JWs change the Greek word for "worship" to "obeisance" whenever the word is directed toward Jesus.

However, if you're reading the original Greek, the following verses say:

​Revelation 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped (prosekynēsan) God who sits on the throne, saying: “Amen, Hallelujah!"

Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came to Him, grasped His feet, and worshiped (prosekynēsan) Him.

(Jesus didn't correct them.)​

Revelation 22:8-9 And I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship (proskynēsai) at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that!...worship God!"

Matthew 2:1-2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the One who has been born King of the Jews? We saw His star in the east and have come to worship (proskynēsai) Him.”

🤔

It is very common for former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to embrace any conspiracy theory that support their feelings that the JW leadership and their followers are evil, especially if they feel they were victimized by the religion.

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories, one of the most often repeated is that the organization is a real state corporation that produces billions of dollars for a selected few, among them the members of the GB. They will talk about the financial investments the organization has around the world, their enormous wealth and the lack of transparency about how much money the WT actually owns.

What they will not talk about is evidence. They will not address the utter lack of evidence of any wrongdoing during all these years. Not even a leaked document or a testimony from a credible source. Nothing. When asked why government audits have never found anything that suggest anything nefarious is going on, sometimes they will claim the government is also complicit. That is all the governments where they have operations and branches. All are either complicit or utterly incompetent to discover what exjw can see a mile away.

When asked: Where is all the money? They will talk about GB wearing what looks like Rolex Watches and gold rings. Yeah...they are spending billions in watches. Where are the yatch, the mansions, the private jets? For some weird reason the GB is stealing billions only to continue living in their small, modest apartments at Warwick. They are not sharing any of the wealth with their relatives either, they continue to live pretty regular lives in their congregations.

When confronted with this questions they will move on to a different conspiracy theory, often equally unsupported.

This is just an example of one Conspiracy theory, there are many more that are regurgitated in exjw circles ad nauseam.

The reason this happens is because former JW that feel victimized by the religion are vulnerable to embrace anything that validates their feelings. It makes their villain uglier and meaner. It makes their cause worthier.

The JW leadership loves it. Exjw embracing conspiracy fits their stereotype of the deranged, bitter apostate. Vulnerable JWs might fall for these tropes but any mature person with a bit of critical thinking will realize these allegations are baseless and unsupported. They will immediately dismiss any argument that comes from someone co-opting these allegations. That’s the trap. There conspiracy theories undermine the apostate credibility.

The GB knows about all this crazy conspiracy theories and allegations and they don't even bother to address them, not even subtly. They know that the louder the apostates shout this theories, the crazier they look. Do you think they didn’t see the shiny watch before the broadcasting was released. They sure did, it is their way to troll the apostate community. They must laugh at every Youtube video speculating which Rolex model it is.

Hi everyone,

I wanted to do something small for my daughter’s teacher and the daycare aides for Teacher Appreciation Week, but I’m unsure what’s appropriate because the teacher is a Jehovah’s Witness.

I was thinking of small gift cards, thank-you notes, and maybe pastries or flowers. My concern is whether giving the teacher a Teacher Appreciation gift could make her uncomfortable because of her religion. At the same time, I don’t want to accidentally make things awkward or exclusionary by only giving gifts to the aides and not the teacher.

For anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witness beliefs or JW teachers in general — would a simple appreciation gift like this usually be considered okay, or would it be more respectful to avoid it?

Also, Teacher Appreciation Week was last week so I would technically be doing this a week late and it may seem less tied to the “holiday.“

The man I’ve been dating for the past 4 months told me he grew up Jehovah’s Witness and wants to start going back to Kingdom Hall. I grew up Baptist. How cooked is this relationship? 😭

I’m really falling in love with him, and honestly we’re so perfect together. I asked if he’d expect me to convert, and he said no, that it would be my choice.

But what do y’all think? Is there actually a chance this relationship could work?
& no I will not convert.

In 1 Corinthians 11:26 it says:

“For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.” (NWT)

Now, Witnesses teach that Second Coming of Christ already happened—just invisibly—in 1914.

Not a physical return, but a “presence” where Christ began ruling in heaven.

So here’s the tension I can’t resolve:

The verse ties the act of partaking (the Memorial) to a time boundary: until he comes

But their doctrine says: he already came (over a century ago)

Yet the Memorial is still observed every year.

From a plain reading, that sounds like:

Either “coming” hasn’t happened yet (so the practice continues),

Or “coming” has happened, in which case the stated purpose of continuing the ritual becomes unclear.

I know the usual explanation is that “coming” (arrival) and “presence” (ongoing rule) are distinct phases—but even then, the wording in 1 Corinthians seems to refer to a future event relative to the practice, not something already fulfilled.

So I’m curious how people reconcile this without just redefining terms mid-way:

If the “coming” already happened in 1914, what exactly are they still waiting for in this verse?

If the Memorial is still proclaiming his death “until he comes,” doesn’t continuing it imply he hasn’t come yet?

Is there a consistent reading here, or does this only work if you accept the 1914 framework first and reinterpret the verse afterward?

Trying to understand if there’s a clean, text-first explanation that doesn’t rely on circular reasoning.

Does this sum have any current members who have positive experiences or it is just for al;l people who have left?

I am curious about people in the Church who have a positive experience and would like to hear why they are JW.

I'm confused. 🤔. A watchtower study in the past said that if someone tries to kill us we can't defend ourselves and cause a death.

I said "So we're just supposed to let them kill us? Or our family?

What kind of logic is that????

One thing that seems to get skipped over in discussions about Acts of the Apostles 15 is who the instruction is actually addressed to.

1. The instructions are for Gentile believers with Holy Spirit

Before the command is even given, the chapter makes it clear.

• God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles (v.8)
• He was choosing a people for His name from among them (v.14)

So the audience receiving the letter is:

• Gentile believers
• who have received the Holy Spirit
• i.e. fully accepted, covenant Christians

There’s no second-tier group or distinction between “anointed” and “other sheep.” Clearly, it's just one unified group.

So logically, if someone wants to treat Acts 15 as a binding command:

Wouldn’t it only apply to that same group?

2. Letter of the law vs. Spirit of the law

Now, setting that aside for a second, look at what the command actually includes:

• food sacrificed to idols
• blood
• meat of strangled animals

This is clearly a food-related framework tied to pagan practices and Jewish sensitivities.

Blood is listed alongside dietary issues, not as some standalone medical principle.

Of course, blood transfusions weren’t even a concept.

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, they were.

JW always say:

"if your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, you would not inject it just because it's technically not same as drinking it. It's still consumption."

Sure.

If your doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol (ethanol), do you:

• refuse to drink it? yes (indulging in effects of ethanol)
• refuse to inject it? yes (indulging in effects of ethanol)
• refuse to use it for sanitsation in a medical context? obviously not.

Why?

Isopropyl alcohol is different to ethanol. It's not meant for "consumption," it's an antiseptic.

But, it's still alcohol.

This is the difference between the principle behind the instruction, not just the literal wording.

The command is about consumption and behaviour, not blocking every possible use in every context.

3. The Rule vs The Principle

• Principles are viewed as the "thinking" of Jehovah God. They are deemed essential for maturing Christians, helping them understand how to act in a way that pleases God across many different situations.

• Rules (or Laws) are specific instructions or commandments designed for safety or to guide in particular situations, such as the command to abstain from blood.

The rule: to abstain from blood in all contexts.

The principle: blood represents life, and life is sacred (Leviticus 17:11)

• Using blood to preserve life aligns with the principle
• Refusing it and losing life to seems like a paradox of the rule

It turns the symbol of life into something that can actually cost a life.

Me (a "worldly") and a married JW are in love. He wants to leave his wife and start a new life with me. Can it work? Do family members seriously shun each other, or do they still talk in secret? What is the likelihood of him wanting to be reinstated?

a great affliction such as has not occurred

The question is sometimes raised: will the great affliction of which Scripture speaks be worse than the Holocaust?

After all, the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 24:

"For then shall be great affliction, such as has not occurred from the beginning of the world till now—no, nor under any circumstances may be occurring." -Matthew 24:21-

These words are taken directly from Daniel 12. There we read:

"And come will an era of distress which will be such as never occurred since there came to be a nation until that era." -Daniel 12:1-

In both Scripture portions the context is clearly connected with Daniel’s people, the land, Judea, the temple, and the flight to the mountains.
Daniel 12, moreover, stands explicitly within the framework of “the era of the end” (Dan.11:40; 12:4,9). It is therefore not a general description of world history, but a unique period of affliction that will strike Israel in the land.

Usually these words are read as though they must necessarily refer to a greater number of victims than ever before.

But is that really where Scripture places the emphasis?

First of all, it is striking that the Lord says in Matthew 24:

"Then shall they be giving you up to affliction and killing you, and you shall be hated by all nations because of My name." -Matthew 24:9-

The core of this affliction, then, is not merely anti-Semitism.
It is about hatred because of the Name of the Messiah.
It concerns a witnessing remnant in Israel that refuses to submit to the Beast and his emblem.

That closely connects with Revelation 11. There we read about the two witnesses who, like Moses and Elijah, prophesy in Jerusalem for 1260 days.
Their testimony calls forth worldwide hatred.
When they are killed after three and a half years, the world responds with joy:

"And those dwelling on the earth are rejoicing over them and are making merry, and will be sending approach presents to one another, seeing that these, the two prophets, torment those dwelling on the earth." -Revelation 11:10-

Never before has there been an era in which hatred against a Messianic testimony will be so universal, open, and collective as then.
Revelation 12 furthermore shows that a part of the people will have taken flight in time to a hiding place in the wilderness. There we read about a woman who has a place in the wilderness prepared for her by God, where she is being maintained for 1260 days.
This flight takes place after the male son whom she brought forth is about to be snatched away to God and His throne. That last point speaks of the ekklesia which, as Christ’s body, is evacuated to take up its heavenly position. After that, the period of the great affliction breaks forth for Israel, while a remnant in the wilderness is preserved beyond the reach of the enemy.

There is something else besides. Revelation 13 describes the same period in which one can no longer buy or sell without the emblem of the Beast. It is therefore not only about the threat of violence, but about complete exclusion from social and economic life. One simply can no longer function without conforming to the system of the Beast.

That too makes this affliction unique. Not necessarily because it numerically produces the most victims, but because it is a total affliction of all who hold fast to “the testimony of Jesus” (Rev.1:2,9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4).

The pressure will be religious, social, economic, and political all at once.

That does not take away from the fact that other prophecies do indeed speak of very large numbers of victims in the land. For Zechariah says

"And it will come to be, in the entire land, averring is Yahweh, Two-thirds in it shall be cut off and expire, Yet one-third shall be left in it." -Zechariah 13:8-

Still, in that case one should probably think rather of the war situation around Jerusalem and the invasion of the nations into the land, as Zechariah 14 also describes, than specifically of the affliction because of the testimony of the Messiah.
It therefore does not necessarily concern the same aspect of the end time on which Matthew 24 and Revelation 11–13 place the emphasis.

When the Lord says that there will be an affliction such as never before, that therefore does not first of all have to be understood as a comparison in numbers of victims with earlier disasters from history.
Scripture places the emphasis on the unique character of this period:
a worldwide hatred against the Messianic testimony, total social exclusion of those who refuse to worship the Beast, and a pressure on the believing remnant such as the world has not known before.

I’d really like advice, how can I remove all the bias and blockers in my brain due to this upbringing?

Already seeing that a lot of the ‘proven’ claims Jw has made, was by creating false dichotomies or using straw-man, has helped. Ie, we believe “x”, Trinitarians/Religious Group/Ideology says/does/believes “y”, and “y” is false because of “xyz” reason, therefore it is all false. When actually, the group/ideology doesn’t actually believe “y”.

However, I also feel I have blockers left in my mind. Likewise, due to my experience with JW, I feel I have personal biases to believe in anything but JW, so might dismiss wrongly some of their teachings/practises too just for that reason.

Any advice to be most unbiased for either side as I can be?

So what would truthfully happen to a Jehovah's witness if they were to celebrate their birthday or the holidays like Christmas ?

The King of the Nord

I have a question about the identity of “The King of the North”

We know from the last 3 great wars against Jerusalem in the period when Jesus Christ begins to reign that Jerazalem will be attacked from the North.

1. “The King of the North” marches against “jewelry land” in the end times of Jacob’s distress and will occupy it before he comes to his end. (Dan. 11:40-45). 2)
2. Gog and Magog are gathered with many nations in Armageddon (6th and 7th bowl, Ezek. 38:17-39:29; Rev. 16:16; Rev. 19:17-20, Ps. 2)
3. At the end of the 1000 years, Gog and Magog are gathered and surround the beloved city (Rev. 20:7-10; Ezek. 38:1-16)

Magog was one of the sons of Japheth (Gen. 10:2) and became the progenitor of a people "from 2 backsides of the North" (Ezek. 38:15).
Gog is also the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezek. 38:2).

Apparently, Gog dwells in the land of Magog and is the supreme prince, something like a king of kings, of Meshech and Tubal.
Mesech and Tubal also descendants of Japheth and likely likewise settled in the coastal lands, kingdoms in Asia Minor, such as Lydia.

The link between Lydia and the "outskirts of the North":

Why was an empire in Western Anatolia (Lydia) placed in the "outskirts of the North" by a prophet in Babylon (Ezekiel)?

The trade route:
From the perspective of Mesopotamia and Israel, the route to Lydia ran via the so-called "Royal Road." (Along which Christ the King will march to Jerusalem). This curved far to the north, bypassing the Syrian desert and passing through the Taurus Passes and the central Anatolian plateau.

The gathering point of peoples:
Lydia (Magog) ruled over or was connected to Mushki (Mesech) and Tabal (Tubal). Together, they formed a bloc that covered the entire northern horizon of the world at that time.

There are now a number of difficulties regarding the teachings of the WTO;

A) Regarding that "king of the North,"
The WTO places that king on the head of Russia and in connection with Russia's hostility toward their religion. But that is self-interpretation and not what Scripture teaches.

His attack clearly concerns the Kingdom of Christ in Israel and NOT the WTO.

B) Regarding Gog of Magog
The WTO places this on the head of Satan.
This is really far-fetched given the Biblical references to the names.

Excavations in the capital Sardes show that Lydia was an enormous power in the 7th century BC.
In this context, the land "Magog" would simply mean "The land of Gog (Gyges)" (where the prefix 'Ma-' means 'land of' in some Indo-European languages).

https://preview.redd.it/97r3w09zc51h1.png?width=1408&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9394d13b7cdd2ae5854e2fdaaf59683780a8f99

Another view is that “the King of the North” refers to Syria and that “the King of the South” would then refer to Egypt, due to their geographical location relative to Israel.

Does anyone have some insight about this?