The New World Translation and the Restoration of God's Name 237 Times in the New Testament

In the O(ld) T(estament), God's personal name appears nearly 7,000 times as four consonants: יהוה. These consonants are transliterated YHWH and are known as the Tetragrammaton. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as "Sovereign Lord" or "God," applied to Him.

Yes, most of the physical evidence found in existing N(ew) T(estament) manuscripts does not support "Jehovah" in the New Testament. But what makes such a difference is the belief that BOTH "Testaments" are the word of God and must not contradict each other in important areas of knowledge.

We can accept both "Testaments" as the inspired word of God and still see understandable differences occurring between the two, but not basic contradictory differences. For example, we know how and why animal sacrifices to God have been done away with. It has been carefully, logically explained in the NT and, therefore, does not contradict the OT teachings where such sacrifices were required (essential). But where is the careful, logical explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT?

It's not there. How can it be that God reveals His personal name and commands that it be publicly acknowledged and used forever by His servants (and they respectfully do so for over a thousand years) and then, for no Scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin refusing to use that name and even hide it?

Therefore, if we are to keep the Scriptures from terribly contradicting themselves in an extremely important area, we must conclude that either the OT Scriptures are wrong or the oldest available NT manuscripts and fragments (at least those which actually contain places that quote from the OT where "YHWH" was originally used) are copies that have been changed from the original. Since the name of God being used as YHWH even in everyday life is attested to by archaeological findings back to the 8th century B. C. at least, we are really forced to conclude that, yes, the existing NT manuscripts are terribly wrong in this particular area.

Therefore, we know that the Name belongs in the NT. Besides, the manuscripts we have today were copies of copies, etc., written hundreds of years after the originals, and therefore may well have been changed when the name became a hated "Jewish" name to "Christians" (around 135 A.D.).

Scholars know for a fact that words and whole phrases have been added or removed from various ancient copies of the New Testament, but that doesn't make the New Testament unreliable, since many or most of the additions or subtractions can be recognized or restored.
But even with these changes, the Name has not been entirely left out of the N.T. since Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6 still retains "Alleluia":

"ALLELUIA, the Greek form (Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6) of the Hebrew Hallelujah = Praise ye JEHOVAH, which begins or ends several of the psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, etc.)." – Easton's Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ., 1897.

Yes, God's name originally was in the Greek Scriptures because it would be inconceivable that the Bible writers did not use God's name, especially when quoting from parts of the "Old Testament" that contained the name. If God's name did not belong in the New Testament, then why did Jesus tell us to pray for its sanctification? (Mt. 6:9)

So it should not be considered terribly wrong to restore, for the sake of clarity if nothing else, the name we know belongs there. Many other respected Bibles add personal names to their translations for clarity when they weren’t actually in the New Testament text to begin with.

Yet some condemn the New World Translation Bible for restoring God's Name some 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, these places are where it was likely there originally. Places where the Christian Greek Scripture writers quote the earlier Hebrew Scriptures already containing God's name. Many translators have done this. Really, shouldn't any condemnation be directed toward the many Bibles that have removed God's Name nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (when the Name is clearly there)?

The Importance of God's Name

We are to know and use Jehovah's name, but we must not misunderstand how extremely important it is to Him (and to us). One of God's Ten Commandments, for example commands:

"You shall not misuse the name of Yahweh your God, for Yahweh will not leave unpunished anyone who misuses his name." - Ex. 20:7, NJB [cf. NRSV, NIV, NEB, REB, GNB, NLV, ETRV].

God certainly didn't say, "Don't ever use my Holy Name". By direct Bible statements and commands and by the clear, thousand-fold repeated examples of all the prophets of God in the OT we know that God's Holy Name must be known and used by his people

God Himself makes it clear in the Bible how important His name is:

"Jehovah ... This is my name for ever; this is my title in every generation." (Ex. 3:15) - NEB; Also see 1 Chron. 16:8; Is. 12:4; Zeph. 3:9; and Ps. 83:16-18)

For much more, see:

Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament? (w08 8/1 pp. 18-23; Watchtower Online Library)

God's Name and the New Testament (Search Results From the Watchtower Online Library)

The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures Heb., יהוה (YHWH) (Watchtower Online Library)

"Jehovah" in The New Testament (Search For Bible Truths)

Hallelujah / Jah - The Removal of God's Name and Why "Hallelujah" Remained (Search For Bible Truths)

NWT - Criticism by Zondervan's So Many Versions? - "Jehovah" in the New Testament (Defending the NWT)

On the Form of the Divine Name "Jehovah" (In Defense of the NWT)

Should God's name “Jehovah" appear in the New Testament? (Search For Bible Truths)

YHWH in the New Testament (Jehovah's Witnesses United)

"Jehovah" 50 or 237 places in the New Testament? (Examining Countess' list) (Defending the NWT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Rev. 3:14 - Does 'Arkhe' Mean "Beginning" or Does it Mean "Origin" or "Source"?

As the following will show, the Watchtower Society is correct when it says that when Jesus called himself "the beginning [Greek – arkhe/arche, arch] of the creation of God" - Rev. 3:14, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NKJV, MLB, Douay, Byington, Rotherham, Lattimore, Lamsa, Phillips, Darby, Webster, etc. - he meant "the first thing created by God."

Some trinitarians, however, insist that the word arkhe (sometimes written in English as arche) here does not mean "beginning" but should be rendered "source" or "origin." (For an examination of the mistranslation for this word as "Ruler" here, see the Beginning, Wisdom, Firstborn study, starting with par. #4.)

So the real question is: Do the writers of the New Testament ever use arkhe to mean "source" or "origin"? And, more importantly, since John wrote Rev. 3:14, does John ever use arkhe to mean "source," "origin," or "ruler"?

The only NT word John has used when he intended the meaning of "beginning" is arkhe. (The only apparent exception to this is archomai (arkhomai) found at John 8:9 - see p. 139 in the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. However, even trinitarian scholars admit that this verse is spurious, not written by John but added by a later copyist! - [Jn 9:32 should be more literally translated "from of old".])

To say that John meant "origin" or "source" when he used arkhe at Rev. 3:14 ignores two important facts:

(1) Nowhere else does John use arkhe as "source," "origin," or "beginner."[See footnote #4] In the 23 times it is found in the writings of John (in the text used by the King James translators), it is always understood in the sense of "beginning" and is always so translated in the KJV. (And every time arkhe is found in the writings of John - 21 times in the text used by the NASB - it is also always translated "beginning" in that most-respected trinitarian Bible.) Here are all the uses of arkhe by John according to Young's Analytical Concordance: John 1:1; 1:2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25; 8:44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7 (twice in KJV); 2:13; 2:14; 2:24 (twice); 3:8; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Rev.1:8 (KJV); 3:14; 21:6; and 22:13. Notice that the ASV, RSV, etc. also translate these as "beginning" or "first" (in time).

John consistently used arkhe to mean only "beginning." Since it is John's writing we are concerned with at Rev. 3:14, this is of utmost importance.[See footnote #5]

(2) If John had really intended to use a word for "origin," "source," or "beginner," he could have easily done so. As we will see later, there would have been no reason to use a word that he consistently and frequently used to mean only "beginning."

The Expositor's Greek Testament (trinitarian, of course) tells us that to understand Rev. 3:14 as meaning that Jesus is "the active source" of creation, instead of the first created person, one must interpret arkhe "as in Greek philosophy and Jewish wisdom-literature, = aitia or origin."

Isn't it odd that the Greek word actually used for this philosophical concept is aitia which can honestly mean "cause" or "source"? If the word actually used is aitia, why must one interpret arkhe with a similar meaning? Why wouldn't John have simply used the word aitia if that's what he intended?

The trinitarian theologian Albert Barnes says concerning the NT Greek word arkhe:

"The word properly refers to the commencement of a thing, not its authorship, and denotes properly primacy in time, and primacy in rank, but not primacy in the sense of causing anything to exist.... the word is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he caused it to have an existence." - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, p. 1569. [See footnote #6]

We also see the highly respected BDAG admits the same for the use of arkhe (or arche) in Rev. 3:14.[See footnote #7]

Although there are other words which (more appropriately than arkhe) may be properly translated "source," "cause," "origin," etc., there is one word which is most frequently so used throughout the Bible in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. This word emphasizes the strong Biblical comparison between "creation" and "procreation." (E.g., "brought forth" at Ps. 90:2 is "begotten" in the original Hebrew and is paralleled here with "gave birth to the earth" - NASB.)

Only the Father is the Source of Creation

It is because of this common Bible metaphor that "father" was considered as synonymous (whether as "creator" or "procreator") with "source"! - See p. 190, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984.

The famous Biblical Hebrew authority, Gesenius, tells us that "Father" means:

"Of the author, or maker, of anything, specially of the creator.... And in this sense God is said to be `the father of men,' Is. 63:16; 64:8; [etc.]. All these ... come from the notion of origin." - p. 2, Gesenius' Lexicon.

Trinitarian Robert Young in his Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 331, also shows this meaning for the Hebrew word ab, " ! : "Father, ancestor, source, inventor."[See footnote #8]

God's people have used "Father" synonymously with "source" or "origin" for thousands of years. When they wanted to use a word that denotes absolute "source" they most often used "Father."[See footnote #9] Obviously the Son is not the "source of creation" - his Father is! (And what could be more appropriate than the Father's very first creation being called his "Firstborn Son"?)

So John's (and Jesus' and all Bible writers') repeated use of the term "Father" for God stresses over and over that Jesus' Father (and our Father) is the ultimate source who, because of his will (Rev. 4:11) and his spoken command (Ps. 33:6, 8, 9; Ps. 148:5) caused (originated) all things to be made through the obedient efforts of his Firstborn Son, Jesus.

So we can see that the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be. "His son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he made the world." - Heb. 1:2. "All things came into being through [dia] him.... The world was made through [dia] him" - John 1:3,10.

Notice how the strongly trinitarian NT Greek experts, Dana and Mantey, explain this scripture:

"`All things were made through him.' Jn 1:3. Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos [Jesus] as the intermediate agent." - p. 162, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

"For us there is but one God, the Father [compare John 17:1, 3], from [ex or ek, literally: `out of'] whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] whom are all things, and we exist through [dia] him." - 1 Cor. 8:6. Concerning this very scripture even the highly trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology has to admit:

"in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the SOURCE of creation is distinguished from Christ's role as mediator of creation." - p. 1182, Vol. 3.

Also see The NIV Study Bible footnote for 1 Cor. 8:6:

"See Heb 2:10. God the Father is the ultimate Source of all creation (Ac 4:24)."

The Encyclopedia of Religion states:

"God the Father is source of all that is (pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ" - 1987, Vol. 15, p. 54.

It should be obvious to all that, if the Father is the source of creation and Jesus is the intermediate agent, then Rev. 3:14 cannot be calling Jesus the "source" or "origin" of creation!

For more, see:

NWT - Rev. 3:14 (Defending the NWT)

BWF - 'Beginning,' 'Wisdom,' and 'Firstborn' (Examining the Trinity)

Revelation 3:14 "...the beginning of the creation by God." (IN Defense of the NWT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Why are some verses missing in the New World Translation Bible?

Some verses, such as Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Luke 17:36 are missing in the New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, these verses are ALSO not in the Common Bible (an ecumenical edition for Catholics and Protestants), The New English Bible, and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, to name a few.

The reason is because these verses actually do not belong in the Bible even though many older translations included them. The original manuscripts of the “New Testament” books (the Christian Greek Scriptures) are not available today for use by translators. No one has discovered a Bible book “autographed,” as it were, by the apostles Paul, John, or others. Yet it is evident that soon after the originals were written, copies began to be made for use by the early Christians. The later copies, those farthest from the originals, tended to have more mistakes.

For more, see:

'Missing' texts from the NWT (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Bible Translation and Study
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

In Jude 9, why couldn't Michael the Archangel make a judgement against the Devil?

Jude 1:9 is one of the most common arguments presented in a desperate attempt to disprove Michael being Christ's prehuman name. Yet, to say this one must misconstrue Jude 9 and also require us to be ignorant of the Greek words used in these verses.

First, in Greek Jude 9 does not say that Michael COULD NOT "rebuke" (EPITIMAO) Satan. Rather, what he refused to do was to "judge abusively" or bring a "railing accusation" (KRISIS BLASPHEMEO) against Satan.

This is something that Jesus never did of anyone while he was on earth.

"Krisis does not come under category of accusation. But signifies a passing of judgement, a decision given concerning anything."—Vine's Greek Expository Dictionary; 28

The NIV says: "But even the archangel Michael, ...did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Although more powerful than humans, angels also do not use harsh abusive language (KRISIS BLASPHEMEO) even of human opposers (2Pt. 2:11).

And when Jesus did "rebuke" (EPITIMHSAI) the demons (Mt 17:18), it is made clear by the parallel account (Mr 9:29) that it still was not done on his own authority but through prayer to God (Jn.8:15,16,28; Jn.5:19,30). This is a different Greek word than that which Christ refused to do in Jude.

So Christ's rebuke of Mat 17 was not the same as that spoken of in Jude. This rebuke did not equal a final judgement, a KRISIS BLASFHMEW, something even Christ will not do until God's future time (Jn.3:17; 12:47; 2Tim.4:1; Heb 2:7-9; 10:12,13; Jd.1:6).

Further, these same words are used by “The Angel of the LORD (YHWH)” at Zech 3:2. And most Trinitarians agree that the "Angel of Jehovah" is the Christ, a so-called theophany. So even Christ as the Angel of the LORD refused to rebuke Satan, but said at Zech 3:2: "Jehovah rebuke you," exactly the words of Michael. The angel of YHWH and Michael both reacted the same way to Satan, saying 'Jehovah rebuke you' because Michael is 'the angel of YHWH'.

Also Jesus had to be GIVEN the power to judge (KRISIS) (2Pet. 2:11; Heb. 2:7-9; 10:12,13). Yet, even then it would not be of his own authority (Jn 5:19,30). So, Jesus didn't run ahead of Jehovah's appointed time for dealing with Satan. He also waited on God in heaven after resurrection.

So, while both Michael and Christ refused to directly rebuke Satan, now they BOTH do! In Rev 12:7 Michael rebukes Satan in the most forceful way, defeating him in battle with HIS angels, casting him down to the earth and then hurling him into the abyss (Rev. 20:1-3). This is something that the Scriptures said Christ would do (Mt 8:29).

Therefore, Jude 9 does not preclude Jesus from being Michael. Again, *both* Michael and Jesus had to wait for God to sanction their action against their enemies.


Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is not affected in the slightest if Michael is not Christ. Therefore, it is no problem if our logical conclusions regarding Michael are proved wrong when those new scrolls are opened! (Jn.17:3; 1Jn.4:15; Rm.10:9) On the other hand, Trinitarians are aware of the difficulties caused if Christ is identified as Michael due to the extremely strong implications of his inferiority.

While there is no evidence that Jesus is not Michael, the doctrine that Jesus is not God almighty is a very clear and explicit teaching in the Bible. At least 17 times scriptures say that Jesus has a God over him which clearly proves that Jesus cannot be Almighty God (Mic.5:4; Ps.45:7; 89:26; Mat.27:46; Mk. 15:34; Jn.20:17; Rom.15:6; 1Cor.11:3; 15:24-28; 2Cor.1:3; Eph.1:17; Heb.1:9; 1Pt.1:3; Rev.1:6; 3:2,12).

And Scriptures repeatedly show that Jesus is less than God at every point of his existence. At the highest position he will ever attain, Jesus still has a God over him and is "subject" to *GOD* the same way we are "subject" to him (Jn. 14:28; 1Cor.15:27,28).

Now, a comparison of Biblical statements lead to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Michael was Christ's heavenly name. Because of this solid scriptural evidence that Michael is Christ, even many Trinitarians have agreed that Michael is one of the names of the Christ, including most early Catholic and Protestant"Church Fathers," and many modern scholars.

Source: This is the Best Answer to this question from Yahoo! Answers

Additional Reading:

Archangel - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

How Do Jehovah's Witnesses View Dancing?

Jehovah's Witnesses base all of their beliefs, their standards for conduct, and organizational procedures on the Bible. The Bible does not outright condemn dancing in itself. In fact, Jesus Christ even told a parable in Luke 15:25 in which dancing was mentioned as part of the occasion at the homecoming of the prodigal son. So Jesus didn't disapprove of dancing in itself; or else he wouldn't have mentioned it as part of a worthy celebration. Most importantly, God does not condemn the act of dancing itself. In fact, Ecclesiastes 3:4 mentions that "There is a time to skip about ["the time for dancing," TEV]."

Dancing in the Bible That Was Acceptable to God

The Bible has often mentioned dancing:

After Israel witnessed the demonstration of God's power in destroying the Egyptians, they expressed their thanks and praise to God through singing and dancing. When the men joined Moses in singing a victory song, Miriam led the women in dances to the accompaniment of tambourines:

"And Mir´i·am the prophetess, Aaron's sister, proceeded to take a tambourine in her hand; and all the women began going out with her with tambourines and in dances." (Ex 15:20)

There was also the account of Jephthah's daughter's victory dance. She came out to join her father in praising God for having given the Ammonites into his hands:

"Finally Jeph´thah came to Miz´pah to his home, and, look! his daughter coming out to meet him with tambourine playing and dancing!" (Judges 11:34)

Other dances motivated by deep religious feelings were included...

...by the women of Israel, who danced to the music of lutes and tambourines and welcomed Saul and David back after God's victory over the Philistines. (1 Sam. 18:6, 7; 21:11; 29:5)

... in parts of certain annual festivals in connection with the worship of God. (Judges 21:19-21, 23)

...as a general means of honoring and praising God: "Praise Jah, you people! . . . Let them praise his name with dancing. With the tambourine and the harp let them make melody to him." "Praise him with the tambourine and the circle dance."—Ps 149:1, 3; 150:4.

...by King David on the occasion when the ark of the covenant finally arrived in Jerusalem: "And David was dancing around before Jehovah with all his power, . . . leaping and dancing around before Jehovah." (2 Sam. 6:14-17)

Dancing in the Bible That Was NOT Acceptable to God

However, even though dancing in itself is not wrong, some in the Bible participated in things that God does disapprove of through dancing (i.e. pagan worship, being sexually suggestive). There is quite a contrast between the acceptable dancing mentioned in the above paragraphs (dancing "to God's glory") and the pagan dancing that is also mentioned in the Bible. For instance, when the Israelites made the golden calf, they then participated in a form of pagan dancing before their idol, of which God condemned. (Ex. 32:6, 17-19)

Also, the worship of Baal was associated with wild, unrestrained dances. In Elijah's time, the priests of Baal participated in a demonic dance and lacerated themselves with knives as they kept "limping around" the altar. (1 Kings 18:26-29) Other translations describe this "limping around" as a "dance".

The Basic Principle for Christians Concerning Dancing

The basic principle for Christians is to do "all things to God's glory." (1 Cor. 10:31) So Christians need to ask themselves, "Is the type of dancing I am considering to participate acceptable to God? Is the type of dancing I am considering to participate in viewed as sexually suggestive or sensual? Is the type of dancing I am considering to participate in considered as a detraction from my worship to the only true God?"

If the answer to any of the questions above is "yes", then true Christians should avoid those types of dances.

Through the Bible, God has set down principles that should guide a Christian in all his ways which includes the types of dances to participate in. The Bible says at 1 Pet. 1:15 for us to: "Become holy yourselves in ALL your conduct."

Additional Reading:

Dancing (Jehovah's Witnesses United Glossary; Scroll down to "Dancing")

Dancing (Insight-1 pp. 574-575; Watchtower Online Library)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe That Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

Before considering the quotes and sources below, it is important to address a large problem that exists where many do not have the proper understanding of what the literal definition of "angel" in the Bible is. Both the Hebrew mal·´akh´ and the Greek ag´ge·los literally mean “messenger.” When spirit messengers are indicated, the words are translated “angels,” but if the reference definitely is to humans, the rendering is “messengers.” (Gen. 16:7; 32:3; Jas. 2:25; Rev. 22:8) Whether human or angelic messengers are meant can be determined by the context.

When Jesus was on earth, he was God's foremost messenger. He was called the "Word" because he was God's Spokesman. (John 12:49, 50; 14:10; 7:16, 17)

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider that Jesus is just an angel. Scripture suggests that he is the Archangel. Archangel means “chief angel.” And since the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural, this suggests that there is only one such angel. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This Scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael. (For much more on the subject, see the ARCHANGEL category or use the search boxes above.)


Quotes From Scholars Concerning Jesus as Michael the Archangel


Jehovah's Witnesses today are not (and have not been) the only ones to understand Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth. From early Christian writings until now there have been many who have believed this.
The Universal Standard Encyclopedia stated of early Christian scholar Origen (185-254 A. D.) that he was "probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church". Origen wrote:

* "There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

* Back in the early 1800's, Bible scholar Joseph Benson stated that the description of Michael as found in the Bible "manifestly points out the Messiah."　

* Nineteenth-century Lutheran E. W. Hengstenberg agreed that "Michael is no other than Christ."

* Similarly, theologian J. P. Lange, when commenting on Revelation 12:7, wrote: "We take it that Michael . . . is, from the outset, Christ in warlike array against Satan."

* Clarke’s Commentary (Adam Clarke)

Jude :9

“Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host. Nor is the word devil, as applied to the great enemy of mankind, ever found in the plural; there can be but one monarch of all fallen spirits. Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders; the devil, great dragon, or Satan, is head of all the diabolic orders. When these two hosts are opposed to each other they are said to act under these two chiefs, as leaders; hence in Revelation 12:7, it is said: MICHAEL and his angels fought against the DRAGON and his angels. The word Michael lakym, seems to be compounded of ym mi, who, k ke, like, and la El, God; he who is like God; hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus.”

* The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation

“12:7 And there was war in heaven: 14 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“(14) Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod….”

* John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 7 Chapter 5:

“1b2. Another prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 respects the second and personal coming of Christ; for he is meant by Michael, who is "as God", as his name signifies, equal to him; the ‘great prince,’ the prince of the kings of the earth, and the head of all principalities and powers.”

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel 12:1

“Ver. 1.

And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;”

And even trinitarian Bible scholar W. E. Vine (“recognized as one of the world’s foremost [Bible] Greek scholars”) tells us that this “voice of the archangel” (1 Thess. 4:16) is apparently “the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ”! - p. 64, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

* The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:

“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

* Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

* John Wesley:

Chapter XII

A promise of deliverance, and of a joyful resurrection, ver. 1 - 4. A conference concerning the time of these events, ver. 5 - 7. An answer to Daniel's enquiry, ver. 8 - 13. For the children - The meaning seems to be, as after the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation. A time of trouble - A the siege of Jerusalem, before the final judgment. The phrase at that time, probably includes all the time of Christ, from his first, to his last coming.

Wesley on Daniel 10:21: "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it."

* Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758):

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, “Angels”:

“II. When Lucifer rebelled and set up himself as a head in opposition to God and Christ, and drew away a great number of the angels after him, Christ, the Son of God, manifested himself as an opposite head, and appeared graciously to dissuade and restrain by his grace the elect angels from hearkening to Lucifer’s temptation, so that they were upheld and preserved from eternal destruction at this time of great danger by the free and sovereign distinguishing grace of Christ. Herein Christ was the Saviour of the elect angels, for though he did not save them as he did elect men from the ruin they had already deserved, and were condemned to, and the miserable state they were already in, yet he saved them from eternal destruction they were in great danger of, and otherwise would have fallen into with the other angels. The elect angels joined with him, the glorious Michael, as their captain, while the other angels hearkened to Lucifer and joined with him, and then was that literally true that was fulfilled afterwards figuratively.

Rev. xii. ‘When there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was there place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.’ ”

* William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:

There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)--William L. Alexander, ed., A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A and C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

* "The two passages in the New Testament, in which Michael is mentioned, serve to confirm the result already arrived at. That the Michael referred to in Rev. xii. 7 is no other than the Logos, [the Word - the Son of God] has already been proved in my commentary upon that passage." —Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, 1836-9, Vol. IV, pp. 304-5 (in the T. and T. Clark publication; p. 269 in the Kregel publication).

* Brown's Dictionary of the Bible

on the words 'Michael' and 'Angel' says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.

* Wood's Spiritual Dictionary

teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist.

* Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.
* Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.

* Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ: and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap. xviii throughout. Exod. iii. 2-7. Judg. ii. 1-5, Dan x. 13, 21. Chap. xii. 1, Rev. xii. 7.

* Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:

"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.

* And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was

"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.

* "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982

* "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
------------------------------------

* "ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.

* "The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Understand "Wisdom" to be at Proverbs 8:22-31?

When examining Proverbs 8:22-31, some have argued that this passage isn't talking about Jesus but rather Wisdom itself personified. They further may point out that Wisdom may previously have been referred to in the feminine gender.

However, in Prov. Chapter 8, Wisdom is manifest only by being expressed in some way. God's own wisdom was expressed in creation (Prov. 3:19, 20) but through his Son. Many professed Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era understood Prov. 8:22-31 to refer symbolically to God's Son in his pre-human state. In fact, the understanding that "Wisdom" in Prov. 8:22-30 is, in reality, figurative of Jesus in his pre-human existence has always existed in the majority of churches that call themselves Christian. It was commonly noted in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity (including such noted scholars as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.) Many Bible scholars (trinitarians included) have even said that this connection was made in the New Testament at 1 Cor. 1:24. (For a list of quotes from trinitarian scholars admitting this, see: Prov. 8:22-30 "Wisdom" and Christ; Examining the Trinity)

Wisdom in the Feminine Gender

It is true that in Hebrew, which assigns gender to its nouns (as do many other languages), the word for "wisdom" is always in the feminine gender. This would continue to be the case even though wisdom is personified and so would not rule out wisdom's being used figuratively to represent God's firstborn Son. For instance, the Greek word for "love" in the expression "God is love" (1 John 4:8) is also in the feminine gender but that does not make God feminine.

Wisdom Used Figuratively, Not Literally

Jehovah God is the Creator of all things. He is uncreated, without beginning (Rev. 4:11). Job 36:26 says, "In number his years are beyond searching." It is impossible to place an age upon him, for there is no starting point from which to measure. Because He is ageless, He is properly called "the Ancient of Days" since His existence stretches endlessly into the past. (Dan. 7:9, 13) And so, since Jehovah God has existed forever, therefore wisdom had to have always existed within Jehovah forever. (Ps. 90:2)

So we could ask those using these trinitarian arguments: If Prov. 8:22-31 is really talking about literal wisdom itself, than how could wisdom even have been "begotten"? How could it have even been "produced", "set up", "created", or "made"? If this was talking about literal wisdom itself, then how could wisdom be "beside" God or "before" Him? How could wisdom be "the one He was specially fond of"?

So instead of literal Wisdom itself (of which God had to already have in order to "beget", "produce", "set up", "create", or "make" anything), when Prov. 8:22 also says that the subject is, "the earliest of his achievements of long ago", this corresponds more to the description of Jesus in Col. 1:15 where it says that he is "the first-born of all creation". Or when Prov. 8:23 says, "From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth", this corresponds more to the description of Jesus in Micah 5:2 where it says that his "origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite". Or when Prov. 8:22 says, "Jehovah God himself produced me as the beginning of his way," this corresponds more to the description of Jesus in Rev. 3:14 where it says that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God".

And as for the Hebrew word 'qanah', it can mean either to "produce, acquire, create" or "possess". Context is key in finding out which one it means. Bibles which are biased toward the Trinity do not want to render it as "Produce" or something similar because that would mean that Jesus has a beginning, and that would contradict the Trinity doctrine.

Yet, because the context of Prov. 8:22-31 so overwhelmingly supports the translation of the word 'qanah' as "create", even scores of trinitarian bibles have decided to render it as such.

Additional Reading:

Does "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 refer to the Messiah, and does it say that he was created? (Search For Bible Truths)

Is Proverbs 8:22-31 talking about Wisdom personified instead of Jesus? Why is Wisdom referred to in the feminine gender? (Search For Bible Truths)

Scores of trinitarian bibles have decided to render the word 'qanah' as "create". (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Prov. 8:22-30 "Wisdom" and Christ (Examining the Trinity)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Jehovah's Witnesses - Are Wearing Beards Discouraged?

It may be noticeable that the wearing of beards by Jehovah's Witnesses in certain territories is not common. Thus, some have made the incorrect conclusion that the wearing of beards is forbidden if you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses understand that there is nothing in the Bible that says that wearing a beard displeases God or Christ. In fact, during Jesus' time on earth it was customary to wear beards. Christians came first from a Jewish background, and Jewish men wore beards. Beards were a sign of maturity, wisdom, and piety.

Like all other Jews, Jesus was under obligation to keep the whole law. One of the commandments of the Law was: “You must not cut your side locks short around, and you must not destroy the extremity of your beard.” (Lev. 19:27) God doubtless gave Israel this law because among some pagans it was the practice to cut the beard in a certain fashion in worship of their gods. (Jer. 9:26; 25:23) Nevertheless, that law did not mean that a beard was not to be well kept, for in the Near East a well-groomed beard was considered a symbol of dignity and respectability. (2 Sam. 19:24)

Today however, Jehovah's Witnesses, like the early Christians, are concerned with neatness and cleanness, and they strive to dress inconspicuously so that their appearance does not in any way detract from the dignity or the effectiveness of the message they bear. (2 Cor. 6:3, 4) In recent years in many lands a beard or long hair on a man attracts immediate notice and may, in the minds of the majority, classify such a person undesirably with extremists or as rebels against society. God’s ministers want to avoid making any impression that would take attention away from their ministry or hinder anyone from listening to the truth. They know that people are watching true Christians very critically and that to a great extent they judge the entire congregation and the good news by the minister’s appearance as a representative of the congregation.

Local congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses must weigh community sensibilities in determining whether a man with a beard would tend to cause apprehension in the area. Like the apostle Paul, Jehovah's Witnesses certainly have a tradition of yielding their personal preferences "for the sake of the good news". (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) Modern Christian men might reflect on the principle first-century Christian men set who might have preferred to keep their foreskins (with similar justifications), yet yielded to circumcision once they understood that uncircumcision might be an obstacle to those who would hear "the good news". (Acts 16:1-3)

Additional Reading:

BEARD (Insight; pp. 266-267; Watchtower Online Library)

"Would it be proper for Christian men to wear a neatly trimed beard? We all know in biblical times Christian men had them including Jesus." (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

Appearance (Physical) (Search For Bible Truths)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs), please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information about the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's (WTBTS) Bible-based beliefs and practices, you should look to our OFFICIAL WEBSITE at http://www.jw.org/en. Numerous publications as well as the New World Translation Bible (NWT) and the very useful Watchtower Online Library can be found there.)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG

Why was the New World Translation Bible Originally Printed, and How Accurate is it?

Why was the New World Translation Bible Printed?

There were several reasons why the NWT was originally printed:

1) Most of the other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences,

2) Older and more reliable Bible manuscripts were becoming available,

3) As a result of archaeological discoveries, the Greek language of the first century was becoming more clearly understood, and

4) The languages into which translations are made undergo changes over the years. (For instance, who today really talks like this?: "And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?" - Gen. 32:17; KJV)

Jehovah's Witnesses wanted a translation that was of the latest scholarship, one that was without spot by creeds or traditions, a literal translation that faithfully presented what is in the original writings and a translation that would be clear and understandable to modern-day readers. (Read the New World Translation Bible online.)

How Accurate is The New World Translation?

Concerning it's accuracy, the New World Translation has been found to be "one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available" and is "the most accurate of the [8 major] translations compared." -Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff, Arizona

The comments made by Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel can be found by clicking on the link below:
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2009/09/nwt_7717.html

Recommended Links to Information and Quotes Praising and Supporting the New World Translation: Scholarly Quotes on the New World Translation (From God's Word)
Advantages of the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses United)
Advantages of the NWT (In Defense of the NWT)
The New World Translation (Pastor Russell)

Accusations Against The New World Translation Hypocritical 

Some have hypocritically accused the New World Translation Bible of inaccuracies, bias, and written by those with poor credentials. When, in reality, what kind of credentials do the writers of most every other modern Bible have? And yet these copyists allowed the insertion the title "LORD" instead of the divine name in most of the nearly SEVEN THOUSAND instances in their 'translation' of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not only is this inaccurate, but it is a purposeful, blatant misuse of God's Name! (Ex. 20:7) The NWT is accurate in that it uses God's Name in all instances found in Scripture. (Also see "Jehovah" in The New Testament.)

Also, (unlike the NWT) most of these other translations used were made by those who were influenced by the pagan philosophies and unscriptural traditions that their religious systems had passed down from long ago as well as other influences. For just one instance, the majority of Bible scholars (including Trinitarian ones) freely admit that 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version is spurious. But Trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to ADD it to the Holy Scriptures because of their trinitarian biases.
(Also see: How Can You Choose a Good Bible Translation?; w08 5/1 pp. 18-22; Watchtower Online Library)

For more, see:

A “Remarkably Good” Translation (w04 12/1 p. 30; Watchtower Online Library)

Comments by Greek Scholars (g 11/07 pp. 12-14; Watchtower Online Library)

Advantages of the “New World Translation” (si pp. 327-331; Watchtower Online Library)

Why Have We Produced the New World Translation? (JW.ORG)

Index of Links and Pages that Defend the New World Translation (Defending The New World Translation)

NWT FAQs (Defending The New World Translation) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Why Did The Translators of the New World Translation Bible Choose to Remain Anonymous?

Some Jehovah's Witnesses opposers take great exception to the fact that the NWT translators choose to remain anonymous. They imply cowardice, dishonesty, and incompetence as the motives behind such anonymity. In fact, however, such anonymity has been a part of the Watchtower Society for much of its history and in all phases of its publishing activity. The reason has always been to keep from glorifying any man when it is Jehovah and Jesus who deserve the recognition. Humility is extremely important to any real Christian as the Scriptures clearly teach, and every Jehovah's Witness should be able to produce clear scriptural evidence for his belief in this area.

It should be sufficient to point out what one respected organization says (and does). Yes, the Lockman Foundation states in the preface to their New American Standard Bible: "no work will ever be personalized." (And the jacket of the 1971 Reference Edition of the NASB states even more clearly: "We have not used any scholar's name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God's Word should stand on its merits.")

And, sure enough, they do not identify their translators. Why? Because, as they write in their preface: "They shall give to the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him, and no work will ever be personalized." So when detractors of Jehovah's Witnesses mock the Watchtower Society for its humility, they also mock other respected "orthodox" organizations attempting to follow God's Word in this respect.

Just as a man should be judged by his actions, a Bible should be judged on its accuracy of rendering the Greek and Hebrew texts (not on who translated, nor what any prejudiced source says, nor by comparison to another translation, etc.).

Additional Reading:

Translation and revision of Lev. 23:21 proves that the NWT translators DID know Hebrew (Defending Jehovah's Witnesses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gregorian Calendar

Some have suggested that because the Watchtower Society has adopted the use of the Gregorian calendar which uses the names of pagan Roman gods, that they are not totally untouched by the influence of paganism.

However, this is purely specious reasoning used as an excuse to participate in customs which are truly pagan celebrations with all the trimmings.

The calendar currently used by the Watchtower Society is the Gregorian calendar. This calendar is named in honour of Pope Gregory XIII. Its months are named in honour of the pagan Roman kings/gods Augustus (August), and Julius (July) as well as having months named in honour of Roman and Greek gods and goddesses such as Janus (January), Mars (March), Maia (May), Juno (June), and a pagan ritual- "febura" (February).

And some of the days of the week are named for Norse gods (and others): Woden's Day; Thor's Day; Freya's Day - but it is obtuse to think that, although these names are involved, that we are honoring these pagan gods by using the common day and month designations for our society. We have no practical option but to use them.

But as for customs which are devoted to honoring these gods, we do have a choice and, according to Scripture, we should take advantage of that choice.

There are many things which originated, necessarily, under paganism. Pharmacies, Doctors, and who knows what all, but that doesn't make these necessary things a celebration of pagan gods. What is being spoken to by Jehovah's Witnesses is the participation of Christendom in paganistic customs and celebrations which were deliberately borrowed by the Church from pagan celebrations and ceremonies honoring their gods.

There simply is no honest comparison between using necessary information such as the universal use of pagan names for days, months, cities, personal names, etc. with the personal CHOICE to celebrate completely nonessential pagan celebrations.

The early Christians didn't see the need to use their own alternate names for (nor to avoid going to) cities and places which had pagan-related names, nor using the paganistic personal names of individuals. (See Luke and Paul's examples below.) There is a place for reasonable avoidance of actual customs and celebrations devoted to pagan gods and the everyday use of common words.

It is the use of pagan things associated with pagan worship that is at the heart of the issue. It would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name. The mere reference to a day or month on a calendar is not.

Biblical Examples

The mere reference to a day or month on a calendar cannot possibly be equated to the making of unusual efforts to participate in customs with known pagan origins (like celebrating holidays).

For biblical examples, when Luke wrote in Acts mentioning the Areopagus ('Ares Hill' - Ares is the Greek god of war; 'Mars' is the Latin god of war), he didn't feel the need to change its already established name to something no one would recognize. Furthermore, Paul actually went to this place devoted to a pagan god and preached.

And Paul accepted the Areopagite, Dionysius (Greek name for 'god of wine') and had him join him - Acts 17:19-34. Luke and Paul certainly did not become participants in something associated with pagan origins.

The following article is taken from the 5/15/67 Watchtower, Questions from Readers:

"Why did the Jews use the name of the pagan god Tammuz as the name for one of their months?

"Tammuz was the name of a Babylonian deity. (Ezek. 8:14) And though the Bible does not apply the name in this way, postexilic works, such as the Jewish Talmud, use the name for the fourth Jewish lunar month of the sacred calendar, the tenth of the secular calendar. (Ezek. 1:1) So it would correspond to the latter part of June and the first part of July.

"The use of the pagan name Tammuz as applying to the fourth month of the sacred calendar may have been only a matter of convenience among the Jews. We should remember that they were then a subjugated people, obliged to deal with and report to the foreign powers dominating them. So it is understandable that they might utilize the names of the months employed by these foreign powers. Similarly, the Gregorian calendar used today has months named after the gods Janus, Mars and Juno, as well as for Julius and Augustus Caesar. Yet it continues to be used by Christians who are subject to the "superior authorities." - Rom. 13:1." (Emphasis mine.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            BACK TO HOME PAGE           INDEX

1975 and Jehovah's Witnesses - The Opposers' Claims Vs. The Facts

The following will address in order:

1.) The basis for the original speculation of 1975.

2.) How even though there were articles printed that were speculative in nature, not one ever stated that Armageddon would definitely come in 1975 and, in fact, the then President of the Watchtower Society even instructed his listeners against saying anything as such.

3.) The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's acknowledgement of "implied" statements concerning 1975 and the significance of this.

4.) The reason opposers focus on this issue.

5.) How Jehovah's Witnesses accusers employ two sets of rules.

Understanding the Speculation Concerning 1975

"The Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. But when would 6,000 years of human existence end? The book Life Everlasting - In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. Right at the convention, as the brothers examined the contents, the new book triggered much discussion about 1975." - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom; pg. 104, Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)

Speculative Articles, But NO Definite Statement

While there was likely a lot of speculation surrounding 1975 by individuals, no publication ever provided a definitive statement saying that the end would come in 1975. Some articles seemed to say that it was highly possible, though they always qualified it.

For example, the 5/01/67 Watchtower says:

"...1975 marks the end of 6,000 years of human experience.....Will it be the time when God executes the wicked?....It very well could be, but we will have to wait and see."

Other articles frequently used words such as "may", "could" and "possibly"," regarding this.

Even Frederick Franz (the then President of the WBTS) forcefully instructed:

"... don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975."  - Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast; Heading: the Year 1975; 10/15/66 Watchtower

Acknowledgement of "Implied" Statements

"In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel (of Frederick Franz). However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (see quote below). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation." - Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, pg. 104, Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975)

"There were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year (1975) was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated." - Watchtower, 1980 March 15, p.17, par. 5

Rather than to be met with scepticism or scorn, these acknowledgements of "implied" statements concerning 1975 is an obvious willingness to attempt to learn from them. And this is a relatively unimportant, non-essential issue when contrasted to the fundamentals Jesus laid out for the knowledge necessary for eternal life! (John 17:3)

In comparison, most other religions will not change doctrines(!) such as the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hell fire even though their own scholars admit that these beliefs are not taught in the Bible. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses have always been willing to change any belief in order to harmonize better with increased knowledge of Scriptural teaching.

The Reason Opposers Focus on 1975

The primary reason Jehovah's Witnesses opposers even bring up the topic of 1975 is to try and paint Jehovah's Witnesses as 'False Prophets'. By a definition of their choosing, Jehovah's Witnesses critics ignore what is meant by the word 'prophet' and what was intended by WBTS publications.

(For more, see: "Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever claimed to be an INSPIRED prophet?)

Though some may accuse the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of claiming otherwise, from the beginning, the Watchtower has never claimed to be "inspired and infallible and without mistakes":

"[the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit] 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." - May 15, 1947, page 157.

Admittedly, earlier WBTS publications have occasionally published information that was speculative in nature and turned out to be mistaken. However, these publications also had provided accompanying statements cautioning it's readers that there was no certainty as to what would happen.

Two Sets of Rules?

Some critics focus solely on Jehovah's Witnesses concerning non-essential, mistaken expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies. Yet at the same time, they ignore these high-profile religious figures who have made mistakes similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Protestant leader Martin Luther believed that the Turkish war in his day 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"? [John T. Baldwin, "Luther's Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt -wider den Tuerken - Army Sermon Against the Turks]," Andrews University Seminary Studies 33.2 (Autumn 1995), 196.

He also said that

"Christ has given a sign by which one can know when the Judgment Day is near. When the Turk will have an end, we can certainly predict that the Judgment must be at the door". - Ibid, p. 201.

And Methodist founder John Wesley wrote:

"1836 The end of the non-chronos, and of the many kings; the fulfilling of the word, and of the mystery of God; the repentance of the survivors in the great city; the end of the 'little time,' and of the three times and a half; the destruction of the east; the imprisonment of Satan. - Wesley's Notes of the Bible

In 1950, Billy Graham, the well-known US evangelist, told a rally in Los 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’s all going to be over.” - McLoughlin, William G., 1978 Revivals, Awakenings and Reform. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp.185. See also “US News and World Report” (December 19, 1994)

Would opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses condemn Luther, Wesley or Graham as false prophets? Or would they correctly conclude that they had simply interpreted Bible prophecy? Likewise, the WBTS is not a false prophet simply because interpreting Bible prophecy is not the same as prophesying.

Also see:

Did the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses Ever Say That Armageddon Was Definitely Going to Come In 1975? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

The Problem with "False Prophecy" Polemics (Bible Translation and Study)

Dates (1914; 1975) (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

False Prophecy or Misguided Interpretation of Prophecy? (Jimspace)

Inaccurate False 'Prophet' Claim Made Against Jehovah's Witnesses - Links to Accurate Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)
(To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs), please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information about the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's (WTBTS) Bible-based beliefs and practices, you should look to our OFFICIAL WEBSITE at http://www.jw.org/en. Numerous publications as well as the New World Translation Bible (NWT) and the very useful Watchtower Online Library can be found there.)

SEARCH THIS SITE:

Defend Jehovah's Witnesses

SEARCH JW.ORG:

JW.ORG