Jehovah’s
Witnesses are Known for their Honesty?
Dear Benjamin,
Thank you for reading my article. Since my time is limited, I
can only respond to your final point at this time.
"I think one of the most notable attributes of Jehovah’s
Witnesses is their honesty. Arguments for and against their beliefs
are found in many of their publications. Many of the things cited
in your articles with respect to false "prophecies"
are well known and published among their members. I know of no
other religious organization that so freely and candidly admits
their mistakes. I do agree with you that there are many things
that separate JW’s from the rest of Christendom. Adherence
to the example of Christ for one. John 13:35 says that the disciples
of Jesus would be identified by the love they have for each other.
I have seen no other group show genuine fellow feeling in the
unified way that Jehovah’s Witnesses do."
I would have to disagree with that point. One of the main problems
I have found with the JW organization is their lack of honesty.
When it comes to their record of prophecy, with such wide exposure
because of their proselytizing and writings, the JW's had no choice
but to publicly apologize for their error. What else can the organization
do with such an embarrassing record known publicly? Also, if you
ready Deuteronomy 18:22, the passage reads,
" You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a
message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet
proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come
true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet
has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."
I do not find anywhere in that passage where it states, "but
if the false prophet apologizes, everything is fine." What
concerns me is that false prophets have a nature of dishonesty.
Here is another clear example of the dishonesty I find in the
organization. In their magazine, "Should you believe in the
Trinity?" they quote numerous church fathers as denying the
Trinity; Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, etc....
If you look at these quotes, you find something very interesting,
lots of dots (....) used and no footnotes or references. If anyone
wanted to look up the quotes, where would they go? Why are there
no footnotes? Any good, honest, and scholarly work should include
references when quoting a historical work.
In my article Why You Should Believe in the Trinity,
I quote each one of these church fathers defending the doctrine
of the Trinity or the deity of Christ. In fact Iranaeus and Tertullian
are great defenders of the deity of Christ’s divine nature.
The big difference between my article and the JW one is that my
quotes have footnotes and references. I also do not utilize the
dots (....). I have asked the Watchtower to send me the references,
but have not received a reply. Can we call that honesty?
Another example, the Kingdom Interlinear used by the Watchtower
quotes Julius Mantey, one of the great Greek scholars. They use
quotes from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammer book to support their
translation on John 1:1 and other texts. Dr. Mantey in an official
letter to the Watchtower, a letter I have a copy of, demanded
the Watchtower apologize for misquoting and misusing his texts.
He concludes his letter, "In view of the preceding facts,
especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I
herewith request you not quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek
New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years. Also,
that you not quote it or me in any of your publications from this
time on."
Deliberately misquoting the church fathers,
Greek scholars, and false prophecies. I hardly see this as an
organization that displays honesty as one of its most notable
attributes.
I apologize but I cannot agree with you there.
Patrick
Zukeran
Probe Ministries
Host of Evidence and Answers Radio show
www.evidenceandanswers.org
