From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: jws: false prophets?
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:03:16 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep26.4338.34821@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
|Todd, re:  "false prophets".  I feel you have a valid concern, but that there
|are important pieces of information missing from your treatment.
|
|In <TODD.92Sep2112309#palomar.tivoli.com>, todd@palomar.tivoli.com writes:
|>[5] Does the WTS claim to be God's prophet?  How can we tell the difference
|>    between a prophet of Jehovah and a false prophet? (see Deut 18:20-22)
|>[7] Would God allow his channel to mislead the faithful?  Would God allow his
|>    prophet to make a mistake? (remember Deut 18:20-22)  Would it be necessary
|>    for God's faithful and discreet slave to mislead of be deceptive?
|
|Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses (not "the WTS") do claim to act as a prophet
|collectively -- not as individuals, since we're all imperfect and fallible.
|
|Yes, we have changed some beliefs over the years; many of the things you've
|claimed we believe we don't believe any more.  Jehovah reveals more of truth
|and of His plans as time passes.

If God's `truth' doesn't change, how can you claim that JWs always teach the
truth, when `truth' as defined by the WTS is always changing and often is
directly opposite to what was previously taught?

|                                  For instance, the meaning of most of Daniel
|wouldn't be known until "the time of the end" by Jehovah's own decree; in the
|meantime even true worshipers wouldn't be able to understand it completely
|correctly.  (Daniel 12:4,9,10) Jesus himself told his followers:  "`I have many
|things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present.'"
|(John 16:12) This is the basic idea:  progressive revelation.  Here are a few
|Scriptural examples that come to mind:
|
|1. In John 21:20-23, Peter asked Jesus about another apostle's future.  Yet
|those Christians misunderstood Jesus' reply:
|
|    "In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that
|    disciple would not die.  However, Jesus did not say to him that he
|    would not die, but:  `If it is my will for him to remain until I come,
|    of what concern is that to you?'"  (John 21:23)
|
|Those disciples spoke about the future wrongly in Jesus' name!  Were they false
|prophets?  No; they'd simply misunderstood Jesus' words.

This example misses the point entirely.  When JWs as a whole accepted the
Watchtower Society's `near' prophecy concerning the end of the world in 1975,
spoke of it among themselves and preached about it to others, they were not
acting as prophets but merely repeating what they had been told in Watchtower
literature.  They were not false prophets as individuals.  However, can the
same be said of the organization that caused them to believe this falsehood?
What did the organization misunderstand, in view of Jesus words that no one
knew `the day nor the hour' and implied that no one would until he actually
returned?

|2. In Acts 1:6, just before Jesus' ascension, the disciples still thought that
|Jesus was going to restore the political Kingdom of Israel, despite the fact
|Jesus had taught them otherwise and even told Pilate that "my kingdom is no
|part of this world."  (John 18:36) Jesus corrected them in the next verses.
|
|The disciples had wrong beliefs about the future.  Were they false prophets?
|No; they just didn't understand completely yet.  Note that, when they were
|corrected, they changed their beliefs to be in line with what God and Christ
|had now revealed; in the later books, they no longer held to this belief.
|Similarly, we Witnesses quickly reject erroneous beliefs we may once have held
|as soon as Jehovah's progressive revelation shows that they're wrong.

What this translates to in practice is that JWs *as individuals* readily
change their beliefs when the WTS changes its mind on some doctrine.
The WTS is not so ready to change, since it accepts no advice from anyone
but members of the Governing Body, and a small number of others.

|3. In 1 Chronicles 17, the prophet Nathan spoke to David:
|
|    "And it came about that as soon as David had begun dwelling in his
|    house, David proceeded to say to Nathan the prophet:  `Here I am
|    dwelling in a house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah
|    is under tent cloths.'  Upon that Nathan said to David:  `Everything
|    that is in your heart do, for the true God is with you."  (17:1,2)
|
|Nathan is specifically called a prophet and, speaking in Jehovah's name, he
|says flatly that Jehovah is with David in constructing the temple.  But:
|
|    "And it came about on that night that the word of God came to Nathan,
|    saying:  `Go, and you must say to David my servant, "This is what
|    Jehovah has said:  `It will not be you that will build me the house in
|    which to dwell.'"'"  (17:3,4)
|
|Was Nathan a false prophet?  He spoke wrongly about Jehovah's purposes in
|Jehovah's name, and had had to be corrected!  But Jehovah didn't reject Nathan
|for what he'd said earlier but continued to use him as we keep reading on...
|but why?  Why didn't Jehovah reject this man who'd prophesied wrongly in His
|name?  Note Nathan's reaction to Jehovah's instructions:
|
|    "According to all these words and according to all this vision was the
|    way that Nathan spoke to David."  (17:15)
|
|There it is:  Nathan humbly accepted he was wrong, and CHANGED HIS MESSAGE in
|line with what he now better saw was really the truth.  He didn't proudly cover
|it over or try to justify himself; he humbly corrected the matter when Jehovah
|made it plain to him.  Todd, that's all we do.  When we see we are in error, we
|humbly correct the matter.  Of course, many have said:  "Hey, first they said
|one thing and then they said another!"  True.  "So they're false prophets!"
|No, for Nathan himself said one thing and then said another, but the reason for
|the change was that he humbly accepted divine correction when it came.

There is a big difference between what Nathan did and what the Watchtower
Society does.  Nathan was corrected the *same day* he gave the improper
information and he *immediatedly* changed his actions.  The WTS promulgated
false prophecies about 1914 for thirty five years, about 1925 for seven
years, and about 1975 for nine years.  Note that not one prophecy about
these years came true, *not one*, and yet 1914 has central significance in
JW doctrine today.  The WTS never publicly apologized for these actions.
Nor has it ever straightforwardly said, `The following is a change in
doctrine and we are making it for the following reasons.'  Rather, new
doctrines are always introduced as if no one had ever said anything about
the subject before.  In fact, it is standard policy to wait a few years until
most JWs forget what had been previously said, so that the change won't be
noticed so much.

Also note that Nathan made no predictions, which is the test of a prophet
according to Deut 18:20-22.  Why have you not addressed how JWs can make
*many* false predictions and yet not come under the condemnation of this
scripture?  All you have really said is that JW doctrinal writers have good
motives, and so should be excused for any mistakes.  Nor have you addressed
the other questions raised above.  What about `Would God allow his channel
to mislead the faithful?' `Would it be necessary for God's faithful and
discreet slave to mislead or be deceptive?'

|Wouldn't the real sin lie in learning what was right, but sticking to the error
|anyway?  As James said (in another context, but showing we should never forget
|to consider Jehovah's will):  "Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right
|and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."  (James 4:17) Yet we've seen
|"Christian" churches sticking to proven error for centuries (e.g., Galileo).

You bet!  Many people have written letters to the WTS pointing out errors,
such as those that have been repeatedly pointed out in talk.origins occur
in the book _Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?_
The letters have never even been acknowledged, much less answered.  One
JW, Carl Olof Jonsson, proved conclusively that the Society's date of
607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon was in error by twenty
years, with major implications for the key 1914 date.  But the Society took
years to respond, and when they finally did, they published a weak response
(in the 1981 book _The Kingdom Is At Hand_) that failed to address half the
issues Jonsson had pointed out.  Jonsson was eventually disfellowshipped and
later published his results in _The Gentile Times Reconsidered_.  Read
Jonsson's book for yourself, compare his arguments to those of the WTS, and
then tell me if you still think the WTS is willing to correct its
misunderstandings.

Here is another example where the WTS stuck to known error for decades,
and when it finally made the change did it in a sneaky way. I'll bet you've
never heard of this material.

When Nelson Barbour published _Three Worlds_ in 1877, which C. T. Russell
coauthored and financed, he predicted that the end of the `Gentile times'
would come in 1914.  This has become a foundation doctrine for JWs today.
In a nutshell, he and Russell predicted that the complete overthrow of all
human institutions would have been accomplished by 1914.  They did this
calculation of the `Gentile times' by starting with an incorrect date for
the return of the Jews from exile, 536 B.C.  Then they went back seventy
years according to their interpretation of how long the `desolation of
Judah' was supposed to last, to get to 606 B.C.  Then they added 2520 years
(seven `prophetic' times of 360 years each) to get to 1914.  The trouble was,
they forgot about the lack of a zero year between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D., and
should have come up with 1915 as the magic year.

Their chronology ignored that of most other scholars of the day, in that
scholars stated that the Jews returned from exile anywhere from 538 B.C.
to 536 B.C., and that Jerusalem had fallen to Babylon somewhere between 588
and 586 B.C.  The correct chronology, now extremely well established, is
that Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C., Babylon was overthrown in 539 B.C., and
the Jews returned in 537 B.C.

Russell knew of the zero-year problem as early as 1904, and even revised
several of the _STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES_ volumes in 1912 so as to
mention that 1915 was an alternate year for 1914 in his chronology.  The
incorrect date of 606 B.C. for the start of the Gentile times and for
the fall of Jerusalem was carried along until 1943, when the book _The
Truth Shall Make Your Free_, on page 239, changed the start of the
Gentile times to 607 B.C., the currently accepted date.  It explicitly
retained 606 B.C. for Jerusalem's fall, stating that Nebuchadnezzar
`destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C.'  The adjustment for
Jerusalem's fall to the summer of *607* B.C. was actually made in
the 1944 book _The Kingdom Is At Hand,_ in a footnote on page 171.
However, the change is not explained, but is merely stated as a given
in such a manner that the reader is led to believe that the change
*had* been explained in the earlier book.

On page 105 the 1988 book _Revelation - Its Grand Climax At Hand!_ mentions
the adjustment of the date 606 to 607 B.C. as occurring in _The Truth
Shall Make You Free,_ implying that this applied to both the start of
the Gentile times *and* the fall of Jerusalem.  The February 1, 1955
_Watchtower_ magazine implied something similar on page 94.  It would
be enlightening to hear your *clear* explanation of how the statements
in these texts fit together and are an exposition of truth.

The 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon is the key date in WTS chronology.
How long has it been known that 536 B.C. was the incorrect starting date
for Russell and Barbour's calculations?  The Aug. 15, 1968 _Watchtower_
gives one answer on pages 490-2:

    `Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any
    question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great.
    In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small
    sampling from books of history representing a cross section of
    both general reference works and elementary textbooks.  These
    brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently
    suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally
    accepted for the past sixty years.'

Here _The Watchtower_ admits that it has been known by `recognized
authorities,' at least as far back as 1907, that Babylon fell in 539 B.C.
Why did the WTS, under J. F. Rutherford, not make the correction?  Easy,
no one wanted to rock the boat.

The WTS is obviously dishonest with its readers in these publications
and clearly tries to avoid explaining what was being changed and why.
The above mentioned 1955 _Watchtower_ said that _The Kingdom Is At Hand_
`acknowledged' the change for the date of Jerusalem's fall.  But _The
Kingdom Is At Hand_ made no such acknowledgement, explicitly stating
that _The Truth Shall Make You Free_ made the adjustment.  But _The
Truth Shall Make You Free_ made no such adjustment at all.  Its
`explanation' of why it changed the `Gentile times' date from 606 to 607
B.C. is nothing but a whitewash.  The real reason the date was changed
was that Fred Franz, who wrote the 1940s books, decided it was time, now
that Rutherford had been dead for a year.

In view of the above information, can you honestly say that the Watchtower
Society is forthright and honest with its readers?  Note that the
information to correct the 606 B.C. date to 607 B.C. had been available,
according to the 1968 _Watchtower_, since *at least* 1907.  Actually, the
information has been available since the mid 1800s, but Barbour and Russell
liked the dates they picked for other reasons I won't go into here.  Isn't
it, therefore, true that the WTS knew what was right, but stuck to the
error anyway? Why do *you* think they stuck to the 606 B.C. date for so many
years after knowing the truth?  Isn't it true that the 1955 _Watchtower_
and the _Revelation_ book are covering up what really happened?

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc