JW Insider

Maybe what Rando is doing is just an overreaction, similar to the ones about 1914, 1918/19, 1925, 1941, 1975 and everything/all other after that?  
WTJWorg eschatology in action. 
Certainly, people will eat, drink, marry, build and plant. Some/many of them will be struck by trouble, because trouble is a part of life in the world as we know it. Some of the troubles that have happened or are happening today, have been / are at the local or even global area / level. This allows for interpretations / overreactions followed by disappointments many times over. 
 

SM, I don't normally agree with you, but this is beautiful.

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.
As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."
A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."
Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:
(Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him. And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:
(Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet; There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.
And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).
And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.
(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.
If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.
The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.
You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.
Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).
der Löffel (the spoon), die Gabel (the fork) das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always.
As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine."
A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine."
Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to:
(Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him. And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here:
(Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet; There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws.
And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine).
And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine.
(Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him.
If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't.
The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1?
(Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God.
You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus.
Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral).
der Löffel (the spoon), die Gabel (the fork) das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]
It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.
(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .
[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]
 

Most of the time - this.
Some people who simply read the verses when they see THEOS quickly come to a conclusion. The title can be applied to anything or anyone, for it does not automatically make them The True God. Other similar examples would be Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13, where as for this verse, Trinitarians often appeal to the Granville Sharp Rule in order to identify Jesus as God. 1 Timothy 3:16 is also another interesting one, for "God" being included into the verse proves problematic.

Agree.  If Jesus was in all sense, the Almighty God, he wouldn't have said...
"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  John 5:19
"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."  John 5:30
 

No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.]
It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god.
(Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . .
[Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]
 

John 1:1 is literally the center piece in the Trinitarian vs Non-Trinitarian battle, likewise to those in Royal's Park Hyde Park, London where a good chuck of this verse is often debated.
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
 This verse is commonly used by some to prove Jesus is God, at times ignoring context and references to adhere to their own exegesis, but the facts show us, if read and understood, the entirety of John's Introduction chapter, disproves the claim that Jesus is God.
So in short, the Word of John 1:1(c) is the Word proclaimed through Jesus in his ministry and the Word he proclaimed was the proclamation of God the Father Himself, the Word was God. He who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works he did.
God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he said and did. God is Light and Jesus fully expressed the Light of the Father in all the words he spoke and works he did in the name of his God. God is Love and the flesh named Jesus fully expressed the Father's Love; dead flesh crucified for the sins of mankind. The Word of God was something the man named Jesus always kept. The Word became flesh, that is, God the Father was manifested in flesh, that flesh named Jesus. Jesus came so that we might know the Father and Jesus fully expressed the Father in all the things he did because he always kept His Father's Word. Jesus' words and works were not his own but the Father's. For the Word of which Jesus speaks is God's Spoken Word.

As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things.
To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it.
(Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with:
(Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . .
(Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. 
@Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings.
@Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..."
(Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made.
The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death.
Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon?
(Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . .
(Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.”
I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
 

As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things.
To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it.
(Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with:
(Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . .
(Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. 
@Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings.
@Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..."
(Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made.
The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death.
Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon?
(Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . .
(Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.”
I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
 

As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things.
To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it.
(Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with:
(Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . .
(Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. 
@Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings.
@Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..."
(Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made.
The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death.
Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon?
(Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . .
(Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.”
I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
 

Then Pilate said to him, “So then you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I have come into the world: in order that I can testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”   John 18:38

Satan—the great anti-typical hacker!
Nah, I think it just means your computer is a piece of junk, like mine. Mine wheezes like the Tardis—pull the plug & it instantly dies, for the battery died ages ago. The cord must be secured with duct tape because I ripped it out too many times moving and catching it on things. Long ago I learned to compensate for the squirrelly touchpad with keyboard workarounds. And Windows & security software grows exponentially complicated, so that the ‘engine’ is overwhelmed and sporadically & unpredictably moves quite slowly. I have to shut down each application after using it in hopes the entire machine will not freeze up. Sometimes it does anyway, and then it is a hard reboot for me, which may take 15 minutes to find my place again. 
It is not the Devil. (Unless Bill Gates is the Devil, which some people think for other reasons.)
Fortunately, most of what I do, such as right now, I do on my iPad, on which I can leave 20 apps open and 20 webpages with barely a hiccup.
Laptop repairs are too costly. I should just get a new laptop. I will in time. But the Harleys have a long history of not discarding anything until the last tiniest vestige of life has expired in it and I don’t mean to be the first one to break family tradition. Besides, even with cloud storage, there are always some aggravating (if not devastating) hassles in moving from one machine to another.

As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things.
To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it.
(Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with:
(Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . .
(Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. 
@Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings.
@Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..."
(Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made.
The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death.
Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon?
(Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . .
(Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.”
I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
 

As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things.
To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it.
(Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with:
(Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . .
(Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. 
@Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings.
@Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..."
(Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.”
Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made.
The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death.
Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon?
(Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . .
(Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.”
I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
 

All faithful, obedient believers in Christ who desire to know truth are led by the Holy Spirit, and most definitely Jesus had God’s Spirit guiding him since his birth.  But, the pouring out and being filled with Holy Spirit is the opening up of wisdom/truth/knowledge (God’s word) from heaven.  (1 John 2:27 )  Being “filled” with spirit is an anointing. I believe it was at that time (Luke 3:21,22) that Jesus then knew the extent of the path he had to take while on the earth. 
As you say, the next chapter in Luke continues after his baptism by saying,
“Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.
After that time of testing…
“Jesus *returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.”
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19     to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”   Luke 4  (Isa 61:1)
Ps 45:7 - You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
    therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
    by anointing you with the oil of joy.
Acts 10:37,38 - “You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, *beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.” 
His “anointing” at his water baptism, was a fulfilment of prophesy.  The literal anointing of oil in the early days of the nation’s kings, signified that that person was chosen to reign as king. (1 Sam 9:16; 15:1; 2 Sam 12:7; 1 Kings 19:15…) Also the priesthood was anointed as signifying that God had chosen those under the lineage of Aaron to be a priest. (Num 25:10-13; 3:10; Lev 10:8-11; Mal 2:7) That lineage has continued spiritually through all the anointed priests/kings since Christ.   (Exod 29:1,7; 2 Cor 1:21,22; Rev 5:9,10)
Jesus, is both our High Priest and our King.  (Heb 4:14,15; John 1:49; Rev 17:14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This is what the Aid book has to say:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200012397?q=jesus+baptism&p=par
The outpouring of holy spirit at the time of Jesus’ baptism marked the time of his becoming in actual fact the Messiah, or Christ, God’s Anointed One (the use of this title by angels when announcing his birth evidently being in a prophetic sense; Luke 2:9-11; note also verses 25, 26). For six months John had been ‘preparing the way’ for the “saving means of God.” (Luke 3:1-6) Jesus, now “about thirty years old,” was baptized over John’s initial objections, voiced because John till then had been baptizing only repentant sinners. (Matt. 3:1, 6, 13-17; Luke 3:21-23) Jesus, however, was sinless; hence his baptism testified instead to his presenting himself to do his Father’s will. (Compare Hebrews 10:5-9; see BAPTISM [Jesus’ Baptism in Water].) After Jesus had ‘come up from the water,’ and while he was praying, “he saw the heavens being parted” and God’s spirit descended upon Jesus in bodily shape like a dove, and Jehovah’s voice was heard from heaven, saying: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”—Matt. 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22.
God’s spirit poured out upon Jesus doubtless illuminated his mind on many points. His own expressions thereafter, and particularly the intimate prayer to his Father on Passover night, 33 C.E., show that Jesus recalled his prehuman existence and the things he had heard from his Father and the things he had seen his Father do, as well as the glory that he himself had enjoyed in the heavens. (John 6:46; 7:28, 29; 8:26, 28, 38; 14:2; 17:5) It may well have been that the memory of these things was restored to him at the time of his baptism and anointing.
Jesus’ anointing appointed and commissioned him to carry out his ministry of preaching and teaching (Luke 4:16-21), and to serve as God’s Prophet. (Acts 3:22-26) But, over and above this, it appointed and commissioned him as Jehovah’s promised King, the heir to David’s throne (Luke 1:32, 33, 69; Heb. 1:8, 9), and to an everlasting kingdom. For that reason he could later tell Pharisees: “The kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20, 21) Similarly, Jesus was anointed to act as God’s High Priest, not as a descendant of Aaron, but after the likeness of King-Priest Melchizedek.—Heb. 5:1, 4-10; 7:11-17.
Jesus had been God’s Son from the time of his birth, even as the perfect Adam had been “the son of God.” (Luke 3:38; 1:35) The angels had identified Jesus as God’s Son from birth onward. So, when, after Jesus’ baptism, his Father’s voice was heard saying, “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you” (Mark 1:11), it seems reasonable that this declaration accompanying the anointing flow of God’s spirit was more than just an acknowledgment of Jesus’ identity. The evidence is that Jesus was then begotten or brought forth by God as his spiritual Son, “born again,” as it were, with the right to receive life once more as a spirit Son of God in the heavens.—Compare John 3:3-6; 6:51; 10:17, 18; see BAPTISM (Baptism into Christ Jesus and into His Death); ONLY-BEGOTTEN.

My bad. Though they are my words, they are meant as an extension of PSomH’s request to JWI. (Sort of an inside joke)
He will beg him for advice,
His reply will be concise,
And he’ll listen very nicely then go off and do precisely what he wants. (which is to tell JWI he’s wrong)

Our cat was never quite the same after spending a few seconds with head inside the dog’s mouth. Later, he auditioned and actually became the moniker for Top Cat O’Malihan, one of my aliases here, employed to mess with astoundingly obnoxious people like Alan F.
Since the dog and cat did not get along (I thought I could keep them out of each other’s sight, but did not reckon on sense of smell), while the dog stayed with us (it was a temporary resident that later became permanent), I brought it to stay with my dad who had dementia. He took it for one of the barn cats that he had grown up with and left bowls of milk for it everywhere, which it did not touch. “Pop!” I grumbled later since I staying with him overnights for a few months before he died, “I want to pour myself a bowl of cereal but I can’t because you’ve poured out all the milk in saucers throughout the house!”

Some things are straightforward, but other things are a matter of interpretation. The thing that gets me is when someone acts like they have it all figured out. Nope.

.
.
How something is worded often contains subtle nuances and references, and sub-references that escape almost everyone, except those whose thinking is not agenda driven.
The problem is .... almost EVERYONES' thinking is agenda driven.
Without getting into George Carlin's famous comment about sticking a needle in your finger, consider the very real difference between these two phrases, being  "waiting to engage", and being "engaged to wait".
If you work for someone, and are on call 24/7/365. make sure that the phraseology is "engaged to wait", and not "waiting to engage".
It makes a difference as to whether or not you are due payment for your services.
In similar fashion, the nuances inherent in the way Scripture is phrased make a very real difference.
However, if your perception is agenda driven, you will always be wrong.
If you think you are a hammer ..... EVERYTHING looks like a nail.
..... and your theology and carpentry work will be crude, ugly, and unworkable.

I was.
I did.
He wasn’t.
You’re wrong.
It’s his heart that it never came up into, his center of motivation. It is the furthest thing from what he would ever do. It’s not that he can’t imagine it.
There is division among translators over this verse. Someone want to spend some time looking into this? I’ll take the NWT any day in this case. It dovetails far better with everything else we know of God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Jeremiah 7%3A31
One translation best captures the “mind” sense with, “I never entertained the thought,” which is not the same as being “surprised.”

I agree with you 100% that it's possible to mix them up. In fact, "@Patiently. . ." was on the right track when he asked: 
Specifically, when Jesus said "the harvest is great" he seems to refer to the importance and urgency of the preaching work during any time in history. There was an urgency during the first century and there is an urgency now.
However, when Jesus said, "the harvest is the synteleia of the age" (NWT: "the harvest is a conclusion of the system of the things" this was specifically using the term "harvest" in the sense of a final gathering up of those "chosen" (the wheat) from among the "weeds."
As  you said, separate illustrations don't have to be referring to the exact same aspect of an idea, just because the subject appears to be the same.
I should have acknowledged @Patiently's original question more clearly rather than by just saying ". . . this 'harvest' (or perhaps,  'a harvest') . . . " 
To me, and you, there is no reason to mix the meanings of the general "preaching" harvest and the "end-times" gathering of the wheat and weeds (or the gathering/harvest of the chosen ones). But this doesn't mean there is no connection. In fact, even though we've had this conversation before where this separation between two harvests has already been made, I was still acknowledging that there is a logical connection, as the Watchtower publications have also claimed.
In the God's Kingdom Rules book for example, chapter 9 contains the following discussion, which also ties together these same verses (which you might claim was like mixing up Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood).
*** kr chap. 9 pp. 88-95 pars. 5-21 Results of Preaching—“The Fields . . . Are White for Harvesting” ***
In a vision given to the apostle John, Jehovah reveals that he assigned Jesus to take the lead in a global harvest of people. (Read Revelation 14:14-16.) In this vision, Jesus is described as having a crown and a sickle. The “golden crown on [Jesus’] head” confirms his position as ruling King. The “sharp sickle in his hand” confirms his role as Harvester. By stating through an angel that “the harvest of the earth is fully ripe,” Jehovah emphasizes that the work is urgent. Indeed, “the hour has come to reap”—there is no time for delay! In response to God’s command “put your sickle in,” Jesus thrusts in his sickle, and the earth is reaped—that is, people of the earth are reaped. This exciting vision reminds us that again “the fields . . . are white for harvesting.” Does this vision help us to determine when this global harvest began? Yes!
6 Since John’s vision in Revelation chapter 14 shows Jesus, the Harvester, wearing a crown (verse 14), his appointment as King in 1914 had already taken place. (Dan. 7:13, 14) Sometime after that, Jesus is commanded to start the harvest (verse 15). The same order of events is seen in Jesus’ parable about the harvest of the wheat, where he states: “The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things.” Thus, the harvest season and the conclusion of this system of things began at the same time—in 1914. Later “in the harvest season,” the actual harvesting began. (Matt. 13:30, 39) [Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” . . . and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels.] Looking back from our vantage point in time, we can see that the harvest began some years after Jesus started ruling as King. First, from 1914 until the early part of 1919, Jesus carried out a cleansing work among his anointed followers. . . . Then, in 1919, “the harvest of the earth” began. Without delay, Jesus used the newly appointed faithful slave to help our brothers see the urgency of the preaching work. . . . Since 1919, zealous harvest workers have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation. . . .
20 In the first century, Jesus helped his apostles to see that the harvest work was urgent. From 1919 onward, Jesus has helped his modern-day disciples to grasp the same truth. In response, God’s people have intensified  their activities. In fact, the harvest work has proved to be unstoppable. As foretold by the prophet Malachi, the preaching work is being carried out today “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” (Mal. 1:11) Yes, from sunrise to sunset—from east to west, no matter where they are on earth—sowers and reapers work and rejoice together. And from sunrise to sunset—from morning till evening, or all day long—we work with a sense of urgency.
21 As we look back today over some 100 years and see how a small group of God’s servants has grown into “a mighty nation,” our heart does indeed “throb and overflow” with joy. (Isa. 60:5, 22) May that joy and our love for Jehovah, “the Master of the harvest,” impel each one of us to keep on doing our share in completing the greatest harvest of all time!—Luke 10:2. [Then he said to them: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.]
The chapter in "kr" also tried to deal with the problem of timing in order to date the harvest of the conclusion of the system of things beginning after Jesus becomes king, and showing that the harvest would begin some time later. The article times these two events at 1914 and 1919, of course.

I agree with you 100% that it's possible to mix them up. In fact, "@Patiently. . ." was on the right track when he asked: 
Specifically, when Jesus said "the harvest is great" he seems to refer to the importance and urgency of the preaching work during any time in history. There was an urgency during the first century and there is an urgency now.
However, when Jesus said, "the harvest is the synteleia of the age" (NWT: "the harvest is a conclusion of the system of the things" this was specifically using the term "harvest" in the sense of a final gathering up of those "chosen" (the wheat) from among the "weeds."
As  you said, separate illustrations don't have to be referring to the exact same aspect of an idea, just because the subject appears to be the same.
I should have acknowledged @Patiently's original question more clearly rather than by just saying ". . . this 'harvest' (or perhaps,  'a harvest') . . . " 
To me, and you, there is no reason to mix the meanings of the general "preaching" harvest and the "end-times" gathering of the wheat and weeds (or the gathering/harvest of the chosen ones). But this doesn't mean there is no connection. In fact, even though we've had this conversation before where this separation between two harvests has already been made, I was still acknowledging that there is a logical connection, as the Watchtower publications have also claimed.
In the God's Kingdom Rules book for example, chapter 9 contains the following discussion, which also ties together these same verses (which you might claim was like mixing up Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood).
*** kr chap. 9 pp. 88-95 pars. 5-21 Results of Preaching—“The Fields . . . Are White for Harvesting” ***
In a vision given to the apostle John, Jehovah reveals that he assigned Jesus to take the lead in a global harvest of people. (Read Revelation 14:14-16.) In this vision, Jesus is described as having a crown and a sickle. The “golden crown on [Jesus’] head” confirms his position as ruling King. The “sharp sickle in his hand” confirms his role as Harvester. By stating through an angel that “the harvest of the earth is fully ripe,” Jehovah emphasizes that the work is urgent. Indeed, “the hour has come to reap”—there is no time for delay! In response to God’s command “put your sickle in,” Jesus thrusts in his sickle, and the earth is reaped—that is, people of the earth are reaped. This exciting vision reminds us that again “the fields . . . are white for harvesting.” Does this vision help us to determine when this global harvest began? Yes!
6 Since John’s vision in Revelation chapter 14 shows Jesus, the Harvester, wearing a crown (verse 14), his appointment as King in 1914 had already taken place. (Dan. 7:13, 14) Sometime after that, Jesus is commanded to start the harvest (verse 15). The same order of events is seen in Jesus’ parable about the harvest of the wheat, where he states: “The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things.” Thus, the harvest season and the conclusion of this system of things began at the same time—in 1914. Later “in the harvest season,” the actual harvesting began. (Matt. 13:30, 39) [Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” . . . and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels.] Looking back from our vantage point in time, we can see that the harvest began some years after Jesus started ruling as King. First, from 1914 until the early part of 1919, Jesus carried out a cleansing work among his anointed followers. . . . Then, in 1919, “the harvest of the earth” began. Without delay, Jesus used the newly appointed faithful slave to help our brothers see the urgency of the preaching work. . . . Since 1919, zealous harvest workers have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation. . . .
20 In the first century, Jesus helped his apostles to see that the harvest work was urgent. From 1919 onward, Jesus has helped his modern-day disciples to grasp the same truth. In response, God’s people have intensified  their activities. In fact, the harvest work has proved to be unstoppable. As foretold by the prophet Malachi, the preaching work is being carried out today “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” (Mal. 1:11) Yes, from sunrise to sunset—from east to west, no matter where they are on earth—sowers and reapers work and rejoice together. And from sunrise to sunset—from morning till evening, or all day long—we work with a sense of urgency.
21 As we look back today over some 100 years and see how a small group of God’s servants has grown into “a mighty nation,” our heart does indeed “throb and overflow” with joy. (Isa. 60:5, 22) May that joy and our love for Jehovah, “the Master of the harvest,” impel each one of us to keep on doing our share in completing the greatest harvest of all time!—Luke 10:2. [Then he said to them: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.]
The chapter in "kr" also tried to deal with the problem of timing in order to date the harvest of the conclusion of the system of things beginning after Jesus becomes king, and showing that the harvest would begin some time later. The article times these two events at 1914 and 1919, of course.