Talk:The Watchtower/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Eschatology

Sorry for the confusion on my edit. My refernece to the 5 generations of my family was not an attempt for sympathy. It was an explanation on my insistance that the information on JW attitudes over generations was correct and needed to be stated. I've been very interested in their attitudes to dates and their interpretations of Watchtower Society literature. I've also asked them extensively on what the people around them felt about those things.

My family never felt that dates were important and they pointed to scriptures and Society Literature to support their decision. However people around them did feel that talk of dates were infact prophecies that they could rely on. To those people the talk of dates felt like unfulfilled prophecies to my family they were watchfulness and heightened expectation.

I feel that JW's have an expectant religion. Which means that they will always be watching for signs of Jehovah's day and may see things that aren't there. The point to me, at least, is that the expectation is there. I also feel that that the name 'The Watchtower' highlights that expectant attitude.

Now that seems unacceptable to you and you may have a different message to bring out. My first sentence was a plea to have a civil conversation about the editing of this article. And I'd like to cooperate to bring out both stories here.

cairoi 05:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You said a lot about your family, but little about the false prophecies The Watchtower has printed. I hope you're just kidding when you act like they've never actually printed false predictions. The page could be flooded with about a thousand of them in two minutes flat.Tommstein 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote about first hand historical attitudes toward JW's chronology speculations. Currently two camps exist where some call them false prophcies and others call them failed expectations. The false prophecy group considers this proof that JW's are false prophets. The failed expectations group considers this proof that JW's are continually watchful. I want to see both view points expounded so that the reader can decide for herself. cairoi 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is not claiming that they are a false religion just because every single thing they have predicted in the history of time has failed, it is simply saying that they have predicted things and been criticized when they didn't happen. How they justified the failures to themselves in their own minds after the fact doesn't really matter.Tommstein 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs information to be verifiable. No original research, such as "a novel narrative or historical interpretation" is allowed. Family history just doesn't cut it. Mandmelon (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

False Prophesies vs. Failed Expectations

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that presenting the prophesies as failed is non-neutral. I think that is the obvious conclusion that one is led to by the quotes, but that the failed expectations theory deserves to be mentioned. Tbjablin 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) So if the end of the world/Armageddon was prophesied, it would be non-neutral to state that the world didn't end and Armageddon didn't come? Yeah, expectations failed... because the magazine printed clear prophecies about what was going to happen, which stuff didn't happen. No crap people's expectations failed when the prophecies failed. There's no such thing as a "failed expectations theory" regarding why everyone 'thinks' the magazine printed false prophecies, it is perfectly clear that the magazine did in fact print false prophecies. They're still there for you to look at. This 'failed expectations' BS is just an enormous red herring intended to distract from that simple, verifiable fact.Tommstein 15:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Just through I'd chirp in here and point out that a lot of these quotes are without context and some could be arguably true since they are out of context... Also, "False prophecies" infers that the prophecies where deliberately misleading... yes, they where mistakes... however some of these mistakes where made over 100 years ago... I mean the first quote is in 1892... Also to be honest having a whole section of quotes that where wrong, without having a section with quotes that are right, is entirely non-NPOV. Yes their have been mistakes made, is this really the page for them? This is about the magazine, 100+ year old quotes really don’t belong here, it belongs on another page about the religion as a whole. --Zikar 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC) First I had a guy deleting some quotes because he thought there were too many, and now apparently they're not long enough. Trust me, I didn't take anything out of context just to make them look bad, and I can add more context if you want (which would probably swell each quote up to a full paragraph instead of one sentence), but citations are provided anyway as a check. "False prophecies" refers to a prophecy that was the opposite of a 'true prophecy': one that didn't come to pass. No one is saying anything about deliberate misleading one way or another. The age of the quotes doesn't matter. The article deals with The Watchtower, period, not The Watchtower over the last few years. It's still the same magazine published by the same corporation. Whether readers find the age of the quotes relevant is up to each reader, and such information has been presented right there with the quotes. The only reason I added the quotes was because Cairoi continued to insist that they didn't in fact print bogus prophecies, that it was just a matter of individual members 'getting ahead of themselves.' I warned him repeatedly that if he continued messing with the article in accord with that load that I would insert quotes proving that they had in fact printed the bogus prophecies, but apparently he thought I was joking. He was wrong. Lastly, what quotes do you propose inserting that show that these quotes that I inserted are actually a figment of our imaginations and were never printed? It's easy to throw around the POV word when anything doesn't say what we want it to, but the specific issue at hand is whether they actually printed false prophecies. That is the kind of thing that, once demonstrated, there's not really a lot of quoting and counterpointing that can be done to demonstrate that it wasn't actually done. So I ask again, what quotes do you wish to insert into this supposedly-POV section that would demonstrate that the quotes I inserted weren't actually printed? NPOV doesn't always mean everyone goes home happy. Like in this instance, unless you can produce a recognized argument (i.e., not something that you just made up) that all of these quotes I presented weren't actually printed.Tommstein 02:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I agree with you that the world has not ended and that it seems like the most literal and plausible interpretation of the quotes is that they predict the coming of the apocolypse. However, I think that there are other interpretations which while significantly less plausible deserve to be mentioned. I think that this is directly analogous to mentioning holocaust deniers on the halocaust page or IDers on the evolution page. I think these theories are stupid, but not unworthy of passing mention. Obviously someone believes them. We're just reporting that someone believes them. Tbjablin 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC) When faced with a religion preaching for decades that Armageddon is coming in a certain year, the only way to interpret that is that Armageddon is supposed to come that year, lest we step down into the realms of illiteracy and fantasy for the benefit of those trying to cover over their embarrassments. We don't have to act like we're stupid just because someone demands that we do. If something like that can't be interpreted clearly, we might as well shut down Wikipedia and all the world's printing presses, because anything could mean anything else, no matter how clear a statement it might be. There is no plausible alternative interpretation to decades of utterances that the end of the world is coming a certain year. You can make up all the bogus interpretations you want, but that doesn't make them plausible. This isn't that closely analogous to Holocaust deniers and people pontificating about the source of life millions of years ago on either side, because we have neither the Holocaust nor the origins of life before us here to look at; however, we have this wealth of quotes about the end of the world right here just as clearly as they were the day they were printed. Regarding 'someone believes it,' here's what WP:NPOV has to say about it: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Note that in this case we are clearly dealing with case three. 'Fairness' doesn't mean putting up every stupid idea anyone anywhere ever comes up with. Given that, as far as is known, the only person that believes Cairoi's story is Cairoi, it clearly shouldn't be here.Tommstein 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I strongly disagree. I think this is actually case two. I'm sure that I could find some other Jehovah's Witnesses who have the same beliefs as Cairoi. If you would like I'll try to round up some names. Tbjablin 03:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Really? You think you can 'easily name prominent adherents' to whatever that mess is that Cairoi believes, that The Watchtower's predictions of Armageddon/the end of the world weren't actually printed, that it was just overzealous members making stuff up? Let's see you try.Tommstein 03:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Trying... Tbjablin 04:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Come on, you said Jesuits and then changed it. That was going to be a lot funner.Tommstein 04:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Yeah, I was rather embarrassed when I noticed. Just a Fraudian slip though. If I can find some Jesuits apologizing for Jevovah's Witnesses will I get bonus points? Tbjablin 04:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Sure, extra credit, a two-for-one special, find one Jesuit and get two Jehovah's Witnesses.Tommstein 04:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC) What do you think about the revisionism in paragraph four of [1]? Does that look like Cairoi's viewpoint to you? Tbjablin 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Honestly, I don't think it is, although it's so vague that it pains my eyes to see it. The way I interpret that paragraph is that it starts out saying that they were looking forward to 1914, but doesn't mention what they were looking forward to that year (i.e., Armageddon). After that it says that the Bible prophecies that were supposed to start happening in 1914 actually started then, again without mentioning that the prophecies they expected to be fulfilled back then and the ones they now say were fulfilled aren't the same. It goes from a generic statement of '1914 was going to be special,' and slips right into 'for example, we (now) believe that all these prophecies started being fulfilled then,' without ever telling you what it was that they were expecting at the time, or that the prophecies that they now claim started being fulfilled then aren't the ones they were looking forward to being fulfilled in 1914 at the time. I think it's just a misleading paragraph, but I don't see anything that takes Cairoi's position, that they didn't actually predict the end was coming in 1914. They just sidestep that question completely and don't tell you anything explicitly about what they believed back then, and hope the reader comes to the 'right' conclusion on his own.Tommstein 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, it occurs to me, that paragraph contradicts Cairoi. His story is basically that they didn't actually prophesy any specific year, and that his 'five generations' of relatives just got ahead of themselves. That paragraph, though, specifically says that the magazine was in fact prophesying about 1914 35 years in advance. It seems that Cairoi's defense of The Watchtower just got shot down by The Watch Tower Society.Tommstein 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I think at this point I should clarify my viewpoint. The words false and prophecy put together are culturally loaded words. Our goal is to write a NPOV encyclopedia article. Not a JW bashing text or a Watchtower supporting article. We should avoid loaded expressions like false prophecy. (except maybe to report how some interpret JW's writings) But we can still tell both stories: 1) that people are disappointed by failed expectations 2) that some people were able to see the date predictions as pointing to events imperfectly understood. Tommstein has misunderstood what I'm saying. In the case of 1914, some JW's felt that the date was not wrong but that the expected events were. (ie Armagedon did not destroy the world and send everyone to heaven but JW's feel that 1914 was the begining of Christ's presence) In the case of 1975 some JW's felt that people ran ahead in assuming that there was any signifigance to the date at all. And Watchtower writers clearly warned not to do so. I would also like to say that I feel that Tommstein has been abusive, sarcastic and bullying. He may have contempt for JW's in his personal life but this is not a personal forum and we should use respectful language. I would like to ask Tommstein to desist from using contempt as a tool to force his own viewpoint. I would welcome a polite conversation about how to include all viewpoints within wiki policy in an NPOV article. Let's all agree to talk things out on the talk page before getting into revert wars. Who's in? cairoi 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC) As I told somebody right above that said the exact same thing that you are now repeating, "'False prophecies' refers to a prophecy that was the opposite of a 'true prophecy': one that didn't come to pass." That's the generally accepted term for a prophecy that didn't happen, a false prophecy. You are correct that we are here to write an NPOV article, which is why we can call a false prophecy a false prophecy without regard for who thinks it paints this magazine/religion in a bad light, since it is the simple, impartial truth. I would respond to your list of what the two sides of the story are, but, well, I can't actually tell what the heck they have to do with this magazine's pre-failure predictions. No one has misunderstood what you meant about 1914. And as I told you above, how Jehovah's Witnesses rationalized the failure to themselves after the failure is irrelevant. The end of the world was prophesied, and it didn't happen. Period. It's as simple as that. How they chose to view the year afterwards is of no relevance to whether their explicit pre-1914 predictions that the end of the world was coming that year came true or not. If you find that having repeated BS, revisionism, and all kinds of other crap shot down is abusive, then stop doing it. You may try to present Jehovah's Witnesses in the best, rosiest light possible in your personal life, but this is not a personal forum and we should present the clear facts. Wikipedia is not here to serve as a forum for you to try to rewrite still-present writings, nor to try to make converts to your religion. I would like to ask Cairoi to desist from using bogus complaints about personal attacks when he presents untenable personal theories as a tool to force his own viewpoint and to hide behind.Tommstein 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Try the same argument with some other slurs. The 'N' word for those of african descent: it's just a derivitive of the latin root for black. Or the 'C' word for those of chinese descent: it's just two english words put together to mean a person from China. Or the 'S' word for women of North American aboriginal descent: it's just a Cree word for woman. The fact is that despite their quotidian origins these words are culturally loaded slurs and so should not be used as such in Wikipedia. So is false prophecy/prophet. It is a form of religious villification. Does anyone else have comments on this? (PS I would like to apologise to anyone who is offended my even hinting about the above slurs, by my analysis of them or by how I treated them in this context. My intent is not to hurt anyone but to make a point.) cairoi 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) The proper, generally-used adjective to describe an untrue prophecy is "false". The only person that would object to this is someone that is trying to fudge the issue.Tommstein 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Listen. Tommstein says that the prophesies indicated that the world would end in 1914. As this has not come to pass, he asserts they are false. Tommstein further asserts the meaning of the prophesies is plain from the quotes. Cairoi says that the prophesies might appear to indicate that the world would end in 1914, but they in fact only indicate that some great spiritual event will happen in 1914. Cairoi claims that the truth or falseness depends on what the quotes really mean. Cairoi has offered some additional quotations that might backup his point. I propose the following: remove only the word 'false' from the sentence, "Following are a few examples of false prophecies that have been printed in the magazine's pages over the years[.]" I think this is a reasonable thing to do, because it preserves evidence both sides think is critical (the quotes), and presents Tommstein and Caoroi's views without endorsing either. Tommstein has said, "[W]e should present the clear facts." I think this is an excellent goal. I think the proposed change (removing the word false) preserves all the relevant facts and presents them in a clear fashion. What are the facts? First, it is a fact that many prophecies have appeared in The Watchtower. These prophecies are presented in quotation. Second, it is a fact that The Watchtower has on occassion warned against "chronological speculation." Supporting quotes for this fact are also presented. Third, it is a fact that there are people (probably a majority) who agree with Tommstein. The article reports that people believe this. Fourth, it is a fact that there are people who agree with Caoroi (probably a minority). The article reports that some people in the world have this belief. Fifth, it is a fact that The Watchtower was not published by Jesuits. Removing the word false from the article does not 'revise' history. Readers can still draw logical conclusions based on the provided quotes. The reason I am reluctant to use the word false in reference to the prophecies is that, as religious works, they are best judged by the standards of literary criticism. For instance, suppose I say, "The Dow-Jones Industrial Average will close 100 points higher on December 13, 2005 than the close on December 14, 2005." It is clear that this statement is either true or false, and that no reasonable reader will disagree about its truth or falsity. This is the kind of precise language found in contracts or laws. Now suppose I say, "The culmination of the trouble in October, 1914, is clearly marked in the Scriptures; and we are bound therefore to expect a beginning of that severe trouble not later than 1910; - with severe spasms between now and then." This language could not be included in a contract. What constitutes a trouble? What Scriptures are alluded to? What is a severe trouble? What is a spasm? The quote makes heavy use of allusion. For this reason it is more similar to literature than to contractual or legal language. An interpretation of a contract is either correct or incorrect; there is no middle ground, but an interpretation of literature is either well supported or poorly supported. If a new quote comes forward with sufficient clarity that it could be placed in a legal contract, I will be prepared to judge its truth or falsehood. Until such time, I suggest that we leave readers to reach the natural and obvious conclusion based on the facts presented without shoving a particular interpretation down their throats. Tbjablin 05:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Before bothering with Cairoi's little theory farther, the requirements of WP:NPOV which I stated above still have to be filled; it must be proven that his theory "is held by a significant minority," and "it should be easy to name prominent adherents." Until then, we're wasting everyone's time. What Cairoi has neglected to mention in all of this, is that Jehovah's Witnesses generally hold that they did in fact mess up in the past, and they see this "new light" as evidence that 'God's organization is progressing' and blah blah blah. Cairoi is just flat out freelancing on this one. Even his own religion recognizes that is has been wrong in the past. But as I said, until the requirements of WP:NPOV are fulfilled, arguing about Cairoi's personal theory is a waste of everyone's time. Something has gotton lost in tommstein's translation cairoi 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Also, Cairoi has successfully led you off track with a red herring. Note that the only person talking exclusively about 1914 is him. They no longer hold to the 1799, 1874, 1878, and 1925 dates at all, in any form or fashion. Cairoi keeps expounding his personal theory that, despite the fact that we're all literate here, they didn't in fact actually predict the end of the world in 1914, that was just stuff that people made up in their twisted heads. Well, that's nice. How about 1799? Or 1874? Or 1878? Or 1925? Or heck, probably even the conflicting messages about 1975? His theory about 1914 doesn't matter, because the issue involves a heck of a lot more than that. I did not say that they didn't predict the end of the world or that they weren't wrong about what would happen on the date. I just said the date still has spiritual signifigance to JW's. cairoi 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) And I told you, that is irrelevant.Tommstein 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) Lastly, here are some rather explicit quotes about 1914. Not all are from The Watchtower, because the goal here is to show what the religion was actually expecting, not to provide quotes from The Watchtower: "In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A. D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men.... Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, 'Thy Kingdom come,' will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be 'set up,' or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (The Time is at Hand, 1907, pp. 76-7) "That the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time, and the angry nations will then be authoritatively commanded to be still, and will be made to recognize the power of Jehovah's Anointed. Just how long before 1914 the last living members of the body of Christ will be glorified, we are not directly informed; but it certainly will not be until their work in the flesh is done; nor can we reasonably presume that they will long remain after that work is accomplished." (Thy Kingdom Come, 1908, p. 228) That they recognize that they messed this prophecy up is shown by the fact that the 1937 version of this book actually changes this paragraph to make it seem like they said it would occur after 1914. "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, 1907, p. 101) So not only do we have an explicit prediction of Armageddon here, even quoting the Bible, but apparently they thought that Armageddon had already started and would end in 1914. "All of the Lord's people looked forward to 1914 with joyful expectation. When that time came and passed there was much disappointment, chagrin, and mourning, and the Lord's people were greatly in reproach. They were ridiculed by the clergy and their allies in particular, and pointed to with scorn, because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their 'prophecies' had not been fulfilled." (Light, 1930, p. 194) Another direct admission that their prophecies did not come true, contrary to Cairoi's assertion. "However, suddenly, there came an end to World War I. It did not lead on, as Bible students expected, into world revolution and anarchy or the battle of Armageddon." (Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress At Hand, 1975, p. 98) Another explicit admission that they did in fact prophesy Armageddon, and failed. "The Watch Tower of April 15, 1916, stated: 'We believe that the dates have proven to be quite right. We believe that Gentile Times have ended.' However, it candidly added: 'The Lord did not say that the Church would all be glorified by 1914. We merely inferred it and, evidently, erred.'" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, 1993, pp. 635-6) Another admission that they, "evidently, erred." Very happy with this quote cairoi 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) "And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as is already shown from prophecy." (Thy Kingdom Come, 1891, p. 153) "The 'Gentil [sic] Times' prove that the present governments must all be overturned about the close of A.D. 1914." (The Time is at Hand, 1888, p. 242) "Remember that the forty years' Jewish Harvest ended October A.D. 69, and was followed by the complete overthrow of that nation; and that likewise the forty years of the Gospel age harvest will end October, 1914, and that likewise the overthrow of 'Christendom,' so-called, must be expected to immediately follow." (The Time is at Hand, 1888, p. 245) "As far back as 1880 The Watchtower pointed to A.D. 1914 as the date marking the end of the world, at which time great trouble would come upon the nations; but at that time it was not seen by God's people on earth that the trouble would be the battle of Jehovah against Satan's organization. For many years it was believed by them, and so stated in The Watchtower, that 'the time of trouble' would be a terrific clash between the various elements of the earth, such as capital and labor." (February 1, 1938 Watchtower, p. 35) If the first part of the first sentence doesn't satisfy everyone that the Watchtower predicted the end of the world in 1914, we might as well close up shop here. Well, my work here is done.Tommstein 10:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) You've done a good job of researching here Tommstein. It's too bad you've been combatting a non-existent theory. What I've been saying is exactly what you said above. Some of the expectations were errors, especially for 1914. But JW's still hold 1914 as spiritually signifigant. And 1975 was a case of people running ahead with an idea that they were warned against. I think we can both agree on this. My point all along is now addressed by Tbjablin, that we remove the expression fase prophecy and I'll be happy. I would also like to see (for the readers' sakes) the list of quotes pared down to just the best ones. Of course you can be in control of that. cairoi 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Your missing the point Caoroi. Tommstein no longer cares about the merits or lack thereof of your theory, but rather is arguing that you are the only one who holds it. Just fetch some quotes showing the some other person believes your theory and we can go home. Tbjablin 16:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm still not making myself clear Tbjablin. I don't have a unique theory! I'm not saying anything unique at all. Tommstein has just imagined that I believe that all cases of date prophecies have been misinterpreted by Watchtower readers only and have not been errors at all. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that false prophet is a perjorative and I want it removed as per your suggestion. That's all I've ever wanted. I'd be happy if you called them errors or whatever just don't ram the false prophets idea down the readers throats. Let them come up with it themselves. They should be able to see clearly the theories expounded in w and then see the cautions given. Readers can make their own minds up. We don't need some jw telling them what to believe and we don't need some jw hater telling them jw's are false prophets. The user is intelligent and doesn't need guidance. cairoi 19:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) There's nothing like having a theory torpedoed to the bottom of the sea to make stories change real fast. In any case, no one is ever called a "false prophet." Reference is only made to false prophecies, which can be impartially demonstrated to be such, and which I think even you have finally agreed that they are. If that happens to lead readers to assume that the prophets are thus false too, well, uh, that's what they get for stating false prophecies, but at least we're not calling anyone "false prophets" here ourselves, which is supposedly all that you ever wanted (according to your latest story).Tommstein 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) You need to review everything I've written in the light of my agreeing with your above statements. Please stop arguing just for the sake of it. Please stop prejudging other's writing. You have a chip on your shoulder and once someone is labeled in your mind as an opposer you oppose everthing they write. Please try to achieve concensus as per wiki's mandate. cairoi 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC) No need, I already read your changing stories the first time. You, however, need to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, print it out and stick it on your wall, read it three times a night before going to bed, and recite it to yourself during the day.Tommstein 06:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) It's Quote Mania == Before I thought there were a lot of quotes. Now there are way way too many quotes. I am cutting the quotes does to a more reasonable size. I will leave the rest in this section so people can continue to refer to them. Tbjablin 03:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Yeah, and I just had the other dude up there telling me that I wasn't quoting enough. There's no pleasing everyone.Tommstein 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC) I think what he meant was that your quotes were too short. Not that they were too few. Tbjablin 04:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he meant too. But making the quotes four times as big would still make the quote section four times bigger.Tommstein 04:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Watchtower has never made a false prophesy because they have never made a prophesy. They have had expectations that they derived from certain Biblical or other chronology but that is not a prophesy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklemetti (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, The Watchtower says otherwise... The Watchtower, 15 September, 1951, page 556, paragraph 8, "What to Do in the Face of the End":

“ Since Jehovah God long ago spoke by his recorded Word foretelling the world calamity, and since he now makes this recorded Word of prophecy talk through fulfillment of the prophecy which marks the “time of the end”, how can Jehovah’s witnesses do otherwise than prophesy? They cannot do otherwise. And they are not doing otherwise than prophesy, let the doomed world like it or not. Hence the certain end of the world is the valid reason for giving preliminary witness about it now. ”

--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

JWs believe they "prophesy" in that they "teach prophecy (that is, the Bible)".

Note this, from before the above 1951 quote,

The Watchtower, September 1, 1950, page 303, "This Means Everlasting Life states: “But regardless of popular custom, if a woman today should rise in a congregation and pray or prophesy to the believing men and women present, she should veil her head or have a ‘sign of authority upon her head because of the angels’.” (Pages 161, 162) Hence if a Theocratic assignment requires a woman to pray at or to conduct a Bible study meeting she should wear a sign of authority while so performing" [emphasis added]

Note this, also before the above 1951 quote,

The Watchtower, May 1, 1951, page 264-265, "[God] said: “I shall pour some of my spirit out upon every kind of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy... I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy... And then anyone that calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved.” (Acts 2:16-21, NW; Joel 2:28-32, AS) Prophesying, or the preaching of the Word of Jehovah’s prophecy!" [emphasis added]

The way JWs have used the term "prophesy" has certainly given fodder to their critics, but it's relatively easy to demonstrate a JW pattern of pointedly noting they do NOT claim the power of prophecy, that is miraculous specific knowledge and/or foreknowledge. An encyclopedic scholar should be interested in conveying accurate knowledge rather than in scouring for some quote he can misrepresent.

Is that 1951 quote above misrepresented? Consider it again, emphasized differently.

The Watchtower, May September 15, 1951, page 556, "Since Jehovah God long ago spoke by his recorded Word foretelling the world calamity, and since he now makes this recorded Word of prophecy talk through fulfillment of the prophecy which marks the “time of the end”, how can Jehovah’s witnesses do otherwise than prophesy? They cannot do otherwise. And they are not doing otherwise than prophesy, let the doomed world like it or not. Hence the certain end of the world is the valid reason for giving preliminary witness about it now.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics aside, the fact remains that Russell, Rutherford, and other Bible Student/JW leaders did indeed say that certain things would definitely happen, that they were absolutely certain, that they couldn't change the details even if they wanted to, etc. (e.g. Watch Tower, January 15, 1892, p.1355; Vindication I, 1931 ed., p. 338-339; Watch Tower, 15 July, 1894, page 1677; Watch Tower, June 15, 1922; Watch Tower, July 15, 1922; Watch Tower, November 1, 1922) It is intellectually dishonest to call other organizations' predictions 'false prophecies' but to call their own predictions merely 'failed expectations'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It may or may not be accurate to claim Watchtower has been "intellectually dishonest", but it's certainly not accurate to claim they've pretended inspiration or the gifts of literal prophecy.

Do critics who make such claims believe two wrongs make a right?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that "gifts of literal prophecy" exist at all. The fact remains that outlandish claims were made about devastating events which were presented as factual certainties. These kinds of claims can rightly be referred to as 'propechy' with or without a claim of 'divine inspiration' (which also has not been proven to exist).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut Quotes

"The date of the close of that 'battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874." (January 15, 1892 Watchtower, p. 1355)

"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." (July 15, 1894 Watchtower, p. 1677)

"The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914." (September 1, 1922 Watchtower, p. 262)

"Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." (April 1, 1923 Watchtower, p. 106)

"The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year." (January 1, 1925 Watchtower, p. 3)

"Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day.... The seventh day of the Jewish week, the sabbath, would well picture the final 1,000-year reign of God's kingdom under Christ when mankind would be uplifted from 6,000 years of sin and death." (May 1, 1968 Watchtower, pp. 271-3)

"And now, as the critical year of 1975 enters, it may well be asked: Has the Most High God of prophecy made a name for himself?... Only from the end of the year 1928 was the prospect opened up to the spiritual understanding of the anointed remnant of the 'Israel of God' to survive the 'war of the great day of God the Almighty' at Har-Magedon and enter here on earth into Jehovah's righteous new order. (See The Watch Tower under date of December 15, 1928, page 376, paragraphs 35, 36.) And now, as the year 1975 opens up, some thousands of the anointed remnant, still alive on this earth, look ahead to realizing that joyful prospect." (December 15, 1974 Watchtower, pp. 759-66)

"But, [Watch Tower Society Vice-President Frederick W. Franz] pointed out, 'we should not think that this year of 1975 is of no significance to us,' for the Bible proves that Jehovah is 'the greatest chronologist' and 'we have the anchor date, 1914, marking the end of the Gentile Times.' So, he continued, 'we are filled with anticipation for the near future, for our generation." (May 1, 1975 Watchtower, p. 85)

"It is vital to remember not to set a date but eternity as our goal." (Watchtower 1974 6/15)

We do not know the exact time when God will bring the end. (Watchtower 1974, 10/15)

"It did not take the brothers very long to find the chart...showing that 6000 years of man's existence end in 1975. Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. "The new book compels us to realize that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed," said a conventioner. (Watchtower 1966 10/15)

The Bible book of Revelation (chapters 20 and 21) reveals many of the good things that the thousand-year rule will bring. It also tells us that this millennium must be preceded immediately by the most destructive war in all human history. We can now see the political rulers or "kings of the entire inhabited earth" being gathered...for that War of all wars... (Watchtower 1974 7/1)

What...is the "Generation" that "will by no means pass away until all these things occur"? It does not refer to a period of time...but rather, it refers to...people living at the beginning of...events that broke forth in connection with World War I from 1914 onward. ... The fact that their number is dwindling [people born before 1914] is one more indication that "the conclusion of the system of things is" is moving fast toward its end. (Watchtower 1980 10/15 p 31)

Here the quotes I cut. If anyone objects please feel free to put a quote back, but swap out another in its place. Eight quotes should be more than enough for an article of this length. Tbjablin 04:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV relating to language utilized in article

I think a good barometer would be to base this on the example of Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia. I think each of these examples has a direct correlation with this particular article:

"1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says."

In correlation with this quotation:

"So, members were not told that this was to dodge taxes ([1] [2] [3] [4]), but rather that it was to 'simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion.'"

"Dodging" implies sinister motivation, which the author of this line apparently believes. The footnotes may have some bearing on the actual reason behind the change in the donation arrangement, however terminology should also be included from Watchtower relating to their official policy.

"2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view."

In correlation with this quotation: "Following are a few examples of false prophecies that have been printed in the magazine's pages over the years". Whether or not the quotations in question are false or true should not be the ruling of the Wikipedian authoring this article. If the quotations do or do not stand up under the light of scrutiny, the author need not spoon-feed conclusions to the reader. Present facts that may or may not support all sides and let the readers themselves decide. Missionary 11:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, "dodging" means "getting around;" there is nothing sinister about it, it is a simple description of what someone does. You wouldn't like it saying that it was to "get around paying" taxes either. You want us to play stupid and pretend it's unknown why the change happened. That won't be happening.

Relating to the court documents relating to the taxation issue, let's stick simply to linking to those documents rather than spoon feeding readers with commentary on pages by "Lorri MacGregor" whoever she is. Unless she in her reference piece explains her qualifications for soliciting an opinion relating to this case, it is as irrelevant as one of us hosting our own webpage with a few clippings from erroneous apostate material and expressing our opinions. Missionary 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a mention of a "webpage with a few clippings from erroneous apostate material." I haven't read a statement that encyclopedically unbiased since, uh, probably ever.Tommstein 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, the stuff about laissez-faire capitalism is an opinion. That the world was predicted to end in 1914 is a fact. That the world did not end in 1914 is also a fact. Your liking of these facts is irrelevant. Both are documented facts, not someone's opinions. I just finished having a 10-page discussion about this right above, so if you repeat crap that I already responded to you will be ignored or told to read above. I have better things to do than waste time repeating myself to you because you're too lazy to read what's already written.Tommstein 11:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Tommstein doesn't listen. He's not stopping the slurs. Tax dodge is a slur like false prophet and the "N" word for people of african descent, the "C" word for people of chinese descent and the "S" word for women of aboriginal american descent. They all come from once normal, everyday words but are now culturally loaded. They all cannot be used in wikipedia.

Tommstein has drowned out all other voices except his own. I'm stopping my edits for one month and during that month I expect him to clean up his act. If he hasn't. I'm collecting a list of every use of sarcasm, every time he has bitten a new user, every religious slur or example of villification he has ever used in wikipedia. It is all a matter of public record. It is all reviewable. It cannot be hidden. I will make a case against him and put him up for censure.

You are warned to clean up your act Tommstein. Be polite. Be cooperative. Stop dominating. Edit with a view to a balanced article.

Go back and review your wiki rights and responsibilities. Then go back and review your history. I have been carefully tabulating all your history and you are in clear violation. I am signing off for a month and so will not read any reply you make to this. I'm not interested in what you think about this comment I'm interested in what you do about it. I will note your record when I'm back online. cairoi 01:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How's that reading of Wikipedia:No personal attacks coming along? Oh yeah, and piss off. You don't go around threatening other Wikipedia editors, hear me?Tommstein 06:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion Tommstein. You could emulate others on this page who are not pro-jw like Konrad West. He has a very anti jw website but is constructive and polite while editing JW articles. No biting or trash talk. Give it a go. You might get the results you want with a lot less pain. cairoi 01:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing you want is to not have your bogus arguments shot down with verifiable research and to thus get things your way without questioning regardless of facts and reality. You're gonna have to go to your Kingdom Hall for that, because it ain't happening here.Tommstein 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Tomm, you've been told! ;) Cairoi, do you really think my blog is "very anti jw"? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know man, he toasted my butt so good I'm gonna have to go sit in the snow for a little while until it cools down. He probably thinks that everything except the latest issue of The Watchtower is "very anti jw."Tommstein 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, did I mention that I currently sit here (in the snow) quaking in my boots out of sheer fear and terror of Cairoi too? It's true. You don't take threats like that sitting down. Actually, apparently I do, in the snow....Tommstein 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that it would simplify things for the WBTS if they did not have to pay taxes for items they sold. Also, the things being referred to as "Propehecies" are clearly interpretation of existing Bible prophecies, therefore not prophecies themselves. Perhaps "misinterpretations of scripture" is a better description? - george 12 17 2005

The article does mention that it would have added tax collection burdens and such, which it originally didn't. As to the prophecy thing, I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to tap that dance.Tommstein 07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

tap that dance? I mean they never said that God gave them these words by speaking, so these were not prophecy. They felt that prophecies already uttered were being fulfilled in a certain ways, so these weren't actual prophecies themselves. Also, if avoiding taxation did indeed make it simpler to accomplish the preaching work why the heavily implied deciet in the paragraph? It sounds more like commentary than reporting. -george

It is not required that they say that God gave them their prophecies by speaking. In fact, seeing as their prophecies failed, I think there is more ground to consider their prophecies to be their own prophecies instead of prophecies from an external source that they were just sharing with the rest of us. Prophets are still called prophets and their utterances prophecies even if they supposedly have some other source for their messages, unless you don't consider Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. to have been prophets because they were just sharing what had been given to them. About the tax thing, I think it does a pretty good job of describing the legal events that happened, what they told their members, and what they withheld. That is fair.Tommstein 06:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By defintion, Prophecy requires divine inspiration. (See wikipedia or dictinary.com 'prophecy') Failed 'interpretations' or 'predictions', however, do not. this would seem perhaps more correct. I am arguing semantics, but this is an encyclopedia. The taxation comments are accusatory and therfore need to be reworked, the article is not supposed to be an expose' or and editorial, which it leans toward with the wording in these places. The prophets you mention all were given words to speak by Jehovah, therefore they actually uttered prophecies under inspiration, words directly from Jehovah. I believe you are misunderstanding me from your reply. I did not compare WT writers with them I was contrasting. -george

The above-mentioned Biblical prophets didn't claim to be inspired either, they claimed to be passing on what God had informed them was going to happen, just like these articles. The only difference is that the former claimed the words were spoken, while the latter claimed that God's holy spirit led them to interpret his writings. No difference. To quote Jehovah's Witnesses' own Reasoning book, "Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment." You wish to apply the word exclusively to a restricted subset of the third thing. However, per their own definition, they have prophesied. I'm really unwilling to engage in further word games about this with you.Tommstein 07:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, the full defintion in the Resoning book is:

"An inspired message; a revelation of the divine will and purpose. Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment."

So the beginning of the definition agrees with the secular definitions -Prophecy requires inspiration. These propphets did indeed claim to be inspired when they said: "This is the word of Jehovah" or as John put it "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him..." What about the taxation issue? Refusal to engage will only lead to RFC, and we will talk about it then. george

Upon further research, I noticed that the Watchtower magazine never carried the statement:

"to greatly simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion."

Instead this was in a letter sent to all congregations, or so the references in the article say. Therefore this comment which refers to all literature produced by Jehovah's Witnesses really belongs in another article, if in any at all. The letter to all congregations from which this quote was taken is not reproduced in any of these pages listed, where is the text of this letter? Additionally, two of the links provided as references are actually the same article in two pages so only one was needed.

george

You go for it, I'll say the same things at the RFC that I've already told you. The stupid threats people make that they think are scaring anyone above the age of four....Tommstein 06:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats? I was encouraging you to dialogue, politely I might add. I am obviously attempting to avoid petty arguments as I have not even tried to edit yet. - george

"Refusal to engage will only lead to RFC, and we will talk about it then" was not a polite encouragement to dialogue.Tommstein 06:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I am very new to the whole Wikipedia experience and have been browsing through what I would consider to be some of the most controversial topics to see how they would be handled. I was very impressed with the factual way that the main Jehovah’s Witnesses article has been written but have found that this article is very anti-JW and biased in its overall tone.

Take for example the line “A typical issue usually includes their interpretations of topics such as Bible prophecy…

Couldn’t the sentence be phrased “A typical issue usually includes an examination of Christian conduct and morals, interpretation and analysis of bible prophecy as well as the history of religion and the bible.” My understanding is that the vast majority of WT articles are based around how a Christian should act rather than focusing on bible prophecy. This sentence is entirely factual and still includes the concept that the prophecy is an interpretation without the contemptuous undertone.

Another example is the paragraph relating to the change from paying for magazines to voluntary donations. The article for the Awake magazine has the same material without the biased additions. Couldn’t the same be done here?

Lastly is a quick question relating to the paragraph on material published in the WT magazine on different medical conditions – Was anyone else confused as to why all of the references included here are for the Awake magazine and not the Watchtower??? I was just wondering.Lucille S 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

About your proposed sentence change, it looks good to me. I'll make the change when I finish this edit. About the origins of the donation arrangement, the Awake cannot possibly have the same material, because they have never brought up the whole tax thing (to my knowledge). About the Awake medical references, you are again correct. I'll remove that paragraph momentarily also.Tommstein 06:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Awake medical stuff, but I couldn't find the sentence "A typical issue usually includes their interpretations of topics such as Bible prophecy," although there is a sentence saying virtually the exact same thing as your proposed one.Tommstein 06:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, pulled down those references and inserted them in wrong article. I've placed them in the correct article, thx for catching it. Steven Wingerter 06:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in the Awake article reads

"Awake!, along with The Watchtower, was sold in the United States until March 1, 1990, when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled religious literature being sold was subject to taxation. (Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378) The sale of Witness literature was gradually phased out throughout the world between 1990 and 2000. Awake! is now distributed free of charge everywhere, although voluntary donations are accepted to support the magazine's further distribution."

It contains all of the facts allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. - Lucille S 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the Wikipedia article. I thought you meant an Awake article. This is probably why I couldn't remember an Awake reference in the paragraph. The problem with the version in the Awake article is that it makes no mention of what members were and weren't told about the reason for the change.Tommstein 07:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Published by Jehovah's Witnesses"

The quote from the inside cover states: "The Watchtower, published by Jehovah's Witnesses continuously since 1879, is nonpolitical." Is that really the exact wording from the magazine? How can that be the case, since there was no group by that name until 1931??--Jeffro77 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

THAT you will have to take up with the publishers. George 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy, it says no such thing. --66.139.11.116 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to original question re: accuracy of statement that Jehovah's Witnesses have published the Watchtower since 1879. C.T. Russell and the group of Bible Students he associated with in Pittsburgh grew to become the "International Bible Students Association" or IBSA. In 1931, members of the IBSA gathered at a convention in Columbus, OH adopted a resolution to change the name of the organization to "Jehovah's Witnesses" based on Isaiah 43:10, 12. It is within this context (that the group founded by C.T. Russell the original publisher changed its name) that the current publishers can appropriately claim to be the same group publishing the magazine for 128 years. BibleBrown (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me,Jehovah's witnesses have existed for thousands of years, regardless of whether they called themselves Jehovah's witnesses for all those years or not, they have been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ice9Tea (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I would like to know who actually writes the Watchtower magazine. Is there a specific name or group of people attached to it`s teachings? Or does it just say Watchtower? I took a trip to New York a few years back and it appeared as though they (the staff at the "Watchtower" building) did not permit anyone to enter. Who writes it, really? I don`t believe the "Jehovah`s Witnesses" have existed for thousands of years... That`s like saying that the "Baptists" have existed for thousands of years just because of "John the Baptist". His title has NO reference whatsoever to his religious believes... --Mexiswenson 02:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

With re: to question about who writes for the magazine, the names of individual authors (with the exception of first person accounts) is not published. This became the 'norm' for the magazine after the deaths of such prominent contributors as C.T. Russell and Joseph Rutherford. The apparent goal is to focus less on individuals and more on the message/information contained in the magazine (or for that matter any other form of publication produced by Jehovah's Witnesses). Writing is done by experienced Witnesses and is reviewed/edited to ensure that it is accurate in all manners (e.g., grammar, facts) and is consistent with the Bible and Witness doctrine. BibleBrown (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With re: touring the Watchtower facilities (whether in New York or other locations), public tours are available but according to a set schedule. There are times when tours are not held either for practical reasons (e.g., annually cleaning) or for special events (e.g., missionary school graduation ceremonies, etc.) Those wishing to arrange a tour can obtain contact information from their local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses or by writing the local branch office as indicated in The Watchtower magazine. BibleBrown (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pics

Hungarian watchtower: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kép:WatchtowersHU1.JPG ; http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kép:WatchtowersHU2.JPG

hmm, how could i insert those pictures to this article or other languages'? - 80.98.211.165 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Article may not adequetly convey importance

From this article Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, I can only conclude the WT is the end all for doctrine for Jehovah Witnesses. However I don't feel this article accurately conveys that. It makes it sound like it is an important part but it doesn't convey in me the same importance of The Watchtower as the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions article Nil Einne 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While The Watchtower is often the primary teaching vehicle for the Jehovah's Witnesses on this topic, it is not the only resource they use. Other tools provided to Jehovah's Witnesses have included various brochures on the topic (e.g., How Can Blood Save Your Life?), video programs (which include programs provided to the medical community on transfusion alternatives), and articles in the companion magazine Awake[2]. Although these resources are valued by Jehovah's Witnesses they do hold the Bible as the final authority on this (and other) doctrines. BibleBrown (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Awake!

I think the relationship to Awake! should be stated somewhere near the top. Possibly in the first paragraph. --Gbleem 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Name in various languages

I think a list of the name of the magazine in various languages would be interesting. Does anyone know a source? ChiLlBeserker 13:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One source is their website (http://www.watchtower.org). Some names are:

• La Tour de Garde (French)
• Der Wachtturm (German)
• Strażnica (Polish)
• La Atalaya (Spanish)

According to the January 1, 2007, issue the magazine is published monthly or semi-monthly in 167 languages and is available in print and, in a few select language, audio formats (cassettes, CDs, MP3). BibleBrown (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are these scriptures?

Can anyone explain to me why the Bible of the Jehovah`s Witnesses is missing scriptures? (Mat. 17:21, 18:21, 23:14; John 5:4) just to name a few... I have a complete list of the scriptures that aren`t in the "New World Translation". If anyone is interested in having it, let me know. My intention is not to attack the Jehovah`s Witnesses, but I really am interested in knowing if anyone can offer me a logical answer to this question. --Mexiswenson 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently using a library copy of "Today's Parallel Bible." The verses in question (note, the second one is Mt. 18:11, not 18:21) appear in the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) but only in footnotes in the New International Version and the New Living Translation. The reason is explained in the footnotes to the NASB: "Early mss (manuscripts) do not contain this v(verse)." For this reason they are not in the New World Translation, although they do appear in the footnotes of the NWT Reference Bible. Glenn L 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight, glenn. You wouldn`t happen to know the time period in which those scriptures were "added" to the bible, do you? From my understanding, the KJV of the bible is the oldest public version available and so it would only make sense to me that they were in the original manuscripts, although I could be wrong. I`ve also heard rumor of evidences that the original bible mss was corrupted around 200 a.d. Do you think that has anything to do with the scriptures that seem to have "disappeared"? --Mexiswenson 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The KJV is one of the oldest of the "popular" English Bibles but was by no means the very oldest. The Geneva Bible and the Douay version predate it, for example. But all of these 16th- and 17th-century Bibles were based on only a handful of late Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. As time has passed, older manuscripts have been discovered and used as the basis of more modern Bibles. Glenn L 03:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV / Cabal Protected Page

It's blatant that this page has ben created by someone(s) from the Jehovah's Witnesses. The references are mostly directly from the church and cannot be trusted as independent, nor valid sources. It's also obvious that this issue has been prevalent here for some time. Herein is the failing of Wikipedia. As with most religious or political pages, this page is protected by a cabal. There is no way of getting the truth out there from this page. It shoudl be deleted for just that reason. It is biased propaganda, all such pages are. Wikipedia has no mechanism to prevent that -- and in the case of some of their pet political agendas themselves, they actively encourge it. There are plenty of unethical admins in Wikiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.238.211 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Which parts do you take grievance with? Or are you just being angry? --Zikar (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the top

What is the source of information for the statements about the location of Brooklyn Bethel and other branch offices?

You can't just say it off the top of your head. It needs to be verifiable.

See "Wikipedia:Verifiability" It says that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we all think it is true."

On and on throughout the article. It might all be true, but where do we check it?

I didn't know that only the 1st edition of the month was considered the Public Edition now. The second one, dated the 15th, is apparently now the Study Edition. Even if I did know it, how do I prove it? I can't just say it, even if it is true. How you mark articles for verifiability?

It just goes on and on throughout the article.

Mandmelon (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)