Nana Fofana

Yes. But it is like most classics - very slow and cumbersome in its developing, but all the more gripping when it gets to action and emotional pull on that account. I didn't actually 'read' it. I listened to it via Books on Tape while working a hum-drum job.
An entire chapter, the 3rd I think, is dedicated to the architectural details of Paris during that time. Or maybe it is just the architectural details of that church - I forget which.

Not sure what you mean. What you showed is completely unrelated to Pleiades. Pleiades lore has never been "respectable academic anthropology."

Akin? Except that it is unlikely there is an angel Moroni. I have my doubts about the existence of the gold plates as well.
Formerly anointed ones now in heaven? No problem with that. Communications with earthly servants of Jehovah, even those with a heavenly hope? Dunno, but on balance, I think more likely than the gold plates. I'll leave someone else to determine the probability ratio.

This paragraph is obviously rubbish. We can do the apostates work for them and list every similar type of statement from past publications if we were of a mind. This comes under my category of "nonsensical gobbledygook" which may or may not be an accurate description, but works for me. However, I don't waste my time mulling over past error amongst Jehovah's Witnesses, IBSA members, or whatever designation applies. Whole websites and reams of literature are dedicated to that cause.
My position with the definition of spritism is that Jehovah has provided an adequate definition of what is encompassed in this practice in His Word.  From comparing both Deuteronomy 18:9-12, and Galatians 5:20, it is quite easy to conclude correctly that engagement in this condemned activity is on the part of the human practicer, as it is both legislated against in a law code for humans, and later described as a "work of the flesh". So it is clear spiritism is not a neutral term, and that that the practice of spiritism encompasses a definition narrower than what you seem to imply. (Forgive any misunderstanding, put it down to ambiguity in your definition).
Surely it could not be argued that Jesus was engaging in spiritism by conversing with Satan and rebutting his attempts to compromise his integrity in the wilderness. (Luke 4:1-13)? Nor on the numerous occasions when both he and disciples "communicated" with the spirit realm in order to release humans tormented by wicked spirit creatures, (comp. Matt.8:28-32)?
What we don't know about spiritism surely comes under the designation "the “deep things of Satan,” as they say" (Rev.2:34). Jehovah has determined that what we do need to know is discernible in his word which "completely" equips us. 2Tim.3:16; Eph.6:11.
Your quotation of my words omitted that I clearly pointed out that spiritism includes :
To clarify, that deception where dead people are impersonated. Communication with demons may omit that stage.
This statement is misleading and wrong. Spiritism, as referred to in Scripture, is communication in the form of a human fellowship or interchange with demonic spirits, whether one is aware of their malevolent intent or otherwise. It is a particular form of sharing at "the table of demons". 
If we see it any other light, then we would have to include all forms of communication with the spirit world, such as those described already, and then add to that list "dreams and visions" as recorded by the prophets, the delivery of angelic messages  to the likes of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mary, even the shepherds at Jesus birth. In fact, all of the inspired writings which are sourced utimately from the spirit realm, and even prayer itself which is a form of communicating with a spirit.
Now if we are going to start washing the dirty linen of past error on the part of those associated with the movement we now belong to, great care must be taken in the manner and context in which this is shared. Otherwise, there is a danger of  undermining respect for the information and counsel we now get through what amounts to being the same channel. This of course will serve the same interests of the one behind spiritism and will  prove the wisdom of Jesus' words "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." As we are aware that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that "will never be brought to ruin", (Dan.2:44 NWT1984), we do not have to use much imagination to know which kingdom, city, or house will come to desolation, not through overt spiritism, but simply through an unwise use of the tongue which could serve, ultimately, the same purpose.

Isn't what the Bible condemns as spritism the initiation of communication by humans with wicked spirits (demons) who in the main actually pretend to be the spirits of past deceased humans. And of course this includes direct communications by humans with these demons that bypasses the deception stage?
Do you really think if it were possible that any resurrected members of the 144000 were to in some way communicate information to faithful Christians on earth this would properly be classed as "spiritism"? Remembering of course that these are not dead people who are still alive as spirits. They are actually live spirit creatures who at one time were humans. They were resurrected to a new form of life after they had completely died as humans.
If this would be termed as  "spiritism", how would you categorise the communication in earlier times between angels and humans, including those occasions when Jesus communicated with sprits?
And do you think it was "spiritism" when Jesus and the disciples communicated on numerous occasions after his resurrection as a spirit creature?

Video: Dried-up Aral Sea springs back to life
 
 

Cos:
You are trying to shift the burden to me, because it is YOU that lacks reading comprehension, and do not THINK about what is actually being said
For your convenience, I quote my original post you take umbrage with ... I don't know if you even understand what a "qualifying statement" IS, now. The only alternative I see is that you have a complete lack of reading comprehension skills so I will isolate it for you, thusly ..... (ahem!) ... and highlighted in RED, from your quote of my post.
You could ask the Greek speaking village idiot, and that would have no value whatsoever.
Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that you LIED about having asked anyone at all from the Greek speaking community about this.
You avoided the actual issue.
I look forward to your complete, rational and comprehensive details of the experiment YOU ALLEGEDLY ran, if you really did .... which I currently doubt almost to the point of certainty ... and I am being generous.
 

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 
It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.
Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).
We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.
Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.
What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?
But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.
 

We can only speculate on scenarios here. What is clear however, is that Adam could have rejected Eve's wrong course and let the "Judge of all the earth" decide on the outcome. We just cannot imagine how Jehovah would have solved this problem, but we can be sure His solution would have been just as amazing and beyond human imagination as the real solution He has devised for the real situation. He even provided for the rebels and that included hope for their offspring which they could have imparted to their children. Even today, parents in dire straits may get some consolation in knowing their children will be OK.
 I have noticed today that even when people are disfellowshipped, they can still be instrumental in Jehovah's work. I personally know a few who have become witnesses with assistance from disfellowshipped ones. And that is outside the family arrangement where it is clear that disfellowshipped parents are still seen as having responsibility for their minor children's spiritual welfare. So they weren't rejected by Jehovah completely either.
Disfellowshipping is a scripturally based disciplinary arrangement. Imperfect humans get it round their neck like so many other things. Some, even though not actually experiencing the situation, act like the Sadducees (comp Matt.22:23-33) and create all manner of "what if" scenarios, "testing the limits" as it were, trying to break the fence. But breaking a fence doesn't change a boundary does it? It might show  up a weakness of course, requiring repair, so adjustments in the process of disfellowshippng can and have be made, but the bottom line of the matter is that unrepentant, serious sinners are disfellowshipped. And rightly so.
As for those who decide "I don't want to serve Jehovah on His terms. I renounce my dedication and  I don't want anyone to try and get me back". They in effect place themselves in the same yard as those disfellowshipped for unrepentance as their heart attitude is basically the same. Some may even arrogantly delude themselves into thinking they have disfellowshipped the congregation or have some how out-manoeuvred the judicial arrangements, but at the end of the day, they are all just taking the devil's carrot, "you will be like God, knowing good and bad."
All manner of tear-jerking scenarios both real and imagined are brought to the table in these kind of discussions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Jehovah's will is not always what Jehovah's people do, so as Jesus said “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come" Luke 17:1. We have to deal with them, and wait on Jehovah to correct matters, be it an actual practice, or our thinking.
Abraham said it is is "unthinkable" that Jehovah would ever act unjustly, so we just have to stick to that awareness, even as far as Job did. It is best practice to stay middle of the road even if it is narrow. Certainly "kicking against the goads" will result in damage, even if we stay on the right path.
 

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not  understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant.
I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault.
You really have lost me here I'm afraid.
Interesting.
The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II):
"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues.

or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit."
He seemed to explain it quite well there.

Hi Cos
Only 2 things in response this time. 
1.
I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it.
What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means.
And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John.
You responded by stating your opinion (in essence)  that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong.
Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion."
2. 
Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. Power is potential.  Power in action is something else, the demonstration of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

Mr Cos. I have your view on these two passages of scripture. I don't believe I have actually stated my view. So, in view of the tone of your responses, I will leave you to surmise on what that might be. There is scriptural precedence for this.
Last try on this one Mr Cos. My understanding of the WT view of Holy Spirit is summed up below:
"It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force."
 

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. 
Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case.
Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference.
This was a good one:
the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 :

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard"
This one I didn't know:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976:
"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."
And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit:
Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020:
Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.
 

The idea seems to have been around earlier than the first WT
"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ' and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such."
Quote from Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible p.54.   Robert Young - 1865
Selection of WT quotes reflecting "a god" as an appropriate rendering of John 1:1
Quote : WT Nov 15 1913:
"Accurately translated it reads, "The Logos was with the God and the Logos was a god; the same was in the beginning with the God"
Quote: WT Dec 15 1913:
"St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."
Quote: WT Jan 1 1922: 
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1., 2)"
Quote: WT Nov 15 1925:
"..it is not to be expected otherwise than that John would speak of this one who was in the beginning with God as being a god, a mighty one." 
Quote from Greber's rendering of John 1:1
 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1
Quote from The New Testament, A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts’’ Johannes Greber. 1937.
Greber (1874–1944) seems considerably behind on this matter.  His spiritistic activity appears to have begun in 1923, with his Bible Translation not started until after 1929, published in 1937. (according to Wikipedia).
Seems that the WT did use this rendering prior to Greber, and, of course, the idea preceded the WT anyway.
Was this really so obscure??

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries.
Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.
"The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. You will guard them, O Jehovah; you will protect each one of them from this generation forever." Ps 12:6-7

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.
Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.
Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 
So there is no contradiction ...sir.
However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":
"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.
Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.
The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.
Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

insignificant
ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/
adjective
1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.
"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"
synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 
2. meaningless.
"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"
The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.
By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".
In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:
(Matthew 12:24)
"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”
and dealt with them graciously:
(Matthew 12:25-28) 
"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:
There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

QUITE OFTEN .... I quote Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and other assorted monsters.
And I have not committed genocide in ..oh, say ... AT LEAST three weeks!

COS:
So..please give us some FACTS! 
The ONLY thing you have supplied is an accusation.
The statement you made MAY be true, or it may be false..or partially true, or partially false.
IT IS YOUR BURDEN to prove what you have said,  so that any reasonable person will agree that you are NOT a slander and a liar.
YOU PERSONALLY ... not just waving your hand at a second-hand referenced PDF file link, which although I only read 55 pages ... proved to be in my opinion, the rantings of a delusional madman.
Please supply enough detailed overview and references that your seemingly OUTRAGEOUS claims may be INDEPENDENTLY checked by the average, reasonable person.
Unless you do provide such proof. those same reasonable persons can dismiss you as being a fool, a slanderer, and a liar  ... because you have ZERO credibility.
Your move.

Every once in awhile ... even a blind pig finds an acorn.

In order NOT to be labeled a liar and a slanderer, Alessandro Corona ... and justifiably so ... you are going to have to PROVE EVERY ASPECT of those statements you just made. 
YOU PERSONALLY ... not just waving your hand at a PDF file link.
I assume you did not just pull them out of your imagination.
Please supply enough detailed overview and references that your seemingly OUTRAGEOUS claims may be INDEPENDENTLY checked by the average, reasonable person.
If you do not ... and it WILL take some work .... your credibility is ZERO.
...by the way, I did read about 55 pages of that PDF, and concluded that it is the rantings of a man quite mad.

The big if.......again.

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture.
Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.