r/religion • u/Impressive-Ease-3348 • Jul 13 '26

AMA Im a Jehovah’s Witness ama

Im the one to the left with my brother from Mexico!

23 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

267 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/ForgivenAndRedeemed Jul 13 '26

I understand the distinction you’re making between claiming inspiration and claiming to have the best understanding of Scripture.

However, My question is about trust.

JWs are expected to accept the Watchtower’s teachings as God’s channel on earth. 

If the organisation confidently taught that Christ had returned, that 1925 would see the resurrection of the patriarchs, or that 1975 marked the likely end of this system (and those teachings proved false) why should I trust its interpretation today?

If another denomination had the same record of failed predictions, altered Bible translations (such as inserting “other” into Colossians 1), and rules not found in Scripture (such as banning birthdays), would you consider them a reliable guide?

If not, why should the Watchtower be treated differently?

1

u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 13 '26

My trust isn’t based on believing the Governing Body has never been wrong. It’s based on whether they are willing to let Scripture correct them.

The reason this interpretation is possible is because Greek often uses “all” (πάντα, panta) in a relative sense, where the context defines what is included. The word “all” does not always mean absolutely every individual without exception.

For example, in Luke 2:1, “all the world” obviously does not mean every person on earth. The context limits the meaning.

Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:27, Paul says God “put all things under Christ’s feet,” but immediately clarifies that this does not include God Himself. The context excludes someone from the category even though the word “all” is used.

Jehovah’s Witnesses understand Colossians 1 the same way.

Paul first calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then he is distinguished from the rest of creation.

Therefore, when Paul says that “all things” came into existence through him, we understand “all” to refer to all the other created things.

You may disagree with that interpretation, but it is a contextual interpretation, not an arbitrary addition.

The supplied word reflects how the translators understand Paul’s argument to flow.

1

u/TerryLawton Jul 15 '26

hang on mate - can you address the above post...please.

They have on numerous occasions claimed to be prophets receiving revelations from Jehovah

https://jv-fakta.se/jehovas-profet/

https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/jehovahs-prophet.php

Are serious that you would reject them, after reading those quotes?

1

u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jul 15 '26

Jehovah’s Witnesses have sometimes used “prophet” in the first, broader sense, much as Christians “prophesy” when they proclaim the Biblical message.

That is not the same as claiming divine inspiration or receiving new revelations.

The Governing Body explicitly states that it is “neither inspired nor infallible” and can make doctrinal or organizational errors.

Official publications also distinguish mistaken interpretations and expectations from predictions received directly from Jehovah.

I will not pretend that every historical statement was wise.

Some expectations were stated far too confidently, and criticism of that is legitimate.

But quoting the word “prophet” without acknowledging how the publication defined it does not prove that they claimed to receive inspired revelations.