JW Insider

On 6/11/2019 at 10:02 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Well, like James attempt of trying to exalt you as a scholar, you are far from understanding theological scholarly works.

I have always deferred to you whenever you showed evidence that I was wrong and you were right. And, assuming I am right about your past avatars, this has actually happened more than once.

On 6/11/2019 at 10:02 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, what you are saying, you are willing to accept what suits you to contradict the Watchtower.

What I am still saying is that I am willing to accept where the Biblical evidence leads. And most of the time it leads me support the Watchtower. You have already seen this many times, but those areas where I support the Watchtower hold no interest to you. The biggest discussions always ensue over those areas  where the Biblical evidence leads away from the Watchtower's traditional views. These are for the most part chronology-related, or doctrines that we ended up getting locked into, because of our chronology doctrines (generation, etc.).

I have been very clear that I'm sure the Bible does not support our chronology teachings. I can now say that I have no doubts about this. The pseudo-archaeology we have used to try to get "outside" support for our chronology is undoubtedly also against the WT view, and it also happens to support the Bible's view. But I'm more interested in what the Bible itself says about our chronology doctrines.

I am 100 percent in agreement with our teachings on Soul, Trinity, Paradise Earth, War, Neutrality, Elders, Smoking/Recreational Drugs/Alcohol, Morals, Pagan Roots of Worldly Holidays, Meetings, Our Ministry, using God's Name, the Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, His Eternal Purpose, and probably hundreds more specific understandings of scriptures that vary from the way that most of Christendom understands them.

Also, it doesn't "suit me" to contradict the Watchtower in those areas where the Bible evidence leads away from certain traditional teachings we have not broken free from yet. These differences sometimes result in painful realizations. Sometimes it's the realization that many are suffering (or have suffered) unnecessarily. The difference in the way certain young brothers are now treated in several countries where they were once told not to accept any kind of alternative service when their conscience would have allowed it is an example. We now know that there have been literally hundreds or even thousands of abused Witness children for whom any kind of justice was made difficult due to a policy that put the reputation of the organization first. 

Any difference between my own views and those of the Watchtower must always be based on Biblical evidence, prayer, meditation, conscience, reasonableness, and always FIRST giving the benefit of any doubt to the elder men who publish our teachings in the publications and through approved representatives. This way, if I find there are areas of doctrine I can no longer support in good conscience, it is no longer based on any doubt or conflict. There are also certain areas where I am still trying to follow the Bible's counsel to "make sure of all things." Those areas where I am "making sure" I am also willing to discuss here. And I'm happy to hear any Bible evidence you have that is appropriate.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And yet he was not really independent. When he did touch base, it was “for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain.”

That's how I had always read it, too. But there is also a strong possibility that he really means that he wanted to be sure that everything he was doing was not being undone by these superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John). James and Peter had influence outside of Jerusalem, obviously all the way up to Galatia, where James sent people to undermine Paul's work, and Peter actually visited himself and ended up setting a bad example for the brothers, there.

Under another topic you already responded to some of these points, but I'll pick up on them again here.

Remember, too, that Peter was a big influence in Corinth, too, so that some were saying they belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul drops several hints even in Corinthians that the superfine apostles included the "James gang" and others from the "Jerusalem party."  It was easy for the Corinthians to see these apostles appointed by Jesus as a kind of Governing Body representing themselves as THE (superfine) FAITHFUL STEWARD. So Paul made a point to them that he was not a steward that needed such a human "tribunal."

(1 Corinthians 4:1-3) . . .A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . .

It's also pretty clear that Paul is speaking of this same tribunal that he speaks of in Galatians. Even the timing is set for us.

• (2 Corinthians 12:1, 2) . . .I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven.

• (Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation,. . .

17 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I have no love for anyone, no trust in anyone.

Yikes. It's hard to believe it could be so "all or nothing." As you say, if we can't think like you, we won't really be able to understand. But it reminds me of a recent discussion about how God commanded "love" from the nation of Israel. They say you can't legislate love, but for some I suppose, even this idea can be a "tutor" leading to Christ. We go through the motions of love until we are responding the way a loving person responds, whether we think we have the same feelings most others do or not. For thousands of years, people have spoken this way about arranged marriages. It's the same part of Corinthians I just quoted from to Tom where the apostle Paul said:

(1 Corinthians 9:16-19) . . .Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! 17 If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That when I declare the good news, I may offer the good news without cost, to avoid abusing my authority in the good news. 19 For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.

Sorry to second-guess, but I can just imagine that you would quickly focus on the expression "abusing my authority in the good news" and turn this into another comment about the GB. But my point is that we can also work alongside people we don't necessarily trust, and still accomplish some good. If and when we see them abuse their authority, we can point it out as Paul often did, but Paul also reminded the Corinthians here that it was OK for them to support (materially) some of those ministers who asked for material support, even though Paul wanted none of that for himself.

27 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In other words, the things that detractors paint as sordid are exactly the traps that well-intentioned and imperfect people who are ‘insular’ (no part of the world) could be expected to fall into. We’ll learn, where necessary, to present the truth through this facet so easily spun as a negative. 

I was looking for an 80 percent up-vote emoji, (🤔?) but I gave you a full up-vote anyway because I think you have hit the target so well with several statements like the one I just re-quoted. I get the sense you are able to "aiming your blows so as not to be striking the air" and "not running aimlessly."

(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.

Of course, it's not about striking back at others' arguments, but how we continually train ourselves to keep the faith with so many obstacles about. One of the obstacles will always be our own human failings, and how we keep trying to fix these, to become the "approved" person we ought to be. We don't have to broadcast our personal failings, and most of us won't; so we might always give the appearance that we are more concerned about the failings of those around us. Most of the time, we watch how we walk, but there are times when we should give attention to the failings of those around us, and watch how they walk.

This is one of the reasons for this topic, because someone is concerned about the potential failings of another. To some it will look like paranoia, but some persons have a more protective and sometimes "hovering" sense. Reminds me of Jesus' words:  (Matthew 23:37) . . .how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it.

Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic.

But to follow up on Paul's words about how we fight the fine fight of the faith for ourselves, Jude shows how we must also watch out for obstacles set by others:

(Jude 3-13) . . .Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It may be that the pilot was one of your detractors here who hadn’t realized that you were retired.

Fortunately, as most of you have probably guessed, Billy the Kid and I are really the same person, 😎, and I/we would have been prepared for everything a-la-Rambo, Apocalypse Now, and probably a John Wayne movie or two, too, that I have forgotten about.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But now JTR Jr is saying that 'brazen conduct' is not from the original scriptures.

Brazen sounds a bit archaic, and can sometimes offer ambiguity if persons are familiar with another meaning of brazen, such as the ONLY definition (made of brass) that it had in the previous NWT. In the Appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (1984):

*** Rbi8 p. 1575 4D “Tartarus” ***
In Job 41:31, 32 (41:23, 24, LXX) we read concerning Leviathan: “He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; . . . "

But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.

Note Thayer's:

ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Is any of the NWT from the original scriptures ?

I took 4 years of Hebrew in College (7 semesters) and learned a bit of Greek at Bethel. Still an amateur, of course, but learned enough to know that the NWT is actually an excellent translation with only a few verses where bias has created areas for further study. Most of its "mis-translations," in my opinion, do not necessarily add false informaiton, just interpreted information. Most of the time I'd say the interpreted information is quite likely true, just unnecessary for a pure translation.

Personally, I find both the 1984 and 2013 NWT to be very good, even the simpler revised version. But I couldn't do without an Interlinear. There was more consistency in the old NWT, and where words were added there were usually brackets around them. You have to really know a more literal translation well, for the Revised NWT to also be as useful. And, for the present, most JWs have a good knowledge of the NWT (more literal) and the NWT Revised, which puts them in pretty good shape. A simpler, easier to read version, is better for grasping the context, and a literal translation is better for study. We have them both, plus an excellent Interlinear (KIT).

I might have a few minor complaints with the NWT, but I have hundreds more with the KJV, RSV, and ASV. There are a few things I like better about the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV, but it doesn't matter so much any more. We all have the ability to check all kinds of good Bible language resources online, and dozens of parallel Bibles online for comparison.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Scholarly JWs have admitted that it's a common problem to include bias. 

I was referring especially to a book by Rolf Furuli, which is almost 100 percent supportive of the NWT, but does admit that some theological bias is inevitable.

• Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses

There has also been another book by Greg Stafford, who might no longer be a JW. He was definitely a Witness when he first wrote the first 2 or more editions of the book, and admits that a few specific passages show theological bias:

• Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: A Reply to Scholars and Critics

There have been additional scholarly books that make the same point for specific passages and verses, though not necessarily by JWs.

• Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament
• (Mr.) Lynn Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures
• Gerard Gertoux, various online writings.

The WTS has never claimed that the NWT was itself spirit-directed, or inspired in any way. If that had been claimed it would not have made sense to make the 2013 Revised Edition so different.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

perhaps you should quit

Not this again!

But this time I won't get involved. I counsel myself:

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years.

So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it.

But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

46 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Oh! So you accept scholarly works with interpretation. Then what was all that garbage about me posting scholarly commentaries that are NOT reflective of the Watchtower interpretation.

Of course, I accept scholarly works where they provide good, interesting and useful information. In fact, if you may recall, it was one of the reasons I defended Allen Smith. I said that very often he includes scholarly works that are very good, interesting and useful.

In fact, I appreciated the scholarly works you added here in this very thread. No one gave you any garbage about posting them. In my case, I only pointed out that you mixed up a couple of different references interspersed with a sentence or two of your own, but you didn't tell anyone here where you were copying and pasting from. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that even scholars agree with the WTS. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that scholars are not in agreement. And there have been at least two times when Allen Smith provided some very old scholarship in order to show where the chronology arguments of the Watchtower might be "improved" with respect to Nebuchadnezzar, his father, and a couple references in "apocrypha"/"pseudepigrapha". (Even on those ones, Allen, only included page images and copied text, no source reference, so I had to look up and point out where the source was, which I found on Google Books.)

So I hope you see the difference. You have long known that I accept some scholarly works with interpretation. The Watchtower publications also accept scholarly works with interpretation. And they sometimes quote them just to show the differences when they are not reflective of WT interpretation.

20 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This is the same person that scoffed at the word academia. 😁

If you are referring to me again, you should know that I have never scoffed at the word academia. There is good, mediocre, and bad in most fields of study.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now, are you saying that the GB / Writing dept' deliberately mis-translate scripture, even adding in words, to suit their own purposes ?  Because that is what it looks like to me.  

I don't think it falls under the same issue as adding and taking away from the scroll of Revelation. Bias in translation is a well known feature of the "art" of translation. It's not a science as JTR says. Scholarly JWs have admitted that it's a common problem to include bias (as to meaning/interpretation) within the supposed confines of accurate translation. If a word can mean both during or at, and you believe the Parousia is 105+ years long, then you would say something happens during the parousia/presence. If you believe it is a future event that might only last a day or a few days, then you would translate "at" the parousia/presence. If you really believe that the meaning can only be conveyed by adding a bit of the previous verse into the next verse, then this could also be from "bias" as to interpretation.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

had largely replaced ASV as the Bible used most by Witnesses.

So you were the one holdout that kept Wikipedia from being able to say " . . . used by all Witnesses"

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Hmmm... could it be that the Scripture should read Google of My Google?

I think I already had some fun with that idea in this post from 6 months ago when I discovered that Gog is spelled the same way in Hebrew as one would spell GOOG and that it appears as EL-GOOG in Hebrew which is read from Right to Left instead of Left to Right. 

אֶל־גֹּוג means when transliterated EL-GOG.

But the O between the two G's is actually a 'vav' which when used as a vowel (as it is here) is not just used for O, but also for U, pronounced OO. Therefore:

אֶל־גֹּוג can also be transliterated as EL-GOOG.

Transliterated left to right as it appears on paper, this is אֶל־גֹּוג or GOOG-LE.

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I appreciate your scholarship, JWI ... but I think I have PTSD, and no longer care. . . .

[T]here are MORE IMPORTANT. . . Things like Justice, Fairness, Equity, Gentleness, and Compassion.

I agree completely. But he asked. (And he asked nicely, and I think he was really interested.)

1 minute ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Are you a professional linguist now aside from thinking you know everything about the Watchtower. 😂

I don't think I know everything about the Watchtower, and I don't think I am a professional linguist. The translation problem is a very simple one. These exact types of issues have been pointed out by professional linguists, and Greek language scholars.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So this W/t says all the 144,000 will be in heaven before Armageddon starts. 

But are you saying that the Judgement of the earthly class is prior to this happening ? 

 

Yes, it does, and the verse seems pretty convincing.  You quoted the verse inside the Watchtower quote. I'm repeating it here for reference:

Sometime after the attack of Gog begins, all the remaining anointed ones on earth will be taken to heaven. Then Revelation 17:14 tells us about the reaction in heaven  to Gog’s attack. The enemies of God’s people “will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.” Thus, Jesus, together with his 144,000 anointed kings in heaven, will rescue God’s people here on earth.

¹⁷ That rescue will result in the battle of Armageddon, which will bring glory to Jehovah’s holy name....................

You probably have heard people say that you shouldn't create a doctrine that is based on only ONE SINGLE Bible verse, especially if that verse is only found in a book like Revelation where symbolic, literal, past, future, present and prophetic references are commonly juxtaposed.

But there is another thing about this particular verse in Revelation 17:14. It's not translated correctly in the NWT. An additional meaning is added to it, to try to make it clearer to understand. That "meaning" might be correct, but it's commentary and interpretation, not translation. When an assumption requiring interpretation is required to make sense of a specific wording then a translation should make a note somewhere (through brackets or footnotes) that it was added.

The Greek here very clearly (and simply) says the following

" . . . but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him, called and chosen and faithful.”

". . . καὶ [and] οἱ [those] μετ’ [with] αὐτοῦ [him] κλητοὶ [called] καὶ [and] ἐκλεκτοὶ [chosen] καὶ [and] πιστοί [faithful]."

The Greek "with" could mean they are "WITH HIM" in the sense of being on his side, or even (rarely) WITH HIM in the sense of being "AFTER" him, but this would be unlikely in context. The best translations don't try to add meaning, but just go with what it says, even if the meaning is not immediately clear. For example, the CEV says:

"But he will defeat them, because he is Lord over all lords and King over all kings. His followers are chosen and special and faithful." (Rev. 17:14, CEV)

Of course, even here, the phrase "WITH HIM" was interpreted to limit it to the specific sense of "FOLLOWERS" but this is just as likely as a translation that requires the repeating of a verb action that isn't even found, such as by adding: "will do so." [NWT]

But even by adding the interpretation "will do so" doesn't necessarily tie it back to mean they will BATTLE with him. To me, the most likely meaning, and the very reason for the kind of vagueness about specific action, is because the phrase ties back to the idea that they CONQUER with him, just in a different sense from "battling." It reminds me of a similar verse in Revelation that I'll get to in a minute.

At any rate, there are several ways to make sense of this verse without the implication that humans raised to heaven will battle the enemies of God's people from heaven. It seems likely to me (but not definitive) that the main idea is not about the TIMING of when these chosen ones are in heaven during that particular BATTLE, but every sense will imply the fact that these are ones who are on the same SIDE as Jesus Christ, and very likely that these chosen ones are ALSO conquerors over God's enemies, and therefore are reward to share in the "crown" as kings (not just priests). There is another sense of these chosen ones battling God's enemies in Revelation 11, and through certain plagues on God's enemies that they (the chosen ones) are involved with:

(Revelation 11:3-12) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. [probably meaning that their own words, or their own "weapons" will be turned against them.] 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 . . . 11 After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them.

and:

(Revelation 13:7) . . .It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.

Nearly all of this is symbolic of course, but the idea is that the chosen witnesses (and those they represent, we can assume) PARTICIPATED in the conquering through their faithfulness, and were thus key actors in the battle against those enemies.

To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’

• (Revelation 2:7) . . .To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’
• (Revelation 2:11) . . .The one who conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death.’
• (Revelation 2:17) . . .To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and written on the pebble is a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.’
• (Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations, ²⁷ and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father.

This last one is more closely related to the interpretation that the NWT gives to Rev 17:14. Rev 2:27 indicates that "he" refers to each of the chosen/anointed who have conquered on earth will gain authority in heaven to shepherd the nations with an iron rod, just as Jesus does. But just how literal this is we can't say, because it may even refer to the authority to keep the peace for 1,000 years during, perhaps even referring to the entire period, up to the time at the END of the thousand year reign, when the nations gather together again:

(Revelation 20:7-10) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Of course, there is another way to read Revelation 20 which avoids the idea that it merely an unlikely repeat of the Armageddon as depicted in Revelation 16, but this time a thousand years later. That "other way" solves some problems and creates some problems. This other method is quite radical, but if accepted the NWT would not have to add those parentheses around Revelation 20:5. It would make more sense as originally found in the Greek without the additions.

I'm sure that didn't really answer your question, not directly anyway. So I'll just repeat that the judgment in Matthew 25 need not be a specific point in time that we call the "Judgment Day" but it makes sense either way. (Back when I was baptized, we were still teaching that the great tribulation had started in 1914.) I think the focus is on the final Judgment Day, similar to the wheat and weeds at the time when the bundles are separated for burning or glorification.

(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. . .

We once thought that was 1914, but many of the ideas we associated with 1914 have now been seen to make no sense scripturally:

*** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.

Your reference to Mt 24:22 was initially the primary reason that the great tribulation was seen as starting in 1914, but after nearly shutting down the WTS, it was seen as a relief in 1918/1919 when the days of that tribulation were stopped, giving the WTS a chance to regroup and grow.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short. 

In terms of the chosen ones, it would seem to indicate what I said above, that the BATTLE against God's enemies is going on while there were still chosen ones on earth needing protection from the ones causing tribulation.

• (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) . . .This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you.

It could also be interpreted, based on this and Revelation, that these ones causing tribulation will temporarily conquer all the chosen ones through death, but the verses about the "harpazo" (rapture) show that not all would die. Of course, the recent tendency in explaining all these verses tends to minimize the importance of 1914, but that's another topic. 

I love it. Galatians is about the best book to do that with because it's so dramatic.

43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but what he did say was not totally from another planet.

True. There are several widely published translations that don't veer too far from your version here, at least in places.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it does serve to convey the basic idea of the entire Book of Galatians.

It can actually do "double-work" as commentary.

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can picture anyone with sufficient time on his hands reading Galatians 5:12 and saying ‘he said that?’

Some widely used translations are rather jarring here with expressions like: "I wish the knife would slip."

29 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I always thought that all of the Anointed would be in heaven at Armageddon.

*** w54 8/15 p. 502 par. 22 The Power of Hope ***
While the anointed remnant expect to serve on earth for a period after Armageddon, as it pleases Jehovah, and while the other sheep expect to serve Jehovah without a break in life clear through to the end of this system of things at Armageddon and on into the unending time of the new world, yet death due to natural causes or due to keeping integrity may occur before Armageddon.

That idea remained "on the books" until about 1990 and was changed in 2013:

*** w13 7/15 p. 5 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***

: One of the events mentioned in these verses is the ‘gathering of the chosen ones.’ (Matt. 24:31) Hence, it appears that all anointed ones who still remain on earth after the initial part of the great tribulation has passed will at some point be raised to heaven before the outbreak of the battle of Armageddon. This adjusts what was stated on this subject in “Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of August 15, 1990, page 30.

Even in 1990 it was admitted that the Bible didn't say one way or the other, but we speculated that it would happen with a few, at least. It was again, partly based on turning Bible narratives into "prophecies" which was beginning to disappear, especially after Fred Franz became ill and was no longer included in Writing Department approvals. Notice how the following article sort of "lets it down easy" on those who once taught (as in Gilead School) that Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, all had a parallel to be fulfilled in the New World.

*** w90 8/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Will some anointed Christians survive the “great tribulation” to live on earth in the new world before being taken to heaven?
Pointedly, the Bible does not say. . . . What of a Bible account that might parallel such survival on earth? One example that has been presented concerns Noah and his family. Noah has been viewed as typifying Jesus in this time of the end. (Genesis 6:8-10; Matthew 24:37) As Noah led his wife and their three sons and daughters-in-law through the end of that ancient system, Christ will provide leadership for the remnant of his bride class and those who become children of the “Eternal Father,” Jesus. Noah’s wife survived the Flood and shared in the renewing of true worship on a cleansed earth. A parallel might be the survival into the new world of a remnant of the bride class.—Isaiah 9:6, 7; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:2, 9.

Other Biblical accounts have also been viewed as suggesting that some of the anointed might live into the new world. For example, Jeremiah survived the destruction of Jerusalem; “the man” with the secretary’s inkhorn remained to see the executional work before he went back to give his report.—Ezekiel 9:4, 8, 11.

Comments about the possibility that some of the anointed might survive into the new world are made with good intentions and in the light of Biblical precedents for trying to understand prophecies or patterns that could have later parallels. If it turns out that none of the anointed are left on earth, there will be no reason for dissatisfaction. We already have accepted that Biblical matters are understood better as time passes. For instance, The Watchtower of July 15, 1981, discussed Micah 5:6-9 again and explained that “the remnant of spiritual Israelites have not had to wait until after . . . Har–Magedon in order to be as a ‘dew’ of refreshment to people.” This discussion again offered the possibility that the remnant might survive God’s great war and for a while “continue to be as a refreshing ‘dew’ to the ‘great crowd’ of ‘other sheep.’” We can see, though, that the passing of time and the increase in spiritual light can broaden and alter our understanding of prophecy or of Bible dramas.—Proverbs 4:18.

Notice how these prophetic parallels were again being turned into "interesting possibilities" just like the the 1918 "first resurrection." But they weren't officially dropped, and were still being taught in Gilead School into the 2000's.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@JW Insider  Won't the Anointed already be in heaven when the judgement happens ?

The separating of sheep from goats (earthly class) will be after the Anointed are taken up surely ? 

Good question. I see you are actually thinking about the topic rather than just being pulled down into the squabbling.

When the end comes, and the judgment comes, we can expect that there will be anointed on earth. To me this seems clear from Paul's account of the end:

(1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:2) ¹⁵ For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; ¹⁶ because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. ¹⁸ So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. ² For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

In other words, at some surprisingly sudden point in time, the dead (anointed) are raised to heaven together with those who are surviving right up to the time of the "parousia of the Lord." The timing has always been a matter of much conjecture. We don't like to use the term rapture, so our previous doctrine here taught that the parousia started in 1914 (as it still teaches, officially) but that the first resurrection (including Paul's resurrection) was supposed to have happened in 1918. This was a leftover from our old parallel dispensation teachings under Barbour, Russell, and early Rutherford. In fact, it was explained that because Jesus appeared as Messiah/Christ in 29 and was resurrected 3.5 years later, that the invisible appearance of Christ in October 1914 would be followed by a resurrection of all the dead saints in the spring of 1918.

But 1918, although it once appeared more often than 1919 in our publications, has now been almost completely removed from our repertoire of prophetic dates, and replaced with dates like 1919 and more recent events. Jesus no longer inspected his temple in 1918, nor do we teach that the first resurrection must have happened in that year. Instead of just making a sudden change to the doctrine, it was changed from an important prophetic date to just "an interesting possibility."

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
At this point, it may be helpful to consider what might be viewed as a Bible parallel. Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility.

We still liked the idea of starting that resurrection "early in Christ's presence" and especially wanted to have it start before 1935. The article continues:

This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” (1 Corinthians 15:23) Rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time. . . . “A white robe was given to each of them; and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they also had been.”—Revelation 6:10, 11. . . .  So after war, famine, and pestilence began to ravage the earth, members of the 144,000 who were dead, represented by the blood at the base of the altar, were raised to heavenly life and clothed in symbolic white robes. . . . God’s Word does not disclose a precise date for the first resurrection, but it does reveal that it occurs over a period of time, during Christ’s presence. The first to be resurrected are anointed Christians who died before Christ’s presence began. As Christ’s presence progresses, anointed Christians who faithfully finish their earthly course are changed “in the twinkling of an eye” into powerful spirit creatures. (1 Corinthians 15:52) Will all the anointed receive their heavenly reward before the war of Armageddon? We do not know. We do know, however, that in God’s due time, all the 144,000 will be found standing on the heavenly Mount Zion.

You might notice the mistake that I highlighted. The dead (whose sacrificial blood cries out for justice) are told to wait until the number was filled. But if we place this parousia from 1914 on up through the great tribulation, then we don't really have them all being changed together so that no one group of anointed has to be concerned about going to heaven before another group of anointed. Revelation says they all wait until the number is filled. Thessalonians says they all go together, at the time of that trumpet call. In fact the scripture in 1 Cor 15:52 just referenced says:

(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.

This sounds very much like the "rapture" teaching that we had avoided for years by using the word "during" Christ's parousia, and "during" the last trumpet. Actually, the Greek in context here provides better support for translating "at his parousia" not "during his parousia." and "at the last trumpet."

So, more recently, the Watchtower stopped discounting the idea about the "rapture." We still don't like the word because it reminds people of some false teachings still associated with the "rapture." But the basic idea of a "rapture" is now accepted. We still look to fit it all into our timeline for the first resurrection, Gog attack, great tribulation, marriage of the Lamb, etc.

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-16 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43.
¹⁵ Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.
¹⁶ Once all the 144,000 are in heaven, the final preparations for the marriage of the Lamb can begin. (Rev. 19:9) But something else will happen before that joyous event. Remember, shortly before the remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven, Gog will attack God’s people. (Ezek. 38:16)

Much more to say, but I hope you can at least see what I meant by including the heavenly anointed in the "sheep and goats" parable.

Just in case anyone wondered why I had thought to make the point that it was my own opinion that the sheep separated to Jesus' right would include the "anointed" -- here's the reason:

Our current Watchtower publications very often imply that the sheep that Jesus separates to his right do NOT include the anointed. Because of the distinction made between Christ's brothers and these sheep, I think most Witnesses already understand it this way, but it's rarely stated explicity and succinctly except in some convention talks. The most succinct statement I remember in writing is here in the Insight book:

*** it-1 p. 1184 Illustrations ***
Notice that the “sheep,” who are put on the right hand of the enthroned Son of man, are shown to be different from Jesus Christ’s “brothers,” to whom they did acts of kindness.—Mt 25:34-40; Heb 2:11, 12.

There have been several significant historical changes to our interpretations of this doctrine, which might make for an enlightening discussion to some. But I won't intentionally drag out this particular thread to explain. The 93 and 95 Watchtower references from the WT Publications Index will give some significant quotes about former doctrinal beliefs on the topic:

[Matthew] 25:32   it-1 1183-1184; w15 1/1 13; re 123; w98 8/15 20; w95 2/1 12-13; w95 10/15 22-24; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164; w89 5/1 19; w87 3/1 29; w87 5/15 12-13
[Matthew] 25:33   it-1 1029, 1184; w95 2/1 12-13; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164
[Matthew] 25:34   it-2 1207; w95 10/15 26-27; jv 164; gt 111; w90 5/15 8; w90 6/1 6; w89 9/1 19-20

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Sure, he lays out a beautiful presentation. It makes him look intelligent.

I'm glad you think so but that isn't the important thing, as you already know.

I guess your first point was that when I referenced the parable of the sheep being separated from the goats, I mentioned that I thought Jesus was separating two kinds of sheep from the goats.  You requoted a portion of what I said as follows:

I believe that when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats he is separating the anointed sheep as well as other sheep who don't identify themselves as anointed. (Matt 25:32)

You had asked for my opinion, and I told you this was part of my opinion. Absolutely nothing has changed. When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, these sheep will include anointed sheep and other sheep who do not identify themselves as anointed. Let's assume for example, that you believe you are one of the anointed sheep, and I believe I am one of another class of sheep, as I do not identify myself as anointed. When Jesus comes to separate the sheep from the goats, I am hoping that he favors both of us with a place on his right hand, and that we are not going to be with the goats on his left.

You tried to explain that I meant something like this:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

He is implying, that separation is between the anointed that are and aren’t as sheep and goats. That’s the impression he is laying out. There’s no other logical way of viewing his words.

There is actually so much ambiguity in that first sentence that it is difficult to parse your meaning. Perhaps I worded it in a way that confused you, but I can't find the logic in the idea you apparently got out of it. I never said anything about who any of the goats were and where they might come from. I'm including sheep who claim to be anointed and sheep who claim not to be anointed in the sheep category who Jesus will place on his right. I didn't say anything about who the goats are.

I don't see a problem, and I don't see any reason to change, revise or edit anything.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then when he is caught, which is often, he tries to twist words in order to confuse.

Strange. I take this to be more of the kind of blame-shifting and projection that you have become infamous for. In the past, you have often copied pages from Christendom's commentaries, and pictures of scholarly looking book covers that have titles that appear to support your claims. Then someone points out that the contents of the book show just the opposite of your claim. Then you go twisting and scrambling to make it look like you never made a mistake after all.

I've even seen this type of twisting and scrambling for something as simple as a typo or mistaken definition, or misused vocabulary. When someone pointed it out to you, you doubled-down with some absolutely incredible pseudo-explanation to avoid admitting even a minor mistake. Sometimes, you apparently resort to meaningless word-salads or other types of word-play, and I can't tell if you think it worked to impress others, or to obfuscate. But whenever you get a piece of criticism like this you can be counted on to counter-claim that it is others who use word-play and word-salads, or you go on a temper-rant claiming that people are making fun of you.

I'd recommend that before you start claiming that I say things "in order to confuse" just ask others if they were also confused. Maybe they were, and this means I should rewrite it, but if it's mostly just you who's confused, just ask more questions, and I'll be happy to explain further the things that you might not have understood correctly -- just as I am happy to do now.

You also apparently had a problem with my statement that Zechariah 8 (in context) gives us some good ideas about helping others to become Christians, which should be a goal of our ministry. You requoted a portion here: “My own opinions here are somewhat separate. Although on the matter of Zechariah 8, I think that chapter really does provide an excellent and important image for us to remember about our own attempts to make converts to true Christianity”

Again, I don't see what kind of a problem you would have with this. We want people we meet in our ministry and persons whom we hope to have study the Bible with us become converted to true Christianity. Right? The context of Zechariah 8 had shown how this would be fulfilled in the midst of economic hardships and disappointments and even the incursion of enemies/opposers. I had already pointed this out and also wanted to show how the image of having people come to us can sometimes be more important that us coming to them. If we are true Christians, we will be known by reputation. As Jesus said (and as my very next sentence began after the portion you quoted):

On 6/5/2019 at 2:28 AM, JW Insider said:

Jesus gave the illustration that just like a tree is known for its fruits, we would also attract persons who want to join our particular Christian brotherhood. Also, we know that 'by this people will recognize if we are truly Christ's disciples, if we have love among ourselves.' It reminds us that converts aren't just made from a door to door ministry.

I partially understand why you wish to disagree with me whenever you have a chance, but you very often seem to forget that when you are so anxious to be an opposer, when not careful, you can end up opposing Jesus' own words, too.

Most of us know this, but this case has been noted by many organizations around the world. Here is an example from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: https://www.uscirf.gov/dennis-christensen

---------------------remainder of post quotes the article ----------------------

Key Fact: Danish citizen and Jehovah's Witness

Charges: "continuing the activities" of an extremist group (Jehovah’s Witnesses) 

Sentence: 6 years imprisonment

Biography: Dennis Ole Christensen is a Danish citizen who lives in Oryol, Russia. Before his detention, he worked as a carpenter while living with his wife, Irina Christensen, who is a Russian citizen.

As of May 2019, Russian authorities have brought 74 criminal cases against Jehovah's Witnesses across Russia, and are investigating a total of 197 Jehovah's Witnesses.

The current Russian state campaign against the Jehovah's Witnesses began with a crackdown on the faith community's literature and legal entities. Since 2007, Russian courts have banned at least eight local Jehovah's Witnesses organizations. The authorities have also placed over 95 pieces of Jehovah's Witnesses literature on the state list of banned extremist materials.

In June 2006, the Oryol Regional Court determined the local Jehovah's Witnesses group to be "extremist." On May 25, 2017, members of the Federal Security Service (FSB) disrupted a Jehovah's Witnesses prayer service in Oryol. Detaining some 70-80 people wihtin the building for several hours, the authorities held about 20 persons overnight before arresting Dennis Christensen and 15 Russian citizens.

On January 30, 2019, the prosecution demanded Mr. Christensen be sentenced to six and half years under Criminal Code Article 282.2, Part 1 for "continuing the activities" of an extremist group. On February 6, 2019, after appearing over 50 times in court and being detained for over 600 days, Mr. Christensen was sentenced to six years imprisonment. On May 23, the Oryol Regional Court denied Christensen's appeal and upheld the February decision to sentence him to six years in a penal colony.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I want to feel as high as those JW’s did in Canada!

And here I thought it was other types of sinning you desired . . .

On 5/7/2019 at 12:26 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

I would love a place that anyone can pick and choose, be good or bad at will. The last place that was that way was called Sodom and Gomorra.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79686-a-circuit-overseer-states-your-faith-is-garbage-and-needs-to-be-torn-down/page/2/#comments

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

YE olde JW's talk as though all the world is killing each other or on drugs and having multiple sex partners and orgies. Children in the JW Org are taught that everyone outside the Org serves the Devil. And the Armageddon pictures just to frighten people. 

I have seen this type of attitude go overboard even from those who lived most of their lives in the world, and I cringe for new ones who might be wondering where we get this from. As a parent, I admit that I've tended to exaggerate the moral problems of the world myself, and I've learned that this fear-mongering doesn't work at all with high-school kids. In fact, my own kids (3) learned to choose their friends based on morals and maturity, but some of their Witness friends didn't really make the grade. When my daughter got married, she felt bad about having to replace some of her best friends with her "more worldly" Witness friends when it came to choosing bridesmaids.

Of course, some Witnesses had terrible experiences in the world, and the organization has truly provided a safe haven, and a spiritual paradise, relatively speaking.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote " at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members.. "

His abuse of others. In fact it was an over-the-top eulogy of how great he was with kids and how he was always interested in their spiritual welfare that seemed to trigger a muffled outburst during the talk, and just after the talk there was an argument by others in the family about always keeping quiet about shameful things. It finally spilled over to others outside the immediate family. And this brother's own granddaughter had no idea about it until the funeral. It was a mess!

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You talk about : "works" of the spirit result in "love, joy, peace, patience, but what about the CSA committed by many Elders and other congregants earthwide ?  What about the shunning of people that were not disfellowshipped for sinning ?  So much badness in that Org from the top down.

I've seen a lot of love and long-lasting friendships. I've seen some awful things too, and heard about many more. But the congregations I have been in over many years (from age 0 to 66) have had very few of these problems.

I thought there had not been any cases of CSA in any congregation I had personally been in, but there was a huge commotion at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members for the first time AT THE FUNERAL itself. Several (including me) were shocked and surprised.

But this is far from the norm. I've worked in the sound "A/V" booth at many assemblies/conventions since I was a teenager, and have made friends from all over the world. Then, when traveling, I have often met up with these friends. Perhaps I assume that this has been the norm for most Witnesses.

I know that there has been a trend toward more problems, although that's also just my opinion. But I hear about more problems and also see attendance down in several places.

We'd all like to see CSA eliminated from everywhere. I don't believe that we will ever be immune from problems the rest of the world has. But I'd hate to think that it's just as common with us as it is in some other religious institutions. But I don't blame the two-witness rule for the crime, but I do blame it for the slow wheels of congregational justice. And who knows? I think people like Raymond Franz had a chance to fix that part of the problem much earlier, and yet he was evidently blind to it.

I have a feeling that both CSA and shunning will both be "fixed" to the best of the organization's ability from a procedural/rules perspective within a couple of years. It will still happen, of course, but the policies will be adjusted to conform to something more loving. I heard a well known brother in a responsible position at Bethel say that there were only two things that needed to change to nearly remove all the "deserved" animus against us: our shunning policy and our blood policy. He thought both of them should be changed for scriptural reasons. I'm sure he hadn't realized how big the CSA problem would be when more fully exposed.

Local squabbling will always be a problem when brothers see titles as positions of "power" for their ego, instead of opportunities to serve one another more efficiently. I've seen a share of it, and assumed it didn't happen as much elsewhere. I was in a place to hear some yelling and screaming back in the 70's and 80's at Bethel, and a friend tells me that he thinks all the GB get along very well, but that the "helpers" have been known to squabble loudly. Perhaps some things are worth squabbling about. (and most things probably aren't) The apostle Paul speaks of such things even in his own life as a Christian.

Well, you probably know that I don't try to defend everything that's wrong, and I think that everything that's wrong should actually be exposed in the city gates. Exposure actually reduces bad behavior. I've seen it happen directly a few times. Perhaps even bad doctrines and bad decisions and bad policy can be revisited if enough people raise questions publicly. I heard a brother in the Writing Department say that he'd like to see all the things fixed right away that Raymond Franz exposed, and he lamented that some would not be easy to fix. But many of them have already, by now, been fixed.