Evacuated

???? Persecution is a feature of the age, and is indeed a feature of man's inhumanity to man. Ecc. 4:1 "Again I turned my attention to all the acts of oppression that go on under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, and there was no one to comfort them. And their oppressors had the power, and there was no one to comfort them" Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted for carrying out the will of Jehovah, nothing else. Other groups (not just religious) are persecuted for any reason you care to mention., often simply because they are minorities. Please "engage brain before engaging keyboard". (Don't know who said that).

Oh dear.....................Let's just wait and see eh? Why don't you go to work on what this scripture means: "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" Amos 3:7

Me too! This topic could (maybe will) be discussed for pages and pages of posts. BUT some things that come to mind immediately. 1. Not all who serve Jehovah are as well appraised of aspects of this issue as some here appear to be. 2. Emergency situations preclude deliberations of a semi-philosphical nature on the rightness and wrongness of a multitude of therapies and legal issues in "non-blood" medical management. 3. The existence of "educated" brothers who can assist in the fast-tracking of decisions in this regard in the face of a medical/legal minefield is much appreciated. I don't know how well-developed this provision is on an international scale however. 4. We have had no end of reminders on the need for "go" or "grab" bags in the case of real emergencies such as hurricane, earthquake, civil disorder, and numerous other scenarios that could befall us at times. Are we as well or worse prepared (or even as unprepared) for the medical emergencies involving blood loss that could befall any one of us at any time?

Oh yes I have..... again!!

I have had the privilege of meeting a few governing body members (or ex) over the years. Bros Schroeder, Franz, Barber, Chitty, Barr I can remember. One, who gave the public talk in our Kingdom Hall when I was chairman, pulled me aside and asked "Please don't introduce me as a member of the Governiong Body will you?. Just say I am a visiting brother OK? Bro.Barr I remember particularly. When I was studying first (1972), I visited Bethel UK. He was working on one of those lead type-setting machines in the factory. He pulled me out of the group and spent about 45 minutes explaining and demonstrating the whole process to me. It was really interesting. At lunch, he introduced me to his wife Mildred. Some years later, (1980), I visited Brooklyn Bethel and attended the WT study. At the end, tap tap on my shoulder. Who was it ? Jack Barr just sitting in the row behind. "Hi" he said using my first name. " Which congregation are you in now?". And we carried on the conversation as if no years or service privilege had separated us. I found these experiences pretty meaningfiul and formative.

Aside from the slightly negative review above, Benny Golson is in the 2004 Tom Hanks movie, The Terminal. It is a heart warming story and a chance to see a real jazz legend, who is also one of our brothers. The story has a focus on getting his signature on a wonderful photo. If you haven't seen the movie yet...don't miss it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Great_Day_in_Harlem_(photograph) (L - R) Hilton Jefferson, Benny Golson*, Art Farmer, Wilbur Ware, Art Blakey, Chubby Jackson, Johnny Griffin, Dickie Wells, Buck Clayton, Taft Jordan, Zutty Singleton, Red Allen, Tyree Glenn, Miff Molo, Sonny Greer, Jay C. Higginbotham, Jimmy Jones, Charles Mingus, Jo Jones, Gene Krupa, Max Kaminsky, George Wettling, Bud Freeman, Pee Wee Russell, Ernie Wilkins, Buster Bailey, Osie Johnson, Gigi Gryce, Hank Jones, Eddie Locke, Horace Silver, Luckey Roberts, Maxine Sullivan, Jimmy Rushing, Joe Thomas, Scoville Browne, Stuff Smith, Bill Crump, Coleman Hawkins, Rudy Powell, Oscar Pettiford, Sahib Shihab, Marian McPartland, Sonny Rollins*, Lawrence Brown, Mary Lou Williams, Emmett Berry, Thelonius Monk, Vic Dickenson, Milt Hinton, Lester Young, Rex Stewart, J.C. Heard, Gerry Mulligan, Roy Eldgridge, Dizzy Gillespie and Count Basie curbside. (*still living today)

Complicated question but: v 23: Jehovah can draw near to those who draw near to him according to James 4:8. "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." No geographical location change is required for this. So in the words of Jeremiah 23:23: "Am I a God from near," I understand this in the sense of Hebrews 4:13 "And no creature is hidden in the sight of him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of him to whom we must give our account" or Act 17:27 "And indeed he is not far away from each one of us". v24: Men hide both literally and figuratively from accountability before God. Literally, as did Adam and Eve "And the man* and his wife hid themselves" (Gen 3:8) and figuratively "The wealth of the rich is ⌊his strong city⌋,* and like a wall, it is high in his imagination." (Pro.18:11). So I would say it refers to any kind of hiding on the part of those to whom these words are addressed. As regards Jehovahs geographical location in such a matter, I understand this to describe figuratively what Paul mentioned at Hebrews 4:13 above, there is no place in all of creaion that is out of Jehovah's reach. As Solomon said at 1Kings 8:43 of the prayer of a foreigner: "you shall hear in heaven, the place of your dwelling, and act according to all that the foreigner calls to you". Entirely agree. I think the problem is the rather absolute connotation you attach to these words. But my point is that whilst communicating their meaning clearly, articulate expression of opinions does not require that the hearer agrees with that meaning. He may understand completely that person's position, but not agree with their opinion, no matter how clearly expressed. We have to remember that, unlike Jehovah whose sayings are clarified "seven times", in the words of men there does not fail to be error. So as stated earlier, the absence of Mr Ellicott allows no room for discussion on his understandings, therefore no possibility of further clarifiication or adjustment to his ideas which remain, for me, expressed in an "erudite and articulate" manner, whether I agree with them or not.

Agreed. HLC can help on this. The brothers cannot make your decisions of course. It is a personal stand whatever happens. As stated earlier, printed and published material, which is the source of information for most, goes out of date. Finding a suitable practioner can also be a challenge. I always consult before acting on what I don't do every day. In this case, it's more about being informed well enough to convince others that I know what I am choosing. The action is for others more qualified and more experienced on the practical side. Medical operations are an area where DIY is usually inadvisable. I am no Evan O'Neill Kane, and despite monumental respect, would doubt my ability to match Inez Ramirez.

HLC is the place to go in advance if possible when there is an issue. It's a tough call for DIY on these matters.

Certainly. The links are included for further context. http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html https://bible.org/seriespage/1-holy-spirit-hebrew-bible-and-its-connections-new-testament I see Jeremiah's words as inspired as I do those recorded in 1Kings 8:27, and with no contradiction. Of course it is. In a metaphorical sense. Still do. Is there a language issue here? erudite: learned, scholarly, well educated, knowledgeable, well read, widely read, well versed, well informed, lettered, cultured, cultivated, civilized, intellectual. articulate: eloquent, fluent, communicative, effective, persuasive, coherent, lucid, vivid, expressive. Doesn't mean I have to agree with his opinion on everything though does it? I mean, I think you are articulate and erudite in your field and in expressing your opinons, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you say.

I love seeing these pictures of kingdom halls @Queen Esther. Please keep them coming. It makes me see how wise the current arrangement of worldwide funding is, so that brothers everywhere can meet in buildings that appropriately reflect Jehovah's name in their community. The "equalising" of resources just in that area alone is a foretaste of how all the resources of this earth will be fairly shared in Jehovah's new world. (Psalm 72:11-13) "All the kings will bow down before him, and all the nations will serve him. For he will rescue the poor who cry for help, also the lowly one and whoever has no helper. He will have pity on the lowly and the poor, And the lives of the poor he will save."

That is correct in principle, but not "in my words" literally. Cos. I am posting separately on this because I am interested in your opinion on a question if you care to answer. Jesus said: "We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews." John 4:22. Paul said: "Therefore, what is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every way. For first, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Romans 3:1-2. If this is the case, then why would one of the foremost and oldest advocates of the holy spirit being a person (the Roman Catholic Church) conclude this: “In Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person but rather as a divine power capable of transforming the human being and the world” The Commission for Interreligious Dialogue dossier on the Holy Spirit. And a more recent champion of the doctorine, Richard E. Averbeck ((B.A. Calvary Bible College, Kansas City. M.Div., Grace Theological Seminary, Ph.D. Annenberg Research Institute (formerly Dropsie College), M.A, biblical counseling from Grace Theological Seminary.) Professor of Old Testament Studies and Biblical Counseling at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1994-). He is also the Director of the Spiritual Formation Forum.) says the following: “In general, the Jewish view is that “the spirit of God referred to in the Bible alludes to His energy (Isa 40:13; Zech 4:6).” The Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and Its Connections to the New Testament.

It is now no issue. You understand my meaning, which you didn't before. Move on! Don't worry. I've forgiven you (Compare Luke 23:34). Move on! I, like you, am entitled to my opinion. The refutation is only in your opinion, to which you are also entitled. In this case I do not share your opinion of what the Scripture supports or refutes, and you do not share mine. I find the words of the Lord Jesus who said "wisdom is proved righteous by its works" (Matt. 11:19) to be a useful signpost for when opinions differ. Certainly this is exactly what happened. But surely it is clear that Satan was just "filling up" the measure of his usual pattern as exemplified with Eve: "Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at" (Gen 3:6). How did that fruit become desirable to her in that her heart was "filled" with intent, contrary to Jehovah's requirement? And then with Judas: "And after the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). Did the Devil literally get into him somehow? Or was it that in serving Satan's interest he subjected himself completely to the will of that one? Do you beleive that Satan could have a energising force by which he emboldens those who submit to his evil ends? Eph.2:2 speaks of him as "the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience". With regard to Ananias, translators other than NWT reflect an understanding as follows: GOD'S WORD® Translation "Peter asked, "Ananias, why did you let Satan fill you with the idea" Douay-Rheims Bible "But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart" Weymouth New Testament ""Ananias," said Peter, "why has Satan taken possession of your heart" Albert Barnes has a note on this verse: Filled thine heart - A man's "heart" or "mind" is "full" of a thing when he is "intent on it"; when he is strongly "impelled to it"; or when he is fully occupied with it. The expression here means that he was "strongly impelled" or "excited" by Satan to this crime. But there is no need to speculate. Peter himself explained what occurred here at Acts 5:4 "How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart?" If Peter, by divine assistance, was able to read into the heart of Ananias, why did he not reveal that Satan was literally there (if he was)? Really, in a remarkable similarity to the man Aachan, (Joshua 7:21), Ananias allowed greed to consume him, acting out the process described so well in James 1:14-15. In doing so he exhibited the traits of his "father the Devil", and showed he wanted to "do the desires" of his father, (Comp. John 8:44). He thus demonstrated that Satan had (figuratively) "filled" his heart with wrong desire, as he had done earlier (and since) with Eve, Aachan, Judas, and countless others of his "children" (1John 3:10). Because of Solomon's inspired words at 1 Kings 8:27:  "Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens could not contain you" Of course it can. But metaphorically. And as the phrase is also used of things other than persons, it of itself is no arbiter of the nature of that which is "poured out". In your opinion. To which you are entitled. But, as always in a public forum, "Sit iudex legentibus". S.D.G. Â

I agree with @Anna on this, here but slightly reworded. The Bible is indeed "clear cut" and "no progression" is needed: Psalm 12:6: "The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times." Man's understanding of the Bible, however, is not clear cut and does need progression. Men need the right attitude: Ps 25:4 "Make me know your ways, O Jehovah; teach me your paths." Men need permission: Matt 13:11 “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted." Men need God's holy spirit: John 16:13 "However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth" Men need to learn progressively: John 16:12 "“I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now." Men need help from other faithful servants: Acts 18:24-26 "A·polʹlos...was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures..... had been instructed....... was speaking and teaching accurately.... but ...Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la....explained the way of God more accurately to him." Even with this, Men still fall short: Heb. 5:11-12 "..you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God.." Men still go too far: 1Cor 4:6 "learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other." So, men need to maintain the right attitude: Heb 12:5 "“My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him"

No problem where I live

For many of us it is a fascinating area of interest. Here are some suggestions. Maybe you can think of more: Jehovah through Jesus the Head of the Congregation corrects them they get things wrong so correct them they get things wrong again so correct them again times change prophecy is fulfilled the world scene changes scientific advancements are made standards of morality deteriorate understanding improves ability to explain improves understanding of Bible languages improves evidence is unearthed etc. etc. etc. etc.

So for me no issue. It was for you, as you did not understand, but now you do. That is good. Apology accepted, but I'll let you work this one out for yourself. Just think about your reasons for making these kind of remarks. Still feel that is the case. Your quotes are puzzling? Probably you mean Eph 1:23 and 4:10? Assuming that, for me they allign with 2 Cor. 1:20 "For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are "yes"; therefore also through him is the "amen" to the glory of God through us." and eventually with 1Cor.15:28 "But whenever all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected* to the one who subjected all things to him, in order that God may be all in all." We agree on this then. But just to correct a possible misunderstanding on your part, I said that it is Jer:23:24 that is figurative, not 1Ki. 8:27. So that would render invalid your later assertion that I contradicted myself by quoting Solomon's words as a fact. This is just not reasonable in a literal sense. And as I said clearly, the term fill (and related words), of themselves, are not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not. That holds for my understanding of the operation of God's Spirit on Bezalel. The use of "pouring" as a metaphor is quite validly done in connection with both Peter and holy spirit, and , for that matter, blessings as promised at Malachi 3:10. There is some merit in this point I will agree, but only if this alone comprised the evidence. However with regard to this particular example, neither can the fact that the metaphor is validly used regarding the apostle Paul being "poured out" be used as proof for the holy spirit being a person in view of Malachi 3:10. In fact, Paul's choice of the metaphor in Ph.2:17 needs to be completed: "But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering..." and the result of this 2Cor.2:15 "But I will spend and be expended most gladly for your lives." So in Paul's case he was likening himself to the sacrificial drink offering, completely poured out or expended on the altar of Jehovah's will, and in the service of his brothers. This referred to his willingness to give completely or be poured out until exhausted. This bears no resemblance to the use of the metaphor in connection with Jehovah's holy spirit which is limitless and can never be exhausted. The fact remains that I can perfectly understand how God "pours out of his spirit" to accomplish His will by whatever means He chooses, including the empowerment of creatures to accomplish His will. Numerous quoted scriptures have established this.

Charles Ellicott was always this in his commentary. I put no limitation on this relating to the content of what he says. He was both erudite and articulate in expressing opinions I do not share as well as those I do share. Just to be crystal clear, in connection with his phrase "divine operative energy", it is his word choice I am delighted by, not his opinion. I am happy to credit his excellent vocabulary. Thank you for spending the time to consider Ex 31:5. Your remark, as quoted above, is unecessary and, quite frankly, offensive. This is the second time I have asked you to drop the Watchtower litany. However, on to the subject matter. My opinion is that one cannot be filled literally with another person. Phrases related to the word "fill" are used in scripture in a number of ways as far as I can see. Examples follow. Your example at Jer.23:24 regarding Jehovah is excellent. As this must be balanced against 1Ki.8:27 which states "Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens could not contain you", it can only be figurative. Elsewhere, the word is used in a descriptive way of qualities both good and bad, for example Ph.1:11: "having been filled with the fruit of righteousness", or Acts 13:45: "But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. When such qualities dominate a persons character, they can be said to be filled with them. It can be used literally of physical things , for example, John 12:3: "And the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment." Also Is.13:21: "their houses will be full of howling creatures", (probably owls) . But, of itself, it is not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not. If that were the case, then the fact that Bezalel was filled with wisdom, skill, knowledge, and every kind of craftmanship would make wisdom, skill, knowledge, and craftmanship, persons, would it not? It is a fact that "the heaven of the heavens cannot contain" Jehovah. It is also a fact that the holy spirit is most clearly apportioned according to need and circumstance. This is exemplified in the case of Bezalel, and again later at Pentecost 36CE, when it is stated at Acts 2:17 that the miraculous manifestations at that time were due to Jehovah having "poured out of His spirit" (KJV and others). Commentators (regardless of persuasion) have suggested that this reference means that " he [God] will bestow large measures of spiritual influences"." (Albert Barnes), "in contrast with the mere drops of all preceding time." (James-Faussett -Brown); "before the Spirit was given in lesser measures, and comparatively but by drops, here a little, and there a little; now more largely, even to overflow." (Matthew Poole). So in light of the above, my considered opinion at this point is that the holy spirit is not a literal person, but is "divine operative energy" at the behest and control of Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. Ps 104:30: "You send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground."

So (probably?) we can agree that was not what I did. What I did was express a recognition of a shared experience. And on the Y2k issue,while I do not have an understanding of all your scenarios, I can say that we had no problem with any aspect of operations at that particular time. That included all the MS products we used, along with the Unix based system for handling automated alarm calls, smoke and fire detectors, personal alarms, intercom systems, and all the relevant reporting applications. Probably the issue, if there was one, had been fixed long before we even installed the system. Oops! Just noticed @Librarian commenting! "See you in the next one.....don't be late!"

Why don't you just make it simple and say "Unforseen circumstantially....." or something?

Hi JR. I am liking @JW Insider 's anecdote re the "Millenium bug" as it relates to my own experience. I was handsomely paid to be on call for Yr 2K problems in my workplace although I had demonstrated months earlier that the relevant systems were unaffected. I provide no support whatsover to those who make false claims about the Watchtower of any year. I am quite happy to observe errors, ommissions, and anything else that the muck-rakers care to dredge up. Apart from historical interest, it provides for me evidence of the active involvement of the Head of the congregation. Oh, and while we are on false claims, neither do I claim to be a computer genius with a degree. I, (thankfully), am one of those under-educated, college dropout JWs highlighted in another thread. Funny, it made no difference to me financially on comparison with siblings and peers who availed themselves of "the king's shilling". On reflection, maybe it meant I didn't reach the top 1% income bracket.....but then, neither did they.

Hi Cos. My opinion of Ellcott, as I can can glean from those of his writings that I have looked at, is that he was both erudite and articulate. That opinion is probably held by others, but not necessarily by all. Therefore, one can not have an absolute measure of the man, particularly as he is dead, but even if he was alive, one's opinion of an individual is always subject to change because of the nature of a man.  I am sure Ellicott himself had many opinions on many matters of which I am unaware. Therefore, to conclude that my assessment of what I have read of his works cannot be valid because I have stated that his view of matters cannot be verified with absolute certainty due to his absence, is not logical. An opinion is just a judgement on a matter which may or may not have an absolute basis in fact or knowledge. I am at liberty to form many opinions on just about anything I wish. In time these opinions may be verified and retained, they may be invalidated and discarded, however, until such time as either happen to my satisfaction, they remain, quite rightly, my opinions. If it is so that my opinion of some of Ellicott's views is that he was wrong, this does not change my opinion that he at the same time is both erudite and articulate. Or that in other matters, he expressed himself in a manner I find particularly appropriate, as in the case of his applying the phrase , "Divine operative energy" to the expression "Spirit of God" in Gen.1:2.  However, I retain my opinion that it is not possible for me to verify with absolute certainty what his views were because he is not at liberty to comment on my understanding of them being, as he is, dead. I think that this discussion on Ellicott's description of God's spirit has been exhausted now Cos, so moving on: Cos. I would not even have heard that the holy spirit exists if it wasn't for the Scriptures. You do make some sweeping statements don't you? The Scriptures make it clear to me that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's operative energy. Every Scriptural reference that I have seen confirms this. My favourite reference (at the moment) is at Exodus 31:1-5: "And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,  "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur, from the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom and with skill and with knowledge and with every kind of craftsmanship, to devise designs, to work with gold and with silver and with bronze, and in stonecutting for setting and in cutting wood, for doing every kind of craftsmanship." Interestingly, a colleague of Charles Ellicott, Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, (in his joint-edited Pulpit Commentary),  refers to the holy spirit in this text and describes it thus: "The Holy Spirit is the medium of communication whereby God the Father bestows all gifts upon us". I find that quite well expressed, (in my opinion, of course). Â

????? Ah yes. Thanks for your view on what I must have done. But compare the inspired words “With human beings this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26

Some troubling aspects to this report: "Mrs Mortimer chose to ungergo surgery, but was taking aspirin at the time which thins the blood. " "It was safe to proceed providing we take all the necessary precautions." "I could not think why such a lot of bleeding would take place." "Was it the aspirin? "Mr Sharma said in "hindsight" there are things that would have been done differently but at that stage all the safety precautions had been made." "He was also challenged whether Mrs Mortimer needed to be on aspirin. The decision to take this course was made working on the basis that she had suffered a heart attack – later found to be untrue." Simple and general medical advice from, (as an example) angiologist.com, regarding blood thinners and surgery includes: "Aspirin thins the blood by affecting the platelets. Platelets are small cells that help blood to clot. The effect of aspirin on platelets can take up to a week to reverse." "Stop the blood thinners before surgery and start them after surgery has passed. This option can be used if the surgery is high risk for bleeding and the need for a blood thinner is not very strong." As the report does not deal with these issues to any satisfactory level, it's conclusion (reflected in the header) is biased and misleading. The patient declined the use of whole blood transfusion as a medical procedure before the operation was attempted, and all parties entered into the process fully cognisant of that non-negotiable factor. In accepting this, the patient was entitled to the best possible medical attention which would include an appropriate risk assessment. This statement: "in hindsight" there are things that would have been done differently", made in the coroner's court, raises questions that the article does not answer and that impact directly on the tragic outcome. Given these factors, as presented in the article, it appears that the verdict counters a principle of modern handling of such medical issues, expressly that "The paternalistic assumption that medical priorities outweigh patients' expressed wishes is no longer tenable." British Journal of Haematology.