ComfortMyPeople

The loophole is in Colossians:
(Colossians 1:13) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son. . . In earlier versions it was preferred to translate this to make it sound like something so unique and special that it didn't sound like Christ has the Messianic Kingdom yet, as in "the kingdom of the son of his love." In fact, this introduction is much like that of Revelation in proclaiming the unique position of Jesus Christ in the entire universe:
(Colossians 1:13-17) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, . . . He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. Being over all other thrones and lordships and governments and authorities, while simultaneously saying that Jesus already has a Kingdom, is pretty much the same thing as saying that Jesus is already King -- in fact, already "King of Kings."
But the loophole was found in the 10 words I skipped from verse 18, where it adds ". . . and he is the head of the body, the congregation." So all that needed to be done, was to ignore all the talk of Jesus position and authority, and focus on this idea of "and he is head of the body, the congregation." The "kingdom" is therefore not Christ's Kingdom, not the Messianic Kingdom of God through Christ, but merely Jesus headship over the congregation as a kind of "kingdom."
But this "kingdom" cannot have a capital "K" as in "Kingdom" because that would remind us of God's Kingdom through Christ. In the rest of the NWT, every mention of God's Kingdom, sons of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of heaven, the Son of man coming in his Kingdom, sitting at the right of Jesus in his Kingdom, this good news of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Son of the Most High, eat and drink at the table in my Kingdom, Jesus' Kingdom, etc., etc., are all capitalized. Although there is no Greek support to capitalize some of these and not others, the NWT chooses NOT to capitalize Colossians 1:16. It is the only exception in the Greek Scriptures when referring to God or Christ's Kingdom. (Clearly because it is one of the few references to the word that cannot be pushed to the future, but is already in the present.)

I'm not judging you, but these questions sound legitimate with an element of true concern for people.
But you still, in my opinion go overboard with expressions like "so many mistakes."  How many is "so many"? Or, for example, when you speak of them getting "it all wrong." Is it really ALL wrong? When people think in polarized terms, it's difficult to get anywhere.
I think it's easiest get this point of view if you think of what was going on in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation. We don't know what all these doctrines and sectarian views were that were being picked up in various congregations, but there were several, as we also know from the letters of John and letters to Timothy, Titus, etc. -- and this was right back there when the last of the apostles hadn't even died yet. (It's also of interest that there is no mention of a GB of any kind in Revelation, but that each of these congregations appears to be taking on their own responsibility in front of Jesus as judge.)
Some of these congregations had it right, and some wrong, and some partially wrong. I assume that they had the major things right, but it must have been easy to get several things wrong.
(1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

I would say that the GB are making mistakes. I don't know why this should be so surprising; they have admitted to dozens of mistakes over time, and some are more obvious than others.
This does not mean they are not guided by Holy Spirit. Even the apostles, who were more obviously guided by Holy Spirit made mistakes. Paul mentions some of them rather explicitly in the first two chapters of Galatians, and mentions more examples of the same types of mistakes in both First and Second Corinthians.
Being guided by Holy Spirit does not mean inspiration or perfect knowledge, but it should always move us in the right direction. Not all decisions are guided by Holy Spirit. Even if they are absolutely correct, it does not mean that Holy Spirit guided them. Some are just common sense business decisions. Some decisions accepted by the WTS have even been outsourced to worldly companies. It doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't make the decision to outsource them wrong.
Yes, for me it is wrong. For me, I disagree with the GB on a couple of such matters. Doesn't make me better or 100 percent certain that I am right and they are wrong. Personally, I just think it means that there are strongly entrenched things. I don't insist on these issues in a congregational setting because there are easy ways to find agreement and speak in agreement. I just don't THINK in agreement all the time. For example, I have no trouble teaching that we are living in the last days, because Hebrews 1:1 and the letters of John show that we are in the last days since the first century. I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus was in power as King in 1914, because I believe he was already King of Kings in the first century (because of 1 Tim 6:15, Revelation 1, etc.). The list could go on.

#4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914. The simplest Watchtower explanation of the teaching is found here:
*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.     All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This convinces us even more that soon . . . It only makes sense that this first group must have discerned the sign as it was occurring in 1914. Especially because the phrase in the Watchtower was "readily discerned." The above was from the Simplified version of the 2014 Watchtower. The version from the main Watchtower, where slightly different, is included below:
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.   . . The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. . . . This should add to our conviction that little time remains . . . The Simplified version of the Watchtower said that the first group understood that Jesus Christ began ruling as King in 1914.
The regular version of the Watchtower said that the first group discerned the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.
But that first group did not actually discern either event in 1914. In 1914 that first group of anointed still only "discerned" that Jesus had begun his reign as king in 1878. They continued to believe that Jesus had begun his presence in 1874. Nothing changed in 1914 regarding the discernment of either event.
In fact, it was until 1943 that the Watchtower continued, officially, to teach that Christ's presence had begun in 1874:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . . Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. But, the teaching about when Jesus became King is a little different. Years after 1914, the Watch Tower Society was still publishing that Jesus began his reign as King in 1878. And they continuing promoting that date in literature campaigns until 1933 or so. By 1922 there were already statements, not 100 percent explicit, but hints that the official doctrine might change, perhaps even as early as 1919. By 1925, the doctrine had officially changed that Jesus became King, not in 1878, but in 1914.
To review, today the official doctrine is as follows:
1914: Jesus' presence began 1914: Jesus' Kingdom reign began From 1879 to 1922, and 1933, and even 1943, the teachings  were:
1874: Jesus' presence began - (changed in 1943) 1878: Jesus Reign as King began - (changed between 1922 through 1933)

There are evidently FOUR basic problems in the latest explanation of the "GENERATION" teaching. Of course, this is the teaching based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 where he says that "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." The latest update to the explanation is that Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed persons: the first group who could discern the meaning of the sign they witnessed in 1914, and a second group of anointed persons, whose lives overlapped with that first group.
#1. It creates a set time limit for Armageddon to occur. #2. It is based on the idea that the date 1914 was predicted in the Bible. #3. It is based on a false definition of the word "generation." #4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914. If we're serious about:
paying constant attention to ourselves and our teaching, (1 Tim 4:16) handling the word of God aright, having nothing to be ashamed of, (2 Tim 2:15) not paying attention to false stories, (1 Tim 1:4-7) making sure of all things, (1 Thess 5:21) knowing that teachers will receive heavier judgment, etc., (James 3:1) then we would not be very good Christians if any of us taught something that we were not sure about.
On this forum, participants have already dealt extensively with #1 and #2 above, but there has not yet been a thorough discussion and focus on points #3 and #4.

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?
The recent Watchtower stated:
*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:
“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.
There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

 

Not hardly!! Did you take note at how I knocked the formidable JTR out of the ring? I’ll have you for lunch!

 
By the way, I’m reading a new author of science fiction, Darth Dethway. In a very exciting chapter, the evil alien says:
”Surrender, earthlings! You have no chance!   Zip...zero...nada!”
Do you think?

Just in case anyone is interested here are the 'closed club' rules:
This club is intended for active publishers associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses only. Anyone who does not fall into this category will be denied membership. Members should keep in mind that an opinion on something of a doctrinal nature that is not in line with current understanding does not mean that the current understanding is wrong. Therefore it’s not necessary to take offense, or start defending current understanding just for the sake of it, without actually presenting a reasonable counter argument.   Members must realize that one of the objectives of this club is that members should feel comfortable expressing their ideas and discussing things which can be viewed as controversial, as long as these do not become dogmatic and/or are aggressively promoted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it works both ways. Biblical principles to keep in mind: (2 Timothy 2:23-25) Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,  instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. (Titus 3:9, 10)  But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine. (1 John 4:1) Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Not allowed: obscene, vulgar, and/or hateful talk, racist remarks, ad hominem attacks (against anyone, which includes the GB), trolling, and links to apostate websites.

That's the same kind of mistake I was referring to above. We can't base our beliefs about the timing of Armageddon on anything we think might have to happen first here on earth. Jesus wove the first century parousia on Jerusalem right into the parousia on the entire earth using the word immediately to tie the two together.
(Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. It was in Peter that we have the explanation that "immediately" could easily be 1,000 years or more, because:
(2 Peter 3:4-9) . . .“Where is this promised presence of his? . . .  8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise. . .  

Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.
You haven't been clear about what "it" is that active JWs understand, and do not minimize or dismiss.
Perhaps there are, and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.
*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year. This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

For what it's worth, I noticed that you did bring up several other issues besides child abuse. Child sexual abuse (CSA) seemed to be the issue that remains most unresolved for you, and it spilled over into discussions of elders, GB, the congregation fear of elders, two-witness rule inconsistency, clergy privilege, etc. To be fair these other topics were often already related to the CSA issue.
Jehovah can use any of us, and any government, ruler or organization to accomplish his will. He can use our mistakes to accomplish his will, and he can use our feeble and foibled attempts to minister to him, too, of course. I think Jehovah continues to cleanse "JW Org" every time we show humility as an organization and show ourselves malleable to his will. (Like the potter's vessel illustration from @Bible Speaks you commented on.) You made a comment under that topic to the effect that Jehovah does not "mold" us to his will through congregation elders. This made no sense to me, because the utilization of congregation elders is very much a part of Jehovah's will as we can see in the Biblical direction given to congregations. Of course, if there are specific things elders do, you could address those things, but the generalization is not scriptural.
On the issue of Armageddon, there is a range of belief among Witnesses, so I assume you mean the standard idea that Jehovah destroys all the wicked, especially the wicked organizations, and only Jehovah's people survive. That range of belief might include questions about who really get counted as "wicked," who really get counted as Jehovah's people, or whether a large number of JWs actually do not survive, too. What happens with children and those who remain innocent by lack of hearing, or inability to comprehend? What happens with those who would gladly have joined us, but who were stumbled at haughty elders, or false prophecies, or issues of child abuse that seemed to them to be the fault of an organization, rather than just the perpetrators?
Also on the issue of Armageddon, you know that while it might not be dangerous to think that it might be a long way off, it is dangerous to live our lives according to the idea that it might be a long way off. The point is to keep it close in mind because it could come at any time, without further warning. We are warned that it will arrive, but we have absolutely no warning as to the times and seasons. This makes me wonder about what several members have done on this forum by speculating about what things are "obviously" going to happen in the near future that will prove this or that scripture to have been accomplished. I think this is also a mistake, because even if we think a certain action on the part of a government, a person, the UN, or anything else must happen first to fulfill some Bible prophecy before the end, then I think we have failed to understand that Armageddon can actually arrive 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight. And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914. This is just as un-Biblical and therefore un-Christian because it claims we know something about the times and seasons with respect to the time of the end.
An organization is not a person with motives you can judge. Yes, many JWs are blind to the faults of the Organization. But you should know members of the "Private" club for JWs as opposed to the "Public" club for JWs (now called "Open") is just as apt to discuss faults of the Organization as it is in the Open Club. As TTH pointed out, it has actually become easier to discuss these criticisms without people changing the subject at will, or asking people to defend their choices on some barely related topic.

I saw that you just accuse and accuse the GB and your knowledge is very little.... so I usually do not argue with people  who think they know it all and have so little knowledge.  You also seem very immature and your reasoning does not have much logic going on.....  .... well.  I think Anna has been patient with you and kind.....   I would not be so nice...   
 
What you want is a proper witch hunt of JWs to go after a person in public and persecute him.....maybe get a newspaper article?   You do not sound reasonable at all.   We do our duty in the congregation and we do it in the reporting to the police  (if there are legal laws in place).  What else do you suggest we do? I recall Anna asking you this question and you did not answer it.
If there are no legal laws for reporting  the crime in place then police are not obliged to follow it up - logic conclusion heh?   Does this compute?  Even if there are laws in place it seems the police are too busy to do anything regarding the matter these days.
The person involved must then file a civil law suit.... maybe the incentive to get a lot of money will get them to report it.... 
Mr Butler - It is easy to take the moral high ground and try to prove you are so righteous and justified to  criticize the GB and elders....... but I do not think you have any experience in running such a large organization and you cannot even imagine it.... if you could you would have shown more reasonableness.
You may find yourself one day being accused of a crime you did not commit - then you will be grateful for people showing caution to not just condemn you without proper evidence.  There is two sides to every case.

Yes - there were no proper laws to prosecute people back then.  It is the fault of congress for not having decent laws.   I was alive in the 50, 60s.   It was only in the 60s when people started to talk about sex with "flower power" and the sex revolution took place.  It took much longer for sexual abuse to be discussed in public.  Only after this laws started to appear in some first world countries but they were very weak laws to be able to get a conviction. 

I did not read the comments above.  I did my own research on the history of the laws regarding this subject a few years back.  I just get so sick of those who always want to put the Organization in the bad light - they use the available information to twist the truth to look like the organization is full of pedophiles and condoners of it.
In Australia  there were records to the effect that Jw's had about a  thousand people since 1950 - which means , in the last 70 years - these were alleged child sex abusers.  Some of these were accused but there was not sufficient proof to put them out of the congregation.  In this time there were about 40 years that there were no proper laws in place to prosecute - and later when they could there were still not child services readily available and the laws were very bad.  It did not protect the child from a victimization via the court system.
Of all the organizations interviewed (almost 2000) - our organization was the only organization (of all the churches, youth organizations, sports organizations that work with children) which kept notes on these people because there were not laws in place to prosecute.  JWs kept notes on them so they could not go to another congregation and not be informed upon.
While it is a heinous crime and bad people can slip into the organization I think people are incredibly naive if they think that this number is high.  
In 2003 a law was passed in United States which made prosecution of sex offenders easier.  Before that the child could be cross-examined in court by the defender's hostile representatives.  They allowed for taped evidence etc. 
It is easy to look back with todays laws in place and judge the past on this.   I have mentioned it before on this forum and then the very same people after a while open up the same subject again - which means that they are not prepared to be reasonable and really weigh the evidence.
The purpose of the Australian inquiry was to address the gaps in the law and they were investigating the procedures various organizations were following to  find out where the gaps were so better legislation can be put in place.

1507940147251-drlcss.mp4

It is not a problem, it is exactly how it is. The jurisdictional system in a congregation deals with sin, the Jurisdictional system of the Government deals with crime and both can be applied to the same instance at the same time. In the case of child sexual molestation, it is both, a sin and a crime. So both jurisdictional systems are needed.
It might seem like that. But if you read the context, and other scriptures which talk about this subject, then it becomes clear that for Christians, God is to be obeyed above anyone: Acts 5:29: "In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men". For example, secular law does not prohibit Adultery or fornication. However God does.
So, as you say, there are two parallel  jurisdictional systems. One is religious, based on sin (adultery and fornication are a sin), the other one is secular, based on crime (adultery and fornication are not a crime).  That is why Paul was able to say: "After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).
These would have been personal disputes between two brothers (or sisters) that did not involve a sin or a crime.  It would be better if these brothers could handle this between themselves peacefully, rather than get "worldly" courts to judge who was right and who was wrong.
Possibly. But in any case, we can be sure that ultimately God will judge everyone (Romans 14:12)
If you were an elder, what decision would you make?

Yes - the age of the creation is a different matter to the sudden appearance of all animals which are fully  formed.  It is two separate subjects.  Evolutionists usually ignore the Cambrian explosion and do not talk about it.

If you really know your chemistry and how things work you can calculate the rate of radiation buildup... especially if you know what you are looking for...   Most scientists do not believe the bible so they do not even try. 
My brother has a special talent for discovering what a new molecule looks like - hence his profession of researching new poisons (on the plants in Africa which often kill animals).  This of course sent him to jail because he refused to help the government kill dissidents by providing them with unknown/new  poisons which he isolated and described the structures of.  
I must add my brother has  no ego - he is talented but does not look for any kind of recognition at all - so he is not in search of some holy grail - he just loves knowledge  and the bible.  
I
We still have this curse on the ground and this produces weeds and unwanted elements which makes it hard to produce food.  But - weeds and overgrowth and warmth do not affect animals - only the livelihood of humans
So with a water band the animals will have been OK, big and fat and the pollution was not yet what it is today.  What is significant in all of this is that they had never seen a rainbow before - so after the flood there was definitely a difference in the composition of the atmosphere to view a rainbow for the first time. 
Also - the grapes will have produced more sugar than before the flood with the stronger,  unfiltered sun.  Hence the event that Noah may have underestimated the amount of alcohol in his wine (not the same as before). Wine people know that stronger sunlight gives more sugar in grapes .... and hence more alcohol when fermented.
So there are quite a few indications in the bible that things changed after the flood.  For me the sedimentary layers which came during the flood are full of animals that could have lived until the flood....  but for this information I guess we have to wait until after  Armageddon to find out. 

To be clearer, I should have said that the idea that the earth was a temperate, tropical climate just before the time of the Flood is also unprovable. It very well may have been temperate and tropical for many thousands of years, or even for many millions of years. However, without accepting the methods of dating the various eras and eons on earth, we can't tell if this state of climate was true in all parts of the earth at the same time. We can only theorize. And it might be a very good theory.
When Genesis describes Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden, it describes an immediate time of hardship in planting and cultivation, trying to eke out produce amidst thorns and thistles. This is not the state of affairs usually associated with a temperate and tropical climate and it was likely meant for a time more than 1500 years before the time of Noah.
(Genesis 3:17-19) 17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” It's a very common claim that has been theorized by fundamentalist authors for many years. And it might be true, but is still only a theory. I would love to be able to communicate with your brother, but no paper can "prove" anything about radiation levels before and after the Flood. Nor can anyone determine a specific reason for the sudden 90% drop in human lifespans.
That's interesting, but it's still not possible to use the word "prove" even when matching a formula to the Biblical time period.
It's a kind of holy grail for scientists. When working from one set of "true" non-quantum assumptions you can get one good answer, and when you work from a set of "true" quantum assumptions you get another good, sensible answer. The problem is that those answers are several orders of magnitude apart from each other. Other methods of mixing the math from the small scale energies of the electro-magnetic world and trying to map them to the large scale energies from the the gravitational space-time world will devolve into string theories. Not just one string theory, but several different string theories, some of which result in a "necessary" postulation of several simultaneous universes. So there really is no string theory, or at least it has gotten nowhere.
My son graduated from Harvard with a degree in theoretical physics (also music) and we have discussions about this quite often, and of course it's over my head. But he claims that many scientists have tried it, even attempting to use the ideas to "prove for God" as the source of the dynamic energies that would explain dark matter, and poorly understood energies -- even gravity itself.
You'll notice that the WTS does not teach us that this condition lasted until the Flood, implying that it is likely it was a condition limited to the context (day 3) in the creation account summary of Genesis 2.
*** it-2 p. 728 Rain ***
At an early point in the history of the preparation of the earth, “God had not made it rain upon the earth,” but “a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.” The time referred to is evidently early on the third creative “day,” before vegetation appeared I'm sure you are aware, as you have already mentioned several of these points, but for those who don't know that these same theories have been common in Christendom for many years, one need only look at various commentaries of Genesis. Here's some excerpts from one example, which will take up the rest of the post:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_685.cfm
. . .
Water Vapor Canopy
. . .
Astronomer Donald B. DeYoung lists the arguments in favor of a water vapor canopy.
. . .

To me, you do not give the impression of being careless at all. I get the impression you have not only been careful but very thorough in looking for evidence defending creation. And not just from a single source but clearly by being selective among some of the best ideas from many sources, which also means rejecting bad ideas.
I think this is great!
What I did hope to convey was the difficulty we have in simply re-interpreting every bit of existing evidence into a simple version of creation. All of us tend to do this because most of us want simple answers. A good scientist should look at ALL the evidence related to her or his branch of science and continue to readjust an overarching theory that fits every bit of it, including all the anomalies. We can't really make a good counter-claim in defense of our own position until we have done the same. As TTH above has said:
More importantly, we can't "judge" the conclusions of individual scientists, if they are based on a cache of thousands of pieces of evidence that we have not ourselves been able to explain.  As TTH aleady added:
Creationists have unprovable theories, too. We often invoke the problems of the unknown antediluvian atmosphere to counter evidence from Carbon 14 that appears to measure things fairly well back to 50,000 years. But our counter theory is not proved at all. It's just our own conjecture (actually the conjecture of previous fundamentalists). That the air pressure was different during a time of pterodactyls is also an unprovable theory. That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable.
We do have a small piece of evidence in favor of our theory in the Bible, but there are no details provided in the Bible, so some Witnesses and a lot of Fundamentalists simply impose a lot of conjecture upon the "water canopy" theory. 
In fact, the water canopy theory is very weak. From the standpoint of physics, the claims made for it are not even possible. So we are really invoking a kind of "miracle" that held a theorized "band" of water in the sky. Even the evidence from the Bible on the "water canopy" is not definitive. For one thing, you can see from the footnotes in the NWT that the word translated heavens is actually the same word for "sky." Genesis 1:1 is really saying: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth." And this word for "expanse" in Genesis 1:7 is apparently just a reference to the visible sky that holds the rain clouds above us. We can't really say for sure that this separation of the waters and the waters is any more than just the fact that Jehovah made it possible for water to be both on the surface of the earth and also high above our heads in the form of water vapor in the form of clouds. A reason for saying this is that Proverbs apparently replaces the idea of this water separation, merely with the word for "clouds" when referring to the major milestones of the earth's creation:
(Proverbs 8:28) . . .When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, And rather than support the theory that this separation of the waters disappeared at the time of the Flood, Psalms says it's still there:
(Psalm 148:3-7) . . .Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.  7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, You great sea creatures and all deep waters, In fact, just like Proverbs referring to these waters as clouds, Psalms (see also Job) also credits these waters from above as the "rain" that continued to make things grow during the days of the Psalmist:
(Psalm 104:12-14) . . .Above them roost the birds of the sky [heaven]; They sing among the thick foliage. 13 He is watering the mountains from his upper rooms. With the fruitage of your works the earth is satisfied. 14 He is making grass grow for the cattle And vegetation for mankind’s use, To grow food from the land. (Job 38:36, 37) 36 Who put wisdom within the clouds Or gave understanding to the sky [heaven] phenomenon? 37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds, Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven? (Psalm 147:8) . . .The One who covers the heavens with clouds, The One providing rain for the earth, The One making grass sprout on the mountains. In fact, based on similar texts and language used in other near eastern ancient documents the idea of this sky/expanse was the vault or dome that held the clouds above, and allowed the stars to shine through at night. Amos, too, shows it had not disappeared, and that it included the process by which sea water was turned into rain water.
(Amos 9:6) . . .‘The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his [dome, vault] over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth —Jehovah is his name.’

There are no life forms in the evolutionary record which proves step by step development of feathers or flight etc. Cambrian explosion proves that. 
Fortunately nano-biotechnology has also proved the evolutionary theory to be a simplistic view of all life.  Life is irreducibly complex and "connected"  .  With the word "connected" I  mean this: the eye cannot see without the brain to interpret and why would that part of the brain to interpret develop if there were no eye.  There is "foresight" in the development of both organs at the same time ....  This proves design and intelligence.  So everything is connected in the body. One does not need a biology degree to understand this.
The evolutionists were winning the propaganda war  a few years back - in schools and everywhere.  It is pushed by the UN too - the 2030 agenda wants all children to accept the new morality and reject religion (Christianity).  This is why we find pictures of "proven evolutionary frauds" still presented in school books as fact - current text books.  
Fortunately there is much more evidence available now to disprove the horrible book of Dawkins and other high priests of evolution. Dawkins turned so many people away from the bible....  but I am sad to say he no longer debates any Christians.  He just goes on university forums where he an fellow evolutionists discuss the "plausible" side of evolution to his eager fans.  I have seen a few debates where he bit the dust against people who are not even biologists.  These philosophers managed to show him the logic and interconnectedness or morality with the god of the bible. 
Thanks for your input.  I hope I did not create a "careless" impression by my choice of words.  I am never surprised at the wonderful diversity and abundance Jehovah has created.  Some dinosaurs could have been ground browsers like chickens, and others could have been water birds.  Some could have been carrion eaters etc.
I think - personal opinion - when one is right in the center of the group which needs to research and write about these things it can get a little distorted and panicky.  
I am not surprised - when the above "evidence" of bird evolution was presented without knowing it was a fraud..... they must have been consternated, flabbergasted  and concerned - no matter how strong the faith....to present their readers with a logic answer.  How do you counteract this kind of evidence?  There is no logic to counteract it.  One has to wait until the truth about this "evidence" comes out.  It is always easier with hindsight to realize one should have waited  - not when you are in a difficult situation.   Trust in Jehovah is important and even anointed people can lack this at times.  They are after all only people....prone to panic and prone to feel the heavy responsibility put on them.   The older you are the more difficult too!
 To give guidance to many people is a large responsibility and when one is confronted with lies - not knowing it is a lie - can be difficult.  This is why Jehovah says we must grow to maturity and in devotion but this only grows with experience ..... and time.  Jehovah knows we are dust.... 
 

I agree that it should not bother us that dinosaurs may have had hollow bones like birds and may have had feathers, and may have even been beautifully colorful.
But it can be misleading to claim that the bone structure of dinosaurs falls into two categories: birds and reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves are categorized into "bird" and "non-bird" dinosaurs, but not their bone structures. In fact, the bone structures of the most reptilian theropods have three birdlike toes/claws and hollow bones, and many of them show evidence of feathers, even though they did not fly. The Tyrannasaurus Rex was a theropod.
Wikipedia shows the following theropod, stating that it has three toes and hollow bones:

And here is the Anchiornis, also a theropod, with the skeletal structure of other theropods, but with feathers:

Here is the approximate bone structure of the Anchiornis. It could not fly, just as many species of birds cannot fly.

Of course, even if this idea of feathers on dinosaurs doesn't bother us, it sure bothered researchers at Bethel. This is because claims were made that created a kind of logic trap. If you look up feathers and dinosaurs in the Watchtower Library you will find this one reference:
*** g 7/07 p. 24 Feathers—A Marvel of Design ***
FORGED “EVIDENCE”  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found. Clearly, the Awake! wasn't ready for a feathered dinosaur. (The forgery was created in China, where true feathered dinosaur fossils would soon be discovered and studied. It was unveiled by National Geographic in October/November 1999, and NG announced the investigation into the probability that it was a forgery about 4 months later, and took until October 2000, a year later, to publish the results of the investigation, with an apology.)
The same article also said:
Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual. Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.
The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones . . .
The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.
Of course, contrary to the above claim, most paleontologists do consider the "bird-dinosaurs" to be an ancestor of modern birds. Those necessarily lighter, hollow bones have also been verified throughout many dinosaur species, and now even the evidence of only partially formed feathers has been seen, which the Awake! magazine had called "intermediate forms" and suggested that such a find, if it ever happened, would indicate evidence of evolutionary theory.
It would have been better to just accept that there might be hundreds of new discoveries indicating a variety of life created for purposes we cannot yet understand.

Can you explain how a mortal soul can accomplish this? Perfection means a sinless state just as was Christ. Adam and Eve lost that sinless state. How can an imperfect person be perfect?

This is how the GB explain themselves when stating they are not infallible.

It seems witness keeps misunderstanding the ramification. I guess he believes the Catholic POPE when they state they are infallible.

That’s one good point to trust in God’s spirit direction instead of trusting on your own.

Personally, I wouldn’t trust someone that doesn’t understand scripture and they think they are perfect. This becomes a problem when one shares falsehoods to appease themselves rather than serve Jah.



So, how would that differ from the criticism given toward the JWorg when people believe the Org spread falsehoods?

Was the Catholic Church wrong when it stopped using soldiers like the crusaders to win a holy war? Does this not mean changes were made? Which church can be side not to change their understanding when a new discovery makes it necessary to adjust previous understanding, such as in language or time?

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.