WT Study: In What Ways Does Jehovah Love Us?

Comment by Deborah on 2015-11-16 17:45:21

Nice article, Meleti.
"Perhaps Jehovah only terraformed one planet for intelligent life; or perhaps there are many more. Perhaps we were the first; or perhaps we’re just another one in a long line."
I would think the earth is the only planet where God created intelligent life, sons and daughters. Otherwise His Son would have had to give up his life many times.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-16 18:20:07

  Thank you Deborah. You make a valid point. Of course, there is also the possibility that others planets have intelligent life, but ours is the only one that fell into sin.

  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-16 18:35:39

    In that case, Jehovah allows Satan to go about here and there attempting to cause multiple intelligent creations, on various planets, to fall without the finality of the woman's seed crushing his head?
    It makes the prophecy ineffective.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-16 18:43:04

      That doesn't necessarily follow. All I'm suggesting is that we cannot rule out other civilizations because of what happened here. A sinless angel decides to go bad. Whether there is only one earth or a million, he has to start somewhere and wherever he starts is where he ends.
      Of course, this is all hypothetical. My point is that we lack the data to make a categorical ruling on whether there is more intelligent life out there. Yet the Watchtower has no problem in using its own brand of logic based on faulty scientific reasoning to make a statement which the brothers will readily accept as absolute truth.

      • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-16 18:53:04

        Well, I'm coming from the belief that Adam and Eve would fall. Free will always misses the test, it is what it is. We mess up, we learn.
        Perhaps a discussion for another day.
        Thanks for the reply.

        • Reply by sopaterofberea on 2015-11-17 07:15:05

          Deb, Meleti,
          To add another possibility to the mix....... might other "earths" be in various stages of development around the universe? Could it be that our earth is the original prototype of "breathing" beings? This is purely supposition, but if that were the case, because Jehovah created man with the ability to procreate (angelic life can not) only one original would need to be created. All "humanlike" creation would be related and traceable to the DNA of that one and only original. As each earthlike planet became comfortably filled with human beings, the next planet would be ready to sustain the future generations of "human" life.
          For me, this view would make our earth and all that has happened on it (the ransom, the history of God's written Word, the establishment of Christianity) very meaningful in the overall scheme of things.
          Phileo,
          Sopater

          • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 08:15:58

            An intriguing thought. We don't want to miss out on all that our Father has prepared for us. (1Co 2:9)

            • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-11-18 07:02:18

              I'm of the view that if the fall of man and plan of redemption were something Jehovah foresaw in advance, I'm close to believing that things are destined. I then have to take the position that Jehovah knew that the Word would not sin when he became human. Oh how that changes everything for me. If you "can't lose" where's the risk? Then it's just 33 earth years, with the last day being physically painful, then it's over. How long is one earth day in the context of a thousand billion earth years? Not even a blink. Would Jesus not have been simply following a script in a play? Where's the value? Where's the beef?
              If Adam's biography was written in stone before his creation, then he did not have free will in realtime. The same is true with Satan. If Jehovah foresaw that one of his spirit sons would defect, and then persuade millions of other spirit sons to follow him, did not Jehovah and the Word see the defect at the moment these spirit sons individually came into existence?
              To illustrate: Think of the angelic creation process like an injection molding process. When the operator produces parts from the mold, they are inspected for defects. What does any reputable manufacturer do with defect parts? They scrap them out. Every manufacturer anticipates a percentage of scrap as unavoidable in the molding process. The "scrap" rate is built into the price of the finished product. The higher the scrap, the higher the end product price. However, this would not apply in Jehovah's creative process for all his works are perfect. (Deut 32:4; Ps 18:30)
              Jehovah and the Word could have scanned the entire life of Satan at the split second he was produced. Would they not have known of his defect the second he came into existence? I submit they had no knowledge any defect, because it didn't exist. Else Satan would have been thrown into the scrap bucket immediately after production.
              When Jehovah and the Word made the decision to make spirit sons and mankind "in their likeness" with intelligence, free will is a function of that intelligence. Without free will, there is no intuitive intelligence.
              So, I like to think that while having the ability to FF to the end of the movie at the very beginning, when Jehovah gave us intelligence, he put a piece of tape over the FF button. It is much more stimulating for him to follow each day of our lives, as our biography is written in realtime. Knowing that in realtime, free will decisions can change everything about how the story ends.
              Sopater

              • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 15:56:08

                Sopater,
                God knows the end because He has the ability to Cause all things, maneuver all events, in order that the desired End is accomplished. He predicts because He can make it so. He adjusts according to the changes that occur with men. The repentance of Nineveh being an example of God allowing free will, self-determination, a turning around, becoming, by God's allowance, the winner over His own condemnation (a lesson which escapes the Watchtower). They were not predestined to repent, no. But then neither were they predestined for eternal death. God does not work that way.
                As for Christ, he suffered, the Word suffered.
                I can say no more.

                • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-11-19 05:01:25

                  Deb,
                  What helps me make sense of this is the "manufacturer" analogy. Imperfect men and their imperfect man made devices produce defective parts, there is no escaping that fact. They can not predict which part(s) will not pass inspection, or, might pass inspection then later fail. They just know that a certain percentage of what they produce is defective. At times the defect doesn't become manifest until parts begin failing in the field (auto recalls). Though that part may have passed the manufacturer's initial inspection, it was still defective, either a design flaw, or otherwise.
                  In that Jehovah and the Word are perfect, and in that their production process is perfect, could there be any basis for them to presume that a certain percentage of parts they produced are "inevitably" defective?
                  Think of parts produced for an automobile or airplane. While the part may have passed the inspection of the manufacturer (no visible or tolerance flaws) let's presume the flaw was in the material itself, or the hardening process. Such internal flaws may not become manifest until down the road, when the part is put under stress. Under stress, the defect surfaces, the part cracks in two.
                  The point I'm attempting to make is, with imperfect men and their devices, defective parts are in fact inevitable. Again, they don't know in advance which "batch" may turn out bad. But they are certainly not shocked when they learn that certain parts have failed. It is the nature of the beast. We see it every day. They order a recall, and replace the defective parts.
                  In the case of Jehovah and his intelligent creation, is it the nature of the "beast" (free will) that some inevitably go bad? I agree with TRA and Meleti on this one, that to assume this position, we must see Jehovah like the manufacturer who accepts the fact that a percentage of what he produces will fail. Would this not indicate a flaw in his design and manufacturing process? I can't go there.
                  In Jehovah's production process, all parts are designed perfectly, manufactured perfectly, not a single part is produced with an external or internal defect that would later fail and have to be recalled. So, Jehovah would not feel it inevitable that even one of the parts he produces will fail. Not one. In fact, they could not fail if used according to the manufacturer's intended use and recommendations.
                  So, free will allows the user to "deviate" from the manufacturers intended use. The part is not defective, it was produced perfectly and functions perfectly when used as it was intended to be used. Even an imperfect manufacturer has no reason to consider it "inevitable" that their part will fail if...... and I say if..... used in accordance with the manufacturer's intended purpose. Only if used otherwise might the part fail.
                  A screw driver is perfect for fastening screws, it is not perfect as a chisel.
                  Jehovah therefore did not feel it "inevitable" that his perfect production, used in the way he designed it to be used, would ever fail. He could thus declare that all his works were very good. If he anticipated that a percentage of parts he produced were inevitably going to fail, could he make such a claim?
                  In the case of the screwdriver, it is the unintended use of the tool that causes it to fail. The manufacturer has nothing to do with this. Moreover, the manufacturer doesn't force the end user to use the tool as a screw driver. The end user can use "free will" to choose how they want to use it, all the while, they bear the consequences for any misuse.
                  Hope this is helpful,
                  Phileo my sister,
                  Sopater

                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-22 01:18:36

                    A few weeks ago it was emphasised how the GC are friends, this week it's we should look at Jehovah as a Father, and as we are his children, they only quoted the first part of 1John1 John 3:1Revised Standard Version (RSV)
                    3 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
                    Why does the GB do this, they believe that scripture only applies to the anointed, that is why they left it out, are they deliberately trying to confuse the flock? the double talk is so annoying.

              • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 16:29:50

                I know many have discussed the issue and possibility of predestination, and I am not likely to be smarter than all those that preceded me. But here's my two cents.
                It does seem that if God knew ahead of time that Satan and humans would sin, and bring so much resulting harm and suffering into existence, He could be viewed as being responsible for it. It would amount to blaming God for evil, and thus attributing evil itself to God, something the Bible says is not possible, since He is righteous and perfect.
                God also clearly has moral qualities, and understands the difference between right and wrong. Unleashing evil, suffering and death into an entire world deliberately is unquestionably wrong. It is contrary to everything we understand about God to even imagine He is capable of wrongdoing, much less wrongdoing that is so morally reprehensible. Like Abraham said, it is unthinkable.
                So on that basis alone, no, I don't believe God knowingly set things in motion with the expectation and foreknowledge that it would go badly.
                Another reason to reject predestination is that if everything were determined in advance, then the entire universe is merely a very complex machine running on autopilot. The events merely unfold as planned. It seems very little different from watching a video. We can watch the story unfold, and if it's interesting, we might watch it again, but the story will never change. From the Creator's standpoint, just imagine how boring that would be. What would be the point? If that scenario were true, then I have to ask, why even bother creating the universe in the first place?
                WT happens to propose a good argument against predestination. They point out that if this idea were true, there would be no reason to advise people to use good judgment, to make wise decisions, to learn, and so on. If our lives could only have one outcome, what is the point of trying to change things? The very fact that God gives us good advice on how to better our lives (the book of Proverbs being an excellent example thereof) is strong evidence that our futures CAN be changed.
                Unless intelligent creatures REALLY had free will, their acts and activities, either for good or bad, would be totally meaningless. To believe in predestination thus presumes that God's works are meaningless. I cannot accept that, and so I cannot accept predestination.

                • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 17:30:18

                  TRA,
                  God did not necessarily know the angel we know as Satan would fall. But He did know that free will, the gift of self-determination, would naturally result in bad choices, rebellion.
                  It is an inescapable truth with history proving it so.

                  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-11-19 03:37:10

                    A coin flip. Just because there is a chance you land tails and did, doesn't mean you intended it, with history to prove. Flipping the coin merely means you recognize the possibility of the outcome. Nothing more. God did neither predestine sin, nor intended sin.

          • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 10:01:27

            Exactly.
            This is the "seed" planet from which at some point in the future Jehovah will allow, and help, mankind to bring to fruition the Garden of Eden wherever they can even in the outer reaches. Of course, there are no outer reaches in a universe that has no end...
            Our great God and Father has no bounds in his love and his gifts to his children in both the heavens and the physical world.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 12:20:03

              Possibly, but again, we cannot know, so we should not make strong assertions.

              • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 12:59:23

                You mean, "we should NOT make strong assertions". So embarrassing when we forget that pesky little "not" at the most inconvenient of times :-))

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 13:01:39

                  Thanks for catching that, TRA. I've fixed it.

              • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 12:11:02

                >>Possibly, but again, we cannot know, so we should not make strong assertions.
                I make "strong assertions", you make "thought experiments".
                I say potato, you say...

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-18 12:21:23

                  You say potato, I say apple. Yeah, right. Exactly the same thing.

                  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 14:11:55

                    Good try, but no gold ring. :)

        • Reply by Nick O. on 2015-11-17 17:48:09

          >>Free will always misses the test
          Not always... (Hebrews 4:15)

          • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 10:48:10

            Nick O.
            Yes, it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would fall. Not planned, but inevitable...one was deceived something that cannot happen among the angels; the other KNOWINGLY disobeyed as some of the angels also did.
            It was inevitable that among the throngs of spirit sons there would be at least one who would fall.
            The STATE of being free to self-determine our path will inevitably result in some making BAD CHOICES.
            Heaven has not been all sweetness and light. Brother angels taking sides, loyal spirit sons of their Father created with the capacity to love, as we have been, turning from a rebel fellow spirit son they may at one time have served with side by side before God. Choices, loyalties. grief before their Father that such evil has entered the heavens.
            Heaven and earth have had their trials and tests. God's loyal heavenly sons, thanks to God, have triumphed. Soon loyal men and women, thanks to God, will do the same.
            The Son of God, being one with his Father, could not fall. Tested as a man, yes. But Immanuel, With Us Is God, could not fall. Genesis 3:15- he would be injured in his heel, his flesh, but would kill the serpent.
            God's prophetic word declared the triumph of the woman's seed.
            Christ could not fall.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-18 10:57:54

              >>Yes, it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would fall.
              You probably didn't intend it to come out this way, but this statement brings reproach on God's name and character. If it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would fall, then God's statement that all was good was incorrect as they were predestined to fall.

              • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 11:56:07

                You left off the first part of the next sentence. Here it is:
                "Yes, it was inevitable that Adam and Eve would fall. Not planned, but inevitable…"
                Not planned thus not predestined.

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-18 12:20:16

                  I see, so God didn't plan it this way but knew it was inevitable. Yes, it is clear now that those two terms bear no relationship whatsoever to each other. God created two beings who would not be able to avoid sin, and he declared them good.
                  Come on. You continue to bring reproach on God's good name. Time to repent.

                  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 14:05:09

                    Meleti, you wrote:
                    "I see, so God didn’t plan it this way but knew it was inevitable. Yes, it is clear now that those two terms bear no relationship whatsoever to each other. God created two beings who would not be able to avoid sin, and he declared them good."
                    Yes, Meleti, God can create something Good while also knowing it will not remain so. The Serpent drew to himself spirit sons in heaven. To succeed with lowly flesh is, by comparison, the proverbial piece of cake, a no-brainer, no problem, easy peasy.
                    You also wrote:
                    "Come on. You continue to bring reproach on God’s good name. Time to repent."
                    I will assume you forgot to put a smilie after that statement.
                    If not, I suggest you ban me because I have not sinned against God and have nothing to repent for.
                    Is there a "library" on this site? I'm ready brother...more than ready. :)
                    Deborah

            • Reply by Nick O. on 2015-11-18 19:10:56

              Deborah,
              Please explain to me why you feel that Adam and Eve's fall was inevitable. Of course free will allows for these things to happen, but inevitable?
              What about each individual angel? We know that some angels followed Satan's course, yet the majority remain faithful. Could not either of those two possibilities have taken place for the human Adam (who would be considered made "a little lower than angels")?
              You suggest that it was Christ's unique nature that kept him from being able to fall. Yet would we not agree that as God's only begotten son, Christ's nature is something different from that of the angels?
              I just don't see how it was inevitable for Adam and Eve to fall, but allow room for that not being the case with Gabriel or any other faithful angel. Or is it inevitable that at some point he too will fall?
              If Gabriel was created with free will in such a way, that he can go his entire existence faithful to God, yet Adam could not, that would suggest a defect in God's work. It cannot be!

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 10:27:02

    The biggest problem about intelligent physical life elsewhere relates to the resolution of God's sovereignty over the universe. Since our world fell into sin because of Adam and Eve, earth is a lawless, renegade world. A tremendous amount of effort and trouble has been expended by God and Christ to arrange the ransom sacrifice and help get us out of this mess. Suppose other people were created on other worlds while the issue of God's sovereignty and Satan's defiance remain as yet unresolved. It could create a legal paradox.
    Consider the case of Adam and Eve after they sinned. The tree of life was still in existence, and the "protocol" was that if anyone ate from that tree, they would be deemed worthy of everlasting life. Since Adam and Eve were now sinners, they didn't deserve that gift, but "a deal is a deal" so to speak. They simply couldn't be allowed to eat from this tree, because it would have compelled God to keep His word in a way He had no desire to do. Thus, God placed the angels on guard duty to prevent this from happening and thus prevent a legal paradox. (As an alternative, God could have simply destroyed this tree and been done with it, but the fact that He left it there under guard was an "object lesson" to remind all onlookers that we are sinners and don't deserve God's favor any more. A painful lesson, but a necessary one.)
    In like manner, the nation of Israel was given the "formula" for the priestly anointing oil. It was to be only used by the priests in their official functions and to anoint the high priest. If someone learned the formula for this oil and made some themselves, it could imply God's blessing on mere human activities, which would be a breach of protocol and an abuse of the privilege and sacredness of this substance. Again, this would amount to creating a legal paradox. To prevent that, the Law stipulated than anyone making this oil without authorization was to be put to death.
    I see the issue of intelligent persons on other worlds as falling under the same dilemma of legal paradox. If those hypothetical persons fell into sin, what ransom would be left for them, if God sent his only begotten son to US, to die once for all time? God can't exactly create ANOTHER only begotten son, and Christ can't die again, or the scriptures would be made invalid.
    There is certainly no problem with God "readying" other worlds for future habitation by people. Perhaps He has made many such worlds that just contains plants and animals, but not people, waiting for the day when sin has been removed from the universe. However, it would be premature for Him to put people there now, until these matters get resolved.
    Well, that's how I see it.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 10:34:26

      I no longer agree with the JW view that there is any issue involving the resolution of God's sovereignty. I do not believe it was ever in question. Have a look at Vindicating Jehovah's Sovereignty for a detailed discussion.

      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 11:51:16

        Whether we wish to view the issue as a question of "sovereignty" or simply the temporary tolerance of sin and lawlessness, there is a "problem" with mankind's relationship with God, which needs to be resolved here, first, so that chaos does not rule over the universe. Surely God would not allow the craziness of this world to exist and flourish on other worlds. That's all I am trying to say.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 12:24:05

          I agree with everything except the "first". If he created 10 worlds with intelligent life, and this one was the 10th and here is where the sin started, then it can be resolved here for the benefit of all.

          • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 12:57:38

            It's all speculation, of course, so my theory is as good as your theory and vice versa, but I do feel that God could have foreseen that things had the potential to turn out badly for his human creation, and because of that potential problem, he would not deliberately set himself up to have to deal with 10 "problem worlds", as if 'fighting a war on 10 fronts' all at once. Suppose He created human life on two worlds, and they both fell into sin. What does He do now? On the other hand, if God created life on other worlds before us, and they sinned and then their problems had already gotten resolved before the problems here on earth, there would be no need for the ransom sacrifice here, since the legal issues would have been settled elsewhere.
            I am just not convinced that there is any way God could allow human life to exist elsewhere without the issue of sin and disobedience getting resolved definitively. It would just be so "messy" not to have resolved this with some finality. Really, if you were in God's place, would you allow chaos, or even the risk of chaos, to exist on multiple worlds? I just can't see how or why God would ever tolerate that situation to exist.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 13:09:36

              The only way I can see your logic working is if we assume God planned for man to sin. I cannot accept that premise based on what the bible teaches us as 1 John 4:8.

              • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 17:14:53

                No, I don't believe God "planned" for man to sin in the sense of knowing, foreseeing or expecting ahead of time that man would definitely sin. But surely a God as wise and knowledgeable as He is could foresee the possibility that such a contingency could occur.
                Consider the advice in Proverbs 22:3: "Shrewd is the one that has seen [or, FORESEEN] the calamity and proceeds to conceal himself, but the inexperienced have passed along and must suffer the penalty."
                Now, this verse isn't an exact match to the principle under discussion here. Still, surely the One that inspired this advice could Himself foresee the calamity that would befall the universe if He were to allow sin and disobedience to exist on multiple worlds at the same time. For Him not to be able to foresee this possibility just doesn't sound like the God we have come to know; He is smarter and wiser than that.

                • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 09:10:40

                  I agree.
                  If God had created multiple "earths" with the same pattern of placing a test before each first intelligent couple, God would have known that His Son was being exposed to being tortured and dying for each planet that fell. That does not sound like Jehovah who is a God of Order and Wisdom.
                  Satan, though, would have looked forward to the prospect of putting God's firstborn Son to multiple tests and tortures.
                  No, it makes total sense that earth, this planet, is the only home of physical intelligent life. The only planet to experience what separation from God means, the only planet to experience the depth of God's love by giving up His Son, and the beauty of Christ.
                  Christ dies only once.

              • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 17:58:52

                God did not plan for man to sin, neither did He plan for angels to fall. It has nothing to do with "planning" but recognizing that self-determination will result in a measure of rebellion.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 22:23:14

              Hi The Real Anonymous,
              This is a thought experiment admittedly. I'm not trying to prove that other worlds exist.
              Taking your example of 10 worlds, you have myriads of angels who have existed since the start of time. However, they measure time, in our universe they've been around since the beginning. No one has sinned. Then God creates intelligent physical life. Let's call our planet earth 10. So on earth 1 he creates life. The procreate. Thousands of years go by. No sin. Then he moves to earth 2. The process continues down through earth 3, 4, to 9. Finally, now there are 9 civilizations that are eons old. No one has sinned. There is no reason to believe that physical creation is any more likely to sin than angelic creation. After all, it was an angel that sinned first and that was entirely on him. No one tempted him.
              We cannot assume that a flesh is more susceptible to sin, because the only flesh we've ever known has been borne in sin, so we have no frame of reference.
              So we come to earth 10. Adam and Eve. Then the first angel to ever sin happen to be the appointed cherub over the garden. (Ez 28:13-17) He tempted Adam and Eve, and now the first physical creation to even sin, sinned.
              At this point there is only 1 problem world. What is the basis for your belief that the other nine must also become problem worlds?

              • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 22:43:25

                I do not believe that any of them MUST become problem worlds. The issue is, what if more than one DID? How would God resolve it?
                We can certainly say that since God has wisdom far beyond us, He surely could come up with something. In the case of our earth, from a human standpoint, when Adam and Eve sinned, we ourselves (were it possible for us today to be independent observers of the events in Eden) might have concluded that all was lost, that man's future was hopeless, that it was "game over" so to speak. Yet God stepped in and saved the day, and us, through the ransom arrangement.
                In doing so, He gave the best He had, His son. If more than one world was populated by sinful humans, what would the other worlds get? Some runner up, as it were? A consolation prize? God loved His son dearly, and would not have allowed him to suffer and die if there was any other way to save us.
                This is what I mean by a paradox being created. If sin existed on two worlds, there would need to be two ransoms, but God has only one only begotten son. Not enough sons to go around.
                If you can explain how the sinners of two worlds can be redeemed by one only begotten son of God, then I might consider it, but otherwise I would remain unconvinced.

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-18 08:23:52

                  I believe the problem arises due to a faulty premise, that being that the children of God on the other pre-existing 9 worlds would need to be redeemed. I believe that the redemption for humans is a unique case.
                  Why do the angels who sinned not get a redeemer? Simply put, because there is no basis for redemption. They were God's work and his work is good. They make themselves imperfect by conscious choice, the willing exercise of their free will. So why would the inhabitants of the other 9 worlds deserve a redeemer? Answer: They wouldn't anymore than the angels do. Remember, these worlds were already in existence and fully populated by the time Adam and Eve came on the scene--full of perfect people.
                  There is nothing in the Bible to indicate more than one rebellion. It appears that Satan was the first. He was allowed to live and because of that was able to corrupt others. Again, if our hypothetical 9 world also existed he might have been allowed access to them. In the end, you'd have many angels and physical creatures turned to bad. The result would be their extermination.
                  For such sin, there would be neither need nor legal basis for a redeemer. So why do we have one. Two related reasons: Timing and procreation! If our earth had been fully populated, it would not have differed from the other 9 worlds. The fact that it wasn't changed things. God's purpose for the earth could not be frustrated. His purpose involved Adam and Eve and is stated at Genesis 1:28. Satan waited until the perfect moment to execute his plan. When he caused Adam and Eve to fall, he must have thought he'd won the day, causing God to fail. He could not have foreseen the loving wisdom that gave birth to the ransom. This was a great mystery even to the angels. (1Pe 1:10-12)
                  God's purpose for the earth was to be fulfilled through the process of procreation, yet all of Adam's children would now be born in sin. So the reason we need a redeemer is that none of us chose to sin. We were stripped off our free will, our birth right, by the sin of our forefather. This would not be the case on the other 9 hypothetical worlds. Rebels there would be treated just like the rebellious angels. No need for a redeemer.

                  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 10:55:38

                    Meleti, I will give you a little leeway, but just a little.
                    Let's go back to the 10 worlds scenario. For lack of a better explanation, let's call our earth Earth One, and let's assume the existence of an Earth Two. Earth One has Adam and Eve. Earth Two has "Adam Two" and "Eve Two". Assume both Adams and both Eves sin. If a universal issue needs a legal resolution, the resolution doesn't need to be re-established everywhere. If so, Adam One and Eve One are allowed to live and bear children, but Adam Two and Eve Two are immediately put to death.
                    As you noted, perfect persons (physical or spirit) cannot be forgiven and can't be redeemed, since as perfect beings, they have utterly no excuse for their wrongful actions. Thus, God would be perfectly within His rights to execute Adam Two and Eve Two immediately, and NOT allow them to begin a sinful race of humans on Earth Two. God can allow the events of Earth One to play out, without the need or risk of creating a legal paradox on other worlds.
                    This is the only situation where I think God could allow this situation to exist. Only one world would be allowed to experience sin and death. The Bible says that Christ tasted death for every man (and, in a way, he tasted death for every angel, since there is no record that any angel ever died) so in a similar way, we on "Earth One" have tasted sin and death for every (real or potential) inhabited planet that now exists or will exist in the future.
                    No one will ever have to go through what we live with each day. Literally, thank God.

                    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-18 12:24:02

                      Ah, but you didn't go back to my 10 worlds scenario. You created a different one, one in which God simultaneously creates two earths with two Adams and two Eves. My scenario provided for a sequential roll-out of intelligent physical life. So there would only ever be one instance where God's purpose to appear to be foiled by causing the parents of all unborn creatures to sin.

                      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 14:00:50

                        I was just trying to keep the explanation simple. Of course, if life existed on multiple worlds, we have no way of knowing the ordering of it, whether done at the same time or in a serial fashion. If there were a "sequential roll out" of life, where did Adam and Eve fit on the roll-out schedule, if not first? I don't believe asserting a sequential roll-out solves the underlying problem, which is determining what to do if there is an overlap of time in which human life exists on more than one world, and the possibility exists of sin developing on both those worlds. Simultaneous or sequential, eventually an overlap will exist. If worse comes to worst, what does God do with respect to redeeming mankind (all of them, on every world where this is needed)? I don't see how your scenario in any way can ensure that "there would only ever be one instance where God’s purpose to appear to be foiled by causing the parents of all unborn creatures to sin".
                        This is certainly an interesting thought exercise, but there's probably not much cause to overly dwell on it. I have enjoyed this thoughtful and civil discussion with you, Meleti.

                        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-19 12:06:51

                          Our differing points of view stem from your premise that that all human civilizations can be redeemed if sin breaks out, while I believe not human who is not born in sin can be redeemed. The angels who rebelled are not being redeemed, so why should Adam be redeemed, or million perfect sinless individuals on Earth 2.0 be redeemed when countless angels fell, because demons and have no option for redemption. Our situation--yours and mine--is special in that we were never prefect and sinless, but were born in sin. We never had the option to choose. Nevertheless, we to deserve to die. It is only undeserved kindness that allows us a redeemer, and Jehovah can offer this without breaking his unbreakable law by adopting us into his family from Adam's sinful family. We were never God's children as Adam was, so we can be adopted. But Adam and the rebellious angels were God's children and have lost out.

                  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 11:44:36

                    Interesting Meleti.
                    If your "thought experiment" was true then I pity those other worlds who missed out on experiencing for themselves the depths of God's LOVE which was expressed in God's own personal sacrifice when He sent His Son to die for us. They have also missed out on seeing the Son of God and the Glory of God triumphing over evil.
                    What beauty in Christ when he delivered his misled and spiritually hungry disciples, when he gave his life for them, when he accepted them with all their faults and loved them.
                    I am happy to be a daughter of earth where God sent His most beautiful Son to Teach, Save, and Love as his Father Loves. And where because Christ, the Passover Lamb, died for us, we have been bought by God as first fruits, the saved firstborn, with the hope of entering heaven itself.
                    Yes, I pity those other worlds in your "thought experiment".
                    I have no further comment.
                    Deborah

          • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 14:06:53

            Freedom to obey or not obey results in the inevitable: attempts at disobedience. I do not believe it possible for an entire race of intelligent sons to be absent ANY attempt by some individuals to sooner or later,, at the very least, test disobedience. Logic and experience prove this true.
            The Bible proves this true.

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 14:55:08

              Actually, what the Bible proves to be true is that intelligent beings can live in their millions or billions for billions of years before one of them sins. This is the case with Jehovah's spirit sons. Why would it be different with his physical sons who were made only a little lower than the angels. Thus, it is quite possible that countless physical civilizations were created before the spirit son who became Satan, who was apparently the first of his kind to sin, took advantage of his assigned place in Eden to tempt the first humans. As a consequence, all creation spiritual and (potentially) physical awaits the outcome. One test for all time and all civilizations.
              It is also possible that this is the first physical civilization ever and this is the first time this has happened. Who knows? God knows.

              • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 16:27:38

                If Satan had countless physical civilizations to tempt he would have succeeded in causing some individuals in each of those civilizations to rebel. The enticement to being like God is powerful.
                Surely God knew there would be spirit sons who would choose to rebel, sad to say, when it comes to free will, the roll of the dice makes it so.
                We disagree on the possibility of other worlds remaining free from error. I do not believe Satan would have it so since it appears that God has allowed him to do his dirty work for good reason.
                Differentiation. The separating work between those who will obey and those who choose not to obey. Those who choose to love and those who choose not to love.
                Satan chose not to love God, his brother angels, and finally God's fleshly and very vulnerable human creation.
                Jesus both as the Word and as a man chose to love his Father and in that love gave his life.
                This is the basis for all that has happened both in heaven and on earth- Having self-determination will we choose love of God and neighbor over our own pleasures and even our own lives.

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 16:46:07

                  >>If Satan had countless physical civilizations to tempt he would have succeeded in causing some individuals in each of those civilizations to rebel. The enticement to being like God is powerful.
                  That assumes that a loving father would have permitted him access to these other civilizations. There are just too many variables for us to make a determination one way or the other.
                  >>Surely God knew there would be spirit sons who would choose to rebel, sad to say, when it comes to free will, the roll of the dice makes it so.
                  God's work is perfect. It tooks billions of years before the first spirit son rebelled. Are we to assume less of his physical works?
                  >>We disagree on the possibility of other worlds remaining free from error. I do not believe Satan would have it so since it appears that God has allowed him to do his dirty work for good reason.
                  Here you're redefining my argument.

                  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 17:48:44

                    "God’s work is perfect."
                    Brother, "perfect" and self-determination do not neatly align one with the other. How do you define "perfect" with respect to God's intelligent creation? The Genesis creation account called God's creations Good not perfect. What is perfect? Who is Perfect? Is it not Only God?
                    Mat 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect," meaning complete. We will never be Perfect in its purest form as God is Perfect.
                    "It tooks billions of years before the first spirit son rebelled. Are we to assume less of his physical works?"
                    Yes, because we are flesh. As for the billions of years you speak of- Time does not exist in heaven, it has no value or use outside of our physical world.
                    Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;)

                    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 22:04:42

                      You're getting off topic and continuing to make unfounded assertions. I believe further discussion will prove unfruitful, so I'll be discontinuing, with all due respect.

                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-20 18:17:51

                    Yes, Meleti, there are some things I feel Jehovah will just not permit. I think angels materializing and marrying women, according to our Bible study a couple of weeks ago, would have been one of them. Every scripture in Genesis 6 and 7 shows God's power maintaing his authority over men and angels. Jesus never mentions cohabiting and even says angels do not marry. Just a side thought.

      • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-17 12:14:10

        A rebellion against God's Right to Rule, the Right to Require Obedience, occurred in heaven. God's Supreme Power was never in question but the gift of being sons lovingly given self-determination was abused in the extreme. They put themselves first before even their God and Creator and they fell.
        I agree, it was not sovereignty that was the true issue. God is not a human king from whom sovereignty can be grasped. Obedience was the issue- would the angelic armies created with self-determination obey their God in ALL things or would some choose their own path leading toward separation from God, with the attending loss of God's spirit throwing them into spiritual darkness and inevitable destruction.
        God's human sons and daughters must some day also stand up in full obedience to their God and Father.
        .

Comment by Christopher on 2015-11-16 17:55:06

Thank you for doing all of these articles. I know they take time. Sometimes I think the JWs do a great job on the articles and you pull the slant out. Thank you because I would never have been able to pick these inconsistencies out. Thank you so much for taking your time to do this each week.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-16 18:17:06

  Thank you Christopher. It is work, but enjoyable and rewarding work.

Comment by Buster on 2015-11-16 18:50:05

Guardians of Doctrines............ somebody must have watched Guardians of the Galaxy, I love that the watchtower goes all X-Files in Paragraph 6....Amazing.
Love to all from Bustrt

• Reply by Buster on 2015-11-16 18:56:51

  Great as always my Brother, of course they won't use John 14:6, that is the scripture they don't approve of ( i say in my own opinion) , I love that they love using Matthew 28:19, but on the baptism talk at the Assemblies they don't drop it one, and we all know the Questions since the Mid 80's, changed to more legalism, sorry getting off subject, keep doing great work. :)

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-16 18:55:15

WT puts great stock in the fact that it has "restored" the name "Jehovah" in the NT, as though they were doing a great thing. This, despite the fact that there are over 5,000 existing NT manuscripts available to scholars, and the Tetragrammaton is not present in any of them. If there were really some apostate or pagan influence or textual corruption that slowly infiltrated the NT text, surely there would be some transitional forms where the YHWH letters were a present in a few places at least. Bible texts were rare, very difficult to produce, and thus extremely valuable. Even if there were transitional forms where the YHWH was being phased out, no one would have simply thrown them away as if "trash". Such discontinued texts (if such existed) would have been carefully saved, and the very fact that they were (supposedly) being discontinued would mean that they would receive less wear and tear and thus might have had a greater chance of still existing today, at least some of them. Yet not one such text exists.
Sometimes WT treats this YHWH almost like it has magical powers. Yes, it is God's name, and I certainly would not view it disrespectfully. However, if we consider the meaning of YHWH, purportedly "He causes to become", that is little different than the simple word "Creator". Suppose all the instances of Kyrios and Lord etc. were replaced by Creator. Would that really change the picture in any significant way? Would our understanding of God really be enhanced? I don't see how.
Jesus said he made his Father's name known to his followers. Yet, all his followers were Jews, taught and raised to know and obey the Mosaic Law, and every last one of them "knew" the name YHWH. That being so, what would be the point of Jesus telling us how he made this name known - a "name" they technically already knew? For WT to simply substitute YHWH at certain points in the NT, or claiming that others in the past removed that YHWH, just doesn't explain it.
BUT, if making the Father's "name" known meant conveying and teaching the realization that followers of Christ could be adopted as SONS, then that WOULD mean something extremely important. That explains why the model prayer starts out, "Our FATHER in heaven". Really, would anyone throughout history who even vaguely claimed to be Christian even DARE to change the words of Christ when he told people they must pray this way? So why doesn't it say "Jehovah" here? Yet, WT would have us believe that somehow, someone removed "Jehovah" from this prayer, and every other reference to the Father. It strains credulity to accept that.
The Jews knew God as YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Creator, but they DIDN'T know him his as their Father. That is far, far more important.
Because of that, when WT replaces LORD with Jehovah in the NT, they are doing no one any favors. The same people who give you Jehovah instead of LORD are also giving you Jehovah instead of Father.
To illustrate: Suppose we had some argument or disagreement with our earthly father, and we became estranged from him, perhaps disowned by him. In time, a lawyer and counselor worked with us to help get on good terms again with our father, who now chooses to hire us as an employee in his company, and also chooses to say good things about us to others. We are now on "friendly terms" with our father, and are employed by our father (a benefit we do in fact appreciate) but being the busy company man he is, he has no time to see us.
In contrast, suppose the same difficult circumstances and estrangement were ended by our father forgiving us and acknowledging to everyone that we were again his son.
Which scenario would YOU prefer? Which would be more encouraging, more heartwarming? Do you want an employer? Or a father?
In like manner, do you want an all-powerful Lord and Creator of the universe commanding you, or do you want a Father who loves and accepts you? Personally, I'd take the latter.
Why, then, does WT deem it necessary and desirable to take away our heavenly Father and replace him with what essentially amounts to a heavenly Employer, and then reserve that fatherly relationship to themselves alone?
What right does the WT have to take our Father away from us? Isn't that like kidnapping?

• Reply by AR on 2015-11-17 04:32:18

  Well said, TRA.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 08:09:16

  They have no right. If one goes back to the original 1934 article, one sees in the closing paragraphs that the whole reason was to create a clergy/laity division. See Going Beyond What Is Written.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 11:55:02

    What 1934 article are you referring to? Can you provide a link?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 12:22:51

      I can do better than that. I can provide an analysis. See Going Beyond What Is Written.

      • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 12:48:56

        I don't understand. The article you note is about the role of women, and only briefly touches on going beyond what is written. It says nothing about "the 1934 article". How does this relate? I am confused.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-17 13:06:27

          Sorry. I was wondering why you were asking me for a reference when I'd already provided one. I must have clicked on the wrong article when I put that link together. I've fixed it now.
          The article in question breaks down the points from both articles in the two-part series titled "His Kindness" which was the article that launched the whole "other sheep" fiasco.

• Reply by 1984 on 2015-11-18 02:27:08

  A very thought provoking comment, very insightful. One thing that's always bothered me is why Jehovah didn't preserve his name in the Greek scriptures if it was that important - why it doesn't exist in any of the oldest extant fragments. Clearly if it was that important Jehovah would have made sure that it survived, that we would have some proof, some evidence of this, beyond doubt. Unless it wasn't there to begin with!

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 16:06:25

    Your unease about this matter is quite understandable. The difficulties go even further. Consider the model prayer, where Jesus asks his Father that His name be sanctified. Here we have the sinless, righteous son of God praying that his own Father's name be sanctified. What possible reason could God have to NOT listen to His son about this matter, one that seemingly is near and dear to God's heart?
    And yet, there are no surviving manuscripts that carry that very name of his Father. This implies that God refused to listen to His only-begotten son in prayer. The very thought of it seems incomprehensible, but what other conclusion can we come to?
    If God will not even listen to his righteous son regarding a matter of sanctifying the name of the creator of the universe, what possible hope do WE have, as mere sinful humans, of having God listen to ANYTHING we pray about whatsoever?
    And in terms of the NT manuscripts over history, what Jesus asked for wasn't even that great a feat. All God had to do is just ensure that mere humans didn't erase or scratch out four letters on a piece of paper, letters containing His very own name. Is that really too much to ask or expect of God?
    If the name YHWH is really so important, but God allowed it to be obliterated from the NT, then everything the Bible says about the importance of prayers, and the promise that God will listen to prayers, seems to be nothing but a lie.
    OR ... the NT didn't really have YHWH in it after all, because the word Father and the relationship it holds out is even more sacred to a Christian, and the WT theories about it being removed are groundless.
    Which scenario do YOU think is more likely ?

    • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 16:45:40

      I will say this once and not defend or explain my post:
      Jah's Name is very much a part of the Greek Scriptures, it occurs in EVERY NT manuscript.
      The problem is the Christian churches have failed to teach their members that the name "Jesus" is in fact "Joshua" which means Jah Saves.
      Thus- Let your Name be sanctified or be made holy- refers back to Jah's saving grace through His Son.
      The Watchtower is wrong to insert God's Name where it does not occur. It is also wrong to say God's Name is missing from the manuscripts, it is not.
      Jesus, Jah Saves, gives glory to his God in all things and all ways- even in his name!

      • Reply by 1984 on 2015-11-18 23:29:37

        That's a fair point Deborah, and another example is the word hallelujah, which contains at least part of the divine name. But that is also why I have felt conflicted over this issue. Those derivations of the divine have survived in the Greek scriptures, but the divine name itself hasn't. And yet, it has been preserved in the much older Hebrew Scriptures, in Tetragrammaton form at least. It also seems unlikely to me that Jesus would not use that name when quoting from the Hebrew scritpures. That said though, I wonder if it is really all that important to Jehovah in the end? After all, he hasn't even preserved the pronunciation of his name or the actual vowels anywhere in the bible, unlike all the other names (and yes, I realise we don't really know how to pronounce any of them with 100% accuracy.) I wonder then whether TRA has hit on something - that it is the relationship that is more important to us now. Sometimes it's hard to step back and separate ourselves from Watchtower indoctrination which ties the divine name in with the issue of sovereignty (which is a complete red herring.) Don't get me wrong, the divine name should be in the bible where it is recorded, but given the way it has been imperfectly preserved maybe it's not such a big deal. It certainly shouldn't be added where it is absent in the oldest the manuscripts, that's nobody's place. If Jehovah wants it there then he will either reveal some proof in the future, or would have done already.

Comment by AR on 2015-11-16 23:48:52

Thanks Meleti for uncovering this misapplication of 1 John 3:1, and highlighting father/son relationship.
para 1 they make ref to the verse yet again fail to give its true message. Those in the organisation who are anointed, must feel left out to a degree. Rarely do these one get fed, because most of these articles cater to "the other sheep". This wouldn't be the case if they taught, the truth as to all Christians being adopted as sons. This would be perfect passage to build the father/son relationship and strengthen this relationship.
Anyway, when I'm in the ministry, I always encourage people to read the context of the passage and see how it fits overall theme, to get real meaning. As an eg: I would say" do you know the bible teaches " there is "no God" usually they say no it doesn't , then they invite me to show them,..so I do, I refer to them psalm 14:1... There is no God." ..see it says "there is no God!!! That's enough to make the point, check context, because the context doesn't mean that statement. yes it's misleading to omit part of verse so as to slant it to suit your own teaching.

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-11-17 03:34:43

To be fair looking at the article although its outrageous to leave out (that we should be called children of god ) it does draw on the point of the love a father has for is children . So i personally havent got a big problem with the article . However it seems that 99% of the witnesses are not switched on to the fact that even by thier own admission they are not classed as sons and daughters but only the so called anointed are . So how can the theme scripture of 1 john 3 ; 1 really apply to the vast majority of witnesses . It should read see what sort of love the father has given us that we should become his friends . If watchtower doctrine is correct of course .

• Reply by Anonymous on 2018-03-14 04:59:43

  Sorry...but even the ANGELS are called "Sons Of God" in a difference sense than those who "Adopted or called to heaven as Anointed Sons Of God"

Comment by Susan on 2015-11-17 03:51:05

Merely following up on WT ellipses can be an interesting exercise in itself. They often use this tactic to misrepresent a variety of sources - scientists, historians, biblical scholars, to the bible itself. All in order to make it look like these sources agree with their thinking, but when you read the original you will find the opposite!

Comment by sopaterofberea on 2015-11-17 06:41:54

I enjoyed this Meleti, thanks for bringing the context into the picture.
I remain constantly amazed at how often this occurs, that a lesson is built around a portion of a verse, taken completely out of its context. Simply reading the sentence before and after the "theme" text changes everything.
Like you, my realization of being adopted happened only recently. For my entire life when reading the NT, I never felt as though the words were actually speaking to me. I felt like a third party, like an in-law at a family reunion...... like the feeling one has when attending their spouse's high school reunion.
JW's are all about the relationship with the "organization", not about our personal relationship as brothers of Christ and sons of Jehovah. This explains why many (not all) who have left the organization (either willfully or by force), struggle maintaining any spirituality at all. Some become agnostic, some atheist. Most remain lost, and live only for today.
The "guardian's of our doctrine" teach that an intimate relationship with Christ and Jehovah, which was the very foundation of Christianity and the purpose for the NT being written, is available to only a few special Jehovah's Witnesses. The other 8 million are merely observers of the observers.
Keep up the good work brother.
Sopatar

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 15:48:45

  Just an aside ... has everyone noticed how much WT dissenters have picked up the phrase "Guardians of Doctrine" from the Australian child abuse hearings? This must really have struck a raw nerve. Just about any web site you go to that critiques WT has pointed this out. Personally, to me, the expression does seem to be the height of audacity and arrogance.
  Consider the words of Jesus towards the first-century Guardians of Doctrine - the Scribes and Pharisees. It takes little imagination to see how these words apply to the GB today.
  Matthew 23:1-12:
  Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore all the things they tell YOU, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but do not perform. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them upon the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger.
  5 All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as SAFEGUARDS, and enlarge the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men.
  8 But YOU, do not YOU be called Rabbi, for one is YOUR teacher, whereas all YOU are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for YOUR Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among YOU must be YOUR minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted

Comment by Father jack on 2015-11-17 11:35:23

And in paragraph 17 we have the usual plug . By means of his word and bible baaed publications from his organisation . We are helped to see the truth ect ect . Where as 2 timothy3 ; 16 and 17 shows we need no such thing but just the scriptures themselves . The brothers regulary miss qoute the verses to prove in the authenticity of the bible but the point paul was making here was telling timothy how to protect himself from being misled .

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-17 12:44:13

  And too, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows that Bible is all we need, because by it alone we are "completely equipped". If our equipment is "complete", what more is needed? But WT says, 'no, it's not complete without us'. They love to talk about the Bible being inspired, when it suits them - thus implying that the scriptures are worthy of being trusted - but when it says it is complete, they renege on that, and effectively teach that in fact it can't be trusted unless they (the Guardians of Doctrine) explain it all to us. Hmm ...

Comment by 1984 on 2015-11-17 19:17:38

Such a great article Meleti, thank you. It occurred to me as I read through it that if I were to go to the meeting on Sunday and answer up every time there was a contradiction or logical fallacy in the article, quoting only the scriptures and other Watchtower articles, they would soon stop picking my hand. So much for the "glorious freedom of the children of God." !

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-11-18 03:00:24

Thanks for the article meleti , just reading your point under the heading misapplying the principle of fatherly protection . As you know what they are doing here is a mystical manipulation technique . One of liftons points on thought control . I saw some of last months broadcast about the devastaton caused in the phillipines . The important thing seemed to be making a video of all the (faith strengthening experiences ) more than anything else .

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-18 10:43:53

  They make these videos to be sure everyone sees how faithful and righteous everyone in WT is.
  Matthew 6:1-6:
  Take good care not to practice YOUR righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise YOU will have no reward with YOUR Father who is in the heavens. 2 Hence when you go making gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, just as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be glorified by men. Truly I say to YOU, They are having their reward in full. 3 But you, when making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 4 that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you.
  5 “Also, when YOU pray, YOU must not be as the hypocrites; because they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men. Truly I say to YOU, They are having their reward in full. 6 You, however, when you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; then your Father who looks on in secret will repay you.

  • Reply by Deborah on 2015-11-18 14:26:32

    Great post, thanks TRA.

  • Reply by Father jack on 2015-11-19 02:41:01

    Yeah what these videos do is give the impression that there is a a god given protection and blessing if we are part of the organisation . Therefore imoressing on millions of others that we need to be in it if we want gods protection .

Comment by Buster on 2015-11-18 04:35:04

Remember Jesus on the NWT bible in Colossians Jesus created all other things maybe the NWT bible meant life on other planets..... Sorry bad pun or Truth Pun.... :)