“Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem.
Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance.
The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. (What Does the Bible Really Teach? pgs. 110-111 pars. 12-14)
10 replies on “The Right Way to Deal With a Challenge to Authority”
Your Governing Body will never do this because they know that we are quoting things right from their own literature so they cannot prove us wrong. Look in your Appendix in the 1984 NWT Reference bible 1A- The name Jehovah is used for God the Father just because it’s more popular. WT 1950 12/1 pg 469-474 under the “Divine Name” subheading. Watchtower blames the Catholic Church for Watchtower’s shallow scholarship
“. However, if you call it shallow scholarship for the Committee to use the word Jehovah in the New World Translation, then you will have to admit that it is due to the shallow scholarship of the Roman Catholic clergy of the thirteenth century, for in that century the word historically appears among them.”
Thanks Kimmy,
My! They were quite feisty back then! What happened to all that fire?
Historical, archaeological and scholastic advancements have certainly taken a lot of the wind out of their sails. Then along comes the internet, making all this information available to the public, and you have the makings of a perfect storm that I don’t think they are prepared to deal with.
The article you mentioned was written in response to criticism of the New World Translation when it was first released that appeared in The Catholic Telegraph-Register.
The paragraph in question reads:
“Thank you for this opportunity to present some facts to you and to the public. We do not say that “Jehovah” is the correct pronunciation of God’s name. For that matter, neither is “Jesus” the correct pronunciation of Christ’s name. But according to the Aramaic language which Christ and his apostles spoke, his name was pronounced “Yeshuʹa” (the a representing a gutteral ending). But “Jesus” is only our colloquial way of pronouncing his name, and we do not find fault with you for using it instead of Yeshuʹa. However, if you call it shallow scholarship for the Committee to use the word Jehovah in the New World Translation, then you will have to admit that it is due to the shallow scholarship of the Roman Catholic clergy of the thirteenth century, for in that century the word historically appears among them. (The Watchtower December 1, 1950 pg. 472 “An Open Letter to the Catholic Monsignor”)
It would appear the comment was in response to the article’s remark that the New World Translation Committee showed shallow scholarship for including Jehovah in the New World Translation. The point of their reply seems to be: “if we show shallow scholarship then so does the Catholic clergy since they themselves introduced it in the thirteenth century”.
Hence, it doesn’t appear that they are admitting to shallow scholarship but referring to the Catholic clergy to bolster their claim that use of the name, even if not pronounced accurately, is justified.
But here’s where it gets really interesting. Every citation of the Catholic usage of the name comes from the Hebrew scriptures or Old Testament. But later on in the article raises this question:
“Why, then, does the New World Translation use the name Jehovah 237 times in its main text? Is it due to “shallow scholarship”, as you insinuate? No. In the Foreword, from page 10 to page 25, the Translation Committee explains its basis for using this name so many times. In addition to the 19 Hebrew versions, it cites versions of the “New Testament” in 38 languages besides English and Hebrew where the translators use a vernacular form of the Hebrew tetragrammaton. But in its 2nd last paragraph the Translation Committee says: “While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yah·wehʹ’ as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the tetragrammaton JHVH.”
The 237 Jehovah references spoken of here are in the New Testament portion of the Bible. What scholarship do they depend on for support? Manuscripts of the Christian scriptures containing the tetragrammaton? No. Hebrew translations of the Christian scriptures where previously the word Kyrios appeared. None of these translations written before the 14th century. To depend on modern translations instead of manuscript evidence is nothing more than an appeal to someone else’s opinion that agrees with your own, which is indeed shallow scholarship.
😉 Just like the 2010 WT 7-1 pg 6
“When apostate Christians made copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, they evidently took Jehovah’s personal name out of the text and substituted Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord.” The Hebrew Scriptures did not fare any better. No longer reading God’s name aloud, apostate Jewish scribes replaced the divine name in their Scriptures with ʼAdho·naiʹ more than 130 times. The influential translation of the Bible into Latin that was completed by Jerome in 405 C.E. and that came to be called the Vulgate similarly omitted the personal name of God.”
So how can we know the NWT is translated correctly if “Apostate Christians” were the ones translating it?
Ray Franz put it nicely:
“The problem here is that the organization denies its own position in its claims with regard—not to some trivial omission or variation—but with regard to something they view as one of the most important of all the features of the Scriptures, the name represented by the Tetragrammaton. For they, in effect, are saying that God, who exercised his divine influence to preserve the Greek text of the Christian Scriptures so that it is “a marvel of accurate transmission,” at the same time failed to see to it that some form of the name “Jehovah” was preserved in even so much as a single one of the approximately 5,000 ancient manuscript copies of those Christian Scriptures. If the tremendous importance that the organization attaches to the Tetragrammaton is soundly based, how could this possibly be so?” (See the article: Restoring the Name Jehovah to the New Testament.
Exactly. Allowing us to remain in the congregation to raise questions would create too much dissension. People are already leaving by the droves. Imagine if that was allowed.
Imagine!
This has to be a troll site, either way I love it!
As evidenced by JWs around the world and WT literature they have no interest in hearing what people have to say about them if it is critical. When you are involved in global cover-ups of CSA, there’s no amount of scripture that can save you. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, “So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
If you have the “truth” you should be able to easily refute what “apostates” say, but because WT/rank-and-file cannot they isolate them, and drive them out of the synagogue, I mean Kingdom Hall. Hmmm….did the same thing happen in Jesus day when he and his disciples exposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees?!!!
Not a troll site I can assure you. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Watchtower organization. They claim to represent Jehovah but don’t imitate him.
Jesus was an apostate
The Reverend Brendan Johnson believes in God but not dogma. Which is why he supports our Apostasy Project
Let me start by saying that I’ve never found labels to be very useful, and that most people who identify themselves as having ‘an ism’ often end up saying, “Oh, but I’m not that sort of Christian/Atheist/florist/Whatever”.
Having said that I have a label, I am an Interfaith Minister and I call myself “Reverend”. I am ordained by the One Spirit Interfaith Foundation and although we use the language of existing religion to describe ourselves; we serve people of all faiths and none in our diverse communities. We believe that difference, when approached as a potential source of enrichment, need not be experienced as a threat.
On a personal level, my search to bring meaning to my life and to others, has always led me to reject dogma in all its forms, political, cultural and religious. In the Interfaith movement I have found a place where I can express myself, and more importantly, allow other people to find their own answers. Whatever they may be.
I’ve studied theology, mythology, philosophy and I’m friends with a number of authors working the field of “new spirituality”. But when it comes to arguments about magic carpenters, talking camels, flying angels and so on, I find myself most often siding with the humanists and atheists. These things are, and I believe, intended to be read as, myths. I think anyone who falls into the error of literalism is massively missing the point. The “God” I believe in is far removed from the angry white man on a cloud smiting people. I have more in common with anyone who believes in the mystical, unscientific, impossible to describe, yet all pervasive force we call “love”.
Let me give you an example: In the Christian New Testament there is a story of how 5,000 people were fed using five loaves and two fishes. Now if a gathering of 5,000 out of a population of only half a million (according to estimates) gathered in a country that was occupied by a foreign army (who recorded everything) wouldn’t there be some sort of record in the Roman archives? But there isn’t. So it obviously isn’t some sort of historical account. So what would any reasonable person conclude? That this is a story with a moral. In this case, that there is a source of love (here God through Jesus) which is inexhaustible – there is enough for everyone.
I’ve come into contact with far too many people who refuse to think beyond the literal, and the labels, so that when someone tries to express their own thoughts, they don’t see the person they just see someone who is “wrong”, or “evil” because they don’t believe in the same ideology. They claim to believe in love and forgiveness, yet shun someone simply because they have changed their minds. This happened to me when I rejected Catholicism and there are still members of my family who are praying for my soul to return to the “true church”, which is nice of them.
Apostasy is one of the few labels that I have ever been really drawn to. I always felt it was a badge of honour and a great compliment. It means someone who holds an opinion (which is all a belief is) that is “wrong” because it is different. Almost all the great thinkers (including Jesus) started as apostates. Anything that allows people true freedom of thought – which is, after all, the only freedom we have that cannot be taken from us by force or legislation – must be preserved and defended. People must be supported to swim against the tide. This is why I back the Apostasy Project. I value and want to support the right to think differently for all. As Benjamin Franklin said, “If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking.”
Interesting!