Evacuated

No not at all. Context is everything.

Perhaps he meant; " unless I see the nail marks in his hands * (one nail would put marks in both) and put my finger where the nails have been in his hands and feet and put my hand into his side"...?
*apparently the Greek word for hand also includes the wrist.
 

It's a bit of a byproduct of research assignments, but mostly from working with other people who had already found such things. I got to work with some of the proofreaders for a few of the Society's books/bibles including that short-lived 1981 version, and selecting appropriate cross-refs. Also proofreaders sometimes became a part of the process for the Art Department where I worked.

According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. 
Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency:
(Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT) Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984) Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984) Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. 
As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony:
(Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953) (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953) (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953) Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.)
(Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984)
In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below:
 
 

 
 

The sooner, the better!

I am answering this out of courtesy, as the point has been raised here, also,  the topic can soon be lost in the proliferation of posting. Also I note you have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere, so I will limit my responses in future to that thread to avoid disorder.
With respect, I have made my own decision on how to apply the words of Acts 15:20; 29, considering the context within which this instruction was given.
You are at liberty to make your decision on whatever basis you choose. I have no objection to sharing the contextual setting which provides the basis for my decision, and I consider with interest the basis that others choose, should they choose to share it. But I do not seek to impose my will on others, and neither do I tolerate any attempt by others to impose their will on mine. 
In answer to your (and the "us" you refer to) question, the immediate context for the Christian prohibition on the misuse of blood is Acts Chapter 15.  Make of it what you will. I have.  ?

Good example of how NWT 2013 is a reading Bible and  NWT 1984 is a study Bible.The cross reference in both editions to Luke 4:16 indicates that the (literal) literacy of Jesus was not the question here.
Marcus Dods (The Expositors Greek Testament p 763) has a relevant comment on this: "His teaching astonished the Jews, and they asked [the question cited] It is not His wisdom that astonishes them, for even uneducated men are often wise ; but His learning or knowledge, (Comp.Acts 26:24 where the Greek word, grammata, rendered as "knowledge of letters" at Jn.7:15, is "learning" at Acts 26:24) included the whole circle of rabbinical training, the sacred Scriptures, and the comments and traditions which were afterwards elaborated into the Mishna and Gemara " (Plumptre, Christ and Christendom). But it cannot be supposed that Jesus made Himself acquainted with these comments. His skill in interpreting Scripture and His knowledge of it is what is referred to. What the scribes considered their prerogative, He, without their teaching, excelled them in.—Ver. 16. But though not received from them, it was a derived teaching. He is not self-taught. "The teaching which I give has not its source in my knowledge but in Him that sent me." (John 7:16).
Thanks for referring back to that point.  ?

Nor does Jehovah it would seem.

That would put most clergy, including ours, completely out of business.

This is one topic that I would not be dogmatic about when @JOHN BUTLER asked about "when I go into the ministry do I tell people that I might have the truth but I might not"  because as @Outta Here rightly remarked, we cannot know it's shape with absolute certainty. So when covering the cross/stake issue in the Bible teach book with a student, I just simply say that we cannot know what it was 100% either way.
My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross, since this is what the Romans traditionally used, but they may not have used it every time, so it easily could have been a stake as well. The early Bible students used the crown and cross emblem, until they decided the cross was not a suitable symbol. One reason why I think that was because as time went on they realized that they must distance themselves from counterfeit Christianity, and since Christendom used the cross and they did not want to be identified with anything that Christendom used,  they dug deeper and discovered its pagan origins etc. But just because it was pagan didn't mean it couldn't have been used in Jesus' execution, after all the Romans WERE pagan! In my opinion the  whole bad thing about the cross is that not only is it pagan and used by supposed Christians as a symbol of Christianity (!) but that it is used in a way which God clearly condemns. If it was a stake (or anything else for that matter) and used in the same way as a cross, it would be the same thing.
To be truthful, personally I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting. 
I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make them think. 
You can ask me to look for the truth, but you cannot ask me to find it. 

I think this point showed excellent insight. I wondered if this is what you meant from the start. The very context shows that the type of leadership in this case is more like the local elders rather than the far-away GB:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. However, I wouldn't get too hung up on variations in translations, or changes from one NWT to a newer version. As JWs, we are always happy to quote other translations that support our view of Scriptures. There are always several different ways to translate something and it doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. They could both be right. Often there are two ways to say the exact same thing. Often there are slight differences, and sometimes larger differences in meaning, and a translator is obligated to take an educated guess.
The "nakedness" vs "lacking clothing" discussion is an example of that. The word for nakedness in the original Greek is "gymnos." (Strong's Greek #1131)  It's the same word from which we get "gymnasium" because sports in the Greek/Roman world were often performed naked (and sometimes nearly so). This reminds me that I gave a funeral talk in Manhattan in 2013 on the day of the Annual Meeting, and the elder from Bethel (Patterson) who was supposed to give the talk had to leave early for his seat in Jersey City. I already had a copy of the NWT 2013 Revised on PDF, and was under strict orders not to share this fact with anyone, not even my wife. But I cheated a bit. The funeral was attended by a lot of her "worldly" neighbors in addition to brothers and sisters. She had been well-known as a Dorcas-like sister who actually had bought me a new warm coat when I first came to Bethel in 1976. I wanted to use the example in James 2:15, but I always hated the fact that it said "naked" there, and I especially didn't want to read it that way in front of non-Witnesses:
(James 2:15-16) 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? So I used the 2013 NWT Revised, against orders, but no one called me out on it. Because no one else should have known anyway. Besides, the new Bible was to be released in just a few hours:
(James 2:15, 16) 15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? The first is actually a little more accurate from a literal point of view. But the second is probably more accurate from a practical point of view, as it's hard to imagine someone coming into the KH completely naked.
The word "torture stake" vs "stake" is a good point. One is for understanding and the other more literal. A better example might be the word "impaled" which was completely wrong in its most common connotations. That was fixed in 2013.
Some other points are still questionable, and the translators might still wonder whether they may have had a better choice in the old version of the NWT. Here's an example, I wanted to share earlier when discussion the term "illiterate" with @Outta Here so I'll use this excuse to bring it up now:
(John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT) (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)
The older version could be saying something specific about literacy, where the second is referring to knowledge of Scripture itself.
 

I do not understand this question at all.
Anyway, on the subject of truth, If you want to get down to basics that is, 
John 8:26: "As a matter of fact, the One who sent me is true,"
John 8:31-32 “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Romans 3:4 "But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar"
So really what Jehovah tells us, through Christ, is true.  (2Tim3:16-17)
Other than that, (and there are many of these), our position is neatly summed up by Richard Feynman who I will quote again:  
" We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong."

I do not understand this question at all.
Anyway, on the subject of truth, If you want to get down to basics that is, 
John 8:26: "As a matter of fact, the One who sent me is true,"
John 8:31-32 “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Romans 3:4 "But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar"
So really what Jehovah tells us, through Christ, is true.  (2Tim3:16-17)
Other than that, (and there are many of these), our position is neatly summed up by Richard Feynman who I will quote again:  
" We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong."

Your ability to quote such scriptures would seem to indicate your ability to understand them in context and correctly. Otherwise, you would just be demonstrating an ignorance  of God's word.
I will quote a child's scripture for you that should resolve your dilemna as expressed. "Children be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous" Eph 6:1.

You are completely honest about your own position, and I respect this greatly as it is quite a rare quality amongst men in general.
I agree that unfulfilled expectations as a result of believing human speculation is indeed far from encouraging. Yet the Scriptures, (true prophecy), long counselled against this tendency and warned of it's results: "Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation" Ps.146:3; "Expectation postponed makes the heart sick" Pro.13:12.
I don't really know what it was like to have been sucked along in that '75 fad, having been warned off by brothers I respected at the time. I am sure I would have waved my arms with all the others if it hadn't been for them. I know even less what it must be like for someone who was an avid supporter of that trend and then, as that time came and went without the expected taking place, feels rather red-faced over the issue, "suckered" rather than "sucked" along.
At what point did you realise this was actually a false expectation? 

This statement, and indeed the thread itself, seems to depend on the rather narrow view that prophecy is solely limited to fortelling future events, in other words, history written in advance.
This is an unecessary limitation, as the word in a biblical context refers to an inspired message as a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come.
Paul's words on prophecy make clear that "the one who prophesies builds up and encourages and consoles men by his speech." 1Cor.14:3. He does not say "foretells future events".
Adam served as God's initial "prophet" in that he would have made known Jehovah's requirements to Eve   He did not remain faithful to Jehovah. Others "prophesied" later, such as Lamech, and Noah. Abraham, the first one referred to as a "prophet" is not noted for foretelling the future specifically, although the promise of the "seed" is recorded as having been spoken to him.
Whilst it is clear then, that the term "prophet" refers to a specific role for a human, the specific fortelling of events is not intrinsic. Neither is it so that every utterance from a prophet, whether written, spoken, or mimed, (as in the case of Ezekiel), would be moved by God's spirit or "inspired", or, indeed, could not be subject to error.
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" 2Tim.3:16. This message alone is a prophecy in itself. The commission of Jesus at Matt.28:18-20 in itself is an appointment of all true Christians to a prophet-like role with regard to all nations , and Jehovah will hold all truly dedicated servants accountable on that.
Anointed Christians serve in a "prophet-like" role in their commission outlined by Peter at 1Peter 2:9. Their governing body serves similarly, Matt.24:45-47. But in that role, it is not incumbent that any utter what could be described as "inspired utterences", or that ANY of their "forecasts" or predictions on world events should specifically come true in all detail. Even those that do would not evidence divine "inspiration".
All that is necessary is for them to proclaim Jehovah's inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come, as found in "All Scripture", and to hold faithfully to it as far as humanly possible, admitting mistakes, adjusting and correcting error when found. And as in the past, they answer to Jehovah and not to men in the faithful discharge of their responsibilities.
One thing for sure is that "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" Amos 3:7. So it is in our interests to listen to those who serve as Jehovah's prophets, (in the correct understanding of the term).
I like the observation of Richard Feynman on this: " We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong." But I think this statement needs a little modification in the words of Jesus at Matt.11:19: "All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works." ?

At a Circuit assembly we had a Bethel brother admit a number had been hurt by the organization...and were justified in their pain..he admited  we had problems with in the org..and even tho they are trying to fix them..he admitted they probably won’t  be fixed before the end comes....
when Jesus cleaned out the temple with whip etc...at no time did his apostles or any followers join him in doing that...so it will be when he returns....
He allowed Solomon and Saul to rule as kings for a long time after their falling away...
you honestly think any man..annoited or not can do what belongs To Christ...look at the pattern of his people....it’s not hard to work out....
There is a reason for him allowing things to be as they are.....

Some probably thought these instructions were unreasonable (at the time):  
 “So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." John 6:53
Or this: "After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come." Luke 10:1.
Or even this :"Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment." Matt.24:17-18.

Further to all the earlier postings and your original point. 
Yes, I can see what you mean. In the context of Paul's words having been written prior to John's writings, and to the consensus on what constituted the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then, yes, Paul's statement might be viewed as a mini-prophecy as you state.
However, it is entirely unlikely that Paul meant specifically that his words should be understood that way. Rather, the purpose of his writing  was to instruct Timothy in what should form the basis for his own faith and that which he would teach to others, namely "the holy writings", or "All Scripture", as opposed to the ear-tickling teachings he refers to at 2 Tim.4:3.
He may well have had in mind at this time the coming conclusions to be made regarding his own writings, as well as the other completed letters and gospels, especially in view of the spiritual gifts he undoubtedly enjoyed. Also, as the book of Revelation confirms, further written communication is to be expected from Jehovah, so it seems unlikely that Paul felt the "All" was done in his day. In fact more likely that what was to be termed "All" would be expanded.
There is prudence in terming the holy writings as "All Scripture". If he had said the "Jewish Scriptures", or some other time-rooted descriptor, then there would have been room for dispute over what constituted those writings, perhaps falling into the hands of the Judaizers, or some other apostatisers and their time-wasting definition debates. This is, however a hindsight observation of practicality of expression, not unlike the embedded wisdom we can now see in the injunction to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit", which circumvents the need for listing every possible combination of the same.  ?
 

Oh dear. Reminds of an Album from the 70s...............

Further to all the earlier postings and your original point. 
Yes, I can see what you mean. In the context of Paul's words having been written prior to John's writings, and to the consensus on what constituted the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then, yes, Paul's statement might be viewed as a mini-prophecy as you state.
However, it is entirely unlikely that Paul meant specifically that his words should be understood that way. Rather, the purpose of his writing  was to instruct Timothy in what should form the basis for his own faith and that which he would teach to others, namely "the holy writings", or "All Scripture", as opposed to the ear-tickling teachings he refers to at 2 Tim.4:3.
He may well have had in mind at this time the coming conclusions to be made regarding his own writings, as well as the other completed letters and gospels, especially in view of the spiritual gifts he undoubtedly enjoyed. Also, as the book of Revelation confirms, further written communication is to be expected from Jehovah, so it seems unlikely that Paul felt the "All" was done in his day. In fact more likely that what was to be termed "All" would be expanded.
There is prudence in terming the holy writings as "All Scripture". If he had said the "Jewish Scriptures", or some other time-rooted descriptor, then there would have been room for dispute over what constituted those writings, perhaps falling into the hands of the Judaizers, or some other apostatisers and their time-wasting definition debates. This is, however a hindsight observation of practicality of expression, not unlike the embedded wisdom we can now see in the injunction to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit", which circumvents the need for listing every possible combination of the same.  ?
 

I like using the Revelation on this topic. It says at Rev.1:1 that it is "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,"
Haven't seen anyone successfully wrestle with this.

Oh dear. Reminds of an Album from the 70s...............

Somebody blogged a few points on this which I found quite thought-provoking. "
 "...the Bible expected the common people to be able to read and write. For example, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, they were told to write the laws upon their door posts (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; 11:18-20). Isaiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the land to such a degree that a child could write the number of the trees left standing (Isaiah 10:19). This Scripture would make no sense at all unless children were customarily educated by either their parents (implying family literacy) or through an organized school presumably conducted through the Levitical ministry.
Concerning the 1st century, one of the favorite sayings of Jesus in rebuttal to his accusers was: “Have you not read…” This not only implied literacy to his opponents, but also to himself and to his apostles whom he taught, for why would he use the phrase against his accusers, if they could turn around and cast his own words in his teeth to point out the illiteracy of his followers?
Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) also implies literacy in the normal course of business in the Jewish society. This is also borne out in some archeological finds dating to the 12th century BC where Israelite inscriptions are found on pottery and artifacts showing literacy was not exclusive to the elite. Moreover, just before the Jewish revolt, the high priest Joshua ben Gamala (cir. 64 AD) declared that teachers would be appointed in every town of every province throughout Palestine. Their purpose was to provide an education for every male of the age of six or seven and upward. One teacher would serve a community of up to 25 students. A teacher’s assistant would be added for communities having up to 50 students and for communities having more than 50 students two teachers would be provided.
All of our modern opinions, scholarly or otherwise, concerning the low literacy rate of the Jews of the 1st century AD, are based upon subjective guesswork. There is not an ounce of hard evidence to support their conclusions."