JW Insider

I appreciate the fact that you expanded on this under a new topic heading. I am going to copy my initial response from the other thread "Would you like to know the truth about Hell?" [My initial response from last week is in italics below. I'll add some additional points later.] Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like. Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not. Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point. What I was trying to say is that, YES, it's been a suspected gloss not just in modern commentaries, but even, as I said, from the earliest years of textual commentary and criticism (meaning especially, Eusebius, who owned and had access to the most important libraries of documents from the previous two or three centuries of Christianity). Eusebius had his own prejudices about the Trinitarian formula, but he was also a very astute observer of the process of canonization, living at the last possible time period when the choices for canonical Bible manuscripts could still be considered "in flux." What I was also trying to say is that accepting the major theories of textual criticism involved here, are of a type that we have to be the most careful with. These are content and subject-based criticisms, which make a lot of use of the idea of an evolving theology. As you know, the Watch Tower Society makes much use of the scholarship based on such criticism where it relates to the evolving doctrine of the Trinity and especially how textual tampering might have taken place. The kinds of tools that help restore the most likely original manuscript when variations are found is related to this study, because variations were often inserted based on evolving doctrine. But it's another layer of textual-historical criticism that attempts to discover glosses based on evolving doctrine alone. Eusebius was an Arian (rather than an "orthodox" Trinitarian) and we do not have the original that he supposedly quotes from. It could very well have just been a variation that Eusebius preferred because any mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together was probably being seized on by Trinitarians. The "simplified gospel" for purposes of mnemonics was often abbreviated in early Christianity to the form of a kerygma, and the methods of explaining an abbreviated theology and Christology was also very likely an explanation requiring "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit." That "formula" was a good preaching "kerygma" for making points about Christ, points about baptism, and points about the kingdom, etc. If it were used by Jesus in the original, it could also provide a foundation for discussing our relationship with the Father, and our ability to come before his "presence" and how it has continued and will continue through the ages. This is implied in Jesus' words: "Look I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things." [by "kerygma" I mean not just "preaching" but the stype of abbreviated "bullet points" of the good news that could be easily remembered and then expanded upon in preaching, such as: "Jesus Christ, born of Mary, baptized by John, tried and killed under Pilate, resurrected by God, and now at God's right hand" or similar abbreviated gospels. There is evidence inside and outside the Bible that early Christians used such "kerygma."] So, I'm saying that it COULD have been part of the original. I think the Watch Tower Society would be very hesitant to dismiss it for several reasons. One is the danger of relying too much on this type of textual historical criticism. If this is suspect, then everything becomes suspect wherever there is a slight change of wording between the gospels, or between earlier and later letters of Paul or the pastoral letters. Another reason the WTS would be hesitant is because it would admit manuscript tampering during the second century, which we already are aware of, but we would not expect Trinitarian-oriented tampering to have happened so early in the immediate century after the Matthew was written. By the way, textual studies of the same type that make some scholars dismiss certain texts as tampered with, have also (in some other cases) made those same scholars dismiss various conclusions of Eusebius. The "two-witness" rule has a corollary in textual studies, too. I was hesitant myself to add my own view here because it's outside the norm for Witnesses. I have no problem supporting the verse as it appears in the NWT and pretty much all other translations and manuscripts known (which almost all come from after the council of Nicaea). I don't think it supports the Trinity in any way, so it doesn't bother me as a true statement about what Christians should preach. But I also personally believe that Jesus' original words were more likely to have matched the way Eusebius quoted them so often. This does not imply that I agree with all the other conclusions of Eusebius and those who have studied manuscripts giving credence to everything that Eusebius claims. My earlier comments also were intended to reflect the danger of using this particular verse as a proof that Jesus had not spoken about "hell" (hades and gehenna).

Thanks for the answer to my question. It's interesting. I'm away for a few days and would like to respond when I get back home.

FWIW, I think that you made your point very well, and the fact that you got people to defend a parallel between the way we measure spiritual health with the way we measure physical health made your point even stronger. At least to those who understand that you are coming at this from the viewpoint of first-century Christians. I heard two two Circuit Overseers (one was a "retired" CO) laughing about how the Apostle Paul would have probably thrown a fit if he saw how much emphasis was put on measuring numbers. It was their opinion that this is exactly what legalism was all about: measures vs. motivation. And it's not just Matthew 6:3, of course. It's the context of the entire "Sermon on the Mount" where it comes from. (Matthew 6:1, 2) . . .“Take care not to practice your righteousness in front of men to be noticed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . The idea of a "pioneer" or "full-time servant" as opposed to a publisher is just another legalism based on a measure so that we are "noticed" for our gifts of mercy. So the entire context of Romans (regarding "law") and other letters of Paul are just as applicable. We are being reminded that we probably would not have the motivation to perform such works without the "notice" that these "awarded" titles provide. Yet Jehovah does not reward "service" and "works;" Jehovah rewards only pure, heart-felt motivation. Works can be void of pure motivation, but pure motivation will never be void of the kind of works that Jehovah appreciates. Jehovah rewards only the motivation based on love for Him and love for our fellow humans. He sees our works, and does not ignore them of course, but it's our work done in secret, never reported to anyone, that is evidence of proper motivation. Otherwise, it is just as likely that it is men we are trying to please, not Jehovah. As I'm sure you already know, there are literally hundreds of other verses in support of this same idea.

Apparently B.Rando has a style that doesn't lend itself to the kind of discussion I expected either. But it's not often anymore that I meet people who believe in a "literal" hell where a person's soul can be kept eternally tortured. Can you explain your own position on hell.

Before taking this story seriously, I'd like to see Putin brag about it himself somewhere. This is exactly the kind of thing that war-mongers and regime-change-mongers monger for. Daily and nightly we see two or three major USA media outlets hawk for some kind of war against Russia in vicarious support of the person who came in second in our last presidential election. She apparently would have wanted it that way if she won, and the 52% (or so) of Americans that wanted her to win apparently think it would be poetic justice against Trump's imagined Russian friends [if we could start a war].

We don't know exactly what happened. I'm just saying you have to be careful with this kind of textual criticism, because it can ultimately turn the Scriptures into "Swiss cheese." It has a certain value, but we should always work from as many kinds of evidence as we can draw upon before stating that a conclusion is a fact. In this case, we need to look at the circumstance of the statement, too. Also, you left out many additional scriptures that have a bearing on what baptism would mean to the first century Christians. I won't make that list here, but you or someone could create a baptism topic if you wish to discuss it further. I think that the context of some of these might shed some light on the addition of "Holy Spirit" and I think it's possible that Acts 8:12, which you quoted, is a fair "expanded" explanation of the meaning of putting all three together in Matthew 28: (Matthew 3:1-3) . . .In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·deʹa, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” 3 This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah! Make his roads straight.’” (Matthew 3:11) I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. (Acts 19:1-6) . . .There he found some disciples 2 and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them,. . . (Acts 10:36-38) 36 He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all. 37 You know the subject that was talked about throughout all Ju·deʹa, starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power,. . . John's baptism focused on the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to allow entrance into the Kingdom of God. Jesus taught us to pray: "Father...Let your Kingdom come!" The good news of peace through Jesus Christ was the good news of the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 24:14) . . .And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth . . . (Matthew 28:18, 19) . . .“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them . . . With all that in mind, I now read Acts 8:12 highlighting each of the major points from the context: (Acts 8:11-17) . . .. 12 But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized. 13 Simon himself also became a believer, and after being baptized, he continued with Philip; and he was amazed at seeing the signs and great powerful works taking place. 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Sa·marʹi·a had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet come upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they began to receive holy spirit. Notice that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was NOT enough. Making disciples meant baptism in the holy spirit, too. And to what end? That they can now enter the Kingdom of God the Father now being ruled by his beloved Son. (Colossians 1:13-2:12) 13 He [the Father, God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. . . . 22 he has now reconciled by means of that one’s fleshly body through his death, in order to present you holy and unblemished and open to no accusation before him— 23 provided, of course, that you continue in the faith, established on the foundation and steadfast, not being shifted away from the hope of that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .25 I [Paul] became a minister of this congregation in accord with the stewardship from God that was given to me in your behalf to preach the word of God fully, . . . 27 to whom God has been pleased to make known among the nations the glorious riches of this sacred secret, which is Christ in union with you, the hope of his glory. . . . in order to gain an accurate knowledge of the sacred secret of God, namely, Christ. . . .. 12 For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.

I'm sure Shiwiii was referring to the following, which we sometimes refer to as the "J-documents:" *** nwtsty C4 Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” Below is a partial listing of Bible translations and reference works that have used some form of the divine name in what is commonly called the New Testament. J1 Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, edited by J. du Tillet, with a Latin translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555. J2 Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, incorporated as a separate chapter in ʼEʹven boʹchan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Edition: The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, by George Howard, Macon, Georgia, U.S.A., 1987. J3 Gospel of Matthew and Letter to the Hebrews, in Hebrew and Latin, by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively. J4 Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551. J5 Liturgical Gospels, in Hebrew, by F. Petri, Antwerp, 1581. J6 Liturgical Gospels, in German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576. J7 New Testament, in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599-1600. J8 New Testament, in Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661. J9 The Four Gospels, in Hebrew and Latin, by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668. J10 The New Testament . . . , in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vols. I-III, containing the Gospel of Matthew to 1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805. J11 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817. J12 New Testament, in Hebrew, by William Greenfield, London, 1831. J13 New Testament, in Hebrew, by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt, and S. Hoga, London, 1838. J14 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846. J15 Bible books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, in Hebrew, by J.H.R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853, and 1858 respectively. J16 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt and J.H.R. Biesenthal, London, 1866. J17 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Franz Delitzsch, London, (1981 Edition). J18 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1891. J19 Gospel of John, in Hebrew, by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957. J20 A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, Fourth Edition, Edinburgh, 1963. J21 The Emphatic Diaglott, (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942. J22 New Testament, in Hebrew, by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979. J23 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. Bauchet and D. Kinnereth (Arteaga), Rome, 1975. J24 A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863. J25 St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900. J26 Bible book of Psalms and Gospel of Matthew 1:1–3:6, in Hebrew, by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533. J27 Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, Third Edition, Vienna and Prague, 1796. J28 The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament—Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation, published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986. J29 The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (An American Translation of the Aramaic New Testament), by Glenn David Bauscher, published by Lulu Publishing, 2012. J30 The Aramaic English New Testament, (Third Edition), by Andrew Gabriel Roth, United States, 2008. J31 The Hebraic Roots Bible, (with study notes), published by Word of Truth Publications, 2012. J32 The Holy Name Bible, revised by A. B. Traina, The Scripture Research Association, Inc., reprinted by Yahshua Promotions, 2012. J33 The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, by George N. LeFevre, 1928, (George N. LeFevre, Strasburg, PA). J34 The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, by William Graham MacDonald, 2009 electronic version. J35 Nkand’a Nzambi i sia vo Luwawanu Luankulu Y’olu Luampa, (The Bible in Kikongo), published by United Bible Societies, Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. J36 Bibel Barita Na Uli Hata Batak-Toba siganup ari, (Today’s Batak-Toba Version), published by Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1989. J37 Arorutiet ne Leel ne bo: Kiptaiyandennyo Jesu Kristo Yetindennyo, (New Testament in Kalenjin), Bible Society in East Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 1968. J38 Ekonejeu Kabesi ni Dokuj Iesu Keriso, (in Nengone), London, 1870. J39 Jesu Keriso ve Evanelia Toaripi uri, (The Four Gospels in Toaripi), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1902, translated by J. H. Holmes. J40 Öbufa Testament Öböñ ye Andinyaña nyïn Jesus Christ, (in Efik), National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1949. J41 Testament Sefa an amam Samol o Rȧn Amanau Jisos Kraist: auili jonai kapas an re kris uili nanai kapas an mortlok, (in Mortlockese), American Bible Society, New York, 1905, by Robert W. Logan. J42 Ama-Lémrane̱ Ama-Fu ma O̱-Rábbu de̱ O̱-Fū́tia-Ka-Su Yī́sua Masī́a, (Temne New Testament), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1868. J43 The Gospels According to Matthew and John, (Translated out of the Greek into the language of Nguna), New Hebrides, British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1882. J44 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (Translated into the Indian language), (in Wampanoag), Printed by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, Cambridge, 1661. J45 Matīyū: Kū Nam Navosavos ugi, (in Eromanga), Printed in London, 1869. J46 La Bible traduite et présentée par André Chouraqui, (in French), translated by André Chouraqui, 1985. J47 Biblia Peshitta en Español, (in Spanish), translated by Antiguos Manuscritos Arameos, Broadman and Holman Publishing Group, Nashville, TN, 2006. J48 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (Translated into the Choctaw language), American Bible Society, New York, 1968 reprint. J49 Bosakú-W’ólótsi wa Yesu Masiya boki Matayo la Malako o Kótaka, (Translated into Lomóngo by A. & L. R.), Congo Balolo Mission, Upper Congo, 1905. J50 Nalologena wo se Yesu Kristo Kome Mataio, (The Gospel according to Matthew in the language of Tasiko, Epi, New Hebrides), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1892. J51 The Restored New Testament, Willis Barnstone, published by W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 2009. J52 Messianic Jewish Shared Heritage Bible, The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Project, Destiny Image Publishers, Shippensberg, PA, 2012. J53 The Messages of Jesus According to the Synoptists (The Discourses of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) by Thomas Cuming Hall, 1901. J54 Bibel, (Nauru Bible), The Bible Society in the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, 2005 printing. J55 Embimbiliya Li Kola, (in Umbundu), Sociedade Bíblica em Angola, Luanda, 1963. J56 Ka Baibala Hemolele, (Hawaiian Bible), 1948. J57 Te Nu Tetemanti, ae ana Taeka Ara Uea ao ara Tia Kamaiu are Iesu Kristo, ae Kaetaki man Taetaen Erene, (in Kiribati), 1901. J58 The Gospel According to S. Luke in the Tongue of Lonwolwol (Fanting), Ambrym, New Hebrides, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1899. J59 Intas-Etipup Mat u Iesu Kristo, Natimarid Uja, im Natimi Imyiatamaig Caija, Aneityum, New Hebrides, 1863. J60 The Bible in Cherokee, American Bible Society, New York, 1860. J61 Ntestamente Yipia ya Nkambo Wetu ni Mupurushi Yesu Kristu, (in Chiluva), The National Bible Society of Scotland, 1904. J62 Injili Mar Mathayo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew in Dholuo), British and Foreign Bible Society, 1914. [Footnote] Also called the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like. Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not. Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point.

Remember that most quotes from the "OT" are from the LXX though, not the Hebrew text. Where the LXX and the Hebrew differ a little bit in the sense of the translation, the NT makes use of the sense found in the LXX. Some of the points made in the NT when quoting the OT, make very little sense if you stick with the Hebrew, but make perfect sense if you go by the Greek LXX. Also, we have no proof yet that it was all, or even most of the copies of the LXX in the first century that had a form of the divine name. Perhaps it was rare, and the reason the NT never contains a form of the divine name is because these were EXACT quotes from the OT LXX. There is some evidence that the removal of the divine name had already gone into effect BEFORE the first century. We even see that one of the latest books of the Bible, Esther, never uses the divine name. This is also true of several of the Dead Sea Scroll documents. (And it's also true of almost ALL the oldest known versions of every additional Jewish book written between Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls, including Maccabees, etc.) And by the way, if Revelation 1:8 contains an OT quote, it would be quoting Isaiah 48:12. (Isaiah 48:12) . . .Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last. The divine name is not found in Isaiah 48:3-15, so any quote of Isaiah 48:12 should NOT have the divine name in it.

(2 Peter 2:4) . . .Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. When did God put the angels that sinned into Tartarus? (1 Peter 3:18, 19) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. 19 And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, When did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison? (1 Timothy 3:16) 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’ Was this the same time he "appeared to angels"?

If you are arguing that the formula found in Matthew 28:18-20 was a later addition to the first century Bible, then I understand why you are bringing it up in the discussion of "hell." This could be appropriate especially if you are also arguing that ideas about "torment" were also added later. (Even though it is possible to understand these references without thinking of literal, conscious torment.) I don't think it's necessary to posit that these scriptures were added later, but perhaps you are only saying that they were infused with a doctrinal "charge" at a later time. I hope you can clear that up. Personally, I think it was already quite common for people in Jesus' day to think of the dead as calling out from hades or sheol in some figurative way - much like the way in which the blood of Abel called out for justice, or John could speak of the "souls" of those who had been slaughtered, speaking. (Genesis 4:10) . . .Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground. (Hebrews 12:24) . . .and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood. (Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” I think this is probably a more likely key to understanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but I would assume that this type of parable could only have accompanied a common knowledge of what Jesus and his immediate followers believed about the condition of the dead. I think even that is answered when he spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living." It's as if living in God's eyes, and therefore "asleep" as with Jesus' friend named Lazarus. All this is, of course, what we already believe as Witnesses. But there might still be more to learn on this topic. Which is why I asked.

This is quite possible. But it is also speculation. Therefore it's also possible that it's false, or only partly true. These other topics should really be discussed under another title, and let this one go to [the truth about] hell.

Jesus could use a false doctrine if he wished. He made many points based on the false doctrines that people around him believed. But in this case Jesus didn't explain whether or not the foundation of this illustration was false. I'm wondering if other Witnesses have come up with good ways to explain this.

No one can say that "the Jews during Jesus' time believed" in a particular doctrine one way or another, because there was no single belief system. There were "Jewish" gnostics during Jesus' time before there were "Christian" gnostics. The Sadducees denied the resurrection, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection. There were Samaritan Jews, and Elephantine Jews with their famous Jewish Temple. There were Essenes and there was the Dead Sea sect that produced the sectarian documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The period leading up to Jesus' time was filled with literature that appears influenced by their time in Babylon, their time under Persian rule, and especially their time under Greek Hellenistic influence. And of course the variations of politically-oriented fundamentalist counter-Hellenism, when the influence of the Maccabees and Pharisees finally appeared to free most of centrist Judaism from idolatry. More specifically political, of course, were the Herodians, anti-Herodians, and various revolutionary parties, with the most successful of those coming from around Galilee. But the literature between the so-called Old Testament and New Testament does show an increase in beliefs about the condition of the dead in the afterlife that included a Greek-like Hades. (The Greek Hades was not full of fire, but could include difficult conditions of torture and fire depending on the person's conduct in life. In most Greek versions of Hades, persons died and had very little knowledge or control of their situation in the afterlife. A very powerful person might have more ability to speak with others, but in many versions of Greek Hades, you would think of a situation similar to that of the rich man in Hades similar to Jesus illustration.

I kind of agree. I also agree that he was not a very effective president. But sometimes when I get bored and just want to see if JTR is healthy, I think about posting something that praises either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. I think that Obama was one of our most brilliant politicians ever. I think that Carter was one of the most sincere. But brilliance as a politician has nothing to do with how well they effected policy. I think he was almost as bad as Reagan, Bush I, Bush II on that count. Deep down there is almost no difference in the two major political parties. The American people are easily fooled into thinking that one party is twice as good as the other, depending primarily on their prejudices about rich, poor, big gov't, small gov't, race, class, religion, intervention, military, oil, climate, "American interests," etc. But the undercurrent of dissatisfaction is beginning to trump all those issues as 95% of everyone begins to realize that they have been disenfranchized by reverse socialism: transfer of wealth into the hands of the top 1% merely by playing on fears that are easily drummed up to play upon the stupidity and prejudices of the 95%.

B.Rando, Don't get me wrong. I apparently believe exactly as you do about the condition of the dead in Sheol, Hades and even in Gehenna. But if, as you say, hell is the same as hades, then you can't say that Jesus didn't speak about Hell. I wonder how you explain why Jesus used an illustration that matched the false view of hell that many people held during the time he preached. This question is not just for you, in case others want to answer it, of course. Again, the question is about Luke 16:19-21. Why did Jesus use a false doctrine as the basis for the descriptions in his illustration?

So sorry. I was concerned about the source, and KNEW instantly that it was not from an apostate source. In fact, it sounded familiar. You probably know that there are a couple of Witnesses who write some very good poetry from the heart. They share their poems on facebook pages and probably some other Witness-run web pages. As JTR said, it wouldn't matter if this was found on an apostate web page, and I would not have been concerned if you had found it there, either. That's because I can tell you have such a good heart and a kind of youthful excitement about the Christian brotherhood (and "sisterhood") even though you also have a spiritual maturity at the same time. So I suspect you are pretty much immune to things that might disappoint and discourage other people. I think you are doing a great job of putting up great positive items of interest. I have a background that includes being an researcher, editor, proofreader, so I'm sorry if it looks like I focus on mistakes. It's been my "job" since I was 19 years old, and I stayed in related occupations for nearly 30 of the next 40 years. I didn't see any silly or weird mistakes in what you posted, although it would have been better if you had said "source unknown" because it looks like you are saying that you were the source when you give no other.

@Queen Esther, Do you have any idea who wrote this? I have a friend on facebook who is a witness that loves to write poetry but this isn't hers. I did a quick check on Google and it only comes up from 2009 on an "apostate" site and no where else. The ex-JWs who posted it and commented on it were mostly making fun of it, but it really does come from a serious place as JTR pointed out, too. Thanks for posting.

2034: That sounds end of Last Days, his/her prep for end of preaching, start for the Great Tribulation. Stay alive 'til 2055! Sounds like the final end is put closer to that 2055 date. Sounds like that Jesus was a pretty smart prophet: (Matthew 24:4-27) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. . . . 11 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many; . . . 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be. (Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.

The rationale appears quite simple and goes to the idea of using both our hearts and minds as @Bible Speaks said. In a manner of speaking, our "heart" wants it to be talking about a warning, but our "mind" tells us to just translate the Greek, which is extremely simple and completely unambiguous in this case. So I would NOT expect much variation in the idea from any other standard translation. Of course, a paraphrased version can take liberties. The Greek just says they "KNEW NOT." Blueletterbible.com is just one of the places that can give you a set of a dozen or more different translations to compare at once. That's the one I used above. Another good site for that is biblestudytools.com which compares to over 30 at once: http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/24-39-compare.html American Standard Version Matthew 24:39 (ASV) and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. The Bible in Basic English Matthew 24:39 (BBE) And they had no care till the waters came and took them all away; so will be the coming of the Son of man. Common English Bible Matthew 24:39 (CEB) They didn't know what was happening until the flood came and swept them all away. The coming of the Human One will be like that. The Complete Jewish Bible Matthew 24:39 (CJB) and they didn't know what was happening until the Flood came and swept them all away. It will be just like that when the Son of Man comes. Holman Christian Standard Bible Matthew 24:39 (CSB) They didn't know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be: The Darby Translation Matthew 24:39 (DBY) and they knew not till the flood came and took all away; thus also shall be the coming of the Son of man. English Standard Version Matthew 24:39 (ESV) and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Good News Translation Matthew 24:39 (GNT) yet they did not realize what was happening until the flood came and swept them all away. That is how it will be when the Son of Man comes. GOD'S WORD Translation Matthew 24:39 (GW) They were not aware of what was happening until the flood came and swept all of them away. That is how it will be when the Son of Man comes again. Hebrew Names Version Matthew 24:39 (HNV) and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Jubilee Bible 2000 Matthew 24:39 (JUB) and they knew not until the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. King James Version Matthew 24:39 (KJV) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Lexham English Bible Matthew 24:39 (LEB) And they did not know [anything] until the deluge came and swept [them] all away. So also the coming of the Son of Man will be. The Message Bible Matthew 24:39 (MSG) They knew nothing - until the flood hit and swept everything away. New American Standard Bible Matthew 24:39 (NAS) and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. New Century Version Matthew 24:39 (NCV) They knew nothing about what was happening until the flood came and destroyed them. It will be the same when the Son of Man comes. New International Reader's Version Matthew 24:39 (NIRV) They knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be when the Son of Man comes. New International Version Matthew 24:39 (NIV) and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. New King James Version Matthew 24:39 (NKJV) and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. New Living Translation Matthew 24:39 (NLT) People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. New Revised Standard Matthew 24:39 (NRS) and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Orthodox Jewish Bible Mattityahu 24:39 (OJB) and they did not have daas until HaMabbul came and took away everything?thus also will be the Bias HaMoshiach, the Coming of the Ben HaAdam. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible Matthew 24:39 (RHE) And they knew not till the flood came and took them all away: so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. Revised Standard Version Matthew 24:39 (RSV) and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. SBL Greek New Testament Matthew 24:39 (SBLG) καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καὶ ἦρεν ἅπαντας, οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Third Millennium Bible Matthew 24:39 (TMB) and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. Tyndale Matthew 24:39 (TYN) and knewe of nothynge tyll the floude came and toke them all awaye. So shall also the commynge of the sonne of man be. The Webster Bible Matthew 24:39 (WBT) And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so also will be the coming of the Son of man. World English Bible Matthew 24:39 (WEB) and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Weymouth New Testament Matthew 24:39 (WNT) nor did they realise any danger till the Deluge came and swept them all away; so will it be at the Coming of the Son of Man. Wycliffe Matthew 24:39 (WYC) and they, knew not till the great flood came, and took all men, so shall be the coming of man's Son. Young's Literal Translation Matthew 24:39 (YLT) and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. [In the Orthodox version "daas" just means "da'as" or knowledge: they "did not have knowledge."]

I agree that it makes sense and we can (and should) find lessons in the account for our own conduct, actions, and motivations. I probably sound like a curmudgeon of some sort to point this out, but it's often too easy to ALSO create a lesson that isn't really there. Or mix up one lesson for one context with a lesson that belongs in another context. These are not bad things, it's just that we should realize when we are speculating when we declare that these lessons must be the same lessons that all of us should see. Jehovah had the right to save or destroy his creation because he is the creator. The potter can throw away a vessel fit for destruction and start over. In response to your comments about Lot and Abraham and Noah, there were really NONE who were intrinsically righteous. Just as the scriptures in another one of your posts said: Noah's faith moved Jehovah to "count" him as righteous. Even those declared "righteous" are still intrinsically "ungodly." We are all ungodly. (Romans 4:3-5) 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the man who works, his pay is not counted as an undeserved kindness but as something owed to him. 5 On the other hand, to the man who does not work but puts faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness. And by the way, there is no scripture that says that his wife or three sons and their wives were ever even counted as righteous. In fact, the Bible says it was Noah's righteousness that saved them, similar to how children of a Christian parent could be "saved," or unbelieving wives, or sisters whose only "service" at times must be the full-time raising of their family. (1 Timothy 2:15) 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided she continues in faith and love and holiness along with soundness of mind. (1 Corinthians 7:14) 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Nothing wrong with believing that Noah "most likely" warned his neighbors, or even "undoubtedly" warned his neighbors. I think it's a matter of being able to carefully read all the ways that writers say "we don't really know for sure." I was very surprised to learn from several people in the Watchtower's Writing Department that the expression "undoubtedly" and even "without a doubt" really means that there still is some level of doubt, even if it's something that makes a lot of sense, or we really WANT to believe it. One way to show that we don't really know something for sure is to use the words "without doubt" as when the Watchtower says: in I know this doesn't make a lot of sense to some people. It's much easier to see the point when the expression is more like "quite likely" as in: Personally, I didn't see it at first, until it was explained with some examples. In the most common usage of language we don't need an expression like "undoubtedly" if we are dealing with known facts. You would say, "Two plus two is four" not "two plus two is undoubtedly four." When you are dealing with the most likely meanings that fit our way of thinking and interpretation, we use a slightly different vocabulary. We like to use the most sure language possible even though we know that "interpretation" is always subject to change. Even when we are trying to use the words like "without a doubt" or "without doubt" to sound as sure as possible, the context will often force the writer to admit that small opening of doubt. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples in the Watchtower itself: *** w63 1/15 p. 41 par. 3 The Challenge of the “Good News” *** Without doubt it is your wish to live under that best of kingdoms and eternally enjoy its blessings. If this is your sincere desire . . . Note that even though the premise is "without doubt" the next phrase must still start out with "if." *** w72 6/15 p. 360 God Respects the Family Arrangement *** There can be no doubt about it: Children brought up in the wrong way are almost sure to practice bad things . . . Even though there can be no doubt, the premise is "almost" sure. This doesn't mean that the expression is not sometimes used in the normal way, to mean it's a fact. But we have to be careful when the phrases like this refer to interpretation. For example: *** w06 8/15 p. 17 Baruch—Jeremiah’s Faithful Secretary *** Baruch was without doubt a sincere worshipper of Jehovah, and he “proceeded to do according to all that Jeremiah the prophet had commanded him.” In the above example, this should immediately tell us that we have no scripture telling us that Baruch was sincere. We know it's an assumption precisely because the words "without doubt" were used here. It means that it makes sense, and it's something we would like to believe about him -- because we are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Please don't misunderstand and think I'm saying that it's definitely not true. I'm only saying that the scriptures don't say that Noah gave a warning, and if we say that he did we should admit that we are only speculating. One way the Watchtower shows they are speculating is to use terms like "most likely," or "undoubtedly." So it's more proper to say that "most likely" Noah preached a warning. But even if we believe this wholeheartedly, we shouldn't imply that Jesus said anything about Noah giving a warning. Jesus was making a point about how people were going on with their lives, without a care, and the judgement event came upon them suddenly and without warning. That's why Jesus said that the parousia (judgment event) would be like a thief who does not give you any warning. (Matthew 24:43, 44) . . .If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. The Bible doesn't say that Noah gave a warning, and the Watchtower articles you quoted admit that it may have only been through the action of building an ark that he "preached." The Watchtower does quote a "worldly" source whom we often disagree with to show that some non-biblical Jewish traditions have added the idea that Noah gave a warning, and we would like to believe that this is true.

Although we can be sure that Noah would have been required to explain to many persons why he was building such a huge boat, we shouldn't try to make Jesus say something in Matthew 24 that Jesus never said. Jesus never said that Noah warned anyone about the coming flood. The Bible never says that he warned people about a coming flood. So why do we add the idea that Noah WARNED them? It's true that some people might get the idea from the way in which the NWT adds the words "took no note:" (Matthew 24:39) and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. But these words are not in the original Greek, so we shouldn't try to make them imply something that the Bible doesn't say. Below are all the translations, for example, that are provided at blueletterbible.org: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/24/36/t_bibles_953039 So even if there was some preaching about God's righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), which could have been through Noah's example (as implied in Hebrews 11:7), rather than any kind of warning campaign, Jesus was not making any point about a warning, because he had just spent the entire previous part of the chapter saying that there would be no warning. The disciples wanted a warning sign about the judgment event on Jerusalem and Jesus said that there would be no advance warning sign, otherwise how could the parousia come as a thief in the night. So what Jesus says about Noah, should fit what he says about the way the parousia (judgment event) came upon the generation of Noah's day. KJV And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. © Info NKJV “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info NLT People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. © Info NIV and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info ESV and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info HCSB They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be: © Info RVR60 y no entendieron hasta que vino el diluvio y se los llevó a todos, así será también la venida del Hijo del Hombre. © Info NASB and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info NET And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info RSV and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info ASV and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info YLT and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. © Info DBY and they knew not till the flood came and took all away; thus also shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info WEB And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so also will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info HNV and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info

Yes. I remember the "rule" but I never remember anyone ever speaking about specific "anointed" persons actually invoking it. Vaguely remember hearing about a natural disaster somewhere that forced the entire Memorial to be cancelled and then handled a month later, but I think even this became frowned up, especially after a formal announcement in the KM in 1999. *** w60 4/1 p. 224 Questions From Readers *** Of course, an exception should be made in the case of those of the remnant who, because of infirmity or sickness, are unable to attend. Individual portions are to be supplied to these, regardless of their age or physical condition, by a brother competent to discuss the occasion with them briefly. Such are to be considered as both attenders and partakers. Disfellowshiped persons are not welcome. Should they attend and partake, they would not be counted. Likewise, if any newcomers who are not yet baptized partake of the emblems, they should not be counted. What if any professing to be of the remnant should, due to circumstances beyond their control, be absolutely prevented from observing the Memorial and partaking of the emblems? It would seem that the merciful and loving provision that Jehovah made for celebrating the Passover a month later by those Jews ceremonially unclean on Nisan 14 would apply in their case. The individual member of the remnant would therefore observe a personal memorial of Christ’s death on the fourteenth day of the following month, Iyar according to the Jewish calendar, or just thirty days later.—Num. 9:9-14. In the 1999 KM it was announced that everything possible would be done to avoid this, by having elders take the Memorial emblems to anointed persons confined to their homes, etc. Also it was stated that it was NOT necessary for "other sheep" to make any additional arrangements for a missed meeting. *** w93 2/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** If a Christian is sick or is traveling and thus not able to be at the Memorial celebration, should he celebrate it a month later? . . . If one who has each year been partaking is this year confined to a sickbed at home or in a hospital, elders of the local congregation will arrange for one of them to take some of the bread and wine to the sick one, discuss appropriate Bible texts on the subject, and serve the emblems. If an anointed Christian is away from his home congregation, he should arrange to go to a congregation in the area where he will be on that date. In view of this, it would only be under very exceptional circumstances that an anointed Christian would have to celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal 30 days later (one lunar month), in line with the command at Numbers 9:10, 11 and the example at 2 Chronicles 30:1-3, 15. Those who are of Jesus’ “other sheep” class, with the hope of everlasting life on a paradise earth, are not under command to partake of the bread and the wine. (John 10:16) It is important to attend the annual celebration, but they do not partake of the emblems. So if one of them is sick or is traveling and thus not with any congregation that evening, he or she could privately read over appropriate scriptures (including the account of Jesus’ instituting the celebration) and pray for Jehovah’s blessing on the event worldwide. But in this case there is no need for any additional arrangement for a meeting or a special Biblical discussion a month later. I believe the KM had first began to regularly mention this arrangement for going to the partakers who were confined to home, hospital, etc., in 1987. (As it is already mentioned in 1960.) But I recall that this practice might have fallen off somewhat at least in the late 70s and early 80s, and that there might have been some announcement to bring it back into full effect in 1984, because this is when our congregation began making these arrangements, instead of still making special arrangements to bring infirm, anointed brothers to the Hall. This had proved to be a lot of stress for an elderly person for which my own family had provided the transportation, and I remember the switch-over very well that year. [Not important, but I'd be interested if this was the case for any others prior to 1984, in case it was just a couple congregations in my area who seemed to change their arrangements at that time.] *** km 3/87 p. 3 Preparation for a Special Occasion *** Are arrangements complete to help older and infirm brothers and sisters? Are arrangements made to serve any of the anointed who may be confined and unable to attend? That 1993 WT article was brought up again in the KMS assignments in 1999 when Numbers 9 was part of the Bible Reading. But the main point was not about accommodating anointed with the one-month-later celebration, but only to make sure that it was understood that NO special arrangements were to be made for "other sheep" to have a special meeting one month later. The "Written Review" in December 1999 said: If a Christian of the other sheep class is not able to attend the Memorial of Jesus’ death, he should celebrate it a month later in harmony with the principle stated at Numbers 9:10, 11. (John 10:16) [Weekly Bible reading; see w93 2/1 p. 31 par. 9.] The correct answer was FALSE (he should NOT celebrate it one month later).

Excellent point. When I worked in the Art Department at Bethel I first realized that "food at the proper time" for English readers was at about two months earlier than Spanish readers and between 6 and 8 months earlier than the average audience for other languages. For some of the books, the delay could be several years.