Birthdays

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to celebrate birthdays. The reasons behind this decision are as follows.

1) Two references put birthday celebrations in unfavorable light.

2) Early Christians and Jews did not celebrate birthdays.

3) Origin of popular customs associated with birthday celebrations. Pagan traditions.

Let's check out the first claim. The first reference can be found in Genesis 40:20-22.

"Thus it came about on the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief cupbearer and the head of the chief baker among his servants. He restored the chief cupbearer to his office, and he put the cup into Pharaoh's hand; but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had interpreted to them."

Yes, someone died during Pharoah's birthday. But what is overlooked about this account was that this death was a fulfillment of a prediction by Joseph, and eventually elevated him to second in charge of Egypt. The story brings glory to the prophetic ability of God. The birthday feast was simply a side note. 

The second reference is found in Matthew 14:6-10. 

" But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod, so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Having been prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist." Although he was grieved, the king commanded it to be given because of his oaths, and because of his dinner guests. He sent and had John beheaded in the prison."

Again, the focus of the story is on the death of John the Baptist, which was an important step in the formation of early Christianity, and not the birthday celebration. 

The Witnesses disagree. 

"Everything that is in the bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16,17).  Jehovah’s Witnesses take note that God’s Word reports unfavorably about birthday celebrations and so shun these.” Reasoning From the Scriptures pp.68-69

Well then, what about dogs? They are mentioned in the bible 40 times, and are not spoken of favorably at all. Revelation 22:15 says "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." That means dogs won't make it into the new system. They are equated with evil. 

But do Jehovah's Witnesses forbid their members to own a dog?  

There are many other things mentioned in the bible that are spoken of unfavorably. Eye make up, giving wedding gifts, haircuts, drinking. None of those things are considered unacceptable for Christians. 

The next point is about early Christians and Jews not celebrating birthdays. 


“How did early Christians and Jews of Bible times view birthday celebrations? “The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general.” … “The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days.”” Reasoning From the Scriptures p.69

The Jews did not make a practice of  celebrating birthdays. Jesus and the early Christians were Jews. That is why the bible does not promote them. But it doesn't condemn them either. So any attempt to use this line of reasoning will fail. Early Christians did not shave their beards either. So if we are to strictly follow the customs from that time period, why are many JWs not allowed to wear a beard in modern times? Wedding anniversaries were not mentioned either. The bible does not say it is okay to celebrate them, but it does not condemn them either. Just because something was or was not customary at that time has no bearing on its inherent rightness or wrongness.

And the next point deals with Pagan origins.

"The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating--in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year....Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom." Reasoning from the Scriptures p. 69

 “What about the birthday cake? It appears to be related to the Greek goddess Artemis, whose birthday was celebrated with moon-shaped honey cakes topped with candles.” Mankind’s Search for God p.70

There is Paganism in almost everything we encounter today.  Wedding rings, wedding veils, celebrating with piñatas, pot lucks, tombstones, wind chimes, breakfast cereal, neckties and kites, wearing perfume, etc.  Weddings alone include the ceremony, cake, dress, burning of candles and the wedding ring. And then there is our calendar which the days of the week and each month is named after Roman gods. The JWs had actually created a new calendar which appeared in their magazine, the Golden Age, March 1935, page 381. (That magazine is now called the Awake). Rutherford shot that down though.

Trying to use Paganism as a reason is very contradictory, especially considering what is allowed within the JW realm.

What does the bible say about celebrating life?

Job and his family may have possibly celebrated their birthdays.

Job 1:4,5 “And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them. And it would occur that when the banquet days had gone round the circuit, Job would send and sanctify them"

Paul says the following.

 Romans 14:5,6, 10 “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. … But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God?"

The angels celebrated the birth of Jesus.

Luke 2:10-14 “But the angel said to them: “Have no fear, for, look! I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have, because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord, in David’s city. And this is a sign for you: you will find an infant bound in cloth bands and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there came to be with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God and saying: “Glory in the heights above to God, and upon earth peace among men of goodwill."

  The Magi presented the infant Jesus with gifts that were accepted by Joseph and Mary. Had it been wrong to do this, and viewed as an evil custom, that would have been the time for God to make it known.

The reasoning on the refusal to celebrate a birthday is very flimsy and contradictory when put to the test. But then again, considering their track record, what did you expect?

Jehovah, The Name in Question.

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that God's name, Jehovah, was used by Jesus and his contemporaries. Was this true? Did Jesus refuse to follow Jewish Laws and decide to use God's name? What is the history behind this name? Where did it originate? Was it Jewish superstition that did not allow God's name to be used?

The Divine name was given to the Hebrews (according to legend) by way of Moses. During the centuries that followed, passages such as found in Ruth 2:4 indicates the name was still being pronounced at the time of the redaction of the Hebrew Bible in the 6th or 5th century BCE. But according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a certain extent, in the Bible was due to reverence; and it may well be that such reluctance first arose in a foreign, and hence "unclean" land, very possibly in Babylon.
Certain historical evidence points to this fact. The Tetragrammaton is found to occur 5,989 time in the Hebrew scriptures. However, there is no instance of the divine name appearing in Canticles, Ecclesiastes or Esther, and in Daniel it occurs only 7 times (in chapter 9), a fact which in itself shows the late date of these books, whose authors lived at a period when the use of the Tetragrammaton was already avoided.

Simeon the Righteous or in Hebrew, שמעון הצדיק Shimon HaTzaddik (310-291 or 300-273 BCE) was a Jewish High Priest during the time of the Second Temple. According to Jewish history, after Simeon's death men ceased to utter the Tetragrammaton aloud (Yoma 30b; Tosef. Soṭah, xiii).

Historical evidence also shows that this prohibition continued even during the first century during Jesus' life time. For example, Philo, a Jewish philosopher (20 BCE - 50 CE) knew that the tetragram was the divine name pronounced inside the temple since he related: "There was a gold plaque shaped in a ring and bearing four engraved characters [the four letters] of a name which had the right to hear and to pronounce in the holy place those ones whose ears and tongue have been purified by wisdom, and nobody else and absolutely nowhere else ."

Flavius Josephus (37 CE - 100 CE) who was a contemporary of Jesus' disciples, when writing about the history of the Jews in his writings, Antiquities of the Jews, admitted that he himself is prohibited to pronounce the name. He wrote: "Whereupon God declared to him (Moses) his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more” (Ant. 2, 12, 4).

 It is believed that after the disuse of the name Divine Name during the Babylonian diaspora, the correct pronunciation of the divine name may have been lost. Exodus 20:7 says: "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain." The word in Hebrew for vain, שוא shav', means "vain, vanity, falsehood, worthlessness, lie, nothingness." To the Jews, this includes using a false or made-up or mispronounced name. To avoid coming under guilt by accidentally misusing God’s name, there came to be a prohibition to pronounce the name out loud as part of the definition of Ex. 20:7.

 Another fact: Jews, to this day in modern times, when speaking to or about God, they will utter, "Baruch HaShem," which means "Blessed be the name," "holy is the name," or "HALLOWED BE THY NAME." It is said to show that the name is too sacred to pronounce. What did Jesus say in the Model Prayer? Would not this time, when asked how to pray to God, be the best time to show the Jewish people how the name is really pronounced? Instead, he said "Hallowed be they name," or in Hebrew, "Baruch Hashem" because even he didn't pronounce the name.



Well then, where did the name Jehovah come from?


The invention of the word Jehovah will be traced to Catholic Spain and Italy

Before AD 1278 no form of Jehovah has ever existed

1278 Yohoua by the Spanish Monk Raymundo Martini
1303 IOHOUAH, IOHOUA and IHOUAH by Porchetus de Salvaticis
1518 IEHOUA by the Catholic priest “Pietro Colonna Galatino,” Confessor of Pope Leo X.
1525-1530 IEHOUAH by Reformer William Tyndale (1494-1536)
(See for instance Exodus 6:3 http://wesley.nnu.edu/.../imported_site/tyndale/exo.txt )
1526 Jehovah by Martin Luther
1534 Iehovah by William Tyndale
1602 Jehová in the Spanish VALERA Bible version
1611 Jehovah in King James version, mostly transferred from William Tyndale’s translation
1681 Jehova in ALMEIDA Portugese Bible version

In the 19th and 20th centuries Bible translators and scholars became aware of the Jehovah name mistake

---------------------

Nowadays most Bible translators will substitute יהוה , pronounced by Jews ADONAI, with words from their own languages as THE LORD, DER HERR, l’ ETERNEL, HERREN, YO SOY, [Моим] 'Господь' etc.
This is considered to be a logic translation of Hebrew ADONAI pronunciation.


 JWs will point to John 17:6, which says, "I have made your name manifest" and say, "See! Jesus made God's name known!" They forget that Jesus preached to the Jews. They KNEW what the name of their god was (they just refused to pronounce it." Making one's "name known" is not making known a literal name. Barnes notes on the Bible states: "The word "name" here includes the attributes or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy - or, in other words, he had revealed God to them. The word "name" is often used to designate the person." This is why various translation in English translate this verse as:
"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world." (NIV)
"I have revealed you to the ones you gave me from this world." (NLT)

 WHAT DO ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAY ABOUT THE NAME JEHOVAH

The Jewish Encyclopedia: "Jehovah" -- a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible. The form 'Jehovah' is a philological impossibility."

The New Jewish Encyclopedia: "It is clear that the word Jehovah is an artificial composite."

Encyclopedia Judaica: "the true pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH was never lost. The name was pronounced Yahweh. It was regularly pronounced this way at least until 586 B.C., as is clear from the Lachish Letters written shortly before this date."

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: "JEHOVAH is an erroneous pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a four lettered name of God, made up of the Hebrew letters Yod He Vav He. The word "JEHOVAH" therefore is a misreading for which there is no warrant and which makes no sense in Hebrew"

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "Jehovah" -- "False reading of the Hebrew YAHWEH."

Encyclopedia Americana: "Jehovah" -- "erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel."

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith: "Whatever, therefore, be the true pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not Jehovah."

Encyclopedia Britannica: ""The pronunciation 'Jehovah' is an error resulting among Christians from combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of ADHONAY....The Masoretes who from the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah came into being."

Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "Jehovah" -- "Intended as a transliteration of Hebrew YAHWEH, the vowel points of Hebrew ADHONAY (my lord) being erroneously substituted for those of YAHWEH; from the fact that in some Hebrew manuscripts the vowel points of ADHONAY (used as a euphemism for YAHWEH) were written under the consonants YHWH of YAHWEH to indicate that ADHONAY was to be substituted in oral reading for YAHWEH. Jehovah is a Christian transliteration of the tetragrammaton long assumed by many Christians to be the authentic reproduction of the Hebrew sacred name for God but now recognized to be a late hybrid form never used by the Jews."

New Catholic Encyclopedia: "Jehovah" -- "false form of the divine name YAHWEH.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia: "Jehovah" -- "is an erroneous form of the divine name of the covenant God Israel."

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: "Jehovah" --"is an artificial form."

Encyclopedia International: "Jehovah" --"the vowels of one word with the consonants of the other were misread as 'Jehovah.'

Merits Students Encyclopedia: --"is an inaccurate reconstruction of the name of God in the Old Testament."

Encyclopedia Judiacia: "YHWH" -- "When Christian scholars of Europe first began to study Hebrew, they did not understand what this really meant, and they introduced the hybrid name 'Jehovah'...THE TRUE PRONUNCIATION OF THE NAME YHWH WAS NEVER LOST. Several early Greek writers of the Christian church testify that the name was pronounced 'YAHWEH.' This is confirmed, at least for the vowel of the first syllable of the name, by the shorter form Yah, which is sometimes used in poetry (e.g. Exodus 15:2)... The personal name of God of Israel is written in the Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH and is referred to as the 'Tetragrammaton.' At least until the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. this name was regularly pronounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from the Lachish Letters, written shortly before that date."

Nelson's Bible Dictionary: "Jehovah" -- "The divine name Yahweh is usually translated Lord in English versions of the Bible, because it became a practice in late Old Testament Judaism not to pronounce the sacred name YHWH, but to say instead "my Lord" (Adonai) - a practice still used today in the synagogue. When the vowels of Adonai were attached to the consonants YHWH in the medieval period, the word Jehovah resulted. Today, many Christians use the word Yahweh, the more original pronunciation, not hesitating to name the divine name since Jesus taught believers to speak in a familiar way to God."

 Another trick the Watchtower uses to try to fool the rank & file to thinking the Divine name was used in the NT writings,  is to show photographs of the Septuagint with the Greek writings, and which shows the Divine Name in paleo-hebraic letters, and say, "See! The tetragrammaton was there! Scribes removed it!" They fail to explain to the rank & file, that the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, written around 200 BCE, so of course it would have the tetragrammaton in it. In fact there was no equivalent of YHWH in Greek, this is why they left the divine name in paleo-hebraic letters.

It is very ironic the the Catholics invented the name Jehovah since the Watchtower Society blasts orthodox Christendom  for hiding the name of God by replacing it with the Lord.
They claim this is a Jewish "superstition" that dishonors God (which it does not). Yet their own organization has a name that was invented as a result of the same thinking that produced use of "the Lord."

It makes no sense to use an incorrect name for God. But I guess in a religion loaded with misinterpretations, this comes as no surprise.

The New World Translation, A Reliable Source?

     When it comes to choosing a bible to learn from, which one would you pick? For me, I'm not certain which one would be the best choice, but I know which one I would avoid first. The New World Translation (NWT) is a horrible choice for anyone wanting to learn about the bible. Why? There are several errors in translation, and the individuals chosen to translate it were uneducated. And to cover over their mistakes, they attempt to quote from bible scholars to bolster the reputation of their bible. But were they honest about those quotes?

     I'm going to run through those three reasons, gathering information obtained from several sources. You can decide for yourself whether or not you would trust this translation. I'll start with several errors found throughout the bible.

Genesis 1:2	"Spirit of God" changed to "God's active force."	The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Exodus 3:14	"I am" changed to "I shall prove to be."	The revision clouds the connection between God's self proclaimed title and Jesus' proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.
Numbers 1:52	"Under his own standard" changed to "by his [three-tribe] division."	The Hebrew word degal translated as "standard" literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)
Isaiah 43:10	"Nor will there be one after me" changed to "after me there continued to be none."	The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God's divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus' becoming a "mighty god" while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)
Ecclesiastes 12:7	"The spirit returns" changed to "the spirit itself returns."	The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, "itself' has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.
Matthew 2:11	"Bowed down and worshipped him" changed to "did obeisance to it"	The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means "worship." The use of "obeisance" is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)
Matthew 5:19	"Least in the kingdom of heaven" changed to "least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven."	The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.
Matthew 25:46	"Eternal punishment" changed to "everlasting cutting-off."	The Greek word kolasis translated "punishment" indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests "termination," as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.
Mark 1:4	"Baptism of repentance" changed to "baptism [in symbol] of repentance. "	Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of "in symbol." The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist's ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.
Luke 12:8	"Acknowledges me" changed to "confesses union with me."	The addition of "union" suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.
Luke 23:43	'Today you will be with me" changed to "I tell you today, You will be with me."	Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that "today" deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.
John 1:1	"Word was God" changed to "Word was a god."	The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.
John 1:12	"Believe" changed to "exercise faith."	The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)
John 6:56	"Remains in me" changed to "remains in union with me."	The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring "in" with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses "by means of" or "in relationship to" rather than "in union with.")
John 8:58	"I am" changed to "I have been."	Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.
John 14:14	"IF YOU ask [me] anything in my name, I will do it." "me" is omitted to deny the fact we pray to Jesus.	John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads; "IF YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." The Greek text in the KIT, however, has ME after ask, so that it should be translated; "If you ask ME anything in my name, I will do it." It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones include it, and most modern editions of the Greek NT include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this in a note!
John 14:17	"Beholds him or knows him" changed to "beholds it or knows it."	The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.
John 17:5	"Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you" changed to "glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you."	The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.
John 17:21	"Are in me" changed to "are in union with me."	The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.
Acts 10:36	"Lord of all" changed to "Lord of all [others]."	The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God's created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)
Acts 20:28	They change "God purchased the church with His own blood" to God purchased the church with the blood of His son"	Wrath and indignation will come to every Jw from the Governing Body, who even suggests God purchased the church with His own blood... the blood of Jesus... who is God!
Romans 2:29	"By the Spirit" changed to "by spirit."	Although the definite article 'the" does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)
Rom 8:1	"Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW.	The NWT omits key words when to include them may contradict JW doctrine. The most glaring example is Rom 8:1 "Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation," Which omits the word NOW. This omission is evidently motivated by the fact that the JW's do not believe anyone can claim NOW to be free of condemnation.
Romans 8:23a	"Have the firstfruits of the Spirit" changed to "have the firstfruits, namely the spirit."	This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.
Romans 8:23b	"The redemption of our bodies" changed to "the release from our bodies by ransom."	This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.
Romans 8:28	"All things" changed to "all his works."	The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing. This implies that God does not work ALL things together for the good of those that love God, but only those things which he himself does, over which he has control.
Romans 8:29	"Those God foreknew" changed to "those whom he gave his first recognition."	The revision obscures the nature of God's knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.
Romans 9:5	"Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!" changed to "Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever."	The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.
Romans 10:13	"Lord" changed to "Jehovah."	This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly. The Greek word, kurios, translated "Lord" has been revised to "Jehovah" over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used "Lord" and "God" in place of "Yahweh" (the source of "Jehovah") throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.
Romans 13:1	"Authorities that exist have been established by God" changed to "authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God."	Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government.
1 Corinthians 6:19	"Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" changed to "the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit."	To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies "body" to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine.
1 Corinthians 10:4	"The Rock was Christ" changed to "that rock-mass meant the Christ."	The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of "the Rock."
1 Corinthians 12:11	"As he determines" changed to "as it wills."	The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.
1 Corinthians 14:14-16	"Spirit" changed to "[gift of the] spirit."	Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions. The phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "SPIRIT" to "[GIFT OF THE] SPIRIT." The NWT elsewhere frequently paraphrases the simple word SPIRIT, especially when referring to the immaterial aspect of human nature, to avoid the implication that such a spirit has a reality distinct from the body. For instance, Heb 12:19 "the Father of spirits" (or the spirits) becomes "the Father of OUR SPIRITUAL LIFE." In Gal. 6:18 "your spirit" is paraphrased "THE SPIRIT YOU SHOW." Similar rewording's are introduced in passages where the simple translation of "spirit" or "Spirit" might imply that God's Spirit is a person, contrary to the JW's doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force." So, Jude's description of certain men as "not having the Spirit" (or more literally, not having spirit") is rendered "NOT HAVING SPIRITUALITY" (Jude 19).
1 Corinthians 15:2	"By this gospel you are saved" changed to "through which YOU are also being saved."	Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW's salvation exists as an extended process ("being saved") with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.
Galatians 6:18	"Your spirit" changed to "the spirit YOU [show]."	Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.
Philippians 1:23	"To depart and be with Christ" changed to "the releasing and the being with Christ."	Paul's eagerness indicates that the believer's spirit goes immediately into Christ's presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection). In Phil 1:23-24 several words are added without brackets that, along with some other changes, completely alter the structure and thereby also the meaning of the text. The passage reads in the NWT (with added words in brackets so you can see here) "I am under pressure from [THESE] two things; [BUT WHAT] I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, [TO BE SURE], is far better." There are other errors as well, but the additions indicate here clearly change the meaning so as to avoid the test's implication that Paul would be with Christ after death. Some of the additions in brackets in the NWT so clearly change the meaning it is a wonder that more JW's don't question them? In 1Cor 14:12-16 the phrase GIFT OF THE is added in brackets five times, changing "spirit" to "[GIFT OF THE] spirit." The result is that Paul's contrast between his own personal "spirit" and his "mind" is removed. To assure that this contrast is missed, the word "MY" is also added in brackets before "MIND" twice in verse 15 but not before SPIRIT. Thus the simple contrast between "the spirit" and "the mind" (or "my spirit" and "my mind" NASB) is changed to "the [GIFT OF THE] spirit" and [MY] mind."
Phil 2:6	"Although Jesus existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself" (He grasped equality and let it go to become a man) has been changed to "although Jesus was existing in God's form, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."	NWT teaches that Jesus was never equal with God nor did he ever grasp at it. Notice the word seizure, which implies grabbing that which is not yours to grab ie equality. If Jesus was created by God, why would He be considered humble for not thinking of himself as equal to God. That is not humility, but reality! However since Jesus was equal to God, it would require great humility to give up his status as God and become a man through Mary.
Col 1:16-20	the word "[other]" has been added 5 times where it is not in the Greek	Awful embarrassing for Jw's to read this verse with the [other] removed. Why it would mean Jesus was not a creature but God. By adding "other" to "all other things" Jw's attempt to avoid the obvious original intent of the Greek that Jesus is above all created things implying Jesus is not a creature! The addition of the word OTHER is usually justified by an appeal to such texts as Luke 11:41-42 and Luke 13:2,4, where the word OTHER is also added after the word ALL. However, in these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word OTHER doesn't change the meaning, but simply makes it read smoother. In Col 1:16-20, however, whether one adds "OTHER" makes a great deal of difference to the meaning! What is so often noticed is that the NWT does this same thing in several other passages as well (Acts 10:36; Rom 8:32; Phil 2:9). In Rom 8:32, the word OTHER is not even placed in brackets, contrary to the work's stated practice. In all of these text, the intent seems to be to undermine the implication of the text that Jesus Christ is God.
Colossians 1:19	"His fullness" changed to "fullness."	The definite Greek article (to), translated "his," indicates that Jesus shares the Father's divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages. Also notable is Col 1:19 "because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him." Here the little word THE is omitted before FULLNESS. This is significant, because NWT renders "ALL FULLNESS" is ambiguous, whereas "ALL THE FULLNESS" clearly refers to the fullness of God's own being (compare Col 2:9).
Col 2:6-12		Again, in Col 2:6-12 "IN HIM" and "IN WHOM" (en auto, en ho) becomes "IN UNION WITH HIM" (v.6) "IN HIM" (V.V. 7,9) "BY MEANS OF HIM" (V. 10) and "BY RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM" (V.V..11,12). These variations serve only JW doctrine! They have no other purpose, they undermine the unity of the passage, which is that Christian life consists solely of a supernatural relationship with God through faith in Christ. There are many other passages where IN is paraphrased to avoid the otherwise clear meaning of the text. For example, In Matt. 5:19 IN becomes "IN RELATION TO" so as to avoid the passages teaching that some who disobey the law's commandments and teach others to do so will nevertheless be accepted "in the kingdom of heaven" (which JW's believe will be restricted to the 144,000 special chosen and sanctified believers).
Colossians 2:9	"The fullness of deity" changed to "the fullness of the divine quality."	The Greek theotes, translated "deity," literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.
I Timothy 4:1	"The Spirit" changed to "the inspired utterance."	This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with "expression" being utilized in place of "utterance.") A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".
Titus 2:13	"Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" changed to "the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus."	Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)
Hebrews 1:6	"But when He again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: 'And let all God's angels worship him' ." (New World Translation, 1950, 1961, 1970 editions,	The NWT revised 1971 edition was changed to read, "do obeisance to" rather than "worship". This change remains to this day, even though the original word chosen by the 4 NWT translators, was accurate to the Greek. However the Watchtower society was losing so may new converts because of the word "worship" (only God gets worshipped) that they did the typically dishonorable thing and chose the obscure unknown word "obeisance" to complete the deception of new converts.
Hebrews 1:8	"Your throne, 0 God" changed to "God is your throne."	The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs' rejection of his divine nature.
Hebrews 9:14	"The eternal Spirit" changed to "an everlasting spirit."	Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.
Hebrews 12:9	"Father of our spirits" changed to "Father of our spiritual life."	Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.
Hebrews 12:23	"The spirits of righteous men" changed to "the spiritual lives of righteous ones."	This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.
Hebrews 12:28	"We are receiving a kingdom" changed to "we are to receive a kingdom."	An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus' victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God's family. The JWs teach that Jesus' Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for "receiving" (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.
1 Peter 1:11	"Spirit of Christ in them was pointing" changed to "the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ."	Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.
I Peter 3:18-19	"By the Spirit, through whom" changed to "in the spirit. In this [state]."	Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.
1 John 4:1-6	"Spirit" changed to "inspired expression"	Even clearer is 1 John 4:1-6. John has just stated that we know our union with God is secure "owing to the spirit which he gave us" (3:24). The next sentence in the NWT reads; "Beloved ones, believe not every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God" (4:1). One would never suspect from this rendering that "INSPIRED EXPRESSION" translates the same Greek word (pneuma) as "SPIRIT" in 3:24 (see 4:2,3,6). John's whole point is that although the Spirit's presence assures us of God's love, we are not to believe every "spirit" that claims to be from God but test each one by the teachings it prophets espouses. "Because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1). The NWT obscures this point to avoid the implication that God's Spirit is a person rather than a force (just as the demonic spirits are personal entities and not impersonal forces, as the JW accept). The same doctrinal bias can be seen in 1 Tim 4:1, where the NWT reads; However, the inspired utterance says...." A straightforward "the SPIRIT says" would too obviously imply the personality of the "Spirit".
Jude 19	"Have the Spirit" changed to "having spirituality."	Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.
Revelation 3:14	"Ruler of God's creation" changed to "beginning of the creation by God."	The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

(http://www.bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm)


That's quite a lengthy list. You see how they attempt to twist words around to make it look like the scriptures are saying what they teach? Pretty sneaky.

So who was on the team that was involved with translating the NWT? And what was their credentials as far as being qualified to translate a bible properly?

The NWT translators were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel
"Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]
Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.
What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.
Statements
Original published statements to document this can be found in

1. Raymond Franz', Crisis of Conscience, p. 50 (Franz, Knorr, Schroeder, Gangas),
2. William Cetnar's, Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 68-9 (Franz, Knorr, Schroeder, Gangas, Henschel)
3. Jerry Bergman's, Jehovah's Witnesses and Kindred Groups, p. 39 (Franz).
4. Interestingly, both Cetnar and Bergman set forth material that indicates that the well-known Bible Scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed had some input to the NWT. Cetnar indicates that Goodspeed was not terribly pleased with the result.

( http://www.hyperbible.com/articles/jw4.asp)


That pretty much explains how all of those mistakes happened. But instead of admitting their mistakes....like honest people would do.....they attempted to bolster their bible credibility. Instead of copying and pasting all of the many examples of dishonest half quotes, I'll simply post a site that has listed many bible scholars, what the Watchtower Society quoted them as saying, and what the scholar actually said. I think you will find the proof very interesting, and very convincing, to say the least. You can read about the scholars here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm

But just to wet your appetite, I will share one of them with you.

Vincent Taylor

What the Watchtower Society quoted him as saying:

 "Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used (in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was, the Word was',....In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God...." ("Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?", Expository Times, 73, No.4 [Jan.1962], p.118).

What he actually said:
 
"We reach a more difficult issue in the Gospel of John. Here, in the Prologue, the Word is said to be God, but, as often observed, in contrast with the clause, 'the Word was with God', the definite article is not used (in the final clause). For this reason it is generally translated 'and the Word was divine' (Moffatt) or is not regarded as God in the absolute sense of the name. The New English Bible neatly paraphrases the phrase in the words 'and what God was, the Word was'. In a second passage in the Prologue the textual evidence attests 'only-begotten God' more strongly than 'only-begotten Son', but the latter is preferred by many commentators as being more in harmony with johannine usage and with the succeeding clause, 'who is in the bosom of the Father'. In neither passage is Jesus unequivocally called God, while again and again in the Gospel He is named 'the Son' or 'the Son of God'. In a third passage, however, there is no doubt that the name 'God' is assigned to Him. When Thomas is bidden to see the hands and side of Jesus, he cries in adoring love, 'My Lord and my God'. This cry is spontaneous and devotional and illustrates an aspect, and not the whole, of the Evangelist's Christology. Like the author of Hebrews he thinks and speaks of Christ in the category of Sonship" (Taylor, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?", Expository Times, 73, No.4 [Jan.1962], p.118, emphasis added)



     So what conclusion did you draw from this? Uneducated men attempting to translate Hebrew and Greek, and in doing so, made several mistakes, and attempted to gloss over those errors by printing partial quotes from bible scholars to make it look like they (the scholars) supported the NWT. I don't know about you, but for me, it shows how scandalous the Watchtower Society really is. It also shows that the JW community is blinded, that they would willingly accept what they are told instead of doing hardcore research.

I hope that one day, those people will wake up and see what is really happening.

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

     Yes, I'm sure any of you that know about the Jehovah's Witnesses have also heard about their being an associate NGO with the United Nations. Former members point at this as a major scandal that was exposed, and shows the hypocrisy of the Watchtower Society. Current members argue that the claims are false, and even though they were an associate NGO of the United Nations, they did nothing wrong. I think it's time to review the argument, and set forth the facts. Then you, the reader, can decide.

     Let's begin with what the WTS was writing about the U.N. in their literature.

"No, the UN is not a blessing, even though the religious clergy of Christendom and the rabbis of Jewry pray heaven’s blessing upon that organization. It is really “the image of the wild beast,” the visible political, commercial organization of “the god of this system of things,” Satan the Devil. So the UN will soon be destroyed along with that beastly organization." Watchtower 1984 Sep 15 p.15



The "mark" of the beast would identify the one having it as belonging to that "wild beast," giving it full support. Ellicott's Bible Commentary notes that the mark 'surely means the acquiescence to the principals of this tyrannical world-power.'
In modern times, the Christain body, known world wide as Jehovah's Witnesses, has experienced from the "wild beast" the same things as first-century Christians. Take the African county of Malawi, for example. There all citizens have been required to become members of the country's only existing political party, the "Malawi Congress Party." A membership card costing about twenty-five cents (U.S.) identifies the bearer as 'acquiescing to the principals of the ruling political party,' . . .
As Jehovah's Witnesses they value their relationship to God and Christ above everything else. Were they to identify themselves as giving unquestioning support to any politcal arrangement, they would be acting contrary to the Bible's teaching that all human governmental systems exist by God's toleration only until such time as he chooses to replace them by his kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ. (Dan. 2:44; 7:13, 14) Jehovah's Witnesses have promised to give unqualified allegiance exclusively to God and Christ. Any act on their part that would indicate otherwise, therefore, would be an act of disloyalty. Such an act would be taking away from God and Christ their rightful due and would be worship fo the "wild beast."
No matter how insignificant the act required may seem, a Christian's engaging in such worship would mean his being disloyal to God and Christ. Watchtower 1976 10/15 632-6



 "If Christendom had sought peace with Jehovah's King, Jesus Christ, then she would have avoided the coming flash flood. - Compare Luke 19:42-44.

However, she has not done so. Instead, in her quest for peace and security, she insinuates herself into the favor of the political leaders of the nations this despite the Bible's warning that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4) Moreover, in 1919 she strongly advocated the League of Nations as man's best hope for peace. Since 1945 she has put her hope in the United Nations. (Compare Revelation 17:3, 11.) How extensive is her involvement with this organization?

A recent book gives an idea when it states: "No less than twenty-four Catholic organizations are represented at the UN. Several of the world's religious leaders have visited the international organization. Most memorable were the visits of His Holiness Pope Paul VI during the General Assembly in 1965 and of Pope John Paul II in 1979. Many religions have special invocations, prayers, hymns and services for the United Nations. The most important examples are those of the Catholic, the Unitarian-Universalist, the Baptist and the Bahai faiths."" Watchtower 1991 Jun 1 p.17

 "Such dwellers on earth wondered admiringly at the revived scarlet wild beast. Much reliance was placed in its ability to be a power for world peace and security. Great expectations were held out for it, and it was given designations that were really blasphemous from the standpoint of the Holy Bible. How so? In that to this wild beast powers were ascribed and tasks were assigned that really belong to Gods kingdom and its Messiah or its Christ. Back in 1919 the scarlet League of Nations had been seriously called the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. And now the United Nations, the successor of that League, has been called the best means for peace, yes, even more than that, the last hope for peace. So today we can see in actuality what the apostle John saw in symbol, that that scarlet-colored wild beast is full of blasphemous names. Those expressions of admiration for it turn false religionists, not to the worship of Jehovah God the Creator, but to idolatry of a man-made creation, the worship of a political image, the worship of an international organization for world peace and security. Rev. 17:3." Watchtower 1963 Nov 15 p.697


 The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the foundation of the world." Revelation 17:8 NWT

"We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. Watchtower February 15, 1919 p. 51

The "mark" of the beast would identify the one having it as belonging to that "wild beast," giving it full support. Ellicott's Bible Commentary notes that the mark 'surely means the acquiescence to the principals of this tyrannical world-power.' Watchtower October 15, 1976 p. 632


STRONG words from the Watchtower Society about the U.N.   Obviously then, from what was stated, any witness would want to have nothing to do with the U.N. Even a 25 cent membership card would show disloyalty to God. Ah, but they even go a step further.

"The Bible condemns things such as stealing, idolatry and the misuse of blood, so a Christian could hardly engage in work where he directly promoted such things. Would doing the work so closely link a person with a condemned practice that he would be a clear accomplice? Even a janitor or a receptionist at a blood bank or a plant making only weapons of war is directly linked with work contrary to Gods Word." Watchtower 1982 Jul 15 Box on p.26 Employment Factors to Consider

 Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Mens Christian Association)?

Yes, that is so. We have long recognized that the YMCA, though not being a church as such, is definitely aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith.
…
In joining the YMCA as a member a person accepts or endorses the general objectives and principles of the organization. … Membership means that one has become an integral part of this organization founded with definite religious objectives, including the promotion of interfaith. Hence, for one of Jehovah's Witnesses to become a member of such a so-called Christian association would amount to apostasy." Watchtower 1979 Jan 1 pp.30-31 Questions from Readers

Don't engage in working or becoming a member of any group that aligns themselves with something contrary to God. By doing so, you could be committing an act that amounts to Apostasy.

So it is pretty clear that the Watchtower Society wants their members to avoid worldly governments at all costs. Don't work for them, don't support their principals, don't align yourselves with them, or you could face excommunication.

With such a harsh stand on the U.N., I'm sure it came as quite a shock to many members when news came out about the Watchtower's United Nations Association. The Guardian newspaper revealed the link between the two in October of 2001. Days later, the Watchtower disaffiliated themselves from the United Nations. There were swarms of requests as to why they were there, if it was even true, requests to see evidence.

The WTS responded with this letter.

http://www.jwfacts.com/images/UNeldersletter.jpg

It is a very dishonest letter, to say the least. They did not need to join the U.N. to gain access to their library. In fact, their are over four hundred U.N. libraries worldwide that can be accessed by anyone. Also, there have been no changes to the requirement for NGO's being required to agree to "support" the ideals of the United Nations.

There have been attempts by other jw supporters to "explain away" the reasons why they were there. But those claims are misinformed individuals who did not research properly. For example, one person states that there are two types of NGO's. The DPI (Department of Public Information), and the ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council). And that the DPI division does not fall under the same criteria as the ECOSOC division. In other words, a DPI-NGO does not need to support the U.N. to be an associate. Obviously this person did not read the criteria requirements needed to be accepted as a DPI-NGO. You can read about it here: http://outreach.un.org/ngorelations/membership/

So many questions arise then from the Watchtower's involvement with the U.N.

1. If they truly did not  realize that they didn't need to join the U.N. in order to access their library, why did they remain there for nine more years, filing annual applications?

2. If their only reason for being there was to gain access to the U.N. library, why did they abandon their position once news of their involvement became public?

3. Why would having library access be acceptable to them when holding rank and file members to strict avoidance, no matter how insignificant, and then threaten them with excommunication should they do so?

4. Finally, if it was not wrong for them to be there, why did nobody know about it?

It makes one wonder if they even care that many of their members were tortured, raped, imprisoned, and even killed, for holding up their end, for following the guidance of the Watchtower Society, only to see that the ones they were following decided to take a hypocritical stand, and then use the "library card" excuse. If you can be excommunicated in Malawi for purchasing a 25 cent membership card, the same punishment should happen for a library card. What is very revealing is going back and reading those articles about strict avoidance from any world government, since God's Kingdom is going to be replacing all world governments. No part of the world.....well.....except for a library card.

Jesus the Mediator?

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." 1 Timothy 2:5,6

After reading that, how can there be any confusion as to who our mediator is? There are other scriptures I will add to this one later on. But the Watchtower society has made a very serious claim about the role of Jesus as a mediator. Rather than attempt to explain them, I will let the quotes from JW literature speak for themselves. 

w79 4/1 31  Questions from Readers 
At a time when God was selecting those to be taken into that new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote that Christ was the “one mediator between God and men.” (1 Tim. 2:5) Reasonably Paul was here using the word “mediator” in the same way he did the other five times, which occurred before the writing of 1 Timothy 2:5, referring to those then being taken into the new covenant for which Christ is “mediator.” So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians.

That isn't what Paul wrote.

 w79 11/15 26  Benefiting from "One Mediator Between God and Men" 
20 What, then, is Christ’s role in this program of salvation? Paul proceeds to say: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men [not, all men], a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.”—1 Tim. 2:5, 6.

Not all men? See how they twist the scripture to fit their doctrine?

 w89 8/15 30  Questions From Readers 
Clearly, then, the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind. It is a carefully arranged legal provision involving God and anointed Christians.

Legal provision?

 w89 8/15 31  Questions From Readers 
 The people of all nations who have the hope of everlasting life on earth benefit even now from Jesus’ services. Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah.

He is not their legal Mediator, but he is their means of approaching Jehovah? Isn't that a blatant contradiction?

  w89 8/15 31  Questions From Readers
 Consequently, 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 is not using “mediator” in the broad sense common in many languages. It is not saying that Jesus is a mediator between God and all mankind. Rather, it refers to Christ as legal Mediator (or, “attorney”) of the new covenant, this being the restricted way in which the Bible uses the term.

Now they are twisting the meaning of the word "mediator".

 w89 12/15 30  Do You Remember? 
  In what sense does Paul use the term “mediator” when referring to Jesus at 1 Timothy 2:5, 6? In this text, Paul uses the Greek word me·si'tes for “mediator,” which term has a legal significance, so he is not using this word in the broad sense common in many languages. Hence, Paul is not saying that Jesus is Mediator between God and all mankind. Rather, he is referring to Christ as legal Mediator of the new covenant, which laid the basis for Christ’s anointed followers to share with him in his heavenly Kingdom. (2 Corinthians 5:1, 5; Ephesians 1:13, 14; Hebrews 8:7-13)—8/15, pages 30, 31.

We have already seen what Paul wrote, applying it to all men. Here they are trying to toss in a Greek word to support their claim.The definition of me-si'tes is: 

1. one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
2. a medium of communication, arbitrator                                                                                     

 Does the word have legal significance? Or is it simply a go between?


 w84 7/15 14-15  Organized to Serve Jehovah 
 There must be agreement among all true Christians, a unified message, if people are to hear what is correct, put genuine faith in the true God and call upon Jehovah’s name with the prospect of being saved. Moreover, one spirit-directed organization must be used in connection with the sending forth of those truthful preachers of the “good news.”—Romans 10:11-15.

Spirit directed organization....that claims to not be inspired by God. 

Survival into a New Earth p. 65 
"With Christ they make up the agency by means of which blessings will be extended to all other obedient ones among mankind. Appreciation of this is a key to understanding the Bible."

Now they elevate themselves to be with Christ.


Maybe we should check out a few scriptures and compare them to these claims.

Acts 13:38-39--"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.


Ephesians 1:7 "By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness."

 Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."

 Hebrews 7:25 "Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them."

Hebrews 8:10-12 "'For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people. ¹¹ "'And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: "Know Jehovah!" For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them. ¹² For I shall be merciful to their unrighteous deeds, and I shall by no means call their sins to mind anymore.'"
 Isn't it obvious at this point that Jesus is the Mediator for everyone, and not just a select few?

Furthermore, if Jehovah puts His laws into their minds and hearts, how can they possibly attempt to explain away past mistakes by stating that it is a gradual understanding?  After all, if Jesus is supposedly mediating between God and them, wouldn't this be a claim of direct guidance? Yet they attempt to cover over those errors and sweep them under the carpet.

Another mistake made is the attempt to parallel the great crowd with the alien residents under the law covenant. They write: Watchtower 1995 Jul 1 p.17 "The Israel of God" and the "Great Crowd

 "Since a number of these faithful foreigners, or alien residents, are viewed as foreshadowing the great crowd today, their situation is of interest to us.
Such ones were proselytes, dedicated worshipers of Jehovah under the Mosaic Law who were separated from the nations along with the Israelites. (Leviticus 24:22) They offered sacrifices, kept clear of false worship, and abstained from blood, just as the Israelites did."

Did you catch the error? The alien residents were included in the law covenant. So if they are foreshadowing the great crowd, that would mean that the great crowd will be included into the new covenant.

This is a very blatant attempt to control the masses. In essence, what the are saying is that if you do not follow their instructions, accept their teachings without question, you will not make it through Armageddon and live on in an earthly paradise. They shove Jesus out of the picture, since the claim is that he is not the mediator for all of us, only them. They do this by twisting words, adding their own words to verses, and going well beyond what is written.

Maybe they should read this verse, and think about what they are doing.

Galations 1:8--But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!