The problem we face is the same problem all humans face all the time and in virtually every endeavor. I’m referring to our propensity to believe what we want to believe. This was highlighted by Peter at 2 Peter 3:5, “For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice…”
They missed the point because they wanted to miss the point. We may think we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, are above this, but in fact the only way for any human to escape this self-laid trap is to want or wish to believe what is true. One has to love truth above all other things—all other ideas and concepts—to meet this challenge successfully. This is no easy thing to accomplish because there are many weapons arrayed against us, and adding to the burden is our own weak and sinful self with all its own wants, desires, prejudices and hang-ups.
Paul warned the Ephesians about the need to maintain vigilance: “So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Eph. 4:14)
Our publications contain many fine principles to live by and are often beautifully written by good Christian men who only want what is best for us. However, the self-deception that Peter spoke of works not only toward the one taught, but also in the mind and heart of the teacher.
Whatever teaching is handed down, we must be willing to put aside the natural preferentialism we may be inclined to feel for those in authority and examine all things dispassionately. Perhaps I misspeak. Perhaps ‘dispassionate’ is precisely what we should not be. For it is a passion for truth that will steer us clear of falsehood. Of course, above all else is our love for the source of all truth: our Father, Jehovah God.
How can we avoid being misled? We must stop acting like children for one. Children are easily misled because they are too trusting and lack the skills to examine evidence discerningly. That is why Paul exhorted us to be children no longer.
We must develop the reasoning skills of adults. Sadly, that analogy is weakened by the fact that many adults today lack sound reasoning skills. So as Christians, we need something more. We need to ‘attain to the stature of a full-grown human, a measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ.’ (Eph. 4:13) To accomplish this, one of the things we must acquire is a knowledge of the techniques used to deceive us. These can be most subtle.
For instance, a friend who was working on the public talk outline, “A Loyal Congregation Under Christ’s Leadership”, noticed how subtly the idea of loyalty to the Governing Body was introduced and given weight. In abbreviated form, the outline introduces the following train of logic.
- Christ deserves our loyalty.
- All must show loyalty.
- The faithful slave cares for the earthly interests of the congregation.
- Faithful ones stick loyally to the faithful slave.
Notice how the outline never actually says we should be loyal to Jesus; only that he deserves our loyalty, which we supply to him by showing loyalty to the faithful slave which now is fully personified in the Governing Body?
This is a faulty generalization, a type of inductive fallacy; drawing a conclusion based on weak premises. The fact is that we must be loyal to the Christ. The faulty premise is that our loyalty to Christ can be achieved by being loyal to men.
Logical Fallacies
While much of what we teach in our publications is uplifting, sadly we do not always attain to the high standard set by our Leader, the Christ. So we do well to understand the techniques that can be used to mislead us from time to time.
Let’s take a case in point. Our latest release of the New World Translation has removed the J references appendix which was formerly used to justify the insertion of Jehovah’s name in the Christian Scriptures. Instead it has given us Appendix A5 wherein it states there is “compelling evidence that the Tetragrammaton did appear in the original Greek manuscripts.” It then presents this compelling evidence in nine bullet-point paragraphs starting on page 1736.
Each of these nine points seems convincing to the casual reader. However, it doesn’t take much thought to see them for what they are: logical fallacies that lead to faulty conclusions. We’ll examine each one and try to identify the fallacy employed to convince us that these points constitute real evidence, rather than just human supposition.
The Strawman Fallacy
The Strawman Fallacy is one where the argument is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. Essentially, to win the argument, one side constructs a metaphorical strawman by making the argument about something other than what it really is. The nine bullet points of the translators’ argument when taken together constitute a typical strawman fallacy. They assume that all that is needed is to prove that the first century Christians knew and used Jehovah’s name.
This is not the argument at all. The fact is that those arguing against the practice of inserting the divine name into any translation of the Christian Scriptures will gladly stipulate that the disciples both knew and used the divine name. The argument isn’t about that. It is about whether they were inspired to include it when writing the Holy Scriptures.
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
Having constructed their strawman, the writers now only have to prove A (that the writers of the Christian Scripture both knew and used Jehovah’s name) to automatically prove B, (that they must have also included it in their writings).
This is a propositional fallacy referred to as affirming the consequent: If A is true, B must be true also.
It seems obvious superficially, but that’s where the fallacy comes in. Let’s illustrate it this way: When I was a young man I was abroad for several years during which time I wrote a number of letters to my father. I never once used his name in those letters, but addressed him only as “father” or “dad”. I also wrote letters to friends who were coming to visit me. In those I asked them to contact my father so that they could bring some gifts from him to me. In those letters I gave them my father’s name and address.
Years from now, if someone were to look at this correspondence they could prove that I both knew and used my father’s name. Would that give them the basis to argue that my personal correspondence with my father must have included his name also? That its absence is proof that it was removed somehow by persons unknown?
Just because A is true, doesn’t automatically mean that B is true as well—the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Let us now look at each bullet point and see how the fallacies build one upon another.
The Fallacy of Composition
The first fallacy that the writers use is what is called the Fallacy of Composition. This is when the writer states a fact about one part of something and then assumes that since it applies there, it applies to other parts as well. Consider the first two bullet points.
- Copies of the Hebrew Scriptures used in the days of Jesus and the apostles contained the Tetragrammaton throughout the text.
- In the days of Jesus and his apostles, the Tetragrammaton also appeared in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Remember, these two points are being presented as compelling evidence.
The fact that the Hebrew Scriptures contain the Tetragrammaton doesn’t require that the Christian Greek Scriptures also contain it. To demonstrate this is a fallacy of composition, consider that the book of Esther does not contain the divine name. Yet according to this reasoning, it must have contained the divine name originally, because every other book of the Hebrew Scriptures contains it? Therefore, we have to conclude that copyists removed Jehovah’s name from the book of Esther; something we do not claim.
The Fallacies of Weak Induction and Equivocation
The next bullet point of so-called evidence is a combination of at least two fallacies.
- The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others.
First we have the fallacy of weak induction. Our reasoning is that since Jesus used God’s name, then the Christian writers also used it. Since they used it, they would have recorded it when writing. None of this is proof. As we’ve already illustrated, my father knew and uses his own name, I used it to on occasions where appropriate. That doesn’t mean that when I spoke of him to my siblings, I used it in lieu of dad or father. This line of weak deductive reasoning is made all the weaker by the inclusion of another fallacy, the Fallacy of Equivocation or Ambiguity.
For a modern audience, saying ‘Jesus made God’s name known to others’ means he told people what God was called. The fact is the Jews all knew that the name of God was Jehovah, so it would be incorrect to say that Jesus made this, God’s designation, known to them. It would be like us saying that we preach in a Catholic community to make known the name of the Christ. All Catholics know he’s called Jesus. What would be the point of preaching in a Catholic neighborhood just to tell Catholics that the Lord is called Jesus? The fact is, when Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father”, he was referring to a different meaning of the word, a meaning that would be readily understood by his Jewish audience. The fallacy of equivocation is used by the writer here to focus on the wrong meaning of the word “name” so as to make his point, rather than the point Jesus was making. (John 5:43)
We baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit. The holy spirit has no designation, but it does have a name. Similarly, the angel told Mary that her child would be called “Immanuel, which means…’With Us Is God’.” Jesus was never called Immanuel, so the use of that name wasn’t in the nature of a designation like “Tom” or “Harry”.
Jesus was speaking to Hebrews. There is evidence that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. In Hebrew, all names have a meaning. In fact, the word "name" literally means "character". So when Jesus said "I come in the name of my Father", he literally was saying, 'I come in the character of my Father'. When he said that he made God's name known to men, he was actually making known the character of God. Since he was the perfect image of this Father, he could say that those who saw him, saw the Father also, because to understand the character or mind of Christ, was to understand the character or mind of God. (Mat. 28:19; 1:23; John 14:7; 1 Cor. 2:16)
In light of this fact, let's look at our Appendix A5 bullet point on more time.
- The Christian Greek Scriptures themselves report that Jesus often referred to God’s name and made it known to others.
Jesus came to reveal God's name or character to people who already knew the designation, YHWH, but not the meaning; certainly not the enhanced meaning Jesus was about to reveal. He revealed Jehovah as a loving Father, not just a Father to the nation or to a people, but the Father of each individual. This made us all brothers in a special way. We became brothers of Jesus as well, thereby rejoining the universal family from which we had been alienated. (Rom. 5:10) This was a concept virtually alien to the both the Hebrew and Greek mentality.
Therefore, if we are going to apply the logic of this bullet point, let's do so without the fallacy of equivocation or ambiguity. Let's use the term "name" as Jesus used it. Doing that, what would we expect to see? We would expect to see the Christian writers painting Jehovah in the character of our loving, caring, protective Father. And that is precisely what we see, some 260 times! Even more than all the bogus J references that merely confuse Jesus' message.
The Fallacy of Personal Incredulity
Next we encounter the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity. This is when the person making the argument reasons that something must be true, because it seems incredible that it couldn’t be true.
- Since the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, the sudden disappearance of Jehovah’s name from the text would seem inconsistent.
It may seem inconsistent but that is just human emotion speaking, not hard evidence. We have been prejudiced into believing that the presence of the divine name is critical, so its absence would be wrong and therefore has to be explained as the work of nefarious forces.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
This is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”.
- The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
So the argument goes like this. The divine name is abbreviated to “Jah” and inserted into names like “Jesus” (“Jehovah is Salvation”) and expressions like “Hallelujah” (“Praise Jah”). The Christian writers knew this. Under inspiration, they wrote names like “Jesus” and words like “Hallelujah”. Therefore the Christian writers also used the full divine name in their writings.
This is a stupid argument. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but sometimes you just have to call a spade, a spade. The fact is that the word “Hallelujah” is used often these days. One hears it in popular songs, in movies—I even heard it in a soap commercial. Are we therefore to conclude that people know and use Jehovah’s name as well? Even if people are made aware that “Hallelujah” contains the divine name in abbreviated form, are they consequently going to start using it in speech and writing?
Obviously, this bullet point is intended to shore up the Strawman fallacy that the disciples knew God’s name. As we’ve discussed, that isn’t the issue and we will agree that they did know his name, but it doesn’t change anything. What makes this all the more ridiculous is that, as we’ve just demonstrated, this particular point doesn’t even prove the strawman argument.
Appeal to Probability
Remember that we are discussing items which are presented as “compelling evidence”.
- Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings.
The fact that Jewish Christian writings from a century after the Bible was written contain the divine name is given as ‘probable cause’ to believe the inspired word contained it as well. Probability is not the same thing as evidence. Additionally, other factors are conveniently left out. Were these later writings directed to the Christian community or to outsiders? Of course, you would refer to God by his name to outsiders, just as a son talking to strangers about his father would use his father’s name. However, a son talking with his siblings would never use his father’s name. He would simply say “father” or “dad”.
Another key factor is that these writings by Jewish Christians were not inspired. The authors of these writings were men. The author of the Christian Scriptures is Jehovah God, and he would inspire the writers to put his name in if he so chose, or to use “Father” or “God” if that were his wish. Or are we now telling God what he should have done?
If Jehovah inspired the writing of some ‘new scrolls’ today, and chose not to inspire the writer to include his name, but perhaps refer to him only as God or Father, future generations could question the authenticity of these new inspired writings on the very same basis we are using in Appendix A5. After all, to date, The Watchtower magazine has used Jehovah’s name over a quarter million times. So, the reasoning would go, the inspired writer must have used it as well. The reasoning would be as wrong then as it is now.
Appeal to Authority
This fallacy is based on the assertion that something must be true because some authority is asserting it.
- Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in Christian Greek Scriptures.
- Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Many Bible scholars acknowledge that God is a Trinity and that man has an immortal soul. Many recognized Bible translators have removed God’s name from the Bible. We cannot appeal to the weight of authority only when it suits us.
Argumentum ad Populum
This fallacy is an appeal to the majority or to the people. Also known as the “bandwagon argument”, it holds that something must be true because everyone believes it. Of course, if we were to accept this line of reasoning, we’d be teaching the Trinity. Yet, we are willing to use it when it suits our cause, as we do for the final of the nine bullet points.
- Bible translations in over one hundred different languages contain the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Bible translations have removed the divine name. So if the bandwagon argument is what we want to base our policy on, then we should remove the divine name altogether because there are more people riding that particular bandwagon.
In Summary
Having reviewed the “evidence”, do you consider it to be “compelling”? Do you even consider it as evidence, or is it just a lot of supposition and fallacious reasoning? The writers of this appendix feel that, after presenting these facts, they have just cause to say “without a doubt, there is a clear basis for restoring the divine name, Jehovah, in the Christian Greek Scriptures.” [Italics mine] They then go on to say regarding the NWT translation team, “They have a deep respect for the divine name and a healthy fear of removing anything that appeared in the original text.—Revelation 22:18, 19”
Alas, there is no mention of a corresponding “healthy fear” of adding anything that didn’t appear in the original text. Quoting Revelation 22:18, 19 shows that they are aware of the penalty for adding or subtracting from the word of God. They feel justified in doing what they have done, and the final arbiter of that will be Jehovah. However, we have to decide whether we accept their reasoning as truth or merely the theories of men. We have the tools.
“But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. “ (1 John 5:20)
It’s up to us to use this gift from God. If we don’t, we are in danger of being swayed by “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.”
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by on 2013-10-25 18:39:17
This piece is absolutely wonderful.... and made a ton of sense! I absolutely agree... I had to dust my old philosophy Textbook to review logical fallacies :). By the way... I don't view the comments or articles as being "negative" at all. It's refreshing to me... the feelings of disappointment and anger are normal when you find out someone misled you. Especially if you have built you whole life around it. I'm trying to turn the negative feelings that I'm feeling into a positive one. For the first time since I've dedicated myself to Jehovah 20 years ago I have "allowed " myself to read the Bible this morning as a letter from my father and not as an "associate " as I was described in the text this morning. It was liberating and encouraging! Thanks for your hard work.
Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2013-10-25 18:49:26
This piece is absolutely wonderful.... and it made a ton of sense! I had to dust my old philosophy Textbook to review logical fallacies again:) By the way... I don't view the comments or articles as being "negative" at all. Overall It's refreshing to me ... However it does feel like someone ripped off the band aid when I was slowly ripping it myself. The feelings disappointment and anger are normal when you find out someone misled you. Especially if you have built you whole life around it. I'm trying to turn the negative feelings that I'm feeling into a positive one. For the first time since I was baptized 20 years ago , I have "allowed " myself to read the Bible as a letter from my Father and not as an "associate " as I was described in the text this morning. It was liberating and encouarging! Thanks for your work!
Comment by erick on 2013-10-25 20:18:59
This is a nice review of proper evidence. An argument can be made for almost any viewpoint. It takes discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I'd like to add that likely Jesus did not use the name "Jehovah" in his public ministry. First of all the Pharisees viewed it as blasphemy to pronounce during Jesus' ministry and they were looking for anything in order to accuse him of something. The fact that the matter of using God's name never came up would seem to indicate that they couldn't accuse Jesus of using God's name in public.
Also as mentioned Jesus came to reveal God as our Father. The jews viewed God as a harsh, distant dictatorial type figure. Jesus contrasted these mistaken views with a loving Father.Reply by on 2013-10-26 09:04:48
This site is't negative at all! If we would see different opinion as a negative thing, we couldn't have meaningful conversation at all. Keep up good work.
Comment by JimmyG on 2013-10-26 16:24:05
IF this is Jehovah's organisation, why are its leaders (the GB) deliberately deceiving rank and file JWs to 'prove' their logic and doctrine? This, I think, negates the "uplifting" teachings found in the literature.
A lot of the information this article contains can also be found in Ray Franz' "In search of christian freedom".
Comment by Vassy on 2013-10-29 16:49:47
Hi Meleti,
My comments are in relation to your articles on the insertion of the Divine Name into the Christian Scriptures. I see a lot of people around here praising what a marvelous work you have done by ‘exposing’ the malpractice of the WTS. I had long intended to address these posts but, again, I have limited time to spend in front of the computer.
So, I am not going to deal with the intricacies of whether the Society was right or wrong about the insertion of ‘Jehovah’ into the NT. Other people have written extensively on the Internet in support of the idea that the Name COULD have been removed sometime after the death of the apostles.
I would like to address, though, some of your points and add some of mine, not TO PROVE something, as it is very difficult to PROVE something in this issue, but to highlight some aspects that are easily overlooked when debating the issue of the insertion of the Name in the NT.
Throughout the two articles (Orphans and When Evidence Isn’t) you basically say that Jehovah allowed his name not to be written in the Christian Scriptures for the sole reason that He wanted to be addressed as “Father” and that focus should be shifted on the name of Jesus, his Son. As I see, this is mere assumption, not a proven fact. Just as you accuse the WTS of making unsupported assumptions, in like manner you make your own. I see no reason why “Jehovah” and “Father” cannot live together in the Holy Scripture. Sometimes Jehovah is referred as “God”, sometimes as “Father”, why can’t He be addressed as “Jehovah”? You, and others, use the analogy “We don’t address our earthly father by the personal name”. That may be true from a human standpoint, but that does not necessarily entail that Jehovah is upset if we address him by the personal name. If he were upset, he would have let us know in the Scripture.
You also state the Jews never addressed Jehovah as “Father”, that “Father” was only introduced to Christians to emphasize the sonship and the close relationship with the Creator. Although the Jews naturally did not know the son-father relationship in the Christian sense, they addressed Jehovah as their “Father”. Consider Isaiah 63: 16,17 “For you are our Father; although Abraham himself may not have known us and Israel himself may not recognize us, you, O Jehovah, are our Father. Our Repurchaser of long ago is your name” (This Scripture came rapidly in my mind, but I’m sure there are others as well). Here the Jews admitted their earthly fathers had long died, but then Jehovah was their Father.
Now, no one of us can state CATEGORICALLY, on the basis of the available evidence (manuscripts), that the Name WAS or WAS NOT present in the Christian Scriptures. Since we have only COPIES of those manuscripts, we simply don’t know what the truth is. However, the precedent with the Septuagint is a good reason to believe that something similar COULD HAVE HAPPENED to the Christian writings. No matter how much ‘truth lovers’ we want to pose as, or opposed to the WTS for that matter, this possibility cannot be discarded. The words penned with regard to the book of Revelation could have a larger application to the entire Scriptures (Rev. 22:18,19).
You state that Jehovah (if the name had been used by Christians) is not at all used in some Christian writings. That may be true, but remember ‘Jehovah’ was not at all used in the book of Esther. The reasons and background may have been different in each case, but this does not mean we should not use the Creator’s name.
Perhaps the most important aspects that lend credibility to the notion that the Name was removed are found in the book of Revelation. Please consider the following:
The content of the entire book of Revelation was transmitted to John by means of visions. He saw heavenly visions, just as Daniel, Isaiah and other prophets did. In fact, John’s visions draw heavily on the symbolism and realities of the Hebrew Scriptures. Now let’s take a few passages of Revelation and try to reason upon what they reveal about the issue of the Divine Name.
1. Rev 4:8-11. John sees in a heavenly vision the four living creatures and the 24 elders giving God glory. In verse 8 John sees a vision reminding of Isaiah chapter 6, where the four living creatures say “Holy, holy, holy, is [Jehovah/Lord] God the Almighty, who was and who is and who is coming”. My question is: based on the precedent of the Hebrew vision and the fact that John was a Jew, what word is more likely that John heard in the vision: Jehovah or Lord? And if he heard ‘Jehovah’, what reason is there to believe that he replaced what he heard with “Lord”? The same question applies to Revelation 4:11; 11:17.
2. Rev 19:6. The great crowd in heaven is heard singing praise to Jehovah “Praise Jah, you people, because [Jehovah/Lord] our God, the Almighty, has begun to rule as king”. Again, what word did John hear in this vision given that the great crowd has already used the shortened form of the Name, “Jah”? In fact, the idea that the Name does not appear in the NT is disproved by the 4 occurrences of “Praise Jah” in Rev 19.
3. Perhaps the most important vision is the one found in Rev 15:2-4. “Those who come off victorious from the wild beast”, that is, those killed during the time of the end, sing “the song of MOSES and …the song of the LAMB” saying: “Great and wonderful are your works, [Jehovah/Lord] God, the Almighty. Righteous and true are your ways, King of eternity. Who will not really fear you, [Jehovah/Lord], and glorify your name, because you alone are loyal?” Since these victorious ones sing the song of MOSES, is it reasonable to think that they sing ‘Lord’ instead of ‘Jehovah’? Again, what word did John hear in this vision and what word did he write down?
4. Rev 14:1. John sees the 144000 sealed ones having the name of Jesus and of his Father written on their foreheads. Obviously, the Father’s name cannot be other than ‘Jehovah’. If they have the name of the Father on their foreheads, it means they use it, just as they use the name of Jesus.
5. Rev 3:12. Jesus will write on the conquerors the name of God, of the New Jerusalem, and his new name. [My question: If Christians are not to use the name of their Father, how is it that they can use the name of their mother? (I’m joking) (Gal. 4:26)?] This is, again, evidence that “Jehovah” is the name that the Creator wants to be sanctified and used by his slaves.
Honestly, from what I see being written on this website, I’m inclined to suggest that those who insist that the Name should not be restored in the Christian Scriptures should no longer call themselves JEHOVAH’s witnesses, but anything else they choose to be.Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2013-10-30 10:02:59
Hi Vassy
I appreciate your desire to uphold the Divine Name. Nevertheless, I don't think you are looking at the matter objectively.
If someone insisted that the concept of the “trinity” is inherent in scripture and therefore the word itself, or a clear definition of it, must have originally been there how would you react? Someone obviously felt that way at some point since 1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This translation is based upon a 4th century manuscript which is still pretty early. Nevertheless we have other manuscripts which demonstrate that someone actually made an addition based upon doctrinal bias.
It would do no good to argue that this is just a matter of opinion, or that it was just as likely that this passage was there in some older versions but was removed. The evidence is simple, and Jehovah God preserved His Word sufficiently so that we would not be left wondering whether what we have received is accurate or not.
How can we throw all of this solid foundation of reasoning out when it comes to insertion of the Divine Name in the Greek Scriptures for which there is absolutely no manuscript evidence whatsoever?
To say that one is just as likely as the other is simply not true. For one there is manuscript evidence, for the other there is an unproven theory.
Rather than start from a fixed position as you have done, does it not make more sense to reason from the scriptures as Meleti has done? If Jehovah inspired to write the Greek Scriptures just as they have been handed down to us, what can we learn? This is the way we deal with every other examination of the scriptures. We do not start with a doctrine and then assume that the scriptures have been amended wherever the doctrine does not fit.
Let me ask you a couple of questions if I may. Do you believe that God has preserved his scriptures free from error in their present form, or can man thwart this if he is sufficiently diligent in destroying manuscripts? If God is capable of the preservation, how does the absence of the Divine Name in the Greek Scriptures square with that? Or do you believe that human intervention is required to “correct error” in the texts that have been handed down?
Furthermore how can what has been done be called a “restoration” in the move than 50% of times that the text is not quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures? On what basis is the insertion made and who decides this?
Apollos
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-10-30 16:47:45
Hi Vassy,
Apollos raises some thought provoking questions and I look forward to your answers.
I don't think I could add meaningfully to what he has presented. However, in your comment there are a number of logical fallacies that might cloud the issue if not addressed. Once these are out of the way, we can concentrate on the core issue.
[Vassy] Just as you accuse the WTS of making unsupported assumptions, in like manner you make your own.
A nice little bit of tu quoque ("You're doing the same thing you accuse others of doing.") backed up by an inconsistent comparison.
The fact is I am not doing the same thing that the WTS is doing.
First off, any assumptions I am making are not unsupported. I'm basing my conclusions on facts. Fact: Without exception in the 5000-plus manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures, the divine name does not appear. Fact: Jesus and the inspired Christian writers refer to Jehovah as a personal Father over 200 times. The other inconsistency with your comparison is that I readily admit that the conclusions I draw from these facts are simply that, the conclusions of a man. By comparison, the conclusions the WTS draws from the unsupported assumption that the name was actually there are presented as fact for which there can be "no doubt". Further, if you choose not to accept my conclusions, you are free to do so and share that belief with whomever you choose. If you were to do the same thing with the conclusions reached by the WTS, you would likely be disfellowshipped. So this is hardly a fair comparison to make.
[Vassy] "I see no reason why “Jehovah” and “Father” cannot live together in the Holy Scripture. "
Another fallacy. You argue from personal incredulity. That you can see no reason, doesn't mean there is no reason. The author of the Christian Greek Scriptures has his reasons for what he inspired to be written and just because our limited minds cannot understand them, gives us no right to mess with His word. You yourself make this point elsewhere in your comment when you refer to the absence of the divine name in the book of Esther.
[Vassy] "that does not necessarily entail that Jehovah is upset if we address him by the personal name. If he were upset, he would have let us know in the Scripture."
This is a red herring argument which distracts from the real issue. The fact is I have not argued in my posts that Jehovah would be upset were we to use the divine name. Nor do I think it would be wrong to use the divine name. (I am not referring to inserting it into Scripture, but to using it ourselves.) However, I do not feel that the message Jesus gave to us was that we had to use it. For many JWs the name has become a requirement. A prayer in which we do not address Jehovah by name would be unacceptable; like not closing with an 'amen' or 'in Jesus' name'. Yet in the model prayer, Jesus did not use God's name, but addressed him as Father and taught us to pray that way.
[Vassy] "You also state the Jews never addressed Jehovah as “Father”, that “Father” was only introduced to Christians to emphasize the sonship and the close relationship with the Creator. "
This is a Strawman fallacy you are using. You misrepresent what I stated. If you reread "Orphans" you'll see that I acknowledge that in about a dozen instances, Jehovah is referred to as Father of the nation. You quote from Isaiah 63:16, 17 which is an excellent example of this. They also referred to Abraham as the father of the nation. But in neither instance is this the type of personal relationship between Father and son that Jesus taught us.
[Vassy] "Since we have only COPIES of those manuscripts, we simply don’t know what the truth is."
In trying to undermine my argument, you undermine yours as well. All the manuscripts on which we base our translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are copies. If we cannot know the truth about the divine name because these are only copies, we cannot know the truth about anything else as well. The fact is that we insert the divine name in the Hebrew Scriptures some 7,000 times because there are many manuscripts that contain it. Not all, but many. We could reason that the divine name was incorrectly inserted and put Lord there, or we could reason--as we do--that Lord was incorrectly inserted and go with the divine name. This we can do because we have actual manuscripts in which the name appears. When dealing with the Christian Scriptures, we do not have a single manuscript where the divine name appears. So we have no factual basis for inserting it. All we have is speculation.
[Vassy] "That may be true, but remember ‘Jehovah’ was not at all used in the book of Esther. The reasons and background may have been different in each case, but this does not mean we should not use the Creator’s name."
I find your point to be confusing. Are you suggesting that we should insert the divine name into the book of Esther in place of Lord or God? Again--and forgive me if I repeat myself--no one is suggesting that we shouldn't use Jehovah's name. We are only stating that we shouldn't insert it into the holy writings based on speculation.
[Vassy] "...what word is more likely that John heard in the vision: Jehovah or Lord?"
This fallacy is known as an appeal to probability. What may seem likely to you or anyone else is still human opinion. Given the consequences for messing with the vision of Revelation, I would hardly think that a roll of the dice, even heavily weighted dice, is justification for taking the risk of angering Jehovah.
[Vassy] "[My question: If Christians are not to use the name of their Father, how is it that they can use the name of their mother? (I’m joking) (Gal. 4:26)?] This is, again, evidence that “Jehovah” is the name that the Creator wants to be sanctified and used by his slaves."
A return to the Strawman fallacy. I have not argued that we are not to use the name of our Father. The ridiculous nature of your statement is shown by the fact I make frequent use of Jehovah's name throughout this site. Also, you miss the point about how the name is to be sanctified. It is not the designation "Jehovah" that we sanctify, but the character of our God. Jehovah isn't some talisman, to be uttered superstitiously to ward off evil. Simply telling people that our Father is named Jehovah does not sanctify that name. To sanctify his name we must understand that the word "name" as the Hebrews did. It refers to a person's character. We bear His name, so we must conduct ourselves in a way to reflect the divine character. Doing that, sanctifies his name. If we call ourselves Jehovah's Witnesses, but carrying on hating our brothers, disdaining and/or disfellowshipping others for disagreeing with us, looking down on the world because they are not of the chosen people, then we are actually taking God's name in vain. In fact, in those circumstances, the more we use His name, the worse we make it for ourselves.
[Vassy] "Honestly, from what I see being written on this website, I’m inclined to suggest that those who insist that the Name should not be restored in the Christian Scriptures should no longer call themselves JEHOVAH’s witnesses, but anything else they choose to be."
As one who wishes to sanctify the name of Jehovah, you should refrain from using the fallacy of the ad hominem attack.
Comment by StillHaveFaith on 2013-11-01 00:03:48
RE: “Some have commented that we need to be more positive in this forum”.
Jehovah's Witnesses are supposedly “in the truth”, an expression that goes all the way back to Pastor Russell. However Truth is not always “positive”, at least not initially, until the final lesson is expressed and understood. The Bible, God's Book of Truth, is full of so called “negative” events which are recorded for our instruction.
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]
The Old Testament is jam packed with accounts of Jehovah's people committing many negative offenses against his Law, and quite often the Kings and religious leadership were the instigators that led the Israelite people astray into false worship. Jehovah had to keep sending prophets to them which they scorned and even killed, including his own Son.
The truth is primarily positive only if it is actually THE TRUTH. As with the saying, “Going in Reverse to Move Forward”, if we don't examine our past history and the origin of the doctrines that are presented to us as being “the truth”, and if we don't compare all of this to the scriptures, we will end up the victims of another saying, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” Obviously the truth can be quite shocking, but in the end it is positively liberating.
RE: “So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Eph. 4:14)
Regarding the various methods of “logical fallacies”, in the Bigger Picture, every false religious teaching taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as all other organized religions, have utilized these techniques throughout history as forms of Indoctrination, Brainwashing, Propaganda, and Programming, in order to accomplish the desired outcome of people following their human religious leaders instead of Jehovah and Jesus Christ.
RE: “We need to ‘attain to the stature of a full-grown human, a measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ.’ (Eph. 4:13) To accomplish this, one of the things we must acquire is a knowledge of the techniques used to deceive us.”
In the even Bigger Picture of world history, the various methods of Logical Fallacies have been utilized by governments, military leaders and even commercial advertising. It has also been demonstrated that human beings can become convinced of anything by false information continually repeated. Just one example of many, how did an entire nation of educated intelligent people come to actually believe that the Jews were the “cause of their problems”, to the extent that they turned in their own friends and neighbors, knowing that they would be either killed on the spot or hauled away into concentration camps. Eventually the German people even came to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses were a threat to their national security, and turned against them as well as many other groups targeted by the Nazi regime. They actually came to BELIEVE that Hitler was their “messiah” who would lead them into the “thousand year reign of the Third Reich”. And once people come to the point of belief, which then leads them into putting their faith in their human leaders, it is very difficult to re-program their indoctrinated thinking. [I lived in Germany during high school when my father was stationed there in the military, and the majority of my family's ancestors came from Germany, so I could never imagine how this nation fell under the spell of Nazism until I read the book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, and it was then that I came to understand the powerful influence of indoctrination and fear tactics.]
Human governments, military leaders and religious organizations continually utilize these techniques to gain the willing cooperation of the people, and if that doesn't work on some of them, they resort to fear tactics and violence. If we believe that God's Word teaches us that we should not engage in warfare, because we will not “fight for God and Country”, we are labeled as “traitors”. If we do not unquestioningly accept the teachings of our religion, we are labeled “apostates”, the religious term for “traitors”. For every Christian who has ever lived who believed that “we must obey God as ruler rather than men”, persecution was the result, whether by the state, or by their own religion.
The Catholic Church ex-communicated as “apostates” every Protestant and even Catholics who resisted the Church in any way. And if that wasn't enough to instill fear and “keep the troops in line”, they confiscated all of their property, imprisoned them, tortured them and burned them at the stake. Prior to this the Jewish religious leaders expelled the early Jewish Christians from their synagogues for “apostasy”, and many other religious organizations have utilized disfellowshipping, and shunning in order to exercise control and compliance from their followers. Even the Puritans who came to America seeking “religious freedom” used shunning and other forms of punishment to keep a tight grip on their followers. Nathaniel Hawthorne was so distressed by the history of his Puritan ancestors regarding their execution of “witches”, and their shunning techniques, where people were forced to live outside of their community, that he wrote several books including “The Scarlet Letter”, which I read with my daughter when she was assigned this in high school.
According to my landlord who was raised Mormon, his religion will often give their followers second and third chances when it comes to adultery, but when it comes to “apostasy” they have zero tolerance and disfellowship them unless they publicly “recant” whatever Mormon teaching that they question or don't accept. The Amish have always used shunning as a control method for anyone who doesn't abide by their many rules and regulations to the letter, and especially for those they consider to be “apostates”. Ex-communication is the easy way out for Scientologists compared to being imprisoned in a re-programming camp.
RE: “Just because A is true, doesn’t automatically mean that B is true as well—the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
I have come to realize that I believed false teachings because so many other teachings were in fact true regarding: Hellfire, Trinity, Pagan Holidays, Evolution, Resurrection, Preaching the Good News, Christians not to be involved in warfare.... These teachings all made perfect sense according to the scriptures and historical information as well. However, when A, B, C, and D are obviously true, it is much easier to believe that consequently E F and G must also be true. Then once a person is convinced to believe that God is “speaking through a human agency”, everything handed down by that organizational hierarchy is then accepted as “fact”.
RE: “Appeal to Authority
This fallacy is based on the assertion that something must be true because some authority is asserting it.”
Jehovah's Witnesses are not alone in this. Catholics have their Pope, whom they believe to be the infallible “Vicar of Christ on earth”, Mormons have their “Prophet”, whom according to the LDS website: “We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church.” The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has their Governing Body, which claims to be the “faithful and discreet slave”.
RE: “we have to decide whether we accept their reasoning as truth or merely the theories of men.”
During World War II in Germany, it was illegal to own any radio that could transmit information from the Nazi Resistance underground or from the allies, such as “Radio Free Europe”. Anyone caught listening to any information that was contrary to that which was authorized by Nazi Party would be arrested and sent to a concentration camp. Many other governments and religious organizations have forbidden their people to have access to freedom of information. The most notorious example was the Catholic Church's forbidding the reading of the Bible. Thus the Bible was only available in Latin, which could not be understood by anyone except primarily the priests and bishops, until it was finally translated into other languages. Bible translators and anyone caught with a Bible in their own language were persecuted and even killed. The Catholic hierarchy considered the Bible to be dangerous in the hands of the people, since obviously they would discover that Catholic doctrines were not in compliance with the Bible.
“But in Jehovah’s organization it is not necessary to spend a lot of time and energy in research, for there are brothers in the organization who are assigned to that very thing, to help you who do not have so much time for this, these preparing the good material in The Watchtower and other publications of the Society.” — Watchtower, The Watchtower, June 1, 1967, page 338
“The Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe they can interpret the Bible. For this reason, the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.” — Watchtower, The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, page
“All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the “greatly diversified wisdom of God” can become known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave…” — Watchtower, Watchtower 1994 Oct 1 p.8
“[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave”. — Watchtower, Watchtower 2001 Aug 1 p.14
“Yes, besides having God’s spirit of illumination, a Christian needs Jehovah’s theocratic organization in order to understand the Bible.” — Watchtower, The Watchtower, June 15, 1951, page 375
“Thus, “the faithful and discreet slave” does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight.–Matt. 24:45-47 “— Watchtower, Kingdom Ministry, September 2007, p. 3
“one mediator between God and men”
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to in its own due time.”
[1 Timothy 2:5-6]
“Benefiting from “One Mediator Between God and Men”: To keep in relationship with “our Savior, God,” the “great crowd” needs to remain united with the remnant of spiritual Israelites.” — Watchtower, Watchtower 1979 Nov 15 p.27
“The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize that by following the lead of the modern-day Governing Body, they are in fact following their Leader, Christ.” — Watchtower, Watchtower 2010 Sep 15 p.23
What's wrong with this picture?
“No creature or organization on earth can truly presume to sit as the supreme tribunal of interpretation of the holy bible.” — Watchtower, The Watchtower, July 1, 1943, page 202
“Beware of ‘organization.’ It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far as you can understand God’s word today, and so continue to growing in grace and knowledge day by day.” — Watchtower, Zion’s Watch Tower, Sept. 15, 1895, p. 216
“We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of man? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination.” — Watchtower, The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life, 1981, page 13
RE: “Perhaps ‘dispassionate’ is precisely what we should not be. For it is a passion for truth that will steer us clear of falsehood.”
The REAL TRUTH is always positive in the end, but in order to proceed from point A to point Z, it is unavoidable that we navigate some “turbulent waters” between scriptural truths and “logical fallacies”. Religious leaders who were misleading God's people were called “serpents” and “offspring of vipers” by Jesus Christ himself. Therefore since Jesus Christ expressed his “righteous indignation”, are we not also expected to do the same, when it comes to exposing false teachings. Is that not the “Passion for Truth” that Jesus Christ set by his own example?
“Serpents, offspring of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of Ge·hen′na?” [Matthew 23:33] NWTReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-11-01 07:26:15
Thank you for the excellent analysis, StillHaveFaith. You've added a lot to the points made in the post to give a more complete picture of the true state of our Organization. For a time back in 1943, it must have seemed to sincere truth seekers that we had got back on the path to freedom. This came close on the heels of Rutherford's demise, so one can't help but wonder if it was a swing of the pendulum away from his autocracy. However, it didn't take long for the pendulum to swing back.
I enjoyed your comparisons between our techniques and those of other churches and organization. It is truly scary how easily we can be and are manipulated into violating the very principles of the Bible that we hold dear.
Comment by Fred Franz and the Divine Name in the Greek Scriptures | Beroean Pickets on 2014-01-28 17:57:02
[…] superb examination of this new Appendix exposed it largely as a series of logical […]
Comment by Love Kindness | Beroean Pickets on 2014-02-06 10:58:48
[…] have given undue honor to men, treating them as our leaders in all but name. We have presumed to alter the Holy Scriptures, inserting God’s name in places it does not belong based solely on speculation. Perhaps worst […]