e-Watchman.com

61. Rev 20:10 says, "And the Devil... the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER AND EVER". This event will occur after the 1,000 year reign of Christ (Rev 20:7). Where will the Devil, the wild beast, and the false prophet be "tormented day and night forever and ever"? What does the word “tormented” mean to you? Likewise, Rev 14:9-11 says, "... If ANYONE worship the wild beast... he shall be TORMENTED with fire and sulphur... And the smoke of their torment ascends FOREVER AND EVER..." Where could "anyone" be "tormented... forever and ever"?

The reader that has persevered up to this point should be able to appreciate the pattern that has emerged, whereby the questioner is inclined to take Bible symbolism and imagery literally.

Revelation is filled with symbolic representations of things both heavenly and earthly. If the questioner supposes that the lake of fire is an actual burning lake, then no doubt the wild beast that is thrown into the lake of fire, along with the Devil, is also quite literal. Following that line of reasoning to its natural conclusion, are we to expect that at some point the Devil will unleash as his secret weapon some gigantic seven-headed monster to terrorize the world; some sort of amphibious multi-headed Godzilla? If that is the case, perhaps "Daniel" from the Catholic Apocryphal may be summoned from mythology to save the day by serving up another grease-soaked hairball to the beast, as he did in the gripping tale of Bel and the Dragon? Or perhaps seven grease-soaked hairballs—one for each head?

Sarcasm aside, there is no need for anyone to expend very much mental energy trying to interpret what the lake of fire symbolizes. The enlightening angel who gave John the Revelation also interpreted his imagery, saying at Revelation 20:14: "This means the second death, the lake of fire." Or if you prefer: "This is the second death, the lake of fire."

In order to understand what the second death is, we must first understand what the first death is. The first death is the death that we undergo as a result of inherited sin. However, through Jesus' sacrifice, Jehovah has established the basis for undoing the sting of death, by means of the resurrection. The Bible promises that the so-called Adamic death is going to be abolished, in fact, death is also thrown into the lake of fire. But, after Adamic death is abolished some people who will have been resurrected into paradise will, in the end, receive a resurrection of judgment, as Jesus called it at John 5:29. That means that they will be judged unworthy of continued life on earth. They will die again; for them it will literally be a second death. Unlike the first death, though, the second death is not the result of inherited sin, but rather willful rebellion against God. The second death is permanent. So, that's what the lake of fire means—everlasting destruction.

For the Devil and others, though, their first death is also their second death: again, meaning permanent annihilation. In that respect Jehovah's judgment upon Satan is an everlasting sentence. In that sense, Satan and his system are tortured knowing beforehand that they will forever be remembered by God and all surviving creatures in complete ignominy.

62. Since the WTS currently rejects many of the teachings of its founder, Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from 1879-1916), and since they also reject many of the teachings of "Judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president from 1916-1942, how can you be sure that in 25 more years, the WTS won't reject many of the teachings under current president, Milton Henschel (1992-present), as they did Russell and Rutherford? What kind of confidence can you have in an organization that rejected many of the teachings of its founder and first two presidents for the first 63 years of its existence - over 50% of the time they have existed?!

63. In Jn 20:28, John refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the (Ho) Lord (kyrios) of me (moy) and (kai) THE (ho) God (theos) of me (moy)". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and “THE God” of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?

No doubt the reason Jesus did not correct Thomas is because Jesus did not understand Thomas to mean what you suppose he meant. A few verses down, it says: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name."

Obviously, when the apostle John wrote down the account years later, he was not in confusion either. The apostles recognized Jesus as the Son of God. They were under no Trinitarian delusion back then. However, many modern readers see the expression "Son of God," and their minds, after years of being conditioned by Trinitarian theology, reflexively transpose that expression into "God the Son."

It is interesting that Jesus used the same Greek expression as Thomas did when he said with his last dying breath: "The God of me, the God of me, with what left you down in me"? (Translated: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) The question is: If Thomas was referring to Jesus when he said "The God of me," who was Jesus referring to as his God? The Trinitarian will likely offer the nonsensical answer that the "God the Son" third of the triad was talking to the other two-thirds of the supposed Trinity Godhead.

The more reasonable explanation is that Thomas, overwhelmed by his astonishment at the reality of Christ's resurrection, which he had previously denied, was moved to make a declaration to reaffirm that he recognized Jesus as his Lord and representative of Jehovah God.

64. Since the WTS has received "new light" regarding the 1914 generation, and completely changed their views on this, does this mean that all the former Witnesses who were disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is now teaching will automatically be accepted back into fellowship again? Were these ex-Witnesses in fact disfellowshipped for what is now taught as "the Truth"?

I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped over such a trivial matter as that—although it is possible that some were disfellowshipped over related issues.

It is not really correct to say that the Watchtower completely changed their view—not voluntarily anyway. They were forced by reality to revise their previously held teaching. Leading up to the closing years of the last millennium, it was assumed that the generation that would not pass away could not exceed the biblically delineated 80 years, which is mentioned in the Bible as the days of our years and fits into the present 75-year average lifespan. 1994 was the end of 80 years from 1914, so the Watchtower was forced by circumstances to make some sort of accounting. Until those 80 years elapsed, no one could say with any certainty that the generation was not what the Watchtower assumed it was.

Of course, the last chapter remains to be written.

65. If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly hope, and a great crowd of people who have another hope of everlasting life on paradise earth, why does Paul say that there is only ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two? Similarly, if there is one body of people that will go to heaven, and another completely different body of people that will live forever in paradise on earth, why does Paul say that everyone who is baptized, is baptized into “ONE body” (1Cor 12:13)? What do the words “all” and “one” mean to you?

Paul was speaking specifically about the body of Christ, which is the 144,000. The complete verse says: "One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons, who is over all and through all and in all."

However, at Ephesians 1:10 Paul made reference to God gathering the things on the earth as well as the things in heaven and making both groups subject to Christ. That speaks to those who are not part of the body of Christ but who have the hope of everlasting life on earth.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach the truth regarding some of mankind having a heavenly hope and others having the hope of living forever in paradise on earth.

66. Rev 7:11 says that "before the throne" is in heaven where "all the angels were standing". Rev 14:2-3 says "And I heard a sound out of heaven ... And they were singing as if a new song before the throne ...", also showing that “before the throne” is in heaven. Rev 7:9 says,"... look, a great crowd ... STANDING BEFORE THE THRONE..." and Rev 7:14-15 says, "...These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation ... That is why they are BEFORE THE THRONE of God ..." Therefore, if "before the throne " means in heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the "great crowd" is "before the throne" (Rev 7:9, 7:14-15), where does that mean that the great crowd will be? Where does Rev 19:1 say that the great crowd will be?

Being before God or before his throne does not always mean in heaven. For example, at Luke 21:36 Jesus encouraged his people to supplicate God that "that you may succeed in escaping all these things that are destined to occur, and in standing before the Son of man." In that context "standing before the Son of man" simply means receiving a favorable judgment.

One example is found at Exodus 16:9 where it says: "And Moses went on to say to Aaron: "Say to the entire assembly of the sons of Israel, 'Come near before Jehovah, because he has heard your murmurings.'"

Needless to say, the entire Israelite camp was not transported to heaven so as to "come near before Jehovah."

At Numbers 5:30, the law says that a wife accused of adultery must be made to "stand before Jehovah" in order for God to judge her guilt or innocence.

The Hebrews expressed themselves in literal terms, as did many ancient peoples. And many of those expressions are in the Bible. But that doesn't mean that we should always take expressions literally. The great crowd standing before the throne simply means that they receive a favorable judgment from God's throne of Judgment.

Revelation 19:1 reads: "After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in heaven. They said: "Praise Jah, you people! The salvation and the glory and the power belong to our God, because his judgments are true and righteous.""

The term "great crowd," or great multitude as some translations word it, does not always refer to the specific "great crowd" mentioned at Revelation 7:9. For example, the gospel accounts say that on occasion a great crowd of people followed Jesus. In that same vein, the great crowd of Revelation 19:1 is apparently a multitude of angels and not the same great crowd that are described as coming out of the great tribulation.

Interestingly, on the occasion of Jesus' birth a great crowd of angels appeared to the shepherds and sang God's praise as they hovered in mid-heaven. The Worldwide English Version reports that account, saying: "All at once a great number of angels from heaven were with the angel. They were praising God." A New International Version words it: Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God." So, it is not without precedent that Revelation 19:1 refers to a great multitude of angels offering praises to God.

If we further reason on the matter, the "great crowd" of Revelation 19:1 is described in the 3^rd verse as saying: "Hallelujah!" Literally that expression means "Praise Jah, you people!" If all of mankind is eventually raised to heaven, as many wrongly suppose, then why is the great crowd in heaven giving the command for the peoples to praise Jah? Furthermore, if the earth is depopulated after God's judgment, why does Revelation 20:7-9 refer to Satan being released from prison at the end of Christ's thousand-year reign and making an earth-wide assault on the holy ones? Who is living on the earth at that time if everyone is supposedly in heaven?

Jehovah's Witnesses teach the truth about God's purpose for a great crowd to survive the end of the world and literally inherit the earth. For more, click here.

67. If hell does not exist, then what is the “everlasting fire” (Mt 18:8, Mt 25:41, and Jude 7) that people can be thrown into? If fire is a symbol of annihilation, then what is the scriptural evidence to support this? Similarly, Jesus talks about the “fiery furnace” and says “There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be” (Mt 13:42, 13:50). If hell does not exist, then where is the “fiery furnace” where there will be “weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth”? If the “fiery furnace” is just symbolic of total annihilation, in which a person will completely go out of existence and have no conscious awareness, then how could they weep and gnash their teeth?

The Bible does not say that hell is a place of everlasting fire. Every informed person knows that "hell" in that particular verse is a mistranslation of the Greek word Gehenna. Gehenna is not the same as hades or Sheol. Gehenna was an actual garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. They kept perpetual fires burning using chunks of sulfur brimstone in order to consume the refuse. At times, the carcasses of criminals thought unworthy of decent burial were tossed into the heap. Jesus used that well-known place back then as a symbol of God's judgment of everlasting death. That is why Jesus said the maggot and the fires would never die out. In Revelation, the lake of fire has the same connotation as Gehenna.

As for the scriptural proof that fire is a symbol of destruction, Hebrews 12:29 says: "For our God is also a consuming fire." Reasoning persons can grasp the fact that Paul was making the point that God is a destroyer of those whom he condemns. Also, 2 Thessalonians 1:7 plainly states that Christ's judgment comes as fire for the purpose of destroying everlastingly those in opposition. There is no hint of eternal life in torment for those condemned. "Relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength."

As for the expression "that is where their weeping and gnashing of teeth will be," careful readers will note that the fiery furnace is used in the context of an illustration involving the burning up of weed-like false Christians. So, what is burned up? The weeds are burned up. It is an illustration! Jesus used the expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" about a half-dozen times. Other than in the context of the parable of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus connected weeping and gnashing of teeth to being put out of Jehovah's organization. For instance, at Matthew 25:30 Jesus said: "And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be."

Rather than being thrown into an inextinguishable subterranean inferno, as the untaught imagine, the above text indicates that the weeping and gnashing of teeth occurs in the human sphere as a result of Christ's judgment.

68. The WTS makes the claim, "Like the Primitive Christian Community - the religious publication 'Interpretation' stated in July 1956: 'In their organization and witnessing work, they [Jehovah's Witnesses] come as close as any group to approximating the primitive Christian community..."- Jehovah's Witnesses- Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg 234, and on pg 677 of the same book, a caption appears titled "Like the early Christians". Do Jehovah's Witnesses pray the "Our Father" (Mt 6:9-13), break bread together (celebrate the Eucharist) frequently (Acts 2:42, 1Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27), come together on Sunday to break bread (Acts 20:7), confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, 2Tim 1:6), ordain (appoint) priests (elders) through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3), pray to Jesus (Mt 11:28, Acts 7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, Rev 22:20), anoint the sick with oil (Mk 6:12-13, Jas 5:14), often kneel down to pray (Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41), consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ (Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31), have deacons (1Tim 3:8, 10, 12), use altars (1Cor 10:18-21, Heb 13:10), fast from food (Mt 6:16-18), believe there is salvation in no one else other than Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10-12), celebrate Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8), have special people that look after widows and orphans (Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27), and occasionally drink wine (1Tim 5:23)? If not, then how can Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be like the primitive Christian community? Since the word "Jehovah" is not contained in the original New Testament and did not appear until at least the 12th century (See Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 884, 885), making it clear that the first century Christian community could not have referred to themselves by this name, then how can the WTS be like the primitive Christian community by applying the term “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to themselves?

In a brief response to this somewhat unusual and unwieldy question: As regards the so-called "Our Father Prayer," in the preceding verse Jesus specifically told us not to say the same words over and over again in prayer. But, isn't that exactly what Catholics are taught to do? However, Jesus did not recite prayers to God and neither do Jehovah's Witnesses.

Some of the customs and practices of the early Christians were just cultural; the laying on of hands and using anointing oil were common customs back then. Other issues, such as drinking wine or assuming a specific posture when praying, are individual matters. But, yes Jehovah's Witnesses have "deacons," which we call ministerial servants. We eat the Lord's Evening meal annually on the anniversary of Jesus' death. And if there are needy widows and orphans in our congregations, arrangements are made to look after them.

As for the name Jehovah's Witnesses: that designation is taken from a prophecy in the 43^rd chapter of Isaiah, which reads: "I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused it to be heard, when there was among you no strange god. So you are my witnesses," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I am God.  Also, all the time I am the same One; and there is no one effecting deliverance out of my own hand. I shall get active, and who can turn it back?"

As indicated, the prophecy has relevance to the time when Jehovah God becomes "active" and effects a deliverance of his servants. So, even though the 1^st Century Christians served as Jehovah's witnesses nominally, the prophecy did not apply to Jehovah's servants at that time.

69. If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in the entire Greek New Testament and why does it not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts of New Testament writings or in the very first Bible, the 5th century Latin Vulgate? If men edited out the proper name of God, "YHWH", when they copied the New Testament, as only the WTS claims, thereby altering God's written word, then how can we have confidence in ANY of the New Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the WTS as unreliable? Since Jesus never addressed the Father as “Jehovah”, and since he taught that we can address God as “Father” (Mt 6:8-18, 7:21, Mk 14:36, etc), doesn’t this mean that the term “Jehovah” is not the only expression by which we can address God? Why don’t Witnesses follow the example of Jesus and address God as “Father”, instead of “Jehovah”? Since the word “Jehovah” did not appear until at least the 12th century, thereby making it impossible that the first century Christians used this term for God, why do Jehovah’s Witnesses still insist on using this name? Since this name comes from an aberration of the tetragrammeton “YHWH”, wouldn’t “Yahweh”, which many Christians use and which is used in some Bibles (eg The New Jerusalem Bible) be a much more accurate name to use?

The name of Jehovah does not appear in the NT because it was evidently removed by later copyists. That is evident by the fact that Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted from the Hebrew text where the YHWH appeared. For example, when Jesus was tempted by the Devil three times, in each response Jesus quoted from the Jewish Law that contained the YHWH. It is inconceivable that when Jesus quoted from such texts containing the YHWH that he would not have pronounced his Father's name. 

It does not undermine our confidence in God's Word that Jehovah-haters have always sought to erase or conceal the sacred Name of God. We know the Jewish scribes developed a superstition that forbade them from pronouncing the Name. Likewise, modern translators have admitted to their bias in substituting LORD in the Hebrew text for the YHWH. It should come as no surprise that the early NT copyist were similarly over-reached by the Devil and influenced to erase God's name and replace it with LORD.

As for the name Yahweh, the English language did not exist in Bible times. Therefore, obviously, words like Jeremiah and Jesus were not spelled and pronounced as they are now in English. But, we speak and read English.

At any rate, we may be fairly confident that the YHWH was originally pronounced with three syllables. Yah-weh only has two syllables and is not a true reflection of the original Hebrew word. Much is made over the fact that Hebrew was written using only consonants without vowels, similar to our modern technique of abbreviation, whereby the Hebrew reader supplied the correct vowels to complete the word. All Hebrew was written that way and not just the so-called Tetragrammaton—YHWH. Apparently, though, there is no controversy over the correct spelling and pronunciation of hundreds of proper Hebrew names in the Bible. That being the case, many Hebrew names have incorporated part of God's personal name either as a prefix or suffix. A few examples of how the first two syllables of the Divine name are used as a prefix are, Je-ho-ram, Je-ho-ash, Je-ho-shua, Je-ho-nadab, Je-ho-iakim, Je-ho-iarib, Je-ho-iada, Je-ho-iachin, Je-ho-hanan, Je-ho-shaphat, Je-ho-nathan and Je-ho-ahaz.

Accounting for the fact that the Hebrew "Y" is usually translated as "J" in English, the prevalence of "Je-ho" as a prefix strongly suggests that YHWH was commonly pronounced with three syllables and that the middle vowel affixed to the "H" was an "O," giving the "H" a ho sound—as in Je-ho-vah. Or if you prefer the Hebrew form: Ye-ho-wah

While the precise pronunciation may have to wait for a future revelation from heaven, the Watchtower is fully justified in using the commonly accepted name of Jehovah. For more on the use of the name of Jehovah, click here.

70. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together over his head, as only the WTS teaches, why does Jn 20:25 say "... unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS...", indicating that there was more than one nail used for his hands? Wouldn’t two nails have been used if Christ was crucified on a cross whereas only one nail would have been used if he would have been executed on an upright pole?

The original Greek words used in the Bible, stauros and xylon, mean stake and tree, respectively. There is really not any debate about their meaning. Greek lexicons list the primary meaning of stauros as stake, not cross. Furthermore, the New World Translation is not the only Bible that uses tree instead of cross.  In fact, King James and the popular NIV even translate xylon at Acts 5:30 using the word tree.

Also, there are ancient engravings and statues that depict men hanging from upright poles planted in the ground without cross-beams. There is no evidence that crosses where used as a means of execution. However, the use of the cross as a pagan religious symbol predates Christianity by many centuries and was only later adopted by the Catholic Church as a symbol of Christianity.

Our use of the word torture stake to describe the means by which Christ was executed is not based upon the number of nails that may have been used to fasten him to it. Besides, before Pentecost the apostles made a lot of statements in the Gospel accounts that can only be described as uninspired.