http://jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html#_ftn5 (FARMS in black, DYD in blue)the problem with "false prophecy" polemicsSuppose I had access to eveything 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? Right off the bat, we're setting up for doublethink! They want to tell us the "other" things that were said and we should ignore all that reflects badly on the Watchtower to accept only that which does not. In 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. We do! 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. Look, if you go out and feed starving people a 7-course meal only to finish it off with a desert laced with arsenic, do you expect a pat on the back? No Christian organization has ever criticized what the Witnesses have got right (after all, much of their apologetic work on Theism and Creationism comes from work done by Orthodox Christians), we care about the poison your supplanting for true, life-saving Biblical doctrine. 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! What does the age of the statements have to do with anything? Are you saying they are not valid because they are old? What is the "shelf-life" of Watchtower "truth"? Parts of the Bible are 4,000 + years old! Does that mean you don't believe them? This is a logical fallacy known as Argument from Age. 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. This is a faulty analogy as well as a red herring. The ONLY issue on the table is false prophecies. Christians aren't making the rules on what a false prophet is and is not - GOD DID. We're not discussing Charles Russell's mysticism and the Egyptian pyramids, Rutherford's alcoholism, the lies of the organization, the abuse of the organization - we're talking about PROPHECIES - THAT'S IT. 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. No, the Watchtower Society claimed to be a prophet (we'll cite the source below), and all we're doing is seeing if they are a true or false prophet. That's what God ordered all Christians to do when someone declared themselves to be a prophet. They comb through old Watchtowers, going back as far as 130 years. (The Argument from Age fallacy for the second time).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. God's test is pretty objective... Frankly, few Jehovah's Witnesses are likely to be taken in by such chicanery (primarily because few Jehovah's Witnesses know of or actually apply the Deuteronomy 18 test). 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. HEY - SOMETHING WE AGREE ON! 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”. OK! Taken Out of Context
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. WHAT? THAT'S IT? HOW ABOUT SOME QUOTATIONS? HOW ABOUT GIVING US THE CITATIONS THAT ARE "TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT"? THAT IS, AFTER ALL, THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION... 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 (TRANSLATION: Yeah, we made predictions in the past that failed to come to pass). Folks, this should be the end of the story! Remember Deuteronomy 18:20-22? Let's get specific here, ok? The Watchtower claims to speak for God. They claim to be prophets of God. Their prophecies failed. According to Deuteronomy, the test is over. 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. However, they also published DEFINITIVE statements based in their authority as "God's prophet". Here is the doublethink at work! The expectation is that a Jehovah's Witness should ignored the definitive, prophetic statements and accept the "cautionary statements". Consider, for example, the following statements, which emphasise that the basis for the conclusions was Bible study not some message from God: 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. It's hard to tell of which prophecy they refer...since they, again, don't actually cite the prophecy. If they are talking about how Russell and Rutherford both claimed that Jesus returned in 1874, then this may not be considered a prophecy, but it is definitely a lie! Pick your poison - they were looking backward in time saying that Jesus had returned in 1874. The Watchtower itself says this is not true. That's like telling someone who did not otherwise know that the Detroit Lions have won the last 5 Super Bowls (oh, that it were so). The statement can't really be a false prophecy since I am looking backward in time. 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). Again, the writer does not indicate which 1914 prophecy he/she is referring (which is ironic since we are talking about the importance of "context") but let's assume we are talking about the following: “...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced.” The Time is at Hand 1888 p. 101 Note here we are again looking backward in time ("the battle of the great day of God Almighty...is already commenced") as well as definitively (not speculatively) stating that it "will end in A.D. 1914".
“...the date of the close of that ‘battle'’(Armageddon) is definitely marked in the scriptures as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating back to October, 1874.” The Watchtower Jan. 15, 1892 Again there is a look backward in time to a specific time (October 1874). We also see that they are not speculatively saying when Armageddon will end, but rather that the close of Armageddon is "definitely marked in the Scriptures as October, 1914."
“We see no reason for changing the figures-nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end Of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing them from our opinion expressed ... in the Watch Tower of Jan. 15,'92. We advise that it be read again.” The Watchtower July 15, 1894 Why can't they change the dates? Because they are "God's dates, not (their own)".
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." But here is what they don't tell you... “Therefore, we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old ... to the condition of human perfection.” Millions Now Living Will Never Die 1920, pp. 89-90
The following is an excerpt from a write-in question from a Jehovah’s Witness to the Watchtower and published in The Watchtower on April 1, 1923 “Q: Have we more reason or as much, to believe the kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood? A: ... 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. marking the end of the typical jubilees ... As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had...” The Watchtower April 1, 1923
OK, now what was Noah's faith based upon? The audible voice of God! Let's forget, for a moment, the logical problem here - that one can have "much more upon which to base one's faith" than the very voice of God. Instead let us understand that at the very least there is a claim to divine inspiration (how else might one have "much more to base (one's) faith than Noah had"?).
“The year 1925 is definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that Of 1914.” The Watchtower July 15, 1924 Does that sound speculative? Now, note the date on all of these and bear that in mind when I tell you that the citation cited here by the Watchtower writer occurs in the January 1, 1925 issue of The Watchtower! In other words, for five years they were pointing toward 1925 in their predictions, but when it finally arrives...they start to back away from it!
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. Here is what they don't tell you... “Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975 ... ? Possibly ... it may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.” The Watchtower August 15, 1968
“That seven-year period (ending 6,ooo years of human history and ushering in the thousand year reign of Christ) will evidently finish in the autumn of the year 1975.” Awake! October 8, 1968 (Parenthesis mine)
So certain were they on the prophecy that they were actually encouraging people to forego education, employment and to sell their homes. Why would they do such a thing if this were mere "uninspired speculation"? “In view of the short time left, a decision to pursue a career in this system of things is not only unwise but extremely dangerous.”...“Many young brothers and sisters were offered scholarships or employment that promised fine pay. However, they turned them down and put spiritual interests first.” Kingdom Ministry June 1969
“Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that not reason to increase our activity?”...“Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end.” Kingdom Ministry May 1974?
what we see is a consistent pattern of speaking to both sides of the issue. What Biblical prophet ever did this?
Ironically, the writer never tells us which predictions are actually taken out of context. So much for the title of the section. 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.) More of "selective history" here from the Watchtower writer. Again, it doesn't matter if you continue to assert claims of being a prophet and speaking for God and then backing away from it. No one (else) asserted the Watchtower was a prophet or speaking for God - the Watchtower did! No one forced them to say it - they chose to say it! You can't "un-ring" the bell! Once you claim to speak for God you're bound to the Deuteronomy test. A test they failed. 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.”
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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 1930s: We are not a prophet; we merely believe that we have come to the place where the Gentile times have ended .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. 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. 1960s: The book [Life Everlasting in Freedom of Sons of God] merely presents the chronology. You can accept it or reject it Our chronology, however, ... is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Really? What about these statements? “If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author.” The Watch Tower May 1881
“It should be expected that the Lord would have a means of communication to his people on earth, and he has clearly shown that the magazine called The Watchtower is used for that purpose.” 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 39
“Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all, because a man’s opinion proves nothing except when that opinion is based wholly upon the Word of God. Those who believe that God uses TheWatchtower as a means of communicating to his people, or of calling their attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower with thankfulness of heart and give Jehovah God and Christ Jesus all the honor and credit and give neither honor nor credit to any man.” The Watchtower January 1, 1942?
“This is not giving any credit to the magazine's publishers, but it is due to the great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies and now interprets its prophecies.” The Watchtower April 15, 1943?
“Jehovah is the source of all knowledge ... And how does he speak? Through his appointed channel of communication-his collective congregation of anointed ones ... The Watchtower magazine, the main instrument used by the congregation to dispense Jehovah's communication.” Informant January 1956?
“Whom has God actually used as his prophet? ... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that God has been pleased to use them.” The Watchtower January 15, 1959?
“So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and declare things to come? ... This ‘prophet’ was not a man, but a body of men and women ... known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.” The Watchtower April 5, 1972
Let's not forget WT President, Fred Franz courtroom testimony... 1943 Court Case Olin Moyle v. WTBTS Section #2384: Fred Franz WTBTS Q: Who became the editor when this was discontinued? Franz: Jehovah God.
Section #2596 Q: At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper, is that -right? Franz: He is today the editor of the paper.
Section #4421 Q: In fact, it (The Watchtower) is set forth directly as God's Word, isn't it? Franz: Yes, as His word. Q: Without any qualifications whatsoever? Franz: That is -right. So,
according to the Watchtower, God's word comes forth through The
Watchtower, The Watchtower is God's means of communication,
the Watchtower Society is a prophet whose duty it is to warn of
dangers and declare future events and The Watchtower is set
forth as God's word without any qualification whatsoever. Does
that sound like they do not claim inspiration to you? 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. Valid point! 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.
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.Wow! There is so much deceit here I hardly know where to begin! Let's start with Hayden Covington, who was the legal council for the Watchtower Society. He did, in fact, clearly doublespeak - both admitting and retracting that the Society had made false prophecies:
Q.
You have promulgated -- forgive the word -- false prophesy? Then regarding the 1874 prophesy, he again himself categorized it as a false prophecy...
Q.
That was the publication of false prophesy? The claim, however that "the Society did not ‘authoritatively promulgate’ 1874 as the date, it merely presented it to its readers to decide for themselves." is just untrue: “Our Lord the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874 A.D. according to the testimony of the prophets.” Battle of Armageddon, Studies in the Scriptures Series IV 1897, p. 621?
“No one can properly understand the work of God at this present time who does not realize that since 1874, the time of the Lord's return in power, there has been a complete change in God's operations.” The Watchtower Sept. 15, 1922?
“Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874.” The Watchtower Jan. 1, 1924?
Where exactly is this presented as mere
speculation? Re-read the these quotes one more time and see if
they sound authoritative or just a suggestion. 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. (Click here to see where the Watchtower itself refutes this writer's statement)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. “Whom has God actually used as his prophet? ... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that God has been pleased to use them.” The Watchtower January 15, 1959?
“So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and declare things to come? ... This ‘prophet’ was not a man, but a body of men and women ... known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.” The Watchtower April 5, 1972 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. To see this technique actually illustrated by this very writer, read on into the section titled "Double Standards and Bigotry" 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, “Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all, because a man’s opinion proves nothing except when that opinion is based wholly upon the Word of God. Those who believe that God uses The Watchtower as a means of communicating to his people, or of calling their attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower with thankfulness of heart and give Jehovah God and Christ Jesus all the honor and credit and give neither honor nor credit to any man.” The Watchtower January 1, 1942
“This is not giving any credit to the magazine's publishers, but it is due to the great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies and now interprets its prophecies.” The Watchtower April 15, 1943
“Jehovah is the source of all knowledge ... And how does he speak? Through his appointed channel of communication-his collective congregation of anointed ones ... The Watchtower magazine, the main instrument used by the congregation to dispense Jehovah's communication.” Informant January 1956
(2) that it claimed to speak in the name of God as a prophet. They clearly called themselves prophets - so if it's not Jehovah that they speak for - what god are they prophets of? 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. 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? No - but two "wrongs" don't make a "right" - they make two "wrongs". So what's your point? 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,
(who never claimed to be a prophet)
believed that the end would come in his day.
He believed the
In 1950, Billy Graham,
(who never claimed to be a prophet)
the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in Los
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
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’ NON-SEQUITOR any less appropriate? At any rate, their agenda is obvious and respect for the truth is not high on their list of priorities. Sorry, there is a certain standard for those claiming to be prophets. The Society failed that standard. It's basic. It's pure. It's simple. All the false analogies, straw men and non-sequitor arguments in the world can't erase your own words.
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. “Those who are convinced that The Watchtower is publishing the opinion or expression of a man should not waste time in looking at it at all, because a man’s opinion proves nothing except when that opinion is based wholly upon the Word of God. Those who believe that God uses The Watchtower as a means of communicating to his people, or of calling their attention to his prophecies, should study The Watchtower with thankfulness of heart and give Jehovah God and Christ Jesus all the honor and credit and give neither honor nor credit to any man.” The Watchtower January 1, 1942
“This is not giving any credit to the magazine's publishers, but it is due to the great Author of the Bible with its truths and prophecies and now interprets its prophecies.” The Watchtower April 15, 1943
“Jehovah is the source of all knowledge ... And how does he speak? Through his appointed channel of communication-his collective congregation of anointed ones ... The Watchtower magazine, the main instrument used by the congregation to dispense Jehovah's communication.” Informant January 1956
“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”
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! But none of them claimed to be prophets like them Watchtower has.
Thus , the Watch Tower Society is not a false prophet, for the simple reason that it is not a prophet. According to their own statements, they are! With that said, since you have made that the condition ("for the simple reason that it is not a prophet") then you, yourself, Mystery Watchtower Writer, must conclude that it is, in fact, a false prophet! It makes no claim that any of its members have heard voices from God, (Straw Man - no one has said they any WT leader made such a claim) seen visions (Straw Man - no one has said they any WT leader made such a claim) or in any other way been directly influenced to make a certain proclamation beyond what is in the Bible (not true - click here). It has made mistakes in explaining or interpreting parts of the Bible (I'll say), but as we have seen, so have other religious organizations (Logical Fallacy - two wrongs don't make a right - they make two wrongs).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? ANSWER: If it is a false prophecy, YES! God warns us over and over again not to follow false prophets, so it is not only "fair" it is REQUIRED. (2) Can they cite the Watch Tower publication where the Society claims to be an “inspired prophet” (their expression, not ours) Sure: - The Watchtower May 1881, Jan 1, 1942, April 15, 1943, Jan 15, 1959, April 5, 1972, The Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, 1939, The Informant, January 1956. On what do they base that conclusion, (their own words) 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? Simple: doublespeak. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the authority over the individual Witness of a prophet, but they don't want to have to be put to the test, so they say the opposite. They decide which quotations to present based on the situation. When they are trying to change doctrine or keep the individual JW in line, they cite their authority as a prophet. When they are being honestly evaluated, they suddenly are not. The individual JW does not have a logical problem with the contradiction - the rest of the world does. (3) Why do they present the Watchtower’s statements about future events as prophetic statements, rather than what they really were - interpretations? Because they claimed to be prophets who were there to "warn of dangers and declare things to come" and they were definitively stating that these things were going to happen! They were telling people they had more reason to believe this than Noah had to believe there was going to be a flood! They were encouraging people to turn down employment opportunities, education and sell their homes to devote all their time to the Watchtower! (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? No. Because they never claimed to be prophets. 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! Really? Which "half" is true? Why? Because you say so? Ironic, isn't it, that you only include the "good half" in your article? ______________________________________________________________________ If you would like an in-depth analysis of this and other problems with Jehovah's Witness doctrine, click here for our Battling the Watchtower program.
|
It
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"?
Methodist
founder John Wesley 
Angeles: “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
that
the Witnesses are false prophets.