Evacuated

Cos. Thankyou for your reply. With respect, the statement above is complete nonsense. I can quote anything I like when I like especially as this material is public domain. I am not saying anything about Ellicott's teachings or beliefs, and neither do I appeal to him for authority regarding what I say. He used an excellent choice of words in my opinion, and that is what I acknowledge. Any ingenuous enquirer can look at the commentary to further their knowledge or interest in Ellicott, which is why the reference is included. And, if they choose, they can select or reject from it whatever they wish. I personally do not share all of Charles Ellicott's opinions, but I do acknowledge that he was both erudite and articulate in expressing them, not the least in the phrase that has captured my interest. That addresses your second question also. No need to guess on that one. However, it might save you some frustration if you concentrate on the subject matter rather than waste effort in attacking the Watchtower. You run the risk of engaging in a rather Quixotic quest. Let Gamaliel be your guide on that one.

And some I have encountered with an extraordinary college education who were equally.....unemployable!

Depends on the passage and context as to how I understand it. As you have cited Gen.1:2, I read this as God's "spirit" or "active force", depending on the translation I am looking at. NWT 2013 has both as possibilities. I can't remember when I first learned that the text literally translates as 'the wind of God', but Ellicott's Commentary speaks of it as "Divine operative energy" which I found quite appealing, and which is the most readily remembered description I have in my mind. This question I can't answer specifically. I didn't make the translation and so am not privy to the thought process. Someone may have discussed this in detail somewhere, but it is not something I have come across yet. I would think any rendering of a Bible expression is executed by a translator with a view to making the text understandable to the reader, so there will be an excercise of choice in selecting particular phrases. Your suggestion appears to be in line with that. Thanks for the translation information.

Thank you for clarifying this fact. I did not share that report. There is only the assertion it contains: "The man, who was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses," that catches my eye. I would look for some corroboration or clarity as to relevance of this statement. It seems to be as unconnected to the details of the report as the man's shoe or hat size as it stands. However, as you have stated, this is a mis-posting of material so I will leave the discussion. Treat this response as a return of courtesy.Â

Well one reason would be the scrripture at Dan. 10:20-21 (You quoted partially.) The angel speaking here mentions the princes of Persia and Greece in the same breath as Michael "your prince". (the prince mentioned at Dan. 12:1). The context itself indicates to me that these "princes" are all spirit creatures and the angel speaking these words provides an insight on what is going on "behind the scenes" as it were. Isn't that reasonable?

Ehm? How about...

No it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the report from Australia!

Long as you're happy James.

Can you provide clear evidence of this?

Quote: "The man, who was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses," Is this why you are citing this article about a depraved bully James? Why don't you apply the same level of scrutiny of detail to this report as you do to the activities of the Governing Body of the religious organisation you claim to represent? And at least give us the benefit of your formidable powers of hypocrisy and fake news detection in regard to this report? Don't disappoint me now y'hear!

"in Emmanuel name, amen" :)))))))))

Not 100% sure of what you are driving at here. But anyway, I think they are all "going south" pretty soon............. aren't they? Â Â

Cos Probably you misunderstand. Whatever you can tell me about Holy Spirit that is stated in the Bible, I can read for myself. Therefore I do not require your statement to reveal it (or mine) as it is already there, apparent for all to see. However, your assertion that the Holy Spirit is a person is not apparent to me from the Bible. I cannot read it there. I have only your statement that it is so. By this you mean the one I use most frequently I presume? I use several versions actually. But I will use the NWT 2013 for the purposes here, but I am not limited to this. The term "holy spirit" appears 93 times. The term "spirit" appears 551 times which will include those 93. So, I will partially rephrase. How many times are the terms "Holy Spirit" and "spirit" mentioned in the bible you use? Interestingly, which version do you prefer to use?

Agreed! The only thing I would add is let's CONTINUE TO love and build up each other and give Jehovah and Lord Christ Jesus Our Praise! You make it sound like we are not.....  Which I am sure you didn't mean to.......

It would seem that the only thing you can actually tell me that is not actually stated in the Bible is that is that the Holy Spirit is a person. How many times is the term "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the bible you use?

I know you have a question on this, but for some, the comparison with Ex.1:6 is quite sufficient to satisfy the possibilty of the "generation" extending to two groups. The use of the word generation there is quite applicable to all of "Israel" that spent time in Egypt while Joseph was still alive, including his father. But there are some who may restrict the generation mentioned there there to just Joseph's brothers. So, for some, the definition harmonises with Scripture, for some, it does not. This is what I said.

Just about everyone who uses this scripture probably does, and yet....they don't alll agree!

Various histories seem to indicate so. Not sure what detail there is in the WT yet but the consensus appears to be that: "Because of their intensive study of the Bible, the Russell family (Charles, Margaret, and Joseph) concluded that they had finally gained a new and clearer understanding of what a Christian is called to do in laying down their earthly life in sacrifice and service to God. All three renewed their consecration (vow of dedication) and decided to be re-baptized in 1874."

Quite true! In fact, I am sometimes reluctant to get into a car driven by the average very theocratic Pioneer. But I would look for more than an aeronautical designer to explain John 3:16 to me.

The answer to your question here is "Yes, of course they can, and they have." This is why the whole debate has been generated. So really it is quite a simple matter. It is not about understanding the concept. You have ably demonstrated that by your diagram. Others have explained clearly too in the many postings here. It is not about the fact that the term generation has a number of meanings attached. This has been demonstrated here scripturally, and any quick internet search will reveal many ways in which meaning has been attached to the word in a variety of secular contexts. So what is the problem? It is that the GB has defined the word "generation" by attaching to it a concept which I have not found elsewhere yet. The concept as I understand it is as follows: A time span is delineated by events, and, by that delineation, exceeds the life expectation of any single human alive at the time. It is then held that there are two groups of humans, one experiencing the initiating event, the other experiencing the terminating event. Further qualifiers are that: BOTH groups consist of baptised, anointed Christians. Additionally, their lives must overlap whilst in that state. Finally, they must be in that state when experiencing either of the initiating or terminating events. So. What is the crux of this matter? It is not a matter of understanding. It is quite simply that the GB's definition of the word "generation" and the concept they have attached to it is not accepted by all people. There appear to be 2 basics reasons stated here and they are and/or reasons: 1. To define the word generation in this manner is unacceptable and does not concur with any accepted definition in general usage. 2. This definition is not found in a Scriptural context, and was not what Jesus had in mind when using this term. However, it is clear that there are others to whom the definition and concept is both understandable and acceptable, and, more importantly, Scripturally harmonious. It seems that the final arbiter will be the passage of time and events as is often the case with matters of Bible prophecy.

I know brothers in the UK that were able to use air travel, even one via Concord, to conduct theocratic business in the USA. This was because they acted as couriers for a business and did not have to pay fares.

It is also good for those speaking to consider who it was that encouraged children to be a part of their audience. Jesus invited children, despite the wishes of the disciples: "People now began bringing him young children for him to touch them, but the disciples reprimanded them. At seeing this, Jesus was indignant and said to them: “Let the young children come to me; do not try to stop them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such ones". Mark 10:13-14. Then they should seek to also apply the words of Nehemiah 8:8: "And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read." . This includes children, surely?

One Day of Divine Education is Worth a Thousand Years of College. @TrueTomHarley This is the topic I think. There is no disputing this statement from a Christian perspective, simply because the result of divine education is described here: Proverbs 22:4: "The result of humility [and] the fear of Jehovah is riches and glory and life." Jesus made a choice between putting his considerable ingenuity, energy, and effort into secular (one antonym of divine) education when he answered the proposal of Satan the Devil. The exchange is recorded at Luke 4:5:9: "So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’ " Alongside the response of Jesus in citing (possibly) De. 6:13, we must also place the words of wise (at the time) king Solomon who said at Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Men have accomplished simply amazing feats in any discipline one cares to mention within the framework of a "system of things" which is ruled by Satan the Devil and is a product of his rebellion against the express sovereignty of the Creator, Jehovah God. But, regardless of the stupendous compexity of human endeavour within that framework, none of it, even at this late stage, has moved the majority of mankind under the influence of Satan, to give one iota of the credit for human achievement in discovering, harnessing, manipulating the forces of "nature", to the actual Creator of this extraordinary balance of physical, chemical, biological, (and any other "-al" you care to mention) laws within which we find ourselves. In fact, the opposite is often true, in that human arrogance in acheivement leads them to the inexcusable conclusion that there is no God. Rom 1:20. On that basis, it is true to say that "One Day of Divine Education (with the potential for evelasting life: John 17:3) is Worth a Thousand Years of College" if "in the end it leads to death."

@TrueTomHarley ??? Is this directed to you???

Must be wrong because Acts 21:11 is an exception. Well then, your Holy Spirit is not the same as my holy spirit.