What do you think?
Rate this book
My Beloved Religion — and the Governing Body
Con questo libro R.J Furuli manifesta il suo attaccamento alla religione che negli anni ha servito e continua a servire fedelmente. Soprattutto vuole dimostrare che prima di ogni cosa c’è l’armonia e la verità delle Sacre Scritture, a cui ogni uomo sulla terra deve il suo rispetto. L’autore mette in risalto che anche la sua amata religione e soprattutto il Corpo direttivo, che si definisce Schiavo Fedele e Saggio, deve attenersi e conformarsi alla Parola di Dio prima ancora dei propri fedeli.
ebook
Published January 1, 2020
8 people are currently reading
160 people want to read
About the author
Rolf Furuli
16 books10 followersRolf Johan Furuli was a professor emeritus in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo until his retirement in 2011.
Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984. He became a magister artium in 1995 and doctor artium in 2005. Based on his studies, Furuli has defended the religious views of Jehovah's Witnesses—of which Furuli is a member—including their view that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC rather than the broadly recognised dating of its destruction in 587 BC. In a 2004 issue of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Lester L. Grabbe, professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."
In 2005, Furuli defended his doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of verbal system of Classical Hebrew. In a review of the thesis, professor Elisabeth R. Hayes of Wolfson College, Oxford, wrote: "While not all will agree with Furuli's conclusions regarding the status of the wayyiqtol as an imperfective form, his well-argued thesis contributes towards advancing methodology in Hebrew scholarship."
He has translated a number of documents from Semitic languages and Sumerian into Norwegian.
In 2020, Furuli published a book entitled My Beloved Religion — and the Governing Body in which he maintains that the core doctrines of the denomination are correct but challenges the authority of the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership.
From Wikipedia
Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984. He became a magister artium in 1995 and doctor artium in 2005. Based on his studies, Furuli has defended the religious views of Jehovah's Witnesses—of which Furuli is a member—including their view that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC rather than the broadly recognised dating of its destruction in 587 BC. In a 2004 issue of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Lester L. Grabbe, professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."
In 2005, Furuli defended his doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of verbal system of Classical Hebrew. In a review of the thesis, professor Elisabeth R. Hayes of Wolfson College, Oxford, wrote: "While not all will agree with Furuli's conclusions regarding the status of the wayyiqtol as an imperfective form, his well-argued thesis contributes towards advancing methodology in Hebrew scholarship."
He has translated a number of documents from Semitic languages and Sumerian into Norwegian.
In 2020, Furuli published a book entitled My Beloved Religion — and the Governing Body in which he maintains that the core doctrines of the denomination are correct but challenges the authority of the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership.
From Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 9, 2020
This free book is available here online.
https://b-ok.cc/book/5537241/851582
I am a Witness, I’ve read the book. The organization is imperfect, and there is scope for improvement. I am sure with Jesus being the head, things will be addressed at his due time. Furuli identifies Jehovah's Witnesses as the only true religion, but calls for great reforms in the organizational structure.
https://b-ok.cc/book/5537241/851582
I am a Witness, I’ve read the book. The organization is imperfect, and there is scope for improvement. I am sure with Jesus being the head, things will be addressed at his due time. Furuli identifies Jehovah's Witnesses as the only true religion, but calls for great reforms in the organizational structure.
July 7, 2020
The whole book is self-contradictory and very hypocritical. He says JW's writings teach you the truth, but they aren’t written accurately. Jesus is the leader of Witnesses, but he is allowing them to be misled. It’s his beloved religion but he doesn’t agree with it and they don’t agree with him. Imagine someone saying that they love Christianity, but the apostles are wrong, and they are misleading Christianity. (Jude 8-10) Is he for the religion or is he against it? He wants his reader to believe that the GB’s have apostatized but that he has the same love for the organization. Yet for years he was a “Watchtower apologist.” Now he shows his same love by attacking the very leaders that he supported. Something has indeed changed! Furuli now doesn’t accept direction from the religion but wants the religion to accept direction from him. He says he believes what the organization taught years ago, but the information written years ago contradicts his present-day stand. Which should one believe Jekyll or Hyde?
Imagine a Christian who we will name Diotrephes who claims he loves his religion but thinks, the apostles are all too controlling and no longer go by the truths of Christ. He claims their spokesman “Peter” even tells members what to do for personal decisions. Since Diotrephes knows the apostles are wrong, he does not accept anything from them with respect. What should Diotrephes do? He should write a book to tell the world how he loves Christianity, his beloved religion, but how the apostles have ruined it, because he knows better than they do! (Compare 3 John 9,10) The member has become the spokesman and wants to tell the “apostles” how to do their job correctly according to the real rules – Furuli’s rules!
Really, this whole issue is that he has personal differences and wants Jehovah's Witnesses to change to match his personal interpretations. He has personal issues on how best to translation the Bible (only literal) but confuses translation theory with “inspiration.” He fails to fully appreciate that inspiration only directly applies to the original manuscripts and not to versions. Thus, the popular adage, “Traduttore, traditore.”
In order to justify publication of a book that goes against his religion, he came up with a reason. There is not a FDS and in the 1st century there was no GB. (Christianity would be better off without the Apostles) Great, let us appoint a new leader! Don't trust them, trust me! Yet he is the one that actively defended Witnesses including their leadership for decades and now, he is attacking the same organization. Soon his disappointments may very well turn to hatred of the religion. It is the pattern of an apostate.
Besides its inconsistency, it is full of errors. Both of a minor nature and serious nature. Common fallacies and illogical reasoning are throughout his book. Over the years, I have found that much of his scholarship is good, but this publication is sorely lacking. A Witnesses might express why they think this book is so poorly written by saying it is because “God’s spirit left him.” Or because Furuli instead of ‘functioning properly’ and ‘building up,’ the congregation, in harmony with how ‘God arranged each member as God pleased,’ appointed a new leader-himself. (1 Cor 12:18,24,28; Eph 4:16) Others have said, it’s because he is biting the hand that fed him during most his life and thus God has given him over to a disapproved state of mind with empty reasoning and a senseless heart. (Romans 1:21,28) Regardless, of the real reason the work is seriously lacking, the fact remains it is the worse book he has ever written and not worthy of serious reading! For one who doesn’t know the organization well, this book will twist reality and cause one to jump to wrong conclusions throughout it. It doesn’t deserve two stars as it is way too misleading.
Repeatedly, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief at what he wrote. Much of it is subtle which might be more of a challenge for the average reader to see where he errs. I usually read scholarly works, and this is clearly not one. This book was written to find an excuse for rebelling against the same religion he used to defend. He would have done better to settle his issues with his religion than to publicly broadcast his personal feelings of where he of course is right, and they of course are wrong at least in his world.
Minor issues: Sampling for one page alone. There are at least 5 errors on page 102 alone: par 1 quotation actually says: “men of God perfect” not “making the men perfect;” “Jehovah’s witnesses” not “Jehovah’s Witnesses”; Not “overcome and avoided” but overcome or avoided.” Should be “Isa… 55:3,4;” not “Isa…55:3,4:” etc. If this is the average minor errors per page, then the book is full of it!
More significant issues: Contra Furuli, 1944 was not the first mention of GB. The July 15, 1943 p. 216 par 24 said “the remnant of Jehovah’s “people for his name were colaboring with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as their legal governing body.”
On p. 107 mentions the GB has become more focused because the expression is used more often. Therefore, he claims they are now stronger in the minds of Witnesses. But such reasoning is faulty in many ways. It is like doing a word study but not considering synonyms or similar thoughts. For example, before 2001 the term “Society” was used all the time to mean the GB/FDS. However, in Jan 2001 the expression “the Society” stopped being used for the GB. Thus, it only makes sense that the term GB would start to be used even more. Thus, the terminology has nothing to do with elevating them but is strictly the same entity changing their clothes. When a person changes their outfit for the day, they are still the same person. This book is full of issues like this one, where good judgment is clouded with wishful thinking.
Very significant errors: Furuli wrongly claims that the organization is now hierarchical much like a pyramid with the boss on top, run like a corporation. However, it is absurd suggesting this is new. Even in the 40’s theocratic rule was described as ‘ruling from the top down.’ “The Lord Jesus puts into practice the Theocratic rule and procedure within that organization, establishing over it a unified command and ruling it from the top down and not at the dictation of personal preferences from the bottom up.” (wt7/15/43 p218) JW are not independent but have a national body (outside influence) that makes decisions for the Congregation. Religions can be roughly divided between hierarchical or independent. Witnesses are submissive to an external body outside of a local congregation. (National office often called the Watchtower Society or FDS and more recently the GB– however the role was always there whatever it was called during a given time period) In mishandling a court case, Furuli fails to appreciate that for a court of the land, an appointment for leadership in a religion is either from within the local church (independent) or from an outside source. If a national office, then the organization is hierarchical. This is the point that a Witnesses attorney was highlighting. JW teach that “Jehovah uses a channel” and that each congregation is to be submissive to that channel. (Heb 13:7,17 ft. governors of you –NWT84 where the term “GB,” comes from.) The name of the channel may change at times, but the role remains.
Also, Furuli wants you to believe he accepts what was written in the 40’s and 50’s. That the organization was great then but not now. But these very articles condemn his stance. As the quotation above in the 1943 Watchtower shows, Witnesses teach that ‘theocratic rule establishes a unified command ruling from top down not at the dictation of personal preferences from the bottom up.’ Thus, the articles Furuli uses to defend his personal interpretations are the very ones that condemn his rebellious stand. He criticizes leadership for taking on a role of interpreting but he is doing worse and taking it upon himself to interpret for his readers! However, even more hypocritical is the fact that he is criticizing others for "abusing" their authority while he as a member of the religion has clearly gone beyond his own authority. Instead of being obedient and submissive, he hypocritically tells his leadership they need to be submissive and obedient to him! So, one needs to keep in mind his gross hypocrisy as he points the finger at others for abusing authority.
Actually, an argument can be made the opposite of what Furuli claims. That in reality the GB has given up some authority. Here are but 3 examples: 1) Branch committee in the US. In the past, the GB ran the whole US “Bethel.” The GB members were the overseers of the departments in Brooklyn. Now, instead of the GB making the decisions, since 2001 they have a branch committee that now makes decisions for USA branch area. 2) Since the 90’s the GB has been using “helpers.” These ones participate on the GB committees. 3) Changes in allegorizing (typology) Scriptures. Now more authority is given toward the Bible than their interpretations. If the Bible is silent on a type then they are silent. Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “I consider [allegorizing] to be not merely dangerous and useless for teaching but even to cancel the authority of Scripture.”
Regardless of the amount of authority the GB has, for Jehovah's Witnesses this is the instrument that God uses and thus deserves obedience and submissiveness. (Heb 13:7,17) At times they draw on the example of Moses. As an imperfect leader Moses was subject to some harsh criticism. How did God respond? Numbers 12:8,9 says, ‘Jehovah’s anger burned against them asking them why they were not afraid to speak against his servant Moses.’ Keeping in mind that JW understand that their leadership is the channel God is using today, Furuli though claiming to believe like JW, goes against such Scriptural statements that Witnesses highlight. One wonders where does Furuli see himself? Like Moses? Like the critics? Maybe like God, the one who has the right to set his own standards.
On page 14 Furuli claims that the Wt of Nov 1,1946 and Feb 1, 1952 both condemn an organization like Witnesses have. However, it is wishful thinking on Furuli’s part to claim this and far from reality. His mishandling of the 1946 Watchtower, is a classic example of selective handling of information. (starting on pg 101 in his book) He ignores the purpose of the 1946 article and instead chooses to focus on something taken out of context, in order to support his argument which has no factual basis. It is mind boggling to understand how he handled issues so shoddily. He leaves out key information that would present the actual picture the writers were making and very different than Fuurli twisted it to make. On pages 103-104 Furuli tries very unsuccessful, especially to the acute reader, to contrast the view of the Witnesses in the 40’s to the present, even claiming that the difference between the 1946 view and the present view is enormous. His failure is because the contrast is only in his head. However, what is enormous is the change that he himself has made from defending the organization to attacking it.
What Furuli is doing is like the following illustration. A man gets a Bible as a gift. The man is so proud of the gift that he has his name embossed on it. With a big smile, he shows everyone he can, his Bible saying, “I love my Bible, I read my Bible every day!” However, one day a person name Furuli says, “It can’t be your Bible because the Bible is God’s Word not man’s.” He continues, “years ago you would never have said it is your Bible because I have a recording of you specifically saying the Bible is ‘God’s Word and not man’s!’ How arrogant of you to even put your name on God’s Word! This behavior cannot be tolerated, the world must know! For you to claim that this book is yours, is proof of how you have enormously changed!” Furuli writes a book to “prove” his case: He writes what the man said before: “The Bible is God’s Word not man’s” and contrast it with what the man recently claimed namely: “I love MY Bible.” Furuli’s conclusion: “This shows how arrogant the man has become and now claims the Bible is his instead of God! Years ago, the man would never had said that, but now he tells everyone that the Bible is his! The changes this man made are remarkable!”
In this illustration, Furuli fails to appreciate that both statements are not contradictory. It is similar with Witnesses. They teach that God is the only real “interpreter” and thus by relying on him and his spirit, any of the Witnesses’ interpretations they give are to their best possible endeavors, his interpretations. The astute reading will notice that there are actually two different senses in which the words are being used. In one sense, it is talking about the source of the information (God- his word and his interpretation) and in the other usage it is talking more or less about possession (Physical book and own interpretation). Jehovah being the interpreter is still taught by Witnesses and is not an all or nothing issue.
The 1946 article is not saying that Witnesses can’t interpret (possess correct understanding of Scripture), but that God is the real interpreter. The point? The Witnesses have and do still teach that God by means of his spirit helps them interpret the Scriptures. This in no way contradict the fact that Witnesses can be spoken of as giving interpretations. It is much like the man in the illustration who still believes that his own Bible with his own name on it, is really God’s Bible.
So what is the Nov 1946 Watchtower about? It is attacking the position of the RCC that claims to give “inspired” interpretations and infallible teachings. Thus, the Witnesses are saying in this article that there is not an infallible earthly authority to interpret the Bible. For Furuli to apply this strictly to “interpretations” of the Bible instead of “inspired interpretations” of the Bible is very misleading. JW’s claim that no group has authority equal to the Bible or beyond what the Bible gives them and thus the Bible is the final authority. They claim that the only authority the GB/FDS/WTS has is what has been given them in Scripture. The view of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has remained the same.
Furuli also wrongly contends that KH’s were taken away from the congregations that legally owned it. First, most KH’s are still owned by a local legal entity. The exception is when a congregation is dissolved. Next, as stated in T-36 dated 11/1995 “the titleholders …have the same relationship to the congregation as any other instrument…. All such instruments or tools are used to serve the congregation in harmony with the theocratic arrangement….They have absolutely nothing to do with the use to be made of the property.”
Shall we go on? Don’t have the time to deal with the over abundance of errors and hypocrisy.
Imagine a Christian who we will name Diotrephes who claims he loves his religion but thinks, the apostles are all too controlling and no longer go by the truths of Christ. He claims their spokesman “Peter” even tells members what to do for personal decisions. Since Diotrephes knows the apostles are wrong, he does not accept anything from them with respect. What should Diotrephes do? He should write a book to tell the world how he loves Christianity, his beloved religion, but how the apostles have ruined it, because he knows better than they do! (Compare 3 John 9,10) The member has become the spokesman and wants to tell the “apostles” how to do their job correctly according to the real rules – Furuli’s rules!
Really, this whole issue is that he has personal differences and wants Jehovah's Witnesses to change to match his personal interpretations. He has personal issues on how best to translation the Bible (only literal) but confuses translation theory with “inspiration.” He fails to fully appreciate that inspiration only directly applies to the original manuscripts and not to versions. Thus, the popular adage, “Traduttore, traditore.”
In order to justify publication of a book that goes against his religion, he came up with a reason. There is not a FDS and in the 1st century there was no GB. (Christianity would be better off without the Apostles) Great, let us appoint a new leader! Don't trust them, trust me! Yet he is the one that actively defended Witnesses including their leadership for decades and now, he is attacking the same organization. Soon his disappointments may very well turn to hatred of the religion. It is the pattern of an apostate.
Besides its inconsistency, it is full of errors. Both of a minor nature and serious nature. Common fallacies and illogical reasoning are throughout his book. Over the years, I have found that much of his scholarship is good, but this publication is sorely lacking. A Witnesses might express why they think this book is so poorly written by saying it is because “God’s spirit left him.” Or because Furuli instead of ‘functioning properly’ and ‘building up,’ the congregation, in harmony with how ‘God arranged each member as God pleased,’ appointed a new leader-himself. (1 Cor 12:18,24,28; Eph 4:16) Others have said, it’s because he is biting the hand that fed him during most his life and thus God has given him over to a disapproved state of mind with empty reasoning and a senseless heart. (Romans 1:21,28) Regardless, of the real reason the work is seriously lacking, the fact remains it is the worse book he has ever written and not worthy of serious reading! For one who doesn’t know the organization well, this book will twist reality and cause one to jump to wrong conclusions throughout it. It doesn’t deserve two stars as it is way too misleading.
Repeatedly, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief at what he wrote. Much of it is subtle which might be more of a challenge for the average reader to see where he errs. I usually read scholarly works, and this is clearly not one. This book was written to find an excuse for rebelling against the same religion he used to defend. He would have done better to settle his issues with his religion than to publicly broadcast his personal feelings of where he of course is right, and they of course are wrong at least in his world.
Minor issues: Sampling for one page alone. There are at least 5 errors on page 102 alone: par 1 quotation actually says: “men of God perfect” not “making the men perfect;” “Jehovah’s witnesses” not “Jehovah’s Witnesses”; Not “overcome and avoided” but overcome or avoided.” Should be “Isa… 55:3,4;” not “Isa…55:3,4:” etc. If this is the average minor errors per page, then the book is full of it!
More significant issues: Contra Furuli, 1944 was not the first mention of GB. The July 15, 1943 p. 216 par 24 said “the remnant of Jehovah’s “people for his name were colaboring with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as their legal governing body.”
On p. 107 mentions the GB has become more focused because the expression is used more often. Therefore, he claims they are now stronger in the minds of Witnesses. But such reasoning is faulty in many ways. It is like doing a word study but not considering synonyms or similar thoughts. For example, before 2001 the term “Society” was used all the time to mean the GB/FDS. However, in Jan 2001 the expression “the Society” stopped being used for the GB. Thus, it only makes sense that the term GB would start to be used even more. Thus, the terminology has nothing to do with elevating them but is strictly the same entity changing their clothes. When a person changes their outfit for the day, they are still the same person. This book is full of issues like this one, where good judgment is clouded with wishful thinking.
Very significant errors: Furuli wrongly claims that the organization is now hierarchical much like a pyramid with the boss on top, run like a corporation. However, it is absurd suggesting this is new. Even in the 40’s theocratic rule was described as ‘ruling from the top down.’ “The Lord Jesus puts into practice the Theocratic rule and procedure within that organization, establishing over it a unified command and ruling it from the top down and not at the dictation of personal preferences from the bottom up.” (wt7/15/43 p218) JW are not independent but have a national body (outside influence) that makes decisions for the Congregation. Religions can be roughly divided between hierarchical or independent. Witnesses are submissive to an external body outside of a local congregation. (National office often called the Watchtower Society or FDS and more recently the GB– however the role was always there whatever it was called during a given time period) In mishandling a court case, Furuli fails to appreciate that for a court of the land, an appointment for leadership in a religion is either from within the local church (independent) or from an outside source. If a national office, then the organization is hierarchical. This is the point that a Witnesses attorney was highlighting. JW teach that “Jehovah uses a channel” and that each congregation is to be submissive to that channel. (Heb 13:7,17 ft. governors of you –NWT84 where the term “GB,” comes from.) The name of the channel may change at times, but the role remains.
Also, Furuli wants you to believe he accepts what was written in the 40’s and 50’s. That the organization was great then but not now. But these very articles condemn his stance. As the quotation above in the 1943 Watchtower shows, Witnesses teach that ‘theocratic rule establishes a unified command ruling from top down not at the dictation of personal preferences from the bottom up.’ Thus, the articles Furuli uses to defend his personal interpretations are the very ones that condemn his rebellious stand. He criticizes leadership for taking on a role of interpreting but he is doing worse and taking it upon himself to interpret for his readers! However, even more hypocritical is the fact that he is criticizing others for "abusing" their authority while he as a member of the religion has clearly gone beyond his own authority. Instead of being obedient and submissive, he hypocritically tells his leadership they need to be submissive and obedient to him! So, one needs to keep in mind his gross hypocrisy as he points the finger at others for abusing authority.
Actually, an argument can be made the opposite of what Furuli claims. That in reality the GB has given up some authority. Here are but 3 examples: 1) Branch committee in the US. In the past, the GB ran the whole US “Bethel.” The GB members were the overseers of the departments in Brooklyn. Now, instead of the GB making the decisions, since 2001 they have a branch committee that now makes decisions for USA branch area. 2) Since the 90’s the GB has been using “helpers.” These ones participate on the GB committees. 3) Changes in allegorizing (typology) Scriptures. Now more authority is given toward the Bible than their interpretations. If the Bible is silent on a type then they are silent. Martin Luther is quoted as saying, “I consider [allegorizing] to be not merely dangerous and useless for teaching but even to cancel the authority of Scripture.”
Regardless of the amount of authority the GB has, for Jehovah's Witnesses this is the instrument that God uses and thus deserves obedience and submissiveness. (Heb 13:7,17) At times they draw on the example of Moses. As an imperfect leader Moses was subject to some harsh criticism. How did God respond? Numbers 12:8,9 says, ‘Jehovah’s anger burned against them asking them why they were not afraid to speak against his servant Moses.’ Keeping in mind that JW understand that their leadership is the channel God is using today, Furuli though claiming to believe like JW, goes against such Scriptural statements that Witnesses highlight. One wonders where does Furuli see himself? Like Moses? Like the critics? Maybe like God, the one who has the right to set his own standards.
On page 14 Furuli claims that the Wt of Nov 1,1946 and Feb 1, 1952 both condemn an organization like Witnesses have. However, it is wishful thinking on Furuli’s part to claim this and far from reality. His mishandling of the 1946 Watchtower, is a classic example of selective handling of information. (starting on pg 101 in his book) He ignores the purpose of the 1946 article and instead chooses to focus on something taken out of context, in order to support his argument which has no factual basis. It is mind boggling to understand how he handled issues so shoddily. He leaves out key information that would present the actual picture the writers were making and very different than Fuurli twisted it to make. On pages 103-104 Furuli tries very unsuccessful, especially to the acute reader, to contrast the view of the Witnesses in the 40’s to the present, even claiming that the difference between the 1946 view and the present view is enormous. His failure is because the contrast is only in his head. However, what is enormous is the change that he himself has made from defending the organization to attacking it.
What Furuli is doing is like the following illustration. A man gets a Bible as a gift. The man is so proud of the gift that he has his name embossed on it. With a big smile, he shows everyone he can, his Bible saying, “I love my Bible, I read my Bible every day!” However, one day a person name Furuli says, “It can’t be your Bible because the Bible is God’s Word not man’s.” He continues, “years ago you would never have said it is your Bible because I have a recording of you specifically saying the Bible is ‘God’s Word and not man’s!’ How arrogant of you to even put your name on God’s Word! This behavior cannot be tolerated, the world must know! For you to claim that this book is yours, is proof of how you have enormously changed!” Furuli writes a book to “prove” his case: He writes what the man said before: “The Bible is God’s Word not man’s” and contrast it with what the man recently claimed namely: “I love MY Bible.” Furuli’s conclusion: “This shows how arrogant the man has become and now claims the Bible is his instead of God! Years ago, the man would never had said that, but now he tells everyone that the Bible is his! The changes this man made are remarkable!”
In this illustration, Furuli fails to appreciate that both statements are not contradictory. It is similar with Witnesses. They teach that God is the only real “interpreter” and thus by relying on him and his spirit, any of the Witnesses’ interpretations they give are to their best possible endeavors, his interpretations. The astute reading will notice that there are actually two different senses in which the words are being used. In one sense, it is talking about the source of the information (God- his word and his interpretation) and in the other usage it is talking more or less about possession (Physical book and own interpretation). Jehovah being the interpreter is still taught by Witnesses and is not an all or nothing issue.
The 1946 article is not saying that Witnesses can’t interpret (possess correct understanding of Scripture), but that God is the real interpreter. The point? The Witnesses have and do still teach that God by means of his spirit helps them interpret the Scriptures. This in no way contradict the fact that Witnesses can be spoken of as giving interpretations. It is much like the man in the illustration who still believes that his own Bible with his own name on it, is really God’s Bible.
So what is the Nov 1946 Watchtower about? It is attacking the position of the RCC that claims to give “inspired” interpretations and infallible teachings. Thus, the Witnesses are saying in this article that there is not an infallible earthly authority to interpret the Bible. For Furuli to apply this strictly to “interpretations” of the Bible instead of “inspired interpretations” of the Bible is very misleading. JW’s claim that no group has authority equal to the Bible or beyond what the Bible gives them and thus the Bible is the final authority. They claim that the only authority the GB/FDS/WTS has is what has been given them in Scripture. The view of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has remained the same.
Furuli also wrongly contends that KH’s were taken away from the congregations that legally owned it. First, most KH’s are still owned by a local legal entity. The exception is when a congregation is dissolved. Next, as stated in T-36 dated 11/1995 “the titleholders …have the same relationship to the congregation as any other instrument…. All such instruments or tools are used to serve the congregation in harmony with the theocratic arrangement….They have absolutely nothing to do with the use to be made of the property.”
Shall we go on? Don’t have the time to deal with the over abundance of errors and hypocrisy.
May 6, 2025
--English--
It's hard give a comment about this book. For someone who's never get baptized on the Jehova's Witnesses, its will seem like a strange book full of contradictions. Hilarious when it's mentioned that he believes on the interpretation of the Bible regarding the future promoted by the Governing Body, but then to assert that their interpretation of other dogmas is even unbiblical. And that they are not taking into account the full context of the passage, misleading the community.
But for someone who truly believed, or continues to believe that it is the true religion, it can help them to realize the sectarian practices of this group, that are so harmful and damaging for the people.
I didn't note from his words that he would seek to lead a new religion. And unlike many other people within this group, the author had the courage to speak out despite the retaliation he knew so well. That's certainly something to recognize, similar to what happened with Raymond Franz. It's not literature, nor biography, nor journalism, nor is it an academic work. I'd say rather that it's a reflection of the desire to do the right thing and to have hope that your beliefs aren't a lie. His recent work in speaking the truth and denouncing the religious leaders who have caused so much harm to those he considers his brothers is admirable. It's not perfect; it still has plenty of contradictions, but after all, what human being doesn't have contradictions?
--Spanish--
Es difícil dar un comentario respecto a este libro. Para un persona que nunca se bautizó dentro de los Testigos de Jehová le resultará un libro extraño y lleno de contradicciones. Hilarante por mencionar que cree en la interpretación de la Biblia respecto al futuro porvenir que da a conocer el Cuerpo Gobernante paro después afirmar que su interpretación de otros dogmas llegar a ser incluso, antibiblíco. Y que no estan tomando en cuenta el contexto completo del pasaje, desinformando a la comunidad.
Pero para alguien que de verdad creyó, o sigue creyendo que es la religión correcta le puede ayudar a darse cuenta de las practicas sectarias de ese grupo tan dañiñas y perjudiciales para las personas.
No noté en base a sus palabras que buscará ponerse a la cabeza de una nueva religión. Y a diferencia de muchas otras personas dentro de este grupo, el autor tuvo el valor de alzar la voz a pesar de las represalías que conocía tan bien. Sin duda es algo de reconocerle, de forma similar a como ocurrió con Raymond Franz. No es literatura, ni biografía, ni periodismo y tampoco es un trabajo academico. Diría más bien que es el reflejo del deseo de hacer lo correcto y tener esperanza de que tus creencias no son una mentira. Su reciente trabajo por decir la verdad y denunciar a los líderes religiosos que le han causado tanto daño a quien él considera sus hermanos es admirable. No es perfecto, sigue teniendo bastantes contradicciones todavía, pero después de todo ¿qué humano no tiene contradicciones?
It's hard give a comment about this book. For someone who's never get baptized on the Jehova's Witnesses, its will seem like a strange book full of contradictions. Hilarious when it's mentioned that he believes on the interpretation of the Bible regarding the future promoted by the Governing Body, but then to assert that their interpretation of other dogmas is even unbiblical. And that they are not taking into account the full context of the passage, misleading the community.
But for someone who truly believed, or continues to believe that it is the true religion, it can help them to realize the sectarian practices of this group, that are so harmful and damaging for the people.
I didn't note from his words that he would seek to lead a new religion. And unlike many other people within this group, the author had the courage to speak out despite the retaliation he knew so well. That's certainly something to recognize, similar to what happened with Raymond Franz. It's not literature, nor biography, nor journalism, nor is it an academic work. I'd say rather that it's a reflection of the desire to do the right thing and to have hope that your beliefs aren't a lie. His recent work in speaking the truth and denouncing the religious leaders who have caused so much harm to those he considers his brothers is admirable. It's not perfect; it still has plenty of contradictions, but after all, what human being doesn't have contradictions?
--Spanish--
Es difícil dar un comentario respecto a este libro. Para un persona que nunca se bautizó dentro de los Testigos de Jehová le resultará un libro extraño y lleno de contradicciones. Hilarante por mencionar que cree en la interpretación de la Biblia respecto al futuro porvenir que da a conocer el Cuerpo Gobernante paro después afirmar que su interpretación de otros dogmas llegar a ser incluso, antibiblíco. Y que no estan tomando en cuenta el contexto completo del pasaje, desinformando a la comunidad.
Pero para alguien que de verdad creyó, o sigue creyendo que es la religión correcta le puede ayudar a darse cuenta de las practicas sectarias de ese grupo tan dañiñas y perjudiciales para las personas.
No noté en base a sus palabras que buscará ponerse a la cabeza de una nueva religión. Y a diferencia de muchas otras personas dentro de este grupo, el autor tuvo el valor de alzar la voz a pesar de las represalías que conocía tan bien. Sin duda es algo de reconocerle, de forma similar a como ocurrió con Raymond Franz. No es literatura, ni biografía, ni periodismo y tampoco es un trabajo academico. Diría más bien que es el reflejo del deseo de hacer lo correcto y tener esperanza de que tus creencias no son una mentira. Su reciente trabajo por decir la verdad y denunciar a los líderes religiosos que le han causado tanto daño a quien él considera sus hermanos es admirable. No es perfecto, sigue teniendo bastantes contradicciones todavía, pero después de todo ¿qué humano no tiene contradicciones?
September 17, 2020
Quite a strange book. The man still buys the most bizarre, wacky and indefensible jw teachings such as two classes of christians, the chronology including 607 bce and whole chronology of "the last days", blood, and the many ridiculous type-antytype bs from the old publications. At the same time he realizes that there was no 1st century Governing Body, and the entire authority the GB claims for themselves is totally fake and usurped. This almost unquestionable authority has harmed many faithful JWs, particularly thru disfellowshipment without scriptural basis.
If Furuli were part of the GB, he would be the second Fred Franz. The "oracle" and "the scholar" of the organization, the inventor of its fanciest fables. Of course Fred Franz too realized that there was no GB in the first century. Can you imagine JWs disfeloshipping Fred Franz let's say in 1970 or so? With Furuli, we have the second of the multiple universe scenarios unfolding before our eyes. In the first scenario, Fred Franz died as a honored beacon of the organization. In the second scenario, he became Rolf Furuli, turned into an apostate and got kicked out.
If Furuli were part of the GB, he would be the second Fred Franz. The "oracle" and "the scholar" of the organization, the inventor of its fanciest fables. Of course Fred Franz too realized that there was no GB in the first century. Can you imagine JWs disfeloshipping Fred Franz let's say in 1970 or so? With Furuli, we have the second of the multiple universe scenarios unfolding before our eyes. In the first scenario, Fred Franz died as a honored beacon of the organization. In the second scenario, he became Rolf Furuli, turned into an apostate and got kicked out.
November 6, 2022
I am of the same mind in regard to the governing body. Why can't he question the gb? They are infallible men. Just to question are grounds for disfellowship?! One can't disagree?
I believe, generally, that the gb have the members best interests at heart. But I do not believe they are directed by Jehovah.
Furuli still believes as a JW though - blood and even the debunked theory about 607.
I believe, generally, that the gb have the members best interests at heart. But I do not believe they are directed by Jehovah.
Furuli still believes as a JW though - blood and even the debunked theory about 607.
July 21, 2020
Rolf Furuli has courage. I don’t agree with him on some things but he definitely is right in the governing body have grabbed all the power and that is wrong. He explains things very well and I did appreciate this book. His courage is amazing!
Read
June 23, 2020This guy has just been disfellowshiped from that cult
June 29, 2020
An interesting take of the views of his faith, and shows he was a true believer.
September 20, 2020
Want courage? Look at David and how he faced Goliath. (1 Sam 17) That is real courage in action! David though when it came to authority showed respect and honor. What a contrast between the Biblical David and how he viewed the anointed of Jehovah and Furuli and how he views the anointed of Jehovah. If anyone had a reason to complain it would have been humble David! However, proud Furuli wants things his way because he knows better, why should he be like David when David need to be like him? Furuli is the model in his proud mind. This book is indeed just an excuse to rebel against leadership instead of humbly support Jehovah's way of ruling.- 1 Samuel 24:6; 26:11. It is no wonder some confuse this with courage as David's men did when they wanted him to kill Saul. However, David knew that was rebellion not courage. Too bad Furuli wasn't humble enough to see that too.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews