Evacuated

Texas, USA.....
This baptism took place in Edinburgh, Texas on 07/07/18 in a state prison.
For the first time we were allowed to take pictures. She cries for joy because she has reached her baptism and in the picture they ask the 2 most important questions for the candidates to baptize
  ? .•*¨`*•..¸???¸.•*¨`*•. ?

Actually....thats probably incorrect   ? :
antonym ˈantənɪm/ noun   a word opposite in meaning to another (e.g. bad and good ).

Yes. I understand the confusion. I'm not sure of your native tongue, but likely you have a separate word for what is meant here. You know that the rather ambiguous language of English has many meanings attached to individual words. We call them "synonyms". Only regular usage helps with finding your way through this linguistic maze.
Anyway, the most appropriate synonym in this case would be (IMHO): "well known".
It makes sense that reporting defection by "well known" (prominent) brothers would be calculated to have the potential to alarm a greater number of faithful adherents than if such negative reporting was focussed on names of individuals that no one had ever heard of. I mean, isn't that why naming and attacking the reputation of members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is an attractive pastime for those who wish to discourage the morale and activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in general?
 

Then of course our understanding in context would have to be informed by whatever meaning the KGB attached and whatever criteria they used in deciding who was or was not "prominent".
For those with an interest in applying bible definitions, the counsel Jesus gave at probably stands up whatever the language used. "But the greatest one among you must be your minister." Matt.23:11.

There won't be any of Jehovah's Witnesses after Armageddon. only Jehovah's witnesses, presumably
And as for Abraham and David Splane's chart, I am sure he will be as interested in this as all of us are in Jacob's selective breeding theories. Gen.30:37-43.

Wow! I am going to check my temperature in the morning....and get a GP appointment for Monday. At least we have a bit more info on disease these days rather than the euphemistic "pestilence". I want to know what I am in for if possible.
Ah well! I wonder if babies count.......?

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

The problem with this is that the state considers the age of consent to be over 16. Not only that but according to a legal website: "Delaware considers having sex with someone under 16 rape. Having sex with someone under 18, if the offender is over 30, is also considered rape. Compared to some other states, the penalties for violating Delaware's age of consent laws are very harsh".
So in view of that, the fact that the 14 year old boy is considered a "consensual participant" by Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't going to go down too well.....
 

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 
Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 
Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

You neither understand nor correctly report my position on this matter and, frankly, appear to demonstrate incompetence in both reading and comprehension by a pathetically shallow response. You're probably tired. No one could exhibit such inability intentionally. 

Fotr the life of me, I cannot see why this issue is such a thorny matter.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even an adult, was assaulted by another, and injured, then regardless of "rules", surely a referral would be made to the medical profession, and to the police for investigation of a criminal act, regardless of witnesses?
Every human institution, including the family, appears to be involved in this whole shoddy business which is clearly not limited to one group. No one appears to be able to get a consistent procedure together to deal with historic or ongoing issues. This is a hands down failure across the board.

Maybe they actually gave out of hers: Luke 20:47.

For myself, I have a few litmus tests for the accuracy and honesty of a Bible commentary. These are much like the way most of us will immediately check John 1:1 when we find a new Bible translation.
I have found a commentary that I have only read so far with reference to two short Bible books. It appears to have been written by one or more JWs or ex-JWs. It is referenced as a "site of interest" from a site which is usually critical of JW.org. I am guessing that it was written by one of the brothers (might be an ex-brother) who worked on both the Aid/Insight book and very similar commentary-type material at Bethel and who was working on exactly the kind of Bible commentary for the Society that you speak about.
The site I found it from says it was by "brothers" (plural) but the site itself mentions only one brother on the home page, and elsewhere refers to himself in the singular:
These renderings of Hebrew and Greek and Bible translations in other languages into English serve mainly for comparison purposes. In no way are my efforts intended to slight or detract from the conscientious labors of other translators and writers whose abilities and understanding of the ancient languages are far superior to mine. I know of only two brothers who left Bethel from Writing after completing their work on the Aid Book and Bible commentaries who were kicked out for not believing in 1914, but who were not disfellowshipped. (in other words, not R.Franz or E.Dunlap) Only one of them, I think, had the ability and head-start to have been able to accomplish this kind of commentary. After he was kicked out of Bethel, he was still given a special pioneer stipend and was still asked by Brother Lyman Swingle (definitely) and then Lloyd Barry (possibly) to continue working on research and projects for the Writing Department over the next several years. His best friend at Bethel, who also worked on the Aid book and commentary material had an excellent grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. They made a great collaboration team at Bethel, but I have no idea if they are both still working together. I think the latter was either disfellowshipped or faded away.
I was in contact with the person who I think wrote this commentary for several years after he left Bethel, but he has either moved to another country or has decided to fade into anonymity. He has left no information about himself or his whereabouts on the Internet or any social media as far as I can see.
The site itself has "awful" navigation. If you go to the Home page: https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q= you can't even tell it's a Bible commentary. But if you click on the links to Jeremiah, for example, under What's New, then you will also see links to these 40+ Bible books. So far I can only recommend the ones I have read, but at least the style will be familiar to you, and you won't have to filter out the references to hell, Gehenna, Trinity, soul, spirit, etc., as you read. I think he did an excellent job on the parts of Romans I have read, and I will read Galatians next.
Bible Commentaries
Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Commentary on Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Acts Comments on Romans Comments on 1 and 2 Corinthians Galatians Comments on Ephesians Comments on Philippians Comments on Colossians Comments on the letters to the Thessalonians Comments on the letters to Timothy and Titus Comments on the letter to Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

If I am not mistaken, Thomas Jefferson actually waged a revolutionary war against many of his friends with different politics and philosophy ... and he and his short list of friends tried their best to KILL THEM.

Concerning Galatians 1:6
Thrice armed is he hath his quarrel Just ....
... and four times he who gets his fist in first.
Josh Billings
 

Jehovah meant to rule over mankind but the human pair listened to Satan who told them they could be happy doing their own thing. So they rejected Jehovah's rule over them and obeyed Satan.  Satan is really the one who sponsored man's rule over man. Rev 13:1,2  shows that the wild beast with seven heads and ten horns represents human rulership sponsored by Satan, since it shows that the wild beast gets its power and authority from the dragon, Satan the devil. Matthew 4 which we just did at the meeting  shows Satan offering Jesus of all people the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would do one act of worship to him, Satan.  Thus, Satan shows that the kingdoms of the world are really his.
However sometime after man's rebellion Nimrod, a hunter in opposition to God,   began to build cities in order to rule over people.
"*** it-2 p. 503 Nimrod ***
Observes the Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong: “That the mighty hunting was not confined to the chase is apparent from its close connection with the building of eight cities. . . . What Nimrod did in the chase as a hunter was the earlier token of what he achieved as a conqueror. For hunting and heroism were of old specially and naturally associated . . . The Assyrian monuments also picture many feats in hunting, and the word is often employed to denote campaigning. . . . The chase and the battle, which in the same country were connected so closely in aftertimes, may therefore be virtually associated or identified here. The meaning then will be, that Nimrod was the first after the flood to found a kingdom, to unite the fragments of scattered patriarchal rule, and consolidate them under himself as sole head and master; and all this in defiance of Jehovah, for it was the violent intrusion of Hamitic power into a Shemitic territory.”—1894, Vol. VII, p. 109."
God did not agree to this scheme and scattered those people from there all over the earth by confusing their language.
In the 16th century B.C.E. when Israel was formed as a nation, it in time asked for a king, in imitation of the pagan nations around.  Jehovah meant to rule over his people by having priests, judges and prophets to enforce his laws. So when they asked for a king Jehovah warned them of the consequences of having  human rulers, and told Samuel that they were not rejecting him Samuel  but they were rejecting him Jehovah as king. However, the Davidic line of kings of the tribe of Judah were said to be sitting on Jehovah's throne, and continued to represent Jehovah having a kingdom on earth.
(1 Chronicles 29:23) And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelites were obedient to him.
(1 Kings 11:36) To his son I will give one tribe, so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen for myself as the place to put my name.
In time Jesus came to the earth (Gal 4:4) and started the  preaching work, and commanded true Christians to  continue this work of preaching and teaching until the end.(Matt 24:14;28:19,20) Christians would then be a public spectacle needing protection from the state. They would need freedom of association, freedom to share beliefs and freedom of conscience.  Authorities are usually able to guarantee such protections. Guided by Holy Spirit the apostles wrote letters concerning our attitude towards these human authorities. The apostle Paul said at 1 Timothy to pray for governments that we may be able to focus on our work and that men of all sorts of people will hear the good news of the Kingdom and put themselves in line for life.
(1 Timothy 2:1-4) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
For any project to progress and come to fruition there must be order in the environment. (That's why there is so little food in war years - farmers cannot do their work without fearing for their lives and people overrunning that they are doing.) Same with the preaching work - it needs good order to progress.
Then Paul showed what attitude Christians should have toward these authorities; also the obligations of Christians, as follows:
(Romans 13:1-7) Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. 6 That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. 7 Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.
Jehovah can maneuver anyone or anything to do his will. He once cause a donkey to talk to a wicked prophet.  He can maneuver or put in the hearts of authorities whatever he wishes that will cause his work to be accomplished. We saw that in the case of the Persian empire using Queen Esther and Mordecai how he preserved his  people from extermination; with the Roman empire with its good roads and ships to enable travelling throughout the empire,  enabling missionary journeys and establishing congregations throughout the empire. We saw the Emperor causing people to travel so Jesus could be born in the city it was prophesied he would be born in; in other words, whoever has the means and the authority to facilitate God's work, Jehovah will that one to do so. He is the King of the Universe. Proverbs 21:1 speaks of this:
(Proverbs 21:1) A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.
In the great tribulation he is also going to put in the hearts of these authorities to destroy the "harlot", false religion. (Rev 17:16,17)
So Jehovah allowed governments to exist  and keep things going  so the warning  and harvesting work could go on until his time to bring to an end all human rule. (Dan 2:44; Eccl 8:9)  He does not sponsor human rule, but he can use governments or individuals in governments to accomplish what he wants.

No. Not human ones. He is going to replace them forcibly. Dan.2:44.
Meantime, a measure of order is sustained. Part of the Devil's deception in promoting independence from Jehovah's sovereignty is to allow some success in human endeavour. (Luke 4:6).
Meantime, the structure of the current system enables the preaching of the good news and all the logistics that go with that work, sometimes in a very constructive manner (Rev.12:15-16).  Jehovah can even intervene if necessary to fulfill that purpose without compromising on the issue of Sovereignty. (Is.60:22). He can also intervene to push things along a little in the executional area once He is satisfied with the outworking of His strategy. (Rev.17:16-17). Additionally, he can intervene to ensure overkill is not a result either. (Comp. Matt. 24:22).
I know it's all a bit difficult for some to get their heads around but Proverbs 28:5 did warn that "Evil men cannot understand justice, but those who seek Jehovah can understand everything." So, keep chipping away. It will all come clear.

No. Not human ones. He is going to replace them forcibly. Dan.2:44.
Meantime, a measure of order is sustained. Part of the Devil's deception in promoting independence from Jehovah's sovereignty is to allow some success in human endeavour. (Luke 4:6).
Meantime, the structure of the current system enables the preaching of the good news and all the logistics that go with that work, sometimes in a very constructive manner (Rev.12:15-16).  Jehovah can even intervene if necessary to fulfill that purpose without compromising on the issue of Sovereignty. (Is.60:22). He can also intervene to push things along a little in the executional area once He is satisfied with the outworking of His strategy. (Rev.17:16-17). Additionally, he can intervene to ensure overkill is not a result either. (Comp. Matt. 24:22).
I know it's all a bit difficult for some to get their heads around but Proverbs 28:5 did warn that "Evil men cannot understand justice, but those who seek Jehovah can understand everything." So, keep chipping away. It will all come clear.

Quite true. In fact, that is the most common response I have received from clergymen I have met in ministry when referencing any of the scriptures that speak of Jesus making God's name known.
Another common response it that the name of God refers to the authority of the Creator, in the sense implied by John 17:24 and many other scriptures (as you point out).
I have found theses views easily developed however by mentioning that whilst a law officer's warrant card may well be a sign of authorisation and authority, if it does not include a name to identify the individual, and also a signature of authorisation from one suitably qualified, then it carries little weight.
Absolutely. And, as the sons of Sceva learned, similar reasoning could be applied to the name of Jesus.
 

And in this particular case there could even have been a lack of knowing the correct consonants. Although this problem is mostly solvable, but not easily, and not with 100% confidence. 
Of course, this has nothing to do with the difference in J, or Y, or I when used as the initial consonant, nor anything to do with the difference between W or V. I would consider initial I,J,Y to be completely equivalent, and W and V to be completely equivalent, too. Jahve, Jahweh, Yahwe, Yahveh, Yahweh are all exactly the same word for purposes of this discussion (imo), just as Yehowah and Jehovah would be exactly the same word.
In truth, there would have been correct and proper differences in the pronunciations of vowels, too, even among Hebrew speakers in the first century. For example, a Galilean's accent (NWT fn) would give him away in Jerusalem.
(Matthew 26:73) 73 After a little while, those standing around came up and said to Peter: “Certainly you are also one of them, for in fact, your [ACCENT] dialect gives you away.”  

Probably better for me to have said "unpronounceable correctly". I have met several that assert the lack of knowing the correct vowels to be a reason for this, particularly clergymen and more studious evangelical supporters. (united by some sort of "deity of Christ" persuasion).
Evidence for the timing of the prohibition is of interest I agree, and regarding the use of vowel pointing, hence my question to which @indagator replied.
However, the scriptural notion that Jesus would have been familiar with the appropriate pronunciation and use of His Father's name, and accustomed to using it accordingly, doesn't actually require evidence other than the statement made by the inspired apostle at John 1:19: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him"
and his recording of the report made by Jesus in prayer at John 17:26 : "I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."
This for me is an even more fundamental factor than the secondary support provided by the absence of a scriptural record of controversy over the matter. I suppose the basic premise for me is that 'Jesus did use the Divine name correctly in the 1st Century, and no one fussed over the matter.'
Yes I agree with this. Whilst the obscuring and removal of God'name from His own word smacks of Satanic intrigue and conspiracy, I can quite easily accept that some involved in this would have become so quite innocently and even with good motive. After all, "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness" 2Cor.11:14-15. Paul's sympathy for such ones was expressed at Rom.10:1: "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge".
 

GA, perhaps by your ref. to Mt 5:18 you have in mind the well traveled—on the net anyway—article by Thomas Ross. But you request something more tangible. You might try looking at the article here and consider the works mentioned in notes 9 and 10.
https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=675
I hope this helps.

I thought about posting this on the recent thread "Early Christians, the New Testament and the Divine Name," partly because of a question someone posed there on the earliest evidence for Jewish disuse of the name. However, the issue merits its own thread. There is a book published a few years ago on the Greek form of the tetragrammaton, iota-alpha-omega (Ιαω), that is on-topic, yet that seems to have escaped the attention of non-scholars, and for that matter, many scholars as well. It's dense reading to be sure, but worth the effort. It's written by one of the scholars who has penned reviews of Robert Wilkinson's monograph on the tetragrammaton, Frank Shaw. Its title is The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of the Iao (the last word in Greek script Ιαω), volume 70 of Peeters Press's series Biblical Exegesis and Theology (Leuven 2014). In fact, Shaw's expertise on the name is no doubt why the editors of Oxford's Journal of Theological Studies asked him to review Wilkinson's book.
Shaw's point of departure is the finding among the Qumran documents of a LXX manuscript of Leviticus that has Iao for the Hebrew text's Yhwh. What he attempts to do is gather together all known evidence for this Greek form of the name not used in magic or among Gnostics. His findings are surprising to most people who know something about the issue, whether a layperson or a scholar. It seems that this form of the divine name, vocalized as "Ya-ho," was the active pronunciation of the divine name when Jesus and the apostles lived. There is considerable evidence for this, a point that had been briefly made some years earlier in Sean McDonough's book, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting (Mohr Siebeck 1999). Indeed, Shaw corrects some of McDonough's errors. Among other things addressed is the question of when the name began to be disused by Jews in the BCE period, and how use and non-use coexisted for many centuries until some time into the Christian era when disuse totally won out. Shaw offers a strong rebuttal of some Evangelical scholars, notably Albert Pietersma and Martin Rösel, who continue to contend against the mounting evidence that kyrios was originally used by the LXX's translators instead of a real form of the name. He also brings up a point made at this forum by JW Insider that "a problem with the JW position is that the use of a Hebrew YHWH in the middle of a Greek manuscript is an indication that it was not to be pronou[n]ced." What Shaw proposes is that within the Judaism into which Jesus and the apostles were born, there was diversity among the people regarding using the name. The upper class who provide most of our existing documentation of that society, and who are responsible for the LXX manuscripts that have come down to us that have the Hebrew tetragrammaton amid the Greek text, did not want to vocalize the name for multiple reasons, but the masses, among whom Jesus worked and from whom came the apostles and other disciples of him, freely used the name as Yaho in Aramaic. This then shows up as Iao in the written Greek sources.
Shaw also calls out NT textual critics for largely ignoring the findings of, and theory of, George Howard regarding the many textual problems of dozens of NT passages where the Father is referred to. This is also one place where he criticizes McDonough who seems again, like Pietersma and Rösel for the LXX, to have represented Evangelicals who want to downplay these NT textual variants. Shaw modifies Howard's notion that the original NT documents likely did not have mainly Yhwh/יהוה in them, but instances of Iao/Ιαω instead. Another noteworthy thing he does is date just when this Greek form of the name began to appear in mystical sources. Scholarship had never before done this, and there have been very sloppy and erroneous assumptions made regarding this matter, including again McDonough. As it turns out, the evidence points to the use of Iao/Ιαω among magicians and mystics dating to the beginning of the second century CE. Shaw even proposes that these types picked up on this form of the name due to the earliest Christians using it in their preaching work. Later Christians then had reason to remove the name from their documents (LXX and NT) because the "pernicious heretics" and magicians were using it with more and more frequency.
There are many other interesting points in the book, but this post has already gotten longer than I'd planned on. For those who have the stamina to work through it, the book is well worth what you will learn from it.