Suppose I had access to everything you had done or said since you were a little child, stored on a computer. It would be a simple matter for me to pick out a hundred or two hundred of the worst things you’d said and done over the course of your life, to write them up in a list with dates, times and places and then to proclaim, in the same way as a correspondent did in one of his emails to me: “The question is not what you have got wrong, but whether you got anything right.” On the other hand, by a similar process of selecting the 100-200 kindest, most generous, loving things you’d done, I could equally make you look like a saint. Both pictures would be true in a sense, but neither would be the whole truth. Why is this important?
The WatchtowerIn the last 125 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have published literally millions of words in publications such as The Watchtower. This includes powerful arguments against atheism and the theory of evolution, eloquent defences of the Bible as the inspired word of God, articles upholding the Bible’s stance on moral issues such as abortion, fornication, adultery and homosexual lifestyles. Watchtower publications have long exhorted their readers to display Christian qualities and imitate Jesus. They have shown how applying the Bible’s counsel can benefit family life. Through The Watchtower, millions of people have been comforted by the Bible’s message of hope.
You might expect that evangelical Christian organizations would happily applaud most of the above. After all, evangelical Christians believe in God and reject evolution, consider the Bible to be God’s inspired word, oppose sexual sins and abortion. They, too, speak of the need to imitate Jesus and display Christlike qualities. You would expect, then, that evangelical Christian groups could find a lot of positive things to say about The Watchtower. You’d think they’d congratulate Jehovah’s Witnesses for energetically spreading the above-mentioned views throughout the world and in literally hundreds of languages. But you would be wildly wrong.
An analysis of quotations from The Watchtower and other Jehovah’s Witness publications made by evangelical Christian writers - particularly on the Internet, but also in print - reveals that, far from commending Witness literature for all the positive material they publish, these writers consistently attack Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively seek anything that could possibly be used to discredit them - including many things published more than 100 years ago!
You could compare their attitude with that of a man who visits one of the world’s most beautiful cities - say Vienna. Instead of touring the most attractive parts of the city, though, this man visits the Municipal Garbage Dump and photographs the rubbish there. Then he goes to the industrial area and photographs the factories. Everywhere he goes he looks for the ugliest, most sordid parts of the city. Making copious use of close-ups to highlight the least attractive parts and using the most unflattering camera angles, he ensures his pictures give the worst possible impression. Then, on his return home, he shows the photographs to his friends, to convince them that Vienna is the most awful city in the world.
In resorting to similar tactics, critics of Witness publications immediately reveal their bias. The Watchtower Society is their ideological opponent, to be defeated at all costs. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. They take whatever suits their purpose and ignore the rest. They rip quotes out of their context, attempting to make it look as though they say much more than they actually meant. Why do they do it? They do it because it is their job to do it! In short, they are far from being an objective source of information.
Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery. It is easy to detect an agenda behind this type of mudslinging. Just about anyone who wanted to believe it has already done so. And as for the rest of us, what hasn't killed us has made us stronger.
But we should not reject a person’s criticism simply because we feel it is wrongly motivated. Prejudiced and hate-filled people can sometimes be at least partially right. As Christians, we should be discerning, remembering the admonition of the proverb, “anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word.” (Proverbs 14:15) With that in mind, let us examine the assertions commonly made in anti-Witness literature concerning the Witnesses’ alleged “false prophecies”.
Taken Out of Context
We have not the gift of prophecy
Zion's Watch Tower, July 1883.
The standard technique of critics appears to be to present a list of alleged “false prophecies”, the longer the better. There are dozens of such lists on the Internet. These take the form of quotations from The Watchtower and other Witness publications.
Whereas the majority of the quotes themselves are accurate, the context in which they were presented - both the immediate context of the printed page and the historical context - is omitted. Selective quotations ensure that anything that gives the impression of certainty is usually included, whereas any cautionary statements are omitted.We are not for a moment denying that the publications - in particular the earlier ones - have at times published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. But the fact is that, for each of the dates commonly touted by critics as ‘false prophecies’ (1874, 1914, 1925, 1975), Watch Tower publications had published cautionary statements to the effect that it was by no means certain what would happen. Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God:[1]
With regard to 1874: It should be noted that ‘The Watchtower’ was not published until 1879 and Russell himself did not become aware of the 1874 date until 1876! So it was hardly a matter of a failed prediction.
With regard to 1914: : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them" (emphasis added).[2]
With regard to 1925: "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year."[3]
With regard to 1975: ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.[4]
Charles Taze RussellIt’s obvious, therefore, that the situation was by no means as clear-cut as Watchtower opposers would have us believe. By omitting these more cautionary statements, many of which are in the same articles as the quotations they like to print, enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses give a misleading picture of events and endeavour to make a suggested interpretation look like a prophecy.
No Claim of Inspiration
Not to be overlooked is the larger context of the role of the Watch Tower publications. Whereas Watchtower writers undoubtedly pray for God’s blessing on their work and sincerely believe that God answers these prayers, they make no pretensions of being inspired, infallible or perfect. Consider the following extracts from Watch Tower publications, which prove that this is the case. (This is just a small selection of examples. Many more could be cited, but care has been taken to include at least one example for every decade since The Watchtower began to be published.)
1870s: We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth.... It is our duty to "prove all things."—by the unerring Word,—"and hold fast to that which is good."
1880s: “We have not the gift of prophecy.”[5]
We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology.Zion's Watch Tower, 1908
1890s: Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.[6]1900s: It is not our intention to enter upon the role of prophet to any degree, but merely to give below what seems to us rather likely to be the trend of events—giving also the reasons for our expectations.[7]
Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in "The Watch Tower" publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?[8]
1910s: However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914.[9]
1920s: Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.[10]
1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended[11]
1940s: This pouring out of God's spirit upon the flesh of all his faithful anointed witnesses does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without mistakes. It does not mean that the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is inspired and infallible, although enemies falsely charge us with believing so.... But we confess with the Scriptures that the day of such inspiration passed long before 1870, as the apostle Paul showed it would. . . . Inspired speaking and writing passed away with the last of the twelve apostles, by whom the gifts of the spirit were imparted to others. Yet God is still able to teach and lead us. While confessing no inspiration for today for anyone on earth, we do have the privilege of praying God for more of his holy spirit and for his guidance of us by the bestowal of his spirit through Jesus Christ.[12]
1950s: The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances,nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.[13]
1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it[14]
Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)[15]
Don't any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975
F. W. Franz, quoted in The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 231.
1970s: In this regard, however, it must be observed that this “faithful and discreet slave” was never inspired, never perfect. Those writings by certain members of the “slave” class that came to form the Christian part of God’s Word were inspired and infallible, but that is not true of other writings since. Things published were not perfect in the days of Charles Taze Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society; nor were they perfect in the days of J. F. Rutherford, the succeeding president. The increasing light on God’s Word as well as the facts of history have repeatedly required that adjustments of one kind or another be made down to the very present time.[16]
1980s: It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.[17]
1990s: Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. But they do have the inspired Holy Scriptures, which contain revelations of God’s thinking and will. As an organization and individually, they must accept the Bible as divine truth, study it carefully, and let it work in them.[18]
2000s: Although the slave class is defined as “faithful and discreet,” Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century.[19]
It’s therefore quite clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses make no claim to divine inspiration for their publications. Thus, the critics' assertion that “the Watch Tower claims to be an inspired prophet” is manifestly false.
Did Haydon Covington concede that the Watch Tower is a False Prophet?
Did Haydon Covington concede in the Walsh trial that the Watch Tower Society has promulgated false prophecy, as is stated by critics? Even if he had done so, what would that have proved? If Covington had said that the thought the Society was a false prophet, then he would have been mistaken, that is all. However, a look at the court record (even as it is quoted on anti-Witness web pages) shows that Covington did nothing of the sort.
Critics' allegations that 'The Watchtower claims to be an inspired prophet' are manifestly false
The court records show that Covington said: “I do not think we have promulgated false prophecy ... there have been statements that were erroneous, that is the way I put it, and mistaken.” When asked hypothetically if it would have been a false prophecy if the Society had authoritatively promulgated 1874 as the date for the return of Christ’s coming, Covington himself pointed out that this was only an assumption, and is then is recorded as having said the words “I agree that”. This is an incomplete sentence in English. Now it could very well be that he was interrupted and was not intending to agree that a false prophecy had been made. If we take the court to read “I agree to that”, he was simply agreeing hypothetically that the Society would have been guilty of false prophecy under a certain set of circumstances, namely if it had promulgated as authoritative that Christ returned in 1874. Now the records show that Covington had not studied the Society’s literature relating to 1874, saying “you are speaking of a matter that I know nothing of.” So, Covington’s comments, viewed in their proper context do not prove the point Witness critics are trying to make. Covington certainly did not mean that the Society was responsible for a false prophecy, as he had just a few moments earlier stated the very opposite. And as we have seen, the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves.
Of course, Witnesses do believe that God is using them - and their publications - to accomplish his work. But that is not the same as believing that God personally directs the writing of Watchtower Publications in the way that he inspired the Bible. The above quotations - and many others - show that at no time in the history of the organization has it claimed to be God’s prophet, inspired or infallible.[20]
It is evident here that critics are setting up a straw man argument. In other words, they are imputing to Watch Tower a position that it does not claim for itself and then refuting that position, instead of the Society’s actual position. This is really nothing but a dishonest debating trick.
Thus, the Watch Tower quotations, taken in context and stripped of all hyperbole and rhetoric, establish basically one thing only: that Watch Tower publications have on a number of occasions presented interpretations of Bible prophecies which later turned out to be incorrect. It is not possible to argue on the basis of the Watchtower literature that (1) the Society claims that its literature is inspired of God or infallible, (2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet.
Admittedly, it would certainly have been better for all concerned had the publications refrained from publishing such speculative interpretations, which doubtless led to disappointment for many. ‘The Watchtower’, far from covering over these facts, has admitted openly that this is the case, as is seen from the following extract from The Watchtower.
In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.[21]
Thus the Watch Tower Society has recognised that it was a mistake to speculate. But was it the only ever religious organization to make such a mistake?
Double Standards and Bigotry
If Jehovah’s Witnesses have had mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, they are far from alone. Many other students of the Bible - including some highly respected Catholic and Protestant writers - have made similar mistakes to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whole books have been written on the subject of predictions that failed to come true, but let’s look at just three examples from the world of Protestantism: Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham.
Protestant leader Martin Luther, believed that the end would come in his day. He believed theMartin Luther Turkish war would be "the final wrath of God, in which the world will come to an end and Christ will come to destroy Gog and Magog and set free His own"?[22] and that "Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door"[23]
John WesleyMethodist founder John Wesley wrote: "1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan."[24]
In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in LosBilly GrahamAngeles: “I sincerely believe that the Lord draweth nigh. We may have another year, maybe two years, to work for Jesus Christ, and, Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe it is all going to be over ... two years and it’s all going to be over.”[25]
If it had been Jehovah’s Witnesses who had said the things that Luther, Wesley and Graham proclaimed, these proclamations would have been added to the list of quotations supposedly proving McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185.that the Witnesses are false prophets. Unsurprisingly, however, the sources that attack the Witnesses for false prophecy do not generally take the same position when it comes to Protestant figures who have made very similar errors.
This should give all of us food for thought. If a newspaper editor were to publish in his paper all the crimes committed by members of just one ethnic group or race, dwelling on them in great detail, even repeatedly bringing up very old offences, but at the same time, ignoring all the crimes committed by members of another group (perhaps his own), then thinking people who looked at the facts would conclude that he was nothing but a bigot. What are we to think, then, when certain ones opposed to Jehovah’s Witnesses constantly harp on what they incorrectly and maliciously term “false prophecies” of the organization, reproducing ad nauseam the same quotations from Watch Tower literature, the majority of which were published almost 100 years ago, while remaining deadly silent about all similar errors by those who share their theological convictions? Is the word ‘bigoted’ any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities.
Were Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham false prophets?
I do not think that the comments of Luther, Wesley or Graham make them false prophets, for the same reason that I don’t accept that the Watch Tower is a false prophet, namely, that interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.
Prophecy and Interpretation
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they are being guided by God. But, ‘guidance’ is a much broader concept than ‘inspiration’. True, inspiration is a form of guidance, but it is only one form. In this regard, Stafford makes a very telling point:
It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will which are then channelled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.[26]
“Prophecy” involves much more than simply predicting the future. It involves claiming to have a message directly from God. It is not the same as interpreting events or even interpreting the prophetic parts of the Bible. Russell understood this and that is why he said: “The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth”, adding “we are far from claiming any direct plenary inspiration”[27]
The Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet.
Similarly, when Wesley drew the conclusion that the end would come in 1836, he did so on the basis of his understanding of the Bible. Of course, this understanding turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, but that does not make him a false prophet. When Billy Graham stated in 1950 that the end would come within two years, he was not claiming that God had personally spoken to him through a dream or a vision. He was just stating what he believed after comparing world events with what he knew from the Bible. No charitable person would accuse Graham of being a false prophet because of that (although it is obvious that he did make an error of judgment). Likewise, when Luther stated that the Turkish war would lead to the end of the world, he was woefully mistaken, but that certainly does not make him a false prophet. Incidentally, Luther, on the basis of his understanding of the Bible, also contradicted Copernicus and insisted that the earth was the centre of the universe! [28]
Thus, the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, seen visions or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible. It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible, but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations.
Conclusion
On the basis of the above, critics of Jehovah's Witnesses have some questions to answer:
(1) Do they think it is truthful and fair to focus on a minute selection of the Watch Tower’s published material - the most negative part - and ignore everything else?
(2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours). On what do they base that conclusion, and how do they explain the dozens of quotations I have presented from the Society’s literature - from all periods of its history - where the Society denies that?[29]
(3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations?
(4) Do they believe that others who have had mistaken expectations, including Martin Luther, John Wesley and Billy Graham, are false prophets, and if not, why not?
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that they should be above honest criticism and have not hidden the fact that they have made errors in their interpretations. But honest criticism implies respect for truth - the whole truth, not just extracts taken out of context and twisted to give an impression that they were never intended to give.
Beware of half truths. You might end up believing the wrong half!
Footnotes and References
[1] I am grateful to other Witness writers for bringing many of these citations to my attention. Additionally, the book Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition [JWD2] by Greg Stafford contains extensive research on this matter. Quotations from publications after 1950 are generally taken from the Watchtower Library 2003 CD-ROM. Almost all Russell’s writings are freely available on the Internet.
[2] Zion's Watch Tower, January 1, 1908 (reprint) page 4110
[3] The Watch Tower, January 1, 1925, page 3.
[4] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.
[5] Zion’s Watch Tower, January 1883, page 425.
[6] Zion 's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080 (emphasis added).
[7] "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 1 March 1904, reprint, 3327 (emphasis added).
[8] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.
[9] The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348 (emphasis added).
[10] Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), 61-62 (emphasis added).
[11] Light, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1930), 194 (emphasis added).
[12] The Watchtower, 15 May 1947, pp. 157-8.
[13] "Name and Purpose of the Watchtower," The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, 262-263 (emphasis added)
[14] The Watchtower, 15 October 1966, page 631.
[15] The Watchtower, 15 August 1968, page 499.
[16] The Watchtower, 1 March 1979, page 23-24.
[17] Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand, page 9. (Published 1988)
[18] Jehovah’s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, page 708 (Published 1993)
[19] The Watchtower, 1 December 2002, page 17.
[20] Occasionally, The Watchtower (for example 1 April 1972) has referred to true Christians (not specifically to the writers of Watch Tower publications) as “prophets”. However, the word is placed in inverted commas, which shows that it is not meant literally. The 1972 article is simply drawing parallels between experiences in the life of the prophet Ezekiel and those of Christians today as they fulfil Christ’s commission to preach to all the nations. This sense of the word ‘prophecy’ is recognised by many ‘mainstream’ Christians., Billy Graham’s biography is called “A prophet with Honor” . Pope John Paul II spoke of ‘the ‘prophetic office’ of the People of God - meaning their responsibility to give a Christian witness. (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264of.htm) In view of other comments (cited in the main article) in which the Society specifically repudiates prophet status, both before and after this article was published, attempts to use this article to demonstrate that the Watch Tower Society claims to be an inspired prophet are obviously misrepresenting the sense of the article.
[21] The Watchtower, 15 March 1980, page 17-18.
[22] John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken [Army Sermon Against the Turks],"Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.
[23] Ibid, p. 201.
[24]http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxviii.xxiii.html
[25] McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)
[26] Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pp. 462-3.
[27] Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, 15 July 1899, reprint, 2506
[28] Luther is also quoted on certain websites as having said that Jesus would return 300 years from his time. (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther, trans. by Henry Bell and revised by Joseph Kerby [London: Baldwin, Craddock and Joy, 1818], pp. 7,8.) I have not been able to verify this source, although I have no reason to doubt it.
[29] A computer search for the expression “inspired prophet” on the Watchtower 2003 CD-ROM (containing The Watchtower) since 1950 plus most other publications, revealed that the expression came up 44 times. Every single occurrence was referring to a Bible writer.
This defense relies on rhetorical techniques, selective arguments, and a misconstrued understanding of biblical and historical accountability to absolve themselves from the charge of being a false prophet organization. While attempting to deflect criticisms about their failed prophetic claims, the Watchtower’s arguments fall short on several critical levels.
ReplyDeleteThe core of the text relies heavily on comparing Jehovah's Witnesses' predictive failures with human fallibility and mistakes made by other Christian figures, such as Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Billy Graham. This tactic, however, is a false equivalence. The errors made by these historical Protestant leaders, while regrettable, were often isolated and based on personal interpretations of Scripture without claiming institutional authority or divine endorsement for their predictions. In contrast, the Watchtower Society has systematically published prophetic timelines and speculative dates under the auspices of organizational authority, often presented as interpretations of divine will. This distinction is significant because the Watchtower has positioned itself as God's sole channel of communication on earth, claiming divine guidance in interpreting Scripture and prophecy. This unique claim sets a higher standard of accountability for their publications and pronouncements.
You also rely on undermining critics by accusing them of bias, cherry-picking, and taking quotations out of context. However, this accusation often serves to sidestep the fundamental issue: that the organization repeatedly made specific predictions about significant events, such as the Second Coming of Christ in 1914, the resurrection of faithful men in 1925, and the probable end of the world in 1975. These predictions were not merely academic interpretations but were often framed as urgent calls for members to reorganize their lives around these expected events. Even when the Watchtower included some disclaimers or cautionary statements, these were often overshadowed by bold assertions of certainty elsewhere in their literature. For example, the text cites cautious statements made regarding 1975, but it fails to acknowledge that during the same period, many articles and public speeches strongly implied that Armageddon was imminent, resulting in widespread disappointment and disillusionment among members.
The defense that the Watchtower does not claim to be an "inspired prophet" and is merely offering interpretations of biblical prophecy also fails to hold up under scrutiny. While the organization frequently denies being inspired or infallible, it simultaneously demands absolute obedience and loyalty from its members, insisting that their teachings represent God's direction. For instance, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" appointed by Christ, thereby granting itself extraordinary authority over doctrinal matters and the personal lives of members. This authoritative stance, coupled with their history of failed predictions, undermines their defense that they are not functioning as a prophetic organization.
The text further attempts to discredit critics by characterizing them as biased and uncharitable, likening their actions to a photographer who deliberately highlights the worst aspects of a beautiful city. However, this analogy overlooks the responsibility of a religious organization that claims to represent God. Unlike a city that can be appreciated for its beauty despite its flaws, a religious organization that purports to be God’s sole representative cannot afford to propagate repeated doctrinal errors or unfulfilled predictions without losing credibility. Criticism of such errors is not "bigoted" but necessary for accountability, particularly when the lives and faith of millions of people are influenced by the organization’s teachings.
DeleteMoreover, the appeal to double standards by pointing out the errors of Protestant leaders like Luther or Graham is both misleading and diversionary. While it is true that other Christian figures have made eschatological mistakes, these errors are not comparable to the systematic and institutionally endorsed prophetic timelines of the Watchtower. Most mainstream Christian denominations do not claim exclusive authority to interpret prophecy, nor do they demand unquestioning allegiance to a single governing body. By contrast, the Watchtower's prophetic failures have real-world consequences, including social, psychological, and financial impacts on its members.
You conclude by asserting that critics misrepresent the Watchtower’s statements as prophecy rather than interpretation, yet this defense is contradicted by the organization's own literature and history. For example, the Watchtower has often framed its prophetic interpretations as urgent divine warnings, with an expectation of compliance from its members. Such a stance inherently implies a level of authority and accuracy that transcends mere interpretation. When these predictions fail, the organization shifts blame onto the members for misunderstanding or misapplying the teachings, as seen in the infamous 1976 statement that "it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him…but his own understanding."
Finally, the claim that the Watchtower has admitted its errors and does not shy away from criticism is only partially true. While the organization has occasionally acknowledged past mistakes, these admissions are often framed in a way that deflects responsibility and minimizes the damage caused by their erroneous teachings. Instead of taking full accountability, the Watchtower redirects attention to the faithfulness of its adherents or the broader mission of spreading Bible truths, without addressing the deeper issues of credibility and theological integrity.
In conclusion, the apologetic defense offered by this text is insufficient to exonerate the Watchtower Society from the charge of being a false prophet organization. Its reliance on rhetorical distractions, false equivalences, and selective citations cannot obscure the pattern of repeated doctrinal errors and failed predictions. For an organization that claims to be God’s exclusive channel of communication, such a track record raises serious questions about its legitimacy and accountability. Critics are not "bigots" for pointing out these flaws; rather, they are engaging in a necessary examination of an institution that wields significant influence over millions of lives.
The fact that the uninspired nature of these pronouncements were made beforehand and not afterward is the key they are not post hoc rationalisations,jesus commanded hus followers to keep on the watch and that what the brothers have attempted to do but always with Daniel ch.12:8,9 and 1Corinthians ch.13:9 in mind that the servants if JEHOVAH have never had a plenary understanding of prophecy and the understanding would come gradually,the theme of a gradual unsealing of prophecy continues in the Book of revelation chapter 5:1-5 a clear allusion to Daniel ch.12:8,9 where the gradual unsealing of prophesy comes at JEHOVAH'S pleasure in the end times. The end times has been a concern to many mainline denominations at various times in their history. The critics are bigots if they consistently sideline critical facts like the fact that we are cessationists,or disclaimed beforehand any claim of inspiration on our expectations a good faith interlocutor would at least acknowledge those critical facts rather than consistently seek to hide or minimize them. Members of your church have claimed visions and miraculous powers the charge of false prophet is therefore much more appropriately directed at you,especially as the Bible links false prophesying to claims of miracles
DeleteMatthew ch.7:21,22KJV"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
JEHOVAH'S Modern day servants being committed cessationists have never and will never claim miraculous knowledge or signs it us members of your church who claim miraculous powers not us,so thus just more projection. And these prophecies that the Vatican approved prophets proclaim what is their record of fulfillment?
John Wesley was the leader of his church as was Martin Luther how silly to claim then that they were without institutional backing, and our expectations are based on our study of prophesy they are not as mister nincsnevem and his kind would have you believe derived from inspired dreams and visions or claimed angelic visitation this type of nonsense us why we can't.take christendom's representatives seriously,it is their side that is claiming miraculous knowledge not ours visitation from Mary and other saints and the like they bear the hallmarks if the false prophesying the scriptures warn us about,characterised by claims of the miraculous Matthew ch.24:24NIV"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
DeleteFrom the revolution climax book chapter 36 end notes.
Deletepublished by the Watchtower society"In the early 1800’s European merchants were smuggling large quantities of opium into China. In March 1839 Chinese officials tried to stop the illegal trade by seizing 20,000 chests of the drug from British merchants. This led to tension between Britain and China. As relations between the two countries deteriorated, some Protestant missionaries urged Britain to go to war, with statements such as the following:
“How these difficulties do rejoice my heart because I think the English government may be enraged, and God, in His power may break down the barriers which prevent the gospel of Christ from entering China.”—Henrietta Shuck, Southern Baptist missionary.
Finally, war broke out—the war that is today known as the Opium War. Missionaries wholeheartedly encouraged Britain with comments such as these:
“I am constrained to look back upon the present state of things not so much as an opium or an English affair, as the great design of Providence to make the wickedness of man subserve His purposes of mercy toward China in breaking through her wall of exclusion.”—Peter Parker, Congregationalist missionary.
Another Congregationalist missionary, Samuel W. Williams, added: “The hand of God is apparent in all that has transpired in a remarkable manner, and we doubt not that He who said He came to bring a sword upon the earth has come here and that for the speedy destruction of His enemies and the establishment of His own kingdom. He will overturn and overturn until He has established the Prince of Peace.”
Regarding the horrendous slaughter of Chinese nationals, missionary J. Lewis Shuck wrote: “I regard such scenes . . . as the direct instruments of the Lord in clearing away the rubbish which impedes the advancement of Divine Truth.”
Congregationalist missionary Elijah C. Bridgman added: “God has often made use of the strong arm of civil power to prepare the way for His kingdom . . . The agency in these great moments is human; the directing power divine. The high governor of all the nations has employed England to chastize and humble China.”—Quotations taken from “Ends and Means,” 1974, an essay by Stuart Creighton Miller published in The Missionary Enterprise in China and America (a Harvard Study edited by John K. Fairbank)." Christendom's bloodstained history clearly marks her as tool of Satan with no standing to correct anyone in religious/moral matters
Watchtower 1952 April 15 p.253 Aids for Understanding Prophecy
ReplyDeleteThey are then faithful in publishing and preaching the revealed prophecies to the utter ends of the earth. The twentieth-century preaching prophets of Jehovah are the ones who are running to and fro over the Bible to gain knowledge of the divine pronouncements which is on the increase.—Dan. 12:4.
- - - -
Watchtower 1959 January 15 pp.39-41 Down with the Old—Up with the New!
... but, Who will be Jehovah's prophet to the nations, to speak to them everything that He should command? Who will be the modern Jeremiah? ... So who will prophesy with his message in this time of the end of the nations of this world? ... How was the question answered? ... The fact that decides the answer to the question is, not, Do all the clergy of Roman Catholicism and of Protestantism agree that Jehovah's witnesses have been and are God's prophet to the nations? but, Who discerned the divine will for Christians in this time of the world's end and offered themselves to do it? Who have undertaken God's foreordained work for this day of judgment of the nations? Who have answered the call to the work and have done it down till this year 1958? Whom has God actually used as his prophet?
14 By the historical facts of the case Christendom is beaten back in defeat. Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths...
- - - -
Watchtower 1964 June 15 pp.365-6 Jehovah, the God of Progressive Revelation
THE KINGDOM'S ESTABLISHMENT
22 As Jehovah revealed his truths by means of the first-century Christian congregation so he does today by means of the present-day Christian congregation. Through this agency he is having carried out prophesying on an intensified and unparalleled scale. All this activity is not an accident. Jehovah is the one behind all of it. The abundance of spiritual food and the amazing details of Jehovah's purposes that have been revealed to Jehovah's anointed witnesses are clear evidence that they are the ones mentioned by Jesus when he foretold a "faithful and discreet slave" class that would be used to dispense God's progressive revelations in these last days.
- - - -
Watchtower 1964 October 1 p.601 Pay Attention to Prophecy
... for God has on earth today a prophet like organization, ... Jehovah's anointed witnesses on earth.
- - - -
Watchtower 1972 April 1 p.197 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them'
People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?
IDENTIFYING THE "PROPHET"
These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. ... Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.
- - - -
Holy Spirit — The Force Behind the Coming New Order! (1976) p.148 ch.8 "Spirit of Life from God Entered into Them"
The facts substantiate that the remnant of Christ's anointed disciples have been doing that prophesying to all the nations...
- - - -
Watchtower 1982 October 1 p.27
8 In behalf of such individuals who at heart seek God's rule instead of man's rule, the "prophet" whom Jehovah has raised up has been, not an individual man as in the case of Jeremiah, but a class. The members of this class are, like the prophet-priest Jeremiah, wholly dedicated to Jehovah God through Christ and, by the begettal of Jehovah's holy spirit, they have been made part of "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession."
Notice the quotation marks around the word prophet in many of those quotes, I would also like to point out that those statements disclaiming the inspired nature of their expectations were made BEFORE the disappointments not after, as they were made beforehand you have no case,if they were made afterward you could argue that this is some kind of post hoc rationalization but not when they were made beforehand. Do you consider Martin Luther and John Wesley to be false prophets? Good catholic that you are you may consider a pair of the reformation's leading lights to be false prophets what about church father tertillian?
ReplyDeleteAnother consideration is that we are cessationists there is no charismatic movement among us so doctrinal orthodoxy preclude the acknowledgement of any modern prophet.
From the aid to Bible understanding article "gifts from God"
Subheading:gifts of the spirit:In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs and portents that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb. 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, one or more of the apostles directly chosen by Jesus were present. (Acts 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly In the first century C.E. miraculous gifts attended the baptism with holy spirit. These served as signs and portents that God was no longer using the Jewish congregation in his service but that his approval rested on the Christian congregation established by his Son. (Heb. 2:2-4) On the day of Pentecost, miraculous gifts accompanied the outpouring of the holy spirit and in each case mentioned thereafter in the Scriptures where the miraculous gifts of the spirit were transmitted, one or more of the apostles directly chosen by Jesus were present. (Acts 2:1, 4, 14; 8:9-20; 10:44-46; 19:6) Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly scene.
Your argument primarily attempts to deflect criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses by invoking cessationism, accusing critics of bigotry, and pointing to perceived flaws in “Christendom,” but these deflections do not address the central issue of false predictions made by the Watchtower Society. You also presented several flawed arguments that fail to adequately address the core issue: the Watchtower Society’s repeated self-identification as a “prophet,” its authoritative proclamations about future events, and the subsequent failed predictions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the claim that their "uninspired nature" excuses incorrect predictions overlooks a fundamental problem: the Watchtower’s repeated proclamations of future events under the guise of biblical interpretation. These were not presented as speculative theological musings but were taught authoritatively as truths. For example, dates like 1914, 1925, and 1975 were presented with such confidence that members were led to adjust their lives and expectations accordingly. While the Society may claim that such pronouncements were not prophecies in the strict sense, the practical impact on adherents’ lives was indistinguishable from what would occur if they were believed to be divine revelations. Calling these merely “misunderstandings” or “expectations” does not absolve the organization of its responsibility for the disappointment and spiritual harm caused by these erroneous teachings.
The reference to Daniel 12:8-9 and Revelation 5:1-5 as evidence of "gradual unsealing of prophecy" is a misapplication of the text. These passages do not support a model of ever-changing interpretations of Scripture. Instead, they describe specific eschatological events under God’s sovereign control. The gradual unveiling of prophecy in the Bible pertains to God’s plan for salvation history as revealed through Jesus Christ and the apostles—not to organizations repeatedly revising their teachings over time. The Watchtower’s appeal to these passages as justification for doctrinal changes undermines the biblical concept of God's immutable truth. It also contradicts Hebrews 13:8, which affirms that Jesus Christ is the same "yesterday and today and forever."
The accusation of bigotry against critics further fails to engage with the substance of the criticisms. Suggesting that critics are biased for pointing out the Watchtower’s errors is an ad hominem fallacy, designed to discredit the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Whether or not critics have biases does not negate the factual reality of the Watchtower’s failed predictions and doctrinal inconsistencies. Moreover, the suggestion that critics "hide" the Society’s disclaimers of inspiration is unfounded. These disclaimers, while occasionally stated, are irrelevant to the issue: it is not whether the Watchtower explicitly claimed inspiration, but whether its authoritative teaching led followers to believe and act as though the organization had divine backing.
The attempt to paint “Christendom” as more guilty of false prophecy, through references to visions, miraculous claims, or the Opium War, is a classic red herring and „te quoque” defense. Even if some within Catholic or Protestant traditions have made errors or questionable moral decisions, these do not excuse or diminish the errors of the Watchtower Society. The Bible holds every teacher and organization accountable for their own actions (James 3:1), and the sins of others do not absolve Jehovah’s Witnesses of theirs. Furthermore, the historical events cited, such as missionary involvement in the Opium War, are irrelevant to the specific theological issue of false prophecy. These events, though condemnable, are not analogous to the repeated doctrinal shifts and failed eschatological claims of the Watchtower Society.
The assertion that Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 24:24 condemn critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a misapplication of Scripture. These verses address false prophets and false messiahs who deceive others by performing miraculous signs. The critics of the Watchtower do not claim miraculous powers but challenge the Society’s record of incorrect teachings. Ironically, the Watchtower fits more closely into the description of Matthew 7:21-23 because it has consistently proclaimed interpretations that have proven false, leading people to place misplaced trust in its authority.
DeleteThe accusation of “projection” against critics for supposedly claiming miraculous powers is both unsubstantiated and irrelevant. Catholic and Protestant claims of miracles are rooted in historical and theological traditions that are distinct from the false prophecy charge leveled against the Watchtower. The Watchtower’s repeated failures in predicting specific dates are a separate issue entirely. Additionally, appealing to cessationism as a defense is contradictory; cessationism would logically preclude any claim to understanding new prophetic truths or dates, as these would fall under the category of special revelation.
You emphasize the quotation marks around the word "prophet" in many of the cited Watchtower quotes, as though this diminishes the significance of their self-designation. However, the inclusion of quotation marks does not negate the clear intent of the language used. The Watchtower repeatedly describes itself as fulfilling the role of a prophet on behalf of God, claiming to be the channel through which God reveals His will. For example, the April 1, 1972, issue of The Watchtower explicitly states that Jehovah’s Witnesses “act as a prophet of God” and compares their role to that of biblical prophets like Ezekiel. Whether the word is placed in quotation marks or not, the practical implications are the same: the organization asserts itself as God’s chosen instrument for interpreting prophecy and delivering His messages. This self-characterization is incompatible with the subsequent claim that the organization has never acted as a prophet or made authoritative prophetic claims.
The argument that statements disclaiming inspiration were made "before" disappointments, not "after," does not absolve the Watchtower Society of responsibility. It is disingenuous to make definitive statements about future events (such as those concerning 1914, 1925, or 1975) while simultaneously inserting disclaimers that hedge against accountability. This tactic attempts to claim the authority of divine guidance while avoiding the consequences of failure. In practice, many Jehovah’s Witnesses acted upon these predictions as though they were divinely assured, which resulted in significant life changes and disappointments. The inclusion of disclaimers cannot erase the harm caused by these authoritative pronouncements, nor can it negate the organization's failure to act with the caution and humility befitting its role as a self-proclaimed guide for millions.
The comparison to Martin Luther, John Wesley, and Tertullian is a red herring that distracts from the central issue. While these figures may have made eschatological statements or predictions, their roles and the contexts of their statements differ significantly from those of the Watchtower Society. Luther and Wesley, for instance, were individuals expressing personal interpretations of Scripture, not institutional bodies claiming exclusive divine authority to interpret prophecy. Furthermore, these figures did not establish ongoing organizations that repeatedly set and revised specific dates for prophetic events, nor did they assert themselves as the sole channel of communication between God and humanity. The Watchtower Society’s institutional nature and repeated prophetic failures make it uniquely culpable.
The appeal to cessationism and the denial of charismatic gifts does not exempt the Watchtower Society from scrutiny. While Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that they do not believe in modern miraculous gifts, they simultaneously assert that their organization is “spirit-directed” and the exclusive channel of God’s truth. This creates an inherent contradiction: if the organization is directed by God’s spirit, as the Watchtower repeatedly claims, then its teachings and prophetic statements carry the weight of divine authority. When those teachings fail, the organization cannot escape accountability by retreating into disclaimers about being uninspired. The Bible does not distinguish between “inspired” and “spirit-directed” prophets; rather, it holds all who claim to speak for God to the highest standard of truth (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). By its own claims of being “spirit-directed,” the Watchtower Society invites the same scrutiny applied to inspired prophets.
DeleteThe citation of passages from the Aid to Bible Understanding article on the cessation of miraculous gifts does not address the issue of false prophecy. The cessation of charismatic gifts does not negate the biblical requirement for truthfulness in all who claim to speak on behalf of God. The Watchtower’s failed predictions, such as those concerning the dates mentioned earlier, demonstrate a failure to meet the biblical standard of prophetic reliability. Additionally, the argument that “prophetic understanding comes gradually” based on Daniel 12:8-9 and Revelation 5:1-5 misinterprets these passages. These texts describe the unfolding of God’s sovereign plan and His progressive revelation through Scripture, not a pattern of repeated error and correction by human organizations claiming divine guidance.
Finally, the accusation of "bigotry" against critics is another attempt to deflect attention from the issue at hand. Criticism of the Watchtower Society’s claims and record is not bigotry but a legitimate exercise of biblical discernment. Jesus himself warned about false prophets and instructed his followers to evaluate them by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). The Watchtower Society’s track record of failed predictions and doctrinal inconsistencies constitutes the “rotten fruit” by which it can be identified as a false prophet. Moreover, labeling critics as bigots does not address the substance of their arguments or the evidence presented against the organization.
In conclusion, the Watchtower’s defense relies on misdirection, ad hominem attacks, and misapplied Scriptures. Rather than addressing the core issue—its history of failed predictions and doctrinal instability—it shifts the focus to its critics and unrelated historical events. However, the Bible emphasizes that God’s Word is unchanging and that His truth does not require continual revisions or failed predictions (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8). The Watchtower’s appeal to gradual understanding does not excuse the harm caused by its teachings, nor does it align with the biblical model of prophecy and teaching. As such, these defenses fail to justify the organization’s repeated errors and highlight the theological and moral problems inherent in its approach.
The Watchtower Society’s attempts to redefine its role as a “prophet” while disclaiming the consequences of failed predictions are inconsistent and unscriptural. The organization’s claims to be God’s exclusive channel of truth carry a responsibility for accuracy and reliability that it has repeatedly failed to uphold. By seeking to evade accountability through rhetorical gymnastics, the Watchtower Society undermines its own credibility and exposes itself to the very criticism it seeks to deflect. The biblical standard for those who claim to speak for God remains clear and uncompromising: their words must align with the truth, and their predictions must come to pass. The Watchtower Society has failed this standard, and no amount of disclaimers or deflections can change that fact.
I said that it is your church that is acting on the continuationist paradigm therefore it is your church that us open to the false prophet claim not us ,we did not claim to utter a prophesy there fore we are.not liable to any claim of false prophesy ,you seize on this to divert from the Far more serious crime of the oceans of innocent blood your church has spilt and continues to spill and the fact that visions that you claim you receive from Mary and the saints have proved to be false.
DeleteThe reason we are sure of our organisation is directed by JEHOVAH is that while your church celebrates immortality even allowing those living in open defiance of JEHOVAH'S Law to occupy teaching positions and you eagerly murder your coreligionists en masse at the behest of godless politicians we enjoy a global peace that only be the product of JEHOVAH'S Spirit the apostles and their.followers had wrong expectations so wrong expectations are not a cause for stumbling the.apostles and their followers did not murder each other at the behest of caesar,so christendom's bloodstained course us a clear disqualifier where as not having a plenary grasp of prophecy us not.
DeleteAs your understanding of an idea becomes more complete whatever extrapolations you made are bound to be adjusted,and that is the issue the understanding of prophecy and extrapolations based on those understanding, of course our enemies are desperate to halt our advance they have shown a willingness to even stoop to violence in their attempts at destroying us so dishonest argumentation is certainly not a bridge too far,
DeleteThis argument from the Watchtower adherent conflates various issues in an attempt to deflect from core concerns about their organization’s credibility. Below is a detailed refutation of the key claims made in the text, showing its flaws, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteJWs have repeatedly claimed that their organization acts as God’s "prophet" (e.g., The Watchtower, January 15, 1959, p. 40-41; April 1, 1972, p. 197), while also denying infallibility or being inspired. However, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 defines a false prophet as anyone who speaks in God’s name and whose predictions fail—whether they claim inspiration or not. Thus, by claiming to represent Jehovah yet making incorrect predictions (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), the organization meets the biblical definition of a false prophet. While Jehovah’s Witnesses deny being continuationists, they claim to receive "progressive revelations" and act as God's exclusive channel. This is functionally equivalent to continuationist claims, as it implies ongoing divine guidance.
Numerous publications by the Watchtower Society (e.g., Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, p. 89-90) predicted specific events (e.g., Armageddon, the resurrection of patriarchs) that failed to materialize. Denying these as prophecies is disingenuous when they were presented as definitive statements of God's will. The Bible does not distinguish between "inspired" and "uninspired" prophecy. False prophecy is determined by whether a statement in God’s name comes true (Deut. 18:22). The Watchtower's failed predictions qualify regardless of their disclaimers. Deceptively framing failed predictions as mere "expectations" evades accountability. If they truly represent Jehovah, their statements should reflect His infallibility. By shifting blame to their followers for misunderstanding, the organization demonstrates a lack of transparency and integrity.
Pointing to historical sins of individuals within the Catholic Church (e.g., during the Crusades or Inquisitions) is not a substantive counterargument, but a red herring and te quoque defense, and whataboutism. These actions are not representative of the Church’s core teachings. The Church has consistently taught the sanctity of life and repentance for sin. Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, have their own issues with harmful policies, such as the blood transfusion ban, which has led to countless preventable deaths; and disfellowshipping and shunning practices that harm families and individuals emotionally and psychologically. The Catholic Church’s history spans over 2,000 years and encompasses diverse political, cultural, and social contexts. It is unfair to compare its historical missteps with the short, centralized history of Jehovah’s Witnesses while ignoring the latter's harmful practices.
The Catholic Church does not endorse every reported vision. Apparitions like those at Lourdes and Fatima undergo rigorous investigation before being declared credible. False claims or misunderstandings do not discredit the Church as a whole. The Bible records visions and dreams as legitimate means of divine communication (e.g., Acts 10:9-16, Matthew 17:1-9). Rejecting all visions contradicts Scripture, especially when the Jehovah's Witness organization claims to receive divine "guidance." By the way, as a Catholic, it is not mandatory to believe in private revelations at all; for example, if I do not believe in a single Marian apparition, I can still be a Catholic in good standing.
Absolute pacifism within a community is not necessarily evidence of divine favor. Many non-religious organizations also experience harmony without claiming divine guidance. Additionally, Jehovah’s Witnesses face internal divisions, including individuals leaving due to abuse or doctrinal concerns. While claiming neutrality, the Watchtower Society's policies have contributed to suffering (e.g., child abuse scandals and failure to report abusers). True peace requires justice, which has often been neglected.
DeleteWhile the apostles misunderstood certain aspects of Jesus' mission especially before the sending of the Holy Spirit, their teachings did not contain false predictions. They have never endorsed specific dates or outlined an eschatological chronology. The Watchtower’s leadership, by contrast, has published numerous failed dates and doctrines under the guise of divine authority. The apostles admitted when they misunderstood or erred (e.g., Peter’s denial of Christ), but the Watchtower Society deflects blame for its errors onto followers or claims they were "progressive revelations." This lack of accountability undermines trust.
Accusing critics of dishonesty or violence without evidence is a distraction. Instead of addressing the specific issues raised (e.g., failed prophecies, harmful practices), this argument shifts focus to perceived persecution. While Jehovah's Witnesses have faced persecution in some contexts, criticism of their doctrines and practices is not inherently dishonest or malicious. It is reasonable to examine and question any organization claiming exclusive divine authority.
This argument relies heavily on fideism, rejecting reason and evidence in favor of an uncritical acceptance of the Watchtower Society’s claims. It also employs ad hominem attacks, deflections, and false equivalences to avoid addressing legitimate concerns. In contrast, the Catholic tradition embraces faith and reason as complementary. Criticism of the Church's human failings is welcomed when done constructively, as the Church recognizes its need for reform and accountability. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, evade accountability by dismissing failed prophecies as "wrong expectations" and shifting blame to critics rather than addressing their organizational flaws.
Deuteronomy 18 is about identifying a prophet like moses it is you people who are claiming to have supernatural prophetic abilities like moses not us this is just projection,the Bible says that Christians will be identified by the peace among them not by a plenary understanding of bible prophesy,christemdom manifest does not enjoy that peace see Isaiah ch.2:2-5 christendom has been doing the opposite of what Isaiah prophesied.
DeleteNot only within but with those around us mass murdering anarchy is a definite disqualifier from scared service. The Bible indicates that peace is evidence of JEHOVAH'S Rule among Christians the churches of christendom are in denial, but that will not spare them JEHOVAH'S Judgement.
ReplyDeleteYou've cleverly changed the subject, but that wasn't the topic of discussion now.
DeleteWhat qualifies a community as a representative of the God of peace is certainly a key element of the discussion, the most damning aspect of the bloodletting is not the oppression of religious minorities, though that is certainly bad enough,but the mass fratricide of your coreligionists over political, nationalistic and ethnic differences, it's the way you people treat those who you claim are your friends that is the real stumbling block.
DeleteDeuteronomy 18:20-22 explicitly outlines how to identify false prophets:
ReplyDelete• "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death." (Deuteronomy 18:20, NIV)
• "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." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22, NIV)
This passage applies broadly to ANYONE who claims to speak in God’s name but delivers false predictions, not just to someone claiming to be “a prophet like Moses.” While Deuteronomy 18 does contain a prophecy about the coming of Christ as the ultimate Prophet (verse 15), verses 20-22 address the more general issue of how to identify false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 applies to anyone claiming to speak for God while making false predictions. It is not limited to identifying “a prophet like Moses.” If an organization claims to speak in God’s name but delivers failed predictions, it falls under the condemnation of this passage.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have repeatedly claimed to be God’s “prophet-like” channel of communication, even describing themselves as a modern “Ezekiel class” or a collective prophet. However, they have made numerous failed predictions about key eschatological events, like the end of the world in 1914, 1925, and 1975, or the the generation of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon. These predictions were made with the claim of divine backing, but they did not come true. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, this demonstrates that these were not messages from God. If Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to speak in God’s name (which they have done) and their predictions fail, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 applies directly to them. Their argument that Deuteronomy 18 is only about a prophet like Moses is an attempt to evade accountability.
The claim that others (e.g., “Christendom”) are projecting their own errors onto Jehovah’s Witnesses is unfounded. The argument ignores the documented evidence of the Watchtower's own failed predictions. Furthermore mainstream Christian denominations do not claim to have the kind of exclusive, prophetic authority that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. The New Testament teaches that no one knows the exact timing of the end (Matthew 24:36), which directly contradicts the Watchtower’s repeated date-setting. Christians who adhere to the Bible do not claim to possess prophetic abilities like Moses. It is the Watchtower Society that has claimed prophetic authority while delivering failed predictions.
The Watchtower’s argument regarding Isaiah 2:2-5 misapplies this prophecy. The text speaks of a future time when nations will seek God’s ways, resulting in peace. However, this prophecy does not describe the criteria for identifying God’s people prior to its fulfillment. Isaiah 2:2-5 refers to a future eschatological period of peace under God’s direct rule, not a present human effort, to a vision of God’s kingdom being universally recognized. While peace among Christians is a mark of their faith (John 13:34-35), this is not the same as claiming that any organization perfectly fulfills Isaiah 2:2-5 today. Additionally, the argument against “Christendom” ignores the historical context of Isaiah’s prophecy. It applies to the messianic kingdom and not to the organizational disputes among modern religious groups. So Isaiah 2:2-5 speaks about a future messianic age of universal peace, not the present status of any religious organization. Claiming to fulfill this prophecy today is unwarranted.
Your response claims that Christians are identified by peace among them and accuses “Christendom” of lacking this peace. However true Christian unity is grounded in faith in Christ and adherence to biblical teaching (Ephesians 4:3-6), not in belonging to a single human organization. The argument also ignores divisions within the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own history, such as splinter groups that formed after doctrinal disagreements (e.g., Bible Students vs. Jehovah’s Witnesses after 1916). The Bible does not teach that an outward claim to unity (e.g., organizational uniformity) is the ultimate mark of true Christianity. Instead, unity comes from shared faith in Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. Unity in Christ is a spiritual reality, not the result of belonging to a specific organization. The Watchtower’s claim to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy of peace is unsupported by the text or by their own history.
DeletePointing to historical sins, whether wars, divisions, or violence committed by Catholics, does not disqualify the Catholic Church from being the true Church founded by Christ. The Church consists of both saints and sinners. This reality has been acknowledged since its foundation, as evidenced by Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, Peter’s denial, and the imperfections of many early Christians. Jesus Himself foretold this dynamic: In the parable of the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24–30), Christ warned that there would always be a mixture of good and evil within His Church until the final judgment. The sins of individuals do not negate the truth of the Church’s teachings or its divine origin. The Church teaches repentance, not perfection: The Catholic Church has never denied that its members—including clergy—have sinned throughout history. However, it has consistently taught repentance, forgiveness, and the call to holiness (Mark 1:15). Unlike the Jehovah’s Witnesses' claim of near-perfection among their adherents, the Catholic Church acknowledges human weakness and calls all people to conversion.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that their internal peace is evidence of divine favor. However, peace cannot be measured merely by the absence of physical violence within a community. True peace is rooted in justice, love, and truth—qualities that cannot be sustained if a community permits systemic harm, as in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ harmful policies. The Catholic Church has historically been one of the largest promoters of peace and reconciliation. It has mediated in international conflicts, advocated for human rights, and consistently preached the dignity of every human life. Pope John Paul II, for example, was instrumental in the peaceful end of communism in Eastern Europe. While Jehovah’s Witnesses claim peace, they ignore the emotional and spiritual harm caused by their shunning policies, disfellowshipping practices, and mishandling of abuse cases. Forcing individuals into isolation or silencing dissent does not constitute true peace; it is merely the suppression of visible conflict.
The accusation that the Catholic Church has failed because of divisions among Christians or conflicts involving Catholics misunderstands both history and theology. These divisions, while tragic, do not disprove the Church's divine foundation. The Church has never taught violence against others, whether within or outside its community. Even during historical events like the Crusades, the Church sought to defend Christians against aggression, not promote fratricide. Any acts of violence by individuals or groups must be understood as deviations from Church teaching. Jesus prayed for His followers to be one (John 17:21), and the Catholic Church continues to strive for unity among Christians. While divisions exist, these are the result of human sin and pride, not a failure of the Church’s teachings. The Church remains the visible sign of unity in the faith, even as it calls others to reconciliation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses criticize the Catholic Church for historical conflicts and divisions but fail to address their own issues, like doctrinal flip-flopping and harmful policies. The Watchtower Society has a history of doctrinal changes, including failed prophecies about the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, and 1975). Such inconsistencies raise questions about their claim to be the sole representatives of divine truth. The blood transfusion ban has led to preventable deaths, while the mishandling of child abuse cases and shunning policies have caused immense suffering. These are significant moral failings that undermine the claim of being a peaceful and just community. Many have left the organization due to disagreements over doctrine or harm caused by its practices. Apostasy within their ranks is often blamed on individuals rather than reflecting on systemic issues.
DeleteIt is critical to remember that Christ came to redeem a fallen world, not establish a community of perfect individuals. The Catholic Church acknowledges the reality of human sin and the need for grace: St. Paul writes, “We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7). The Church is holy not because of its members but because of Christ, who sanctifies it. The Catholic Church has endured for over 2,000 years despite human failings, external persecutions, and internal challenges. This longevity and continuity in teaching cannot be explained by human effort alone; it is evidence of divine guidance.
In conclusion, the argument presented fails to address the Watchtower’s own history of false predictions and misrepresents biblical texts. Deuteronomy 18 condemns any false prophet, including those who claim to speak for God without divine authority. This applies directly to the Watchtower’s failed predictions. The Watchtower’s use of Isaiah 2:2-5 is out of context and misrepresents the prophecy’s fulfillment as occurring today. True Christian unity is based on faith in Christ, not organizational claims of exclusivity. The response attempts to deflect criticism by accusing others of projection and dismissing historical evidence, but this does not address the Watchtower’s accountability for its own actions and teachings.
The Catholic Church does not deny the sins of its members or its historical challenges. However, these failings do not invalidate its mission or teachings. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses, who suppress dissent and present a facade of perfection, the Catholic Church acknowledges the reality of human sin while calling all people to repentance and sanctity. True peace is not found in superficial harmony but in the truth of Christ, who works through His Church to bring about justice, love, and reconciliation.
You really want to compare mass murder and tolerance of gross sin not just in the pews which would be bad enough ,but from the pulpit ,we have been consistent on what matters to JEHOVAH definitely not murdering fellow human would be near the top of the list,not tolerating immorality, identifying the only God worthy of our latreo, the only priest from whom this God will receive intercession,the condition of the dead the mechanism of the ransom ,the millennium, the purpose of the millennium true separation from the present civilization that we may qualify as founders of a new civilization of JEHOVAH'S Making,we have been consistent on the big stuff,chtistendom has been inconsistent or a no show on the big stuff while sweating the small stuff. The Jews would have made the same argument against the hated sect of messianists that had recently come along in the first century outrageously claiming to be JEHOVAH'S True church,they too would have been able to point to unfulfilled expectations these neophytes once broadcasted. Would you have identified the the true Messiah and his true church if you were back there with this mindset that prefers form to substance
ReplyDeleteThere is no peace in christendom period within churches not among churches definitely, what harmful policy the mass murder of religious minorities and and Co religionists over political differences there no harmful policies among JEHOVAH'S People there are only liars like yourself trying to divert attention from the obviously murderous nature your church,everybody who takes the vow knows that if he later turns his back on his vow the Bible's sanction awaits it is no secret,the sanction is there to prevent frivolous taking of the vow of dedication,how anyone can compare the voluntary taking of an oath with a known sanction expulsion from the community with the oceans of innocent blood spilt by Christendom and her tolerating of gross sin even among her teachers is beyond me and christendom's wicked three headed demon God is not content to have his thugs harass us in this life he threatens eternal torture in the next life.
ReplyDeleteA lot of cognitive dissonance is at work to see in the peace JEHOVAH Has given his loyal servants the work of Satan and in the bloodstained oppression of christendom the work the prince of peace and his God of peace. Let me make it clear though that I am not singling out the catholic church the protestants and orthodox churches have been at least as oppressive.
What matters is the way we interpret the words of our teachers not those meanings imposed on them by unprincipled enemies who have repeatedly shown a willingness to stoop to even murder in their desperation to be rid of us such cannot seriously be counted as good faith critics ,the apostles had wrong expectations. We know John the Baptist had wrong expectations this was unavoidable due to an incomplete understanding of the relevant policies nobody calls them false prophets the fruit of peace among them established the presence of JEHOVAH'S spirit among them,in fulfillment if Isaiah's prophecy at Isaiah 2:2-4 the notion that the blood stained anarchy and oppression of christendom is the product of Christ and the global peace we enjoy is the product of Satan is utterly irrational
ReplyDeleteWhat matters is the way we interpret the words of our teachers not those meanings imposed on them by unprincipled enemies who have repeatedly shown a willingness to stoop to even murder in their desperation to be rid of us such cannot seriously be counted as good faith critics ,the apostles had wrong expectations. We know John the Baptist had wrong expectations this was unavoidable due to an incomplete understanding of the relevant policies nobody calls them false prophets the fruit of peace among them established the presence of JEHOVAH'S spirit among them,in fulfillment if Isaiah's prophecy at Isaiah 2:2-4 the notion that the blood stained anarchy and oppression of christendom is the product of Christ and the global peace we enjoy is the product of Satan is utterly irrational
ReplyDeleteYou accuse the Catholic Church of "mass murder" and "tolerating immorality" but fail to substantiate these claims with proper historical evidence. While it is true that members of the Church, including clergy, have sinned throughout history, these individual failings do not represent the teachings or mission of the Catholic Church. Christ also instructed us on what to do when our religious leaders are hypocrites, even though their teachings are objectively correct: "Therefore, do and observe all that they tell you, but do not do according to their deeds, for they teach but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2) The Church has always called for repentance and sanctity, recognizing that human beings are fallible (e.g., 1 John 1:8-9, Mark 2:17). Events like the Crusades or the Inquisition are often cited out of context. For example, the Crusades were largely defensive wars responding to centuries of Muslim aggression against Christian territories. While there were abuses, these were deviations from Church teaching, not evidence of systemic immorality. Similarly, the Inquisition's primary purpose was to combat heresy and preserve societal order in a deeply religious age, not to indiscriminately kill or oppress. Your argument ignores the Church's extensive contributions to human rights, charity, education, healthcare, and peacebuilding. Figures like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Calcutta, and Pope John Paul II exemplify the Church's commitment to promoting the dignity of every human life.
ReplyDeleteYou compare criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses to Jewish opposition to the early Christian Church. This analogy is flawed. While the apostles sometimes misunderstood the timing of eschatological events (e.g., Acts 1:6-7), it’s all happened BEFORE they received the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), they never made false prophecies. They always affirmed that the exact timing of Christ's return was known only to God (Matthew 24:36). In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly set specific dates for the end of the world (e.g., 1914, 1925, 1975), which failed to come true. This is explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy 18:20-22, where false prophecy is identified by unfulfilled predictions. The early Church grew through the apostles’ preaching of Christ’s resurrection and their willingness to suffer martyrdom for their faith. This stands in stark contrast to the repeated doctrinal flip-flops and failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society, which have led to disillusionment and departures from the organization.
You claim that Jehovah's Witnesses fulfill Isaiah 2:2-4, which prophesies global peace under God's kingdom. However, Isaiah 2:2-4 refers to a future messianic age, not a present organizational structure. The prophecy envisions a time when all nations will seek God's ways and war will cease completely. This has not yet occurred, as evident in the ongoing conflicts and divisions in the world. While you claim internal peace, this ignores the emotional, spiritual, and familial harm caused by policies such as shunning, disfellowshipping, and the mishandling of abuse cases. True peace cannot exist where systemic harm persists, even if outward conflict is suppressed.
Your assertion that there are "no harmful policies" among Jehovah’s Witnesses is demonstrably false. Shunning and disfellowshipping isolate individuals from family and community, often causing severe emotional and psychological harm. The Bible calls for forgiveness and reconciliation (Matthew 18:21-22, Luke 15:11-32), not punitive isolation. The prohibition of blood transfusions has led to preventable deaths, including children. This policy is based on a misinterpretation of biblical passages like Acts 15:28-29, which refer to dietary restrictions, not life-saving medical procedures. Numerous legal cases have revealed the Watchtower Society's failure to protect victims of abuse, often prioritizing organizational reputation over justice. This contradicts biblical teachings on caring for the vulnerable (Matthew 18:6).
You refer to the "wicked three-headed demon God" of Christendom, a blasphemous mischaracterization of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in Scripture, with passages affirming the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-3, Acts 5:3-4). The Trinity expresses the unity and love within God’s nature, not a polytheistic distortion as you claim. The Trinity has been a consistent teaching of the Christian Church since the earliest ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD). Your rejection of this doctrine reflects a break with historic Christianity, not a “return” to biblical truth.
DeleteYou accuse “Christendom” of "murderous nature" and claim that it promotes eternal torture. These accusations are baseless. The doctrine of hell is not about "murderous intent" but reflects God’s respect for human free will. Those who reject God’s love choose separation from Him, which is the essence of hell (2 Thessalonians 1:9). This teaching aligns with divine justice and mercy. The Catholic Church has consistently advocated for peace and reconciliation, as demonstrated by its efforts to mediate international conflicts and promote forgiveness. These actions are far from the "bloodstained oppression" you allege.
Your argument contains contradictions and unfounded accusations. You accuse others of false witness while ignoring the Watchtower Society's history of failed predictions, doctrinal changes, and harmful practices. This reflects cognitive dissonance, as you dismiss legitimate criticisms by labeling them as lies. Comparing the Catholic Church’s teachings to the Watchtower Society's ever-changing doctrines fails to account for the Church’s consistent adherence to apostolic teaching over 2,000 years.
In conclusion, your response relies on misrepresentations of Catholicism, selective use of Scripture, and unfounded claims about Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Catholic Church, despite the sins of its members, has consistently upheld the truth of Christ's teachings and the mission to bring salvation to the world. In contrast, the Watchtower Society’s history of false prophecies, doctrinal inconsistencies, and harmful policies undermines its claim to be God's sole channel of communication. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 remains a clear indictment of the Watchtower’s prophetic failures. True peace, justice, and unity are found in Christ and His Church, not in the suppression of dissent or the distortion of Scripture.
Only the one true God can be blasphemed your imaginary god cannot,the sponsoring of eternal sin is totally out of character with the God of the Bible all who separate themselves from the Holy God invariably separate themselves from the lone source of existence and thus have their existence ended, basic logic ,it is the churches plural I'm not singling out any particular church here but the record of history is plain that it is the CHURCHES of chtistendom who have repeatedly stoop to violence to impose their religion on unbelievers not JEHOVAH'S Peace loving community
DeleteYour assertions prove nothing the timing given for the prophecy is the end times,the period between the appearance of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple is an end time period the first century church was noted for its unity and it's refusal to take up arms even against its enemies,JEHOVAH'S Modern day servants resemble that peace far more than christendom ever has what I said was that the brothers have never claimed supernatural inspiration where as charismatic of christendom have so a charge of false prophet could more properly be brought against those claiming actual prophecy than against those who repeatedly disclaimed actual prophecy, the churches of christendom have always taken sides with their respective nations, they are definitely not beating swords into plowshares. History and the present is the basis for the observation that christendom is not a force for peace. And that only JEHOVAH can be the source of the unique peace hus people enjoy.
ReplyDelete