JW Insider

@Anna Sounds almost exactly right to me. How did they "fall for it."

@Arauna OK, Thanks. No argument from me. It's just that you said it so definitively I wondered if there was some additional resource you might have known about. (Hoping there was some related tradition from Islam, or something like that.)

As far as traditions handed down from Josephus, that was in the original post, too. We usually treat Josephus with some skepticism when he adds things that aren't indicated in the Bible record.

13 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Isaac was between 18 and 25 years old and yes - so he was not a baby - he was a thinking individual.

You make some good points in your post, but where did you get this information that he was between 18 and 25?

The exact same word can be used of someone 18 to 25, but near this same context of Genesis it's also used like this:

• (Genesis 21:15-19) 15 Finally the water in the skin bottle was used up, and she pushed the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went on and sat down by herself, about the distance of a bowshot away, because she said: “I do not want to watch the boy die.” So she sat down at a distance and began to cry aloud and to weep. 17 At that God heard the voice of the boy, and God’s angel called to Haʹgar from the heavens and said to her: “What is the matter with you, Haʹgar? Do not be afraid, for God has heard the voice of the boy there where he is. 18 Get up, lift the boy and take hold of him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation.” 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water, and she went and filled the skin bottle with water and gave the boy a drink.

and:

• (Exodus 2:5-7) 5 When Pharʹaoh’s daughter came down to bathe in the Nile, her female attendants were walking by the side of the Nile. And she caught sight of the basket in the middle of the reeds. She immediately sent her slave girl to get it. 6 When she opened it, she saw the child, and the boy was crying. She felt compassion for him, but she said: “This is one of the children of the Hebrews.” 7 Then his sister said to Pharʹaoh’s daughter: “Shall I go and call a nursing woman from the Hebrews to nurse the child for you?”

Bible believers have anguished over this account about Abraham and Isaac for thousands of years. Some have tried to soften the impact, because it jars our sensibilities. It's like reading about David having his enemies hacked up, or Jephthah offering his daughter as a burnt offering. Or Hosea being asked to marry a prostitute, or Ezekiel being asked to cook with human excrement, or Isaiah being asked to father a child by a prophetess who isn't described as his wife, and to walk around completely naked for three years. The list could go on and on. For centuries, Bible translators have often made decisions to soften the ideas from the original languages to protect more modern readers.

But this particular account is the most disturbing. How many of us would kill our child because we heard a voice and we had faith was God's voice. Abraham had the faith to go through with it. And we have no idea if the already weaned child was 5 years old, 6 years old, 10 years old, or even 20 years old, which is about the maximum age that the Hebrew word for "boy" is generally used of someone's son. We know he could speak, and that he could carry a bundle of sticks.

It's hard to say if Isaac really had faith in the resurrection at the time. Abraham lied to him or misled him when Isaac asked where the animal for sacrifice was. If Abraham was not misleading him when he told Isaac that God would provide the sheep, then that would mean that Abraham did not really have faith to offer up his son, because he expected a replacement all along. The Bible does not say that Isaac was willing to be bound. If Isaac was really willing to have a knife plunged into him, there might be no need to bind him anyway.

At any rate, this is not a story that we should just think of as another story for a book of children's Bible stories. It should make us anguish over what it really means to have faith. What is the difference in following a voice and dreams that tell you to murder, or voices and dreams that really come from God? The difference in Abraham's case seems to be a relationship with Jehovah that was undeniably real and close, as if he were speaking to a friend. And yet it wasn't completely based on things actually seen, but things unseen: faith.

4 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

Good explanation. When in our publications "The word of God" is used in an extended sense referring to the Bible (as a book which contains promises of God and other information in written form) Word has a capital "W." But when quoting the actual passage referring to God's promises themselves, it has a small "w" - it may be confusing to some to see the difference.

I read in some commentary in the Bethel Library that the Bible never speaks of the Bible as the "word of God" or "God's word." This always bothered me a bit because I had always thought of Hebrews 4:12. At the time we always used it this way:

*** w80 3/15 pp. 22-23 pars. 7-8 Living Up to Our Choice ***
7 When the apostles proclaimed the “good news,” whom did God through his Word commend? The people in the synagogue at Beroea, for, the Bible says, “they received the word [of the good news spoken by Paul and Silas] with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things [that even the apostle Paul said] were so.” (Acts 17:10, 11) They made these things their own, not merely listening with agreement but also examining the firm Scriptural basis for the things they eagerly received into their minds and hearts.
8 We should follow the course of those sincere Beroeans. Why? Because we may hear the truth preached or taught by human teachers, but when we read it in the Bible it becomes a fully founded, permanent motivating force in our hearts, for “the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12) Constant study of the Bible prevents us from remaining spiritual babies. God’s Word infuses his spirit into our hearts, making us strong, mature. The same principle is in operation when we declare the “good news” to others. It has greater force if we let people read it in the Bible than if we use our own words.

It is obvious, even from the Greek and the context of Hebrew 4:12 that this isn't the Bible, specifically, being spoken about, but I was still surprised to see it stated this way in the more recent 2011 Watchtower.  @Bible Speaks is quoting above from the Simplified Edition.

*** w11 7/15 p. 32 par. 20 God’s Rest—Have You Entered Into It? ***
When Paul wrote that “the word of God is alive,” he was not referring specifically to God’s written Word, the Bible.

1 hour ago, Bible Speaks said:

2 hours ago, Anna said:

It's always a good idea to cite your source when quoting from publications ect. for two reason: 1.so people can look it up, and 2.So you are not mistakenly credited as the author.

I use the Bible as the sources, so I'm called "Bible Speaks." I put together myself. I pray for the correct words. If I use a "quote" you will see jw.org. 

Or you could just say that it was taken from here:

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402011526

7 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I am also aware of things that most people are not aware of and wouldn't believe even if I told them.

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me.

If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable.  We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority.

7 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I get elders asking me from all over the place about these things and I respond the best way I can, always honestly, but in a way that will help them maintain their faith in Jehovah and respect for his organization - with the proviso that sometimes that respect is for the authority men may have, but not for who they are.

I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you.

(Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light.

Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent  for speaking the truth.

To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...."

(1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.

Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here:

(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.

We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

On 3/20/2017 at 4:06 PM, Anna said:

I have not read or heard ANYTHING vitriolic by the Org. regarding other Christian faiths (besides perhaps Rutherford's remarks back in the 40's) Could you perhaps give a few examples?

One problem might be the continuing support of Rutherford's remarks. Note how we understand expressions like "a third of the sea became as blood" in Revelation 8:8,9:

*** re chap. 21 pp. 134-135 pars. 21-22 Jehovah’s Plagues on Christendom ***
21 “And the second angel blew his trumpet. And something like a great mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. And a third of the sea became blood; and a third of the creatures that are in the sea which have souls died, and a third of the boats were wrecked.” (Revelation 8:8, 9) What does this frightful scene picture?
22 We may best understand it against the background of the convention of Jehovah’s people held in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., on August 18-26, 1923. The featured Saturday afternoon talk by J. F. Rutherford was on the topic “Sheep and Goats.” The “sheep” were clearly identified as those righteously disposed persons who would inherit the earthly realm of God’s Kingdom. A resolution that followed drew attention to the hypocrisy of “apostate clergymen and ‘the principal of their flocks,’ who are worldly men of strong financial and political influence.” It called on the “multitude of the peace and order loving ones in the denominational churches . . . to withdraw themselves from the unrighteous ecclesiastical systems designated by the Lord as ‘Babylon’” and to ready themselves “to receive the blessings of God’s kingdom.” . . . Meantime, with the blast of the second trumpet, Jehovah pronounces judgment against a third of it—the unruly part that is in the realm of Christendom herself.

In the context of our current beliefs about Revelation, we are quick to include what amounts to death threats especially to all of Christendom's denominations, and continue to believe that when Revelation speaks of "trumpets" and "plagues" and "woes" that these often came through the very words of Rutherford. That's current belief, not past belief.

Sad.

Looks like it will be difficult even to have 'home church services' if groups are caught advertising such services without permission. Based on this report from a few weeks ago. Odd that they will still allow a business bank account but with only enough money in it to pay fines and taxes.

Quote

 

U.S. missionary fights evangelism ban in Russia's highest court

 

An American missionary in Russia is taking his fight against that country’s new religious restrictions all the way to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Independent Baptist missionary Don Ossewaarde, based in Oryol, was the first American charged under the Yarovaya legislation. The laws ban proselytizing, preaching, and praying outside officially recognized religious institutions. Since July 20, authorities across Russia have detained, arrested, and fined dozens of individuals or religious organizations.

According to Forum 18, Russian prosecutors have filed charges against 33 persons, including Baptists, Pentecostals, a Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox archbishop, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Hare Krishnas, and a Buddhist. Seventeen were convicted.

In spite of losing his appeals so far, Ossewaarde said he would “press the case as far as he can.” Authorities fined him $600 in August for having home church services and advertising them without written permission, World Watch Monitor reported.

 

Don't know if it's all true, but I shouldn't be too surprised considering the other kinds of hidden crimes that we already know about.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The idea (if true) that the word for stake had slipped in meaning due to custom and practice of the time, and that this would render a single pole method of execution as unusual (although not impossible), rather piques my interest.

That's an interesting take. It might suggest the reverse of a picture I saw somewhere where Jesus was on the traditional cross and the two men at his sides were both tied to poles.

However, I was thinking of how "stauros" may have changed its meaning from a simple one-piece stake and appears to have begun referring more often to the standard cross-beamed crosses by the time that word first appears in the Bible. But the word that Paul used in Galatians 3:13 was 'xylon' which is usually just the word for TREE. I don't think there was a similar transitional development of that word.over time as there was with stauros. 'Xylon' always had a variety of lesser-used meanings, but the use that looked like it might mean "stake" was rare compared to the meaning of tree and wood (i.e., made from trees). The Hebrew word Paul quoted was just like it, and usually meant tree or wood, too. In fact one of the meanings was the use in the case of Abraham and Isaac where it obviously means wooden branches.

(Genesis 22:9) 9 Finally they reached the place that the true God had indicated to him, and Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood ['etz] on it. He bound hais son Isaac hand and foot and put him on the altar on top of the wood. ['etz, same word in Deut 21:22,23.]  - NWT

Because it just meant wood or tree it could also refer to a horizontal board, as it evidently does here:

(Ezekiel 41:25, KJV) And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple, cherubims and palm trees, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks ['etz] upon the face of the porch without. - KJV

The NWT goes an entirely different way with the same word here and makes it mean "overhang" which doesn't seem to agree with the way the LXX translators understood it.

(Ezekiel 41:25) . . .. There was also a wooden overhang on the front of the porch on the outside. - NWT

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am happy to accept for now the current view we as Jehovahs Witnesses hold "the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty."

Same here. I am happy to hold the same view. It's interesting that we don't have to be dogmatic to be right.

44 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't see how that disqualified anything I said

Well it really does, if we apply the definition of every 
secular dictionary and encyclopedia with the Greek word 
" stauros σταυρός” versus “crossbeam τραβέρσα" 
therefore, Jesus didn't drag a crossbeam and according 
to secular evidence suggest those who did, would have 
that crossbeam attached to the accused back with their 
arms extended and either by tying that crossbeam with 
rope or nails voids any conclusion being "dogmatic" to 
argue against the Watchtowers understanding. Now am I 
being definitive? No! but its the most "probable".

I'm commenting on your post mostly because I needed to change the line breaks to read what you said. For some reason it stayed on a single line in my browser.

Anyway, I agree that what you are saying is possible. But it appears that the sign was made after Jesus arrived at Golgotha. Jesus apparently dragged a beam behind him. Whether it was to become a crossbeam or an upright beam, the Bible doesn't say. But in either case, he would be nailed to that beam, and that beam even if a crossbeam, could still be referred to as either a xylon or a stauros.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If someone could sensibly explain what Paul had in mind when he wrote at Gal. 3:13:

"Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake" "

I think the best way to address it is to look carefully at the word used for "stake" and see how else it gets used in the Bible. This is mostly from the NWT Appendix 5C:

Of course, Paul is quoting from Deut 21:22,23 which says:

(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) 22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake*, [*footnote: tree, wood] . . . something accursed of God is the one hung up; - NWT

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "stake" is used about 328 times, and over 300 of those times it can be correctly translated as "tree" or "wood" or (when plural) "trees" or "timber" So it could easily mean "tree" in this case.

(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, KJV) And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

But in the few times when it can be translated as something else, it clearly means wooden things like stick, branch, staff, gallows, plank. In the context of hanging someone up, "stake" does not always appear to be the most appropriate, but it's still possible. In the context of hanging from it, we have a description of Haman and Mordecai's gallows:

(Esther 7:9, 10) . . .“Haʹman also prepared a stake for Morʹde·cai, whose report saved the king. It is standing at Haʹman’s house, 50 cubits high.” At that the king said: “Hang him on it.” 10 So they hanged Haʹman on the stake that he had prepared for Morʹde·cai, and the king’s rage subsided. - NWT

(Esther 6:4) . . .having Morʹde·cai hanged on the stake that he had prepared for him. - NWT

A 75-foot high "gallows" sounds like more than a single, simple stake, and the Hebrew gives a sense that it was prepared, (produced, worked on, fashioned, wrought) not merely "put up."

(Esther 7:9, ESV)Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Moreover, the gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.”

But here below we have what is apparently a single beam, probably from a vertical beam from 8 to 12 feet in height.

(Ezra 6:11) And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account. - NWT

The Greek word for all these Hebrew items in the LXX is 'xylon' and it's, of course, the word Paul uses in Galatians 3:13. And here again, it is can be translated "tree" or "wood" in most other places in the Greek. 13 of 19 times.

(Acts 13:29) And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree,and laid him in a sepulchre. - KJV

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree - KJV

(Revelation 2:7) 7 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ - NWT

But it can even be the word for stocks:

(Acts 16:24) . . .Because he got such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

For what it's worth, my take on this is that there is such a wide range of possibility, that this is just more evidence that it didn't really matter what the instrument looked like exactly, and there was definitely no specific description that we could or should "draw" from to create an important symbol.

The description of how words like stauros were used is also informative in that in earlier Greek, it seems to refer more often to a simple stake, as it was used especially by Greek writers hundreds of years before the Bible was written in Greek. But as the world got more acquainted with the Roman form of "crucifixion" the word tends to connote an upright pole and crossbeam. But we have seen that this is only suggestive of a more likely form used in Jesus' day, nothing definitive.

I like what Allen included that showed that the standard upright and crossbeam form was more popular and the quote from Seneca and Josephus, below, because it implies a wide variety of postures which are much more likely if the crossbeam were employed:

'So the soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest

Much of the book Allen quoted from is available on Google.  https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1451414196

I am glad Allen quoted from it and brought it to our attention. It seems to be an excellent source, and it also speaks to the wide variety that keeps us from saying anything dogmatic or definitive.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

 

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the attempted carrying of such by a already weakened man over very rough terrain for some distance it would have been impossible for Jesus or any man including Samson to carry out such a task especially a cross but not so for a stake.

I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site...

Note that the Insight book says the following...

*** it-1 p. 1191 Impalement ***
Most Bible translations say Christ was “crucified” rather than “impaled.” This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a “cross” made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha.

As Allen has already mentioned, there are traditions that the trees and poles that Romans used were often already in place, and were often re-used. I can't help but think of the amount of work we used to put into making a five foot high fence. Anyone who has tried it knows that even when you have wedged rocks or concrete to add to the hole, you still need to start with a 7 or 8 foot pole, and then use a sledge to drive two or three feet of it into the ground at least a foot deeper than the original hole. And you might still need some extra wooden supports. Now imagine a pole that needs to stand at perhaps 7 feet or more in the air for purposes of display and humiliation, and hold up to 200 pounds. It could not fall over during wind and rain, and no one should be able to push it over. It would need to start out like a 10 foot telephone pole. This is another reason that a victim might carry his cross, or board, or stake in the form of a crossbeam or patibulum.

If the executed person was first nailed to the crossbeam, which could be a board, plank, pole, beam or tree branch, he could then be raised up onto the pole or tree to which that patibulum was also then nailed or fastened. Therefore, the crossbeam becomes the instrument of his execution in the same was that a lynched person might be said to executed by the instrument of a rope, even though a tree or wooden gallows might also be utilized.

The Bible gives us the impression that Jesus was nailed to a tree, although this doesn't necessarily mean it was a living tree with branches. But if he was carrying one thing (like a beam) and then attached to something else, like a tree, then it would make sense that he might have been carrying a crossbeam of some kind. Whether his hands were nailed to one single place on that crossbeam (like the middle), or in two different places on that crossbeam (like each of the ends), it wouldn't matter because in either case his arms would be above his head when that beam was nailed or attached to the tree. Either way makes sense from the perspective of the Bible text.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I enjoyed reading your last post and I have broken it down to 4 major points:

...

Sunday may have to do some volunteer work. So, next week will respond on each point.

Thanks. I'm looking forward to it.

It seems like everyone who studies this subject in any depth, realizes the same thing.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence.

17 hours ago, Anna said:

then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross.

On 3/16/2017 at 2:09 PM, AllenSmith said:

the ancient writers could NOT discern what method of crucifixion was implemented for Jesus.

On 3/15/2017 at 6:41 PM, scholar JW said:

We cannot be dogmatic about the shape, size or other physical characteristics of the instrument on which our Lord was hung

And the Watch Tower publications have said pretty much the same thing on many occasions. For example:

Quote

*** g74 9/22 p. 27 Did Jesus Die on a Cross? ***
Hence, the cross does not have what some might term a “Christian” origin. Of course, that does not mean that Jesus did not die on a cross.

So, seriously, does this mean the Watch Tower publications were being dishonest, or just sloppy when they said the following in 1995?

*** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small ***
20 The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake.

Or this in 2008:

Quote

*** w08 3/1 p. 22 Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the death of Jesus Christ provided the ransom that opens the door to everlasting life for those who exercise faith in him. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) However, they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, as is often depicted in traditional pictures. It is their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake with no crossbeam.

Or this in 1975:

*** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America ***
A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”

1992

*** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? ***
The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·rosʹ.

Or this is 1972:

*** w72 9/15 p. 572 Christendom—Fighter Against God ***
Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. . . . The cross, on which Christendom’s religions claim Christ was put to death (though it was actually a stake), is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity.

On the issue of whether "Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau" [Greek letter] we have this interesting piece of evidence for why the same could not be true of Jesus:

*** g76 11/22 pp. 27-28 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.
Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.”

I find it amazing that a researcher could notice this in 1976, yet not think to correct the Watchtower from just a couple years earlier in 1972.

The same article says:

*** g76 11/22 p. 27 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.

This means that Watch Tower researchers already knew in 1976 that some Christians might have thought that Jesus had died on a two-beamed cross, long before the 4th century.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is much vexation as to the 'seventy years' and this is clearly evidenced if one were to check leading Bible Commentaries on Daniel and Jeremiah particularly and the scholarly literature.

As a Witness, I have realized that we JWs are just about the only group who are vexed about the seventy years, because there are very few others who have any kind of a doctrinal stake or tradition that requires a specific interpretation of the 70 years. Naturally, there are a variety of interpretations of any Biblical passage. Not all scholars and commentaries believe it was a full 70 years. Neither do we as Jehovah's Witnesses since we like to end it a year or two after 2 Chronicles ends it.

(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled. . .

We believe that the kingdom of Persia began in 539, but believe the 70 years ended in 537. We needed two extra years because we have a doctrinal stake in keeping 607 instead of claiming, for example, that the Fall of Jerusalem actually happened in 608 or 609. 70 years prior to the first year of the King Cyrus.

This is like the much bigger problem that scholars and commentaries and our own Watch Tower publications have with Isaiah's words about Tyre, already mentioned above, when Isaiah says that "Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years." But we, as JWs, don't believe it was a full 70 years that Tyre was forgotten. In fact, our publications indicate that it was a much shorter period.

*** it-2 p. 179 Kittim ***
Similarly, many from Tyre evidently sought haven in Cyprus during Nebuchadnezzar’s 13-year siege of Tyre, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s proclamation.

*** it-2 p. 1136 Tyre ***
Since the nations mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:8-11), this suggests that both the prophecy of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah related to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Tyre. Also through Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, Jehovah pointed to calamity for Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. (Eze 26:1–28:19) . . .(Eze 29:17-20) According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the siege lasted 13 years (Against Apion, I, 156 [21]), and it cost the Babylonians a great deal. Secular history does not record exactly how thorough or effective Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts were. But the loss in lives and property to the Tyrians must have been great.—Eze 26:7-12.
When the Israelites returned from Babylonian exile, however, the Tyrians were able to assist in supplying cedar timbers from Lebanon for a second temple, and they resumed their trade with the rebuilt city of Jerusalem.—Ezr 3:7; Ne 13:16.

*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship in 607 B.C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus, drawing upon Phoenician annals and other previously written history, states that Nebuchadnezzar’s siege against Tyre lasted thirteen years.

So if you have read this closely, and noticed the scriptures from Ezekiel you will see that the following secular dates would fit this 13-year period, when Tyre was forgotten. These particular dates can be found in many places. I pulled them from Livius.org based on an understanding of various chronicles and texts. http://www.livius.org/articles/person/nebuchadnezzar-ii/

598: Beginning of the siege of Tyre?

597: First capture of Jerusalem; king Jehoiachin is replaced by king Zedekiah

596: Campaign against Elam

595: Renewed campaigning in the west

587 (or 586): Second capture of Jerusalem; deportation of the Judaean elite

585: Peace with Tyre, after a siege that had lasted thirteen years

  Of course, you can just add 20 years to each of those dates to get the Watch Tower version of most secular dates in this period. Therefore 618 to 605 would be the Watch Tower dates of the same 13 year siege. Notice how this is completely contradictory to the claim made in the Insight book which claims it was started after the fall of Jerusalem when even our own date for it would have mapped to 618. .

*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship. . .

And while we are on the subject, notice that Ezekiel can also help to date the fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel dates his prophecies to the year of king Jehoiachin's exile, which started in 597 [617 Watch Tower]. This is why for example, our publications say the following:

*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision . . . (Eze 40:1–48:35)

(Ezekiel 40:1) . . .In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen,. . .

and we know the end of the siege had to be completed in or before the 27th year because Ezekiel puts it in the past tense:

(Ezekiel 29:17, 18) 17 Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre. Every head became bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army received no wages for the labor he expended on Tyre.

Note that this, when combined with other Biblical and archaeological sources, also provides a bit of additional evidence for the 587/6 date for the fall of Jerusalem. The city had fallen in the 14th year, but it was now two years later when the Tyre siege had been put in the past tense in year 27, in the 16th year after the city had fallen. That siege ended in 585, putting a likely time for Jerusalem's fall in 587, no more than 2 years earlier.

The Watch Tower solved this particular "vexation" by saying that these 13 years of siege fulfilled the '70 years of being forgotten' referring to the 70 years for Babylon, even though it wasn't a full 70 years for Tyre itself. Isn't it amazing that this is the solution for Tyre? Yet we still hold out on Judah, even if it requires pseudo-archaeology to accomplish it.

(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error. . .

In order to support our tradition about 607, we have gone so far as to mis-translate Jeremiah 29:10.

(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you,and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’

The Hebrew in all our manuscripts says for Babylon, not at. Even the NWT translates the same Hebrew preposition as for elsewhere in such a situation, not at. Only here is it so important to mistranslate the Hebrew. And yet, oddly, we give it the meaning of "for" when similar language is used about Tyre. Also, only for would fit the previous mention of the 70 years quoted above from chapter 25.

This should give us an idea about just how vexed the Watch Tower has become over the 70 years. What's worse, is that Watch Tower publications don't even teach that exiles were in Babylon for 70 years. If we start from the first exiles, including Daniel, it could be upwards of nearly 90 years according to Watch Tower chronology, but this would make the 70 years with respect to Tyre a full 90 years long, not 70. If we start from the time the Watch Tower says that Jerusalem was destroyed, then those exiles from a destroyed Jerusalem could only have been "at" Babylon for 67 to 68 years. 607/6 to 539. Very vexing indeed in the Watch Tower's chronology attempts.

But it's not vexing at all if we look at the Bible and realize that, on this topic, the Bible has also been vindicated again by secular archaeology.

21 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah have proved to be a vexed problem for scholars and JW critics.

Actually there is nothing vexing about the seventy years from the perspective of the Bible and from the perspective of scholars. As you said:

21 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The related biblical texts affirm that this definite historic period was one of servitude to Babylon

Judah was just one of the nations that was to serve Babylon for 70 years. Tyre was another. Note what the Watchtower publications already figured out about the period:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

This is exactly the same explanation of the 70 years that fits not just Tyre, but also the other "nations that will be singled out ... to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." And one of those other nations that Jeremiah mentioned was Judah. So do we really need two sets of measurements, or can we just accept that the Bible is correct?

*** w01 6/1 pp. 4-5 Whose Standards Can You Trust? ***
Just as Jehovah’s promises are reliable and unchangeable, so are his standards of right and wrong. Would you trust a merchant who uses two sets of weights, only one of which is accurate? Certainly not. Likewise, “a cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.” (Proverbs 11:1; 20:10) In the Law that he gave the Israelites, Jehovah included this command: “You must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. You should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate ephah and an accurate hin. Jehovah your God I am, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.”—Leviticus 19:35, 36.

Most of us learned that the march of world powers included:

• Egypt
• Assyria
• Babylon between [612 - 539] or [608 - 539] or  [605 - 539]
• Medo-Persia
• Greece
• Rome

The above quote from the Isaiah book says that the Babylonian empire lasted 70 years, the period of Babylon's greatest domination. We know that Assyria was losing it's grip between the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE, and the fall of Harran in 605 BCE.The last powerful king of that monarchy was Ashur-uballit II from 612 to 608 BCE. Therefore the secular period of Babylonian hegemony, or period of their empire is exactly in line with the Bible period of 70 years.

30 minutes ago, Anna said:

And why did the GB think it was OK to have Tool and O'Brien again, if, as JWI mentions, their last performance was evidently not appreciated by the GB. It indeed seemed an awkward representation of the WT. If a member of the GB could not give evidence, then surely one of the GB helpers could have? With something this important.

The following contains opinion, of course:

I know this might sound cynical because it echoes the 'follow the money' line of thinking. But unfortunately, this was the reason that all branches moved as much of their money as possible to New York, and moved toward trustee arrangements for property ownership. (My guess is that this arrangement will also come into play when redress is defined.) The next step to reach the same goal is to cut the legal ties between the HQ and the branches and even the branches and the congregations. In spite of the need to call up a centralized legal department for serious cases, the legal arguments in court tend to push liability as far away from branches and HQ as possible. I was told that some court arguments by WTS lawyers have treated the WTS as just a service that "congregations and their circuit overseers" subscribe to. A place from which to order publications, training and distribution materials.

Therefore, it will always be necessary to keep GB members (or anyone from "HQ") away from these types of court proceedings at all costs. Even if it looks like the local legal teams are being left to hang out to dry, or be "thrown under the bus" that's much safer than allowing some court to tie liability directly to the WTS HQ. The Vatican is able to do this, too, which is why you hear of local diocese having to sell buildings to pay redress for victims, rather than money coming from central Vatican coffers. You might have noticed in the hearing that the WT in Australia changed their legal team since the previous hearing. That's partly because there was a shakeup of the local WT legal team. I've heard that the same thing happened in UK and Canada.

Although that might sound cynical, the brothers at HQ are also doing their best to protect the assets of the organization so that they may be put to the kind of use that fits both the expectations of the brotherhood and the corporate charter. It's fiduciary responsibility.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

JW insider?  Where are you from?  Just curious.....

Born/raised in California. School and pioneering in Missouri. Bethel in Brooklyn. Got married and stayed around NYC and Boston [A D Little] for all my work post-Bethel. Worked in San Francisco and Paris for about 6 months each, too, but for same company.

50 minutes ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:

remember the smiley face?

Where I am from the smiley face means sadness, so I was very confused and sad

@Jay Witness This is not a report of thousands of sexual assaults related in any way to Switzerland. It is the report about the thousands of assaults in Australia that the ARC studied. The article does say that Switzerland has dealt "extensively" with the problem of abuse among JWs, but no numbers were given.

Translation of a portion from Google:

Unfortunately, one of those links to fake news is the article by Jon Barron at https://jonbarron.org/article/blood-transfusions-may-have-killed-millions

It supposedly works off one of the Duke studies, and then extrapolates that millions may have died, when in fact, the Duke study said no such thing. Additionally, it turned out that this particular Duke study was not confirmed by further studies.. JWs started popularizing this link in 2011 and 2012 just before the letter came out. It's also included in a list of links @Kurt included here:

As Witnesses, even elders are anxious to believe such information, because it kind of fits the hype that we wish was true about blood transfusion, but then the HLC, and the WTS gets laughed at over the misuse of information, which is off by a few orders of magnitude.

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That your delusional to think certain things can't be applied scripturally, only in your tiny world that doesn't constitute God's vision entered in scripture. Yet you are advocating child safety and unscriptural "shunning" that is an apostate misleading word for distancing ourselves from the very circumstances your hypocrisy is attempting to convey, it must be nice to eat your cake and have it too.

No comment. I just had to save this in case your original got edited or disappeared. Classic!

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

I think this is saying that the foundation and structure of the congregation results in unity of faith, correct knowledge of the Son of God, and spiritual maturity, resulting in greater stability and less risk of being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, or by human cunning, craftiness and deceitful schemes.

I don't think you mean that all these changes (instability) over the last few years about "fractions" were caused by deceitful schemes and craftiness. But I would agree that we have given others the unavoidable impression that our doctrines can change direction as if  tossed to and fro by waves and wind. The "blood doctrine" has actually changed more often than the doctrine about "this generation." 

For example, Acts 15 was at first understood, not to be rules about whether we Christians must avoid blood, but that this was a necessary request for a time when Jewish Christians still considered themselves to be under the Mosaic Law and that it was a compromise necessary by Gentiles to avoid stumbling these Jewish Christians and Jews who were interested in conversion to Christianity. Here is the earliest Watchtower reference to the point:

He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (`verse 29`), and from things strangled and from blood–as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See `1 Cor. 8:4-13`)–and from fornication. The eating of blood was forbidden, not only by the Jewish Law, but also before the Law. The same command was given to Noah. (See `Deut. 12:23`; `Gen. 9:4`.) . . . It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others. -- Watch Tower, 11/15/92 p.350,351 Reprints p.1473

This began to change in 1909, referring to animal blood, but transfusions were still seen as a good, loving and merciful thing as late as 1945. (Animal blood in food was banned in 1927) Although I have never seen it, the Dutch Consolation (now Awake!) September 1945, evidently said:

"God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside."  (p.16)

In the July 1, 1951 Watchtower QFR it was clarified that blood transfusions were not for Christians, but it was also clarified in the 1950's that no one would be disfellowshipped over their decision. Then in 1961 it became a disfellowshipping offense to take blood and blood products, including any fractions.Then various fractions began to be included over the years, moving to and fro on several of them before finally settling on turning the majority of usable blood fractions into a matter of conscience. Currently 100% of blood can be accepted in all but four of its various fractions.

EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINE CAST TO and FRO

Plasma serum for example was

• Acceptable during WWII
• Unacceptable in 1954
• Acceptable in 1958
• Unacceptable in 1963
• Acceptable in 1965

So perhaps this type of thing is based on some kind of deceit or deception, as mentioned in the verses you quoted from Ephesians, but I don't think it's always purposeful deception. As Melinda pointed out earlier, there is a kind of deception based on desire, which is how Eve, for example, was deceived.

50 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I could go on, but since your “spiritually rounded” hypocritical world, doesn’t recognize simple script like 1 Corinthians 6:9? I’ll leave it at that.

Hard to tell what all that was really about. But if it was intended as a response to the end of my last post, then I think you may have unwittingly helped to make my point.