The Watchtower Society's View of Truth

Alan Feuerbacher

Index:

Part 1: The Society's View of Material It Publishes

Introduction

At this point it should be clear that I am not convinced the Society is always concerned with truth. In the essay on the Flood I have documented how the Society ignores geological evidence it is unable to explain, as though by ignoring it the evidence would go away. By ignoring this evidence the Society makes it impossible for Witnesses to defend their beliefs when anyone challenges them on the geological evidence. In the essay on sin, imperfection and the ransom sacrifice I have shown how the Society has used circumlocution to avoid having to address sticky problems related to God's love, justice and mercy. This refusal to directly address issues of fundamental importance leaves Witnesses unprepared against charges that God is unloving toward mankind based on these issues.

It is as if the Society feels that by never discussing contrary evidence, doubts will not be induced in the faithful. The Society almost always mentions only the virtues of a position it has taken. Where a problem exists, it is only mentioned if a good argument can be given in explanation. Doesn't the Society think Witnesses are intelligent enough to handle things that aren't nailed down solidly? The Society seems to feel that only it is qualified to think seriously about fundamental religious topics. It is quite clear that the responsibility of the average Witness is to bring his thinking in line with whatever the Society happens to have most recently published.

The February 15, 1981 Watchtower said on page 19:

Jesus' disciples wrote many letters to Christian congregations, to persons who were already in "the way of the truth." But nowhere do we read that those brothers first, in a skeptical frame of mind, checked the Scriptures to make certain that those letters had Scriptural backing, that the writers really knew what they were talking about.

In view of what I've found in the course of thorough research on my own, one clearly should check things out with a skeptical frame of mind, because in so many cases the Society's writers clearly do not know "what they are talking about."

This essay deals with a few more issues related to what I perceive as the Society's attempts to muddle certain issues. I give examples showing simple misinterpretation, presenting only supporting evidence while ignoring contrary evidence, and wholesale obfuscation.

All of this may be due to simple ignorance on my part. If so I should like to see why, in enough detail that only an unreasonable person would be unconvinced. Only specific coverage of details will convince me the Society places any value on truth -- general arguments are of no value. I have often heard Witnesses say (ultimately based on statements from the Society) that scientific reasoning is of no value, as it "comes from men, not God." There is something to be said for this, when it comes to looking at conclusions drawn from evidence, but this argument is usually applied to anything that appears to conflict with what the Society says on scientific matters, even when the conflict is due to observations that do not require much by way of conclusions, other than that one can see, feel, hear, trust one's own senses, and think.

To illustrate what I mean, if you remember from the essay on The Flood, there were a series of floods called the Missoula floods, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, that were of limited extent. That they were of limited extent, and not global, is a conclusion drawn from the observations that soil and bedrock were stripped away only up to a certain elevation, and the elevation decreased smoothly along the Columbia River from eastern Washington to its mouth near Astoria, Oregon. Geologists concluded that the source of the flood was the valley of the Clark Fork River in Montana, because of the observations that stripping of soil and bedrock occurred at elevations that were greatest near the mouth of the Clark Fork Valley, that giant ripple ridges were found on the floor of the valley, especially in the narrows, that wave cut benches were found on mountainsides throughout the Clark Fork Valley, and other such phenomena.

Suppose a water hose is turned loose on bare dirt, and the water strips out a little valley and runs off, and then the hose is taken away. No one would question the conclusion that someone turned on a hose, based on the observation that a little valley existed where none ought to be. Similar basic reasoning, based on geological observations, shows the Missoula floods occurred. The observations are too clear and the conclusions too simple, for a pat answer like "scientists make mistakes, so maybe the flood evidence that is being interpreted as local really points to Noah's Flood." One does not have to be a scientist to see what happened, any more than one has to be a scientist to figure out a hose had been turned on.

The point I'm making is that much of the evidence I've presented in these essays is of this simple nature. That is why I've made it so clear throughout that general arguments are of little value in proving a specific point, and so are of little value in proving that the conclusions I've drawn from all the observations I've noted are in error. The conclusions are too simple to be swept away by rhetorical generalities. That is why I've often said "I've been forced to conclude...." My present view is well expressed by what Steve Allen said in the introduction to his book Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, about his difficulties with his religious upbringing:1

The troubling questions arose from one source only: my intellect. To the extent that one has some respect for the rules of evidence, one cannot ignore these moments when a biblically based religious opinion comes into flat contradiction with either factual evidence or logical reasoning.

Is it ever reasonable to ask someone to suppress his intellect or to ignore facts?

The Society's View of Material It Publishes

A major point I have trouble with is the Society's attitude about material it publishes and the way it expects Jehovah's Witnesses to view that material -- the topic of "adjustments in understanding," if you will. On one hand, the Society often writes articles from the point of view that it expects Witnesses to accept the material as if it came directly from God. For example, the United in Worship book asks several questions:2

Do we truly appreciate how Jehovah is directing his visible organization?

When we appreciatively accept the spiritual provisions that come through the 'slave' class and its Governing body, for whom are we showing respect? But what if we were to speak disparagingly of these?

Then the reader is referred to Luke 10:16, which says:

He that listens to you listens to me [too]. Moreover, he that disregards me disregards [also] him that sent me forth.

Although it is not directly stated, the implication is that an appreciative Witness will accept whatever spiritual provisions the Society makes as if those provisions came directly from God.

Another example showing the Society's expectations in this regard is found in some Watchtower main study articles "Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order" and "Each One in His Place." One paragraph says of the "faithful slave":3

Their duties include receiving and passing on to all of Jehovah's earthly servants spiritual food at the proper time.

Another paragraph says:4

How vital it is for everyone in God's family to submit loyally to the teachings and arrangements of the Great Theocrat, Jehovah, and his King-Son, Christ Jesus, as transmitted through the 'faithful slave' on earth!

A third paragraph says:5

Jehovah has provided a goodly quantity of aids to Bible understanding in the form of publications....

Another Watchtower article said:6

"One body" is the Christian congregation, of which Jesus is the "head.".... The individual anointed members of this united congregation would all receive the same spiritual food. To that end, their "master" appointed a collective "faithful steward" class, the body of anointed Christians on the earth since Pentecost 33 C.E. Since the "master" found the remaining ones of this body faithfully and discreetly giving out "food supplies" when he arrived for inspection in 1919, he appointed them "over all his belongings.".... The facts show that since 1919 this "steward" has faithfully cared for these "belongings."

To reinforce statements like these, articles often include warning examples of those who failed to submit to "theocratic order," such as the rebellion against Moses by Korah7 or by Miriam and Aaron.8

The Society appears to believe that it is actually inspired by God, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "inspire" means to "influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration; to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on; to spur on, impel, motivate." The above quotations from Watchtower publications make it abundantly clear that the Society feels that its activities fit this definition, although it reserves the word "inspired" for the Bible alone. The Insight book, Vol. 1, says on page 1204:

The men used to write the Scriptures therefore cooperated with the operation of Jehovah's holy spirit. They were willing and submissive to God's guidance..., eager to know God's will and leading....

In many cases they had certain goals in mind or were responding to an evident need..., and God directed them so that what they wrote coincided with and fulfilled his purpose.... As spiritual men, their hearts and minds were attuned to God's will, they 'had the mind of Christ' and so were not setting down mere human wisdom nor a "vision of their own heart," as false prophets did [italics added].

Note how closely this description fits the way the translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures described their work, in the foreword to the 1961 edition:

The translators who have a fear and love of the divine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible.... It was with such a sense of solemn responsibility that the committee of dedicated men have produced the New World Translation.... In releasing it for publication we do so with a deep sense of gratitude to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, who has thus privileged us and in whose spirit we have trusted to co-operate with us in this worthy work [italics added].

On the other hand, the Society sometimes expresses a point of view in its publications in which it freely admits that it is not infallible, that the writers are not inspired, and that its views on certain matters change from time to time.9, 10, 11, 12 Through a process of searching the scriptures, a clearer understanding is reached on certain matters, and adjustments are made.13 This searching process is illustrated in the article "The Path of the Righteous Does Keep Getting Brighter,"14 which compares the searching to the tacking of a sailboat and to the progress of scientific truth.

I do not see how the two points of view can be reconciled. One viewpoint says essentially that as the "faithful slave" searches the scriptures, its understanding increases,15 and this increased understanding is communicated to readers of Watchtower publications. The other viewpoint says that the increased understanding comes from Jehovah through the channel of the "slave." On the one hand readers are asked to make allowances for mistakes or misunderstandings in print, but on the other hand they are asked to view what they are reading as coming directly from Jehovah, unaltered by the channel. On the one hand, readers are exhorted to believe that there is a "body of truth" to which "adjustments have been made,"16 that the adjustment process shows how Jehovah's Witnesses are "lining up with 'Jehovah's mind' as now revealed."17 On the other hand, this body of truth is said to be adjusted by Jehovah himself, that this body of truth even constitutes "Present Truth."18

I think the first viewpoint must be correct. The Society does its best to interpret the scriptures correctly but sometimes is in error. But if that is the case, then the Society cannot make statements such as quoted in footnotes 2, 3 and 4 above, and still expect to remain credible.

One argument that attempts to justify such statements says essentially, "to the extent that the Society's publications conform to God's Word, it can be said that the 'faithful slave' is transmitting Jehovah's thoughts to his people." But this argument requires someone to decide the degree of conformance. Who is to decide? The only reasonable choices are either the reader or Jehovah. If the reader is to decide, the argument is meaningless because it can be restated thus: "to the extent the reader decides the Society's publications conform to God's Word,...." But if Jehovah is to decide, then the issue is still undecided from any reader's point of view, since Jehovah does not tell readers of his decisions. Saying that Jehovah will make his decision known at some future time does nothing for the present question.

Another argument the Society uses to show it is "God's channel of communication" goes something like this: "The way Jehovah God has prospered the activities carried on under [the faithful and discreet slave's] direction can leave no doubt in the minds of dedicated Christians as to Jehovah God's approval19 being upon it."20 Well, even if those who direct the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed "the faithful slave" and they have Jehovah's approval, that approval still does not warrant the conclusion that Jehovah makes adjustments to the body of knowledge the Society has called "Present Truth." God's approval on an arrangement is no evidence that he directs it, in light of Romans 13:1, 2 which says regarding the present arrangement for ruling mankind:

"the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God...."

Let me point out some examples of what I've been saying. Back in the spring of 1971 I was quite surprised when I read the Watchtower articles about the heart,21 which contained statements such as:22

Where and what is your heart? You may say, What heart are you talking about? You know you have a heart in your chest, one that is pumping blood.... But do you have another "heart" in your head, a "figurative heart"? Is it part of your brain....? No! The brain, in which the mind resides, is one thing and the heart in our thorax, with its power of motivation, is another thing.... The Bible does not speak of a symbolic or spiritual heart in contradistinction to the fleshly or literal heart, just as it does not speak of a symbolic mind, and thus we do not want to make the mistake of viewing the literal heart as merely a fleshly pump as does orthodox physiology today. Most psychiatrists and psychologists.... [look] upon the word "heart" merely as a figure of speech....

I was even more surprised when these ideas were presented in a drama at the "Divine Name" district assembly the following summer, and illustrated by giant, glowing, talking models of a heart and brain. Did Jehovah direct these articles to be written and did he direct the assembly dramas to be staged? Did Jehovah then change his mind and make a complete turnabout on this question in 1984 and direct that the following statements be written?

What are we to understand, then, by the word "heart"?.... What an amazing number of different functions and capabilities are ascribed to the heart! Do all of these reside in the literal heart? That could hardly be so.... in nearly a thousand other references to "heart" in the Bible, "heart" is obviously used in a figurative sense.... obviously, a distinction must be drawn between the heart organ and the figurative heart.23

This information is not new. Not one thing was stated in the 1984 article that was not known in 1971. Obviously some strong minded individual, who appears to have written numerous other articles (I recognize the writing style), managed to convince enough other people of his ideas on the heart that he got his ideas into print.

As another example of the Society's changing its collective mind, when the elder arrangement was first discussed in 1971, the Society stated that the chairmanship of the early Christians' body of elders "likely rotated".24 The entire arrangement was implied to be "God's doing."25 But as the years passed, the Society found that, on the whole, things worked better when elders maintained their positions for more than one year. So the rotation arrangement was officially cancelled as of 1983.26 Again I ask, did Jehovah learn from experience and then make this "adjustment to the body of truth" -- or was it the Society?

In the November 15, 1967 Watchtower the Society declared its opposition to organ transplants. The section "Questions from Readers" posed the question of how Jehovah's Witnesses were to view transplants, and the Society gave its official answer:27

Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?....

Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.... To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken....

.... Those who submit to such [transplant] operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic.... It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God's viewpoint presented in the Scriptures....

It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.

The Society proceeded "to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint" in a rather shrill series of articles in the June 8, 1968 Awake!, using almost the entire magazine to consider such topics as health, misuse of humans for medical experiments, doctors and their view of organ transplants, experimenting with transplants, and the problems of heart transplants. The bottom line for Jehovah's Witnesses was presented on page 21, under the sub-heading, "The Scriptural Aspect," which presented no scriptures. This was:

Not to be overlooked are the religious, the Scriptural issues involved. There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism; and is not the utilizing of the flesh of another human for one's own life cannibalistic?

There the official view remained until the March 15, 1980 Watchtower considered the question of congregational action towards someone who accepted an organ transplant. Here are some excerpts:28

.... It may be argued.... that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food.... Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation.... While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision.... The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

The June 22, 1982 Awake! reiterated this position, stating:

The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.

This is quite a flip-flop, going from the view that organ transplants are cannibalism and akin to murder, to it being a personal decision. Where is the guiding hand of God in all this?

I think that from these examples, and from many other instances where "adjustments to understanding" have been made, the only conclusion is that Jehovah does not directly cause any particular statements to be written in Watchtower publications nor does he cause any particular actions, such as the presentation of Bible dramas at assemblies, to be taken. He does not directly adjust "Present Truth."

The publications do occasionally admit of this conclusion, but they also exhort the reader to ignore it. The Society strongly discourages readers from questioning or critically viewing the "spiritual food provided by the faithful slave."

We should have confidence in the channel God is using.29

It is as if the Society expects all Witnesses to simply accept the most recently published ideas on any matter as Present Truth, and unquestioningly, unthinkingly, discard anything not in line with it.

The very expressions "Present Truth" and "present body of truth" ought to be abhorrent to a lover of truth. They are oxymorons -- contradictions in terms. Truth does not change and does not depend on time -- only understanding changes. But the Society so strongly wants its readers to believe what it says that it seems to have no qualms about using such abhorrent terms to try to convince them that it is "God's channel of communication." I can only imagine the reply I would have received from the Society had I immediately written in response to the 1971 Watchtower article about the heart, saying exactly the same thing as the 1984 article did. I can especially imagine what would have happened if I had told anyone in the congregation what I thought. And from the 1984 article I can only conclude that the Society is not particularly interested in having its readers know it has changed its mind. There is not a word mentioned that this was a change of understanding with respect to the ideas presented in the 1971 article. Nor does the 1980 Watchtower article on transplants mention a word about the earlier views. In fact the 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index does not even list the 1967 Watchtower article. This is, in effect, changing history to suit current priorities. How many were injured or disfellowshipped because of following the "leading of men?"

What about the Society's major failed predictions? A great many things, including Armageddon and the bringing of the faithful to heaven, were predicted for 1914, but the Society now only claims that one was fulfilled, i.e., the end of the Gentile Times arrived. And this is invisible. Armageddon was again predicted for 1925, but that fell through, too. By the time the Society made near-predictions for the year 1975, it had learned from its earlier mistakes, so that it did everything but directly state that year would bring Armageddon. Were these things, and many others like them, done by the hand of men or the hand of God?

I certainly accept that, to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, one must conform to certain standards, but the Society is demanding too much when it requires someone to view its ideas in the same manner as Israelites were required to view Moses' directions. After all, who in the Governing Body or the "faithful slave" speaks to Jehovah "face to face"? The Governing Body claims that it as a body was commissioned by God, and that its members are "appointed by holy spirit." But when it comes right down to it, the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses can only trace their appointment back to Charles Russell30 in the late 1800s, and no amount of logical squirming can get away from this. The article "A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation," under the sub-title "How the Governing Body Came to Exist,"31 manages to avoid being specific about its theme and the point I just raised, no less than ten times, by using terms such as "evidently," "patently," "according to the facts available," "facts speak louder than words," "the facts speak for themselves," "holy spirit must have been operative," "there came on the scene," and "a governing body made its appearance." Nowhere in all this dissembling does the article show why things are evident, refer the reader to what facts it is talking about, or say anything that it could possibly be pinned down on. It is a masterful work of subterfuge, and the best example I have ever seen illustrating how to use the passive voice to avoid hard explanations. The article certainly does not answer the question as to how the very first appointments to responsibility were made in the late 1800s. It simply states that certain things are so, and implies that all loyal Witnesses of Jehovah must accept these things because they come from On High.

All these words about remaining loyal, not questioning, appreciatively accepting spiritual provisions, and the like, may well have a good purpose, but they also have a negative effect: it is nearly impossible to discuss a point of difficulty with most Jehovah's Witnesses, because the moment a Witness suspects that someone is not toeing the party line he becomes defensive and closed-minded. This includes elders and circuit overseers, but is especially true of run-of-the-mill Witnesses. I have personally experienced this many times. The net effect is that it is nearly impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a Witness on any subject which he suspects might not conform completely to the "body of present truth." The only outlet is to write to the Society. That is not always possible, and the Society usually does not answer. It is also not easy to put one's thoughts into writing clearly and understandably. Understanding often comes best within the give and take of conversation.

I would certainly appreciate a clear response on the issues I've raised above. They can be condensed to three conclusions:

1. The "faithful slave" is fallible.

2. For all practical purposes the "faithful slave" requires Jehovah's Witnesses to act as if it were infallible.

3. For all practical purposes Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to converse with their fellows on controversial topics.

Part 2: The Society's View of Elders


After personal experience and a good deal of research, I see little justification for the statement that elders today are "appointed by holy spirit." The elder arrangement certainly has many benefits to the congregation, but it is the Governing Body or its representative that actually appoints elders to their positions, upon the recommendation of a local body of elders.32, 33, 34 Now please don't interpret what I'm saying here as anything other than precisely what I'm writing. I do not now, and never have, personally had problems with elders. I have had only good relations with elders, and have a great deal of respect for their position and the fine work they do. The material I'm presenting here concerns itself only with the question, Are elders directly appointed by holy spirit?

I am convinced that when the Society's publications imply that elders are directly "appointed by holy spirit" they are on shaky ground. The situation that caused me to come to this conclusion arose about 1977, when an elder in the congregation I was attending attempted to have a ministerial servant disfellowshipped for breaking certain laws of the land. The body of elders was unable to come to a definite decision on the matter. The ministerial servant was privately reproved, and shortly afterwards the reproof was seen to have been in error and revoked. Some disputing arose in the congregation over the conduct of the matter. After many months, the body of elders realized it was unable to come to a decision, and consulted the Society. Elders from a nearby congregation were called in, and the matter was finally resolved by concluding that it never should have been brought up in the first place.

These events caused me to seriously question the idea that elders have been "appointed by holy spirit," since it was clear to me that the elder who started the trouble couldn't have been so appointed, and it was also clear that the other elders were not being directed by holy spirit in their handling of the case. I wrote to the Society explaining these things, and they forwarded my letter to the current circuit overseer. We eventually discussed the events and my questions at length. Finally he gave me a straight answer. He said, rather reluctantly, No, elders are not actually "appointed by holy spirit," in the sense of Jehovah directly appointing a particular individual, but since the elder arrangement is Bible based, it could be said that elders in a general sense are "appointed by holy spirit."

This explanation was enough to satisfy me at the time, but many Watchtower articles and other publications since then convinced me this was not the understanding the Society wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to have. Rather, the thrust of the articles was to enhance the authority of congregational elders by saying that members of the congregation should be submissive to those "appointed by holy spirit," and that criticizing or even questioning elders' decisions was disloyal. Over a period of time it became clear to me that the Society is not particularly interested in the truth of this matter, but is interested only in seeing that people become and remain loyal Jehovah's Witnesses.

Several quotations from a recent Watchtower should illustrate what I mean about the above point and about my concerns on "direct appointment by holy spirit."35

Overseers have been spirit-appointed to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation.

Is this a direct appointment, or an indirect appointment? The statement implies action on the part of the holy spirit, not simply the idea that holy spirit inspired the Bible, and so on.

As Paul wrote: "Let the older men who preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of double honor...."

Is this passage saying, "Let the older men, who preside in a fine way...", or is it saying, "Let the older men who preside in a fine way..."? There is a world of difference in meaning with and without a comma. One implies all older men preside in a fine way, whereas the other implies some may and some may not.

....only those meeting Scriptural requirements are appointed as elders.

Is this only the goal? Or is this actually realized by the direct action of God?

....let us appreciate and accept the Bible-based direction of the elders as coming from God.

The phrase "as coming from God" is vague and non-committal. Is the Watchtower saying that when elders give direction, it is always Bible-based and always comes directly from God, or that when elders give direction, it is always Bible-based and therefore comes indirectly from God, or that when elders give direction, it should be Bible-based and we should view it as if it comes directly from God, or what? The example of the Keystone Cops elders I related above certainly was in the "what" category.

A detailed analysis of an article that purports to show why elders are "appointed by holy spirit" shows what I have found to be the usual methods in "proving" the point. This is from "Questions From Readers" on page 31 of the August 1, 1985 Watchtower. Let's see if we can find the answer to the question raised.

How does the holy spirit work along with the modern-day Governing Body in the appointment of elders?

The apostle Paul told Christian elders from Ephesus: "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." -- Acts 20:28.

Clearly this does not answer the question that was raised. The next paragraph acknowledges this. Also note that Paul was speaking to the elders in Ephesus. The Society must make a clear connection between this and its assertion that elders of Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as the elders in Ephesus. This connection should have been made in the present discussion -- it should not have been assumed from unreferenced prior discussions.

Paul did not explain in detail how God's spirit functioned in such appointments.

The Watchtower here actually admits that it does not know the answer to the question it has raised. But the article gamely presses on.

However, we can gain insight from what occurred when the first-century governing body considered a question concerning circumcision. In summarizing their conclusion, they wrote: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things." (Acts 15:28) How did God's spirit, his impersonal active force, contribute to the binding decision reached at that time?

So the early Christian governing body said that both it and the holy spirit made certain decisions, but it doesn't say how the holy spirit helped the decision-making process.

Acts chapter 15 shows that first Paul and Barnabas outlined the question. Then a discussion took place. The apostle Peter related what had led up to baptism of the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius and his household. Peter explained that 'God bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also.' (Acts 15:7, 8; 10:9-48) Next Paul and Barnabas 'related the many signs and portents that God did through them among the nations.' (Acts 15:12) Thus, by its operation on Peter, Cornelius, Paul, and Barnabas, the holy spirit indicated that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

So in some unspecified manner the holy spirit caused events to occur, and caused the disciples to do and say various things, that resulted in the disciples' knowing that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

Yet there were additional operations of the spirit involved in that decision reached by the governing body. We can assume that they had asked for the help of the spirit on their deliberations. Such help may have moved the disciple James to recall the prophecy at Amos 9:11, 12, and to see its application. That prophecy had, of course, been written under the inspiration of the holy spirit. (Acts 15:13-20)

Note that "we assume they asked" and then "help may have moved the disciple to...." This is stated after the article says there "were additional operations of the holy spirit...."

Furthermore, "the apostles and older men in Jerusalem" who made up the governing body were Christians who were anointed with holy spirit and who manifested its operation in their lives, such as by producing its fruits. -- Acts 15:2; Romans 8: 14-17; 1 Corinthians 7:40; Galatians 5:22,23.

Finally the article says something concrete.

So without there being some audible directive from heaven on the circumcision question, those of the governing body could accurately say that "the holy spirit" had led to their decision.

A fair conclusion.

It is similar with the appointment of Christian men to be elders, or overseers, in the congregations today.

The conclusion does not follow. Does this statement mean that all the events just described as happening with the early Christians in connection with the circumcision issue are similar to what happens with appointment of Christian men to be elders, or does it mean that this appointment is similar to what is about to be described in the rest of the paragraph? I hardly think it can be the first alternative, because who today is anointed by holy spirit with "tongues as if of fire" visible to others as a sign? Who gets personal visitations from the resurrected Jesus, as did Paul? Who gets dreams from God, as did Peter? Who performs miracles, as did some of the disciples? So the second alternative must be the choice: appointment of elders in the congregation today will be described in the rest of the paragraph.

Periodically a group of elders (likely including a traveling overseer of the Society) meet to consider recommending brothers for appointment as overseers. Those in the group have themselves been appointed as elders and they manifest in their lives that they have the spirit. Their discussion is opened with prayer for the spirit's guidance.

Does this mean that the holy spirit somehow "tweaks" some of the elders' minds during the discussion? If so, which ones, and how would anyone be able to tell?

Then, during the meeting, they analyze whether each brother being considered measures up to the qualifications for elders set out in the Bible, which have been recorded under the direction of holy spirit. (1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-9)

Setting up for the indirect appointment argument.

They also consider whether the brother evidences in his manner of life that he is "full of spirit and wisdom." (Acts 6:3) If they agree that he is of that sort and meets the qualifications to a reasonable degree, their recommendation is forwarded to the spirit-designated Governing Body or its chosen representatives.

Where files are checked to see if there are any problems with this candidate the local elders don't know about, and the Governing Body or its representatives pray over many similar matters and then record the appointment in their files.

Later the congregation may be informed that the brother has been appointed.

In summary, this paragraph states that the local elders talk about the candidate, pray about his appointment, and get the Governing Body's official approval. The paragraph implies, but does not explicitly state, that because various pieces of the appointment process (the local elders, the traveling overseer, the Bible, the Governing Body and its representatives) have been put in place by God's work through the holy spirit, the resulting appointment is also a result of God's work through the holy spirit. But this process is not the same as direct action on God's part, in the manner that Bible writers are said to be inspired by God. This was the essence of my complaint to the Society years ago, as a result of which the circuit overseer admitted to me that this is not what actually happens, but which fact the Society does everything in its power to conceal. You should note that the Society has not made a clear connection between the conclusion of the last paragraph and its assertion that elders of Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as the elders of the first century. It has simply assumed this from unreferenced prior discussions.

The last paragraph, justifiably confident that readers will not have seen the subterfuge, continues:

Understandably, the appointed elder is still imperfect and may have limitations. But the apostles were imperfect, both before Jesus chose them and later when they served on the governing body. (Luke 9:46,54; 22:54-62; Galatians 2:11-14) They certainly did, though, have God's spirit and were appointed under its guidance. Comparably, brothers and sisters can be confident that 'the holy spirit has appointed the overseers, to shepherd the congregation.' (Acts 20:28) It is regarding such men that the counsel is given: "Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out imitate their faith." -- Hebrews 13:7.

It should be evident by this point why I do not believe that the Society wants Jehovah's Witnesses to understand that elders are not actually "appointed by holy spirit" in the sense of Jehovah directly appointing a particular elder. It should also be clear that this question is part of the reason I am unconvinced of the Society's devotion to truth.

This is not a trivial point, whether elders are directly or indirectly appointed. Anyone may claim that if he uses the Bible as a basis for his decisions, then to the extent that he uses it correctly he is guided by God. But Witnesses would not accept this explanation from a Catholic for the reason that they believe the Catholic church is not directed by God in any manner. But the question of whether Catholics are or are not directed by God has no relevance to the Society's claim that its use of the Bible as a basis for the elder arrangement, and elder's correct use of the Bible, are bases for claiming guidance by God. By the same token the Society is not justified in implying that because elders may in a certain sense be indirectly "appointed by holy spirit" they are also directly "appointed by holy spirit." If the Society wants to make this claim it should do so on grounds which are explicitly and clearly explained.

I would appreciate clarification of these points. In particular I should like to know whether what the circuit overseer told me years ago was correct at the time, or not.

I wish to comment on one more point concerning elders. Occasionally it is admitted that elders can do wrong or even make mistakes. For example, a Watchtower article said regarding how appropriate it is to obey authority in the Christian congregation:36

But it does not mean that we obey such authority without giving due consideration to what is being said. Why?

The apostle John offered this counsel: "Do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God".... This does not mean that we should be suspicious of everything others tell us. Rather, we bear in mind Paul's words at Galatians 1:8: "Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed."

Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through "the faithful and discreet slave"? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in 'testing' anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to "make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."....

Jehovah does not expect us to show blind credulity. He does not want from us the kind of obedience that a trainer gets from a beast with a bridle or a whip. That is why he told David: "Do not make yourselves like a horse or mule without understanding, whose spiritedness is to be curbed even by bridle or halter." (Psalm 32:9) Rather, Jehovah has endowed us with thinking ability and discernment so that, based on understanding, we can choose to obey him.

In Japanese, the word kiku (to hear) includes the meaning not only of listening and obeying but also of judging whether a thing is good or bad. When someone speaks to us, it is good to listen in this sense so that when obeying, we do so not by mere credulity but by choice. When our heavenly Father, Jehovah God, speaks, whether through his Word, the Bible, or through his earthly organization, it is all the more important for us to listen and obey, thus proving that we are obedient worshipers who do not ignore the loving reminder: "Did you hear me?"

These are fine words and I agree wholeheartedly with them. However, the article says not a word about what one should do if one ever finds something coming from the Society that one cannot in good conscience agree with. And at no time have I seen published material stating what a publisher should do if an elder does something he thinks is unquestionably wrong, but that is not in the disfellowshipping category. The Society provides no formal outlet for dealing with this, and without a formal outlet, most Witnesses will act like horses or mules because that is the way the Society has trained them.

Part 3: Jehovah's Witnesses Not a Sect?


The Society goes to some length in the series of articles in the September 15, 1983 Watchtower to establish that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect. This conclusion, and the reasoning behind it, are emphasised in the section "Do You Remember" in the December 15, 1983 Watchtower, which says:

Jehovah's Witnesses are not disciples of a human leader or teacher. Jehovah God and Christ Jesus are their teachers. Hence, Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect.

However, this conclusion is not in line with the normal usage of "sect" in English. The writers of these articles have gone to some length to avoid acknowledging this common usage. For some reason they don't like the word. Let's analyze the articles to see why I can say this.

The first article begins by saying that most religions are divided into sects:37

Some of these [ten main religions, but 10,000] sects are long-established religious groups and consider themselves to be full-fledged churches. Certain old religions are divided up into sects...."

The article attempts to distinguish between the words "church" and "sect" in both the above quotation and in the subheading "Church or Sect?":38

The word "church" does not have the same connotation in all countries.... Even in [predominantly Protestant] countries, generally a person cannot say he belongs to a church unless he is a member of the larger, long-established Protestant religions. Otherwise he is viewed as belonging to some sect. True, in the United States even small offshoot religions are often honored with the name church. But in most other countries they would have to content themselves with being called a sect."

This is the writer's first set of errors. We are not concerned with how "church" or "sect" is used in various countries; we are concerned with English in places where it is spoken as a native language. The important things are the meanings of the words "sect" and "church" as currently used by native English speakers. After all, native speakers define the language. True, some connotations of the English words are different in other countries, as the Watchtower writers have mentioned, but what they really mean is that the connotations of the words, when translated into other languages, are sometimes different. However, sometimes the connotations of the translated words are identical across languages.

Webster's Dictionary39 lists, among others, one definition of "church:"

3: a body or organization of religious believers as: a: the whole body of Christians b: DENOMINATION c: CONGREGATION

The capitalized words are stated to be synonyms for "church." Webster's also lists, among many others, one definition of "sect:"

b: a religious denomination.

Roget's Thesaurus lists the words "sect," "church," "denomination" and "persuasion" as the most common synonyms for each other.40 Many other dictionaries show that although some connotations of the words "church" and "sect" differ, other connotations are identical or nearly so. The Watchtower writers have ignored the similar connotations of "church" and "sect," and implied that the words have only different connotations. They state "church" means only an established religion (i.e., that of many) whereas "sect" means anything else. It is, however, for this discussion irrelevant that the equivalent of these words in languages other than English have differing connotations. The only important factor is how native English speakers use the words.

Next the writers attempt to define "sect." They state two of the many definitions (references are not stated), ignoring all definitions that do not suit their purpose:

A sect has been defined as "a comparatively small recently organized exclusive religious body; esp: one that has parted company with a longer established communion." According to another definition, a sect is "a dissenting religious body; esp: one that is heretical in the eyes of other members within the same communion."

With these incomplete definitions established, the writers then trace the etymology, or history, of the word (again references are not stated):

Some claim that the word "sect" is derived from the Latin verb secare (to cut) and define a sect as a group that has broken away from an established church. Others trace the word "sect" back to the Latin verb sequi (to follow) and thus apply it to a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher.

The remainder of the four articles use these restricted definitions to prove that all other definitions are incorrect.

I've looked up the definitions of the word "sect" in dictionaries published in Britain and the United States. Common word usage in these countries, as defined in these dictionaries, certainly defines the words.

1. A group of people with religious or other beliefs that differ from those more generally accepted.41

2. 1. A system of religious belief. 2. Those who accept and practice a particular religious belief.42

3. 1. a religious denomination, esp. one deviating from a generally accepted tradition. 2. any group united by a specific doctrine or under a leader.43

4. 1 a: a dissenting or schismatic religious body; esp: one regarded as extreme or heretical b: a religious denomination.... 3 a: a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.44

5. A body of persons following certain principles or doctrines (as, a philosophical sect); esp., a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination; often, a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes, a party regarded as deviating from the general religious tradition, or as heretical; sometimes, a body separated from a particular church; a body of dissenters from an established church;....45

6. 1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination. 2. a group regarded as deviating from the general religious tradition or as heretical. 3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.46

7. 4. A religious following; adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith.... c. In modern use, commonly applied to a separately organized religious body, having its distinctive name and its own places of worship; a denomination. Also, in a narrower sense, one of the bodies separated from the church. The Sects: applied by Anglicans to the various bodies of Dissenters, by Roman Catholics to all forms of Protestantism.47

Note the preceding definitions contain, but are not limited to, the definitions of "sect" as presented by the Watchtower writers. Several references trace the etymology or derivation of "sect:"

8. Etymology: from Middle French secte group, sect; from Late Latin secta organized ecclesiastical body; from Latin secta way of life, class of persons; from Latin sequi to follow.48

9. a[dopted from] F[rench] secte...., or directly ad[apted from] L[atin] secta following (used as cognate object in sectam sequi, to follow a person's guidance or example), hence a party or faction, a philosophical sect or school, a class or profession...., f[rom] sequi- root of sequi to follow.... It has been maintained that L[atin] secta is the fem[inine] p[articiple] of secare to cut.... some of the uses of secta are more satisfactorily accounted for by derivation from sequi than from secare.49

I don't see how it could be clearer, from these definitions, that the word "sect" can legitimately be applied to Jehovah's Witnesses. Do general circulation English language newspapers and journals err when they do so? Not according to the dictionaries. It is not up to a specific speaker of a language to create for a word whatever meaning he wants. The Watchtower has no business trying to redefine the English language word "sect."

The writers of these Watchtower articles have restricted the meanings of "sect" to those definitions which enable them to prove their point. They have not mentioned the word also has more general meanings, but they are restricting the meaning to a narrow sense. Also note they say some unspecified "others" apply "sect" to "a group that follows a particular human leader or teacher." But none of the definitions I've quoted or seen in other references mentions that a human has to be the leader. Definition 3. above mentions a group united by a specific doctrine or under a leader. Definition 4. mentions a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader. Definition 5. mentions following certain principles or doctrines. Definition 7. mentions adherence to a particular religious teacher or faith. Note the common threads: united under a doctrine, principle or faith; or united under a leader or teacher. One may argue that it is implicit in these definitions that the leader must be a human. But the definitions do not require it, and the Watchtower writers have not so argued. They have inserted "human" into their definition without justification and without telling the reader. They have also ignored the common threads in the definitions, which do not refer to a "human". The writers assume that most readers will miss the point. This is proved by their statement that "the members of many of these [10,000 churches and] sects follow some human leader, whereas Jesus Christ stated: 'Your Leader is one, the Christ.'"

In the derivations of "sect" from older words, most of definition 9. above correctly describes Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious body; so does definition 10. Christianity certainly is a "following;" it follows Christ. It follows "a particular course of conduct," it follows "a person's guidance or example" -- Jesus' and Jehovah's guidance and examples. And Jesus certainly is and was a person.50 Christianity is a "party," as Webster's gives one definition of "party" as "a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest." Christians are on Jehovah's side on the question of universal sovereignty.

The last acknowledgement in the Watchtower articles that the writers are using "sect" in a restricted sense appears in a statement on page 9:

[Jehovah's Witnesses] are not a sect, inasmuch as they are neither the disciples of some human teacher or leader nor an offshoot of any one church or sect.

The acknowledgement appears in the use of the phrase "inasmuch as." Then the writer takes a step toward his goal, again glossing over the point about "human leader," with the statement "they follow no man but rather God and His Son...." The writer of the later "Do You Remember" article seems to think that this is the main point and the matter is closed, but he has surely ignored the reasoning leading to this point.

By the third article in the September 15 Watchtower series, the writers drop all reference to the common usage of "sect," and apply it only in the restricted sense of the first article. Again, the reader is not informed of this. "All the churches of Christendom originally were sects." The writers do not care that by common usage as reflected in the dictionary definitions all religions are still sects -- they only want to point out that all churches of Christendom started off as offshoots of something else and that these offshoots always followed men. At this point they want the reader to know full well that a sect has only the above bad connotations. Other references to "sect" in paragraphs 11 and 15 of the article further show this.

The final, crucial argument comes in the fourth article, page 17, para. 8, where the writers object to the fact that "Jewish sects disdainfully called the early Christians a sect." They then say

the apostle Paul rejected this misnomer, stating: "According to the way that they [his religious enemies] call a 'sect,' in this manner I am rendering sacred service to the God of my forefathers." (Acts 24:14)

I don't see how the writers can say that Paul, in this scripture, is rejecting anything. Paul merely acknowledges without comment that the Jews call his form of worship a sect, when he says "in this manner...." This is further borne out by looking at this scripture in Bible translations other than the New World Translation:

But this I confess unto thee that, after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers. (Authorized Version)

But this I acknowledge to you, it is in the way of the movement they call a sect that I am worshipping our fathers' God. (The Bible in Living English)

What I do admit to you is this: it is according to the Way which they describe as a sect that I worship the God of my ancestors. (The Jerusalem Bible)

But this much I will admit: I am a follower of the new way (the 'sect' they speak of), and it is in that manner that I worship the God of our fathers. (The New English Bible)

However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers, as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. (The New Testament New International Version)

The Watchtower writers do not explain in what manner they think Paul is rejecting "this misnomer." Again, without justification or explanation the writers merely state their conclusion. I see nothing in the scripture where Paul objects to the term -- in fact he acknowledges its use.

The writers also say that the Greek word "hai'resis," from which "sect" is translated, denotes "a body of men separating themselves from others and following their own tenets." As usual, the source of the definition is not stated. According to Strong's Concordance51 "hai'resis" means:

properly a choice, i.e., (esp) [but not limited to] a party or (ab[stractly]) disunion.

Also see Aid to Bible Understanding under "Sect." The above description could certainly be applied to early Christians. They were "a body of men." They separated "themselves from others" (2 Cor. 6:17). They adopted Jehovah's principles, as taught by Jesus, as their own, in their hearts (Jer 31:33), and so these principles became "their own tenets." What more is needed to fit a definition?

The definition says nothing about whether the "body of men" came up with the tenets themselves, nor does it say anything about where the tenets originated -- only that the tenets are "their own," as opposed to being also the tenets of some other group. Finally the writers say:

In no way could Christians be called a sect, for they were following Jesus Christ, not any man. Further, they were certainly not an offshoot of one of the sects of Judaism.

That a religious body does not need a human leader to be called a sect can easily be seen from the following argument: Satan is the god of this system of things and all false religious sects are under Satan. Therefore Satan is the leader of all false religious sects. Satan is not a human. Q.E.D.

It seems to me that the writers think of the term "sect" only as a derisive one -- therefore they put much effort into proving that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect. Often, but not always, others who speak of a sect use the term derisively. But that should not be surprising. If one believes that one's religion is true and that a sect is a derisive word for other religions, then of course one will use that term to describe other religions and object to anyone else's using it to describe one's own. Note especially in definition 7. above, how Catholics describe Protestants. They are correct in doing so.

It is the same with the word "heresy," which is translated in the Authorized Version from the same Greek word "hai'resis," as is "sect." Catholics are perfectly justified in calling Jehovah's Witnesses heretics. Likewise Jehovah's Witnesses are justified in calling Catholics heretics or apostates. The merits of the religion are irrelevant to the question of word use.

It seems as if the writers are making the sort of imaginary distinction earlier Watchtower writers made in trying to distinguish between religion and worship. Religion always implied false religion and worship always implied true worship, as if there were no such thing as true religion or false worship, a la "Religion is a snare and a racket."

There are a large number of English speaking people who are agnostic or atheist. They have no prejudice about using "sect" as a synonym for "religion" or "philosophy." As native English speakers, they are perfectly well justified in using "sect" in any commonly accepted way.

As an example of this sort of word use, everyone knows what a "metal" is. However, astronomers use the word "metal" in a technical sense to refer to any substance that is not hydrogen or helium. Also, some people often refer to the music style called "heavy metal" as just "metal." Using your knowledge that compact discs (CD's) are made of plastic, if an astronomer told you that the compact disc in his hands was "metal," what would he mean? Answer: you could not tell, because of the several definitions of "metal." To know what he meant you would have to know the context in which he posed his statement. He could not argue that the CD was or was not "metal" unless he defined his context, because in some contexts a CD is "metal" and in some it isn't.

It should be clear from the preceding discussion that to prove a narrow point of view the Watchtower writers distort the common usages of an English word that has multiple connotations. They ignore most of those connotations and do not seem to understand that word definitions are inclusive, not exclusive. If a thing fits any commonly accepted definition, then use of the word to describe the thing is proper. The writers even admit this as respects common usage of "church" in the United States, but then ignore it as if common usage in the largest English speaking country in the world is of no significance. If the writers want to prove that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a human leader, or any of the other points they discuss, then they should do so without trying to prove that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect. I've shown that by all common English language usage Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect. The usage appears in books, magazines, and newspapers; it is almost always neutral. In the final analysis, who cares?

Footnotes

1 Steve Allen, Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality, p. xxiii, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1990.

2 United in Worship of the Only True God, p. 123, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

3 The Watchtower, p. 17, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, June 1, 1982.

4 ibid, p. 17.

5 ibid, p. 24.

6 ibid, p. 19, September 15, 1983.

7 ibid, p. 13, December 1, 1981.

8 ibid, p. 17, June 1, 1982.

9 ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

10 ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

11 ibid, p. 20,27, December 1, 1981.

12 ibid, p. 26, January 1, 1972.

13 ibid, p. 701, November 15, 1971.

14 ibid, pp. 26-31, December 1, 1981.

15 ibid, p. 29, March 1, 1981.

16 ibid, p. 19, February 15, 1981.

17 ibid, p. 13, September 1, 1984.

18 ibid, p. 25, December 15, 1981.

19 Members of the Assemblies of God churches claim virtually the same thing. They have even more basis than do Jehovah's Witnesses to claim prosperity, as they have gone from almost no members in 1920 to more than 20 million in 1991. Mormons have increased from from a few thousand in the early 1800s to some 5 million today. Seventh-Day Adventists have increased to some 3 million since the mid 1800s. Jehovah's Witnesses' figure of some 4 million publishers is right in the middle. As to fast rates of growth, the Unification Church started in 1954 and had 2 million members by 1981. The Transcendental Meditation Church started in 1958 and had 2 million by 1981. The Divine Light Mission went to 8 million between 1960 and 1981. The real show stopper is the Church of Scientology, starting in 1954 and having 20 million members by 1981.

20 ibid, p. 18, February 15, 1981.

21 ibid, pp. 133-152, March 1, 1971.

22 ibid, p. 134, March 1, 1971.

23 ibid, pp. 3-7, September 1, 1984.

24 ibid, p. 685, 691, November 15, 1971.

25 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 250, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1974.

26 Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

27 The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 702-704.

28 The Watchtower, op cit, p. 31.

29 The Watchtower, op cit, pp. 18-19, February 15, 1981.

30 ibid, p. 760, December 15, 1971.

31 ibid, p. 760, 761.

32 Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 41, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

33 Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making, p. 69, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1972.

34 The Watchtower, pp. 699-700, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, November 15, 1971.

35 ibid, pp. 20-25, September 15, 1989.

36 ibid, p. 30, April 1, 1988.

37 The Watchtower, p. 3, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, Sept. 15, 1983.

38 ibid, p. 3.

39 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

40 Roget's International Thesaurus, Fourth Edition, Harper & Row, Inc., 1979.

41 Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.

42 Roget's II The New Thesaurus, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass, 1980.

43 The Random House Dictionary, Ballantine Books, New York, 1978.

44 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

45 The New Century Dictionary of the English Language, D. Appleton-Century Company, London, 1946.

46 The American College Dictionary, Random House, Inc., New York, 1962.

47 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.

48 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1979.

49 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.

50 Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 12, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1983.

51 The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Index · Copyright © 1998 Alan Feuerbacher · https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/truth.html