Questions 11-20

11. The WTS claims that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. and uses
Dan 4:23-25, Rev 12:6, 14, Num 14:34, and Ezek 4:6 to come up with 1914
C.E., which is 2,520 years later, as the year that Jesus began his reign in
heaven. If the WT's claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. is
correct, then why is it that every reference source, including the
Encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft Encarta, The World Book Encyclopedia,
Encyclopedia Americana, Compton's Encyclopedia, Academic American
Encyclopedia, Cambridge Ancient History – Vol. III, The Oxford Dictionary
of World History, etc, etc, all state that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC?
If the WTS is correct that Christ's reign in heaven started 2,520 years after
the destruction of Jerusalem, shouldn't this event have occurred in 1935
instead of 1914? Should we view the overwhelming opinion of essentially
every historian who is an expert on ancient history, or the WTS, as
unreliable?

Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ army in October 539 B.C.E.
Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was coruler of Babylon.
Some scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-Babylonian kings and
the length of their reigns, from the last year of Nabonidus back to
Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.

According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince

Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in
605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar
returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began the
following spring (604 B.C.E.).

The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed

Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included).
(Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-
Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in
the year 587/6 B.C.E. But on what is this secular chronology based and
how does it compare with the chronology of the Bible?

Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:

Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in

the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a
work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept
Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of
their reigns (though Ptolemy does omit the reign of Labashi-Marduk).
Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from
the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus
captured Babylon. It thus is not surprising that Ptolemy’s figures agree
with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.

Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or

pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of
the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar.
The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.

VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical

information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from
Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology
that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is
admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its
historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid
period.

Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform

tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating
the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of
this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-
Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish

the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and
the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can
deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be
misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and
kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the
discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern
scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could
drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr.,

introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the
caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more
one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient
Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For
this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than
it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its words
stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and
reliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be used
as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2 Timothy
3:16, 17) For instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as ruler of
Babylon, for centuries scholars were confused about him because no
secular documents were available as to his existence, identity or position.
Finally, however, archaeologists discovered secular records that
confirmed the Bible. Yes, the Bible’s internal harmony and the care
exercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology, recommends it so
strongly to the Christian that he places its authority above that of the ever-
changing opinions of secular historians.

But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem was
destroyed, and how does this compare to secular chronology?

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy

Jerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He
added: “And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of
astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon
seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:11) The 70 years expired when Cyrus the
Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their
homeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23) We believe that the most direct
reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date
from when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of
Judah desolate.—Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27; 36:29-31.

Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of
that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.
certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let
the Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters,
they claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E.
Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish
Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine
and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he
took Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period
of servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the
70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.

But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:

Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his

accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this. More
significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar
took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not
his accession year. Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the year
of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-
Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting
with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in
Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.

Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem

by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the
temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years.” (Antiquities of the
Jews X, ix, 7) He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the
interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” (Against Apion I, 19)
This agrees with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 that the foretold 70
years were 70 years of full desolation for the land. Second-century (C.E.)
writer Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the 70 years commenced
with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years.—
See also 2 Kings 24:18–25:21.

But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the claim
that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem was destroyed
in 587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70
years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible writer
Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king of
Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their
homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23) Historians accept that
Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. and that Cyrus’ first
regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If Cyrus’ decree came late
in his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be back in their homeland by
the seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says; this would be October 537
B.C.E.

However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year from

538 down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away the
problem have in a strained manner claimed that in speaking of “the first
year of Cyrus” Ezra and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewish
viewpoint that differed from the official count of Cyrus’ reign. But that
cannot be sustained, for both a non-Jewish governor and a document
from the Persian archives agree that the decree occurred in Cyrus’ first
year, even as the Bible writers carefully and specifically reported.—Ezra
5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.

Jehovah’s “good word” is bound up with the foretold 70-year period, for
God said:

“This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy
years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will
establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.’”
(Jeremiah 29:10)

Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round
number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) And
that proved to be so.

Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather than

by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that
disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most
direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years
began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was
destroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence,
counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in
537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in
his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from the
throne and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a throne in
earthly Jerusalem.—Ezekiel 21:19-27. .

12. According to Strong's Greek Dictionary, the Greek word "heos"

(Strong's # 2193) means "till, until". If the NWT is the most accurate word
for word translation of the Bible, why does it mistranslate the Greek word
"heos" in Mt 5:18 as "sooner would" instead of "until", completely
changing the meaning of this verse? If the Greek word "heos" was
translated correctly as "until" in this verse, what would this verse say about
the future of this present earth? Why is this Greek word translated as
"until" in the KIT, but rendered "sooner would" in the NWT? Why the
inconsistency in the translation? See Zeph 3:13 and Isa 28:15.

There is essentially no difference between the two terms in that particular

usage. The difficulty comes from a particular mindset that reads isolated
texts at face value in order to try to support anti-biblical doctrines. Jesus
was not saying definitively that heaven and earth were destined to pass
away. On the contrary, he was illustrating how God's Word is even more
enduring than the physical universe. The Contemporary English Version
(CEV) of the Bible words it in this way: "Heaven and earth may
disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will
ever disappear from the Law."

But, neither heaven nor earth will literally pass away. And neither will
God's Word. A few verses before the verse you cited, Jesus said the
meek would inherit the earth. So, how is it that you insist that the earth will
be destroyed? Regardless of the minutiae of translations, isn't it rather the
case of the questioner simply not understanding what Jesus meant at
Matthew 5:18?

13. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal "active force", why does he speak
directly and refer to himself as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2? If the Holy Spirit
is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and
"him" in Jn 16:7- 8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness (Jn 15:26, Acts 20:23);
Feel hurt (Isa 63:10); Be blasphemed against (Mk 3:29, Lk 12:10); Say things
(Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, and Heb 10:15-17); Forbid someone to say
things (Acts 16:6); Plead for us with groanings (Rom 8:26); Be tested (Acts
5:9); Send people (Acts 13:4); Be a helper (Jn 14:16, 16:7); Appoint
overseers (Acts 20:28); Be outraged (Heb 10:29); Desire (Gal 5:17); Search
(1Cor 2:10); Comfort (Acts 9:31); Be grieved (Eph 4:30); Be loved (Rom
15:30); Be lied to and be God (Acts 5:3-4)? What does the Bible say about
those who speak against the Holy Spirit? See Mt 12:32 and Lk 12:10.
If we are to intelligently approach God's Word, we must recognize that not
all things should be read literally. For instance, Deuteronomy 32:5 gives
God the title of "The Rock." Are we then to conclude that God is an inert
mineral? Or, what about Hebrews 12:29, that says that "God is also a
consuming fire," ought we then to suppose that God is some sort of
super-heated plasma? Discerning persons recognize that the Scriptures
speak to us in comparisons. Thus, we grasp the idea that God is like a
rock, or he is like a consuming fire in certain specific ways.

By the same token, the Bible also uses a common literary device known
as personification. That means that things and even intangible concepts
are sometimes portrayed as persons. Here are a few examples: When
Jehovah tried to warn Cain of the grave moral dangers that were facing
him, God personified sin saying that it was crouching at the door, as if
craving to pounce upon Cain. Or, another example: the Proverbs say that
laziness will invite poverty that will come upon us like an armed robber.
One more example: Paul referred to death ruling as a king over mankind.
These are biblical examples of personification.

God lives in heaven, yet by means of his dynamic active force he is able
to extend his control over the vast reaches of the universe as well as our
tiny earth. Because the holy spirit comes from God and causes his Will to
be done; it being imbued with God's own character; always at his service,
even speaking for him; it is entirely appropriate that God's active force be
personified at times.

There are other instances, though, where God's spirit is referred to as an

"it." For example, 1st Corinthians 12:11 says: "But all these operations
the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each
one respectively just as it wills." If the holy spirit were a person it would
be inappropriate to refer to him as an "it." Jehovah and Jesus are never
referred to that way, and yet the spirit is. By far most references in the
Bible to the holy spirit are impersonal.

For more on what the holy spirit is, click here.

14. If the NWT is the most accurate word for word translation of the Bible,
why does it alter the written word of God by adding the words "[in symbol]"
in Mk 1:4, even though these words don't appear in the Greek? See Gr-Engl
Interlinear. How would Mk 1:4 read if the words "[in symbol]" had not been
added? In Acts 2:38, Peter says "… Repent, and let each one of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR FORGIVENESS OF YOUR
SINS…" and in Acts 22:16, Ananias tells Paul "…Rise, get baptized and
WASH YOUR SINS AWAY by calling on his name." If baptism is only a
symbolic display of faith in God and does not effect the remission of sins,
then why does Peter tell the people of Jerusalem to be baptized "for
forgiveness of your sins" and why does Ananias tell Paul to get baptized in
order to "wash your sins away"?

The phrase "in symbol of repentance" does seem to be somewhat

superfluous. It should be obvious that the baptism of John was merely a
symbolic ritual to prepare people to accept Christ. The New Living
Translation (NLT) words Mark 1:4 this way: "This messenger was John
the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people
should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and
turned to God to be forgiven."

The baptism of John was not the real baptism anyway. Persons who may
have been baptized by John, but who were, for whatever reason, absent
from the Upper Room on Pentecost when the original anointing took
place, had to be re-baptized in Jesus' name before they could become
anointed with God's spirit. That is evident by the account in the 19th
chapter of Acts. If the baptism of John literally washed away their sins and
was something more than an outward symbol of the Jew's inward
repentance, then why was it necessary for them to be baptized again in
the name of Jesus? And if the baptism of John was merely a religious
ritual, why should we suppose that the baptism in Jesus' name is any
more than a symbolic public statement of faith?

The washing away of sins comes about by our faith in the shed blood of
Christ. And baptism is an act of faith in the death and resurrection of
Christ.

15. The WTS claims that Ezekiel's prophecy of the Jews returning to their
land is fulfilled in their organization. Ezek 36:24, 28 says "And I will take
you out of the nations and collect you together out of all the lands and bring
you in upon your own soil." and "And you will certainly dwell in the land
that I gave to your forefathers, and you must become my people and I myself
shall become your God." If this is fulfilled in the Watchtower organization,
then how are they returning to the land of CANAAN as promised to the
forefathers (Ps 105:8-11)?

The human mind works in such a way that it can best grasp complex and
abstract ideas if it has a pattern to relate to. Without going into the
intricacies of the prophecies themselves, it can be said that the
prophecies directed towards ancient Israel establish examples and
patterns for the Christian organization of spiritual Israel during the time of
God's final judgment. Paul referred to that principle when he wrote to
Christians saying: "Now these things went on befalling them as
examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the
ends of the systems of things have arrived."

Paul was also inspired to explain how all the features of the primitive
tabernacle worship and temple arrangement were merely "a typical
representation and shadow of the heavenly things."

The 36th chapter of Ezekiel is one of many prophecies dealing with the
regathering and restoration of the Jewish nation. Israel was in a covenant
relationship with Jehovah and that relationship was nearly severed
because of the Jews' idolatry and immorality. Jehovah punished them by
throwing them out of the land he had given them; but later, he reclaimed
them as his people.

Actually though, according to Paul, the real seed of Abraham is the

anointed Christian congregation. And following the pattern of the
prophecies pertaining to its ancient counterpart, the modern Israel of God
is similarly disciplined by God, scattered during a time of tribulation. But
as Jesus said, eventually God's chosen ones will be gathered from the
four corners of the earth.

Even so, instead of inheriting a literal land of Canaan, Isaiah used the
expression "new heavens" and "new earth" to describe the restored
Jewish homeland. Bible students, of course, recognize that the apostles
Peter and John also specifically referred to a new heavens and new earth,
which faithful Christians are to inherit at the end of this present old
heavens and old earthly system of things.

17. The NWT adds the word "[the]" to the phrase "of our God and savior
Jesus Christ" in 2Pet 1:1. 2Pet 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, which contain the same
exact phrase in the Greek with the exception that these verses contain the
word "lord" (kyrios) instead of the word "God" (Theos), don't have the
word "[the]" added to them. See Greek-English Interlinear. What is the
reason for this gross inconsistency in translation of these phrases? How
would 2 Pet 1:1 read if it had been translated the same way as 2Pet 1:11,
2:20, and 3:18, and the word "[the]" had not been added? What does
scripture say about adding words to the Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.

All Bible translations have added words that do not appear in the original
text. There is nothing particularly sinister about doing that sort of thing. It
is done at the translators' discretion to add clarity to the text.

The obvious reason that the questioner takes issue with the insertion of
[the] into the text of 2 Peter 1:1 is because of the wishful assumption on
the part of indoctrinated Trinitarians that the text is saying that Jesus is
God. The verse reads: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus
Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege
with ours, by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus
Christ."

With or without the insertion of the definite article, the text in no way is
saying that God is Jesus Christ. It merely says "our God and Savior Jesus
Christ." The very next verse again mentions both God and Jesus, where it
says in the NIV: "Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the
knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

It seems rather silly to have to point this out, but the word "and" means "in
addition to." Here's what the dictionary says about the word "and": used
as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items
within the same class or type."

No honest, reasoning person would conclude that because God and

Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence that they are automatically the
same person. God and Christ are Father and Son. They are two separate
entities. We would suggest that this particular line of question, that is
supposed to stump Jehovah's Witnesses, is instead an indication of how
Trinitarian indoctrination can becloud a person's common sense.

18. Zechariah 2:10-12 says, "Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion;
for here I AM COMING, and I will reside IN THE MIDST OF YOU", is the
utterance of Jehovah…And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies
himself has sent me to you. And Jehovah will certainly take possession of
Judah…and he must yet choose Jerusalem." If Jesus and Jehovah are not
one and the same God, then how do you explain the fact that Christ is the
one who is "coming" and "will reside in the midst of you", but in this
passage, Jehovah claims that he is the one who is coming and will reside in
their midst? How do you explain the fact that "Jehovah of armies" is
sending him (Jehovah) to reside in their midst?

The unreasonableness of these types of questions is nearly mind-

numbing. Are we to suppose that God gives himself orders and then
carries them out? Is that what the questioner believes?

To reiterate, the verse you cited says: "And you will have to know that
Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you."

Nearly 50 times in the book of John alone, Jesus said that his Father sent
him forth into the world as his representative. That is not a hard concept to
grasp, is it? Jesus said many times to the disbelieving Jews that he did
not come down from heaven on his own initiative. God gave his Son a
command, and Jesus obeyed his Father's orders. It is that simple. And
because Jesus is in the exact image of Jehovah, it can rightly be said that
Jehovah was in our midst when Christ walked among us.

Furthermore, Jesus plainly said: "A slave is not greater than his
master, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that sent
him." Since it is beyond dispute that Jesus was taking orders from
Jehovah God when he was sent forth by his Father, why do Trinitarians
blasphemously claim that God orders himself around?

19. Is it true that the WTS once taught that: The second presence of Christ
started in 1874 (WT, 11/1/22, pgs 332-337; Prophecy, 1929, pg 65-66);
Vaccinations never saved a human life, doesn't prevent smallpox, and are
condemned (Golden Age, Feb 4, 1931, pg 293-4); The great pyramid of Egypt
is a witness of the Lord (WT May 15, 1925 pgs 148-9); God governs the
universe from a star called Alcyone (Thy Kingdom Come, 1903 Ed, pg 327);
Leviathan of the Bible is the steam locomotive (The Finished Mystery, pg 84-
86); Tonsillectomy is condemned; better to commit suicide than have a
tonsillectomy (GA, April 7, 1926, pg 438); In the new world, Abraham will
rule New York City (GA, Oct 5, 1927, pg 26/29); The black race originated
with Noah's curse upon Canaan (GA, Jul 24, 1929, pg 702); Jews are no
longer important to God (Vindication, Vol 2, pg 257-258); God wears clothes
(GA, May 19, 1926, pg 534); The WTS stands for the principles of Nazi
Germany (Yearbook 1934, pg 134-137); Aspirin is the menace of heart
disease (GA, Feb 27, 1935, pg 343-4); Do not use X-rays (GA, Sept 23, 1936,
pg 828); In 1938, people should not get married (Face the Facts, pg 46-50);
Organ transplants were condemned as cannibalistic (WT, Nov 15, 1967, pg
702-4)? The WTS teaches that it is the mouthpiece for Jehovah and God's
one and only channel of communication to the world. Since God does not tell
lies or change his mind (Num 23:19, Ps 89:34, Heb 6:18), and since it is clear
that the WTS could not have possibly been speaking for God when they
proclaimed these teachings, then how do you know that the WTS is speaking
for God now? See Zeph 3:13 and Isa 28:15. To see many direct quotes from
the WTS, click: WTS Quotes

To put things in perspective: The official teaching of the Catholic Church

used to be that the earth was the center of the universe. The Vatican even
forced Galileo to recant from his scientific observations to the opposite. If
the Catholic Church's Dark Age policy were still in force today, we would
be burned at the stake for merely discussing the Bible outside their
approved liturgical boundaries. So, it seems appropriate to point out the
gross hypocrisy of our Catholic questioner. Not only that, but this line of
reasoning is devious and dishonest. For one thing, statements taken out
of their historical and contextual setting are intended to nudge the reader
to form the biased opinion that you wish upon them.

For example, the statement that vaccinations never saved a human life
was made in 1931. Vaccinations were in their infancy at that time, so it is
quite likely that there was no real proof that vaccinations were effective.
Obviously, the questioner's intent is to show how silly such a statement is
now, but back then it was not at all an inappropriate statement.
Furthermore, the questioner reveals his own ignorance on this issue.
That's because vaccinations were controversial back then and they are
still controversial to this day—if not more so. No doubt, in 1931, the
comment in the Golden Age did not seem at all unreasonable. Many
people, in 2003, suspect that immunization has contributed to weakening
the body's natural immune system and may be one of the underlying
causes of the many new immunodeficiency diseases that did not exist in
the previous generations. Also, vaccinations are suspected in many child
deaths. While there is no question that vaccinations have saved many
lives, immunization is an ongoing experiment with the long-term results
still unknown.

The same thing applies to other health issues. Tonsillectomies are

considered routine surgeries; but some doctors now think that
unnecessarily removing the tonsils can lead to serious health problems
later on in life. Similarly, the Watchtower was been criticized for putting in
print that aluminum cookware was dangerous. But, there are those today,
70 years later, who suspect that aluminum might be a contributing factor
in Alzheimer's disease. It would seem that the Watchtower was way
ahead of the curve on that issue.

Same with the aspirin issue. While the giant pharmaceutical companies
have convinced people that taking aspirin prevents heart problems, others
feel that aspirins are detrimental to health. So, on these trivial issues we
must conclude that the questioner is simply pandering to popular
prejudices and ignorance.

That is not to say that the Watchtower hasn't made a lot of dumb
statements, but many of the things cited above have nothing to do with
the Bible. They were just the opinions of certain men. Besides, the
apostles had many wrong ideas. In fact, Jesus corrected them all the time,
and yet, Jesus used them as the foundation of his congregation. But, the
Scriptures allow for the children of God to go through the awkward phase
of adolescence before attaining spiritual adulthood. Paul said of himself, in
illustrating the growth of the congregation of God leading up to the time of
Christ's return: "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy
partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is
partial will be done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as
a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have
become a man, I have done away with the traits of a babe. For at
present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it
will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know
accurately even as I am accurately known."

Jesus said, "Wisdom is proved righteous by works." What does that

mean? It means that you judge the end result. The end result of the
Watchtower's teachings back then was that it produced a people who
demonstrated the same strength of faith as the original Christians. For
example, during WWII, Catholics, Lutherans and Protestant Trinitarians all
engaged in mutual slaughter on a level that surpassed all previous wars.
On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses went to prisons and
concentration camps by the thousands in Germany and through out the
English-speaking world because they were determined to follow the
teachings of Christ, regardless of the personal costs involved. If the
Watchtower was as inept as our opposers would have us believe, how do
you explain the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses back then demonstrated to
the world that they had an unconquerable faith that proved to be far
superior in quality to anything produced by Christendom?

20. The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" every time it appears
in the New Testament (eg, Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc), except in
Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19 where it is rendered as "means",
even though this word is translated as "is" in the Kingdom Interlinear. Why
the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti" in these verses? If the
NWT were consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these
verses, what would these verses say?

This question arises from the incredibly bizarre Catholic doctrine of

transubstantiation, which is the belief that the wine and bread
representing Christ's flesh and blood miraculously change into Jesus'
literal flesh and blood once consumed.

Some of Christ's disciples also assumed Jesus was advocating such

cannibalism when he told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his
blood, which is why they were shocked and refused to follow him any
longer. But, in the very next verse in the account of John 6:63, Jesus
explains that he was not speaking literally. It reads: "It is the spirit that is
life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have
spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you that
do not believe"

If the flesh is of no value when it comes to salvation, as Jesus said, why

then do Catholics insist that they must literally eat Jesus' flesh through the
magic of transubstantiation? By taking Jesus' words literally, Catholics
betray their own lack of spiritual discernment. Instead of recognizing that
the sayings of Christ are spirit and not physical, Catholics have embraced
the very folly that characterizes those who do not believe.

If you insist that the loaf is the actual flesh of Christ, because Jesus said
"this is my body," then what about the next verse where Jesus said, "This
cup is the new covenant in my blood." Are we to assume, then, that
the wine is magically transubstantiated into a new covenant inside the
stomachs of our Catholic friends? That's what it says, "this cup is the new
covenant."

For certain, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not only difficult

to pronounce, it is hard to stomach as well.