Jehovah`s Witness/Eddie, You're Unbelievable


I honestly cannot believe that Eddie really wants to keep this one going, as it has made him look quite silly.  But if that's what he wants, then that's what we will do.

I mean, why deny what everybody already has known for a long time, anyway?  Its no secret that you guys write to yourselves, in an attempt to give the appearance that readers actually support you, and think you "make sense".  We all know it.  Its obvious.  

And Eddie, you slipped up and proved it to us.  I know you didn't mean to, but when you practice deceit, it always happens sooner or later.

So, when caught, what does Eddie do?  Fess up?  Nope...Lie.

He writes..."OK - Let's address this part to show the desperation of these people (Chris, Phillip and Mr. Holland). That they will believe anything they want to believe inspite of the fact that what they think they thought they saw wasn't true."

It would have been nice if you had actually give us some facts.  What we saw, was a paragraph sent to you from Phillip, which you rejected, and was subsequently sent to me the same day, unknown to you.

And then, we also saw you get a "question" with that same identical paragraph in it, which posted under your profile, right alongside with Phillip's writing to me, containing the same exact paragraph.  

And what I have seen since then, is you trying to desperately try to explain it away, blame US for what we saw YOU do, and pretend we are "imagining" things.  

Grow up, Dude...Seriously.  Your actions are NOT those of an HONEST, Christian individual, who has personal integrity and standards of honesty.  What is your purpose in being here, if you're only going to make a mockery of Jehovah God by your actions, and make excuses for your own dishonest conduct, making yourself look ridiculous in the process?

Your so-called "rebuttal", was nothing more than a ridiculous diversion, and EVERYBODY saw it.  You didn't even address the primary issue.

Interestingly, Eddie attempted to "address" this, by writing a post to himself, entitled "Gullible people will believe their own imagination" .

He began his writing, by saying he was going to address it.  And he ended the "Question" section of the writing, by again indicating that he was going to address the primary issue....How a "questioner" could have seen, and copied verbatim, what had not even posted to the forum.  

I quote....

You now are denying that you send questions to yourself, pretending to be someone else?  Well, you do. Everybody has known it for a long time, Chris's question to you pointed it out, and Phillip’s writing proved it. You never said how it was that an outside questioner could have managed to quote Phillip’s paragraph VERBATIM, as it had not yet posted to the forum. The only person who had seen what Phillip said, was you.  And it just “magically” appeared in a question from someone else, on the same day?"

What do you think? Did I send myself a question as someone else?"

Now, Eddie indicates he is going to address the question in the above quote from me, but funny, he never did.  Instead, he completely changed the focus, to the "writing style" of the questioner, and went on and on about how the "fluid" and "smooth" writing style of the questioner, was something that he could only hope to achieve one day.

If Eddie thinks that "questioner" had a good writing style, and this is his "dream", then I can only say that he certainly doesn't set his sights very high.  Because I think the "writing style", is terrible and would certainly be consistent with what we would see from Eddie.

But actually, the writing style is not the issue here.  In fact, it is irrelevant.  The issue is Eddie wanting us to believe his questioner can quote paragraphs that never even posted.

Now, before I get into this, I want to say that my problem with Eddie, is not that he doesn't speak or comprehend English very well.  He can't help having a different native language, and there are people who DO have English as their native language, who still struggle with it.  My issue with Eddie, is his dishonesty.  And also, the fact that when he does fail to grasp what is being said in English (which is very often), he can't just admit it, but rants on and on, writing numerous posts, trying to prop up his already demolished argument, which was a result of his inability to comprehend English in the first place.  That's my issue with Eddie.

Now, that being said, let's just point out the obvious here, which fact Eddie NEVER addressed....A "questioner" from the outside, CANNOT quote verbatim, a comment from someone else, that was rejected and did not post.  The ONLY reason Phillip's comment posted, was because he sent it to me, after Eddie rejected it.  Meaning, that Eddie was the only other person who knew of Phillip's comment in the first place, and somehow, mysteriously gets a "question", the SAME DAY, with the exact SAME paragraph in it.

Now, Eddie apparently expects the intelligent readers of this forum, to believe that he has a "questioner" with the supernatural ability to know what has been said in a question, that has not even posted in public.

In fact, Eddie sent Phillip a comment today, which Phillip passed on to me, as well.  And its interesting....Eddie pathetically tries to blame the "internet server", which has nothing to do with it, and then makes this incredible FALSE and DISHONEST comment....

ED TO PHILLIP:  "As for someone getting hold of your correspondence, why does this matter? If the question got posted after yours got posted, does it matter?"

This statement was, quite simply, a lie.  He creates a scenario that didn't even happen.  Eddie seems to believe that he has the ability to merely speak a statement, and alter history.  It doesn't work that way.

First off, Phillip's question did NOT post before the one from the phantom "questioner" of Eddie's.  In fact, Phillip's question was REJECTED by Eddie, and would not have posted at all, had Phillip not sent it to me that same evening after the rejection from Eddie.  

And that is where Ed made his mistake...He didn't know that Phillip had sent it to me, until it was done.  In fact, he was quite upset about Phillip sending it to me, because it made ole' Ed look quite dishonest.  He gave Phillip a bit of a raking over that one.  Something about his "antennae being up", I believe.

But Eddie was quite embarrassed, when HIS fake "question" from the person he called "Brother", and which person he "Laughed Out Loud" at for their wit, and then told how "logical" their point was, posted THE VERY SAME DAY, right there with Phillip's question to me....Containing the very same paragraph, verbatim.

So, that is why we have seen this desperate diversion from Eddie.  

At any rate, it is what it is.  Eddie was caught writing questions to himself, which everyone already knows that he and Rando do this, anyway.  Not sure why he thinks people haven't gotten it figured out.  I mean, Chris pointed it out, as have several others. Its no secret.

And its not illegal.  I mean, its childish and sort of makes you look silly to be pretending to talk to yourself, but its not a crime. So, why lie about it?

So, Eddie tries to alter the fact, by indicating that Phillip's question had already appeared, and his "questioner" was merely making reference to it.  But the FACT is, both Phillip's question (to me, after Eddie rejecting it), and Eddie's phantom "question", posted the VERY SAME DAY.  

This was already shown in my post of last week....

"Now Phillip, let's just be clear about something.  Eddie thought he was being "slick" (his nickname for me).  Actually, he was being quite stupid, for I am sure he had NO IDEA that you had sent his rejection of you yesterday, to me, last night.  I would love to have seen the look on his lying face, when he saw HIS "question" about new light with the same paragraph you typed, alongside MY reply to you, where you wrote me with the very same paragraph.  

This can easily be seen by comparing the 2 postings....

My post from Phillip, which posted today, entitled "SO MUCH FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS" ...

And Eddie's post, which also posted today, entitled "NEW LIGHT" ....

The readers will notice the SAME EXACT paragraph in both writings."

So, why does Eddie now try to pretend differently?  Just to spare himself some embarrassment, maybe?  

Now, I'm certainly not an English professor, but I do know a little bit.  And I couldn't help but laugh, when Eddie talked about how "fluid" and "smooth" his "questioner's" writing style was, and he could only "dream" of achieving it.  When in reality, the writing style was about as inaccurate and awkward as Eddie's is.  

So, let's look at it.  Eddie wants us to look at what amounts to basically 2 paragraphs, and 1 sentence at the end, as "proof" that this person's "style" is so fluid and smooth.  

Well, the first paragraph, we can remove from consideration, as it is merely a copy and paste of Phillip's comment, and was not written by the "questioner" at all.  

So, that leaves us with 1 paragraph, and 1 sentence at the end.  And what I see, are several grammatical errors, and basically, what we would expect from Eddie himself.  And again, this is only being mentioned because Eddie wants to make "writing style" the primary focus here, instead of the REAL issue....How a "questioner" could reference a paragraph that they had not even seen.

But let's examine what we have left, from this "questioner"....

"For instance if the Holy Ghost is no longer the Holy Ghost but now called Holy Spirit."

Simply put, this is terrible grammar.  The above, is not even a sentence. There should be NO "period" anywhere in this, yet there is.  Periods go at the end of a sentence.  There is no sentence in the above writing.  And in addition to that, there SHOULD be a comma placed after "instance", "Ghost" (2nd usage), and "Spirit", followed by the remainder of the sentence.  As it stands now, it is missing 3 commas, and is not even a valid sentence.

Not exactly what I would call "fluid".  That is the reason I had to laugh when Eddie told me...."If this not obvious to you, then you must be blind and too dumb to differentiate, because it's very obvious to me."

What is obvious to you regarding the English language, is irrelevant, since you yourself admit that you have trouble with it.  And I don't really think that, after calling this writing style "fluid", I would be referring to anyone else as "dumb", if I were you.  Just saying....

But let's read on....

"Which doctrine would be correct, which doctrine would be a doctrine of men?"

This too, is simply terrible grammar.  In fact, it is actually 2 sentences, combined into one.  Now, there IS a correct way to have done that, but the "questioner" didn't do it.  The way it stands now, is incorrect.

There are at least 2 ways to have done this correctly....

1.  Put a QUESTION MARK at the end of "correct", and then CAPITALIZE the word "Which" (2nd usage) to make a second sentence.


2.  Leave the comma intact after "correct", but INSERT the word "and" after the word "correct", and before the word "Which" (2nd usage).

Either of those would have been correct.  But the way it is written above, is incorrect, is not "fluid", and is certainly nothing to be "dreaming" about.

But there's still more....

"The KJV states Holy Ghost, and if the KJV is errant free and infallible wouldn't this prove that Derrick Holland doesn't believe in God's Word since he uses a new term "Holy Spirit"?

Someone with a good grasp of the English language, would not have said "errant free".  They would have said either "ERROR FREE", or "INERRANT".  Not "errant free".  

And there's that nagging issue of commas, again.  The comma after "Ghost", is correct.  However, the word that follows, should be "but", not "and".  In addition, there should be commas placed after "infallible", after "Word", and probably after "term", but I will let an English expert decide on that last one.

And finally...."Thank you and keep up the fine fight."

I hate to keep bringing up this issue of commas again, but the writer of this "question", obviously does not understand their proper usage.  There should be a comma after "you".

There is certainly nothing in this writing style, that is worth trying to imitate, or "dreaming" of one day being able to imitate.  It is sloppy, incorrect, and very typical of what I could envision Eddie writing.

And Ed, ANYBODY can alter a writing style for the purpose of being deceptive.  But WHY would an honest person, WANT to be deceptive?  Like I said, we all know you write yourself questions, so why lie about it?  

Look, I know its embarrassing.  You tried it, and it might have worked, had Phillip not sent to me, what you rejected.  You simply didn't make a very bright move, when you wrote that same paragraph to yourself, on the same day.  That was, quite simply, a dumb move.  

That's the thing about dishonesty....It always comes back to bite you, sooner or later.

Now, we have all enjoyed your silly diversionary posts, dealing with "writing style", instead of the REAL issue....How someone can write you a question, referencing and quoting a paragraph they have not even seen.

So, you can "whole-heartedly deny" it all you want to, but you got caught.  Man up, and stop playing your silly games with the readers.  Stuff like this, is the very reason people don't take you seriously, and think you're a joke, and laugh at you.  Why don't you get a clue?  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Derrick Holland


I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.


29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2017 All rights reserved.