Jump to content

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
The '''[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]''' have beliefs and practices that are commonly regarded as controversial; by governments for the Witnesses' complete refusal to participate in patriotic activities, by scientists for their belief in [[creationism]], or [[intelligent design]], by members of Christendom for their doctrines that differ from mainstream Christianity, and by anti-cult activists for their policies which are said to undermine family ties and employ [[mind control]] tactics.
The '''[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]''' have beliefs and practices that are commonly regarded as controversial; by governments for the Witnesses' complete refusal to participate in patriotic activities, by scientists for their belief in [[creationism]], or [[intelligent design]], by members of Christendom for their doctrines that differ from mainstream Christianity, and by anti-cult activists for their policies which are said to undermine family ties and employ [[mind control]] tactics.


<!--IF ADDING TO EITHER OF THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE TEXT.-->
<!--IF ADDING TO EITHER OF THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS DISCUSSED IN THE BODY OF THE TEXT. --!>


Specific areas that form major points of contention include their translation and interpretation of the Bible; their policies on blood transfusions; their attitude towards members of other religions and the treatment of members who dissociate; and their policies which effectually deteriorate family ties (e.g., shunning, seperatism, anti-holiday, anti-birthday), and their use of cult mind control tactics.
Specific areas that form major points of contention include their translation and interpretation of the Bible; their policies on blood transfusions; their attitude towards members of other religions and the treatment of members who dissociate; and their policies which effectually deteriorate family ties (e.g., shunning, seperatism, anti-holiday, anti-birthday), and their use of cult mind control tactics.

Revision as of 19:35, 28 July 2006

Part of a series on
Jehovah's Witnesses
Overview
Organizational structure
History
Demographics
Literature
Places
People
Watch Tower presidents
Formative influences
Notable former members
Criticism
Opposition

The Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs and practices that are commonly regarded as controversial; by governments for the Witnesses' complete refusal to participate in patriotic activities, by scientists for their belief in creationism, or intelligent design, by members of Christendom for their doctrines that differ from mainstream Christianity, and by anti-cult activists for their policies which are said to undermine family ties and employ mind control tactics.

Traditional Christian teaching Corresponding Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching
Nature of God
God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one God. (see Trinitarianism) Only the Father (Jehovah) is God. [1] (see Unitarianism)
Jesus (the Son) is God in the flesh. He is fully God and fully human. He is eternal and equal in power to God. Jesus is God's Son, but not God. [2]
The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is eternal and equal in power to God. Holy spirit is God’s impersonal, "active force".[3]
Jesus
Jesus is God's Son. He is God in the flesh. Jesus God's Son, and is a god, but not God Himself. Jesus is also the archangel Michael in his prehuman existence,[4] as well as Apollyon/Abaddon, mentioned in Revelation 9:11.[5]
Jesus was crucified on a cross. Jesus was impaled on a torture stake.[6]
Jesus’ body was resurrected. Jesus’ body was not resurrected; he was resurrected as a spirit. [7]
The return of Christ to the earth will be physical, and has not yet occurred. The return of Christ occurred invisibly in 1914.[8]
Death/Afterlife
The human soul is eternal and does not cease to exist at any time. The soul ceases to exist when a person dies, requiring a resurrection to live again.[9]
Immediately following death, there is afterlife for all mankind in heaven, hell or (for Roman Catholics) purgatory. Hell is a literal place of eternal torment. There is no spiritual afterlife immediately following death[10], except for the 144,000 are immediately taken to heaven. There is no hell or purgatory.[11]
The unrighteous will be tormented in hell for eternity. There is no eternal torment. Those who have committed an unforgivable sin (such as Judas) experience 'Gehenna' (eternal destruction or extinction) at death.[12]
Judgement and Salvation
At the resurrection, people will be judged by what they did during their lives on earth. Those who are resurrected to life on earth will be judged by future deeds which they will perform during the millennial reign.[13]
All who are saved (born again) will spend eternity in heaven with God. Only 144,000 are born again and will spend eternity in heaven ruling over the Earth with Jesus Christ.[14] With the exception of those who have experienced Gehenna, all who have died (both righteous and unrighteous) will be resurrected to live on a paradise earth. [15]
To be saved, a person must believe in Jesus Christ. Most Christian denominations also believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Many Christians (particularly Roman Catholics) also believe that good works are important. To be considered righteous, a person must believe in Jesus Christ,[16] dedicate himself to Jehovah,[17] and conduct his life in accordance with the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by Jehovah's Witnesses.[18]

These Witness beliefs are considered by most Christians to be blasphemous or heretical in nature. For this reason, many Christian denominations consider these beliefs to place Jehovah's Witnesses outside the category of Christian, or in danger of their salvation.

See also: Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses

Translating the Bible

Jehovah's Witnesses have been criticized over their translation of the Bible, The New World Translation (NWT). Critics have argued that Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed the Bible to suit their doctrine, and that the translation itself contains a number of inaccuracies or biases.[19]

Translation committee

The members of the committee that translated the New World Translation wished to remain anonymous, with the stated goal of ensuring that the glory goes to God and not to man.[20] This move has been criticized, as it meant that the credentials of the translators could not be checked.

Unitarian bias

The New World Translation has been criticized as either adding or selectively translating certain words so as to conform to Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. [21] Three commonly cited examples include:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (NWT)

Almost all English translations render the latter part of the verse, "and the Word was God". A rendering that depicts Jesus as "a god" is considered by most Christians to be heretical. Witnesses contend, however, that the NWT rendering is the literal translation of the passage, and that the original language indicates not that Jesus is "God", but that he is "godlike" or "divine".[22][23][24]

Colossians 1:15-17. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist." (NWT)

The New World Translation inserts the word "other", in brackets, four times here without explanation. The word "other" is not contained in the Greek manuscripts. One scholar has remarked that the addition of the word "other" is justified, saying that it is implied by the context of the verses, and the word "all" is hyperbolic (exaggerative).[25]

The NWT rendering of the Greek word proskuneo has also been a source of criticism. The word is rendered "worship" in almost all occurrences, except when the word is used in reference to Jesus, where it is consistently translated "do obeisance".[26] Although the New World Translation offers no explanation in footnotes regarding this subject, the Watchtower Society has defended its renderings in the publication Insight on the Scriptures.[27]

Use of the name "Jehovah"

Main article: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures § Jehovah in the New Testament

The New World Translation contains the name "Jehovah" 237 times in the New Testament. This is in spite of the fact that the Greek manuscripts from which the New Testament is translated do not contain the name "Jehovah". (The NWT of the Old Testament also contains the name "Jehovah" 145 instances more than it is contained in the Hebrew manuscripts from which the Old Testament is translated.)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the justification for using the name "Jehovah" in the New Testament is that it existed in the original New Testament writings, but was subsequently replaced by the Greek words for "God" and "Lord" some time around or before the fourth century.[28] The evidence for this is said to be small, and is the subject of debate.

Blood

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject transfusions of whole blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma). This is due to the belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God’s eyes. Jehovah’s Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not partaking in any blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.[29] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood.

Fractions and components

In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.[30][31] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance.

Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.[32]

According to Kerry Louderback-Wood, the Watchtower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[33] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[34]

The human body contains between 2-3kg of leukocytes (white blood cells), but only about 3% of these are in the blood. White blood cells are considered a major component of blood and therefore forbidden.

Storing and donation

Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly reject the storage of blood as being against the direction from the Bible to pour blood out onto the ground. It is due to this understanding that the use of autologous blood is prohibited – that is the storage of one’s own blood before surgery in the case of an emergency. They do on the other hand accept blood components from blood that has been donated and stored by blood clinics. Factor VIII is clotting factor used in haemophiliac preparations that is acceptable under the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's guidelines. Critics say that over a lifetime an average haemophiliac would require extractions from over 100,000 litres of stored blood.

In a similar fashion Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood fractions from donated blood but view the donation of blood to be unbiblical. This has led to criticism of perceived contradictory and inconsistent policies. [35]

Conscience matter

Not all Jehovah's Witnesses personally accept the use of blood fractions. The Governing Body has labeled the use of many techniques and fractions as up to the individual's conscience, and not sufficiently addressed by the Bible.[36]

Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they accept or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion).[37] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.[38] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions (for one example, see France).

The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of minor children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. However, some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.

An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, discusses the potential vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ legal corporations to significant claims for compensation because of the religion’s possible misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions. According to the essay, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.

Animal blood

The Watchtower has stated that “Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human ... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.”[39] Despite this stance, the use of Hemopure, which is a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine haemoglobin, may be acceptable by some Witnesses.

Attitude towards other religions

It has been suggested that “one of the more common criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years has dealt with their outspoken denunciations of other faiths, religious leaders and clergymen.”[40] In the 1930s and 1940s, the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were described as “notoriously anti-Catholic”,[41] including such images as a semiclad harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) reeling drunkenly into fire and brimstone.

The book entitled “Enemies” published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1938 included some of the more direct denunciations of primarily the Catholic Church but also the Protestants and the Jews. It includes references to the Catholic Church as “the old harlot” who has a “bloody record… many crimes… a filthy record”. With regards the Protestants and the Jews the same book is quoted as saying “Today the so-called ‘Protestants’ and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue… the hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow… poor simpletons.”[42]

Since World War II, publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have not included the same level of attack against the church but do continue to view all religions except Jehovah’s Witnesses as being included in “Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion” and are represented as the harlot riding the wild beast in Revelation 13. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to denounce other religions and refuse to participate in any interfaith relations. Publications continue to contain elements of what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights consider to be anti-Catholic sentiments. An example cited by the 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism included a publication depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...”[43]

Unfulfilled predictions

Jehovah’s Witnesses have made predictions regarding specific dates and events that have not come to pass. As a result, some have accused them of being false prophets.

The religion's publications have clearly stated that it does not claim to be inspired by God, or that the interpretations given are infallible. [44] It is believed that God’s spirit directs his organisation to uncover scriptural truths over time and that mistakes can be made only to be refined and improved upon over time.

In his book “Captives of a Concept” Cameron, formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses, states that “Deuteronomy 18:22 simply says that a false prophet is 1) one that “speaks in the name of Jehovah” and 2) “the word does not occur or come true” and that is the way it has been many times with the Watchtower Society. The Bible doesn’t say that one must claim to be inspired in order for this definition to apply.” [45] Using these guidelines, several Christian denominations would also be in line for the same criticism. [46] Critics state that the act of predicting specific dates for the return of Christ or Armageddon is in itself claiming to be a prophet. They also contend that the Watchtower has claimed to be a "prophet" in the past and continues to expect members of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept their guidance,without question, which demonstrates a similar position today. [47] [48] [49] [50]

Witnesses view these charges as fundamentally flawed, and deceitful, in that they apply a meaning to a word not intended by the given contexts.[51] The criticism implies the meaning of "direct divine revelation" to the word "prophet" despite the context in which the Watchtower Society presents it: interpretation of prophetic biblical passages, and "acting as a prophet" by relaying that interpretation.[52]

Eschatology

Main article: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

1914

Christ's presence (Greek: parousia) is considered to be his invisible rule from heaven and is believed to have begun in October of 1914. Witnesses believe that Jesus' prophecy recorded in Matthew 24 is being fulfilled since that time. They identify the same period with the "last days" referred to in 2 Timothy 3:1. It is taught that the outbreak of World War I in July 1914 was a sign of Christ's presence in October of 1914. Reports of other conflicts and natural disasters are suggested as proof that world conditions have worsened since the expulsion of Satan from heaven in 1914.

The date 1914 is based on the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, calculated by the Witnesses to have occurred in 607 BC. This date is subject to debate with almost all non-Witness scholars placing the destruction within a year of 587 BC.

1975

Some leaders in the organization, mostly local, strongly suggested that Christ's millennial reign over earth would begin by 1975.[53][54][55] Many pre-1975 Watchtower articles further insinuated that the 'great tribulation' would occur in 1975, stating that the year would be marked by serious problems with world population, famine, and oil shortages.

While Witnesses have always been encouraged to increase the preaching work, and avoid secular life goals or careers, the reaction to that instruction was especially strong prior to 1975. The disappointment from the fallout of this failed expectation caused considerable loss of membership.[56]

Family Integrity & Freedom of Mind

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt, Jan Groenveld, etc.) object to Witness policy and behavior where, in their view, the integrity of family relationships and the capacity of members to exercise freedom of mind is impacted.

Treatment of members who disassociate

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline

When a member of Jehovah's Witnesses unrepentantly engages in "gross sin", they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof. Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning.

Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for gross wrongdoing. The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.

Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people to stay who might otherwise freely leave the religion, but Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing.

Jehovah's Witnesses have no provision for conscientious objectors who freely leave to have any continued normal associations. The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties. Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, which directly contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings[57] and can be used in an arbitrary and punitive manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.[58]

Reporting of sexual abuse

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. For a report of abuse to be considered "proven" (to the degree that would merit congregational judicial discipline), there needs to be two witnesses or a confession by the accused (only in cases where there is no physical evidence of the abuse).[59][60]

Some victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.[61][62]

The official policy on child protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law and that they are to discipline pedophiles. It also emphasizes the right of the victim to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.[63]

Internet use

The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.[64]

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."[65] While Witnesses define the existence of "harmful" information, critics define all accurate information valid. What Witnesses consider "apostate propaganda", critics consider merely an alternative viewpoint, which must be considered in order to claim one has a rounded viewpoint. Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form. [66]

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control"[67] in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society.[68] Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.[69]

United Nations association

Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

On October 8 2001, a newspaper article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's registration as an NGO with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watchtower Society of hypocrisy.[70] The reason for this criticism is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have long taught that the United Nations is the “image of the wild beast” referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the second fulfillment of the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[71][72] The doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly expresses the need to be wary of forming voluntary attachments to organizations that have objectives contrary to the Bible.[73]

An official UN/DPI Web page states, “Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.” [74]

Within days the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request for disassociation removing all association with the United Nations[75], and released a letter stating that the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access library resources, and that they had not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association[76].

Payment of sales tax on literature

In the early 1980s, the State of California informed Jimmy Swaggart Ministries that tax was due for religious books and tapes sold in the state since 1974. Swaggart eventually paid the tax ($183,000) but sued for a refund. In February, 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal for Texas (and 14 other states) to exempt religious books from sales tax. On 22 June 1989, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with U.S. Supreme Court in the appeal to the Jimmy Swaggart case. This brief declared that if tax was imposed on religious literature, each of the 132,000 door to door ministers of Jehovah’s Witnesses in California would be obliged to register as a retailer and lodge quarterly returns despite that fact that considering the costs involved the vast majority, if not all Jehovah’s Witnesses would declare a loss. The brief concluded by stating that for religious activities “the burdens imposed on retail merchants (to register, file quarterly returns, collect and pay license or sales or use or whatever taxes) should not encumber the right to freely deliver or receive a sermon, printed or otherwise".[77]

On 17 January, 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, declaring that sales tax must be paid on religious literature. In February 1990 a letter from the Watchtower Society went out to all congregations stating that there would no longer be a set price for literature but that they would be given to the public on a donation basis. By way of reason the letter stated that "by adopting a method of literature distribution based completely on donation, Jehovah's people are able to greatly simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion." The court case involving Jimmy Swaggart and sales tax were not mentioned.[78] However, the article, “Use Our Literature Wisely” that appeared in the May 1990 Our Kingdom Ministry stated, that “there are growing pressures against all religious elements” and it went on to say that their main concern was to move ahead in the worldwide Kingdom preaching work, “without hindrance”.

It has been suggested that in participating in the court case by admitting the brief, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society could be seen as associating and supporting the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart. This is controversial as the Society has disfellowshipped people for attending church services. Others believe that the Society went against the principle at Luke 20:24 regarding the paying of taxes.

References

  1. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, p.894
  2. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 282-283; Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 919
  3. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 361; Make Sure of All Things, p. 487
  4. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 919, 1152
  5. ^ Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, p.148.
  6. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm
  7. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 334
  8. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 95
  9. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 382
  10. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 30; Make Sure of All Things, p. 143
  11. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 103; Make Sure of All Things, p. 231
  12. ^ Insight on the Scriptures vol.1 pp.905-6
  13. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 982; The Watchtower, 3/1/1987, p. 29
  14. ^ The Watchtower, 2/1/1986, p. 17, ¶ 17
  15. ^ What Does the Bible Really Teach? 2005 Appendix Hades and Sheol
  16. ^ Watchtower 12/1/85, p. 9
  17. ^ The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, p. 182
  18. ^ The Watchtower, 12/1/1985, p. 18
  19. ^ Robert M Bowman Jr, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1992); Samuel Hass "While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages." (Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1955, p. 283). The most current NWT revision is from 1984.
  20. ^ Proclaimers, p. 608
  21. ^ http://www.bible-researcher.com/new-world.html
  22. ^ ""Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singluar anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a qualilty about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whome he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word", New World Translation w/ References App. 6A, p. 1579.
  23. ^ "In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85), Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." New World Translation w/ References App. 6A, pg. 1579.
  24. ^ "Or "and what God was the Word was". Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god") here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons." Dr. Daniel Wallace, http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm 3rd footnote for John 1:1.
  25. ^ "All" is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration. The "other" is assumed." pg. 85: "So what exactly are 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 that 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 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 NW simply makes what is implicit explicit." Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation pp. 84-85
  26. ^ http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt_proskuneo.htm
  27. ^ "While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where pro·sky·ne′o describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as “God’s Son,” the foretold “Son of man,” the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.—Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38." Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pg. 524
  28. ^ http://watchtower.org/library/w/2002/9/15/article_01.htm
  29. ^ "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" (1990). Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
  30. ^ "Be guided by the Living God" (Jun. 15, 2004). The Watchtower
  31. ^ "Questions from readers: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?" (Jun. 15, 2000). The Watchtower
  32. ^ Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood
  33. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Journal of Church and State Vol 47, Autumn 2005 p. 815
  34. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. Pbk. ISBN 0914675168. pp.732.
  35. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. Pbk. ISBN 0914675168. pp.732.
  36. ^ The Watchtower June 15 2004 paragraphs 16-18
  37. ^ http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=10342
  38. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
  39. ^ The Watchtower (Feb. 1, 1997) p30
  40. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802079733
  41. ^ United States Congress (1943). Declaring Certain Papers, Pamphlets, Books, Pictures and Writings Nonmailable. Hearings Before a Subcommittee.
  42. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802079733
  43. ^ http://www.catholicleague.org/1998report/miscellaneous1998.htm
  44. ^ "The care of God’s organisation today is not in the hands of men that are inspired by God. They can make mistakes as any imperfect man can." The Watchtower, 15 December 1962
  45. ^ Cameron, Don (2005). Captives of a Concept pg 60. ISBN 1411622103
  46. ^ 'Luthern Church' Reformation Principles and Practice: Essays in Honor of Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, p 169 and Luther's View of Church History, John M. Headley, Yale University Press, 1963, pp 13,14 'Roman Catholic Church' Visions of the End—Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation, Bernard McGinn, p 64 and Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong, Volume II, p. 611 and Visions of The End, McGinn p. 147 'Baptist Church' When Prophecy Fails, Festinger, Riecken and Schaeter, page 7 and Soothsayers Of The Second Advent, William Alnor, page 57 and The Signs of the Times, Isaac Massey Haldeman, pages 452, 453 'Presbyterian Church' A Great Expectation--Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 Bryan W. Ball and E.J. Brill, p 117 and The Logic of Millennial Thought by James West Davidson, p. 200 'Episcopal Church' The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, pages 417, 419. 'Assemblies of God Church' The Weekly Evangel, April 10, 1917 edtion, p 3 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' A Journal of Mormon Thought, Klaus J. Hansen, p 76 etc.
  47. ^ "This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women… Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses… Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" The Watchtower 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them' April 1 1972 p.197
  48. ^ "Whom has God actually used as his prophet?... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths..." The Watchtower 'Down with the Old—Up with the New!' January 15 1959 pp.39-41
  49. ^ Buttrey, John M (2004). Let No One Mislead You. iUniverse. ISBN 0595307108
  50. ^ Waldeck, Val Jehovah’s Witnesses: What do they believe?. Pilgrim Publications SA. ISBN 1920092080
  51. ^ "Clearly there is a considerable difference made in the writings of Jehovah's Witnesses between the guidance given to those men who wrote the Holy Scriptures, and the guidance one gains from reading those Scriptures. Thus, it does not matter in what sense others use the word "guidance" in relation to Watchtower writings; the key concern is how do Jehovah's Witnesses use the term in relation to themselves, and in relation to the direction given by God to the Bible writers...To use the same terms, and then apply different meanings to them in an attempt to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses, is not charitable." Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended II, pg. 486.
  52. ^ "We can see that the proof offered in support of their contention that they acted like a "prophet" for God did not involve the proclamation of inspired messages that originated with them; rather, "preaching the good news of God's kingdom," and "explaining [emphasis added] the book of Ezekiel as well as that of Revelation" is how they act like a prophet for God." Stafford, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended II, pg. 474.
  53. ^ "Franz ... pointed out, “we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,” for the Bible proves that Jehovah is “the greatest chronologist” and “we have the anchor date, 1914, marking the end of the Gentile Times.”", The Watchtower 1 May 1975, page 285
  54. ^ "1975 will, no doubt, go down in history as a year of very significant and interesting events.", The Watchtower 1 June 1975 p 349
  55. ^ "as the critical year of 1975 enters", The Watchtower 15 December 1974, p.764
  56. ^ "the worldwide report of the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses for 1977/78 reflected a decrease in the number sharing in the preaching work", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of Gods Kingdom, p.110.
  57. ^ Matthew 18:17, "The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (De 16:18; 21:19; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Ru 4:1) By "gate" is meant the open space inside the city near the gate. . . as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. (Witness publication, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 518)
  58. ^ In Search Of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz, 2002, and In Search of Christian Freedom, pp.374–390 'The Misuse of Disfellowshipping', by Raymond Franz
  59. ^ Robinson, B.A (2005). “Jehovah’s Witnesses (WTS) Handling of Child Sexual Abuse Cases”, Religious Tolerance.org Retrieved Mar 3, 2006.
  60. ^ Tubbs, Sharon (Aug. 22, 2002), "Spiritual shunning", St. Petersburg Times.
  61. ^ "Another Church Sex Scandal" (Apr. 29, 2003). CBS News.
  62. ^ Cutrer, Corrie (Mar. 5, 2001). "Witness Leaders Accused of Shielding Molesters", Chrisitanity Today.
  63. ^ “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Protection” (2003). Jehovah’s Witnesses Office of Public Information.
  64. ^ "apostates have stopped feeding at Jehovah’s table"; "To what have the apostates returned? In many cases, they have reentered the darkness of Christendom and its doctrines, such as the belief that all Christians go to heaven. Moreover, most no longer take a firm Scriptural stand regarding blood, neutrality, and the need to witness about God’s Kingdom.", The Watchtower, 1 July 1994, pp.10-12; also Reasoning from the Scriptures, p.36
  65. ^ May 1 2000 Watchtower p.10.
  66. ^ The Watchtower May 1, 2000 p.10 par. 10
  67. ^ http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton2.htm David Grossoehme on Lifton
  68. ^ Cameron, Don (2005). Captives of a Concept pg 112-113. ISBN 1411622103
  69. ^ Bethel catalogue 2000 Jehovah's Witnesses
  70. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 8, 2001) "Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried", The Guardian
  71. ^ "No Calamity Will Befall Us" (Subheading). (Nov. 15, 2001). The Watchtower, p.19
  72. ^ "Let the Reader Use Discernment", (Subheading "A Modern-Day 'Disgusting Thing'"). (May 1, 1999). The Watchtower, p 14
  73. ^ "Benefiting From Your God-given Conscience" (Subheading "Employment Factors to Consider). (Jul. 15, 1982). The Watchtower pg 26
  74. ^ http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ngo-partnership.html
  75. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 15, 2001) "'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon secret link with UN", The Guardian
  76. ^ Letter to Editor - The Guardian" (Oct. 22, 2001) Office of Pulic Information
  77. ^ http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/jimmy.html
  78. ^ http://www.freeminds.org/history/launder.htm

Positive or neutral resources

Resources Critical

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=66401454"