JW Insider

57 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You would think that Rolf would find room for that somewhere in his book. Attending college as an adult is not the same as attending as a teenager.

Funny! But it looks like you'll have to write another of your own on this. Rolf makes a point that students rarely have to even see each other in today's universities. And he started writing some of this after Covid-19 lockdowns. He uses that point to show that it's becoming even less necessary to see anyone else [except on some brands of a Zoom screen].

On 6/7/2020 at 12:36 AM, Arauna said:

To outright dismiss this indicates a bias and unacceptance that staggered generations even exist- which I would say is illogical and unscientific..... and unyielding to even contemplate it - which is NOT a mature Christian quality because we are to "ponder over things and make our advancement".

I think nearly everyone accepts that staggered generations exist. The staggered generation might even include people born more than 90 years earlier than the point identified (1914) and more than 90 years after the point identified (1914). I believe you might have even commented on a chart about a year ago that was included in a post to prove that we SHOULD accept "staggered generations" in the expression "this generation."

The problem is that you start out making claims about the generation of 1914, and say that there are 180 years worth of staggered generations from 90 years prior to 1914, and 90 years after 1914. That's fine. But you don't have the right to just move the starting point to around 1992 instead of 1914.

When you account for persons being 10 years of age to "discern" 1914, then the staggered generations, as you showed yourself, could range from perhaps 1814 to 1904 to 1994. (With variations depending on how old people need to be in 1914, or with a "proper" age of anointing.)

But the Watchtower doctrine uses some (unintentional?) sleight of hand to move that starting point of the staggered generations from around 1904 to around 1992. This way it can start an additional 90 years or so, beginning around 1992 or so and therefore it can for another 90 years or so from there (up to about 2082 if necessary). 1814 to 1904 to 1992/4 to 2082/4. This means that your staggered generations have been changed from a total of 180 years to 270 years. What's to stop them from being defined as 360 years, or more, if that ever became necessary. 1814 to 1904 to 1994 to 2084 to 2174, etc. (And we certainly hope it would not be necessary.)

On 6/4/2020 at 2:45 PM, César Chávez said:

While I criticized Furuli for using Zondervan publishing house to make an unscriptural depiction of the GB

Yikes! You are still harping on about Zondervan? Yes, for some reason, when you first brought up Zondervan, it was to say that Furuli didn't do a thorough research, and you provided a link about Zondervan's supposed association with the "Satanic Bible" and "Joy of Gay Sex." You didn't actually make a specific connection to how Furuli used it to make an unscriptural depiction of the GB. But you did also copy a place from Furuli's book where he mentions support from Wood's commentary on Galatians. From page 205 and 206 you can see that his use of the Wood's contributions to the Expositor's Bible Commentary is to find the range of meanings for the Greek term "en pleonexia". It's not so much about a depiction of the GB in this case as it is a discussion of a list of offenses that the Bible associates with disfellowshipping. But, I agree, that ultimately he tries to relate this to the GB's excessiveness in finding reasons to disfellowship that go beyond the things written in the Bible.

On 5/31/2020 at 8:08 PM, César Chávez said:

I will admit, I love his references like authors from the Zondervan publishing house. A publishing house that printed the Satanic Bible. This just tells me, Furuli didn’t do a thorough research.

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm

Wood, A.S., Galatians, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1978

So if you had something else in mind about his particular use of the Expositor's commentary by Zondervan, you can correct this assumption.

On 6/4/2020 at 2:45 PM, César Chávez said:

because of higher education and legal matters that you took offense of, YOU are the one that mentioned the watchtower also uses Zondervan.

I didn't take offense "because of higher education and legal matters." I merely disagreed with Furuli's apparent lack of full objectiveness on the topic. He could have found some areas of agreement with the Watchtower on the topic of higher education, but he seemed inflexible, not open to any agreement on the topic.

Yes, I was the one who mentioned that the Watchtower also uses Zondervan. This is not a "diversion" at all, as you called it. It merely sets up a test as to whether your reasons were consistent: perhaps allowing for the use of a commentary by one entity, but not another.

On 6/4/2020 at 2:45 PM, César Chávez said:

I will allow the watchtowers own criticism of Zondervan do the talking for them.

If you actually went to the trouble of going through some of 70 Watchtower references to Zondervan publications to find one that was negative among dozen's of positive ones, then this might even say more about whether you are consistent with your own criticism. All it would take is just one positive use of a Zondervan published Bible or commentary to show possible inconsistency, if not dishonesty, and hypocrisy. 

So, I wonder what will happen if I check the most recent Watchtower Library CD, in order, without skipping any references:

To make it simple, I will just search the term Zondervan, not worrying about the overwhelmingly positive uses of Zondervan Bible's and publications that are used with only a reference to their title, and not the publisher. I'll mark the positive in green and negative in red, and make them smaller so they don't take up too much space here:

Positive:

*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of Luke ***
• Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, 2002, (Vol. 1, pp. 331-332) makes this comment on Luke 1:32: “Most High . . . the Lord God (1:32). Both of these are Greek translations of Old Testament names for God. The first is from El Elyon, ‘God Most High,’ and the second from Yahweh Elohim, ‘Yahweh God.’

Positive:

*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of Luke ***
• Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, 2002, (Vol. 1, pp. 345-346) says of Luke 2:26: “This phrase is equivalent to the Old Testament expression ‘the LORD’s Anointed’ . . . and carries the sense, ‘Yahweh’s chosen agent of redemption.’”

Positive:

*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of 2 Corinthians ***
In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1976, (Vol. 10) Murray J. Harris, in a comment on 2 Corinthians 3:17, explains that “the Lord [= Yahweh] of v. 16.”

Positive:

*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of 2 Corinthians ***
NIV Zondervan Study Bible, edited by D. A. Carson, 2015, explains regarding 2 Corinthians 3:16: “‘the LORD’ (i.e. Yahweh) of Exod 34:34, to whom the unbeliever must turn.”

Positive:

*** it-1 p. 1069 Hebrew, II ***
Knowledge of the Language Incomplete. In reality, knowledge of ancient Hebrew is by no means complete. As Professor Burton L. Goddard says: “In large measure, the O[ld] T[estament] Hebrew must be self explanatory.” (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by M. Tenney, 1963, p. 345) This is because so few other contemporaneous writings in the Hebrew language have been found that could contribute to an understanding of the word usage

Negative (full context should be checked.)

*** w01 9/1 p. 3 Is There a Devil? ***
Do you agree that “the devil is in reality man’s invention to account for his own sinfulness”? That statement appears in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, and many who profess to be Christians think that way. Christendom’s theologians, says Jeffrey Burton Russell, have by and large “dismissed the Devil and the demons as superstitious relics.”

Positive:

*** w93 11/1 p. 14 par. 7 A King Profanes Jehovah’s Sanctuary ***
In Daniel’s time, Kittim was Cyprus, and early in the first world war, Cyprus was annexed by Britain. Moreover, according to The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, the name Kittim “is extended to include the W[est] in general, but esp[ecially] the seafaring W[est].” The New International Version renders the expression “ships of Kittim” as “ships of the western coastlands.”

Positive:

*** w80 1/15 p. 8 Can Human Government Meet the Challenge? ***
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible correctly says:
“The kingdom of God never means an action undertaken by men or a realm which they set up. However noble may be the idea of laboring to establish the kingdom of God, the Biblical terminology is completely inconsistent with the language of modern liberal theology. The kingdom is a divine act, not a human accomplishment nor even the accomplishment of dedicated Christians.”

Positive:

*** w77 4/1 p. 217 The Text of the Christian Scriptures—How Accurate? ***
Too, at times copying was done from dictation. Certain manuscripts indicate that in isolated instances scribes confused words that sounded alike (as the English words “bare” and “bear”).
As further causes for variant reading in Bible manuscripts, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible notes: “A scribe’s eye might skip from the first to the second occurrence of the same word, causing omission of the intervening material; he might read the same word or phrase twice; or he might confuse a word for a word of similar appearance. . . .

Positive:

*** w77 12/1 p. 708 Cain and His Wife ***
The Bible statement, in Acts 17:26, that “[God] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth” is acknowledged by Bible students to be backed up by the facts. John Peter Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, a work that considers the arguments of a great number of scholars in an analytical and explanatory discussion of the Bible, says on page 191:
“That the Scriptures neither know nor will know of pre-Adamites . . . nor of various primitive aboriginal races, appears not only from Genesis i. and ii., but also from the consistent presumption and assertion of the entire Holy Writ; for example,

Positive:

*** w76 10/1 p. 603 Cyrus, a Man with a Prophetic Role ***
Commenting on this statement of Josephus, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. One, p. 1055) says: “There is every reason to accept the testimony of Josephus at this point.” Many critics, however, disagree. They simply cannot accept that the prophecy about Cyrus could have been written before the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E.

Positive:

*** w68 8/15 p. 492 par. 18 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
“Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people.”—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.

Positive:

*** g93 10/22 p. 5 A New World—Will It Ever Come? ***
“The kingdom of God never means an action undertaken by men or a realm which they set up,” explains one Bible encyclopedia. “The kingdom is a divine act, not a human accomplishment nor even the accomplishment of dedicated Christians.”—The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

Positive:

*** dp chap. 2 p. 27 par. 26 Daniel—A Book on Trial ***
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: “A Maccabean dating for Daniel has now to be abandoned, if only because there could not possibly be a sufficient interval between the composition of Daniel and its appearance in the form of copies in the library of a Maccabean religious sect.”

Positive:

*** dp chap. 15 pp. 262-264 par. 13 The Rival Kings Enter the 20th Century ***
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, the name Kittim “is extended to include the W[est] in general, but esp[ecially] the seafaring W[est].” The New International Version renders the expression “ships of Kittim” as “ships of the western coastlands.”

So, you happened to find the only negative comment. But it turns out that the Watchtower actually agrees with this part of the Zondervan publication in this case, too. A more complete form of the quote is this:

"The concept of a personal devil is unacceptable to many minds today. The objection is raised that the existence of a personal devil is incapable of scientific proof. Therefore, it is claimed that the devil is in reality man's invention to account for his own sinfulness" [The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, p. 285].

If you look carefully at the context of the Watchtower that quoted it, the Watchtower is making the exact same points. In other words they are in agreement with the "Zondervan" statement that this is what is claimed by many.

Therefore, your own selective quoting here leads me to believe you are giving more evidence of your own dishonesty.

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I do remember @JW Insider saying something like (and I know I will be told he didn't) 'The GB or leaders need to keep saying things to keep the congregants on their toes and keep them busy' (Not a direct quote but the idea is close enough) 

I found an old discussion where Anna had wondered about the purpose of the "overlapping generation" if one could surmise that it didn't really make full sense, to most people. I found that the closest related "hints" to these types of changes, even if they turn out not to be true, is that they keep us on the watch, and they are used to invoke urgency.

But my own guess was not about the GB particularly. I was basing it on evidence that is still with us, but mostly from past evidence from the time that the "Service Department" was treated as a separate entity from the "Writing Department" and was allowed to make unfiltered use of any points about "urgency" to make sure that it translated into more hours, more return visits, more Bible studies, more literature placements, etc. From the old "Bulletin" to the old "Informant" to the more recent "Kingdom Ministry" one could see a very strong correlation between "urgency" and "activity." I have two letters I picked up while at Bethel from the Service Department to District and Circuit Overseers that were written during 1976, and one of them refers to "continuing the good work of building up urgency" in the form of "setting congregational goals" through meetings with the elders, and "emphasizing the closeness of the end of this system." I have seen several of these letters, but only kept a couple of them. In 1976 it didn't really occur to me what was going on, but by about 1978 I had noticed that the Service Department acted almost as a totally different organization. It was a works-based organization and it was not totally aligned with the Writing Department.

The Writing Department --and 5 or 6 of the GB at breakfast "morning worship"-- were speaking a lot more about undeserved kindness, and how our works are really not counted as anything, when done in comparison to anyone else, but that works are only a by-product of our love for Jehovah and our neighbors. Any works that are accomplished for a different purpose, such as comparison to others, hope for a greater reward from Jehovah or his organization, etc., were not worthy in Jehovah's eyes. We are not rewarded for our works.

Yet the Service Department still seemed to put out information like in older days when the idea was spelled out very clearly that we were to create a 10 percent increase in subscriptions, a 15 percent increase in publishers, a 10 percent increase in this or that. It was the Service Department that had "produced" and trained the District Overseers who might preach talks like: "Stay Alive 'Til '75!" But this was a time when publishers were not as aware of some specific goals anymore, because the Circuit Overseers were beginning to set "quiet" goals with the elders, and then check to see how well the elders were helping to guide toward those goals, by checking back every six months or so.

Now, there is much less emphasis on specific service goals, and literature placements are mixed with electronic placements, anyway. There is no more need to tie goals and campaigns to the printing needs of factory facilities to estimate new inventory or reduce stacks of old excess inventory. The last few decades have eliminated almost all of the "secular" business-like methods of running a printing organization, and this allows for a wider range of ministries that we can still consider 'sacred service.' It allows for a closer alignment between the Service and Writing departments. And there is a much closer alignment now between the GB and Writing.

I have a feeling, of course, that you are waiting to pounce on something I said or perhaps mis-worded above. But I believe this has resulted in more focus on "spiritual" qualities, especially in the last couple of decades. I'm disappointed in the GB's view of themselves and how this has resulted in what Furuli calls "veneration" (but not "idolizing") by the rank and file. And I'm disappointed in the typical compromises and lack of candor that is always associated with trying to act like we have special knowledge of the times and seasons. But outside of those areas, the attempt to lead us spiritually has been exceptional, worthy of imitation, and a very valuable core set of teachings remain. I know of no other religion that promotes such a valuable set of core teachings, like a pearl of great value, that we don't want to just hide in a field.

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

How does Rolf feel about the wild beasts—2-headed, 7-headed, scarlet colored, image of, dragon. Would he decommission them?

He says not much about most of this, except to give praise to the 1963 "Babylon" book for giving proper attention to detail, including linguistic issues, which he feels is lost in new prophetic explanations.

He also appears to be just fine with the beast explanations, assuming we can extrapolate from this one, single point below about the [seven-headed, 10-horned, scarlet-colored] wild beast, and the eighth king [who springs from the seven], and he probably, therefore, agrees with the same reasoning that ties Rev chapter 17 to Rev chapter 13 about the image of the beast, etc. Regarding the 1942 talk by Knorr, Furuli comments:

The war ended in 1945, and the wild beast, who is an eighth king
(Revelation 17:10, 11), ascended from the abyss. The prophecies that
N. H. Knorr discussed were inspired by God. When these prophecies
were fulfilled before the eyes of God's servants, it was Jehovah who
interpreted his own prophecies.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Since we are Bible students and have a PERSONAL relationship with Jehovah and keep improving our  BIBLE  knowledge, I fail to see why we need to know the entire history and every detail of the watchtower history.

I absolutely agree. I don't think any of us should need to know that many details about Watchtower history, either. Most history is actually very mundane. But I know that it was a really big deal in Bethel research. Doctrines and other historical facts about the Society often changed incrementally and more details were needed than just what was reflected in the "Publications Index" (Beliefs Clarified). And, as you are surely aware, most of our book-format study publications keep referring back to our own Watchtower history.

Some people obviously take more an interest in such history than others, and I'm pretty sure you are implying that I take too much interest in the details. But the only time I bring it up is when it might effect our CURRENT beliefs about that history.

There are also times when people CURRENTLY tend to believe a different version of Watchtower history than the original Watchtower articles tell us. Naturally there is often a reason for these disparities, and the reason is of interest to me.  Even when the Watchtower itself CURRENTLY "rewrites" its history, and there must be a reason for it, and I would think that reason should be of interest to all of us. Is it accidental? Is it to impress? Is it wishful thinking? Is it just something we believe because we trust that someone else before us already did their homework when they didn't? Was someone before us honest, or was it an accidental mistake?

For example, a person here just claimed that Rutherford became Russell's lawyer first before he became a Bible Student. I don't think this detail should be the least bit important to anyone, whether it was true or not. But I immediately recognized it as wrong. So I am interested in why he would say that. What was the motive? Was it to impress that he has knowledge no one else has? Was it an honest mistake? Does he have information that the Watchtower publications didn't know about? Did he hear or read it from someone and never bothered to check the veracity before repeating it. Was it just a misunderstanding?

Those of us who take a strong interest in history, also take an interest in how accurately it gets reported and repeated. I like to see what kinds of things get in the way of accuracy. This includes the way people are treated if they bring up a correction, especially how people are excused for repeating false history that tends to support an ideology, and how people are judged for bringing up a correction that tends to go against the "desired" beliefs.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

I look at the bible and see some kind of central body in the first century. Then I look at the changed circumstances of our day, such as a world-wide responsibility,  together with new technology such as internet and video etc. I immediately understand we need a legal corporation etc to manage a unified approach to the nation of God.

I do too. That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying about the usefulness of a central body of elders.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

What I am interested in, is NOW!  The core truths that we are teaching now! And the willingness of people to contemplate the new changes. I do not need any person to tell me...... "BUT in a watchtower in 1967."...... bla bla bla.  Russel said : bla bla.

This just means you don't have the same level of interest. I'm sure that's perfectly fine with everyone here. But you might have missed the fact that I never bring up the past unless it has a direct bearing on what is being taught NOW! And it is NOW that we are teaching a NEW doctrine about this that just changed recently. We are teaching that a governing body such as we have NOW was appointed in 1919. Why do we think it is important to keep repeating this? Especially if it is a falsehood? What does this particular falsehood do for us now? Was this falsehood an honest mistake? Was it an unverified repetition of something someone else said? I'm sure you get the picture. It's all about honesty, and doing our due diligence in paying attention to our teaching.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The office of Russell was considered to be that of RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings

Note that the current WT idea makes the FDS only appointed but not yet ruler over all the Lord's belongings, but that Russell was considered to have already been RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings, from the time Russell saw himself --alone-- as the FDS (FWS).

Rutherford had a chance to consider the views of the so-called "governing  body" of the WTS board, but when a majority of that board disagreed with him, Rutherford found a way to dismiss them. (Using a legal loophole that also applied to himself, so that he would also have needed to dismiss himself if his real goal was to be legally fair and ethical.)

But Rutherford also road on the coattails of Russell's authority as a means to continue the idea that he was in Russell's place, and no one would dare go against Russell without also realizing they were going against the Lord's appointed instrument. Inconsistently, Rutherford was also able to argue that Russell's paper "last will and testament" was worthless because God's organization can't be tied to the "will" of a human. The Watchtower itself admits that any usefulness of the Editorial Committee under Rutherford was already as good as abolished by 1925

...

Notice that the usefulness of an editorial committee is considered to be the opposite of the Lord himself running the organization.

And just another example. Raymond Franz, in Crisis of Conscience, mentions the time when Rutherford wanted to change the doctrine of the "superior authorities" in Romans 13 to mean Jehovah and Jesus, instead of following the correct explanation that Russell had, and which we now have again.. (R.Franz recalls that it was either this issue or another one just as obviously unscriptural.) Fred Franz objected because he was aware that it was false, and he expressed his objection to Rutherford. So Rutherford had Fred Franz write the article with the false doctrine in it.

These stories merge exactly with stories that my Bethel table head told us about Rutherford, among other persons who related stories of his Rutherford's autocratic objection to making use of anything like a "governing body."

7 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I think that all this of the generation could have, in fact, a very simple explanation: Jesus was only referring to the living people in his day, and that they would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.

Agreed. But possibly for slightly different reasons. And it's all based on this word "immediately" in Matthew 24:29. If only that word had been more associated with "soon" or "after that" or "next." I have seen other reasons not to think of this as any kind of measurable generation if it can be said to apply to the generation before the synteleia/parousia in 70.

We have good reason to see this part of the prophecy in Matthew 24 as applying to the final parousia, but there is very little reason to apply anything else in Matthew 24 to the final parousia, except for the lessons we are expected to draw from everything that happened to literal Israel*Judea*Jerusalem:

(Romans 15:4) . . .For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope. . .

(1 Corinthians 10:11) Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

So for the final parousia, we will still need to be on the watch, but this time with no life-span measurable generation. We will still need to be careful not to be fooled by things we think are signs, like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilence, etc. -- because this parousia is something we must always be ready for. We will still need to rely on the holy spirit when persecutions come and we need to defend our faith, or give a witness about the Kingdom to the entire earth. We still expect the faith of the greater number to cool off, etc. If it happened over a period of less than 40 years for THAT synteleia/parousia, then it will obviously happen in great measure over the 1000's of years that Christians might have to wait for the final parousia.

You already know that I love to weigh in on this topic, perhaps too much. I'll definitely continue this discussion later.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If we are to profess knowledge of Watchtower history, let it be with the strength of true knowledge.

If you'd like. Go ahead and believe it was some sort of Governing Body. 

I'm only referring to the fact that the Watchtower publications (and MacMillan's "Faith on the March," too) nearly BRAG about the fact that "Russell was the Society," and never had to take any advice or share his leadership with anyone else. As I said above, the need for the editorial committee, and Society officers, was only to be invoked if something were to happen to Russell.

In an April 1894 Watch Tower, Russell himself stated :

Notice that the board of directors was understood not to have any control or usefulness until Russell died. Hard to see how they could be "governing" in any way if they were not in any way useful while Russell was alive. The office of Russell was considered to be that of RULER of ALL the Lord's belongings, already, now that the Lord had already arrived in 1874. This was stated in the March 1 1923 Watchtower, too:

...

The world ruler is in the Watchtower's italics. Not mine.

As I said, however, you are free to believe what you want here, say whatever you'd like,  but I will take the Watchtower's word for it in this case.

23 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer.

I won't pick on every little thing you got wrong, but this part was also problematic. The Watchtower incorporated in 1884, so Rutherford was not his attorney at that point. Rutherford was only 15 years old in 1884. Wikipedia should clear it up:

". . . .joining the Bible Student movement, and he was baptized in 1906. He was appointed the legal counsel for the Watch Tower Society in 1907"

Or if you still think that he was his lawyer first before becoming a Bible Student, you can try the Proclaimers book and the 1975 Yearbook:

*** yb75 p. 83 Part 1—United States of America ***
Not long thereafter, in 1906, J. F. Rutherford symbolized his dedication to Jehovah God. Wrote Brother Macmillan: “I had the privilege of baptizing him at Saint Paul, Minnesota. He was one of 144 persons that I personally baptized in water that day. So when he became president of the Society, I was especially pleased.”
In 1907 Rutherford became the Watch Tower Society’s legal counselor, serving at its Pittsburgh headquarters.

I hope, for once, that you won't try to drag this out, and divert and still try to say that all these facts are wrong and that only you can do actual correct research. As you said to me above:

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The only one that has gotten the Watchtower history wrong is you.

So, yes. I've heard this dozens of times from you. And everyone who reads carefully has always been able to see through this game of yours. Or you can accept what the Watchtower publications say about it.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he say anything about Russia? Does he imply that things would have been right as rain if his college-educated buddies had been running the show? Does he imply that of the first century?

Not a word about Russia, except to mention Russia, USA, Norway, etc., in passing, as some of the governments that God's kingdom will crush, per Daniel 2:44. Nothing new here.

19 hours ago, Arauna said:

You show defeat when it comes to thinking things through much  too quickly.

You can judge that I thought it through too quickly, but I don't think it's true . I'm not saying that I ended up with the right answer, but I surely didn't think it through very quickly. I'm still thinking through it.

It's just a matter of perspective. I can just as easily judge that only those who finally gave in to a false definition of "generation" have been defeated. In fact, to be honest, I believe that Brother Splane was defeated by the perceived need to compromise with the earlier tradition that says we will still be in the generation of 1914 when the end comes, and he thinks there might still be a way to claim we were right, even after that generation has completely died out. 

19 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not search through old material for someone else  to tell me what to think.

Again, it sounds like you are judging that someone searches through old material for someone else to tell them what to think. It doesn't sound like anything I have ever done, but perhaps you think that it is?

19 hours ago, Arauna said:

As you said: be reasonable and then I add this to the mix:  also look at the reality.

Again, a matter of perspective. For myself, I have to be reasonable using my own powers of reason, not someone else's, even if they have searched through old material to try to tell me what to think. And I have to use sensibility to look at reality. For me, that reasonableness and reality just happens to provide evidence for a different solution. 

19 hours ago, Arauna said:

I put in a wrong date above. To illustrate Russel's   generation.  The elderly who lived in his time .....  they could have been born any time from  1800...... [skipped] ... So anyone born  up to 1904 would read about the same things in the press and be part of Russel's generation - be influenced by the events.  These people born in 1904 would live through both wars until.........1980 or later.  So a generation is in reality not just one lifetime but a group of lifetimes.  So look at the first date of 1800 to 1980 or little later - this is Russel's generation...... and he was born in 1852. A staggered generation.

This is absolutely correct. Let's say that a man like Russell, for example, had made a prophecy in 1914, saying:

'As of 1914, the generation now alive at this time [THIS GENERATION] will see "Judgment Day" before this generation passes away completely.' 

• It is very true that this means that even someone who was born in 1800 MIGHT see it, if "Judgment Day" arrived by 1915 and they lived to be 115.
• It is also very true of someone born in 1852, as Russell was, that they MIGHT also see it, if "Judgment Day" arrived by 1967 and they lived to be 115.
• It is also very true of someone born in 1904, that they MIGHT also see it, if "Judgment Day" arrived by 2019, and they lived to be 115.

However, if Russell made this same prophecy in 1880, that THIS generation alive at that time will see judgment day before that generation passes away, then:

• It is very true that this means that even someone who was born as early as 1766 MIGHT see it in 1881, assuming they lived to be 115. 
• It is also very true that this means that someone born in 1870 MIGHT see it as late as 1985, assuming they lived to be 115.

So it's the same with Jesus. If he said that people in his audience who were part of that generation would live to see a judgement day in that generation, then:

• If Jesus said this in 33 then it means that even someone who was born as early as 82 BCE MIGHT live to see that judgment day, assuming it happened the very next year, and they lived to be 115.
• If Jesus said this in 33 then it means that even someone who was born in 23 CE MIGHT live to see that judgment day, even if was delayed as late as 138 CE, assuming they lived to be 115. (But that person would see it by 70 CE, of course!)

If you use your same logic for a generation alive in 1914, who had been born in 1904 so that they were about 10 years old, and could recognize the sign in that year. then we have the same thing. And if you think that people shouldn't have to live until 115 then your own point is more reasonable:

So if Russell made a prophecy anytime around 1904 that "Judgment Day" would arrive in the 1914 generation, then he would be right, as long as "Judgment Day" would have occurred before around 1980 at the latest. Some of that generation would still be alive around 1980.

But you can't stretch "this 1914 generation" much past that, using your reasoning above.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

JWI can you please give scripture to back up this 'statement issued' / apology, as you mentioned above. 

Sure, it's Acts 15:24, highlighted further below, but you'd probably want to see the context. And keep in mind that I am just interpreting, too. In Galatians, where Paul clearly makes a point that he did not get any apostolic authority or theocratic assignments from the "so-called pillars" at Jerusalem. Paul says in Galatians chapters 1 & 2:

"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was. . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me .  . . .But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;  we did not yield in submission to them, . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, . . . . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . . However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek, hypocrisy], . . .

So this is the backdrop of Acts 15. The NWT cross-references "the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy" to Acts 15:1 and 15:24:

(Acts 15:1) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,

It's not as important but "men from James" is cross-referenced to Acts 12:17, evidently to show that "James and the brothers" was a way of referencing the Jerusalem congregation. The WT uses this idea to say that James must have therefore been the "chairman" of a governing body at Jerusalem.

So, putting it all together, the situation is that JAMES, was one of the highly regarded men, who SEEMED to be important. But JAMES had sent spies to see if Paul was really preaching against the need for circumcision. But these spies, were evidently just supposed to spy for James, and report back to him. These men from James evidently did NOT have instructions to begin subverting Paul's preaching by promoting circumcision.

At any rate, you can see from Acts 15:24 that, in the message that went out from Jerusalem, it admits that these men "went out from among us" and "caused trouble" and admits that they were "trying to subvert." James says they did not give them instructions, which is a nicer way than Paul would have said it, of course.

27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I agree how you are right in conclusion how "this verse not say that ONLY Peter should feed", and i hope you will agree how Jesus or any Bible verse not say how ONLY governing body in NY HQ should feed, too.  :))

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.

Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.

THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW

24 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Compared to what. Russell was the only one that could be seen as the owner of the organization through the eyes of secular law. That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer. Therefore, those are the steps taken to meet the demand of secular authority. Russell's nondenominational church continued as a vote in structure for Elders. That doesn't mean, by Rutherford's time and unrest with the other Bible Student factions, the "board of directors" went on to seen as "responsible men" of a corporation by secular authority. Hence, a governing body.

There are so many things historically wrong with your assessment that I won't even start on it. Fortunately these facts are not critical to understanding the Governing Body today, although it might have helped to highlight the actual situation in 1919 and to compare it with some of the implied claims.

On 6/5/2020 at 10:20 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

I didn't see that one, but I would have left it there for entertainment value.

[PS: I found the one you were looking for in the first Furuli topic topic, not this one.]

4 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Stick to the time frame. I said nothing about Russell's time. I commented in Rutherford time since he did place a board of directors which you are well aware of.

That was the point. He followed in the steps of Russell who made no use at all of the board of directors who were only there for legal reasons and possible continuity of the Society if something were to happen to Russell. When people in Rutherford's day compared him to Russell, they said that Rutherford was even more autocratic/dictatorial/monarchial. So I included Russell as a means of comparison.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

I already gave my opinion that there is nothing wrong with the structure the Watchtower is using in the attempt to imitate the first century. There was a similar congregational structure in terms of their bodies of elders/overseers. And I don't see a problem with trying to imitate the body of elders at Jerusalem, which does appear to be a respected council of elders. Up to a point, this is a very good thing.

It seems fairly clear from what Paul said to the Galatians that, to them, Jerusalem seemed to have a lot of respect for having some of the most famous "pillars," James, Peter and John. So there was no doubt a tendency to give extra credence to what came from Jerusalem's body of elders. No doubt it would be a great privilege to actually visit the congregation(s) in Jerusalem and hear eyewitnesses of Jesus speak and teach.

But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."

Paul showed that there was no reason for an apostle to feel obligated to go before such a "governing council."

(Galatians 1:16-20 to 2:6) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. . . . But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.

So, apparently, Paul never had to go to the see the council of elders in Jerusalem until some of those elders from there began causing problems. Because some of those elders in Jerusalem needed to be set straight, Paul received a revelation that he should go there. So he went, even though he previously had only one short visit in the last 14 years or more. Paul knew that he needed to help set things straight with them or else they could ruin all the progress he had made, and he would therefore be be running in vain against that body of elders. Paul had to go to great lengths to explain why, if they were pushing a different gospel, then they meant nothing to him even if they were apostles, or even if they had been angels!

I think the point was that, of course there was a body of elders in Jerusalem, it was natural that there would be, and it was natural that people would think of them as highly regarded, and that they would seem to be pillars for all the congregations. But this was dangerous for people to have that kind of respect for humans, because, in reality, that Jerusalem council should not have tried to push its influence on the congregations around Antioch, which teachings had now reached all the way to Galatia. Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places.

Instead, evidently, each congregation should have been more like those 7 congregations in Asia Minor that we find in Revelation 2 & 3. Whatever contact they had with each other was not important to mention here. So they are shown (symbolically) to be held before Christ himself as judge of their actions. Each of them were praised for taking their own action against false teachings and those who called themselves apostles. The counsel from Christ Jesus is never about the idea that they had not listened to this Jerusalem Council, or a group of apostles, or even an elder/overseer like John who may have known those seven congregations of Asia Minor through some kind of shepherding or circuit work for many years.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with having councils of elders in our twenty-first century world, which should include a variety of "gifts in men" including those who claim and show evidence of being anointed. And I think the most "gifted" in teaching, would be appropriate. They would be elders of course with appropriate experience in taking the lead, and as elders they would deserve an extra measure of respect. It appears to me that we have already have the right idea, but if we listen to Paul's letter to the Galatians, we can also see the dangers of giving such a group of men too much credence, respect and authority.

The end result of having the apostles stay in Jerusalem together, for a time after the holy spirit anointed them in 33 CE, was no doubt to help them straighten out necessary scriptural questions and provide that "holy spirit" for us today through the inspiration to produce the Christian Scriptures.

We know there would be a natural human tendency for such a body of elders to want to impose their conscience on others, as they might feel it was more experienced, and a more Christian-trained conscience. With good intentions, they might wish to be the governors of another person's faith. All of these natural tendencies are already counseled against in scripture:

(1 Corinthians 10:29) . . .For why should my freedom be judged by another person’s conscience?

(1 Corinthians 4:3) . . .Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . .

(2 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This Bible verse (even in nwt translation too) confirm only one fact: Jesus delegated task, service, obligation about feeding to only one person, Peter.

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.

Look what Paul says:

(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .

(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,

BTW, a couple years ago I was given the power to move posts to other topics to keep topics better organized. But this is also the power to delete. I hate to delete anyone's posts but there are times when someone accidentally posts something twice and asks for one of them to be deleted. Also, even when I move something to another topic, it can be a brand new topic, and that topic can be temporarily hidden, which is pretty much the same as deleting if no one wants it back in the topic.

In this topic, I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary. If anyone insists, their posts can come back, but it's not necessary to repeat the same exact content in a discussion forum, nor to "harass" people in general for not responding as soon as one would like. If someone says they didn't see a post and wants to see it, there is a way to put a link to that exact post, or just tell them that it about 5 or so posts further up.

Don't think of this as any kind of warning or punishment, because I have nothing to do with that, but I thought that the repeated content it made it more difficult to read and respond to the topic.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:

I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and
other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB
has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities.
The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since
then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and
always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!

Much earlier in the book he did mention it in one paragraph, but not anything controversial:

When I preach the good news, I often say that we Jehovah's Witnesses
believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. We do not accept any creed or
dogmas that are made by humans. In a big organization engaged in
worldwide preaching, there must, of course, be rules made by humans, as
also was the case in 1972. For example, elders in the congregations need
advice on how to deal with different issues, such as the molesting of
children and different legal matters. I am not speaking about such matters.
But I am speaking about decisions made by the GB that interfere direcdy
in the lives of individual Witnesses, and which are not based on the Bible.

P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In what sense, that elders before 1931 were "voted" in by the congregation, that later became a spiritual need to be approved by spiritual men? Why is it so important to you to attempt to remove the GB from this structure.

Your question can be taken in several different ways, so I can't assume which question you are asking. Are you asking in what sense the 1944 article explained the Elder arrangement, or 1969-1971 until now, or about elders before 1931?

In general, the 1944 article explained that it should be the way we are doing it now. It was just ignored for 25 years until it came up again for serious consideration around 1970. Before 1931 the congregations would have a larger say in who they thought were meeting the qualifications for elder that were found in the Bible, based on the idea that "as you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith." It's not like Russell and the Bible Student congregations had ignored the qualifications found in Titus and Timothy. But this had resulted in some persons who were not loyal to Rutherford's changes. In some cases elders were too stuck on Russell's ways, and in some cases elders were trying to use scriptures to show how Rutherford was abusing his power. And some were mixing both messages, pro-Rutherford in some ways, and anti-Rutherford in other ways. So Rutherford needed better control of the message for the sake of unity, and changed the whole system to be hierarchical from the Society on down. This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord. It continued through the 1940's and 1950's, which is probably why the Bible counsel printed in 1944 was never implemented until 1971.

If you think I am removing the GB from this structure it is only because the GB did not exist from well before 1919 and continued to not exist until the 1970's.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The Sanhedrin is just a comparison to a group of men that had a structured authority. . . .Therefore, it's not necessary to misuse the name Sanhedrin.

Yes, I understood that when you compared the Sanhedrin to other "governing bodies." I understood that you were not misusing it. And neither was I. No problem there.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

About 7 years ago when I mentioned Raymond's ideology was to bring back the voting rights of the congregation, you opposed the view, now you support it, which is it.

I still don't believe it was Raymond Franz' ideology to bring back the voting rights of the congregation. Nor do I support the view. Where are you getting that from?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Did Raymond Franz support bringing back the right to have the congregations take a vote for the elder ship? 

From everything I've read in his books, I'm sure he did NOT. If true, that kind of "news" would have been spread everywhere, but I don't see anyone even thinking about claiming this. But I haven't finished all of "ISOCF." Perhaps you have some evidence?

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In essence, back in 1919, the "board of directors" was the GB at that time. Rutherford just like Fred Franz functioned as the President of the Watchtower.

There are many pieces of evidence that are even admitted from Watchtower publications themselves that there was NOTHING at all like a GB under Russell. Even the way in which the term "governing body" was typically used for many years (from the 40's until the 70's) tells us that there was no governing body in the way we now define it. And there is evidence that Rutherford was even MORE like Russell in personally deciding all matters of any importance from a doctrinal perspective. Still, there might have been small areas where others handled responsibilities that Rutherford didn't care to handle. Ray Franz claims it was still like this even after the governing body was expanded to include additional members besides the board of directors in the 1970s.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

My understanding, for it's worth, and that's not much, is that every organization does better with something like a governing body. Religious or secular. And it's human nature for some to take the lead, and human nature for others to prefer following the lead of others. And as I've said on the other thread, it makes sense that some elders would be better at presiding, decision-making, organizing, speaking and teaching. Just as some would be better models for others in the way they bring up their families and provide for them, or show hospitality, or encourage the weak, or find opportunities for charity, visiting the sick, etc.

Therefore, for some elders, being part of a decision-making council makes sense. I would expect it in almost every large religious organization. But especially in our own, due to the importance and magnitude of the preaching work, translating work, distribution of literature, managing assemblies, writing for publications, answering issues that arise, handling legal issues, etc. 

Also, because of our desire to match to the first century, we are generally pleased with the idea that, if they had something like a governing council in Jerusalem, and we know that at least 1 of those persons on that council was an apostle, then we should expect spiritual men with a good level of experience and spirituality to be assigned to such a governing body today. And, while we know they are flawed and won't always say and do the right thing, our current 'governing body' is known to have successfully worked at varying levels of responsibility in their assignments and ministry.

So I have no problem with a 'governing body' even though I think that specific 'title' stuck for secular/legal/bureaucratic reasons and is probably not the right name to represent the position these men should hold. Some of these additional opinions of mine are trivial, however.

On the question about a governing body in the first century, I think that's a little more germane to the topic. I'll get into that if time permits.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does Rolf anywhere deal with the verses that say ‘no part of the world?’ If so, what is his take on that. Among the digs on higher education is that it facilitates force-feeding by the world.

He does deal with that objection, claiming that the world's influence can be found just as easily anywhere and everywhere (school, work, vocational training, etc), and that pinning so much blame on higher education is unfounded. To him, higher education is a serious endeavor, and there are mostly serious schools where one can mostly focus on those endeavors. He also believes that the Society, and Witness families would have generally done a better job caring for one another if more had completed their studies to become nurses, IT professionals, etc. The idea that the time is too short to get this kind of education through college degrees has not proven correct, as it has now been 12 years since Losch told an audience that they should quit college even if they are nearing the end of their degree program, and that they will be accountable to Jehovah if they don't. 

His primary problem, he indicates, is that the negative information about higher education is skewed. It's a caricature of higher education, and Furuli thinks this shows that the GB, especially Splane and Losch, have no idea even what higher education really is. Also, he compares the balanced information of 1992 with the new, unbalanced "radical" information against higher education in 2005. He shows how all the sources were misused in that article, and criticizes the misuse of that information in talks since 2005. He compares his own experience against the counsel from the GB.

On 6/4/2020 at 10:35 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Does anyone at any point reflect on how Moses was supplied helpers when the load proved too much for him?

(Exodus 18:17-23) ¹⁷ Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. ¹⁸ You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. ¹⁹ Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. ²⁰ You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. ²¹ But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. ²² They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. ²³ If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”

A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.

Also, you might have referred to this case:

*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.

This full situation always reminds me of this:

(Mark 9:38-40) ³⁸ John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” ³⁹ But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. ⁴⁰ For whoever is not against us is for us.

2 minutes ago, Witness said:

Good thing these literal, timely "prophesies" are flexible.  

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).