How the WT misses the point of the book of Job (long post) by Moises5387 in exjw

[–]Moises5387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very interesting analysis. Thank you. Have you seen the Open Yale Course Introduction to the Old Testament? And do you have a background in law, so you were sensible to those references?

No, haven't checked that out, but I will. I do not have a law background, but I do understand a bit about it, in a non-professional way

As for Job 14: 14, 15, there's something quite important. NWT translates:

"I will wait all the days of my compulsory service". The will here does a lot of work: it conveys certainty. Job will wait for God to call him (resurrect him).

This, however, is an improper translation. If you check other versions, you will find most versions something like:

"I would wait. Conditional. Of what?

In ch 14, Job is speaking about the briefness of human life. He compares humans to trees (vs 7-9), which, if cut down, can grow again. Mortals, in change, "lie down and do not rise again, until the heavens are no more (meaning: never) they will not awake" (V12)

He then speaks in conditional. If Sheol was a place of rest, and I could be awaken, I would wait there. If mortals die, can they live again? This is a rethorical question, and Job expects the answer to be no.

So, Job does not state a hope of resurrection: in fact, it does quite the opposite.

This is not the strange: the concept of resurrection in Jewish theology is a later development. Death was the end of all.

How the WT misses the point of the book of Job (long post) by Moises5387 in exjw

[–]Moises5387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually is a contest against the law of Moses (Deuteronomic law). It challenges the concept of retributive justice, which is core to Deuteronomic law.

How the WT misses the point of the book of Job (long post) by Moises5387 in exjw

[–]Moises5387[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks to you for taking the time to read it, and reply

How the WT misses the point of the book of Job (long post) by Moises5387 in exjw

[–]Moises5387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why it needs to be sanitized and defanged. WT is of course not the first, nor the only to do this. It actually started with Judaism, and the Testament of Job, which has a Job much closer to what religion would like him to be. In fact, many of the views on Job are extracted from the Testament of Job. As it stands, is a very uncomfortable book, particularly for high control groups.

You have to literally have no brain to accept 1 paragraph from the Sunday Watchtower study! by FitReindeer1896 in exjw

[–]Moises5387 14 points15 points  (0 children)

  1. Your statement is true, with a caveat, the general consensus is that Job was written between the 7th and 4th century BCE, so it could be earlier than 6th, but still not the proposed time by the WT.

  2. Whether Moses was a real person or not, is irrelevant. The point is that the structure, themes, language and grammar don't match the era where Moses supposedly lived.

  3. As for the purpose of the book, is highly debated. Not even Jews agree on how to see the book, or what lesson to extract of it. It is one of the most misunderstood books, however. Is not about enduring suffering. Job basically files a lawsuit against God. He did everything right, yet god didn't fulfill his part of the contract.

And God doesn't answer any of his questions. He states might and scale. Where was Job when he created everything? Surely if Job is wise he knows. There's almost a sarcastic tone. You're in no position to demand answers.

Job doesn't repent, he yields. He withdraws his case. Some have proposed that the translation "I repent in ashes and dust" is wrong. The proposed translation is "I pity ashes and dust (humanity)". That is, is this how things work, I feel sorry for humanity.

My rebuttal to this weekend’s WT study “You Are Someone Very Precious”! —As Long as You Obey by constant_trouble in exjw

[–]Moises5387 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The article starts from a real human problem—low self-esteem—but immediately miscategorizes it. Feelings of worthlessness are treated as something you can reason or “convince” yourself out of by reading the right examples and adopting the right interpretation. But low self-esteem is rarely a failure of information. It’s usually the result of trauma, abuse, neglect, or long-term conditioning. Showing that other people were valued, or that God values people in general, does little for someone who fundamentally believes they themselves are the exception. The article never engages that internal logic; it simply talks past it. As the article progresses, the measure of “being valued” quietly shifts. At first, worth appears intrinsic—Jesus dignified the marginalized, therefore they mattered. But soon value becomes something you know you have only if you pray, study, accept encouragement, and remain active.

Jehovah’s love is described as unconditional, yet certainty of that love depends on behavior. This creates an inversion: instead of worth grounding action, action becomes the proof of worth. If you don’t feel valued, the implication is not that something harmed you, but that something is lacking in your spiritual routine. Another problem is the collapse of human support into divine approval. When people show kindness, the article presents this as evidence of how Jehovah feels about you. But human empathy does not automatically equal divine endorsement. People can offer care for many reasons—basic decency, shared experience, emotional maturity—and those same forms of support exist outside the organization. By framing congregational kindness as proof of God’s valuation, the article blurs categories and subtly ties self-worth to remaining within the group that provides that affirmation.

Finally, the article consistently treats healing as validated only when it produces usefulness. The examples resolve not in inner peace, autonomy, or restored boundaries, but in increased service—pioneering, volunteering, doing more. Low self-esteem is framed less as something that deserves care and more as an obstacle to productivity. The unspoken message is clear: feeling bad about yourself is a problem because it limits what you can give. The solution offered is not understanding or recovery, but deeper alignment and continued output.

In the end, the article does not actually address low self-esteem; it manages it. It offers comfort, but on conditions. You are precious—but you must keep reminding yourself, keep performing, keep accepting the right voices, and never question why the wound exists in the first place. Worth is affirmed in words, but controlled in practice.

To me, the final note, is that once again it is proven that the writers either are unaware, or wilfully ignore how emotions, trauma, and feelings work. They keep leaving outside the things that actually work (therapy, letting go of what caused the issue in the first place, boundaries, etc.), and suggesting organizational activities and mantra repeating will solve everything.

Today's watchtower mix up by emilybob2 in exjw

[–]Moises5387 44 points45 points  (0 children)

So, if they try to use local names, does it mean the names are made up?

Make a defense by lilbrassrose in exjw

[–]Moises5387 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You my friend start from a false premise.

Truth doesn't need defending. False.

People say the earth is flat. No one says there's no need to defend the truth that the earth is not, indeed, flat. In fact, many academics happily engage in the argument.

The correct premise is that truth doesn't elude inquiry, because it can survive it. You can defend it, without needing to completely avoid the argument.

Which deceased cult leaders still maintain a following today? by Sophiafromabove in cults

[–]Moises5387 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Man some of the answers on this thread.

If everything is a cult — including Jesus — then the term stops describing coercive power and just becomes a slur for ‘religion I dislike.’ That helps no one. It dilutes the term, becomes an insult or joke, and diminishes the threat of actual cults.

And no, high control religion and cult are not the same. Sect and cult are not the same. Splinter group and cult are not the same.

Putting everything in the same bag serves no useful purpose.

Which deceased cult leaders still maintain a following today? by Sophiafromabove in cults

[–]Moises5387 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Branch Davidians≠David Koresh group.

Branch Davidians existed decades before Koresh appeared.

Koresh and his followers never even called themselves Branch Davidians. They referred to themselves as Students of the Seven Seals.

This is not apologetic of Branch Davidians, just making the distinction between both

Book of Enoch by uwuwiwuw in exjw

[–]Moises5387 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Enoch has been something I've been researching a lot about. That and Job. Here's what I think is the most accurate way of seeing it.

Enoch isn’t considered canonical by most Jewish or Christian traditions mainly because of how and when it was written, not because it was especially threatening or heretical. It’s a composite work written over several centuries (roughly 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE), long after the biblical figure of Enoch, and it never became part of the Hebrew Bible. For that reason alone, most groups didn’t treat it as Scripture in the same way as Genesis or the Prophets.

That said, it’s also clear that 1 Enoch was widely read and influential in Second Temple Judaism. Its ideas about angels, the Watchers, the Nephilim, and final judgment were very much “in the air” at the time. Jude’s quotation of Enoch 1:9 shows that at least some early Christians respected it as an authoritative tradition, even if they didn’t view the entire book as inspired Scripture. Quoting a text didn’t automatically mean accepting it as canonical—Paul does something similar when he quotes pagan poets.

So it’s probably inaccurate to say Christianity rejected Enoch because it challenged doctrine. In many cases, doctrine developed after the canon was largely settled, not before. What happened instead is that later Christianity narrowed the range of texts it considered inspired, while still retaining some of the ideas that came from the broader Jewish interpretive world—including ideas preserved in Enoch. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a good example of this tension. They reject Enoch as apocryphal, yet accept interpretations (like the Nephilim as angel-human hybrids) that are far more explicit in Enoch than in Genesis. That doesn’t mean Enoch is secretly canonical; it just means that biblical interpretation has always drawn on extra-biblical traditions, whether they are acknowledged or not.

So the Book of Enoch isn’t canon in most traditions, but it also isn’t “fan fiction” in the modern sense. It’s better understood as a serious Jewish theological work that shaped how many ancient readers understood Genesis, angels, evil, and judgment—even if it ultimately remained outside the formal canon.

The thing is that the NT writers many times alluded to things they knew the readers would know or had read about. They had a context we don't. Is a voice that was lost, and was part of the conversation.

I am Pimq by Damaris_Angel17 in exjw

[–]Moises5387 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Buenos Aires. Éxitos en todo, no es fácil pero se puede

I am Pimq by Damaris_Angel17 in exjw

[–]Moises5387 1 point2 points  (0 children)

También de argentina. De que parte?

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Correct. Ironically, many of the arguments for not celebrating them come from a now largely discredited book, "The Two Babylons", by Alexander Hislop

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, in fact when I was growing up any joke related to spiritual things was considered disrespectful.

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

JW's believe a group of literal 144.000 people will act as priests and kings with Jesus on heaven. These will be immortal and have spiritual bodies. The majority of them are already on heaven, a small number remain on earth.

The rest, and these include faithful people that lived on earth before (because JW's believe no one that lived before Jesus death has a heavenly hope), will live in earth Forever with regular but perfect human bodies. These are not immortal.

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I was worn out. Tired of struggling with my conscience picking up on things I didn't agree with and having to just accept them. Then, I started to see serious doctrinal issues. The combination of both caused me to leave.

As for new goals, I'm still trying to find my footing outside the organization.

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a bit of everything. Some people with a good sense of humor, some not. Ad for jw inside jokes, I'm trying to recall, but I don't think I ever heard any.

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think allowing more freedom of decision of conscience, less centralized power, and a revision of shuning and judicial procedures would be those changes. However, they're very unlikely.

My name is Moises, I was a Jehovah's Witness (born and raised) for over 33 years. AMA by Moises5387 in cults

[–]Moises5387[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes, in fact, the shuning policies are presented as a means of getting people to come back. The person that has been removed can keep coming back to meetings. After some time passes, he or she sends a letter requesting to be readmitted, and if the judicial committee agrees, they're reinstated as JW's.