'False Prophet' Claim and Jerusalem 607 B.C.E.

False "Prophet"
The Bible gives us some guidelines to help discern a prophet from a false prophet:
"Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which [the Prophet like Moses] shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak ... that same prophet shall die. And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing Jehovah hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." - Deut. 18:19-22, American Standard Version.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing [under false pretenses], but inwardly are ravening wolves [preying on others for their own advantage]. BY THEIR FRUITS ye shall know them." - Matt. 7:15, 16, ASV.
So we can recognize someone as a false prophet if he declares that he is speaking Jehovah's words actually revealed to him by direct revelation from God - an inspired prophet ("speaketh in Jehovah's name") and his message proves to be false. And we can also recognize a false prophet (even if something he says turns out to be correct) by the rest of his teachings, words, and deeds (his "fruits").
* * * *
This study concerns the 1 April 1972 Watchtower article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet
Was Among Them," which so many anti-Watchtower critics and dissenting ex-Jehovah's Witnesses quote to "prove" that the Watchtower Society is a "false prophet." Dr. Walter Martin is a leader among these critics who use this article to accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of being "false prophets." We will see statements by Martin concerning "Christian" prophets later.
What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe was the basic meaning intended by the Bible writers when they wrote about a prophet? Here is a quote from one of their most-used reference books, Aid to Bible Understanding, 1969:
The English word `prophet' comes from the Greek `pro phe' tes.' `Pro phe' tes' literally means `a speaker out' [Gr. pro, `before' or `in front of,' and phe-mi, `to speak'], and thus describes a proclaimer, one who makes known messages attributed to a divine source. (Compare Titus 1:12.) Though the English word retains this same basic meaning, to many persons today it conveys only the restricted thought of a predicter of the future. But, as the foregoing information shows, the fundamental meaning of the word is not that of prediction. - p. 1347. (Also see p. 694, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2.)
But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been
shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God's mind on matters. - p. 1348. (p. 696, Insight.)
Authorities of Christendom agree with the Watchtower definition of prophet:
Dr. Robert Young (author of Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible and Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary) writes:
PROPHET - is used of one who (professedly) announces the will or celebrates the works of God, whether these relate to things past, present or future, and it is applied to patriarchs, orators, singers, songstresses, priests, and preachers. - Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation," #68.
Dr. Young also wrote: "The Hebrew idea of a prophet is not that of one who foretells future events, but one who receives a revelation [`God's disclosure ... of his will to man, as through ... laws, etc.' - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] of God's will and proclaims it to others." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 48.
The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that, although the idea of prediction gradually came to be attached to the word, it originally meant "one who speaks out":
Etymologically prophetes] denoted `forth-telling' [speaking out], not `fore-telling' [speaking before (in time)]. - Vol. 18, p. 586, 1956.
An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, (ed.) states:
The prophets were not
forecasters or philosophers, but ... preachers, moralists, ... and men of action who felt themselves to be mouthpieces of Yahweh ... and instruments of Yahweh's creative purpose in man's historic life. - p. 614.
Today's Dictionary of the Bible tells us, "we must regard `prophet' as a forth-teller, not a Foreteller." - p. 509, Bethany House Publishers, 1982.
A footnote for Matt. 7:22 in The NIV Study Bible states:
prophesy. In the NT this verb primarily means to give a messsage from God, not necessarily to predict.
And Richard Lattimore, "the eminent translator" (NY Times Book Review) and "one of the most distinguished living translators of Greek" writes in notes for 1 Cor. 11:4 and 14:1 -
`prophesies.' This is not here introduced as if it were an activity requiring extraordinary gifts, and presumably may mean nothing more than reading, quoting, or interpreting Scripture
. See also 14:1 ff. - Acts and Letters of the Apostles, p. 281, Dorset Press, 1982.
C. T. Russell clearly taught this same meaning for "prophet" and applied it to all Christians who were able to teach the truth as "public
orators" - May 1, 1902 WT. Even Christians who made honest errors in their public teaching (or "speaking forth") were still to be considered "prophets." Their statements must all be checked carefully against scripture, however, and the hearer must be sure that he holds fast only to the proven "good" or truth in their teachings - June 15, 1909. So, if Russell called himself a modern prophet (I don't know that he did), it would certainly be an accurate term according to his own teaching concerning that word!
Well, what does the Watchtower Society call those people in the Bible who received messages directly from God? They, too, are described as being prophets, or, more clearly, as being inspired prophets.
Does the Watchtower Society claim to be an inspired
prophet, receiving information directly (and therefore perfectly) from God? TheWatchtower has said:
"We have not the gift of prophecy." - January 1883, page 425.
"Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible." - December 15, 1896, page 306.
"[the fact that some have Jehovah's spirit] does not mean those now serving as Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that the writings in this magazine, The Watchtower, are inspired and infallible and without mistakes." - May 15, 1947, page 157.
"The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic." - August 15, 1950, page 263.
"The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)" - February 15, 1981, page 19.
No, as the preface to every Watchtower magazine for the year 1972 (including, of course, the April 1, 1972 issue which had the article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them") says:
No, `The Watchtower' is NO INSPIRED PROPHET
, but it follows and explains a Book of prophecy ....— Which Book? The Sacred Bible of the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration in the name of the creator of heaven and earth, the only living and true God.
C. T. Russell wrote in an October 1, 1907 WT article):
"A dear Brother inquires, Can we feel absolutely sure that the Chronology set forth in the Dawn-Studies is correct? - That the harvest began in 1874 and will end in A.D. 1914....?"
"We answer," Russell continues, "as we have frequently done before in the Dawns and Towers and orally and by letter, that we have never claimed that they were knowledge
, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts, knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on faith. We have set forth the evidence as plainly as possible and stated the conclusions of faith we draw from them....
"Many have examined these evidences and have accepted them; others equally bright do not endorse them....
"We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as `brethren' all sanctified believers in the precious blood.
"On the contrary, it is those who differ who smite us and speak evil of us .... They are our critics who always claim the infallibility. We go humbly onward following the Apostle's example and words, `We believe and therefore speak,' whether others hear or forbear to hear. Is not this in accord with the Spirit of Christ? ....
"But some of those who come to a trifling point on which they disagree seem to imagine that the entire harvest work must be overthrown, or at least stopped, until they get their little jot or tittle satisfactorily adjusted." ....
"If, therefore, dearly beloved, it should turn that our chronology is all
wrong, we may conclude that with it we have had much advantage everyway. If the attainment of our glorious hopes and present joys in the Lord should cost us such disappointment as our friends fear, we should rejoice and count it cheap!"
And in the Jan. 1, 1911 WT, Russell wrote:
"Suppose that our chronological calculations (never set forth as infallible) should prove to be fallible and in error. Our conclusion would merely be that the error could not be very great ....
"If, then, it should prove eventually that the crisis of earthly government will not be reached by the end of 1914, should we not be very faithful anyway, and remember that had it not been for that alarm clock which helped awaken us from the worldly stupor, we might not have been sufficiently awake to appreciate and enjoy the wonderful spiritual blessings which daily crown our lives?"
So, how would a Witness who has read the preface to his Watchtower magazine, which clearly shows `The Watchtower' is not
an inspired prophet, understand the 1972 article "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them"? Why, obviously something other than an inspired prophet was meant by the word "prophet" in that article, and what could be more obvious than that it was the basic meaning of the word as used by the ancient Bible writers that was intended, as `The Watchtower' has explained for many years in its reference works?
Notice how this Jan. 1, 1971 Watchtower magazine explains it, for example.
Jehovah's people today .... are having a share in the fulfillment of the prophecy, `your sons and your daughters will certainly prophesy.' (Joel 2:28) Not that these prophesy in the sense of foretelling events under inspiration, but rather in that they are making public proclamation of the inspired dreams and visions long ago recorded. They prophesy in the sense of being God's spokesmen. That this is one of the meanings of `prophesy' is apparent from the fact that Jehovah God appointed Aaron to be prophet to his brother Moses. Aaron did not foretell
things to Moses, but he served as Moses' spokesman or mouthpiece - Ex. 7:1. - p. 32. (Compare WT, Oct. 1, 1961, p. 593.)
But to make it even clearer and less liable to misunderstanding, The Watchtower Society wrote the word in such a manner in that 1 April 1972 WT article that everyone should have known that "prophet" was being used in a special sense.
You see, quotation marks have a number of uses. There are two times when quotation marks are used around a single word (such as "prophet"). One is when you are talking about it as a word. For example: The word "is" was used as a verb in the last sentence. Or: we have discussed the fundamental meaning of the word "prophet." Another use for quotation marks around a single word is when the writer is indicating that he is using that word in a special sense, different from how the reader might ordinarily understand it.
The Handbook of Effective Writing, Moore, 1966, p.145, explains it:
Double quotation marks are used to enclose ... a word used in an unusual way.
And The Guide and Handbook for Writing, Griggs-Webster, 1964, p. 487, says:
Use quotation marks to indicate a word used in a different sense than someone else has used it.
For example, the Watchtower Society has also taught the importance of Christian women being "daughters" of Sarah. - p. 264, Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God (Also see p. 162: "bride," "wife," "rock-mass"). Persons with no regard for truth (ravening wolves in sheep's clothing) could take such statements and insist that the Watchtower Society teaches that you must be a physical Jew (or at least a literal physical descendant of Sarah) in order to be a Christian woman. This is obviously untrue and the use of quotation marks around "daughters" helps show that the Watchtower Society intended a figurative meaning: that Christian women are to be similar to Sarah only in certain respects! (1 Peter 3:6)
In the 1 April 1972 Watchtower article in question the word "prophet" was enclosed with quotation marks at least 12 different times when the word was applied to the Watchtower Society. E.g.,
He had a "prophet" to warn them. This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women.... Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses. - p. 197.
The quotation marks alone tell the reader that "prophet" as applied to Jehovah's Witnesses in that article is not to be understood as an inspired Biblical prophet but in a different sense.
It is intellectually (and morally) very dishonest to accuse the Watchtower Society of being a false prophet in the complete Biblical sense of an inspired
prophet (including inspired prediction of future events) if the accuser is aware of that society's teaching on the subject (or even understands the common meanings of quotation mark use).
You see, the Watchtower Society has also taught (from the beginning, I believe) that the miraculous gifts of the spirit (including the gift of inspired prophecy) were no longer given to earthly men after the death of the last Apostle.
Examine these statements found in the Aid book and a 1971 Watchtower magazine:
"Evidently, with the death of the apostles, the transmittal of the gifts of the Spirit ended, and the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased altogether as those having received these gifts passed off the earthly scene." - - - - "Prophesying was a greater gift than speaking in tongues .... the particular ones having the miraculous gift of prophesying were able to foretell future events, as did Agabus." - Aid, pp. 655, 656.
1971 Watchtower, pp. 502, 503, 504: Speaking of the first century miraculous gifts of the spirit -
"The gift of `prophesying' included, besides speaking the magnificent things of God, the inspired
ability to speak accurately of things to come. This inspired foretelling of events seems to have been generally limited, however, to things that affected the congregation at that time, enabling it to meet the foreseen situation, as in the case of the famine in the time of Emperor Claudius, foretold by the Christian prophet Agabus." - - - - "Are the miraculous gifts of the spirit necessary for the congregation to carry on its work and to maintain its cleanness, uprightness and unity? No, such gifts are not needed...." (p. 503) - - - - "Inspired prophesying today would be superfluous. The prophecies written in the Bible being complete as a guide to the congregation today, nothing needs to be added. Accordingly, since God's Word provides a perfect guide, there is no need to have the gift of discernment of prophecies in a miraculous sense, for there are no inspired prophets now authorized by God." (p. 504)
In other words, the Watchtower Society believes there ceased to be miraculous gifts bestowed when the "Church" reached "maturity" around 100 A.D. The "Church" was firmly established by this time and all the inspired scriptures had already been written and transmitted to the congregations. (1 Cor. 13:2, 8-11)
Others have taught this very same belief. Even W. E. Vine, "recognized as one of the world's foremost [NT] Greek scholars" and a favorite of many in orthodox Christendom, affirms the following quotation: "With the completion of the canon of Scripture prophecy apparently passed away
, 1 Cor. 13:8, 9." - p. 893, Vine.
The Society has always taught this understanding. Even Russell taught it in his WT articles (e.g., WT Sept. 15, 1911). Since they have always believed that no Christian for the past 1800 years at least has been able to predict future events infallibly by direct inspiration, how could we honestly accuse them of being false prophets in that sense?
The Society also teaches that scripture shows that these gifts were only transmitted when one or more of the twelve Apostles were present. Now whether the Society is right or wrong in this understanding is not the point. What matters here is that this understanding governs the intended meaning of the word "prophet" as used by the Watchtower Society in the very rare instances when they may apply that term to themselves.
For any person who is familiar with Watchtower teachings to pretend that the Watchtower Society is calling itself an inspired predicter of the future in this 1 April 1972 WT article when it obviously figuratively applies the word "prophet" to itself is extremely dishonest!
But, even setting quotation marks and previous Watchtower teaching about prophets and prophecy aside, most Jehovah's Witnesses would have known (ALL should have known) what that 1 April 1972 Watchtower article intended at the time it was published merely because of the background they have in the organization and by reading the entire article with even ordinary care and objectivity. You see, this article was the fourth in a series of at least six articles that drew a parallel
between the Book of Ezekiel and modern times.
Just as the first Christians drew upon Old Testament writings and pointed out how something there prefigured, in some
ways, events or persons in New Testament times, so Witnesses like to do today.
For example, Paul calls Jesus our "passover": "For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ." - 1 Cor. 5:7, ASV. This refers to the literal lamb of Ex. 12:1-11. This literal lamb was to have been a perfect 4-legged, woolly lamb that was only one year old. It was to be slaughtered and its blood spattered upon the door posts of the faithful Israelites. Its literal flesh was to be roasted with fire and then the followers of God were to literally eat
the flesh and completely burn up any part of the lamb that was left. This was "Jehovah's passover" - Ex. 12:11.
Knowing this, no Jehovah's Witness would dream of insisting that since Paul called Jesus our "passover" he meant it in the literal Old Testament meaning as everyone understood it at that time. They know that Paul intended it in a figurative
sense because they are familiar with the rest of Paul's (and the other Bible writers') teachings.
Witnesses know immediately that Paul was simply saying Jesus' sacrifice was prefigured, in certain
respects only, by the passover lamb. They would not for a moment think that Paul meant Jesus had four legs, a woolly hide, or was only one year old at the time of his death. They would never even consider the possibility that his faithful followers literally drained his blood and spattered it upon their doorposts. They would never give a thought to the idea that his followers literally ate the meat off the dead Jesus' bones and then burned up all the rest of his body and that was why it was completely gone when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb to see Jesus' body! (You can imagine what dishonest deceivers would have you believe that Jesus meant at John 6:53-59!)
There are a few obvious parallels, however, between the passover lamb in Moses' time and the "passover" (Christ) that Paul was speaking of, but to insist that Paul meant every
aspect of the Old Testament parallel was to be found in Jesus' sacrifice would be extremely dishonest!
If there had been punctuation marks in the time of Paul, he might well have used quotation marks around "passover" if he had thought anyone might have misunderstood his using the word in a different sense like that. So it is with most (if not all) of the persons, things, events in the Old Testament that prefigured later persons, things, and events. And Jehovah's Witnesses are thoroughly familiar with this scriptural method of teaching.
So, when Witnesses read the six Watchtower articles that drew parallels between the Book of Ezekiel and these modern last days, they knew that not every possible aspect of the parallels was to be taken completely literally.
In the first article they read how the "secretary" of Ezek. 9:2-4 prefigured modern Jehovah's Witnesses - (not as literal secretaries
, of course). - p. 47, Jan. 15, 1972 WT. In the second article it was explained what the "mark" on the forehead (Ezek. 9:4) represents today - (not a literal mark, of course). - p. 50.
Then they read in the third article: "Wanted—A Messenger," pp. 189-190, 15 March 1972 WT:
`Therefore, when it came time for the name of Jehovah and his purposes to be declared to the people along with God's warning that Christendom is in her "time of the end," who qualified to be commissioned? Who was willing to undertake this monumental task as Jehovah's "servant"? Was there anyone to whom Jehovah's heavenly "chariot" could roll up and whom it could confront? More accurately, was there any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a "prophet" in his name, as was done toward Ezekiel back there in 613 B.C.E.? What were the qualifications? [Notice the use of quotation marks around individual words within this article.]
`Certainly [continues the article], such a messenger or "servant
" group would have to be made up of persons who had not been defiled with bloodguilt as had Christendom and the rest of Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, by sharing in carnal warfare. In fact, they would be a group that had come out from the religious organizations of Babylon the Great. More than that, they would be persons who not only saw the hypocrisy and God-defaming action of these religions, but in addition actually rejected them and turned to Jehovah God in true worship of him as set forth in the Bible. Who would they be?
`In identifying the group that is truly commissioned as God's messenger, these are points for us to consider seriously. God does not deal with persons who ignore his Word and go according to their own independent ideas. Nor does he recognize those who make a profession of serving him and at the same time associate with religions that teach God-dishonoring doctrines. No one can serve two masters, claiming to be a worshiper of God and meddling with the politics, the radical movements and other schemes of this world. (Matt.6:24) Jehovah's chief representative, Jesus Christ, said: "Not everyone saying to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will."—Matt. 7:21.
`It is of importance to every individual on earth to identify the group that Jehovah has commissioned as his "servant
" or messenger. We must recognize and understand the warning that he brings. We need to take action on the warning to safeguard our lives, for they are in a danger as grave as that of the lives of Jerusalem's citizens as that city neared destruction. For this reason forthcoming issues of the Watchtower will further discuss the identity and work of Jehovah's commissioned messenger as revealed in his vision to Ezekiel.' (End of quote from 15 March 1972 Watchtower.)
We can see from this exactly which aspects of "prophet," "servant," or messenger are being applied to a modern-day parallel by the Watchtower Society. Inspired prediction is not
being considered as an aspect of the modern-day "prophet" or messenger. And discussion of these same aspects continue in the follow-up Watchtower articles which are quoted below.
The fourth article in the series (the one which some apostate ex-Witnesses have used so dishonestly), "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them," pp. 197-200, 1 April 1972 WT, told us that this modern group
`doing a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiel's work among the Jews, were manifestly the modern-day Ezekiel, the "prophet" commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God's messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom
.'
Again, the specific function of the modern "prophet" is clarified. It is to speak out the message that is already in the Bible. (Incidentally, the second use of the word "Ezekiel" in the above quotation could properly have had quotation marks around it if the writers had so chosen since it is also obviously used in a figurative sense.)
In the fifth article, "Your Life Is In Danger—How? Why?", pp. 252-255, 15 April 1972 WT, we read that the scroll given to Ezekiel
"represented all the declarations in the entire Bible that have to do with the judgments, spiritual plagues and tribulations that are to come upon Christendom and her religious and political associates in the `time of the end.'"
It is clear that the modern "prophet" is to declare the messages found in the Bible
(not any new inspired revelations or predictions from God). This article goes on to explain about those members of Christendom who already claim to accept the Bible as the word of God:
`There is no excuse for them not to understand what the modern "Ezekiel" says. If they do not respond with hearing ears it is because they do not want to.'
Here we do see quotation marks around "Ezekiel" because only a certain aspect
of Ezekiel is being considered. Obviously the Watchtower Society is not saying that the modern "prophet" is literally Ezekiel any more than it is saying it is literally an inspired prophet as Ezekiel literally was. (This is somewhat similar to John the Baptist's being called "Elijah" by Jesus Christ even though he was certainly not literally Elijah - cf. Matt.17:11-13 and John 1:21.)
Finally, in the sixth article, "Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Call On You Repeatedly?", pp. 277-280, 1 May 1972, it is explained that Jehovah called Ezekiel a "watchman" even though he wasn't really a watchman in the literal sense of the word at that time (Ezek. 3:17-21). It is then pointed out that the modern "prophet" is also a "watchman," and the warning of Ezek. 3:17-21 also applies to them: They must warn others or be considered bloodguilty by God.
"Therefore," says this final article,
"Jehovah's Witnesses, having embraced God's name, and knowing his laws and judgments, are like a sentry who, if he should fall asleep and fail to guard his sleeping comrades, would lose his own life. Accordingly, Jehovah's Witnesses must
call to give their fellow humans opportunity to know what God is going to do and what he requires, so that all who desire to live may do so and not die."
Then, on the last page, p. 280, this article says:
"They [Jehovah's Witnesses] do not claim any divine inspiration .... rather, they rely on God's word the Bible. They trust in God's spirit to aid them in having courage to speak."
So, no matter how others may choose to understand the article, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them," all informed Jehovah's Witnesses know that their organization simply does not claim to be an inspired prophet in the sense that included inspired prediction, and, in fact, it is exceedingly rare that it even applies the term "prophet" to itself in any sense.
Therefore, while it seems to be an impressive accusation to members of Christendom for them to claim that the Watchtower Society has called itself a "prophet" (and also apparently been mistaken in some interpretations concerning dates), it is a tremendous waste of time and effort to expect a properly informed Witness to be impressed by such specious reasoning.
It also tells us a great deal about those ex-Jehovah's Witness dissidents who should know all this but still select such material to "prove" to others that Jehovah's Witnesses are "false prophets."
I would like to share some Bible facts about some men of the Bible who truly were God-inspired prophets and their use of time prediction.
King David said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." - 2 Sam.7:2, NASB. It is obvious that David intended to build a house or temple to replace the tent over the ark. God's statements at 2 Sam.7:5-7 show that this is certainly what was in David's mind to do. And notice Nathan the prophet's
reply to David at 2 Sam.7:3:
"And Nathan said to the king, `Go, do all that is in your mind
, for [Jehovah] is with you.'" - NASB.
So we see that Nathan, the inspired prophet
of God, told David to go ahead and build a house for the ark because Jehovah loves David and approves of what he does!
Now this information had not been received by Nathan directly from God but was Nathan's own reasoned interpretation based on his own knowledge of God and David and their relationship. And Nathan was wrong
!! He was a prophet of Jehovah, and what he told David was wrong, but he still was not a false prophet because he had not spoken in Jehovah's name! (Deut. 18:20-22).
Jehovah later gave Nathan a direct, inspired message that King David was not to go ahead and build the temple - 2 Sam. 7:4-7, 12-13. Nathan relayed it to David, speaking in Jehovah's name. If Nathan had said in Jehovah's name
"Thus saith Jehovah" (verses 5, 8) "I, Jehovah, tell you to go ahead and build the temple," he would have certainly been a false prophet. His original statement to David, however, was an interpretation (his very own understanding of God's will) and, even though wrong, in no way made him a false prophet!
If God had not given Nathan an inspired message on the subject, then Nathan's own interpretation (whether right or wrong) would have stood, and David would have built (or attempted to build) the temple. Of course, if it were not God's will, the temple would not have been completed by David anyway, no matter what Nathan or King David or anyone else thought.
Certainly King David understood that a man who is truly an inspired
prophet of God can still make an error in his own interpretation: he had no thought of having Nathan put to death (or punished or reprimanded in any way) for being a false prophet. Nathan continued in the capacity of an inspired prophet of God. - 2 Sam. 12:25; 2 Chron. 9:29; 2 Chron. 29:25. Of course if he had made his initial interpretation in Jehovah's name ("Thus saith Jehovah, `Go, do what is in thy heart, build the temple'"), he would have made himself a false prophet and been liable to death!
I believe that Isaiah was an inspired prophet of God. I believe the account of 2 Kings 20:1-6. There may be aspects of a Bible account that I find strange or difficult to believe, but I am duty-bound to accept them all as the word of God unless or until such time as they might be proven to be improper additions or changes made by copyists in the past. So, when I read that Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah and told him to get his things in order because Jehovah had said it was time for him to die (2 Kings 20:1), I must believe it. And when we see that Hezekiah repented and did not die at that time as Isaiah had prophesied, but 15 YEARS LATER (2 Kings 20:6) -- I must believe it. I most definitely, however, would not
accuse this man of God, this truly God-inspired prophet, of being a false prophet because the literal TIME given in his initial prophecy proved to be wrong!
Again, we know that Jesus himself referred to Jonah as a prophet (Matt. 12:39). But what did Jonah predict and what actually happened? Jonah was told by Jehovah:
"Arise, go to Ninevah the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before me." - Jonah 1:2, NASB.
When Jonah got to Ninevah, "he cried out and said, `Yet forty days
and Ninevah will be overthrown.'" But God, after seeing the sincere repentance of the people of Ninevah, did not destroy them at that time. They were not destroyed until many generations later.
When you actually examine the account of Jonah you find it is not, as Dr. Walter Martin has publicly declared, that Jonah's prophecy was "conditional" and that God said, "IF
you don't repent, Ninevah will be destroyed in forty days." If God told Jonah that it was conditional, then Jonah sure didn't proclaim it correctly: What he spoke in Jehovah's name, in that case, would still have been wrong!
Yes, if we actually examine the account, we find Jonah prophesied: "In forty days Ninevah WILL
BE destroyed!" - Jonah 3:4, GNB. There's certainly nothing "conditional" there. Examine all Bible translations. None of them translate it as a "conditional" prophecy! Not even Christendom's Living Bible; BBE; NLV; ETRV; and GNB translations, which, being paraphrase Bibles, are able to (and often do) take great liberties with the actual original Bible texts in order to enhance trinitarian and other "orthodox" interpretations, translate Jonah's prophecy as though it were conditional!
Furthermore, we know Jonah didn't tell them that Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 days unless they repented (as Martin says) because of Jonah 3:8-10 -- the king of Ninevah believed what Jonah prophesied and said to his subjects:
"Everyone ... must give up his wicked behavior and his evil actions. PERHAPS
God will change his mind; PERHAPS he will stop being angry, and we will not die!" .... So [God] CHANGED his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would." - GNB.
Jonah even became angry because his prophecy did not come true! - Jonah 4:1-4. He certainly would not have done so if he thought the prophecy was conditional!
None of Jehovah's Witnesses would ever say that Jonah was a false prophet because the literal time schedule mentioned in his prophecy was not fulfilled. But those who use that same argument against an organization that has called itself a "prophet" in a restricted, figurative sense must also use it against Jonah, a true, GOD-INSPIRED PROPHET.
We know that Jesus was not only a God-inspired prophet but was the Prophet of God. We know that, at Matthew 12:40, he prophesied: "for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - NASB.
And yet Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as nearly all of Christendom) believe that Jesus died late Friday afternoon and was resurrected at or before sunrise Sunday morning (John 20:1). This means Jesus was in the tomb for a very short time on Friday day (first day) and all Friday night (first night) and all Saturday day (second day) and all (or at least some of) Saturday night (second night) and none
, or at best only minutes or seconds of Sunday day although John 20:1 seems to rule even that out, (third day) and absolutely NONE of Sunday night (third night)!
According to this actual schedule of events, then, Jesus was not, as he literally prophesied, either in "the heart of the earth" nor
was he in the tomb "for three days and THREE nights."
You know, then, what those who accuse the Watchtower Society of being a false "prophet" because of apparent literal "time" errors must necessarily (unhypocritically) also say about Jesus, the Prophet!
Jehovah's Witnesses would never make such a blasphemous accusation! -- (This example is one where Jehovah's Witnesses agree with most of Christendom that the "three days and three nights" really was parts
of three days [at most] and two nights. But they agree, not because of secular historians but because of what the Bible actually says - John 19:31, 20:1; also Luke 23:54, 24:1.)
The Destruction of Jerusalem - 607 B.C.?
Some who wish to accuse the Watchtower organization of being a "false prophet" claim that the 607 B.C. date chosen by the Society for the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon is proof. Christendom endorses and teaches the date of 587 B.C. (which is the opinion of secular historians today).
Most secular historians tell us that some captives were taken from Jerusalem in 598 B.C., but that the city was not harmed at that time. They also tell us that a later siege in 587 B.C. destroyed
Jerusalem and that all but a handful of the inhabitants of all of Judah were deported from the land at that time.
"All archeologically studied towns of Judah
(see Jer. 25:11, 17, 18) were DESTROYED at this time (587 B.C.)." - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, v. 3, p. 9.
They also tell us that
"the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C
., substantially confirmed by modern archeological discoveries, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland." - Americana.
Now if we insist on perfection in the statements of God's inspired prophets of the Bible concerning time factors, then either the inspired prophets who warned of the desolation
of Jerusalem by Babylon must have proclaimed a 49 (or 50) year desolation of Jerusalem - from 587 B.C. to 538 B.C. (or 537 B.C. if we properly allow for preparation and travel time after Cyrus' edict)! OR the secular historians of today are wrong about the 587 B.C. date which most of Christendom (and apostate ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) accepts.
Now Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 538 B.C. date for the edict of Cyrus since the evidence produced "by modern archeological discoveries" is probably better established for it, and it certainly correlates more properly with Bible chronology. And since the date 587 B.C. for the beginning of the desolation period is probably more doubtful than that of the "substantially confirmed" 538 B.C. date for the edict which led to the end of the desolation period and does not fit proper Bible chronology, Jehovah's Witnesses have decided that the date of the desolation of Jerusalem must have been 607 B.C. Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the inspired prophets Jeremiah and Daniel are more likely to be correct than secular historians! (Be sure to read pp. 186-189 in Let Your Kingdom Come, 1981 Watchtower publication.)
Daniel wrote that he was "reading the scriptures and reflecting on the SEVENTY
years which, according to the word of the Lord [Jehovah] to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while Jerusalem lay in ruins." - Dan. 9:2, NEB. Also see Jer. 25:8-11, 17, 18.
Now isn't it interesting that Christendom (especially those most vocal dissident ex-Jehovah's Witnesses) condemns Jehovah's Witnesses as being false prophets for interpreting certain ancient dates (most notably the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 B.C.) based upon the clear statements of inspired
Bible prophets which seem to contradict the conclusions of secular historians today?
Think about it. What's really happening when certain "Christians" insist that a figurative "prophet" be perfect in its interpretation of time and then turn around and say,
"Yes, Daniel was an inspired prophet (and so was Jeremiah), but, although he literally said Jerusalem would lie desolate for 70 years, HE REALLY MEANT 50 YEARS. We believe the authorities today who tell us it was really 50
years," these `Christians' say, "more than we believe the literal accuracy of the inspired prophet, Daniel (or Jeremiah)."?
In other words, it's o.k. to condemn those who have never claimed to be inspired prophets for an apparent error in the interpretation of a date and proclaim them false prophets, and, in so doing, indirectly (but necessarily) accuse the truly inspired Bible writers, who, they believe, made the very same kind of time "errors," of being false prophets .
Yes, those who insist on the secular historians' dates (which make a 50 year desolation) are, by necessity, insisting that the Bible prophets stated the wrong chronology (70 years of desolation). By their insistence on the 587 B.C. date they are saying the inspired prophets did not prophesy a literally accurate time!
The real difference is that Jehovah's Witnesses admit to being human, making nonessential errors at times, and not being an inspired "prophet." They truly believe the organization, as a whole, and over the long term, has the guidance of Holy Spirit, but this does not mean that every step, every thought, every utterance of every member will be perfect in this present system of things. The first Christians, who were obviously guided by Holy Spirit, admitted as much about themselves. And yet these Jehovah's Witnesses, imperfect as they may be, are courageous enough to say that Daniel and Jeremiah are inspired prophets of God and are certainly more likely to be correct than secular historians.
If Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on this nonessential "time interpretation," does that make them false prophets because they have chosen the literal accuracy of God's inspired prophets over the statements of uninspired historians? I think not! I believe, instead, a strong statement of their obedience to proper authority (the Bible in this case) is being made in spite of the ridicule and dishonest accusations of many false Christians.
On the other hand, what if the actual inspired prophets (Daniel and Jeremiah) are literally correct? Where does that put those "Christians" who are, in actuality, saying that Daniel and Jeremiah were false prophets
? It seems we have a real test of faith and proper heart condition here.
- - - - - - - - -
Now let's return to the original attack as promoted by Dr. Walter Martin (and others) in his anti-cult books and tapes: Martin declares that the Watchtower Society claims to be a prophet of God in its 1972 Watchtower article we have just examined. Therefore, he concludes, they must make no errors, or they are false prophets. And, since they have looked forward to certain dates in fulfillment of Bible interpretations which have turned out differently from their expectations, they have made errors. Therefore, he concludes, they are false prophets.
But notice how this respected "Cult Buster" further analyzes what makes a "false prophet." In his popular book, The Kingdom of the Cults (KOTC), 1985 ed., Martin discusses the date-setting predictions of Baptist minister William Miller. This man led a movement which believed Jesus would return to earth in 1843. Martin calls him "an honest forthright Christian" (p. 413, KOTC) who, in spite of his "disastrous date-setting career" (p. 413, KOTC), "now enjoys the presence of the Lord" (p. 415). Yes, Martin believes this Baptist "man of God" was a true Christian who has gone to his reward in heaven in spite of his proclaiming FALSE PROPHECIES concerning certain dates based on Bible interpretation. How can this "false prophet" be considered a true, faithful Christian? Because, according to Martin, he believed and taught "traditional" doctrines of Christendom. By far the most important of these teachings is the knowledge of God.
As Dr. Walter Martin himself teaches:
"Our main concern ought to be the centrality of the Christian faith and that is the [trinitarian] doctrine of God. If you are right in every [other] area of your theology and you are wrong on the doctrine of God, you are wrong enough to lose your soul for all eternity .... [the teaching of the trinity] is of primary importance
." - from Martin's cassette tape recording, "Jehovah's Witnesses Versus the Holy Trinity."
And,
"the answer to Jehovah's Witnesses...is the Deity of Jesus Christ, and in teaching that one cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, all energy ought to be expended to the uttermost
." - p. 113, KOTC, 1985 ed.
Yes, William Miller, like Walter Martin himself, was a Baptist minister who taught the trinity doctrine (and other "traditional" doctrines) and is therefore, according to Martin, a good, faithful Christian who merely made some "honest, forthright" mistakes (prophecies concerning future events which proved false). Martin even expresses admiration for Mr. Miller's honesty in admitting his errors.
As I understand it, Mr. Miller made no claims to being an inspired prophet or receiving direct revelation from God. He merely believed he was interpreting the Bible correctly. As such, I personally would not call him a false prophet in the Biblical sense based on those incorrect predictions alone. I, too, (like Martin) would base my evaluation of his actually being a true spokesman ("forth-teller") for God on the truth or falsity of the essential Bible teachings he taught.
Martin then discusses another "good Christian" - the Seventh-day Adventist prophetess, Ellen G. White. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that Mrs. White had a "gift of prophecy
" like that described in 1 Corinthians 14 (p. 446, KOTC).
For many years it has been known that Mrs. White actually plagiarized some of her material even though she swore to the end of her life that she hadn't copied anything but had received it all first hand by inspiration
. As late as the 1980 international Seventh-day Adventist convention, however, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was still officially claiming that Ellen G. White is "inspired in the same sense as were the Bible prophets." (Awake!, 22 Jan., 1981, p. 29.)
It is now known that Ellen G. White copied extensively from already-published materials by religious writers from various denominations for over 70 years. In fact she copied and borrowed "for almost everything" she wrote. (See Awake!, 22 Jan. 1981, p. 29 and 22 April 1981, p. 29.)
Walter Martin is aware of these facts about the Adventist "Prophet" but tells us in his Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 445:
"It is my considered opinion that Ellen G. White had an extremely complex personality and plagiarized materials because she believed the Lord had shown her that what the sources said was the truth. She simply appropriated material and gave it out [in her own name and as inspired]. Her actions cannot be excused, but they can be understood as the actions of a Christian who made mistakes
. She was both mortal and a sinner like anyone else. I think those around her aided and abetted her in her `cover-up.' Also I think the White Estate continued the cover-up after her death for many years. No objective person, in possession of all the facts, can doubt that.
"The difference between her and, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses
, is not the crime itself. That was wrong. The difference is in the nature of the person we are talking about. Was Jehovah's Witness founder Charles Russell a Christian? Did he hold to the foundations of the gospel? Did he promulgate the things of Christianity and stand in their defense? No. Did Ellen White? Yes. Therefore, although she committed the same crime [?] he did, she cannot be judged on the same basis as Charles Russell. She was a Christian who committed a sin. Christians can and do commit sins.
".... of course, technically, all would agree that the person who prophesies in the name of God and turns out to be wrong, has prophesied falsely. But Mrs. White is not
a biblical false prophet because she was a true Christian, even though what she did was sinful." - p. 445, KOTC. So, in "Cult-buster" Martin's eyes, being a false prophet doesn't really depend on making a mistake about a date concerning a Bible-based interpretation. What really determines it is what that person is teaching("speaking-forth") about basic, essential Christian doctrines.
If it should turn out that Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in the essential doctrines, then it is they (not Miller, Mrs. White, nor the rest of tradition-bound Christendom) who are the Christians who have made an honest, forthright error in certain date-setting interpretation (and have admitted it). Unlike some others, such as Mrs. White, they have committed no sin in this respect (plagiarism, false denial for 70 years, claim to be inspired
prophets, etc.). But being human individuals, they can and do occasionally make errors.
Therefore, the "false prophet" issue by Martin and others based on honest Bible-based interpretations is meaningless (even hypocritical for Martin in light of the above information) in comparison with the importance of discerning who is actually teaching the essential, life-saving Bible truths. If, as Martin and much of Christendom claim (see p. 1, KNOW study paper), the knowledge of who God and Jesus are "is the only important question [relatively] that means anything" (from Martin cassette tape recording), then the real key to everything is: Are trinitarians correct about God being three persons: Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit? Or are Jehovah's Witnesses correct about the essential doctrine that means eternal life or death? (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8) – See the ISRAEL; CREEDS; HIST; IMAGE; etc. study papers.
The course of wisdom is to carefully examine everything possible that is taught by trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses concerning their teachings (speaking-forth) on this crucial knowledge of God. - Prov. 2:4, 5. Only then will we see who is the "False Prophet" in this time of the end. Only then can you be assured of the first step in finding the gate that leads to eternal life. (Matt. 7:13, 14, 22, 23)

Astrology - Links to Information

Click on any link to view:

ASTROLOGY (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)

ZODIAC (Insight-2 p. 1240; Watchtower Online Library)

Astrology (Search results from the Watchtower Online Library )

Should the Zodiac influence your life? (g00 11/8 pp. 26-27; Watchtower Online Library)

The Bible’s Viewpoint - Do the Stars Affect Your Life? (AWAKE! OCTOBER 2012; JW.ORG)

What is Astrology and is it for Christians? (Search For Bible Truths)

Does Astrology really work? (Search For Bible Truths)

Are zodiac signs wrong? (Search For Bible Truths)

News Article: The Truth About Astrology (Mynews24.com)

Page that thoroughly examines how Astrology scientifically cannot work and links to more (Bad Astronomy)

Astrology practiced or condoned (Reasoning From Scripture)

Does Astrology Really Work?

ASTROLOGY

(Also see the W-Witch, the Shroud, and the Theomatics study papers for info. on other "supranormal" subjects.)

There are many ways of proving that astrology does not work at all. We will examine some of them in this paper.

There is a simple, easy way of proving that, for those of us who believe the Bible is the word of God, we should avoid astrology like a deadly disease (whether it works or not). We will examine that, too.

In the January 22, 1980 issue of the National Enquirer there was an article and a test devised by some of the leading astrologers in the world. Yes, I know how ludicrous some of the stuff in this magazine is, but bear with me. Here is that article:

"Astrology really works!

"In a remarkable, first-of-its-kind study commissioned by The ENQUIRER, an astounding 91 per cent of 240 randomly selected persons proved that their personality is determined by their astrological sign.

"This study shows that there is a power here beyond the realm of current science. It shows that the date you're born does affect the kind of personality you'll have,' declared Dr. Robert Alsofrom, a confirmed skeptic of astrology until after seeing the stunning results.

"Dr. Alsofrom was one of three independent experts who supervised the test along with noted astrologers Frederick Davies and Shawn Robbins.

"For the test, the two astrologers listed a group of personality traits that are associated with each of the 12 signs of the zodiac. Then the three prominent consultants developed 12 statements - one for each sign - based on these traits.

"The consultants were Dr. Harold Voth, senior psychiatrist at the Menninger Foundation; Dr. Marvin Ziporyn, psychiatric adviser to the Illinois Department of Corrections, and Dr. Alsofrom, psychologist and crisis intervention police instructor in West Palm Beach, Fla.

"In the study, people were picked at random and asked their birth date. Twenty persons for each zodiac sign were then given the test.

"They were told to choose one of the 12 statements that best describes their own personality. Astrology was never mentioned and they were not told the point of the test so that they would not be influenced.[1]

"Prior to the study, Dr. Voth, who teaches psychiatry at the University of Kansas, told The ENQUIRER: `If astrology has anything to do with determining personality, you'll find that a large percentage of Virgos, for example, will mark the Virgo statement. This would be true if astrology is valid.'

"Incredibly, more than 90 percent picked the statement that belonged to their zodiac sign. In fact, all 20 Virgos and 20 Geminis marked the correct statement.

....

"'The results are amazing,' said Dr. Alsofrom. `When I helped put this test together, I would've bet $1,000 to $1 that you would have never gotten these results. I've been an opponent of astrology for 30 years.

"'I have a very strong hunch that other respected scientists are going to carry out further tests. And they will find, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that astrology really does work.

"'This test certainly indicates that your astrological sign affects what kind of personality you'll have.' "

Now, the point is, the Enquirer included a copy of the test that was used and invited its readers to test it out. On a separate page it provided the answer key. The test should work. It actually is a very good test to compare a person's real personality with the one that astrology says a person with his birth date should have. Since I was a teacher for many years, I decided to take the challenge and try the test on my 12 to 14-year-old students. I gave the test, exactly as it appeared in the Enquirer, to a total of 337 different students (over a period of 7 years). I read the Enquirer article to them and invited them to take the test. Almost invariably the entire class agreed to take the test. (Only three students refused to take the test after I had explained that this test in no way involves one with practicing astrology, but merely shows whether it really could work or not.)

Here is a copy of the test as printed in the Enquirer. (Remember these are placed in a randomly mixed order - #1, for example, is not the first sign of the Zodiac):

1. ________ I am a perfectionist, paying attention to small, important details that others often forget. I hate to let a job go until it is finished properly by my standards. Others may find me critical, but I am more critical of myself than of them.

2. _______ I am an "easy touch" and would rather help people than make a lot of money. I enjoy daydreaming and usually get good results by trusting my intuition and following my hunches.

3. _______ I am very interested in all the creative arts, like writing, art and music. I like to settle arguments between my friends. I'm good at this, because I can see both sides of an issue.

4. _______ I am very good at business and making money, and I like taking charge and leading. I have my sensitive, emotional side, but I show this only to those closest to me. In public, I prefer to remain cool and collected at all times.

5. ______ I like to finish whatever I start, and my strong, determined personality makes me succeed. I can be jealous, but as a mate, I am very passionate.

6. ______ I like to create with words, either in writing or in speech and may sometimes monopolize conversations. However, my friends find me witty and interesting, if a bit fickle. I am usually logical and cool but change moods quickly and frequently.

7. ______ Family is very important to me, and I want to have children. I feel happiest when I am home with my family, pets and plants, and when I spend time cooking and decorating my home.

8. ______ My mind is filled with new ideas, and I like to invent things. I feel that I am in control of my life and running it in an organized, efficient manner. I like to learn and have a good memory for facts.

9. ______ I am very happy and cheerful, and I like making others happy. I am openly emotional and usually optimistic. I want my mate to cater to my every whim, but I am warm and generous in return.

10. _____ Once I make up my mind, I don't like to change it. I can be stubborn, especially when I know I am right, but I am too easygoing and quiet to get into arguments over anything.

11. _____ I am so enthusiastic about life that I am active at something all the time. I usually have five things going at once. If a project interests me, I will work long, hard hours on it. I love to talk and talk quickly, and I sometimes exaggerate.

12. _____ My love of the outdoors and outdoor sports shows me to be a person who hates being tied down or restricted in any way. Freedom is what I need, and animals, travel and humor are the things I love.

I carefully explained any terms any student wasn't sure of. After everyone had ample time to study the 12 choices, I had each student write on a sheet of paper: (1) his birthdate, (2) his choice of personalities that was closest to his own, and (3) whether he was familiar with astrology and/or what sign he was born under and what he thought that meant. I thought that if this test were given to most college students, for example, the results might be what the Enquirer claimed since most of them would know their own "signs" and what they were supposed to mean and would, consciously or unconsciously, select those. Junior High students, however, were less likely to know this than the average college student. So if I didn't count the few that actually knew what their "sign" meant, the rest would give a fair test.

There were very few who said they actually knew what their sign was supposed to mean. (In fact, there were surprisingly few who said they even knew what their sign was supposed to be.) So I had to eliminate only a handful of responses. Of the remaining 337 responses there were 28 which had the "correct" answers. Obviously this is nowhere near the 91% claimed by the Enquirer. But does it still show that astrology works?

Well, if you asked the average astrologer, he'd convince you that it does. In fact, judging by the methods normally used, he would probably tell you that he had conducted his own personal survey of people who had taken a test testing the accuracy of astrology. And without telling you how many people had participated (at least not how many had guessed wrong), he would probably say something like this: "Of the 31 people I surveyed who had taken this authoritative test, 28 were absolutely correct in selecting their personalities as they match their astrological signs! That's over 90% of all test participants that I surveyed!"

But when we look at the overall picture we see that only 28 out of a total of 337 actually guessed right. We need to know that by the law of averages a certain number have to guess right. For example, if I asked people to guess the number I am thinking of and gave them only two choices, then, on the average, one out of every 2 people would guess it right! And about 165 to 172 people out of 337 would actually guess the number I was thinking of. Would this mean about 168 people had ESP or supernatural mental powers? Of course not! That's just the number who should be able to guess the number according to the law of averages.

Now, what if I gave them 12 choices (as in the astrology test above) instead of 2? How many would guess the number then? Why about one out of every twelve would guess it. And how many would that be? In that case only about 24 to 30 (out of 337) would guess the right number according to the law of averages.

So we can see that 28 correct responses out of the 337 people who didn't know what their "sign" actually meant is exactly what we would expect if astrology did not work at all! That is the same number correct we would get if we asked 337 blindfolded people to pick one of the twelve personality descriptions without even seeing or hearing them first!

So the astrologer-devised test published in the Enquirer really proves beyond a doubt that astrology is absolutely worthless!

Oh, here is the answer code for the above personality/zodiac test: 1. Virgo (Aug. 22-Sept. 22) 2. Pisces (Feb. 20-March 20) 3. Libra (Sept. 23-Oct. 22) 4. Capricorn (Dec. 22-Jan. 20) 5. Scorpio (Oct. 23-Nov. 21) 6. Gemini (May 21-June 21) 7. Cancer (June 22-July 21) 8. Aquarius (Jan. 21-Feb. 19) 9. Leo (July 22-Aug. 21) 10. Taurus (April 20-May 20) 11. Aries (March 21-April 19) 12. Sagittarius (Nov. 22-Dec. 21).[2]

………………………………………………..

Of course, astrology has been shot down by proper scientific testing before and since. A good example may be found in the March 1986 issue of Science 86, p. 8. Here is what the article in this respected science magazine says:

"BERKELEY, CAL. - Astrology just flunked one of its toughest tests ever. Shawn Carlson, a graduate student in physics at the University of California, has shown that astrologers cannot divine someone's personality from knowledge of planetary positions.

"In his study, 116 adults returned a standard personality test that assesses traits such as sociability and dominance. Carlson sent personality profiles of three subjects, plus a natal chart for one of them, to each of two dozen astrologers recommended by members of the San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic Research, a group specializing in astrology.

"The test was for the astrologers to choose the personality profile that best matched the natal chart, or horoscope. Carlson and the astrologers had agreed that picking the right profile half the time would mean that the astrologers had some ability to accurately describe a person's character.

"But the astrologers were able to match the natal chart with the personality profile in just one out of three cases—no better than chance [the law of averages].

....

"'Astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed,' Carlson wrote in the journal Nature. `It failed.'"
Another revealing article in this respected science magazine may be found on pp. 80, 82 of the June 1984 issue of Science 84.

"Astrology's appeal to the human spirit is undeniable. If the heavens themselves shape our destiny, then we are somehow at one with the universe, and the universe somehow cares. We matter. Many believers, in fact, say they first experienced astrology as a kind of quasi-RELIGIOUS revelation: They suddenly knew it was true.

"Alas, that does not make it true. Over the last decade or so, scientists have tested the predictions of astrology in a variety of ways, with results that are best summed up in the title of a 1977 book by Anthony Standen, Forget Your Sun Sign. The book is just one shot in a barrage of scientific tests and critiques recently summarized and published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

"To begin with, according to the society's report, the sun's path through the zodiac, the belt of astrological constellations, is not quite what popular horoscopes would have us believe. It turns out that the spinning Earth is like a child's toy top: It wobbles. Being huge, it wobbles in immense, 25,000-year sweeps. This makes the sun's position along the zodiac drift farther and farther from its astrological schedule every year. After more than 2,000 years of astrology, the discrepancy is almost one full constellation.

"In late June, for example, when the sun is supposed to be in the constellation of Cancer according to traditional astrology, it is actually one constellation over, in Gemini. Gemini is really Taurus, Taurus is Aries, and so on. Thus most horoscopes that you read in the newspaper or get from astrologers apply to a completely different sign from the one assigned to your birthday.

"There are some astrologers, of course, who know their astronomy and reckon by the correct position of the sun. Even so, the general tenets and predictions of the discipline have not held up well under scientific scrutiny.[3]

"Economists James Barth of George Washington University and James Bennett of George Mason University examined the horoscopes of men who reenlisted in the Marine corps between 1962 and 1970. Signs ruled by Venus, the planet of love and beauty, were just as common as signs ruled by Mars, the planet of war.

"Psychologist Bernie Silverman, formerly at Michigan State University, asked astrologers to predict compatible and incompatible astrological signs. Then he looked at the records of the 2,978 couples who got married and of the 478 couples who got divorced in Michigan in 1967 and 1968. Incompatible signs got married - and divorced - as often as the compatible ones.

"Astronomer Roger Culver of Colorado State University decided to test the influence of the stars on people's physical characteristics. His analysis of 22 measurements - everything from biceps to bust size to baldness - on each of 300 volunteers turned up no correlation with astrological factors at all.

"None of this fazes the professional astrologers, however. They maintain that these simple, one dimensional tests of sun signs or planetary influences will always yield random results, because each individual's horoscope in fact depends upon a whole complex range of factors. [4]

"Fair enough. But consider the results of French statistician Michel Gauquelin, a man who has been putting astrology to the test for more than 20 years.

"Gauquelin examined zodiacal signs, moon signs, planet signs, mid-heaven signs, and ascendant signs for 15,560 successful professionals belonging to 10 different occupations in five European countries. He studied birthdates ranging from the late 18th century to the early 20th century. Result: Correlations between profession and astrological influences were no better than random chance [the law of averages]. (Some early - and widely publicized - hints of a connection between sports champions and Mars turned out to be an astronomical error on Gauquelin's part.)


"Is there a zodiacal heredity effect, a tendency for children to be influenced by the signs of their parents? Not according to Gauquelin's study of 3,923 pairs of parents and children.

"And yet, for all that, people still take a great deal of comfort in their horoscopes. They find an eerie accuracy in the charts, an uncanny insight into their lives. Astrology works, they say, and how can this be unless it is true?

"Indeed it does work - but only because believers want to believe and because we are all very human and complex people, outgoing in one situation and shy in another, selfish at one moment and generous at the next. Given a description of almost anyone, we can usually see something of ourselves.

"Gauquelin once put out a newspaper ad offering free personalized horoscopes. To the 150 people who answered, he sent the same information, and asked how well the interpretation fit. Some 94 percent said they recognized themselves.

"It was the horoscope of mass murderer Dr. Marcel Petiot."

James Randi has been well known for exposing fraud and trickery for many years. Being a professional magician himself, The Amazing Randi, he is aware of the many forms of trickery used in convincing others that the impossible is true. In his excellent book, Flim-Flam, he discusses some of his experiences with astrology:

"By far, the oldest of the claptrap philosophies of mankind is astrology. In the United States alone there are more than twenty thousand practicing astrologers casting horoscopes and taking the money of literally millions of credulous believers. But there is probably no other major delusion that is more easily examined and shown to be totally without any logical basis. Thus, its hold on the public is all the more remarkable. This can only be understood when we realize just how vague and universal are the declarations it makes and notice that the average, uncritical observer [unknowingly] resorts to the most foolish rationalizations to excuse its failure to predict and to define.

"Accepting the claims of astrology is much like accepting the laws pertaining to property rights and slavery set up over three thousand years ago by the rulers of Babylon, and using their theories of medicine as well, for that is when the rules that are still used by modern astrologers today were devised....

....

"It has become almost impossible to attend a social gathering without being asked your astrological sign. I always ask the questioner to guess, and the guesses are quite funny. I'm always given two or three alternatives, then asked which is correct. If I answer, `Try -----,' it is immediately discovered that my outward character fits that sign. I counter by saying that I only suggested that my questioner try that sign, and another is chosen. And so on. Second-guessing is a popular pastime, it seems. (For some reason, I'm not very popular at these parties.)

"It is one thing to argue that astrology is not a rational belief, and another to show that it does not work. The former is fairly easy to demonstrate.

"For example, in the unlikely and long-sought event that the sun, moon and all the planets lined up in a straight line to combine their gravitational pulls, the effect on the human body would be nullified if the person merely sat down from a standing position! Lowering the body a distance of twenty-five inches would bring it closer to the gravitational center of the earth and neutralize all effects of the other heavenly bodies that we are told have such influence! [5]

"If we consider the scale of the universe, we begin to see just how ridiculous belief in astrology can be. Astronomers measure distances in their business in terms of the speed of light. The basic unit is the light-year, or the distance light travels in one year. Since light travels some 186,000 miles in a second, a light-year's equivalent in miles is rather unwieldy. To say that the star Sirius is 51,000,000,000,000 miles away is a bit awkward; its astronomical distance of 8.7 light-years is much easier.

"Similarly, light-speed units provide some idea of the distance involved within the solar system. Look up at the moon. What do you see? You see the moon as it was about 1.3 seconds ago. In other words, it is 1.3 light-seconds away; that's how long it took the moonlight you see to reach the earth. The sun is about 8.3 light-minutes away from Earth, and Pluto 5.6 light-hours. Some stars that we see in the night sky aren't really `there' at all; we see the light they emitted anywhere from a few years to several thousand years ago. Astrology would have us believe that if, at the moment of birth, the sun is aligned with a set of stars that aren't even `there' as we see them, one's future or character will be different from what it would be if the sun were aligned with another set of not-there stars. Is this not irrational?

"With some 250,000,000,000 stars in our own particular galaxy that surrounds us, and about 100,000,000,000 other galaxies available to influence us, it seems that a possible 25,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000 stars enter into our fortunes. For a bit of flavor, throw in a few hundred asteroids (minor planets) that are part of our solar system but not part of astrology. The possibilities are endless.

"Using wishful thinking and a set of invented zodiacal signs as guides, early theorists came up with astrology - or more correctly, astrologies, for the various races developed not only their own mythical figures but also their own rules. At this point, as in the case of so many other bogus theories, a bit of simple logic applies: If the basic idea is the same, yet more than one system arises, each giving different results in accordance with different, mutually incompatible rules, then either all the systems are false or only one is correct. [6] The former is more likely, since astrology simply does not work, despite the believers' constant acceptance and verification of its efficiency. Ben Franklin said it well: `Quacks are the greatest liars in the world, except their patients.'

"We are told that the most important general astrological influence is the position of the sun in the zodiac (the set of twelve constellations girdling the sky) at the moment of birth. Thus, an examination of this claim alone should teach us something about the degree of rationality and the general quality of astrological theory.

"One of the obvious questions that comes to mind concerning the influence of this `birth sign' on the character and future of each person arises when we consider those born on exactly the same day, at the same hour, and (another important consideration in astrology) in the same geographical location. Would not these persons have very similar horoscopes - indeed, identical horoscopes - and therefore the same future and personality? Not necessarily, say the astrologers. We are told that the exact time of birth (meaning within several minutes) can make a great difference, because the `ascendant sign' (the one rising on the horizon at the moment of birth), as well as the position of the moon in the zodiac band of twelve astrological signs, can be very important. But, we counter, what of twins, who are certainly born at nearly the same time and assuredly in the same location? There is a handy explanation for any discrepancy here, too. It is said that in such cases there is a shift in the heavenly bodies during the short period of time separating the two births.

"But when astrology `experts' seek to explain away any dissimilar characteristics of twins with this `change of ascendant and/or moon position' malarkey, is this not merely fitting the facts to the theory? I maintain that it is. Similarities in character and fortune are ascribed to similarities in horoscope details, and dissimilarities are attributed to even the most minor discrepancies among the charts. It is a procedure that satisfies uncritical observers but not skeptics.

"The biggest rub of all, however, occurs with the all-important and most powerful of influences, the `birth-sign' designation. There are two general classes of astrology being followed today: `Sidereal' astrology and `Tropical' astrology. The first deals with the actual constellation in which the sun is located at the moment of birth. The second handles the sector, a 30-degree-wide slice of the zodiac. This division became necessary, you see, because constellations such as Virgo, which bulges beyond the confines of that allotted 30 degrees, and Libra, which occupies only half the allotted area, create a situation in which mythical figures were hanging over everywhere, and so someone had to `draw the line.' Some constellations are barely within the traditional 16-degree-wide band of the zodiac, while the Man-Killing-a-Snake-or-Dragon (take your choice) is on the zodiac but not used. Ever hear of anyone born under the sign of Ophiuchus? Early Greek zodiacs were very awkward, with thirteen signs including the Pleiades, but the latter was dropped to make things neater.

"In spite of the clumsy solutions to these problems in dividing the not-so- cooperative heavens, a glaring defect remains which is not generally known to the public. Were you born on August 7, for example? Astrologers tell us that this is smack dab in the middle of the sign of Leo, which extends from July 23 to August 22. Thus, one born on this happy day is certainly a classic Leo, correct? Wrong. You were actually born while the sun was in Cancer. Similarly, April 7, which is said to be a strong Aries, is actually in Pisces. Is something fishy becoming evident? Besides Pisces, that is?

....

"In any case, the stars in a constellation are very unlikely to be close to one another. They are nearly always widely separated, only appearing to be close in the same way that the windshield wiper on your car might appear to be wiping the car ahead or the traffic light two blocks away.

"A book somewhat facetiously titled Astrology for Adults, and described as `a must' by the Fort Worth Press, contains numerous statements that reveal much about the tactics of those who push astrology. The following passage is typical of their Catch-22 technique.

"`Pisces is the sign of both the highest types and the dregs of humanity. Neptune, the deceptive planet...is also the planet of high ideals. Occasionally, you may find that one of your descriptions [obtained from your horoscope] does not seem to refer to you at all but may instead resemble a person or persons intimately in your life. Neptune in Gemini can give mental fantasies and confusion, or it can add the superlative qualities of genius to the mind. Pluto is the planet of crime and its opposite, that is, work for the benefit of all humanity. Saturn in Aquarius can cause accidents to the lower leg or ankles, cancer of the lymph glands or strokes...colds and dental troubles are the most common of Saturn's health defects.'

"From this and mountains of other evidence, it is apparent that, logically, astrology should not work. Couple with this the mathematical/physical fact that the gravitational influence of the physician's body as he assists childbirth has far greater effect on the baby being born than the entire gravitational field of the planet Mars, and we cannot accept astrology from a philosophical point of view either. But, as with all such notions, the most important question is: Does it work?

"Early in 1978 I had an ideal opportunity to test a pet theory of mine. The chance arose when a radio station in Winnipeg, Canada, phoned and asked me to do an interview via telephone from my home in New Jersey. I agreed, but suggested a novel approach. I instructed the host to advertise on the show that he would have an `astro-graphologist' available by phone the following week, and to tell listeners to send in samples of handwriting and their birthdates. The following week he called me while on the air and referred to three listeners he had standing by on the telephone to hear their analyses. They were asked, at the conclusion, to rate the `readings' from one to ten. My real identity was not given; I was identified by a fictitious name, sort of a nom de charlatan. I was hugely successful, getting accuracy ratings of nine, ten, and ten. This changed to straight tens when the first listener noted that I had said he `disliked hard work' when in fact, he insisted, he was a laborer and thus accustomed to hard work. `But,' I countered, `I said you disliked hard work.' `True,' he replied. `I guess you're right. I don't really like it.' and he changed my score to ten.

"The amazing thing about this episode is that I did not have the handwriting samples or the birthdates; and I read, word for word, three readings that had been given months before in Las Vegas by Sidney Omarr, one of the best-paid and most reliable astrologers in the United States, on `The Merv Griffin Show' for three members of that television program's audience. And these readings, for three other people, months and thousands of miles apart, were accepted and scored as 100 percent accurate!

....

"Many years ago, when two friends of mine in Montreal, Canada, started a newspaper called Midnight, I was asked to write an astrological column for it. Had I any notion of what that newspaper would become, I'd have run away screaming. As it was, I agreed to give it a try, seeing the chance to conduct an excellent experiment at the same time. I went out and bought an astrology magazine, clipped a few pages of daily forecasts at random, mixed them in a hat, and pasted them up in any old fashion. With the name Zo-ran [Zodiac-Randi?] at the top of the column, it went to press.

"Several weeks later I watched in dismay as two office workers at the corner soda fountain eagerly scanned my fake column for their individual prognostications. They squealed with delight on seeing their future so well laid out, and in response to my query said that Zo-ran had been `right smack on' last week. I did not identify myself as Zo-ran; I was only seventeen at the time, and not very scholarly-looking. Reaction in the mail to the column had been quite interesting, too, and sufficient for me to decide that many people will accept and rationalize almost any pronouncement made by someone they believe to be an authority with mystic powers. At that point, Zo-ran hung up his scissors, put away the paste pot, and went out of business. ....

"Even the scientific efforts that have been launched in an attempt to legitimize astrology have foundered. They are also prohibitively expensive and difficult to carry out. Recent attempts to test a `Mars Effect' have shown that the Red Planet is just that, and not a magic influence that reaches across space to influence our lives. The Mars Effect was supposed to have been confirmed during investigations of the claim that prominent athletes were more apt to be born when that planet was influencing their sign. Careful tests have failed to support any such claim, though fancy excuses have been plentiful. But more money will go into similar projects. There are plenty of sponsors of such idiocy waiting." - pp. 55-63, Flim-Flam, 1982 (Seventh printing, 1987).

Then we have the reports of a German study in 1991 and again in 1992:

"Early in 1991 the Association for Scientific Research into the Parasciences in Germany gathered 152 predictions by 27 astrologers. They then evaluated them at the year's end. Wetterauer Zeitung reported that 103 of the predictions `were completely wrong.' For instance, astrologers predicted an atomic disaster and a cure for AIDS during 1991. The 14 prognoses that came true were simply general statements. Others were too vague to be judged for accuracy, while some even contradicted one another. On the other hand, all astrologers had said nothing about several momentous events of 1991. `If just one of the astrologers had known what he was doing,' commented the manager of the association, `he would, for instance, have seen Gorbachev's resignation in advance or the decline of the Soviet Union.'" - Awake!, 8 June 1992, p. 29.

Early in 1992 the same scientific association conducted the study again, this time for 50 predictions from astrologers all over the world:

"`Whereas in 1991 vague prognoses were able to record at least partial successes,' reports the Suddeutsche Zeitung, `this time the predictions do not contain even one bulls-eye.' Predictions for 1992 included the re-election of George Bush and the destruction of the White House by fire." - Awake!, 8 July 1993.

They did not include the disastrous fire at Buckingham Palace, the much publicized break-up of royal families (Prince Charles and Diana; Prince Andrew and "Fergie"), nor any other notable event of 1992!

Again, in 1996, the German newspaper Die Zeit reported that 44 astrologers in the Netherlands recently submitted voluntarily to a test prepared by the Dutch Society of Skeptics. The astrologers were given two lists. One contained the place and date of birth of seven persons. The second provided abundant personal information about each of the seven individuals. The astrologers were asked to match each person on the first list with his respective description on the second list by using their alleged skills with astrology. The results: Half the astrologers did not even get one correct answer, and no one was able to match more than three correctly. Previous experiments had yielded similar results, but the astrologers claimed that they had been supplied with the wrong information. In this case, however, the terms of the test were set by the astrologers themselves. - see Awake! 8 May, 1996, p. 29.

So, in spite of absolute proof that astrology cannot and does not work, we find a huge number of people who continue to believe in it. In fact, sadly to say, I found that after proving to my students (by taking the astrologer-developed test described at the beginning of this paper) that astrology does not work, those who had believed in astrology before the test continued to believe. And what's worse, those who hadn't had a strong opinion before but, by the law of averages (one out of every 12), had guessed right on the test sometimes became believers in spite of the overall results.

This overpowering compulsion to look for anything that will give a reason to believe in (or continue to believe in) a "magical" system that has been conclusively proven wrong may be illustrated by 2 examples concerning events of such earth-shattering importance that all "competent" astrologers should have easily predicted (and forcefully proclaimed) them if there is even the slightest degree of astrological influence by the stars!

The first example concerns the beginning of the most destructive, tragic war to ever involve this planet—World War II.

"A group of leading English astrologers in 1939 [the very year WWII broke out in Europe] ... assured their followers that, according to astrological signs, no war was imminent."

In spite of this slight oversight (England was devastated by the worst destruction ever poured out upon her) these leading astrologers were quickly forgiven and astrology prospered more than ever in England.

The second example of people so desperately wanting to believe in this easy, magical method for decision-making that they will overlook and forgive anything was reported in the 8 August 1981 AWAKE! magazine, p. 16:

"The infatuation many have with horoscopy [astrology], as with gambling, can blind followers to its failures. In this regard, Eric Russell, in Astrology and Prediction, discusses an `appalling flood' that had been predicted by most European astrologers and contemporaries of Nostradamus. They agreed that all the planets would be in conjunction in the watery sign of Pisces - an infallible indication that the known world must be destroyed by water.... Some few fundamentalists [Christians - not astrologers] argued that this could not possibly be true for had not God set the rainbow in the sky as promise that never again would the floodgates of heaven be opened?... Ship builders made immense profits as those who could afford it chartered every available craft in the ports.' The world waited, but nothing happened.

"Russell continues: `The quicker-thinking astrologers congratulated Christianity for the strength of its prayers in turning aside the calamity while others perhaps looked for another profession. [There were simply no events that could even be `interpreted' as a `flood' overwhelming the earth in that year; so even the vaguest, most symbolism-finding of astrologists were in trouble.] But while there were a few weeks of embarrassment for the astrologers of Europe, the whole incident had been forgotten within a month or so and astrologers were again accepting invitations to cast the horoscope of this infant prince or that republic.'"

Probably nothing can reach such people who believe what they want to believe in spite of any and all actual proof to the contrary. The same, of course, applies to religious belief. You would think, if a person claims to believe strongly that the Bible is the word of God, that clearly stated principles found in the word of God would be all that is needed to change a contrary belief in his mind. But this is rarely so.

For example, astrology is clearly condemned in the Bible. But you can point out these scriptures to diehard astrology "worshippers" who also claim to believe the Bible, and they will most often ignore it or rationalize it away.

"[Astrology] is essentially the same as astromancy, divination by stars." - Universal Standard Encyclopedia, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 471.

"as·trol·o·gy .... divination that treats of the supposed influences of the stars upon human affairs and of foretelling terrestial events by their positions and aspects" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1962, Merriam-Webster.

"There shall not be found among you any one who...practices divination.... For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD [Jehovah]" - Deut. 18:10-12, RSV. Cf. Is. 47:10-13.

"Only one nation in all the ancient world stood resolutely against the ubiquitous practice of astrology --- the fiercely independent Hebrews. .... Logically, astrology and Christianity were totally irreconcilable, as are Judaism and astrology, but an accommodation of sorts was finally worked out. For a while, when astrological influence sank in Europe it thrived among the Arabs who reintroduced it after the fervor of the early Christian purists was tempered." - p. 19, Myths of the Space Age, Cohen, 1965.

And who were among these "early Christian purists" who strongly and successfully resisted astrology and other forms of divination? Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Christian Fathers of the first two centuries (at least)

"My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads to idolatry. Be neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to look at these things, for out of all these idolatry is engendered." - The Didache, Chapter 3.

Why even "Saint" Constantine in the 4th century and "Saint" Augustine in the early 5th century would not tolerate it:

"`Saint' Augustine ... rejected the `false and noxious opinions' of astrologers." - from Augustine's The City of God, Book V, Chapters 7-9, (as quoted on p. 3 in The Watchtower of 1 September, 1996).

"After the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity, he had all the astrologers in Constantinople whipped and run out of town". - p. 19, Cohen.

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

NOTES

1. The average person would obviously know that a test asking for your birth date and having you compare your personality to one of 12 others (personality descriptions which are quite familiar to astrology fans) is a test of astrology.

2. "Cusp days," the first and last day listed for each "sign," may be a day off, especially during leap years (as in 1980) or the year following a leap year

3. When I "corrected" the results of my personal testing of 337 students (above) by changing the "sign" of their birthdates (by one "sign" as modern astronomers tell us) to the one they were actually born under, the results were still those expected by the Law of Averages: only one out of 12 correct.

4. But this is exactly what the vast majority of "horoscopes" throughout the world do - especially all those found in daily newspapers. They base their descriptions and predictions on the single (and by far most powerful and important) factor of birthdate. If this cannot be relied on for a reasonably accurate description, then nothing in astrology can!

5. The slightest variations in altitude of birthplace, then, would cause a great influence on individuals by this most influential planet of all. This factor alone (if there is any real influence by heavenly bodies) should completely overshadow the infinitesimal influence of other planets and stars. And yet it is not even considered by astrologers!

6. Each one of these different systems of astrology will give very different descriptions and predictions for the very same birth moment. Since they contradict each other, only one could possibly be true (and most likely none of them). But the vast throngs who believe in each system are equally loyal to their own system. Therefore, absolute faith, loyalty, and numbers of adherents mean absolutely nothing in determining truth in the area of astrology (as in religion itself). Those who want to believe will believe in spite of any proof to the contrary - no matter how conclusive and absolute.