Evacuated

About October 1, 4026 B.C.E. ?
*** w89 8/1 p. 10 par. 2 God Purposes That Man Enjoy Life in Paradise ***
To recognize that, look back at the newly created Adam when he first received consciousness, when he examined his own body and all that he saw and heard and felt around him, when he realized with a start that he was alive! This occurred some 6,000 years ago, in the year 4,026 before our Common Era, according to the count of time given in the Holy Bible. . . . The time would be about October 1, since mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time near that date.

Thanks @Anna. This bit of the quote is interesting too, even though we can all read it for ourselves. Thanks to @Jack Ryan for a fascinating snip although the motive is unclear.
"Carbon dating is not accurate enough to pin down the exact year the tree sprouted from seed; but, given the estimated age, the tree is supposed to have sprouted around 7550 BC. For comparison, the invention of writing (and thus, the beginning of recorded history) did not occur until around 4000 BC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko

So ... assume every five years a branch bends over to touch the Earth, and it reproduces a tree trunk ... and the old trunk dies out..
That means that the trunk has replanted itself, and the old trunk died 1,912 times.
Boy, if the math had worked out to 1914 years this would have been GREAAAAT! to plug into the GB Body Member David Splaine's "overlapping generations chart!"
Now... 9,570 years divided by 5 DOES make 1914 years, plus ... you can get a "9" out of it and a "570", which sounds very biblical.
It is late ... I have the flu, and am very tired and congested.   I will let better minds than mine figure out the obvious typical / anti-typical ramifications.

This is what the Wikipedia article says: " The trunk itself is estimated to be only a few hundred years old, but the plant has survived for much longer due to a process known as layering (when a branch comes in contact with the ground, it sprouts a new root), or vegetative cloning (when the trunk dies but the root system is still alive, it may sprout a new trunk)".
So in view of that, it's a bit misleading to say the tree itself is that old, but evidently the root system survived the flood and was able to sprout, probably repeating the process many times throughout several millennia...

@Gone Away One thing for certain, such ones tend to bring late scholars and teachers to make a point, this is the case with the whole Speaker's Corner thing in the UK.

It is indeed the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This building was originally constructed as a cinema in about 1933 and owes it's styling to a trend termed as Art Moderne, a much disputed offshoot of the earlier Art Deco movement of the mid 1920s. The websites linked will give you information on the status the building now enjoys as well as some historical background.
https://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101385002-assembly-hall-of-jehovahs-witnesses-northenden-ward#.WyYfSaczqM8
http://old.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Culture/Architecture/The-former-Forum-cinema-Northenden

What John Skinner stated is what he stated and it makes perfect sense to me without trying to interpret his meaning to fit a preconceived idea about what he meant. He has used a remarkable clarity in expressing his understanding of Is 40:13, and, despite the amusement the reference seems to afford you, it stands as an eloquent description of the nature of the holy spirit, far more so than some of the views  I have seen elsewhere expressed on this topic.
Not that his efforts in any way exceed or supplant that which is contained in scripture of course. In view of many of his expressions being likely published in the late 19th and very early part of the 20th Centuries, I would see him rather like Apollos in needing the way of God to be explained more accurately to him (Acts 18:26). I would see that as a reason for some of his other views providing apparent contradiction to that expressed in the quoted passage. As you correctly observe, his death rather excludes further discussion with him on the matter of his theology, for the present anyway.  ☺️

Great job !  @Gone Away....  Very interesting links????  THANK YOU 
Greetings from Germany !

It is indeed the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This building was originally constructed as a cinema in about 1933 and owes it's styling to a trend termed as Art Moderne, a much disputed offshoot of the earlier Art Deco movement of the mid 1920s. The websites linked will give you information on the status the building now enjoys as well as some historical background.
https://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101385002-assembly-hall-of-jehovahs-witnesses-northenden-ward#.WyYfSaczqM8
http://old.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Culture/Architecture/The-former-Forum-cinema-Northenden

This one is for  @Gone Away . Isn't that the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall?

You are using perfectly rational logic here, but you seem to progress it in a way that loses it's sense.
You then assert that the descriptions that  are termed personifications in connection with inanimate or non-human objects are not so in connection with Holy Spirit. That appears to be because you assume that the Holy Spirit is a person, therefore the descriptors cannot be personification. So your conclusion would appear to be flawed here. The descriptors in themselves no more prove the Holy Spirit to be or not to be a person than the they do love, wisdom, fire, tongues or any other object to which they are applied.
Have you noted Isaiah 40:13: "who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord or being his counsellor hath taught him?" AV
I quite like John J. Skinner's comment on this text:
"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues."
 

You are using perfectly rational logic here, but you seem to progress it in a way that loses it's sense.
You then assert that the descriptions that  are termed personifications in connection with inanimate or non-human objects are not so in connection with Holy Spirit. That appears to be because you assume that the Holy Spirit is a person, therefore the descriptors cannot be personification. So your conclusion would appear to be flawed here. The descriptors in themselves no more prove the Holy Spirit to be or not to be a person than the they do love, wisdom, fire, tongues or any other object to which they are applied.
Have you noted Isaiah 40:13: "who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord or being his counsellor hath taught him?" AV
I quite like John J. Skinner's comment on this text:
"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues."
 

The wanted poster supposedly uses the phrase: "McLean uses Kingdom Halls as cover to hide and may be in a Kingdom Hall near you!" Not to take anything away from the man's crimes, but this struck me as a "gloss" intended to speak more directly to JWs. So I checked it against the actual wanted poster and the phrase does not show up there https://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/mclean/mclean15.pdf
That and a few other small things on the picture above makes it look like this was a specially made version just to share with JWs. (There are multiple typos, misspellings, and capitalization problems on the updated wanted poster, which don't show up on any of the actual wanted posters.)

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

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

Hmm. I thought that was Ernie Beavor? Armageddon Ernie we called him??

Ooooh! Makes me feel so old! I used to call everyone auntie or uncle, and then I myself got called auntie by the younger ones...that was 20 years ago.....I guess times change...

Doesn't really matter in the context you refer to.
"If anyone thinks he has acquired knowledge of something, he does not yet know [it] just as he ought to know [it]. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him." 1Cor 8:2-3 also
"Therefore, let those of us who are mature be of this mental attitude, and if you are mentally inclined otherwise in any respect, God will reveal the above attitude to you." Ph 3:15
So in summary, if I am sinning beyond redemption, there is no hope for me. Heb.10:26
But , from the scriptures quoted above, if I love God, He knows me, and if I have the wrong attitude, He will put me right.

"Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"  ?
 
 
 

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

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

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

hMMMMmmmm ...
I thought there was only ONE unforgivable sin .....
Telling a racially offensive joke to white people ... that was NOT outrageously funny !

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

Attendants are schooled in exactly what they can and can't do legally when dealing with disruptive intruders. They may not lay their hands on an intruder when ousting him, but force may be used when it comes to self protection. These are the rules now, obviously was different in the 30's. We had an intruder in our hall a few months back and the brothers pretty much dealt with him the same way as the video. Once they got him outside one brother said firmly "and don't come back" to which the intruder replied moping "now that's not very Christian is it?" lol. They then locked the front door.

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