JW Insider

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-insular-world-of-israeli-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.5468604
I found it to be mostly accurate.

This Bro Kaplan makes a pretty good spokesman: "We are not afraid to be different, but we are not out to provoke. Those who know us, including serious institutions in democracies, know that we are not a group of crazies with apocalyptic visions.”
I like, too, how he points to the irony of in every land, Witnesses are derided on the basis of being anti-Christian, but in Israel on the basis that they are Christian.
Jews know what it is to be persecuted and they do not confuse it with people deciding not to hang out with you.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-insular-world-of-israeli-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.5468604
I found it to be mostly accurate.

I agree it is mostly accurate; a very informative article which fills in many details we don't usually get about the work there.  The outcome of the request for registration is not unexpected, knowing what happened in different eras and with Jesus himself.
I like the way the writer expresses her understanding of everything throughout the article, e.g. this statement:   "Apparently, a religious minority is a convenient target for slanders and distorted facts, as the Jews themselves know from their bitter experience.”
 
 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-rare-glimpse-into-the-insular-world-of-israeli-jehovah-s-witnesses-1.5468604
I found it to be mostly accurate.

It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist:
Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nation-of-Islam
He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384578

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell.
One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start  the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years  = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times.
Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060.
Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think:
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40]
Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35]
2016 vs. 2060
Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43]
F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

People keep making this claim, but no one has ever seemed to come up with the evidence. Every one I have seen has always been a spin-off of Second Adventists (after William Miller) or the Bible Students (after Barbour/Russell).

It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist:
Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nation-of-Islam
He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384578

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell.
One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start  the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years  = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times.
Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060.
Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think:
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40]
Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35]
2016 vs. 2060
Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43]
F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.
Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
 

It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist:
Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. -- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nation-of-Islam
He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1384578

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell.
One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start  the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years  = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times.
Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060.
Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think:
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40]
Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35]
2016 vs. 2060
Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43]
F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell.
One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start  the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years  = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times.
Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060.
Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think:
Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40]
Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35]
2016 vs. 2060
Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43]
F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself:
Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time:
In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States.
The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]

People keep making this claim, but no one has ever seemed to come up with the evidence. Every one I have seen has always been a spin-off of Second Adventists (after William Miller) or the Bible Students (after Barbour/Russell).

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.
Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
 

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.
Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
 

@JW Insider Thank you, the thread alone has more detail.
It wasn't much when @Patiently waiting for Truth said the 2 points he addresses, which didn't have that much detail as seen here -
1. Jesus allowed an immoral woman to wash His feet with her tears, then wipre His feet with her hair, then she anointed His feet with oil. Then Jesus said to her "Your sins are forgiven you "   2.  The Jewish way of life, The Law, demanded death.  However the New way, through Christ, demanded mercy and forgiveness. Jesus and the disciples never punished anyone by killing them.  But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for, not sure as to why he didn't bring that up early before his usual boxing match with SM. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious, even us JWs, reason why I cited JW library, and my pervious post was from a study, where I quoted my old comment about the history of that passage. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.
Thanks again because you took literally a minute to do this vs someone else who took days.

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.
Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
 

Not that it should matter too much to anyone here, but just to get a discussion started, I will happily state that I am in 100% agreement with all the scriptures in this list. And am in 100% agreement with at least 990 of the 997 words (counted by copying the content portion of this to https://wordcounter.net/).
I found only 3 things I'd take a small issue with:
"Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular" professor in it. Jason DeBuhn's name has been on this list since at least 2015 and has never been removed. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list, which otherwise only highlights a simple Bible basis, not some scholar. "A person’s works prove that his faith is alive." This isn't necessarily true. A person can have works that look like they are motivated by faith, but are motivated by self-righteousness, a competitive spirit, a desire to earn salvation and be rewarded accordingly, blindly following men, etc., just to mention some common examples.   (Matthew 7:22) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ "He began ruling in 1914." Hmmm. I've probably said before that I can't find this one in the Bible. (And it's just about the only sentence that has no scripture to back it up.)  I wish it had said: "We believe Jesus is now ruling invisibly from heaven." Or, "We believe that we now live in a time when Jesus, from his heavenly throne, is giving special attention to matters of the Kingdom on earth." In addition to those, there are a couple of other things, much less important to me, that I could see changing in the future, and the change wouldn't cause a problem or inconsistency either way. For example, I could see the possibility that the "144,000" is a symbolic number, and might even represent the full number of natural Jewish Christians as easily as it could represent the full number of spiritual Jews. But the list explicitly allows for some expressions to be interpreted symbolically, anyway, so it wouldn't bother me either way to use the expression, "The 144,000 will rule in heaven."  ["We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1. "]
It's also possible that "blood" in Acts 15 is a symbol for "bloodguilt," such as murder, manslaughter, war, etc., just as "idols" can include things like "gluttony" (Phil 3:19) "greediness" (Col 3:5) and even "pleasing men" (Eph 6:6,7; Gal 1:10)  Personally, for my own conscience, I'm fine with the idea that abstaining from blood transfusions is one way that we abstain from blood. But there's a chance that we as individuals and as an organization should not be imposing this as a rule on the Bible-trained consciences of others.
That idea might already be covered, even if unintentionally, by the very nice idea expressed here: "Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience."
Outside of those few comments, I would be willing to die for the other 990 words out of the 997.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of how the question is asked. For example, take a question like this:
"Even if your religious beliefs do not condone or support homosexuality (and/or LGBTQ+), do you think that homosexual (and/or LGBTQ+) persons should be discriminated against in the areas of jobs and housing?"
Depending on the exact wording of the question, you could potentially get 100% of any religious group to "support" such a bill. Remember that they are not directly asking if you support some particular bill, per se, but asking about support of some of the measures which might be found in it. The fact that such a bill might be in the works is not necessarily even brought up. Or even if it is brought up as a proposed bill, the survey could overcome prejudice against the political party sponsoring the bill, or religious feelings by using questions like:
Would you oppose any bill that tried to remove discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons?
A Witness would not say they opposed such a bill, because they are generally neutral regarding political bills.
Also, these are not simple yes or no questions in most surveys. They are often multiple choice such as the following, where the intro to the question can produce an implied meaning [in brackets] that may not even be in the "supported" bill:
Question: This is about hiring and firing LGBTQ+ persons from jobs, or landlords being able to not rent to, or kick out LGBTQ+ persons from their buildings or homes.
So . . . . are you:
A. Highly in favor of discriminating against LGBTQ+  [i.e., immediately fire them - immediately make homeless]
B. Somewhat in favor of discriminating against them [i.e., give them some advance notice before firing them from their jobs - or putting them out on the street]
C. Somewhat in favor of not discriminating against them [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in most cases]
D. Highly in favor of of not discriminating [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in all cases]
 
If you interview about 1000 people, and 17 identify as JWs, then only 9 of them need to choose C, and 8 can choose A or B, and that would be the 53% (9 of 17) who supposedly "support" the bill, even if they knew nothing about the bill itself. I think all of us know Witnesses who would answer C to the question.

This is why I am careful not to get into squabbles over it. I may post something that seems to me of substance, but if people disagree, I do not get into it. 

Dogs were ceremonially unclean animals and not likely to have been pets in Jewish homes.  They were wild carnivorous animals.  Job a non-Jew had flocks of dogs, but none are mentioned among Jewish shepherds.
Look it it in the Insight Book.  
Paul was from Jewish background, so his customs would have been Jewish, although later he came to embrace all nations of men.  It would be unlikely that Paul would have been accompanied by something revolting to the Jews.  He had enough problems already and a dog accompanying him would not have helped. 
Interesting, but not particularly beneficial to pursue this.

If you read his original post, nothing of a date was ever mentioned, he simply compared Noah's Day to how Present Day mirrors it with events happening throughout the years, especially even now. Moreover, he made mention of the presence of the Christ, and how it is compared, hence his quote:
[Notice Jesus compared the days of Noah to his Presence, they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away. Therefore, we can conclude that both Prophecies are 'timed events'. Time and again Jesus kept reminding his disciples just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. How long were the days of Noah? Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.” (Genesis 6:3)
  We can be certain to expect a plethora of events to unfold in a timely manner at the end of Christ's Presence, sweeping the ungodly away, but not in the manner you think...]   You should already know I do not pass on anything, for you made that clear several times. Again the presence of the Christ, but you throw a wrench to @Arauna. You only made a small remark with no substances to said remark on this 2034 notation. JWI had already covered that a while back with detail, again, you clearly do not know the WHY and HOW Rando came to that conclusion - JWI's response.   Best to look at that thread and all of JWI's references.   That being said, it isn't too far-fetched because although not anything pertaining to God's Day, there are those who hold an expectation of something that is to take place in 2034, series of events, which seems to be the case with Rando, ironically enough some Christians made a notation to that, even the non-religious mainly when it comes to fulfillment, for some they even interjected superpowers and groups associated with both Babylon and the Beast, whom since 2016, have been doing a lot if you paid attention well into the pandemic.   I've mentioned the man known as Reslite before, and he made note to 2034, and this man not only studied the pastor Taze Russell, but knows a lot about what he said:   He stated this (only a portion of it because Res takes time before he gets to a point) -  As for the other remarks:
And the Watchtower / JW Org have always wanted to push forward such a date.  They did so many times, and all were wrong. Once again this has all been discussed over and over again on here. It get boring.
1914 was in regards to Christ compared to them. And the whole 1975 was a result of people overreacting and thus spread misinformation. Evidence to that was due to those who were alive that day and year. I even told you in the past an Ex-JW called this out, spoke the truth despite not 100% agreeing with JWs, yet who were the people who came to said him death threats, shame him, attack him to the point they got YouTube to shutdown his channel? That is an obvious answer, one you do not like. Same situation with 2017 when misinformation spread only for an Ex-Bible Student was the one responsible for stopping a protest, but to this day, the lie continues to be spoken.
That said, if it is so boring, why are you so intrigued, several times over?
But you will continue to hassle me, because for some reason you have chosen me to dislike. However that is good, for it gives me reason to think that I'm on the right lines. And of course we are to forgive each other more that 77 times. 
Because to this day, you didn't live up to what you made note to a long time ago after breaking something that would have helped you.
How is it good to not do the research to take in the facts? We should not be going about mere opinion mainly something dealing with a group or community. Although not a political person, to adopt a Left-Wing paradigm in this regard is dangerous. Not too long ago you tried to speak of traditions of Men, yet nothing of which you stated comes close to equating to that.
Traditions of Men vs. Traditions out of the Christian Church differs. More so, the group in question are of Restorationism.
But you do not really forgive anyone, and when you are corrected, you react as though you are not immature. If the FBI is mentioned, you get angry, if you didn't know a term in Hebrew or Greek, you get angry, if someone even memes, you get angry, corrected on your own faith group, you get angry, not proving a claim, you get angry, if even a teenager corrects you, you jump out of your seat, ironically enough he was the one who purposed Forgiveness can be exploited and abused by some. If @Arauna or @TrueTomHarley even breathes, you light up like a volcano.
How does that make sense?
Even so, if one is to focus on the Bible only, you solely bring up your faith group.
Facts is over everything, not opinions duped as unproven. The original quote of which I purposed to you was from a written work from a College in NY, by the way.
  If you checked the originally links and example links, those in of itself knock the basketball out of your hands, JB. This isn't the first time the notation of being "Saved" was brought up, and baptism is a declaration, hence the linked notes; in this regard, if they believed only them are to be saved, then they would not make any remark of those that predate them, the Bible Students, etc. Even to specific few in Jesus' day.
Again, you are just going by means of your own opinion pieces, which proves the point made.
That being said, the only reason I react the way I do because as I mentioned, to which you even made note to, I hate falsehood, I hate misinformation, and I hate conspiracy theories. Therefore, I am the guy who would speak if I see something that is not right, say something or even refute if need be, mainly when the Core Teachings of God and Christ is hindered and I have a disdain for Trinitarianism and the Interfaith, but it didn't stop you from saying otherwise before only to be corrected.

@BroRando  You are funny. You are good for a laugh, but, you cannot be taken seriously because of your attitude. 
Yes, each day we get a day closer to Armageddon, of course we do. And i don't deny we are living in the 'time of the end'.
But what I will not do is to put a date on it.  And as the scripture tells us "Unless those days were cut short, then no flesh would be saved". 
Now either Almighty God or Jesus Christ, has to decide when those days must be cut short. 
As for 1914, that was 'thrown out the window' years ago. You are just living in the past. 
You are of course entitled to your own opinion about 2034. But you must question yourself as to whether God or Christ has given you the right to spread that rumour to bring trouble to other people.  You could well be seen as a stumbling block as mentioned in Luke 17 : 1 & 2.