the watchtower answers its critics (part 2) 13 pag

8/8/2019 The Watchtower Answers Its Critics (Part 2) 13 Pag

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-watchtower-answers-its-critics-part-2-13-pag 1/13

Questions 11-20

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 Dictionaryof 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?

Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ army in October 539 B.C.E.Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was coruler of Babylon.

Some scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-Babylonian kings andthe length of their reigns, from the last year of Nabonidus back toNebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.

According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-princeNebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzarreturned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began thefollowing spring (604 B.C.E.).

The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed

Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included).(Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been inthe year 587/6 B.C.E. But on what is this secular chronology based andhow does it compare with the chronology of the Bible?

Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:

Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived inthe second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a

work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians acceptPtolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of



their reigns (though Ptolemy does omit the reign of Labashi-Marduk).Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating fromthe Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyruscaptured Babylon. It thus is not surprising that Ptolemy’s figures agreewith those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.

Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, orpillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns ofthe Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar.The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.

VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomicalinformation datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were fromNebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronologythat places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet isadmittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its

historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucidperiod.

Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiformtablets have been found that record simple business transactions, statingthe year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets ofthis sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish

the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (andthe destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian candeny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might bemisleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests andkings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if thediscovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modernscholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material coulddrastically alter the chronology of the period.

Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr.,introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the

caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The moreone studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancientNear East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. Forthis reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally thanit is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its wordsstand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate andreliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be usedas a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2 Timothy3:16, 17) For instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as ruler of

Babylon, for centuries scholars were confused about him because nosecular documents were available as to his existence, identity or position.



Finally, however, archaeologists discovered secular records thatconfirmed the Bible. Yes, the Bible’s internal harmony and the careexercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology, recommends it sostrongly to the Christian that he places its authority above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular historians.

But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem wasdestroyed, and how does this compare to secular chronology?

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroyJerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) Headded: “And all this land must become a devastated place, an object ofastonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylonseventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus theGreat, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to theirhomeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23) We believe that the most direct

reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would datefrom when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land ofJudah desolate.—Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27; 36:29-31.

Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology ofthat period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus letthe Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters,they claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E.Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish

Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestineand, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), hetook Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a periodof servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.

But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:

Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in hisaccession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. Moresignificantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar

took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, nothis accession year. Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the yearof the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflictingwith the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began inNebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.

Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalemby the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and thetemple, continued to be a desert for seventy years.” (Antiquities of theJews X, ix, 7) He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the

interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” (Against Apion I, 19)This agrees with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 that the foretold 70



years were 70 years of full desolation for the land. Second-century (C.E.)writer Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the 70 years commencedwith the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years.—See also 2 Kings 24:18–25:21.

But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claimthat the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyedin 587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writerEzra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king ofPersia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to theirhomeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept thatCyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ firstregnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus’ decree came latein his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be back in their homeland bythe seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537

B.C.E.

However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year from538 down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away theproblem have in a strained manner claimed that in speaking of “the firstyear of Cyrus” Ezra and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewishviewpoint that differed from the official count of Cyrus’ reign. But thatcannot be sustained, for both a non-Jewish governor and a documentfrom the Persian archives agree that the decree occurred in Cyrus’ firstyear, even as the Bible writers carefully and specifically reported.—Ezra

5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.

Jehovah’s “good word” is bound up with the foretold 70-year period, forGod said:

“This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventyyears at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I willestablish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’”(Jeremiah 29:10)

Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round

number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) Andthat proved to be so.

Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather thanby a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or thatdisagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and mostdirect understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 yearsbegan with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem wasdestroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence,counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in

his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from thethrone and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a throne in



earthly Jerusalem.—Ezekiel 21:19-27. .

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 particularusage. The difficulty comes from a particular mindset that reads isolatedtexts at face value in order to try to support anti-biblical doctrines. Jesuswas not saying definitively that heaven and earth were destined to passaway. On the contrary, he was illustrating how God's Word is even moreenduring 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 willever disappear from the Law."

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

13. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speakdirectly 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.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+5&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=CEV&x=13&y=9

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+5&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=CEV&x=13&y=9



If we are to intelligently approach God's Word, we must recognize that notall things should be read literally. For instance, Deuteronomy 32:5 givesGod the title of "The Rock." Are we then to conclude that God is an inertmineral? 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 ofsuper-heated plasma? Discerning persons recognize that the Scripturesspeak to us in comparisons. Thus, we grasp the idea that God is like arock, or he is like a consuming fire in certain specific ways.

By the same token, the Bible also uses a common literary device knownas personification . That means that things and even intangible conceptsare sometimes portrayed as persons. Here are a few examples: WhenJehovah tried to warn Cain of the grave moral dangers that were facinghim, God personified sin saying that it was crouching at the door, as ifcraving to pounce upon Cain. Or, another example: the Proverbs say thatlaziness 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 ableto extend his control over the vast reaches of the universe as well as ourtiny earth. Because the holy spirit comes from God and causes his Will tobe 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 bepersonified at times.

There are other instances, though, where God's spirit is referred to as an"it." For example, 1st Corinthians 12:11 says: "But all these operationsthe one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to eachone respectively just as it wills." If the holy spirit were a person it wouldbe inappropriate to refer to him as an "it." Jehovah and Jesus are neverreferred to that way, and yet the spirit is. By far most references in theBible 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

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_07.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_07.htm



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 somewhatsuperfluous. It should be obvious that the baptism of John was merely asymbolic ritual to prepare people to accept Christ. The New LivingTranslation (NLT) words Mark 1:4 this way: "This messenger was Johnthe Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and was preaching that peopleshould be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins andturned to God to be forgiven."

The baptism of John was not the real baptism anyway. Persons who mayhave been baptized by John, but who were, for whatever reason, absentfrom the Upper Room on Pentecost when the original anointing tookplace, had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name before they could becomeanointed with God's spirit. That is evident by the account in the 19th chapter of Acts. If the baptism of John literally washed away their sins andwas something more than an outward symbol of the Jew's inwardrepentance, then why was it necessary for them to be baptized again inthe name of Jesus? And if the baptism of John was merely a religiousritual, why should we suppose that the baptism in Jesus' name is anymore than a symbolic public statement of faith?

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

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 andabstract ideas if it has a pattern to relate to. Without going into theintricacies of the prophecies themselves, it can be said that theprophecies directed towards ancient Israel establish examples and

patterns for the Christian organization of spiritual Israel during the time ofGod's final judgment. Paul referred to that principle when he wrote to

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+1&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NLT&x=14&y=12

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+19&language=english&version=NIV



http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+1&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=NLT&x=14&y=12



Christians saying: "Now these things went on befalling them asexamples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom theends 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 typicalrepresentation and shadow of the heavenly things."

The 36th chapter of Ezekiel is one of many prophecies dealing with theregathering and restoration of the Jewish nation. Israel was in a covenantrelationship with Jehovah and that relationship was nearly severedbecause of the Jews' idolatry and immorality. Jehovah punished them bythrowing them out of the land he had given them; but later, he reclaimedthem as his people.

Actually though, according to Paul, the real seed of Abraham is the

anointed Christian congregation. And following the pattern of theprophecies pertaining to its ancient counterpart, the modern Israel of Godis similarly disciplined by God, scattered during a time of tribulation. Butas Jesus said, eventually God's chosen ones will be gathered from thefour corners of the earth.

Even so, instead of inheriting a literal land of Canaan, Isaiah used theexpression "new heavens" and "new earth" to describe the restoredJewish homeland. Bible students, of course, recognize that the apostlesPeter and John also specifically referred to a new heavens and new earth,

which faithful Christians are to inherit at the end of this present oldheavens and old earthly system of things.

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 thereason 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 originaltext. There is nothing particularly sinister about doing that sort of thing. Itis 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 onthe part of indoctrinated Trinitarians that the text is saying that Jesus is God. The verse reads: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of JesusChrist, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilegewith 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 issaying 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 itsays in the NIV: "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through theknowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." It seems rather silly to have to point this out, but the word "and" means "inaddition 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 thesame person. God and Christ are Father and Son. They are two separateentities. We would suggest that this particular line of question, that issupposed to stump Jehovah's Witnesses, is instead an indication of howTrinitarian 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 thencarries them out? Is that what the questioner believes?

To reiterate, the verse you cited says: "And you will have to know thatJehovah 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

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+1&language=english&version=NIV

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+1&language=english&version=NIV



grasp, is it? Jesus said many times to the disbelieving Jews that he didnot come down from heaven on his own initiative. God gave his Son acommand, and Jesus obeyed his Father's orders. It is that simple. Andbecause Jesus is in the exact image of Jehovah, it can rightly be said thatJehovah was in our midst when Christ walked among us.

Furthermore, Jesus plainly said: "A slave is not greater than hismaster, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that senthim." Since it is beyond dispute that Jesus was taking orders fromJehovah God when he was sent forth by his Father, why do Trinitariansblasphemously claim that God orders himself around?

19. Is it true that the WTS once taught that: The second presence of Christstarted 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 fromthe WTS, click: WTS Quotes

To put things in perspective: The official teaching of the Catholic Churchused to be that the earth was the center of the universe. The Vatican evenforced Galileo to recant from his scientific observations to the opposite. Ifthe Catholic Church's Dark Age policy were still in force today, we wouldbe burned at the stake for merely discussing the Bible outside theirapproved liturgical boundaries. So, it seems appropriate to point out thegross hypocrisy of our Catholic questioner. Not only that, but this line ofreasoning is devious and dishonest. For one thing, statements taken out



accurately even as I am accurately known." Jesus said, "Wisdom is proved righteous by works." What does thatmean? It means that you judge the end result. The end result of theWatchtower's teachings back then was that it produced a people who

demonstrated the same strength of faith as the original Christians. Forexample, during WWII, Catholics, Lutherans and Protestant Trinitarians allengaged in mutual slaughter on a level that surpassed all previous wars.On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses went to prisons andconcentration camps by the thousands in Germany and through out theEnglish-speaking world because they were determined to follow theteachings of Christ, regardless of the personal costs involved. If theWatchtower was as inept as our opposers would have us believe, how doyou explain the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses back then demonstrated tothe world that they had an unconquerable faith that proved to be farsuperior 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 oftransubstantiation, which is the belief that the wine and breadrepresenting 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 suchcannibalism when he told them that they must eat his flesh and drink hisblood, 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, Jesusexplains that he was not speaking literally. It reads: "It is the spirit that islife-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I havespoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you thatdo not believe"

If the flesh is of no value when it comes to salvation, as Jesus said, whythen do Catholics insist that they must literally eat Jesus' flesh through themagic of transubstantiation? By taking Jesus' words literally, Catholicsbetray their own lack of spiritual discernment. Instead of recognizing that

the sayings of Christ are spirit and not physical, Catholics have embraced

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1998/7/8/article_01.htm


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation





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, "Thiscup is the new covenant in my blood." Are we to assume, then, that

the wine is magically transubstantiated into a new covenant inside thestomachs 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 difficultto pronounce, it is hard to stomach as well.

the watchtower answers its critics (part 2) 13 pag

Documents