JW Insider

11 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Is that where we are on this now?

Pretty much. Excellent summary.

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I suspect that while Fred Franz was almost surely both the writer and the "approval checker" of the 1956 article, that he kept his distance from the Aid Book project. This does not mean that the information in the Aid Book , "Divorce" article (written likely at least one year before section A-E was released at an assembly in 1969) came directly from R.Franz. It was obviously copied very closely from the 1956 article. It was also true that R.Franz says that, when working on the Aid Book, he did not think he had the leeway to make changes to the current doctrines, but he also admits to not even having any thought or inclination to discuss changes to doctrines until after such questions were brought to the Governing Body around 1972 and after.

And even though he was not a member of the Governing Body, but just a new guy in the Writing Department, I still kind of "blame" him for being given an opportunity to research through these topics again, and not to question them immediately and strongly. All of us are supposed to question everything, and he appears to have been given a wonderful opportunity from at least 1968 to 1971, and yet spent more of his "political capital" on the new elder arrangement. Returning to an elder arrangement like the one that Rutherford had opposed was a good thing, of course. But I think he was in a good position to push for many more changes and he evidently never considered these things closely. Of course, I have the same issue with the other brothers who just let things go along as tradition had said, but most of the others were not given an assignment with the leeway to just let the facts fall where the Scriptures lead. He says that this is what Fred Franz told him he should do, and there are a couple of blatant areas where he fell short in this assignment.

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I have never discussed with anyone how far back these errors actually went, but my father tells me that he knew of the problem when he was first a Congregation Servant in the 1960's and an elder since 1971. I have an uncle who would know, but I'm not comfortable asking about the topic with him, even though, as a former circuit overseer, he could speak to things that came up in entire circuits. My father just mentioned an article they used from the 1950's just months before I was born. I found it:

*** w56 10/1 p. 588 par. 12, 20 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***

• 12 By the laws of states and nations today divorce is granted on a number of grounds. Persons who have lost or killed their love for their marriage mate try to grab hold of whatever legal grounds they can to break the marriage tie, such as mental cruelty, laziness, refusal of conjugal rights, drunkenness, insanity, incurable disease, desertion or abandonment, barrenness, sodomy, bestiality, criminality, incompatibility, change of one’s religion, and so on, besides adultery. But are all these legal grounds Scripturally right, valid for the Christian? Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s Counselor for us. The Jewish Pharisees once tested him with this question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every kind of grounds?” Jesus did not answer those questioners by referring to the Roman Caesar’s laws concerning divorce. He referred to the superior law of the Most High God and showed there is but one ground for divorce—adultery or moral unfaithfulness.
• Sodomy (or the unnatural intercourse of one male with another male as with a female), Lesbianism (or the homosexual relations between women), and bestiality (or the unnatural sexual relations by man or woman with an animal) are not Scriptural grounds for divorce. They are filthy, they are unclean, and God’s law to Israel condemned to death those committing such misdeeds, thus drastically putting these out of God’s congregation. But such acts are not adultery with the opposite sex, making the unclean person one flesh with another of the opposite sex.

One would think that the term "adultery or moral unfaithfulness" would have covered the "AOS" ground, but notice that the paragraph explicitly mentioned that bestiality and sodomy were legal grounds but not Scriptural grounds. My father says that questions about this went to the Service Department and in the mid-1960's, at least, Harley Miller (Service Department Overseer) would actually get on the phone with the Congregation Servant and give the instructions that sodomy and bestiality were not the same as "adultery." I can't say how consistent this was over the years, but my father says it was already in effect in the mid-1960's. And here we also have one of the Watchtowers used in defense of it going back to the mid-1950's.

As an aside, the same article from 1956 allowed for scriptural divorce for a wife's artificial insemination where she does not get permission from the impotent husband. This makes some sense, but the idea of "a virtual committing of adultery" should have provided the slippery slope to resolve these other issues. But even where they both agree, they would both be disfellowshipped. Note that there was a stronger tendency to rely on the Mosaic Law to develop some of these rules:

*** w56 10/1 pp. 590-591 par. 18 Marriage Obligations and Divorce ***

• Where a man is impotent today the married couple in their desire for children might agree for the wife to receive the seed of another man by artificial insemination. Some law courts have already held that artificial insemination is adultery and that children produced by such means are illegitimate. The recent British Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended as a ground for divorce the wife’s acceptance of artificial insemination by a donor of seed without her husband’s consent. Such a divorce would be Scriptural. But where the husband consented it would be grounds for the disfellowshiping of both man and wife. Why? Because it is a virtual committing of adultery, and both man and wife consented to the immoral act. The husband in effect gave her to another man to receive the seed of copulation, and the wife gave herself to a man not her husband to become the mother of a child by that other man with whom she was not one flesh. It is an adulterous course, and the fact that the husband adopts the child does not do away with the fact that he consented to the adulterous use of his wife.—Lev. 15:16-18, 32, 33; 19:20; Num. 5:12, 13, NW.

Also, it's odd that even where the congregation would normally disfellowship, he or she can avoid the disfellowshipping if the innocent spouse has forgiven the other spouse:

• 33 When a congregation withholds an excommunication action because of the innocent mate’s prior forgiveness, this does not mean that the guilty mate may not and should not be deprived of any special responsibilities or service privileges in the congregation. Here, not excommunication, but the qualifications for special service positions in the congregation are involved.

4 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However, I can't see those affected as being a high number in view of both the consequences, and the short time period of error. Not that that reduces the effects for any individuals caught in the confusion of course, albeit for a few months.

I think this statement needs clarification. Perhaps it's a good idea, after all, to look into some background of this doctrine issue. We could go back much further, but since you brought up the Aid Book --a portion on divorce that was published in 1969-- I think we should go back further into the 1960's to start. The following would have most likely come from Fred Rusk or Fred Franz, approved at the time, I think, by Adams.

*** w63 2/1 p. 78 par. 22 Conduct “Worthy of the Good News” ***

• 22 But what can be done where the marriage is not a happy one, where there are disagreements over religion or over other matters? Are there any grounds upon which such a marriage might be ended by divorce, allowing the man or woman to marry another partner with whom they feel they could get along better? The Bible does not permit divorce just for any reason. While the law of the land may permit a divorce just because a husband and wife do not get along together and want to be free to marry somebody else, the Bible states only one reason allowing for a divorce that really brings the marriage to an end, namely, adultery. Jesus made this clear when he said: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [that is, adultery], and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:9) By the act of adultery the unfaithful mate really becomes one flesh with someone other than his lawful marriage partner. Of course, the faithful partner may choose to forgive this act and continue to live with his mate, but if he chooses to divorce because of the adultery of his mate, then he will be free to marry some other person, since the marriage contract is thus Scripturally as well as legally broken. In view of the need for understanding and love to make a marriage last, the dedicated Christian heeds the wise counsel of the Scriptures to marry “only in the Lord,” that is, to marry one who is, like him, a dedicated Christian.—1 Cor. 7:39.

A couple things to notice here. One point is nuanced but made clearer in other publications: that only the innocent party could choose to get the divorce, otherwise the divorce would not free the innocent mate to remarry. That's another story. Another point is that the "only one reason" allowing for divorce was tied in 1963 to 'becoming one flesh' with the other person -- not just any kind of "porneia" but only "straight" adultery.

But notice that it is the type of thing that became bound up in the types of rulings that the Governing Body began to spend more and more of their time on. Per comments referring to the period 1971-1972 here is what R.Franz says, about the early meetings of the GB:

• At times the entire meeting lasted but a few minutes; one that I recall lasted only seven minutes (including the opening prayer). Then from time to time President Knorr would bring some “problem correspondence” involving questions as to certain conduct by individual Witnesses, and the Body was to decide what policy should be adopted regarding these, whether the particular conduct called for disfellowshiping, some lesser discipline, or no action at all.

Those early meetings, he says, sometimes consisted only of reading a list of names of branch appointments from places like Suriname, Sri Lanka, or Zambia that no one usually recognized, and then the GB would vote on the appointments. But now, at least by 1972, the topics were beginning to include the following issues, R.Franz says:

• As weeks went along discussions were held on such subjects as whether a father qualifies as an elder if he allows a son or daughter to marry when only eighteen years of age; whether one qualifies as an elder if he approves of his son or daughter taking higher education; [Higher education was, and to some extent still is, generally frowned upon as conducive to loss of faith and as providing an atmosphere likely to contribute to immorality.] whether one qualifies as an elder if he does shift work and sometimes (while on night shift) misses congregational meetings; whether elders can accept circumstantial evidence of adultery, or the testimony of a wife that her husband confessed adultery to her, and whether this is sufficient to allow for Scriptural divorce and remarriage; whether a divorce is Scripturally acceptable if, even where adultery has been committed, the one obtaining the divorce is the guilty mate rather than the innocent mate; [At that time the ruling was that only if the innocent mate got the divorce was it Scripturally valid.]  what validity a divorce has when obtained on grounds other than adultery if, after the divorce is granted, evidence of pre-divorce adultery comes to light; what the situation is if such a divorce is obtained and there is post-divorce adultery; whether an innocent mate’s having sex relations with an adulterous mate (subsequent to learning of the adultery) cancels out the right to divorce that mate and be free to remarry; whether it is proper for a Witness to pay a fine if that fine is imposed because of an infraction of law resulting from his witnessing activity or because of some stand he had taken in order to adhere to Witness beliefs; whether it is proper to send food or other assistance to persons by means of the Red Cross (the main issue here being that the cross is a religious symbol, and so the Red Cross organization might be quasi-religious . . . ). . . .
• The effect of our decisions was considerable in its impact on the lives of others. In matters of divorce, for example, the congregation elders serve as a sort of religious court and if they are not satisfied as to the validity of a divorce action, the individual who goes through with such a divorce and then later remarries becomes subject to disfellowshiping.

I will break this up into smaller pieces so as to not create multi-page posts.

Because this post was moved away from its original context, a response to a post about Armstrong's promotion of 1975, I will edit the post below to contain all of @AllenSmith's original material, here. I'm moving his images outside the quote, so that they can be more easiliy seen as relevant to the discussion of H.W.Armstrong, as Allen intended.

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I believe many JW’s seem to forget the crossover ideologies that were in competition at that, time. Those of us that were there understood what was being said by others, not just by the Watchtower. So, there were many ideas where people could reflect from, especially with conspiracy theories.

One work in progress at that time was Herbert W Armstrong. One of his works from 1956 accumulated to his booklet of 1975 prophecy. His magazine, “good news” spoke about Armageddon in our lifetime. That magazine was published in July 1975.

So, this idea that 1975 only came from the Watchtower, lacks facts and visionÂ….

 

 

7 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

One of his works from 1956 accumulated to his booklet of 1975 prophecy.

And, don't forget that, in 1956, Herbert W Armstrong supposedly stole the idea from the February 1, 1955 Watchtower, which put the end of 6,000 years within one year of 1976:

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***

• In 1953 in preparing the chart that appears in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” a one-year error was brought to light. By the aid of the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures the difference between the two numbers appearing at Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 7:11 became apparent, especially since there are two different Hebrew words here maintaining a distinct difference. At Genesis 7:6 the number 600 referring to NoahÂ’s age means 600 full years, being what is generally termed a cardinal number. Whereas at Genesis 7:11 the number “600th,” an ordinal number, means 599 full years plus a portion of another year. . . .  Inasmuch as previously our chronology considered Noah as 600 full years old when he entered the ark, instead of the actual 599 years and some months, as we now see, this has meant that the preflood dates must be shrunk by one year, this bringing AdamÂ’s creation for the fall of 4025 B.C. Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October.—1 Cor. 15:45, NW.
• It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in manÂ’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.
• According to Genesis 1:24-31 Adam was created during the last part of the sixth creative-day period of 7,000 years. Almost all independent chronologists assume incorrectly that, as soon as Adam was created, then began JehovahÂ’s seventh seven-thousand-year period of the creative week. Such then figure that from AdamÂ’s creation, now thought to be the fall of 4025 B.C., why, six thousand years of GodÂ’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of manÂ’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of JehovahÂ’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of JehovahÂ’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, JehovahÂ’s sabbath, began. . . .
• The very fact that, as part of JehovahÂ’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of JehovahÂ’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of AdamÂ’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.

Of course, just a decade or so later, the Watchtower began minimizing the amount of time it would have taken for a perfect man to name all the animals if Jehovah brought them to him in a steady stream. The flaw in this reasoning was that angels would surely know that amount of time that Jehovah had kept a secret, so they would be aware of the day and the hour "when 6,000 years of Jehovah's present rest day come to an end."

There is also evidence that Fred W. Franz, who wrote the article above, in 1955, began recalculating in the early 1970's and wanted to begin publishing October 1974 as the date for the end of the 6,000 years of human history. F.W.Franz, I am told, thought this would have strengthened the 1975 argument. But this was supposedly one of the few times when N.Knorr put his foot down and told him he had caused enough trouble with 1975, and that Knorr thought that this vacillation would actually weaken the faith that people put in the Watchtower.

You probably already know this, but to your point, many Witnesses had to be counseled not to listen to Armstrong's radio program, especially in the late 1960's and early 1970's when many Witnesses claimed that he sounded exactly like the Watchtower.

12 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So, we came to question did Centralized company inc. body is/was Jesus intention in gathering the sheep for His flock?

That's a good topic. It's been discussed here before. Perhaps someone can point to the place.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not a happy topic.

True. I remember that this topic came up once before a couple of years ago and I stayed out of it. But that woman, Anna, she kept dragging my name into it, and so I bit into the subject this time.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not sure what is meant here. The topic is about homesexual behaviour providing grounds for divorce. Is that not about the breaking up a marriage?

I am not exactly staying on topic as narrowly as it seems defined here. I speculated about marriages broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. The term "homosexual behavior," you will remember, was being used (during that time period) as a stand-in phrase for aberrant sexual practices between heterosexual married partners that could include anal or oral sex (AOS). Perhaps, I will use this made-up term "AOS" rather than spell it out. So, on the topic of breaking up marriages, consider, for example, that a sister might wish to obtain a divorce against a husband (believing or unbelieving) who insisted on AOS, during a time when the Service Department (and Branch) was inconsistent. If the sister obtained a divorce and remarried, she could be subject to disfellowshipping, even if the congregation had approved of her divorce. (In some countries, especially in unstable or "failed" states, the congregation was a better record-keeper of marriage/divorce than the state itself.)

This topic evidently came up much more often within heterosexual marriages, especially marriages between a believer and non-believer, when either the husband or wife wished to engage in AOS, and their partner did not wish to engage. Or both wished to engage and one or both ended up disfellowshipped. I handled more than one of these cases myself, and at the time, my wife knew of even more cases than those which came to the elders. These situations were evidently common, and the stress of perceived intrusion by the congregation and/or unscriptural legalism resulted in broken marriages, divorce, and questions about freedom to remarry, injustice, anger, and even disfellowshipping for unscriptural remarriage.

While I was at Bethel, a brother in Writing -- I won't name him because he's still alive -- complained to me that more unmarried, young people than ever were taking some recent counsel as permission to engage in oral sex.** He was somewhere between "livid" and "flabbergasted." I remember he said: "How can even a married couple think of doing this?!?! They know the angels are watching!" The idea of angels in a couple's bedroom was an odd image that stuck with me. At any rate, I know that this brother was involved in the actual writing of one of the corrections or clarifications of a previous view.

• **Although this might seem impossible, I heard it stated to me directly by one of these persons in 1977, who had once believed it, but had come to his senses. He said that since 1974 with Armageddon around the corner, no one really knew for sure what lay ahead, and even if the Society was promising eternal marriages in perfect paradise, that, for all they knew, this might be the last chance to know what sex is like. And that this was a way to experience it without sinning to the extent of becoming "one flesh" with the other person.

I'm not sure it will mean much to go through the history of these issues. But I'm willing to see if I can add anything to the conversation if anyone thinks it could be useful.

12 hours ago, Anna said:

With that I assume you mean the 1971 Aid book part?

Yes and no. (Mostly no.) It was not so simple. There were multiple issues that arose and two separate corrections.

I don't think R.Franz has ever claimed to have written more than a few specific articles in the Aid Book, only mentioning a couple of them where he discusses the questions and research that was necessary for them. He had responsibility for starting and completing the Aid Book, but much of this was done by assigning hundreds of small articles to various Branch personnel worldwide who had some writing experience writing talks, yearbook experiences, Awake correspondent articles, translating publications, and handling branch correspondence. Major Bible-based articles in the Aid Book were mostly handled by a team of only about 5 brothers in Brooklyn - in Writing plus one Gilead Instructor. R.Franz became more of a collator, editor and "project manager" for the Aid Book.

15 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If it is approved it was done by whole GB body, no matter of number of votes that was pro et contra :))))

It's true that there was a procedure to get all Writing approved, but remember that there was no Governing Body while this book was written and approved. Only one person among the corporate directors (a kind of proto-GB) would have had the say to approve or not. This was Fred Franz, and his eyesight was already poor and he was dictating many of his own articles and having a lot read to him (instead of reading it himself). I don't know if Lyman Swingle was supposed to read it before publication, I have heard it implied that he did. When I was in research, a GB member named Schroeder had not read it, and even asked me if I would read through it, looking for certain points he had in mind. About a dozen sisters read through assigned portions of it both for proofreading and so that the 1966-1970 Index (out in 1971) could include all the topics and scripture references for the full 1971 Aid Book (A through Z). We did not have electronic storage of it at that time. So, up to a greater point than some realize, R.Franz really was responsible for errors he made, too.

30 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

What century are you living in?

The Aid Book was the primary Bible study reference for all JWs until 1988, 29 years ago, but I'm guessing that 90% of the original articles stayed the same even in the Insight Book that replaced it in 1988. I'm sure there are people still alive whose marriages were broken up over the Watchtower's counsel on this topic. And perhaps there are some who are still alive who were disfellowshipped and should not have been, and some that should have been disciplined and were not, resulting in injustice. The basic issues and definitions that were once wrong on this topic were fixed relatively quickly, but this alone does not resolve the stress and loss and injustice that some suffered due to the short-lived "gaffe" in the Watchtower. The Bible acknowledges that injustice can have a bad effect not only on the person but even on their children and grandchildren.

I can't speak for J.R.Ewing JR, but I'd say you might have misunderstood the reason he presented the material he presented. I think he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses and that he was trying to defend the morality of JWs, both historically and currently. He was not, imo, trying to promote a non-Witness idea.

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

(Who wrote that?)

Most of what I'm sharing here is taken from one of the books by R.Franz. I can only corroborate a small part of it. At any rate, it looks like R.Franz admits that he was asked to write both the first defense of the bad policy and the later correction.

20 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not sure, but I have a feeling this may have been written or approved by Raymond Franz. @JW Insider may know better.

I think you are right. Fred Franz wrote a 1969 article that got much of these concerns started over the definition of "porneia," and this article started a number of judicial issues which were typically handled by the Service Department (Harley Miller, Merton Campbell, etc.) Believe it or not, Knorr and Fred Franz had very little input into congregational discipline issues from about 1968 to nearly 1980. Harley Miller was trusted to manage this through his team. He was the chief "executioner" in those days. Fred Franz was a prophecy specialist and the primary doctrines he took an interest in were related to fulfillment of prophecy. Nathan Knorr was a bureaucrat, whose work running a fast-growing organization left him with almost no time for anything else. With the only other active organizational officers like G.Suiter, L.Swingle, and M.Henschel, the g.b. only existed for corporate, bureaucratic functions like signing checks, buying presses, paper, property and ink, etc.

The governing body did not exist as a "body" or even a "committee" of any kind until 1971 when R.Franz, G.Gangas, L.Greenlees, and W.Jackson were added to the corporate-defined officers. But none of these men, not even Knorr, even in 1971 would have thought it possible to suggest a change in doctrine, which could have only fallen to F.Franz.

There became one exception to that rule, because one member of this new Governing Body was put there specifically because he had successfully completed the Aid Book, and a couple items from the Aid Book resulted in policy/doctrinal changes. One of those policy changes was the creation (in 1971) of the "elder arrangement" with committees, which by extension, resulted in the creation of the "Governing Body." But Franz, in his book, says that even then 1971-1974, he still would never had thought of suggesting a change in doctrine, and the initial meetings of the GB were not about spiritual matters, but just bureaucratic matters like rubber-stamping the sign-off on lists of names selected for full-time branch assignments and traveling overseers. But Knorr began bringing in some of the questionable disfellowshipping decisions (from Harley Miller and Merton Campbell, etc) and other Service Department issues. Most people didn't notice, but the Writing Department was still on a 20-year cycle (updating articles that had been printed approximately 20 years earlier, starting in the mid-1930's) with a lot more, new prophecy-related updates by F.Franz interspersed.

So the 1972 article was to be written as a defense of the current disfellowshippings by the Service Department, and R.Franz was given the assignment during a time when he still did not question the general doctrines. Remember that the Aid Book didn't even question our chronology even though R.Franz already should have known better based on all the contrary research they found while preparing that book. According to Franz it was not until between 1974 and 1976 when he realized that he disagreed with the rest of the Governing Body who voted that a sister was not free to get a divorce because her husband only had anal sex with another woman. The Governing Body's opinion was that oral or anal sex or bestiality on the part of the husband with other women (or animals) would not have freed her to remarry. At this point he was sure the other members had it wrong and when the policy finally changed, he says he was happy that he was also assigned to write the updated correction to the old ruling in 1976.  

6 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Actually as an afterthought, how do you substantiate this?

This was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was havin' a laugh (or in this case "having a loaf" as one of your UK ads says it.) But here goes:

There are about 365 days in a year. So all disfellowshippings take place between 0 and 365 days after the Memorial. The average amount of time is therefore 365/2, which is 182.5 days. Just to allow for some unpredictable skewing, and to be a little more conservative, and because the word "most" is technically at least 50.0001%, I pretended that the year has two extra weeks, so that the average would be 380/2 which is 190 days.

So it was no different than saying that about half of all disfellowshippings will take place during a six-month period, on average. Saying on average, should make the estimate even a bit more conservative, since some years all of a congregation's disfellowshippings might take place towards Winter, but in other years all of them might take place closer to Summer.

It should always be the case that a disfellowshipping is either 182.5 (or 183) days before or after a Memorial because this will cover the entire year, although I left out the word "on average" here which would have better accounted for the times when one Memorial is in March but the following year's Memorial is in April. Still, if, on average, all events (DF'ing or anything else) take place either 182.5 days before or after a Memorial, then the average amount of days that these events take place on EITHER side of a Memorial is 91.25 days (182.5/2) or 91.375 accounting for leap years. I rounded this to 90 instead of 91.375.**

** In my own experience in about 6 congregations from Californian, Missouri and New York, there is a strong skewing toward summer disfellowshippings, and some of this might even be related to the reminders all the elders get in the "season" of extra shepherding visits encouraged just before the Memorial, and the follow-ups just after. This helps my numbers by a few decimal points, but is unnecessary where I said "average." 

At any rate, after correcting the 90 to 91.375, I stand by these numbers, on average.

4 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Quick question. What would be the difference between keeping a commandment versus keeping a tradition?

Sounds rhetorical, here, too. One, of course, involves a commandment from a higher authority and a tradition just refers to periodically repeated actions (or attendant rites) not based on any specific requirements or commandments. I suppose you might be pointing out the fact that the Israelites were keeping a command to celebrate their harvests, and Thanksgiving has nothing to with a command to celebrate harvests. If this is what you are saying, I would agree.

4 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Did the Israelites force, kill, and infect with diseases native Americans by their traditions?

The Israelites played a part in every one of those actions toward the native Egyptians in the land they left and toward the Canaanites and other related nations in the land promised to them, and even towards non-conforming members of their own nation of Israelites. But it was by command of God, as they understood it, or through the direct actions of God.   

44 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Fascinating to see an inconsistent use of Jehovah's name as mentioned in the preface. More detail on the reasoning would be of interest.

True. Thanks for pointing that out. Psalm 23's omission of the divine name was especially glaring. I think that the following must include the portion of the preface that you referred to:

 

2 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

The world's most valuable book': Copy of psalms dated 1640 sells at New York auction for record $14.2M

Alas! As with so many facets of life, even the value of the Bible as a printed book has sometimes been eclipsed by the value put on of a book of science. Wikipedia (linked from a Wikipedia article about the Bay Psalter)

• The Codex Leicester (also briefly known as Codex Hammer) is a collection of famous scientific writings by Leonardo da Vinci. The Codex is named after Thomas Coke, later created Earl of Leicester, who purchased it in 1719. Of Leonardo's 30 scientific journals, the Codex may be the most famous of all. The manuscript currently holds the record for the second highest sale price of any book, as it was sold to Bill Gates at Christie's auction house on 11 November 1994 in New York for US$30,802,500 (equivalent to $49,772,200 in 2016).^[1][2][3]

On 11/24/2017 at 11:29 PM, The Librarian said:

I recall jw saying with some pride that former President of Zimbabwe, Mugabe's wife nicknamed "Gucci" Grace due her spending habits is a JW. Is this correct?

I have heard this too, but never from a source I knew personally. I believe it may have been true of the first wife of South Africa's President Nelson Mandela. Per Wikipedia (and other sources):

• Evelyn became a Jehovah's Witness,^[2] and separated from Mandela in 1955 after what her husband described in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, as an irreconcilable conflict between politics and religion. "I could not give up my life in the struggle, and she could not live with my devotion to something other than herself and her family", he wrote. "I never lost my admiration for her, but in the end we could not make our marriage work."^[13]
• Evelyn moved to Cofimvaba in the eastern Cape, where she opened up a shop, and pinned a notice to the gate asking media to leave her alone.^[3] One reporter, Fred Bridgland, did manage to obtain an interview, in which he discussed the proposals surrounding Mandela's release from prison. She was angry at the situation, believing that it was being treated like the second coming of Christ and proclaiming "How can a man who has committed adultery and left his wife and children be Christ? The whole world worships Nelson too much. He is only a man."^[3]
• Evelyn spent much of her later years working as a Jehovah's Witness missionary. She kept the name Mandela, but in the late 1990s she married retired Soweto businessman Simon Rakeepile.^[14]
• She died on 30 April 2004.^[1] Mandela attended the funeral along with his second and third wives.^[15]

Perhaps, since Grace Mugabe also came from South Africa, these facts helped promote a rumor.

I did notice that in the comments section of more than one newspaper article about Grace Mugabe, that commenters left messages that have the sound of something one of Jehovah's Witnesses might say in her defense:

Here's one good example found at: https://dev.newsday.co.zw/2015/11/mugabe-is-suffering-grace/ The article ends on this note:

• On Friday Grace told a rally she often skips meals in solidarity with starving Zimbabweans.

One of the best responses was:

• Please tell the Queen that SOMETIMES we eat in solidarity with the first family

Most of the responses were sarcastic, except possibly this one:

I don't mention this as evidence that Grace Mugabe might actually be a JW, but to show how easy it is to keep such a rumor going, if that's what it is.

19 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Matthew you do realize in reading what Jehovah asked of the nation of Israel was that they be HIS special property, any who wanted to serve had to go through certain things be part of the nation.

On 9/15/2016 at 11:44 PM, Nicole said:

In fact these austere and religious settlers of America would have been dismayed had they known of the long and popular history of harvest festivals, of which their Thanksgiving was only the latest. .... The harvest festival, with its attendant rites, seems to have spread out from ... Egypt and Syria and Mesopotamia. The first or the last sheaf of wheat was offered to the `Great Mother' ... Astarte

Curiously, the nation of Israel was also asked to celebrate the harvest with its attendant rites, offering up the first sheaf of wheat to Jehovah.

• (Exodus 34:22,26) 22 “And you will celebrate your Festival of Weeks with the first ripe fruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering [Harvest] at the turn of the year. . . . 26 “The best of the first ripe fruits of your soil you are to bring to the house of Jehovah your God.

Two of the three primary holy festivals were Harvest festivals:

• (Exodus 23:15-17) . . .. 16 Also, you are to observe the Festival of Harvest of the first ripe fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field; and the Festival of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the results of your labors. 17 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the true Lord, Jehovah.

Many in Israel confused this with the same rites that others followed and offered these not just to Jehovah, but according to some of the earliest mentions of Jehovah's name in Hebrew archaeology: Jehovah and his Astoret (Astarte/Ashtoreth).

Some of the "attendant rituals" for the harvest holiday periods included the following:

• (Leviticus 2:12-16) 12 “‘You may present them to Jehovah as an offering of the firstfruits, but they must not be brought to the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 “‘Every grain offering you make is to be seasoned with salt; and you must not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be missing from your grain offering. Along with every offering of yours, you will present salt. 14 “‘If you present the grain offering of the first ripe fruits to Jehovah, you should present new grain roasted with fire, coarsely crushed new kernels, as the grain offering of your first ripe fruits. 15 You are to put oil on it and place frankincense on it. It is a grain offering. 16 The priest will make it smoke as a token offering, that is, some of the coarse grain and oil along with all its frankincense, as an offering made by fire to Jehovah.

• (Leviticus 23:9-21) 9 Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 10 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When you eventually come into the land that I am giving you and you have reaped its harvest, you must bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 And he will wave the sheaf back and forth before Jehovah to gain approval for you. The priest should wave it on the day after the Sabbath. . . .  13 Its grain offering will be two tenths of an eʹphah of fine flour mixed with oil, as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, a pleasing aroma. Its drink offering will be a fourth of a hin of wine. 14 You must not eat any bread, roasted grain, or new grain until this day, until you bring the offering of your God. It is a lasting statute for all your generations wherever you dwell. 15 “‘You are to count seven sabbaths from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you bring the sheaf of the wave offering. They should be complete weeks. 16 You will count off 50 days until the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then you should present a new grain offering to Jehovah. 17 You should bring from your dwelling places two loaves as a wave offering. These should be made of two tenths of an eʹphah of fine flour. They should be baked with leaven, as first ripe fruits to Jehovah. . . . They will serve as a burnt offering to Jehovah along with the corresponding grain offering and drink offerings, as an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to Jehovah. . . . They should serve as something holy to Jehovah for the priest. 21 On this day you will make a proclamation for a holy convention for yourselves. You may not do any hard work. It is a lasting statute in all your dwelling places for all your generations.

Even more curiously, I am re-reading the Iliad -- a brand new non-poetic translation that does not attempt the fake, stilted language that was never part of the original, but which is always loved by academics and scholars. There are many more points of similarity between Greek and Hebrew religion than I had noticed previously. The most common point of similarity that people point out is the fact that Jehovah finds the aroma of sacrifice pleasing and so do the Greek gods. There are other points of similarity I hadn't noticed until now. (A later post, perhaps.)

15 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

She was so touched by that commendation that she never again spoke of leaving the traveling work.

My uncle was a circuit overseer in the traveling work for many years, and more recently had only served as a temporary circuit overseer due to his age. His wife (my aunt) also received one of these letters. I would guess that about 5,000 of these letters went out worldwide, and the chances that several of them would arrive at the right time for it was clearly very good. Many circuit overseer's wives find the lifestyle very difficult.

On 11/21/2017 at 10:55 AM, JW Insider said:

If Bergen claims that such health issues are only 10% to 16% higher in JWs than the general population, I would not think this is so surprising in the time period that he tried to measure.

I just decided to listen to Rolf Furuli's video regarding the study, noticing that @Nana Fofana has provided a YouTube link. My comment on the 10 to 16% was based on the link that JTR gave, where I read the following in the abstract summary of the article written by Rolf Furuli:

• Jerry Bergman has published one book and several articles on the mental health of JW. . . . . his claim that Witnesses have  between 10 and 16% higher rate of mental illness than the non-Witness population, and that 10% of the congregation members are in need of professional help, has no basis whatsoever.

However, when I listen to the video, I see that Rolf Furuli makes a different claim. In the video Furuli says that Bergman has claimed that the rate of mental illness among JWs is 10 to 16 times higher than the non-Witness population.

If Furuli is correct about Bergman's claim as summarized in his article, then I would agree with Bergman as I stated before. However, if Furuli is correct about Bergman's claim as presented in the video, then I would not agree with Bergman. For example, if 20 out of a 1000 persons in a random collection of adults might have mental illness, Bergman would be claiming that 23 random JWs would have mental illness, if 16% higher. But, if 16 times higher, then this would mean that JWs could expect to see 320 persons with mental illness out a thousand. (I know I started with a high base number of 2%, but this was to more easily illustrate the problem with the claim.)

Just got back home. Anything happen while I was out?

7 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JESUS DID NOT TELL US THAT his faithful SLAVE WOULD PRODUCE PERFECT spiritual food.

But HE DID NOT SAY THAT SPRITUAL FOOD WOULD BE PROVIDED FROM ANYWHERE ELSE!

The slave does not produce spiritual food, it's just that any servant that is properly motivated will do what they can to share what they can. Our Governing Body has done an excellent job in finding efficient ways to share "spiritual" food, because the ministry they have chosen to administer for us is a teaching ministry. But the illustration of the "wicked and faithful slave" that this idea is based on says nothing about spiritual food specifically. A true steward will always do what is in his power to effectively carry out his ministry.

But all of us are slaves of Christ, and all of us should learn from the same illustration, whether it is spiritual food we share, physical food, comfort, clothing, support, encouragement -- our food should be for us to do the will of our Father. But I think it's clear that the "food" includes sharing physical food, wherever such a stewardship and ministry is necessary.

• (James 1:27) 27 The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

• (Acts 6:1) . . ., the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution.

• (1 Timothy 5:3-8) 3 Give consideration to widows who are truly widows. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight. 5 Now the woman who is truly a widow and left destitute has put her hope in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. . . .  8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.

• (Matthew 10:42) 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward.”

Paul made a point to show that there is no separate "body" within the "body of the congregation." People who believed this would look to men who were good teachers of spiritual things, like Paul himself, or Apollos. Paul said: all Christians were fellow servants, and that all of us carry the burdens of one another. Yet in the end, we are responsible for our own spiritual standing -- not because of specific teachings produced by others.

• (1 Corinthians 3:5-9) 5 What, then, is A·polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. 6 I planted, A·polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow, 7 so that neither is the one who plants anything nor is the one who waters, but God who makes it grow. 8 Now the one who plants and the one who waters are one, but each person will receive his own reward according to his own work. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field under cultivation, God’s building.

• (Galatians 6:2-5) 2 Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.

• 1 Corinthians 7:22-24) . . .he that was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23 YOU were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24 In whatever condition each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it associated with God.

I think we should take offense at the idea that the Governing Body produces spiritual food. Jesus is the food. And all of us will be taught ultimately by Jehovah.

• (John 6:45-58) 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by Jehovah.’ Everyone who has listened to the Father and has learned comes to me. 46 Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father. 47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life. 48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when your forefathers ate and yet died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

• (1 Corinthians 3:11) 11 For no one can lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

So far, we should remember that so many times when the Governing Body has attempted to produce food, that food has soon rotted or has become stale. But there has always been great permanent value in everything they have shared, even when they are just sharing a cup of water with another one of Christ's brothers when directing a response to material disasters around the world, or other helpful services, or rebuilding a place of worship, or sharing Bibles and Bible-based publications and videos, talks, sermons, artwork, organizing assemblies, etc. But we shouldn't shirk our own part in all this. It's important that ALL of us are faithful and discreet stewards. Otherwise, I think we have missed the point of Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24, and might sometimes just be relying on obsolete types and antitypes to avoid carrying our own load.

• (1 Peter 4:10-11) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.. . .
• *** Rbi8 1 Peter 4:10 ***    Or, “house managers.” Lit., “house administrators.” Gr., oi·ko·noʹmoi; Lat., di·spen·sa·toʹres; J22(Heb.), kesoh·khenimʹ, “as stewards.”
• (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28) 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation:. . . teachers; . . . helpful services; abilities to direct;. . .

When Jesus returns to ask who among us were really faithful stewards, and who were shirking our responsibilities, imagine his reaction --in light of these scriptures-- if we were to tell Jesus that we thought we were supposed to depend on a specific body of men to define what he meant by ministering and to define the types of food we shared with others.

• (Luke 12:47, 48) 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.

On 11/20/2017 at 5:03 PM, Matthew9969 said:

2 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For ^uthe trumpet will sound, and ^vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and ^wthis mortal body must put on immortality.

Paul is evidently providing a commentary on Jesus' words about the harvest, which occurs after the sign of the Son of man appears in heaven.

• (Matthew 24:30, 31) 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

Just as Paul spoke of this as a harvest (gathering) of the chosen ones, [sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body] Jesus also spoke of this gathering as a harvest, after the time for the growing season is complete, after the wheat no longer grow along with the weeds:

• (Matthew 13:38-43) . . .As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .

Since the wheat and weeds are still growing together, we can see that we have not yet reached the harvest. But Jesus is speaking of the same thing: sown a physical body (growing alongside weeds in Satan's system), but a harvest time will come at the final end (synteleia) when the righteous ones will shine as "spiritual bodies" -- brightly as the sun.

And Paul ties it together again in Thessalonians:

• (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) 14 For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 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 [or "at the same time"] 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.

Of course, this "harvest" or "gathering" is tied directly to the "manifestation" "revelation" "parousia" and "synteleia" which is also an indication that we could expect the Watchtower to someday change the two-stage parousia teaching to one that fits the context of all these verses at the same time. Of course, this wouldn't change much at all except for the vocabulary. We would still know that Christ is present for all of us, just as he promised he would be right up until the conclusion. But we would still be waiting patiently for that special visible presence/manifestation referred to in Greek as the "parousia." (This is different from the Watchtower's current teaching, of course.)

• (James 5:7, 8) 7 Be patient then, brothers, until the presence of the Lord. Look! The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over it until the early rain and the late rain arrive. 8 You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence of the Lord has drawn close.

1 hour ago, Queen Esther said:

THATS  NEW......   Can  you  explain  why  now  616   -   and  where  do  you  read  that ?

It's not new. The possibility that 616 might be correct, was already acknowledged by a person who was born between only about 15 to 30 years after the apostle John died. At such an early date, every known difference among the Bible manuscripts would have been significant, because there were so few manuscripts of the Bible books at this time, compared to later. So any differences, if not caught right away, could result in a mistake that would be with us for the next 2,000 years.

As it turns out, we don't need the "witness" of the man born as few as 15 years after the apostle John died. The very earliest known fragment of the book of Revelation also says 616, not 666. Note this from Wikipedia:

• Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 ????. This fragment is the oldest manuscript . . . of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.^[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the P115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ????????? ???? ??, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").^[17]

 

• Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).^[16] Has the number of the beast as ???, 616.

What looks like XIC in the fragment is actually Greek for "xis" which are the numerals for 6+10+600 or 616. But to show that this was no simple copyist error, the verse also spells out the word for 616 in the way that we spell it out in English as "six-hundred sixteen" (oder auf Deutsch "sechshundert sechzehn"). In the text of the manuscript in Greek this is spelled out as "hexakosioi deka hex" as already noted above. Irenaeus, the man born as few as 15 years after John, preferred 666 to 616, but provides the evidence that he already saw the number 616 in manuscripts in the same generation as the apostle John. Irenaeus said:

• Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), - I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] - Adv. haer. 5.30

The Bible manuscript (P115) is not the only manuscript in which the 616 is found. Wikipedia also says:

• Although Irenaeus (2nd century AD) affirmed the number to be 666 . . . theologians have doubts about the traditional reading^[13] because of the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris - one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".^[14][15]  

The P115 mss is probably from 225 C.E. to 250 C.E.  Here, below, is how "666" was written in the Codex Vaticanus (between 350 and 400 C.E.):

So either version has the potential to be correct. But the earliest evidence we have is for 616, not 666. Also we can think about whether it was more likely that a mnemonic number like 666 would more likely turn into a non-mnemonic 616 or would it be more likely that a non-mnemonic would be retained as a mnemonic. In the study of the history of textual changes, the difficult is simplified more often than the simple is made more difficult.

In this case, however, there is an even better explanation as to why both 666 and 616 were both known at such an early date in the history of the manuscripts of Revelation. But that's another story, that is not necessary for this discussion.

I think the number was actually 616, not 666. Seriously.

24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What adds to the chill is that the Russian Orthodox translation also says Jehovah in about 9 places, per Anton Chivchalov.

True (for the Russian Synodal Bible). And the Makarios Bible uses the Divine Name nearly 6,000 times. (OT only, of course.)