One of the visually better-put-together websites supporting the WTS’s stand on its 10-year relationship with the United Nations is The Watchtower Society as a United Nations NGO – A Look at the Conspiracy Theory (http://www.thirdwitness.com/UN/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/questions.html).
Once you’re past the visuals, however, and you begin to read it, the site’s agenda becomes clear. Apart from the unnamed author’(s’) predilection towards finger-pointing pejorative words and phrases, such as ‘apostate,’ there seems to be some quite dodgy reasoning. Rather than read through predictable spin on the subject, I fast-forwarded to the “Miscellaneous Questions” page and to one particularly interesting point.
The author asks: Doesn’t the Watchtower teach that the UN is the unclean thing and should not be touched?
No, he answers.
Technically this is true if you factor in that 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 refers to religious things. However, despite the author’s apparent attempt to demonstrate that the WTS has, albeit a tenuous respect, for the existence and the work of the UN, he appears to be oblivious quotes such as this:
‘What “disgusting thing” has been “put in place” in modern times? Apparently, it is a “disgusting” counterfeit of God’s Kingdom. This was the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that went into the abyss, or ceased to exist as a world-peace organization when World War 11 erupted. (Revelation 17:8) The “wild beast,” however, was to “ascend out of the abyss.” This it did when the United Nations, the 50 member nations including the former Soviet Union, was established on October 24, 1945. Thus “the disgusting thing” foretold by an angel – the United Nations – was put in place.’ – Page 269, paragraph 24, Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1999.
Most Witnesses will know that the Scriptural reference referring to not ‘touching the unclean thing’ applies to Babylon the Great which they are taught to view as the ‘World Empire of False Religion.’
Is the author then suggesting that ‘infiltrating’ by use of the UN’s libraries was ethically acceptable?
Notice, too, that its publication date is 7 years before the saga began and only 3 years before it ended.
Related to this is a further question on the site: Although there was nothing technically wrong with being an NGO with the DPI in 1992, should the Watchtower have not avoided anything to do with the United Nations to avoid stumbling the brothers?
To this question the author likewise answers No.
The fact is the action did cause a major stumbling when the news was exposed (within 24 hours of the newspaper article is bound to raise eyebrows!) While most Witnesses would have to meet their end with a millstone around their necks for ‘stumbling their brothers,’ it seems that others are exempt.
Ethically, what happened would be like us asking Adolf Hitler if you could use the Reichstag library during World War Two to write anti-Nazi propaganda leaflets.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Saturday, 25 December 2010
A look at the ethics of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This post is to expose the unethical, un-scriptural actions of the men involved in the "judicial" processes of jehovah's Witneses. The lack of fair minded impartial justice shown to me during my "judicial" case is a result of what they (the elders) are directed to do by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesess. I am not alone of course. Many people have been through similar and will do again in the future, sadly. I hope that those who read this study in it's entirety will acknowledge that what they put people through is wrong on many levels. As you read I hope you will recognise they are seriously flawed in their methods also.
This study has been kindly and painstakingly put together at great effort by an anonymous person who I believe is an active Jehovah's Witness, but feels very strongly about this particular issue. He has given me permission to publish what he has written on his behalf.
The full study is available here to read and I would strongly recommend all to read it. It is a wonderfully well written, well researched and well thought out peice of work. The logic employed is very difficult to refute. Written not as an attack on JWs in any way it brilliantly points out step by step where the author feels things went wrong. I hope you enjoy it.
Study of Jehovah's witness ethics
Matthew
"The purpose of this essay is for the education of others who may find themselves part of this arrangement one day, and for stimulating constructive discussion on the content of this judicial case and its methodology. If you agree with the views expounded, tell us why . If you wish to challenge the opinions stated, that's fine also - tell us why, and be ready to have those views challenged. This is a forum for honest discussion and your comments are appreciated. Engage the author, engage Matthew, engage this philosophy." - The Author
This study has been kindly and painstakingly put together at great effort by an anonymous person who I believe is an active Jehovah's Witness, but feels very strongly about this particular issue. He has given me permission to publish what he has written on his behalf.
The full study is available here to read and I would strongly recommend all to read it. It is a wonderfully well written, well researched and well thought out peice of work. The logic employed is very difficult to refute. Written not as an attack on JWs in any way it brilliantly points out step by step where the author feels things went wrong. I hope you enjoy it.
Study of Jehovah's witness ethics
Matthew
"The purpose of this essay is for the education of others who may find themselves part of this arrangement one day, and for stimulating constructive discussion on the content of this judicial case and its methodology. If you agree with the views expounded, tell us why . If you wish to challenge the opinions stated, that's fine also - tell us why, and be ready to have those views challenged. This is a forum for honest discussion and your comments are appreciated. Engage the author, engage Matthew, engage this philosophy." - The Author
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Full transcripts
There are now full transcripts availabe of Podcasts 8-12 which are the judicial hearings and a conversation with an elder at the Kingdom hall.
These have been kindly provided by an anonymous donor.
This helps people who may have trouble with their hearing or cannot understand some of the Scottish accents.
They are available on the link below and have audio links to listen as you read.
http://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/
These have been kindly provided by an anonymous donor.
This helps people who may have trouble with their hearing or cannot understand some of the Scottish accents.
They are available on the link below and have audio links to listen as you read.
http://jehovahswitnesstrial.wordpress.com/
Monday, 8 March 2010
Appeal letter to London Bethel
Dear brothers,
I Understand that there was an announcement to the effect that I, Matthew Barrie am no longer considered to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses on 05/02/09 at Bishopbriggs Kingdom Hall.
I am reliably informed that the brother in question , Ronnie Moffat, was concerned that in order for there to be no breach of confidentiality he acted without the knowledge of the majority of the rest of the body of elders when he made the above announcement.
I am also reliably informed that other members of the body assumed that the announcement would be on the 12th of February 2009.
This is however, in my view surely the most serious breach of my confidentiality there could possibly be.
To the best of my knowledge I have the right of appeal by letter to the appeal committee within seven days of the appeal being heard. And yet while I am preparing my appeal letter It is disclosed only four days after the appeal that not only that I am under judicial action, but that I've actually been disfellowshipped!
In my view there can only be two explanations for this situation:-
1.I have no right of appeal and therefore the brother was right to act as he did.
2.I do have the right of appeal but the brothers on the appeal committee chose not to inform me of that right, and therefore the announcement should not have been made.
This is a very serious matter. Is it fair and reasonable to assume that the person being accused is aware of all his rights and should know what to do or say at all times?
I would kindly like to point out to the brothers that I requested by letter ,dated 18/01/09 before any of the judicial meetings had taken place to be informed of what my rights and responsibilities were should the matter be taken to an appeal committee. (ref. point 18) For the brothers to ignore this request and refuse either the right of appeal itself or not to inform me of my rights or responsibilities is a serious and flagrant disregard for both my legal rights and more importantly Theocratic Justice. Is is not the case that one of Jehovah's cardinal qualities is Justice?
I would like to state for the record that in my view this case has been mishandled from start to finish, to the extent that I could not possibly receive a fair trial. I will outline below why I feel this to be so.
1. A number of the body of elders in Bishopbriggs have demonstrated knowledge of the proceedings against me and have passed that knowledge on to several publishers not connected to the case.
They have shown that they are predisposed to the possibility of me being removed from the congregation.
The men I have specific knowledge of are Lee Green snr ,Gordon Harper and most worryingly Ronald Hunter ,who was one of the accusers.
I have Witnesses of these actions of all of the above named.
2.Ronald Hunter went on a "shepherding" visit to Anne Byrne and discussed private and judicial matters relating to my case with her and Susan Hunter his wife ,who was also present. He then made several False accusations to Anne Byrne relating to me ,of which there are also two witnesses.
3.Ronald Hunter then attended a further "shepherding" visit to Peter and Nan Barrie with Ronnie Moffat.
Is it fair that my Judge/juror in the shape of Ronnie Moffat would undertake a visit with one of my accusers Ronald Hunter to gather evidence against me from my parents?(January 2009) Surely it must be recognized that this is contrary to natural justice? How can Ronnie Moffat sit as chairman of my committee and purport to be impartial?
4.When it came to my attention that Ronald Hunter had said some serious things about me and my family which in my view amounted to slander I followed Matt . 18.15 and went to speak with him.(25/12/08)
This visit was unproductive as brother Hunter refused to answer some questions, and couldn't remember having made the statements to Anne Byrne. He then made a false accusation to my face that I had been teaching her falsehoods.I had done no such thing and had little or no contact with her and certainly no doctrinal discussions. Following Ronald Hunter's visit Anne Byrne was very upset and has now disassociated herself from Jehovah's Witnesses.
5.During the first judicial after I was sent out I could not help but overhear brother Hunter in another room making sweeping hurtful statements about other young persons who are connected to the local Hall, in which he states what is clear to him about their life course and motivation. During this discussion he tries to influence the other witness Paul Barrie by saying that an honest question I had asked of brother Barrie during the hearing was "twisted, and the mark of an "apostate".
6.The testimony of brother Hunter was that I "believe" all the subjects that were discussed in the shepherding visits. At no time did I forcefully state that. Also by way of example during the course of brother Hunter's testimony He states that "Matthew made it very clear that all must partake of the emblems at the memorial if they want to be saved". I have carefully reviewed the evidence and consulted with my wife and I have a record of all the conversations I have had which involve Ronald Hunter.Unfortunately I cannot find any evidence to support brother Hunter's assertive statement.
Can I kindly point out that although Ronald Hunter and the other brothers concerned are elders, the scripture in Proverbs 6.16-18 applies with equal force to all of us.
There are six things that Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to his soul: lofty eyes, a false tongue, and hands that are shedding innocent blood, a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet that are in a hurry to run to badness, a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers.
In my view given the circumstances and handling of this case and the behaviour, speech and attitudes displayed by some of the brothers involved I can only ask that the case against me be dropped .
There is no evidence against me from anyone else in the congregation and in fact the evidence I presented showed that I was being commended by both accusers for keeping any private views I may hold to myself.One of the brothers ,Paul Barrie said recently that he had no problem with me talking to him "because if you can't talk to the elders then who can you talk to?" I also have evidence which Lee Green Snr is aware of that I very recently refused to discuss any views I may hold with my good friend , his son who is a JW.
The fact that I did want to discuss My personal view with either committee is not evidence of being an "apostate", rather an entirely reasonable reaction to the situation where the elders tried to use shepherding settings to obtain and use information in a judicial environment on the premise that they were there to help.
I also feel that brother Hunter's testimony should be dismissed based on the above evidence. Matthew !8;16 says that every matter should be established "at the mouth of two or three witnesses" In my view brother Hunter would be removed as a credible witness if this was a court of law, which would leave Paul Barrie as the sole accuser.
Surely, if as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, a person's eternal salvation is at stake this should be of the utmost importance?
I hope that this can be settled amicably at this time as I didn't ask for this situation to arise. It is my hope that this matter can be resolved without me needing to take things any further.
Since the brothers were so eager to announce that I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses I would be happy for them to make an announcement as soon as possible to the contrary.
I await your consideration of my letter of appeal and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to make the correct decision .
Yours ,
Matthew J. Barrie.
I Understand that there was an announcement to the effect that I, Matthew Barrie am no longer considered to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses on 05/02/09 at Bishopbriggs Kingdom Hall.
I am reliably informed that the brother in question , Ronnie Moffat, was concerned that in order for there to be no breach of confidentiality he acted without the knowledge of the majority of the rest of the body of elders when he made the above announcement.
I am also reliably informed that other members of the body assumed that the announcement would be on the 12th of February 2009.
This is however, in my view surely the most serious breach of my confidentiality there could possibly be.
To the best of my knowledge I have the right of appeal by letter to the appeal committee within seven days of the appeal being heard. And yet while I am preparing my appeal letter It is disclosed only four days after the appeal that not only that I am under judicial action, but that I've actually been disfellowshipped!
In my view there can only be two explanations for this situation:-
1.I have no right of appeal and therefore the brother was right to act as he did.
2.I do have the right of appeal but the brothers on the appeal committee chose not to inform me of that right, and therefore the announcement should not have been made.
This is a very serious matter. Is it fair and reasonable to assume that the person being accused is aware of all his rights and should know what to do or say at all times?
I would kindly like to point out to the brothers that I requested by letter ,dated 18/01/09 before any of the judicial meetings had taken place to be informed of what my rights and responsibilities were should the matter be taken to an appeal committee. (ref. point 18) For the brothers to ignore this request and refuse either the right of appeal itself or not to inform me of my rights or responsibilities is a serious and flagrant disregard for both my legal rights and more importantly Theocratic Justice. Is is not the case that one of Jehovah's cardinal qualities is Justice?
I would like to state for the record that in my view this case has been mishandled from start to finish, to the extent that I could not possibly receive a fair trial. I will outline below why I feel this to be so.
1. A number of the body of elders in Bishopbriggs have demonstrated knowledge of the proceedings against me and have passed that knowledge on to several publishers not connected to the case.
They have shown that they are predisposed to the possibility of me being removed from the congregation.
The men I have specific knowledge of are Lee Green snr ,Gordon Harper and most worryingly Ronald Hunter ,who was one of the accusers.
I have Witnesses of these actions of all of the above named.
2.Ronald Hunter went on a "shepherding" visit to Anne Byrne and discussed private and judicial matters relating to my case with her and Susan Hunter his wife ,who was also present. He then made several False accusations to Anne Byrne relating to me ,of which there are also two witnesses.
3.Ronald Hunter then attended a further "shepherding" visit to Peter and Nan Barrie with Ronnie Moffat.
Is it fair that my Judge/juror in the shape of Ronnie Moffat would undertake a visit with one of my accusers Ronald Hunter to gather evidence against me from my parents?(January 2009) Surely it must be recognized that this is contrary to natural justice? How can Ronnie Moffat sit as chairman of my committee and purport to be impartial?
4.When it came to my attention that Ronald Hunter had said some serious things about me and my family which in my view amounted to slander I followed Matt . 18.15 and went to speak with him.(25/12/08)
This visit was unproductive as brother Hunter refused to answer some questions, and couldn't remember having made the statements to Anne Byrne. He then made a false accusation to my face that I had been teaching her falsehoods.I had done no such thing and had little or no contact with her and certainly no doctrinal discussions. Following Ronald Hunter's visit Anne Byrne was very upset and has now disassociated herself from Jehovah's Witnesses.
5.During the first judicial after I was sent out I could not help but overhear brother Hunter in another room making sweeping hurtful statements about other young persons who are connected to the local Hall, in which he states what is clear to him about their life course and motivation. During this discussion he tries to influence the other witness Paul Barrie by saying that an honest question I had asked of brother Barrie during the hearing was "twisted, and the mark of an "apostate".
6.The testimony of brother Hunter was that I "believe" all the subjects that were discussed in the shepherding visits. At no time did I forcefully state that. Also by way of example during the course of brother Hunter's testimony He states that "Matthew made it very clear that all must partake of the emblems at the memorial if they want to be saved". I have carefully reviewed the evidence and consulted with my wife and I have a record of all the conversations I have had which involve Ronald Hunter.Unfortunately I cannot find any evidence to support brother Hunter's assertive statement.
Can I kindly point out that although Ronald Hunter and the other brothers concerned are elders, the scripture in Proverbs 6.16-18 applies with equal force to all of us.
There are six things that Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to his soul: lofty eyes, a false tongue, and hands that are shedding innocent blood, a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet that are in a hurry to run to badness, a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers.
In my view given the circumstances and handling of this case and the behaviour, speech and attitudes displayed by some of the brothers involved I can only ask that the case against me be dropped .
There is no evidence against me from anyone else in the congregation and in fact the evidence I presented showed that I was being commended by both accusers for keeping any private views I may hold to myself.One of the brothers ,Paul Barrie said recently that he had no problem with me talking to him "because if you can't talk to the elders then who can you talk to?" I also have evidence which Lee Green Snr is aware of that I very recently refused to discuss any views I may hold with my good friend , his son who is a JW.
The fact that I did want to discuss My personal view with either committee is not evidence of being an "apostate", rather an entirely reasonable reaction to the situation where the elders tried to use shepherding settings to obtain and use information in a judicial environment on the premise that they were there to help.
I also feel that brother Hunter's testimony should be dismissed based on the above evidence. Matthew !8;16 says that every matter should be established "at the mouth of two or three witnesses" In my view brother Hunter would be removed as a credible witness if this was a court of law, which would leave Paul Barrie as the sole accuser.
Surely, if as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, a person's eternal salvation is at stake this should be of the utmost importance?
I hope that this can be settled amicably at this time as I didn't ask for this situation to arise. It is my hope that this matter can be resolved without me needing to take things any further.
Since the brothers were so eager to announce that I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses I would be happy for them to make an announcement as soon as possible to the contrary.
I await your consideration of my letter of appeal and pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to make the correct decision .
Yours ,
Matthew J. Barrie.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Podcast 12- The final verdict.
play the audio
This is the last part of the podcast series which charts the so called "judicial" process.
Remember the decision that is reached impacts a persons family and social circle and perhaps their livelihood and ultimately as Jehovah's Witnesses believe their life itself, in the event they term "Armageddon".
This decision is meant to be just and fair and arrived at by means of the Holy Spirit directing these men's actions. The Bible should also be the ultimate source to determine a person's wrongdoing in situations such as these.
Please listen and make your own judgement.
This is the last part of the podcast series which charts the so called "judicial" process.
Remember the decision that is reached impacts a persons family and social circle and perhaps their livelihood and ultimately as Jehovah's Witnesses believe their life itself, in the event they term "Armageddon".
This decision is meant to be just and fair and arrived at by means of the Holy Spirit directing these men's actions. The Bible should also be the ultimate source to determine a person's wrongdoing in situations such as these.
Please listen and make your own judgement.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Podcast 11- Judicial Committee Appeal
Play, download, share.
This Podcast is the first of three which chronicle the so called "Judicial appeal". You will hear the charges against me re-outlined by the committee of 3 high profile elders from the Lanarkshire Number 1 Circuit, including Philip Jones, Ian Shanks and chairman Martin Benzie. All 3 'brothers' have served, or are currently serving, as Circuit Overseers.
You may be interested to hear how Brother Jones describes what the Gospel is. Compare his description of it with the Gospel preached by Jesus and the 1st Century congregation. Then read Galations 1:6-8.
Judge for yourself whether these Christians are more interested in God, Christ and the Bible or the Organisation.
This Podcast is the first of three which chronicle the so called "Judicial appeal". You will hear the charges against me re-outlined by the committee of 3 high profile elders from the Lanarkshire Number 1 Circuit, including Philip Jones, Ian Shanks and chairman Martin Benzie. All 3 'brothers' have served, or are currently serving, as Circuit Overseers.
You may be interested to hear how Brother Jones describes what the Gospel is. Compare his description of it with the Gospel preached by Jesus and the 1st Century congregation. Then read Galations 1:6-8.
Judge for yourself whether these Christians are more interested in God, Christ and the Bible or the Organisation.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Podcast 10 - Disfellowshipped For?
Play the audio
This podcast concludes my first judicial hearing.
Remember, I was expected to defend myself in front of a committee of 3 elders with no representation; it was me against them. The two witness called to testify against me were both elders, one of whom is my brother. Both of these witnesses used conversations I had had with them, trusting that they were going to help me. Instead, they convened a meeting of the elders, brought their testimonies together and formed a judicial committee. This was a breach of clergy privilege.*
Please pay careful attention to what can only be described as a personal bias on the part of one of the elders in the committee who was supposed to have been going on holiday with two of our friends.
Compare his questioning, coupled with the testimony of the two elders, with the statement made right at the end by the Chairman that the committee was not prejudiced or biased.
Also, notice how attending other churches is grounds for disfellowshipping. This is a direct contravention of Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights. Click here for more information;
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Remember, anyone who does not accept all of the Governing Body's interpretation of scripture is liable to face a committee such as I did.
Ask yourself whether the Watch Tower Society allows it's members to enjoy the same level of freedom of thought and religion as it itself expects to be afforded.
Is there any wonder why some view the Watch Tower Society as a dangerous cult?
*Jehovah's Witness elders consistently use the excuse of "clergy privilege" to avoid having to testify in court against suspected Jehovah's Witness pedophiles. Please check www.silentlambs.org for further information."
This podcast concludes my first judicial hearing.
Remember, I was expected to defend myself in front of a committee of 3 elders with no representation; it was me against them. The two witness called to testify against me were both elders, one of whom is my brother. Both of these witnesses used conversations I had had with them, trusting that they were going to help me. Instead, they convened a meeting of the elders, brought their testimonies together and formed a judicial committee. This was a breach of clergy privilege.*
Please pay careful attention to what can only be described as a personal bias on the part of one of the elders in the committee who was supposed to have been going on holiday with two of our friends.
Compare his questioning, coupled with the testimony of the two elders, with the statement made right at the end by the Chairman that the committee was not prejudiced or biased.
Also, notice how attending other churches is grounds for disfellowshipping. This is a direct contravention of Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration for Human Rights. Click here for more information;
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Remember, anyone who does not accept all of the Governing Body's interpretation of scripture is liable to face a committee such as I did.
Ask yourself whether the Watch Tower Society allows it's members to enjoy the same level of freedom of thought and religion as it itself expects to be afforded.
Is there any wonder why some view the Watch Tower Society as a dangerous cult?
*Jehovah's Witness elders consistently use the excuse of "clergy privilege" to avoid having to testify in court against suspected Jehovah's Witness pedophiles. Please check www.silentlambs.org for further information."
Monday, 20 July 2009
Podcast 9 - The "hearing" begins.
PLAY THE AUDIO
In this edition of the podcast we start the first of my judicial hearings. This is part 1 of the first hearing.
I'll let the audio speak for itself, however, please notice who the two witnesses are and how apostasy is defined when I ask what the charge means in real terms.
Please feel free to copy and distribute these podcasts. If you've any comments, please leave them on the website;
www.deathorobedience.blogspot.com
In this edition of the podcast we start the first of my judicial hearings. This is part 1 of the first hearing.
I'll let the audio speak for itself, however, please notice who the two witnesses are and how apostasy is defined when I ask what the charge means in real terms.
Please feel free to copy and distribute these podcasts. If you've any comments, please leave them on the website;
www.deathorobedience.blogspot.com
Monday, 1 June 2009
Podcast 8- Showdown at the Kingdom Hall
Play the audio
If you cannot open the file , get it free on itunes. Click on the link below.
itunes link
If you cannot open the file , get it free on itunes. Click on the link below.
itunes link
This podcast was recorded on Christmas Day 2008.
After our last visit from two local elders my wife felt she could no longer be known as a Jehovah's Witness and had chosen to disassociate herself in November 2008.
We had been on a family holiday and had returned to find that one of the local elders who had visited us had warned off my mother-in-law from having anything to do with my wife - her daughter. He also made false statements about one of my children.
I decided to confront this elder at the Kingdom Hall. This podcast is the recording of our conversation.
Notice how he denies making such statements to my mother-in-law and falsely accuses me of teaching her beliefs contrary to Jehovah's Witnesses.
I ask whether it's a sin to no longer be a Jehovah's Witness?
He also clearly states his position regarding the worship of Jesus.
He also clearly states his position regarding the worship of Jesus.
I firmly believe that as a result of this conversation this elder initiated judicial proceedings against me the following month.
Podcasts from this judicial hearing will follow shortly.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
New World Translation examined
"The "New world" translation is the finest translation there is".
This is a phrase that a Jehovah's Witnesses will either hear said many times, or read in the publications.
When I attended an intensive study and teaching course serving as a "pioneer" (in the Door to Door work) ,the book which we used
had a whole chapter dedicated to the "Effective use of the NWT" .
This chapter from the "Illuminators" book asks on page100 ; "Why was the NWT needed in the first place?" One of the answers given was :- "The honest-hearted need help to comprehend correctly the Bible's teachings"
Also this statement is made..."The NWT is a completely new translation unfettered by Christendom's religious traditions"
And ....."It is especially appreciated since it was translated directly from Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek"
Let us examine these three quotes and determine whether they are accurate statements.
How have the "honest-hearted" managed without the NWT for the best part of 2000 years? Is it fair to claim that persons reading the Bible would not be able to understand what they were reading and would fail to see the Bible's "teachings" until circa 1960 A.D.?
These comments are of course to reinforce the notion that this "translation" is indispensable to serious Bible students and anyone who regards themselves as honest-hearted. And the "help" comes from reading the NWT as opposed to other Bibles. The NWT was produced by an anonymous group of people in the 1950's and 60's.
Some of these same people consider themselves to be God's "Channel of communication on earth" , so it would follow that their Bible would also be considered to have God's approval.
Let us look at one example to see if the "Bible's teachings" are adhered to and expounded clearly.
Please look at Hebrews 1:6 "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”- New World Translation.
What are the honest-hearted being told here about Jesus? They are being told that the Angels do "obeisance" to him.
However when we look at the footnote in their reference Bible for Heb. 1:6 we see that it is the Greek word used is proskuneo and should actually be rendered "let WORSHIP" as it appears in many other translations. In the 1961 NWT it IS rendered "worship" but in the next revision (1971) it was removed for reasons known to this anonymous group.
Are the the "honest hearted" being helped to "comprehend" Bible truth?
The Watchtower Society (WTS) do not want to encourage the worship of Jesus in any way, a fact born out by the blatant removal of the word worship from this verse. So is manipulating the way a verse is translated acceptable, when the verse conveys a thought that is alien to the belief system one holds? I would have thought not.
Let us look at the second statement."The NWT is a completely new translation unfettered by Christendom's religious traditions".
This may well be an accurate statement to make as the WTS often adopt a position which is contrary to "Christendom" even if it cannot be substantiated , such as Jesus dying on a stake not a cross. So we would expect this same criteria to be applied in their NWT.
Is it fair though to say that your translation is unfettered by any religious "entity" such as "Christendom" while at the same time being heavily influenced or "fettered" by your OWN doctrinal bias?
Here is a quote from the Watchtower which represents how this actually works in real terms.
Watchtower 1986 4/1 p. 31
"Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."(end of quote)
Notice how the Bible's true "teachings" are actually qualified by those beliefs which are "unique" to Jehovah's Witnesses?
So what this means is that the doctrinal and belief system of JWs such as the "faithful Slave" dogma are ,according to them, the REAL message of the Bible as interpreted by the Governing Body. Is this not exactly what the wts are claiming the NWT is free from?
Now let us consider the third quote:- "It is especially appreciated since it was translated directly from Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek"
While it is true that the NWT is translated from these ancient languages this statement gives the impression that the NWT always uses the oldest and most accurate manuscripts available and again that there is little room for manipulation.
Here is the quote from the foreword from the 1951 NWT:-
"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence.But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk..."
The New world translation does not always use the oldest and most accurate manuscripts. So the question must be asked did they actually follow the ancient Greek text established by "Christendom's scholars, as they claim? No they did not. They threw in another series of later peculiar documents which have nothing to do with scholarly textual criticism because they are not witnesses to the ancient Greek text. Some of these "sources" happen to have included the name "Jehovah" or YHWH. Also of note is the fact that two named Jesuit Scholars (a high order of the Catholic Church) worked on the original Greek manuscripts to produce a translation which the society have drawn from for the NWT. These people are part of the very entity they repudiate in the WTS publications. So these sources , i. e. the Catholic Church are viable when it suits their purposes and vehemently condemned at other times. Is this not somewhat hypocritical?
Does this sound like the NWT is "unfettered" by Christendom's teachings?
Have a look in the NWT footnotes and you will see the proliferation of the letter "J" , these are the instances where they have utilised "manuscripts" and "sources" ranging from the 1500's to 1981. Usually where the Greek word for "Lord"(Kyrios) or God (Theos) would appear, the name Jehovah has been inserted in their place , thus "restoring" the Divine name to it's "rightful" place in the Greek scriptures. This has been done 237 times in the new testament of the New World Translation.
The oldest available Greek manuscripts do not contain YHWH at all, other than the expression "hallelujah" which appears in Revelation 19:3.
However a striking example of the translators doctrinal bias , hypocrisy and hiding the true message of the Bible is found at 1Thessalonians 4:15,16. in the NWT.
" For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."
In the above verses the Greek word Kyrios or Lord in English, appears 3 times in the oldest Greek manuscripts. (highlighted).
In verse 15 we see that the NWT translators have used the name Jehovah in place of lord in the phrase "Jehovah's word" when in the Greek manuscripts it is "kyrios" or Lord.
The "J" manuscript uses Jehovah here so that is the NWT translation basis for including it . The NWT translation committee proudly say they have restored the divine name to it's rightful place. Please look to the very next verse (16). The Greek word Kyrios is now rendered "Lord" instead of Jehovah. If you again check the footnote of the reference bible you will notice that the "J" source translation has indeed rendered the name Jehovah , just as in the preceding verse. And yet now the preferred manuscript is ABVg which uses "kyrios" or Lord.
So why have the NWT translation Committee decided that the Divine name "Jehovah" is now surplus to requirements?
The answer is doctrinal bias. Can the Watchtower teach that "Jehovah descends from heaven with an Archangel's voice"? Can they have a teaching as in verse 17 where the those caught up meet "Jehovah" in the "Air"? (again see reference Bible footnotes) What is the Bible actually saying?
There are two doctrinal issues which prevent them using the "J" rendering here.
1. They teach that Jesus is an Archangel and use this verse as a proof text.
2. They teach that Jehovah has never been on the earth so it cannot possibly be true that Jehovah comes down from heaven.
So here is an example of the Bible being very much in second place to the "teachings" of the WTS. Also of note is the sudden disregard for the name Jehovah when it clashes with doctrinal positions.
So is the New World Translation "the finest there is"?, helping "honest-hearted" ones find Bible truth?, and is it "unfettered" by religious "traditions"?
I was shocked when I discovered the many instances where the NWT is in fact doing the opposite of what it claims to do.
I was raised to believe that this was an honest piece of work , instead I found through personal study, many cases where the verses were changed to suit JW beliefs by omitting words , changing words, adding words and in some cases entire phrases.
I lost my confidence in this "translation" many years ago. But I found a new love for the Bible in other more reliable works such as the fine New International Version (N.I.V.) which I would recommend.
No translation is perfect of course and many do reflect the beliefs of the translators but in the case of the NWT what has been done is a bridge too far.( Revelation 22:19.)
This is a phrase that a Jehovah's Witnesses will either hear said many times, or read in the publications.
When I attended an intensive study and teaching course serving as a "pioneer" (in the Door to Door work) ,the book which we used
had a whole chapter dedicated to the "Effective use of the NWT" .
This chapter from the "Illuminators" book asks on page100 ; "Why was the NWT needed in the first place?" One of the answers given was :- "The honest-hearted need help to comprehend correctly the Bible's teachings"
Also this statement is made..."The NWT is a completely new translation unfettered by Christendom's religious traditions"
And ....."It is especially appreciated since it was translated directly from Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek"
Let us examine these three quotes and determine whether they are accurate statements.
How have the "honest-hearted" managed without the NWT for the best part of 2000 years? Is it fair to claim that persons reading the Bible would not be able to understand what they were reading and would fail to see the Bible's "teachings" until circa 1960 A.D.?
These comments are of course to reinforce the notion that this "translation" is indispensable to serious Bible students and anyone who regards themselves as honest-hearted. And the "help" comes from reading the NWT as opposed to other Bibles. The NWT was produced by an anonymous group of people in the 1950's and 60's.
Some of these same people consider themselves to be God's "Channel of communication on earth" , so it would follow that their Bible would also be considered to have God's approval.
Let us look at one example to see if the "Bible's teachings" are adhered to and expounded clearly.
Please look at Hebrews 1:6 "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”- New World Translation.
What are the honest-hearted being told here about Jesus? They are being told that the Angels do "obeisance" to him.
However when we look at the footnote in their reference Bible for Heb. 1:6 we see that it is the Greek word used is proskuneo and should actually be rendered "let WORSHIP" as it appears in many other translations. In the 1961 NWT it IS rendered "worship" but in the next revision (1971) it was removed for reasons known to this anonymous group.
Are the the "honest hearted" being helped to "comprehend" Bible truth?
The Watchtower Society (WTS) do not want to encourage the worship of Jesus in any way, a fact born out by the blatant removal of the word worship from this verse. So is manipulating the way a verse is translated acceptable, when the verse conveys a thought that is alien to the belief system one holds? I would have thought not.
Let us look at the second statement."The NWT is a completely new translation unfettered by Christendom's religious traditions".
This may well be an accurate statement to make as the WTS often adopt a position which is contrary to "Christendom" even if it cannot be substantiated , such as Jesus dying on a stake not a cross. So we would expect this same criteria to be applied in their NWT.
Is it fair though to say that your translation is unfettered by any religious "entity" such as "Christendom" while at the same time being heavily influenced or "fettered" by your OWN doctrinal bias?
Here is a quote from the Watchtower which represents how this actually works in real terms.
Watchtower 1986 4/1 p. 31
"Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."(end of quote)
Notice how the Bible's true "teachings" are actually qualified by those beliefs which are "unique" to Jehovah's Witnesses?
So what this means is that the doctrinal and belief system of JWs such as the "faithful Slave" dogma are ,according to them, the REAL message of the Bible as interpreted by the Governing Body. Is this not exactly what the wts are claiming the NWT is free from?
Now let us consider the third quote:- "It is especially appreciated since it was translated directly from Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek"
While it is true that the NWT is translated from these ancient languages this statement gives the impression that the NWT always uses the oldest and most accurate manuscripts available and again that there is little room for manipulation.
Here is the quote from the foreword from the 1951 NWT:-
"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence.But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk..."
The New world translation does not always use the oldest and most accurate manuscripts. So the question must be asked did they actually follow the ancient Greek text established by "Christendom's scholars, as they claim? No they did not. They threw in another series of later peculiar documents which have nothing to do with scholarly textual criticism because they are not witnesses to the ancient Greek text. Some of these "sources" happen to have included the name "Jehovah" or YHWH. Also of note is the fact that two named Jesuit Scholars (a high order of the Catholic Church) worked on the original Greek manuscripts to produce a translation which the society have drawn from for the NWT. These people are part of the very entity they repudiate in the WTS publications. So these sources , i. e. the Catholic Church are viable when it suits their purposes and vehemently condemned at other times. Is this not somewhat hypocritical?
Does this sound like the NWT is "unfettered" by Christendom's teachings?
Have a look in the NWT footnotes and you will see the proliferation of the letter "J" , these are the instances where they have utilised "manuscripts" and "sources" ranging from the 1500's to 1981. Usually where the Greek word for "Lord"(Kyrios) or God (Theos) would appear, the name Jehovah has been inserted in their place , thus "restoring" the Divine name to it's "rightful" place in the Greek scriptures. This has been done 237 times in the new testament of the New World Translation.
The oldest available Greek manuscripts do not contain YHWH at all, other than the expression "hallelujah" which appears in Revelation 19:3.
However a striking example of the translators doctrinal bias , hypocrisy and hiding the true message of the Bible is found at 1Thessalonians 4:15,16. in the NWT.
" For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."
In the above verses the Greek word Kyrios or Lord in English, appears 3 times in the oldest Greek manuscripts. (highlighted).
In verse 15 we see that the NWT translators have used the name Jehovah in place of lord in the phrase "Jehovah's word" when in the Greek manuscripts it is "kyrios" or Lord.
The "J" manuscript uses Jehovah here so that is the NWT translation basis for including it . The NWT translation committee proudly say they have restored the divine name to it's rightful place. Please look to the very next verse (16). The Greek word Kyrios is now rendered "Lord" instead of Jehovah. If you again check the footnote of the reference bible you will notice that the "J" source translation has indeed rendered the name Jehovah , just as in the preceding verse. And yet now the preferred manuscript is ABVg which uses "kyrios" or Lord.
So why have the NWT translation Committee decided that the Divine name "Jehovah" is now surplus to requirements?
The answer is doctrinal bias. Can the Watchtower teach that "Jehovah descends from heaven with an Archangel's voice"? Can they have a teaching as in verse 17 where the those caught up meet "Jehovah" in the "Air"? (again see reference Bible footnotes) What is the Bible actually saying?
There are two doctrinal issues which prevent them using the "J" rendering here.
1. They teach that Jesus is an Archangel and use this verse as a proof text.
2. They teach that Jehovah has never been on the earth so it cannot possibly be true that Jehovah comes down from heaven.
So here is an example of the Bible being very much in second place to the "teachings" of the WTS. Also of note is the sudden disregard for the name Jehovah when it clashes with doctrinal positions.
So is the New World Translation "the finest there is"?, helping "honest-hearted" ones find Bible truth?, and is it "unfettered" by religious "traditions"?
I was shocked when I discovered the many instances where the NWT is in fact doing the opposite of what it claims to do.
I was raised to believe that this was an honest piece of work , instead I found through personal study, many cases where the verses were changed to suit JW beliefs by omitting words , changing words, adding words and in some cases entire phrases.
I lost my confidence in this "translation" many years ago. But I found a new love for the Bible in other more reliable works such as the fine New International Version (N.I.V.) which I would recommend.
No translation is perfect of course and many do reflect the beliefs of the translators but in the case of the NWT what has been done is a bridge too far.( Revelation 22:19.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)