Evacuated

Quite right. And I suspect necessarily so. Unfortunately, human emotion is a powerful driver of action that crosses the boundaries that Jehovah sets. Jeremiah made that clear at Jer.10:23. Although it is simple to state that in a case of disfellowshipping, " blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue", to what extent should this be applied? Many left to their own devices will over-restrict, or excercise too much lattitude, despite the desire of Jehovah to dignify us with principle rather than law. As an example of the latter: "In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally)." WT 1981 15 Sep.
So someone has to set a bar somewhere at times. Parents have this right: Eph.6:4, and the same applies to those with shepherding responsibilty in the congregation: Heb.13:17.
For example, despite the fact that at the start of the Christian congregation when about 3000 or so joined "All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed." Acts 2:41-47. They didn't need detailed directions on this matter one would have thought, not with love as a fruitage of the abundantly present holy spirit surely?.  But, a little later, with numbers growing, we find "the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."  Acts 6:1. How could this possibly be? How could true, spirit anointed, spirit-gifted Christians be so self-centered and heartless?  
We know that the measures taken to deal with this matter would have necessitated specific directions. (Acts 6:3-6). The apostles left the logistics of this to suitably qualified representatives. Would those directions have been put in place by Jehovah? Or was it more a case of Jehovah allowing humans to make the arrangements to deal with a specific matter at that time.
I know this is different from the logistics of how we implement the scriptural requirement to "quit mixing in company" with unrepentant serious sinners to whom we are related. But the principle is that responsible shepherds in the congregation at times MUST make rules, in this case, to ensure the spritual cleanness and safety of the members of the congregation. 
Sometimes, the placing and implementation of a rule made by human representatives in Jehovah's organisation will elicit the following response:
But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?
Really, it is to Jehovah (and of course Jesus, the Head of the Christian congregation) that those charged with shepherding responsibility will answer. We surely know that, as the principle earthly shepherds today, the Governing Body are as subject to the direction of Jesus as Head of the Christian congregation as were those of the first century described in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. And this applies to all with shepherding responsibility. And in discharging that responsibility, rules have to be made, even tightened up at times, unpopular though this might be. Otherwise, how would the words of the wise ones ever serve as oxgoads? Ecc.12:11.
Extrapolating on what is not included in the video is interesting, but we can make many alternative scenarios can't we? Obviously Sonya was set in her wrong course. She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave. To liken her to Aaron's sons might be a pointer to the extent of her bad attitude. She could always have returned to the Kingdom Hall at any time, but there is no indication she ever tried to set matters straight over the many years. Surely the visit by the elders before her return was not the only attempt made to get her to return over the years. There are many possible scenarios there. What is important is the outcome, and I am certain this drama is factual having seen many similar incidents.
But really, you know this and quite rightly you have stated that
Of your own conduct I think you mean, but is He not also Judge of those who provide the counsel we follow today? Or do not follow for that matter? Best result always comes to those who wait on Jehovah and work with what He allows.
Pro.19:21 The Living Bible
 

Great charts. Thanks a lot. Can't upvote due to COS-bashing unfortunately. 

There is a  danger here in that one can compaign for an issue of one's own making. Basically, unrepentance for serious sin is the reason for disfellowshippnig. The scriptures are pretty clear on this. The counsel on differentiating between spiritual fellowship and family responsibility is prettty basic and can be applied simply by following what was stated in 1981 :  For those sharing a dwelling, "Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue." For those not, " there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum." These seems perfectly adequate. For me, the rarity would be as compared to the contact with one sharing a dwelling, not the typical weddings and funerals only contact that many families engage in as a normal practice in today's world.
So how to apply this is definitely a matter of conscience. However, as with ALL conscience matters, other people's consciences are effected too. How we apply principles in these areas are always going to bring mixed reaction from others. Excercise of freedom must always be done discreetly in my opinion, and there is no harm in "playing one's cards close to one's chest." Paul at times chose not to excercise his freedom at all in matters that might stumble others.
However if one wishes to strike a defiant attitude in this matter, even to the point of maligning the Christian congregation because a paticular stance is taken on a conscience matter,  one is free to do so. But there are always consequences for this kind of behaviour. 
One thing for sure, running ahead of Jehovah or criticising his ways because of some personal discontent at what appears to be unfair, unreasonable or just delayed, (better ask Saul), will not bring good results. We only have to look at Sarah. She impatiently arranged for Abraham to produce offspring through her maidservant Hagar. This resulted in many problems and eventual estrangement. Then, after her (denied ) laughter at the prospect of having a child naturally, Jehovah stuck to his arrangements, which brought success, meanwhile, impatient humans scuttled around failing with theirs. Gen.16:1-16, 17:18-27, 18:9-15, 21:1-21 etc.. Even still, Jehovah provided for the casualties, as he also provides for those disfellowshipped today in keeping open a way back and even using right hearted ones in his kingdom work despite their estrangement. (Incidentally, he did provide even for Adam and Eve after their expulsion didn't he?).
This reminds me of the point in Ezekiel 43:8. Israel's profaning of God's name extended to those who said Jehovah's discipline of the nation ws a sign of weakness, or lack of protection, or some other negative connotation on Jehovah's name or reputation.
Rather like those who criticise Jehovah's disciplining of unrepentant wrongdoers today as a violation of human rights! How true the words: "Men given to badness cannot understand judgment, but those who are seeking Jehovah can understand everything." Pro.28:5. Those "seeking" can include suitably chastened disfellowshipped ones!
More to be said on this topic I am sure.

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 
It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.
Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).
We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.
Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.
What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?
But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.
 

For general concepts and ideas ... that is good enough ... but if they were translating Aircraft Maintenance Manuals ... I would take the bus.

It has to come with insight, and discernment.
 

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 
It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.
Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).
We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.
Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.
What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?
But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.
 

We can only speculate on scenarios here. What is clear however, is that Adam could have rejected Eve's wrong course and let the "Judge of all the earth" decide on the outcome. We just cannot imagine how Jehovah would have solved this problem, but we can be sure His solution would have been just as amazing and beyond human imagination as the real solution He has devised for the real situation. He even provided for the rebels and that included hope for their offspring which they could have imparted to their children. Even today, parents in dire straits may get some consolation in knowing their children will be OK.
 I have noticed today that even when people are disfellowshipped, they can still be instrumental in Jehovah's work. I personally know a few who have become witnesses with assistance from disfellowshipped ones. And that is outside the family arrangement where it is clear that disfellowshipped parents are still seen as having responsibility for their minor children's spiritual welfare. So they weren't rejected by Jehovah completely either.
Disfellowshipping is a scripturally based disciplinary arrangement. Imperfect humans get it round their neck like so many other things. Some, even though not actually experiencing the situation, act like the Sadducees (comp Matt.22:23-33) and create all manner of "what if" scenarios, "testing the limits" as it were, trying to break the fence. But breaking a fence doesn't change a boundary does it? It might show  up a weakness of course, requiring repair, so adjustments in the process of disfellowshippng can and have be made, but the bottom line of the matter is that unrepentant, serious sinners are disfellowshipped. And rightly so.
As for those who decide "I don't want to serve Jehovah on His terms. I renounce my dedication and  I don't want anyone to try and get me back". They in effect place themselves in the same yard as those disfellowshipped for unrepentance as their heart attitude is basically the same. Some may even arrogantly delude themselves into thinking they have disfellowshipped the congregation or have some how out-manoeuvred the judicial arrangements, but at the end of the day, they are all just taking the devil's carrot, "you will be like God, knowing good and bad."
All manner of tear-jerking scenarios both real and imagined are brought to the table in these kind of discussions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Jehovah's will is not always what Jehovah's people do, so as Jesus said “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come" Luke 17:1. We have to deal with them, and wait on Jehovah to correct matters, be it an actual practice, or our thinking.
Abraham said it is is "unthinkable" that Jehovah would ever act unjustly, so we just have to stick to that awareness, even as far as Job did. It is best practice to stay middle of the road even if it is narrow. Certainly "kicking against the goads" will result in damage, even if we stay on the right path.
 

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not  understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant.
I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault.
You really have lost me here I'm afraid.
Interesting.
The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II):
"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.

or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit."
He seemed to explain it quite well there.

Hi Cos
Only 2 things in response this time. 
1.
I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it.
What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means.
And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John.
You responded by stating your opinion (in essence)  that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong.
Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion."
2. 
Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. Power is potential.  Power in action is something else, the demonstration of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

Mr Cos. I have your view on these two passages of scripture. I don't believe I have actually stated my view. So, in view of the tone of your responses, I will leave you to surmise on what that might be. There is scriptural precedence for this.
Last try on this one Mr Cos. My understanding of the WT view of Holy Spirit is summed up below:
"It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force."
 

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. 
Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case.
Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference.
This was a good one:
the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 :

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard"
This one I didn't know:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976:
"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."
And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit:
Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020:
Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.
 

The idea seems to have been around earlier than the first WT
"AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ' and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word,' that is, he was existing and recognized as such."
Quote from Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible p.54.   Robert Young - 1865
Selection of WT quotes reflecting "a god" as an appropriate rendering of John 1:1
Quote : WT Nov 15 1913:
"Accurately translated it reads, "The Logos was with the God and the Logos was a god; the same was in the beginning with the God"
Quote: WT Dec 15 1913:
"St. John tells us that "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God."
Quote: WT Jan 1 1922: 
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1., 2)"
Quote: WT Nov 15 1925:
"..it is not to be expected otherwise than that John would speak of this one who was in the beginning with God as being a god, a mighty one." 
Quote from Greber's rendering of John 1:1
 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." John 1:1
Quote from The New Testament, A New Translation and Explanation Based on the Oldest Manuscripts’’ Johannes Greber. 1937.
Greber (1874–1944) seems considerably behind on this matter.  His spiritistic activity appears to have begun in 1923, with his Bible Translation not started until after 1929, published in 1937. (according to Wikipedia).
Seems that the WT did use this rendering prior to Greber, and, of course, the idea preceded the WT anyway.
Was this really so obscure??

Irrelevant. The teaching, which is in John's gospel, precedes wt by centuries.
Exactly. But meaning is in the mind of the listener.
"The sayings of Jehovah are pure; they are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times. You will guard them, O Jehovah; you will protect each one of them from this generation forever." Ps 12:6-7

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.
Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.
Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 
So there is no contradiction ...sir.
However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":
"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.
Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.
The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.
Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

insignificant
ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/
adjective
1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.
"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"
synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 
2. meaningless.
"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"
The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.
By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".
In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:
(Matthew 12:24)
"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”
and dealt with them graciously:
(Matthew 12:25-28) 
"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:
There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

The big if.......again.

It is easily obtainable for those wishing to look beneath the surface of things. Anyway, the range of quotations relating to the rendering of the text in John 1:1 demonstrates that what is seemingly cast in stone actually is not. It reminds me of the teaching of evolution as a fact because it's what the experts believe. Actually, many experts believe otherwise, so one should make up one's own mind. As with evolution, so with John 1:1. One does not need to be an "expert". There are enough of the "expert" opinions around for one to make a judgement based on scripture.
Personal prejudice or preference will always factor in choice.....for everyone. Jehovah allows us to make decisions based on a relationship with Him.

Misjudgement again. Greber's rendering is quite acceptable. Greber and his demonic associates are not. 

Good to keep in mind that WT was using Greber's rendering as a support, not "Greber and his demons". 

Good question!
Even better answer:
2 Thess.2:9-11
"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved.  That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,"
 

Good to clarify this regarding the editions.
In fairness, the title page of the 1809 edition makes it clear that that the edition is BASED on Newcome's new translation. Also the Introduction, whilst acknowledging value of Newcome's work, lays out the principle that "no alteration should be made in the Primate'sTranslation, but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error or inaccuracy in the text, the language, the construction, or the sense,". And that, where an alteration was made to the text, "where it was thought necessary" , along with Newcome's rendering, "a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory." Also in connection with additional items of explanantion included, "that where it was thought necessary, a short note has been subjoined, assigning the reasons for the alteration, which, to the candid and discerning', they flatter themselves will generally appear satisfactory."
So, the revision is more honestly handled by this commitee than perhaps those who were responsible for introducing the Comma Johanneum earlier. (which Archbishop Newcome, admirably, omitted from his translation, albeit without a footnote comment.)
Certainly he did not, and the cross references provided in the footnote presumably are there to reinforce his view: 
Was God.] Isai. vii. 14. ix.6. Matth. i. 23. John x. 33— 36. Rom. ix. 5. Phil. ii.6. Hebr. 1.3, 8.
But not without a clear and explanatory foot note:
"and the Word was a god.] "was God," Newcome. Jesus received a commission as a prophet of the Most High, and was invested with extraordinary miraculous powers. But in the Jewish phraseology they were called gods to whom the word of God came. John x. 35. So Moses is declared to be a god to Pharaoh. Exod. vii. 1. Some translate the passage, God was the Word. q. d. it was not so properly he that spake to men as God that spake to them by him. Cappe, ibid. See John x. 30, compared with xvii. 8, II, 16; iii. 34; v. 23; xii. 44. Crellius conjectured that the true reading was ***, the Word was God's, q. d. the first teacher of the gospel derived his commission from God. But this conjecture, however plausible, rests upon no authority."
The readers must decide for themselves.
Quite true and good to point that out. It's being discarded, however, has not made one iota of difference.

Great example.
This headed the list on p27 in the 1989 brochure, Should You Believe in The Trinity?: