Jehovah's Witnesses Only......3 questions?

Question

1) do JWs (sorry if that offends) use the standard 66 book Bible? (Genesis to Malachi OT, Matthew to Revalation NT)

2) how do you view other Christian denominations in general (providing you consider yourselves Christian)?

3) on the whole blood thing, do you believe it's a sin, or a bringer of condemnation upon you? just wondering, please don't take it into offense...

Answer 1

I am not a Jehovah Witness. I am Ethiopian Orthodox. Many churches use the name Jehovah. I have heard the name used in Baptist churches, Othodox churches, Methodist, and even evangelicals.

The Jehovah Witnesses use the standard 66 books of the Bible. That is not to say it is the entire text, or that it is not more than the inspired text. Various Christian religions use a Bible with more or fewer books. The 66 are used by most Western Protestant churches. Contrary to what some have answered, Jehovah does not appear in the original texts over 7,000 times. In the accepted Hebrew text, the four-letter representation of God is used over 6,800 times, and the actual name Jehovah is never used. Jehovah is a Latinized version that has come into acceptance in Western Protestant religion, but was never used in the extant languages.

It is of note that neither Jehovah nor its four-letter representation is ever used or ever appears in any Greek manuscript or extant text. Jesus is never recorded in any of the Gospels as using the Divine Name. Its only approximation is in Revelation 19 where the word Hallelujah or Alleluia is used.

I do not suggest that using the name Jehovah is wrong. As I said, I have heard it used in many Christian churches and it is an accepted form of the Divine Name in western language. However, for a religion that claims to have a translation that is more accurate than most; and one that claims to hold sacred their obligation to accurately represent God's word - more so than any other church - it seems a little strange to be adding to the Word of God.

I know in Deuteronomy and in Revelation it cautions against adding to or subtracting from the Word. The Jehovahs Witnesses criticize other churches for not having the name of God in places it appeared in extant manuscripts. They criticize the King James and other translations for changing the original four-letter "tetragrammaton" to read "Lord" or "God." But then they change the original Greek work "Kyrios" in the Greek scriptures to read "Jehovah," and add it in dozens of places it never appeared in other extant manuscripts. It just seems like a double standard.

Your second question is about how they view other religions. I certainly can't fault anyone for believing that they are worshipping God acceptably. Otherwise they should change. I do feel that it is duplicitous to fault others for the same kinds of mistakes and failings one has themself. The Jehovah Witnesses teach that all other religions - Christian or non-Christian - are tools of Satan and are filthy false worship. I've known some who would not even attend a relative's funeral in another church. I don't think that kind of veangeful spite and hate is justified by God's Word.

They say that it is either pure worship or it is adulterated worship. That it cannot be 99% pure, it must be 100% pure and unadulterated. If even one drop of impurity is in a gallon of milk it is adulterated is the way one said it to me. But they gloss over their own impurities and the doctrinal changes they've made as if God will overlook their own impurity and mistakes while taking to task every other religion that has had any impurity in its history. It just seems presumptuous and evil to teach that about God.

As for blood, they've changed and changed that prohibition over the years. In the 1950's and 1960's they prohibited vaccinations - even polio vaccinations - because they had traces of blood products in them. Witness children contracted polio unnecessarily, and others were barred from public schools for not being vaccinated. Then they began allowing vaccinations, but prohibited organ transplants until the 1970's. Eventually they allowed organ transplants, but continued to forbid even the use of any blood fractions. Now, they allow the use of many blood fractions, but not whole blood or red cells. Many have died for following each of these prohibitions, and others were shunned for using medical treatment that was forbidden.

What about those who died for needlessly refusing care that was later deemed acceptable? What about those who were shunned for using care that was forbidden? Did God now accept what he had condemned - did he change his mind; or did the Jehovah Witness leaders change what God had said? Did he not speak clearly to them before?

I know Jehovahs Witnesses who made fun of the Catholics for changing their prohibition against eating meat on Friday. The question was asked, "did those who went to Purgatory for eating meat suddenly get released?" Well, did the Witnesses who were shunned for taking vaccinations or having organ transplants or who used once forbidden but now acceptable blood fractions find themselves suddenly forgiven? Did God change his mind, or did the Jehovah Witnesses change their mind? Had they misunderstood God, or did he not speak clearly?

It's just inconsistent and even a little disingenuous to condemn other churches for what they do themself.

But then, what do I know. I'm just a little Ethiopian girl from a backwater third world country. What do we know? After all, we only became acquainted with Jehovah when Moses married a Cushite woman from the area that was northern Ethiopia at the time. And, we only had a really active population worshipping the God of the Bible from the time that the Queen of Sheba (Nigista Saba) traveled to meet Solomon. And we've only had a Christian population since around the year 64, when the eunuch in service to our Queen Candace was joined by Philip on the road that ran down to Gaza (Acts 8:26-39). Gosh, that was even before John received the Revelation, but then, what do us little dark skinned Ethiopians know ...?

March 16 addition to Mr. Wink Winkleman:
You accuse me, sir, of being "completely wrong in pretty much everything she's stated, from twisting truth to outright lies." Then you fail to cite any evidence or examples. Of course I am use to producing and maintaining evidence and documenting chain of custody issues. So, sir, I kindly invite you to produce your evidence and citations.

Instead of a whisper campaign of hit and run and hide, please be a man and produce evidence that anything I wrote is 'completely wrong, twisted, or an outright lie.' I will happily concede any error of fact; although calling someone a liar is, even in the Jehovah Witness religion, a serious accusation for which one can be 'disfellowshipped' if they make such a false accusation in front of witnesses. So again, I invite you, sir, to either produce documented facts and evidence or retract your false accusation. Thank you, Mr. Winkleman.

Answer to Joel C:
Thank you, sir, for your comments. You have a point about my reference to Ethiopia, and I offer you apologies if it seemed unnecessary. I am so use to Americans and Europeans denigrating Africans because we supposedly come from an unintelligent continent, often referred to as "The Dark Continent." Perhaps I assumed wrongly, but I am proud of my heritage and of our historical contacts with God's people throughout history. We believe that the Ark of the Covenant resides in Ethiopia, and we believe that our special relationship with God's people throughout history, unique only to Ethiopians, gives us understanding of God's relationship with Israel. We have closely guarded our manuscripts and relics, and feel that there was a special reason that we were the first nation outside of Israel to have a Christian community. I may have assumed wrongly in my reference, but Ityop'iya is proud to have had a close relationship with God's people almost from our beginning. So, thank you for your reference.

In your reference to the use of the four-letter representation of God's name, and whether Jehovah is or is not accurate, please notice that I did not dispute whether the use of the name is appropriate. What I said is that I have heard it used in many other churches. I went to a Baptist church with a friend of mine only three weeks ago, and the minister used the name Jehovah four or five times in his sermon. We use it often in the Orthodox church. I've heard it used by TV and radio ministers. They may not use it in every sentence, but I have not experienced any reticence of ministers in various churches to use the name Jehovah. I suspect that others here have heard it used often as well.

As for its use in Biblical texts, neither did I dispute the use of the four-letter representation of God's name in the Old Testament, or Hebrew verses. The tetragrammaton is used over 6,800 times in known extant manuscripts. What I did dispute is the statement that it is used "over 7,000 times." In fact, in the Jehovah Witness literature, the Insight in Scripture book, it states that it very fact. I admit 6,800 is not much different from 7,000, but wannakno said "over 7,000 times," not 'about 7,000 times,' and 'over 7,000 times' inflates it beyond 7,000 or even 'about 7,000.' ( I notice that now, after I wrote this, she has changed it to be "nearly 7000 times." Perhaps that is to make it appear as if I misrepresented her?) And, Mr. Winkleman said, "in the 7,000+ locations it was originally written down in."

And, even Jehovah Witnesses in their Insight in Scripture book say that the actual name Jehovah is not used in the manuscripts because the Jews did not use vowels; so, it is impossible to know the exact name that was used. As you recall, I said I was not suggesting that the use of Jehovah is wrong, but that I've heard it used in many other religions. I observed that Jehovah is an accepted Latinized version of the original and is commonly used.

The New Testament or Greek verses do not use the name Jehovah or even the four letter tetragrammaton anywhere at all, but the word "Kyrios" is often used, which is more commonly translated as "Lord." This is also in the Jehovah Witness book. In Revelation, the word "Hallelujah" means to 'praise Jah,' Jah being a shortened form for Jehovah, similar to using Bill for William or Bobby for Robert. But, the Greek manuscripts nowhere have the four letters YHVH or any other approximation thereof.

My point was that if all scripture is inspired, why change them anywhere? Why is it ok to change the mistranslations from the OT Hebrew verses to make them more accurately reflect the tetragrammaton YHVH but it is then acceptable to change the original word Kyrios and make it read Jehovah when the original manuscripts do not use the tetragrammaton? Why is it ok to criticize other translations for changing the YHVH in Hebrew to read Lord and God and then for the Jehovah Witnesses to change Lord and God in Greek to read Jehovah? If all scripture is inspired, then why not leave all of the verses, old and new, as translations of the original without changing them to other words or names? Even the Jehovah Witness Insight Scripture book states that Jesus is not recorded as saying 'Jehovah,' but 'Father,' 'Kyrios,' and others. If all scripture is inspired and if the writers wrote Kyrios or Father, then why change it to Jehovah? If you are doing a good deed by translating Jehovah in Hebrew verses because they were changed to Lord and God, then why change Lord and God to read Jehovah in the Greek verses when the extant manuscripts do not support it? If Jesus said Jehovah, don't you think the apostles would have said that? They got everything else right, but missed that? I just said that it seems disingenuous or dishonest to change a verse from the original when you claim to be restoring it toward it original. All of this is supported in the Jehovah Witness books.

Was I wrong or lying or twisting the truth when I said any of those things? I got much of it from your books and anyone can tell you that Jehovah is used in other churches. Was I wrong or lying to say you believe that all other religions are tools of Satan? My best friend's parents did not go to his aunt's funeral because it was held in a Catholic church and said it was for that reason.

The Watchtower itself has used the illustration about unadulterated milk being 100% pure not just 99%. So how is it a lie or twisting to say that if the Jehovah Witnesses have a mistake or error that it is not 100% pure? God knows how to talk and how to inspire, so why is it ok for the Jehovah Witnesses to be wrong and still pure, but not ok for another church to be wrong and change?

Lastly, on the subject of blood, transplants, and so on, all of this is in the Jehovah Witness history books, so please do not suggest that any of it is a lie or twisted.

Once again, I accept your criticism of my reference to ethnicity. I did not intend it to seem offensive, but I accept that you said it was.

But, to call me a liar, and to suggest that all of my facts are twisted and that I know nothing is offensive, and Mr. Winkleman made a serious accusation that is wrong. He said, "Askala is completely wrong in pretty much everything she's stated, from twisting truth to outright lies." But he does not cite any place where I was wrong, twisting fact, or outright lying. Where was I wrong? Where did I twist? Where did I lie? Where is his admission? In fact, where is he, and why must he rely on you to defend him?

Answer 2

Askala I don't see why you expect him to provide evidence when you didn't provide any yourself.

There reason for adding the name Jehovah to the knew testament is this.....
The New testament quotes or references the old testament several times.It's unlikely Jesus would have misquoted the old testament since he was perfect. However, if you go by other translations that is exactly what he did by leaving out the name Jehovah in passages that it appears. The apostles themselves would also have been familiar with this name at this time.

Your comment about your nationality was not only pointless, but prejudice. Reading your comment I was thinking you had a fair amount of knowledge, but then you said the whole thing about being Ethiopian.
I didn't even know what your nationality was and I didn't care.
You imply that people see Ethiopians as dumb assuming that is the general view. When nobody here said that.
Then you raise Ethiopians above everyone as if there contacts with the Jews made them special.
Can you show me were does it say in the bible that God has giving any modern nation,race, or ethnicity special knowledge of the bible?

Your being Ethiopian gives no more validity to your statements then if you had said you were Jewish.
In fact to even think that way is extremely arrogant of you.

Answer 3

1)Yes, of course. Maybe you think that we have our own Bible in which we wrote what we wanted. But that's not true.
An outstanding feature of the New World Translation involved the restoration of God’s name, Jehovah (Exodus 3:15; Psalm 83:18). Clearly, our Creator intended his worshipers both to know and to use that name!
We can use any other translation. The JW from Romania received the NWT last year on November 15. Until then we used a translation made by a priest called Cornilescu. We wanted to use this one because at its begining it says that the word 'Jehovah' was replaced by the word 'LORD'.

2)We are Christians because we believe in Jesus. Some say that because we don't agree with the trinity we are not. But the trinity isn't a biblical teaching. It isn't found in it. It has pagan origins.

3)God says not to take blood. If we do than we sin.
“You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right.”—Deuteronomy 12:23-25

Answer 4

Jehovah's Witnesses use any standard 66-book bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that self-described "Christianity" performed some useful service in preserving the bible, and a framework of understanding from which true worship would emerge during "the time of the end" or "the conclusion of the system of things". The bible plainly teaches how to identify "false religion" (see first link below).

(Daniel 12:4) Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will [then] become abundant.

(Matthew 13:47-49) Again the kingdom of the heavens is like a dragnet let down into the sea and gathering up fish of every kind. When it got full they hauled it up onto the beach and, sitting down, they collected the fine ones into vessels, but the unsuitable they threw away. That is how it will be in the conclusion of the system of things: the angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous


Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bible to teach that humans must respect blood, and not misuse it for human purposes. Misuse of blood is a sin, but not the "unforgivable sin".

(Matthew 12:32) Whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come.

Answer 5

1) Yes.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2) Jesus never said you have to belong to any denomination to get into his kingdom. Rather he expects any and all denominations to follow his commandments.

How many denominations have killed or went to war, which break Jesus commandments?
(Mark 12:29- 31, Rom 13:9, Acts 17:25)

How many worship, pray, prostrate, or kiss an image which is forbidden in the scriptures?
(Exodus 20:4)

How many preach about Gods kingdom?
(Matt 28:19, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2 Timothy 4:2-4)


3) Yes.

Acts 15:29 "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from BLOOD and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper.

JWS may use other medical treatments and methods rather then using Whole blood such as:

Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation, Transfusions of autologous blood part of a "current therapy", Hemodilution, Intraoperative blood salvage, Heart-Lung Machine, Dialysis, Epidural Blood Patch, Plasmapheresis, Platelet Gel, Hemopure, PolyHeme, among others.....

Answer 6

Yes we use the WHOLE Bible, all 66 books.:)

I appritiate ANYONE who tries to learn about/follow Jehovah. I do believe that we ALL can learn more about Jehovah and of course feel my beliefs follow the Bible, and in some areas are different from other denominations.

Use of Blood is a sin, it could be done without my family knowing but I and Jehovah would know.

Hope this helps:) Thanks for being nice.

Answer 7

1. Yes, we use the 66 book bible: Hebrew Scriptures: Genesis to Malachi; and Christian Greek Scriptures: Matthew to Revelation. We like the NWT because it has restored Jehovah's name to the nearly 7000 times that other bible translations have removed it (and replaced it with mere titles), but we will use whatever translation our bible students are comfortable with.

2. We most definitely are Christian...meaning that we follow Jesus' teachings and not the doctrines and traditions of m, which most other religions are steeped in.

3. It is a command from God that we ABSTAIN from blood. That would be taking it into our bodies in any manner. There are many medical benefits of not receiving blood, but blood is very sacred, for it is with Jesus' shed blood that we receive the hope of everlasting life. We honor what the Bible teaches and commands. Showing dis-regard for that would be wrong.

Answer 8

(1) Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses use the common 66-book Bible. The translation used is called the "New World" translation, which is taken from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, also making use of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia of 1977, the Dead Sea scrolls, and numerous other early translations. The "New World" translation puts back the name of God, Jehovah, in the 7000+ locations it was originally written down in. Most Bible translations, if at all, only have it in a few scattered verses.

(2) "Christian" denominations that do not use God's personal name in their worship, that base their teachings on the false doctrines of men (hellfire, trinity, immortal soul, and so forth), and flagrantly ignore Jesus' command that his followers go forth and preach about God's Kingdom as the only hope for mankind are considered part of false religion, as part of Christendom which is part of the overall worldwide association of false religion.

(3) In the Hebrew scriptures, the nation of Israel was told not to eat blood and were to properly bleed the animals they used for food. In the Greek scriptures, the same principle or directive for Christians was given, that they are to abstain from blood (Acts 15:28, 29), and not to take it into (or give from) their bodies in any form. It is a clear law of God that we do not take blood due to it meaning a creature's precious life (which only belongs to God). Our obedience to this scriptural command is vitally important, especially so in the potential face of our own death or the death of our loved ones because as John 5:28, 29 tells us, there is a time coming when those who are in death will be resurrected. If we should die faithful to God by abstaining from blood, we have every assurance of being resurrected back to life right here on earth. If we should disobey God and take blood, we may live a little longer now, but could very well lose out on the hope of living forever in perfect health on a paradise earth.

* NOTE: Aside from her smugness and sarcasm, Askala is completely wrong in pretty much everything she's stated, from twisting truth to outright lies. So when she asks "then again, what do I know?", the simple answer is: not a lot.

Answer 9

Oh my goodness,Witnesses may communicate to non individuals everyonce later on yet when someone is disconnected from the church then no individual will communicate to that individual,in spite of in the journey that they are your son/daughter. Thats a tousled issue to do

Answer 10

Before i answer your 3 questions, here's one for Joyfill- So, why not answer this question posted on the phamplet? "How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?" -- Just out of curiousity (i'm not attacking you)... i want to know if you know the answer. I read Deut. 18: 20-22. And your point is? Now, please read Isaiah 2:4 (.."And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore"). To answer all 3 questions: (1) Yes, we use all 66 books. (2) Yes, we are Christians- the only Christians I know who don't participate in war and obeying God's command at Isaiah 2:4-- How do we view others who claims to be Christians? Fellow humans and whether they agree with our preaching work or not, we still practice love towards them. After all, Jesus did say, "LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS" (3) Yes, using blood (eat or transfusion) is a direct disobedience to God's instruction to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29)

Answer 11

I think the answers given to your first question are quite clear.

Some clarification on the second one...yes we are Christians. Yes, we believe our religion is the right religion. If we didn't, we wouldn't belong to it. If we believe our religion is right, then it stands to reason that religions that have different doctrines, we believe to be wrong. Even if some of the beliefs are the same.

As for the blood issue...personally when I was studying I did research on it and my initial reason for refusing transfusions was based solely on medical reasons. As I grew spiritually I came to appreciate the spiritual reasons for abstaining. Life is in the blood and life belongs to Jehovah. Also, our spiritual lives are more important than our physical lives and if I were to accept a blood transfusion to save my physical life, it would at the same time be saying that I do not have enough faith in the blood that Jesus shed for me to save me spiritually and that his sacrifice means nothing to me. Hope that made sense to you...it did in my head!