so; so obviously it wasn’t implied. Do you have any historical evidence of such an implication?

Thirdly, if Jesus is not God and it is true that all [other] things were made through Him, how do you compensate it with Isaiah:

24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself

 

[Logically]

I’m sorry my friend but you didn’t prove anything. …

I’m sorry. I have to log off now. I will have to reply another time.

Thanks for your post. Goodnight.

 

[Porknpie]

That’s a fair question PorknPie.

We have quite a good publication available to us called: “All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial.” (a quote from 2 Timothy 3:16.) It has a chapter on each book of the Bible, and in each chapter lists evidence the particular book is inspired.

Logically, what does you publication say is the evidence for the Book of Hebrews?

Thank you for your thoughts. To simplify matters, let’s look at the New Testament only with your criteria below. Again, we both believe that 27 books of the NT are inspired by God and inerrant. That’s good… but how do we trust that these books actually are scripture?

1. Jesus said.

Jesus died before any NT book was put to writing so we can eliminate this as a reason to know any of the books of the NT are inspired and inerrant.

1. Prophecies

No NT writer said that they were writing from God, so we can eliminate this.

1. Harmony.Does the book fit with the rest of the Bible?

One can not make this assertion for the NT books even if we agreed that the OT books were inspired and inerrant. It is also circular logic: I believe Book A is inspired because I believe Book B is inspired. Even if they “harmonize”, they both may not be inspired.

1. Candor. If you have ever read Josephus or Caesar you will see that ancient writers bragged, claimed credit for others success, played down or omitted their mistakes and so on.

Well I’ve read a bit of Josephus. Should we add The War of the Jews or another of Josephus writings to the bible or the Didache? Does scripture say that candor is a criteria to determine scripture? If not, what authority do you go to?

1. Scientific accuracy.

Is there a NT book that you believe to be inspired and inerrant because it is scientifically accurate? I can’t think of one.

1. Survival.

The writings of Plato and Aristotle are even older but they are not inspired and inerrant. There are hundreds of writings from the early Church that exist today, all as old as the books of the NT but only 27 are included in the bible. So survival doesn’t work for the NT.

1. Distribution.

But again, this criteria does not allow us to determine whether the Book of Hebrews or the Book of Revelation is inspired and inerrant compared to the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas. There has to be criteria beyond survival and distribution that determined originally, what books were to be in the bible.

Thanks for your question. I hope I answered it OK. Logically.

So Logically, I will contend that your criteria above can not determine now nor in the times of the early Church, what NT books should be in the bible. So there must be other criteria that was used. The question is what was that criteria and who decided on what that criteria was?



PnP

(PS. Someday I would love to visit New Zealand)

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Good post!

Thank you.

I assume that you, as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, are agreeing with me?

When I say that Jesus taught the true religion, I am saying that this true religion is that found and practiced in the Catholic Church.

Since the Scriptures are a product of Catholicism, when one claims the Bible is true they are thus claiming they believe in what the Catholic Church produces.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that truth is based on the written word, limited to the written revelation. Catholics teach it is based on Christ and all his teachings, whether these ended up being included in Scripture or not.

You also did not answer any of my questions I asked, such as what Scriptural support do Jehovah’s Witnesses have for elder presiding over weddings?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

A good example of this is where 1 Corinthians 15:27 starts by saying of Jesus: “for God subjected all things under his feet.”
But then Paul catches himself and adds: “But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected, it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
Or may I put it another way? Paul says: “Obviously add the word ‘other’ here unless you speak good Greek.” …

I Beduhn right? Do Trinitarian translators object to the NWT’s rendering of this verse because it further contradicts the Trinity?

As a Jew I speak and read Koine Greek since the Septuagint is written in this language, and therefore its an important part of my heritage. And I can tell you it takes someone who knows no Greek to accept the NWT rendition here.

Non-Christian Jews have begun to read the New Testament and study it as part of the Jewish culture. For example the newly produced “Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV.” Jews are not Trinitarian by any means, but they recognize that the NRSV rendition, without the “other” that the NWT inserts is correct.

Non-Christian Jewish scholars understand that this part of Colossians is a “High Christology” hymn, meaning a text which attributes both humanity and divinity (divinity as in YHWH, not in as “a god”). Christ is described not only as having the first place among all the created universe, but also being the cause and principle of that same creation.–The Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV, commentary to Colossians 1:15-20.

So no, it has nothing to do with what Trinitarians believe. It is what the Greek text says. If anything Jews would be happy to admit to the NWT rendering if it were true, but alas since not even the original language words imply it, there is no way to make such an assumption that the text is meant to read any other way but to support Christ identification with YHWH.

If you believe the Greek reads otherwise, show how this is so without quoting or citing any outside scholar. I can because I know the language and have taught it professionally. But if you know so certainly that the NWT is correct, demonstrate this by showing us your command of the language.

 

[Cricket2]

Delson:

You asked about what beliefs I have trouble with in the JW religion. Here are a few:

You don’t believe in the Trinity. That is that the Son (Jesus), The Holy Spirit, and God are one person. They are the Three persons of God.

You equate having blood transfusions as canibalism. So according to my family who are practicing JWitnesses I am doomed because I had a transfusion at birth. Without it I would have died. I find nothing to suggest this in Scripture. Would you also be opposed then to kidney transplants, cornea transplants, liver transplants?

It is my understanding that to you Jesus is a prophet and nothing more. And from what I have heard my family say you deny the Virginal Birth of Jesus. You do not view Mary as the Mother of God.

Can you explain this to me? They are just a few of the things that I was aware of from interactions with my family.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Delson:

You asked about what beliefs I have trouble with in the JW religion. Here are a few:

You don’t believe in the Trinity. That is that the Son (Jesus), The Holy Spirit, and God are one person. They are the Three persons of God.

You equate having blood transfusions as canibalism. So according to my family who are practicing JWitnesses I am doomed because I had a transfusion at birth. Without it I would have died. I find nothing to suggest this in Scripture. Would you also be opposed then to kidney transplants, cornea transplants, liver transplants?

It is my understanding that to you Jesus is a prophet and nothing more. And from what I have heard my family say you deny the Virginal Birth of Jesus. You do not view Mary as the Mother of God.

Can you explain this to me? They are just a few of the things that I was aware of from interactions with my family.

I assume you are asking for a Jehovah’s Witness to answer these questions or are you asking for my experience of what I once believed when I was a JW elder? It may be the way you wrote these questions without a qualifier, but in saying “you” it sounds as if you are talking to me personally. I am a Roman Catholic.

 

[josie_L]

As a Jew I speak and read Koine Greek since the Septuagint is written in this language, and therefore its an important part of my heritage. And I can tell you it takes someone who knows no Greek to accept the NWT rendition here.

Non-Christian Jews have begun to read the New Testament and study it as part of the Jewish culture. For example the newly produced “Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV.” Jews are not Trinitarian by any means, but they recognize that the NRSV rendition, without the “other” that the NWT inserts is correct.

Non-Christian Jewish scholars understand that this part of Colossians is a “High Christology” hymn, meaning a text which attributes both humanity and divinity (divinity as in YHWH, not in as “a god”). Christ is described not only as having the first place among all the created universe, but also being the cause and principle of that same creation.–The Jewish Annotated New Testament: NRSV, commentary to Colossians 1:15-20.

So no, it has nothing to do with what Trinitarians believe. It is what the Greek text says. If anything Jews would be happy to admit to the NWT rendering if it were true, but alas since not even the original language words imply it, there is no way to make such an assumption that the text is meant to read any other way but to support Christ identification with YHWH.

If you believe the Greek reads otherwise, show how this is so without quoting or citing any outside scholar. I can because I know the language and have taught it professionally. But if you know so certainly that the NWT is correct, demonstrate this by showing us your command of the language.

Wow, I never knew there was such a thing as a Jewish annotated New Testament.

 

[Cricket2]

I assume you are asking for a Jehovah’s Witness to answer these questions or are you asking for my experience of what I once believed when I was a JW elder? It may be the way you wrote these questions without a qualifier, but in saying “you” it sounds as if you are talking to me personally. I am a Roman Catholic.

It could be answered by either yourself as a past JWitness or a practicing one. It does not matter to me. I originally thought you had asked the question to which I am responding.

Here is an added question: Is it true that the founder of the JWitness Religion was a Catholic or is that just a myth or poor historical account?