e-Watchman.com

11. The WTS claims that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. and uses Dan 4:23-25, Rev 12:6, 14, Num 14:34, and Ezek 4:6 to come up with 1914 C.E., which is 2,520 years later, as the year that Jesus began his reign in heaven. If the WT's claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. is correct, then why is it that every reference source, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, The World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Compton's Encyclopedia, Academic American Encyclopedia, Cambridge Ancient History – Vol. III, The Oxford Dictionary of World History, etc, etc, all state that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC? If the WTS is correct that Christ's reign in heaven started 2,520 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, shouldn't this event have occurred in 1935 instead of 1914? Should we view the overwhelming opinion of essentially every historian who is an expert on ancient history, or the WTS, as unreliable?

12. According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, the Greek word "heos" (Strong's # 2193) means "till, until". If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate the Greek word "heos" in Mt 5:18 as "sooner would" instead of "until", completely changing the meaning of this verse? If the Greek word "heos" was translated correctly as "until" in this verse, what would this verse say about the future of this present earth? Why is this Greek word translated as "until" in the KIT, but rendered "sooner would" in the NWT? Why the inconsistency in the translation? See Zeph 3:13 and Isa 28:15.

There is essentially no difference between the two terms in that particular usage. The difficulty comes from a particular mindset that reads isolated texts at face value in order to try to support anti-biblical doctrines. Jesus was not saying definitively that heaven and earth were destined to pass away. On the contrary, he was illustrating how God's Word is even more enduring than the physical universe. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) of the Bible words it in this way: "Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law."

But, neither heaven nor earth will literally pass away. And neither will God's Word. A few verses before the verse you cited, Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth. So, how is it that you insist that the earth will be destroyed? Regardless of the minutiae of translations, isn't it rather the case of the questioner simply not understanding what Jesus meant at Matthew 5:18?

13. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speak directly and refer to himself as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2? If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 16:7- 8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness (Jn 15:26, Acts 20:23); Feel hurt (Isa 63:10); Be blasphemed against (Mk 3:29, Lk 12:10); Say things (Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, and Heb 10:15-17); Forbid someone to say things (Acts 16:6); Plead for us with groanings (Rom 8:26); Be tested (Acts 5:9); Send people (Acts 13:4); Be a helper (Jn 14:16, 16:7); Appoint overseers (Acts 20:28); Be outraged (Heb 10:29); Desire (Gal 5:17); Search (1Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be grieved (Eph 4:30); Be loved (Rom 15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 5:3-4)? What does the Bible say about those who speak against the Holy Spirit? See Mt 12:32 and Lk 12:10.

If we are to intelligently approach God's Word, we must recognize that not all things should be read literally. For instance, Deuteronomy 32:5 gives God the title of "The Rock." Are we then to conclude that God is an inert mineral? Or, what about Hebrews 12:29, that says that "God is also a consuming fire," ought we then to suppose that God is some sort of super-heated plasma? Discerning persons recognize that the Scriptures speak to us in comparisons. Thus, we grasp the idea that God is like a rock, or he is like a consuming fire in certain specific ways.

By the same token, the Bible also uses a common literary device known as personification. That means that things and even intangible concepts are sometimes portrayed as persons. Here are a few examples: When Jehovah tried to warn Cain of the grave moral dangers that were facing him, God personified sin saying that it was crouching at the door, as if craving to pounce upon Cain. Or, another example: the Proverbs say that laziness will invite poverty that will come upon us like an armed robber. One more example: Paul referred to death ruling as a king over mankind. These are biblical examples of personification.

God lives in heaven, yet by means of his dynamic active force he is able to extend his control over the vast reaches of the universe as well as our tiny earth. Because the holy spirit comes from God and causes his Will to be done; it being imbued with God's own character; always at his service, even speaking for him; it is entirely appropriate that God's active force be personified at times.

There are other instances, though, where God's spirit is referred to as an "it." For example, 1^st Corinthians 12:11 says: "But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills." If the holy spirit were a person it would be inappropriate to refer to him as an "it." Jehovah and Jesus are never referred to that way, and yet the spirit is. By far most references in the Bible to the holy spirit are impersonal.

For more on what the holy spirit is, click here.

14. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible, why does it alter the written word of God by adding the words "[in symbol]" in Mk 1:4, even though these words don't appear in the Greek? See Gr-Engl Interlinear. How would Mk 1:4 read if the words "[in symbol]" had not been added? In Acts 2:38, Peter says "… Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS…" and in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul "…Rise, get baptized and WASH YOUR SINS AWAY by calling on his name." If baptism is only a symbolic display of faith in God and does not effect the remission of sins, then why does Peter tell the people of Jerusalem to be baptized "for forgiveness of your sins" and why does Ananias tell Paul to get baptized in order to "wash your sins away"?

The phrase "in symbol of repentance" does seem to be somewhat superfluous. It should be obvious that the baptism of John was merely a symbolic ritual to prepare people to accept Christ. The New Living Translation (NLT) words Mark 1:4 this way: "This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven."

The baptism of John was not the real baptism anyway. Persons who may have been baptized by John, but who were, for whatever reason, absent from the Upper Room on Pentecost when the original anointing took place, had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name before they could become anointed with God's spirit. That is evident by the account in the 19^th chapter of Acts. If the baptism of John literally washed away their sins and was something more than an outward symbol of the Jew's inward repentance, then why was it necessary for them to be baptized again in the name of Jesus? And if the baptism of John was merely a religious ritual, why should we suppose that the baptism in Jesus' name is any more than a symbolic public statement of faith?

The washing away of sins comes about by our faith in the shed blood of Christ. And baptism is an act of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.

15. The WTS claims that Ezekiel's prophecy of the Jews returning to their land is fulfilled in their organization. Ezek 36:24, 28 says "And I will take you out of the nations and collect you together out of all the lands and bring you in upon your own soil." and "And you will certainly dwell in the land that I gave to your forefathers, and you must become my people and I myself shall become your God." If this is fulfilled in the Watchtower organization, then how are they returning to the land of CANAAN as promised to the forefathers (Ps 105:8-11)?

The human mind works in such a way that it can best grasp complex and abstract ideas if it has a pattern to relate to. Without going into the intricacies of the prophecies themselves, it can be said that the prophecies directed towards ancient Israel establish examples and patterns for the Christian organization of spiritual Israel during the time of God's final judgment. Paul referred to that principle when he wrote to Christians saying: "Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived."

Paul was also inspired to explain how all the features of the primitive tabernacle worship and temple arrangement were merely "a typical representation and shadow of the heavenly things."

The 36^th chapter of Ezekiel is one of many prophecies dealing with the regathering and restoration of the Jewish nation. Israel was in a covenant relationship with Jehovah and that relationship was nearly severed because of the Jews' idolatry and immorality. Jehovah punished them by throwing them out of the land he had given them; but later, he reclaimed them as his people.

Actually though, according to Paul, the real seed of Abraham is the anointed Christian congregation. And following the pattern of the prophecies pertaining to its ancient counterpart, the modern Israel of God is similarly disciplined by God, scattered during a time of tribulation. But as Jesus said, eventually God's chosen ones will be gathered from the four corners of the earth.

Even so, instead of inheriting a literal land of Canaan, Isaiah used the expression "new heavens" and "new earth" to describe the restored Jewish homeland. Bible students, of course, recognize that the apostles Peter and John also specifically referred to a new heavens and new earth, which faithful Christians are to inherit at the end of this present old heavens and old earthly system of things.

16. Consider also what is said concerning those who fulfill this prophecy. Ezek 36:22 says, "Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "not for your sakes I am doing [it], 0 house of Israel, but for my holy name, which you have PROFANED among the nations where you have come in." Since the WTS claims that it is spiritual Israel and fulfils these prophecies in Ezekiel, how do Jehovah's Witnesses believe they have profaned God's name "among the nations"?

17. The NWT adds the word "[the]" to the phrase "of our God and savior Jesus Christ" in 2Pet 1:1. 2Pet 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, which contain the same exact phrase in the Greek with the exception that these verses contain the word "lord" (kyrios) instead of the word "God" (Theos), don't have the word "[the]" added to them. See Greek-English Interlinear. What is the reason for this gross inconsistency in translation of these phrases? How would 2 Pet 1:1 read if it had been translated the same way as 2Pet 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, and the word "[the]" had not been added? What does scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.

All Bible translations have added words that do not appear in the original text. There is nothing particularly sinister about doing that sort of thing. It is done at the translators' discretion to add clarity to the text.

The obvious reason that the questioner takes issue with the insertion of [the] into the text of 2 Peter 1:1 is because of the wishful assumption on the part of indoctrinated Trinitarians that the text is saying that Jesus is God. The verse reads: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours, by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ."

With or without the insertion of the definite article, the text in no way is saying that God is Jesus Christ. It merely says "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." The very next verse again mentions both God and Jesus, where it says in the NIV: "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

It seems rather silly to have to point this out, but the word "and" means "in addition to." Here's what the dictionary says about the word "and": used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type."

No honest, reasoning person would conclude that because God and Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence that they are automatically the same person. God and Christ are Father and Son. They are two separate entities. We would suggest that this particular line of question, that is supposed to stump Jehovah's Witnesses, is instead an indication of how Trinitarian indoctrination can becloud a person's common sense.

18. Zechariah 2:10-12 says, "Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for here I AM COMING, and I will reside IN THE MIDST OF YOU", is the utterance of Jehovah…And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you. And Jehovah will certainly take possession of Judah…and he must yet choose Jerusalem." If Jesus and Jehovah are not one and the same God, then how do you explain the fact that Christ is the one who is "coming" and "will reside in the midst of you", but in this passage, Jehovah claims that he is the one who is coming and will reside in their midst? How do you explain the fact that "Jehovah of armies" is sending him (Jehovah) to reside in their midst?

The unreasonableness of these types of questions is nearly mind-numbing. Are we to suppose that God gives himself orders and then carries them out? Is that what the questioner believes?

To reiterate, the verse you cited says: "And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you."

Nearly 50 times in the book of John alone, Jesus said that his Father sent him forth into the world as his representative. That is not a hard concept to grasp, is it? Jesus said many times to the disbelieving Jews that he did not come down from heaven on his own initiative. God gave his Son a command, and Jesus obeyed his Father's orders. It is that simple. And because Jesus is in the exact image of Jehovah, it can rightly be said that Jehovah was in our midst when Christ walked among us.

Furthermore, Jesus plainly said: "A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him." Since it is beyond dispute that Jesus was taking orders from Jehovah God when he was sent forth by his Father, why do Trinitarians blasphemously claim that God orders himself around?

19. Is it true that the WTS once taught that: The second presence of Christ started in 1874 (WT, 11/1/22, pgs 332-337; Prophecy, 1929, pg 65-66); Vaccinations never saved a human life, doesn't prevent smallpox, and are condemned (Golden Age, Feb 4, 1931, pg 293-4); The great pyramid of Egypt is a witness of the Lord (WT May 15, 1925 pgs 148-9); God governs the universe from a star called Alcyone (Thy Kingdom Come, 1903 Ed, pg 327); Leviathan of the Bible is the steam locomotive (The Finished Mystery, pg 84-86); Tonsillectomy is condemned; better to commit suicide than have a tonsillectomy (GA, April 7, 1926, pg 438); In the new world, Abraham will rule New York City (GA, Oct 5, 1927, pg 26/29); The black race originated with Noah's curse upon Canaan (GA, Jul 24, 1929, pg 702); Jews are no longer important to God (Vindication, Vol 2, pg 257-258); God wears clothes (GA, May 19, 1926, pg 534); The WTS stands for the principles of Nazi Germany (Yearbook 1934, pg 134-137); Aspirin is the menace of heart disease (GA, Feb 27, 1935, pg 343-4); Do not use X-rays (GA, Sept 23, 1936, pg 828); In 1938, people should not get married (Face the Facts, pg 46-50); Organ transplants were condemned as cannibalistic (WT, Nov 15, 1967, pg 702-4)? The WTS teaches that it is the mouthpiece for Jehovah and God's one and only channel of communication to the world. Since God does not tell lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and since it is clear that the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they proclaimed these teachings, then how do you know that the WTS is speaking for God now? See Zeph 3:13 and Isa 28:15. To see many direct quotes from the WTS, click: WTS Quotes

To put things in perspective: The official teaching of the Catholic Church used to be that the earth was the center of the universe. The Vatican even forced Galileo to recant from his scientific observations to the opposite. If the Catholic Church's Dark Age policy were still in force today, we would be burned at the stake for merely discussing the Bible outside their approved liturgical boundaries. So, it seems appropriate to point out the gross hypocrisy of our Catholic questioner. Not only that, but this line of reasoning is devious and dishonest. For one thing, statements taken out of their historical and contextual setting are intended to nudge the reader to form the biased opinion that you wish upon them.

For example, the statement that vaccinations never saved a human life was made in 1931. Vaccinations were in their infancy at that time, so it is quite likely that there was no real proof that vaccinations were effective. Obviously, the questioner's intent is to show how silly such a statement is now, but back then it was not at all an inappropriate statement. Furthermore, the questioner reveals his own ignorance on this issue. That's because vaccinations were controversial back then and they are still controversial to this day—if not more so. No doubt, in 1931, the comment in the Golden Age did not seem at all unreasonable. Many people, in 2003, suspect that immunization has contributed to weakening the body's natural immune system and may be one of the underlying causes of the many new immunodeficiency diseases that did not exist in the previous generations. Also, vaccinations are suspected in many child deaths. While there is no question that vaccinations have saved many lives, immunization is an ongoing experiment with the long-term results still unknown.

The same thing applies to other health issues. Tonsillectomies are considered routine surgeries; but some doctors now think that unnecessarily removing the tonsils can lead to serious health problems later on in life. Similarly, the Watchtower was been criticized for putting in print that aluminum cookware was dangerous. But, there are those today, 70 years later, who suspect that aluminum might be a contributing factor in Alzheimer's disease. It would seem that the Watchtower was way ahead of the curve on that issue.

Same with the aspirin issue. While the giant pharmaceutical companies have convinced people that taking aspirin prevents heart problems, others feel that aspirins are detrimental to health. So, on these trivial issues we must conclude that the questioner is simply pandering to popular prejudices and ignorance.

That is not to say that the Watchtower hasn't made a lot of dumb statements, but many of the things cited above have nothing to do with the Bible. They were just the opinions of certain men. Besides, the apostles had many wrong ideas. In fact, Jesus corrected them all the time, and yet, Jesus used them as the foundation of his congregation. But, the Scriptures allow for the children of God to go through the awkward phase of adolescence before attaining spiritual adulthood. Paul said of himself, in illustrating the growth of the congregation of God leading up to the time of Christ's return: "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a babe. For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known."

Jesus said, "Wisdom is proved righteous by works." What does that mean? It means that you judge the end result. The end result of the Watchtower's teachings back then was that it produced a people who demonstrated the same strength of faith as the original Christians. For example, during WWII, Catholics, Lutherans and Protestant Trinitarians all engaged in mutual slaughter on a level that surpassed all previous wars. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses went to prisons and concentration camps by the thousands in Germany and through out the English-speaking world because they were determined to follow the teachings of Christ, regardless of the personal costs involved. If the Watchtower was as inept as our opposers would have us believe, how do you explain the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses back then demonstrated to the world that they had an unconquerable faith that proved to be far superior in quality to anything produced by Christendom?

20. The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" every time it appears in the New Testament (eg, Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc), except in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19 where it is rendered as "means", even though this word is translated as "is" in the Kingdom Interlinear. Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti" in these verses? If the NWT were consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?

This question arises from the incredibly bizarre Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which is the belief that the wine and bread representing Christ's flesh and blood miraculously change into Jesus' literal flesh and blood once consumed.

Some of Christ's disciples also assumed Jesus was advocating such cannibalism when he told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, which is why they were shocked and refused to follow him any longer. But, in the very next verse in the account of John 6:63, Jesus explains that he was not speaking literally. It reads: "It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you that do not believe"

If the flesh is of no value when it comes to salvation, as Jesus said, why then do Catholics insist that they must literally eat Jesus' flesh through the magic of transubstantiation? By taking Jesus' words literally, Catholics betray their own lack of spiritual discernment. Instead of recognizing that the sayings of Christ are spirit and not physical, Catholics have embraced the very folly that characterizes those who do not believe.

If you insist that the loaf is the actual flesh of Christ, because Jesus said "this is my body," then what about the next verse where Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Are we to assume, then, that the wine is magically transubstantiated into a new covenant inside the stomachs of our Catholic friends? That's what it says, "this cup is the new covenant."

For certain, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not only difficult to pronounce, it is hard to stomach as well.