Evacuated

Is it possible that in raking over old "manna" we are sure to find "worms"? Exodus 16:20.

Bit archaic for today's British. More Carribean and to a lesser extent African. Something to with church influenced colonial education I expect.

Depends on your experience. When inviting comments in a meeting setting, I would say that from the plat form, second names are frequently used in the UK, usually preceded by the title Brother or Sister, but not as a constant feature. Second names may also be used particularly when the audience member and platform brother are not well-acquainted, or there is a considerable age difference. with younger brothers often referring to an older one as Brother or Sister (surname).Sometimes, it may just be a memory issue as to which end of a person's name is used. But Informally, it is a different matter. First names are frequently used when on friendly terms with each other without the preceding title. However, respect for elders, both in a spiritual and physical context, also has a bearing with the title being used as a mark of respect even when the older person insisits that their first name is used. So, using an older persons first name is by no means universally customary in the UK, even in an informal seting In fact, in cities, commonly cultural melting pots, it is not uncommon for younger ones to refer to older ones as Aunty or Uncle.

Doesn't really matter in the context you refer to. "If anyone thinks he has acquired knowledge of something, he does not yet know [it] just as he ought to know [it]. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him." 1Cor 8:2-3 also "Therefore, let those of us who are mature be of this mental attitude, and if you are mentally inclined otherwise in any respect, God will reveal the above attitude to you." Ph 3:15 So in summary, if I am sinning beyond redemption, there is no hope for me. Heb.10:26 But , from the scriptures quoted above, if I love God, He knows me, and if I have the wrong attitude, He will put me right. "Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand But don't ask me what I think of you I might not give the answer that you want me to"Â Â ? Â Â Â

This is pretty astute. Personal extrapolation is at the root of much of what is "kooky" about the notions held by some Jehovah's Witnesses. I had to persuade one recently that it is unlikely that animals will be included in the resurrection. I thought this was an unusual idea until I met an Anglican clergyman even more recently who believed the same thing, citing Romans 8:22 as scriptural basis for this. My queries about the possibility of being knee-deep in gerbils met with quizzical looks in both cases, but I felt it wasn't something we needed to fall out over. This idea of commiting the "unforgivable sin" is also subject to personal extrapolation, but with more serious implications than the possibility of a resurrection for one's favourite pet. @Jack Ryan seems to have been subjected to the idea as a kind of "bogeyman" threat. @JWInsider has provided some good references on the matter, but forgive me if I say that they still seem to rather skirt than define it. 1 John 5:16 provides food for thought here when saying "There is a sin that does incur death". Scriptural examples provide the best guide in determining what this "(unforgivable) sin" might be. We can contrast David, Mannaseh, the apostle Peter, and Saul who became Paul with Adam and Eve, the 1st century religious leaders (as a class), Judas, to discern the reasons why some were forgiven and some not. Paul gets to the heart of it in the letter to the Hebrews at Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26, 27. The key expressions here are: "For it is impossible......................... to revive them again to repentance," Heb 6:4-6 "For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left" Heb.10:26 So "willfull practice of sin" , and, particularly, "no repentance" seem to be the key qualifiers here. These descriptors refer to a state rather than a particular action, determination of which is firmly in the hands of "the Judge of all the earth" (Gen 18:25), and "a man who he has appointed" (Acts 17:31).

"God made me do it"

@Sreko Sostar. I think you are basically saying that sincerity is good, but one can be sincerely wrong and therefore at times a posssible danger to others who might be inclined to follow men. The Scriptures consistently warn us about this , but, thankfully, reassure us that Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ know their sheep, and will ensure that they are cared for, kept safe, and importantly, are forgiven for their errrors. Rom.14:4 is very good advice to keep us focussed on the "more important things", and to avoid the pitfall of looking to men for salvation.

As you point out, the 1920 WT article gives no examples of these. Copyist and translator error, tampering, falsifications, additions etc. are still a possibility. Also, Luke 4:9-11 could be cited as a bona-fide misapplication. Luke 19:16 and Acts 1:6 are examples of genuine misunderstanding. The erroneous logic process you refer to is an example in itself of how a mistake can be made, but, in the absence of a response from the writer himself, we can only assume or guess, (educated or otherwise), at what was meant by "misunderstanding or misapplication". The basic argument in the WT appears to be that mistakes in text or explanation occur in all human writings. This is extended to include the Bible. The existence of such in the so called Vol7 of Studies in the Scriptures was not felt (at the time) to constitute sufficient reason for rejecting it outright, any more than the BIble would be rejected on the same basis due to any (unidentified)"misunderstanding or misapplication" . On reflection, using the Bible as a basis for this argument without considerable clarification regarding what was meant seems risky. (I would have cited the Encyclopedia Brittannica as an example more easily identified with), but I can see that Rutherford was using a rather extreme example to support his point An affirmed acceptance of the substance of that Bible study aid was seen at the time as a necessary criteria for those serving in a representative way within the publishing organisation of Bible Students ("The Society"). I believe it was a time when loyalties were being tested, with some similarities to the events recorded at 1Ki.18:1-40. I have always liked the thought expressed at Ps 119:160 which seems to allow for the accumulation of a "patina" due to human imperfection, even in the transmission of the word of God: "The very essence ("substance" NWT 1984) of your word is truth,"

The medical illustration is a good one. Not all emergency procedures will be successfull. However, amateur interference is a sure way to reduce their effectiveness.

As everyone knows, the Bible is a collection of books and as such needs definition. We all know it has contained to a greater and lesser degree both copyists and translators errors over the years, even one or two blatant falsifications.That has not stopped it's circulation or reduced it's value even although certain texts have been for various reason in error. That is probably the spirit behind the argument that error in the text was no reason for not distributing the Society's literature.

Ask Rick

How JW Elders Remove Apostates From Conventions...  (2018) Probably got off quite lightly considering! 1975 Yearbook reports regarding on hecklers attempting to disrupt the Madison Square Garden Convention, June 23-25, 1939. "Jehovah’s servants learned that Catholic Action groups planned to prevent the public meeting on June 25. So, God’s people were ready for trouble. Blosco Muscariello tells us: “Like Nehemiah raising the wall of Jerusalem and supplying his men with both instruments to build and instruments to fight(Neh. 4:15-22), we were so armed. . . . Some of us young men received special instructions as ushers. Each was supplied with a sturdy cane to be used in the event of any interference during the main talk..... C. H. Lyon tells us: “The attendants did their work well. A couple of the more obstreperous Coughlinites were rapped on the head with a cane, and all of them were unceremoniously hurled down the ramps and out of the auditorium.One of the Coughlinites rated some publicity in a daily tabloid the next morning, as they printed a picture of him with his head wrapped, as with a turban.” Three Witness ushers were arrested and charged with “assault.” They were tried before three judges (two Roman Catholics and a Jew) of the Special Sessions Court of the City of New York on October 23 and 24, 1939. In court it was shown that the attendants had gone into the section of Madison Square Garden where the disturbance broke out in order to remove the disturbers. When the rioters attacked the ushers, they resisted and dealt firmly with some of the radical group. Witnesses for the prosecution made many contradictory statements. Not only did the court acquit the three ushers. It also found that the Witness attendants had acted within their rights."

Maybe shades of Rabsheka (2 Ki.18:27)

The last one finishes at about 5:59 of 10:56. Don't you find this?

The 3rd video appears to be only part available both here and in YouTube. Is that the way it is or is there an issue with what has been uploaded?

It is surely horses for courses? I know of pioneers who did it whilst at Uni, (the grant paid more than a part time job). JW college lecturers etc. " Avoid dogmatic viewpoints or quick decisions based on personal preferences" is the counsel..... and jealousy I would add.

Hmm.....Seems to play only 24:54 minutes of a 42:36 minute session in Parts 2-5. Better than nothing I suppose. Main messages? Set a budget Monitor expenditure against that budget Ensure you match what you want to do with what you are able to do Don't let your outgoing expenses exceed your income If it looks like you are going to spend more than you have got....Stop now!! Review efficiency, redirect human resouces, liquidate redundant assets. Reallocate realised finances..... Think we covered most of that in my business studies program introductory sessions. It's good to see the organisation getting household management on track. Amazing how far we have come without these things being as firmly in place as they could be.

And they are.

In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision. Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission. Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53–8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision. Appx. A3 2013 edition New World Translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

Yes

Seen them all. They are downloadable so can be shared appropriately. They seem to find their way on to the forum anyway.

Surely this request in Rom15:30 (by the way) is best understood in comparison with Galatians 5:22 which indicates love to be a fruitage or (result, product) of the operation of God's holy spirit? And that love would be a driving force in the response of Christians who would pray to God on Paul's behalf for the success of his ministry in behalf of Jerusalem?

I only saw Bro. Knorr on the platform, I never met him personally. His speaking style was a little dry I found, and the talks. whilst containing interesting material seemed....quite long? Anyway, he made quite an impression on Gileadites I knew (Bro Knorr said this and that). Interestingly, one thing he was reported as saying (by more than one I knew) was that the blood transfusion issue wuld be resolved before the system ends. Back then (early 70s), it was probably the most common, secular bone of contention I met in the field ministry. In fact, even in the early 80s, when my first child arrived, my wife was turned away from the maternity unit of a major hospital simply because she was one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that without repercussion or sympathy. When another child arrived in the late 90's, the same hospital was providing 5 star customer care for Jehovah's Witnesses in non-blood medical management, with even other patients requesting similar treatment for secular reasons. And as for the ministry, now the blood issue hardly gets a mention. And with the Padua conference referenced elsewhere on the forum, who knows what the future holds in this area. Do I think Bro.Knorr was serving as a Biblically styled prophet in this? Hardly! Do I think he was serving similarly in the remarks made in connection with the emergence of the United Nations? Never given it a thought, despite the rhetoric. Do I think the Bible prophecy of Revelation 17:8 applying to the re-emergence of a world club of nations from an abyss of World War 2 inactivity was fulfilled in the set up of the UN? Yes I do! Not so close a look required really. Bro.Knorr's talk on 20 Sep 1942 appears to have correctly acknowledged the non-WTBS origin of Roosevelt's coined term from the earlier 1 January 1942 Declaration of United Nations. (https://www.unmultimedia.org/searchers/yearbook/page.jsp?volume=1946-47&page=36) Bro. Knorr's talk referenced that: "One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers'." (P12 Peace - Can It Last? 1942 WTBS). What is a bit more interesting is the action awareness of the prophetic indicators of Revelation 17 drove. It is always encouraging to see how the faith of others drives action that can then be blessed by Jehovah. Hebrews chapter 11 certainly sets a strong theme in this regard. But of far more significance than "someone getting something right" is what motivates God fearing ones to act in harmony with the truths they have become aware of. And the results, which far exceed anything that could be expected through the efforts of puny, imperfect men, bring glory and praise to the one who motivates and empowers faithful ones. The modern day fulfillment of Acts 1:8 "..you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me..." is thrilling indeed for those who are a part of it and who give Jehovah and His son Jesus Christ the credit for their success. And do you know what? These demonstrations of faith, the god-glorifying results of the preaching work, and the credit for it all going to Jehovah still takes place even when "someone gets something wrong!" (PS to @JWInsider, I wrote this up before your more recent posting on the topic. Just didn't get time to post it. I hadn't refreshed the screens to see yours with some similar quotes.)

His answer to that question is simple. No one knows the day or hour, only the Father. (Matt.24:36). So no sign was given to indicate that element. All the focus must be elsewhere to understand what was said.