JW Insider

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:
(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.
When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.
Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.
Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."
I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.
----------------
I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.
First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.
The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.
Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:
Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.
Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 
So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:
The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.
But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:
To which CC responded:
So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:
But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.
The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.
As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------
So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

I think the interlinear translations are great. Of course, you can do this online now. But I have J.P.Green's Hebrew Interlinear and think it's good. I think I bought mine for 20 while at Bethel, and I see it's now several times higher in price on Amzn. The KIT was always the best priced Greek Interlinear, and the word-for-word is just fine, even if you don't like the NWT in the margin.
For the NWT, I was referring to any of them prior to 2013. The black one you refer to is nice for old eyes, and more room for writing in the margins.
I also really like the Bibles that have 4 translations to a page, and I also have one with 8 translations on a page. This way you only have to glance over at another translation if you want to see how someone else translates the same verses/passage.
[edited to add: by 4 an 8 translations per page, it's really only 2 and 4 per page, but when you open to any page it uses both open pages, side by side, left and right, to display the same set of verses. So the "8" really only has 4 translations on each side. You typically won't read all of them, but it's a good way to find both a more literal and a more readable on the same page with easy access to both.]

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent.
Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

If one is already very familiar with a very literal translation, that stays close and consistent to the original Hebrew and Greek tenses and expressions, then almost any translation in more modern or flowing language will work.
I like the original NWT for a very literal translation because I'm familiar with it. The Hebrew Scriptures are a bit "stilted" and not very flexible, but that can be good for a literal translation. The Greek is very good and more readable even for a literal translation. You should already be familiar with all the controversial portions of the translation to make up your own mind on stauros, parousia, synteleia, etc.
Other good literal translations include the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) which also has excellent footnotes. I have not found it available online. The ASV and RSV and YLT are good for this too.
After the literal, then you are ready for almost anything. The NWT 2013 is a good compromise between literal and simple ease of reading. But just about anything will work as the second translation you read, even another literal.
 

It can be learned. At Sheepandgoats U, there is a degree program on not responding to the ignoramuses. It is taught by a professor of impeccable qualtifications and sterling example - myself. 
Hesitate to sign up, perhaps put off by some examples that you have seen with your own eyes? Then consider a testimonial:
 

Just for "fun" I did a comparison by flipping through three major cable networks last night while also doing a deep dive into twitter videos from several different perspectives on the issue.
CNN for several hours focused on Trump's photo op that was evidently driven by his anger over it being made known that he had been taken to a bunker, so that he needed an outside appearance to make up for it. To set this up he and his entourage ran over to the partly burnt church across from the White House. To make his paths straight and smooth, he ordered the clearing of the streets where protests had been perfectly peaceful for 8 hours. With a few minutes to go before they had to all clear, the police formed a riot wall to begin pushing them violently, and exploding tear gas in their faces. As two were knocked over by one of the policemen, one got up to help the person who fell with him, and the police knocked him down again so he couldn't reach the other person. They were pushed quickly so that a lot of teargas and slamming by the police knocked some others down, or made them trip. Most of the protesters were white. Trump made it to the church, among a very disorganized entourage of old white men (and Ivanka, who smartly held back from the photo op, almost hiding behind everyone). Someone handed Trump a Bible as he stood in front of the church, and he hardly knew how to hold it. He mostly held it up as if showing it off or waving it menacingly. With hardly any speech or response to reporters, Trump then leaves with no church-related message, just the picture, and walks back. CNN pointed out that Trump was hypocritically declaring his support for peaceful protest at the exact same time he had ordered them the one in his way to be violently broken up so he could make this photo op quick.
MSNBC spent a little more time interviewing local mayors and governors of the states where rioting issues were occurring. This tended to make for a more newsworthy discussion that touched on many of the subjects that had come up or were important through the day. Of course, MSNBC tends to look for supportive persons to interview, otherwise they can't control the narrative.
FOXNEWS was spending a lot of time just making fun of statements or condemning the most outrageous of the statements made by certain governors or mayors that appeared to be supportive of protestors instead of being supportive of ALL persons.
TWITTER/INSTAGRAM was overloaded with videos:
videos of white persons looting, videos of white persons looting with black persons trying to stop them -even making human chains in front of businesses to protect them from both white and black looters, videos of white persons bringing trucks or cars full of expensive new bricks and dropping them off in the middle of downtown areas videos of the same where black persons were pleading with one white driver not to bring the bricks into her neighborhood a video of two white women coming out from looting a fairly ritzy store as if they had treated it like shopping, but who dropped their bags and ran when they saw police. The DW (Deutsche Welle) news team where the spokesperson was shot with a rubber bullet while live on TV. (This gave credence to the CNN story of one of their journalists being arrested. Not that it didn't happen but that it could have been staged for attention from higher ups so that the persons it was happening to wouldn't have known it was staged.) Other videos were confusing enough to make one think this is all about someone paying for riots to help Trump win on a law and order ballot, or to try to do the same but in the hopes it would backfire on Trump, or to purposely destroy neighborhoods of color, or to take advantage of Covid-19 pent up energy for any of a dozen nefarious purposes. 

Just for "fun" I did a comparison by flipping through three major cable networks last night while also doing a deep dive into twitter videos from several different perspectives on the issue.
CNN for several hours focused on Trump's photo op that was evidently driven by his anger over it being made known that he had been taken to a bunker, so that he needed an outside appearance to make up for it. To set this up he and his entourage ran over to the partly burnt church across from the White House. To make his paths straight and smooth, he ordered the clearing of the streets where protests had been perfectly peaceful for 8 hours. With a few minutes to go before they had to all clear, the police formed a riot wall to begin pushing them violently, and exploding tear gas in their faces. As two were knocked over by one of the policemen, one got up to help the person who fell with him, and the police knocked him down again so he couldn't reach the other person. They were pushed quickly so that a lot of teargas and slamming by the police knocked some others down, or made them trip. Most of the protesters were white. Trump made it to the church, among a very disorganized entourage of old white men (and Ivanka, who smartly held back from the photo op, almost hiding behind everyone). Someone handed Trump a Bible as he stood in front of the church, and he hardly knew how to hold it. He mostly held it up as if showing it off or waving it menacingly. With hardly any speech or response to reporters, Trump then leaves with no church-related message, just the picture, and walks back. CNN pointed out that Trump was hypocritically declaring his support for peaceful protest at the exact same time he had ordered them the one in his way to be violently broken up so he could make this photo op quick.
MSNBC spent a little more time interviewing local mayors and governors of the states where rioting issues were occurring. This tended to make for a more newsworthy discussion that touched on many of the subjects that had come up or were important through the day. Of course, MSNBC tends to look for supportive persons to interview, otherwise they can't control the narrative.
FOXNEWS was spending a lot of time just making fun of statements or condemning the most outrageous of the statements made by certain governors or mayors that appeared to be supportive of protestors instead of being supportive of ALL persons.
TWITTER/INSTAGRAM was overloaded with videos:
videos of white persons looting, videos of white persons looting with black persons trying to stop them -even making human chains in front of businesses to protect them from both white and black looters, videos of white persons bringing trucks or cars full of expensive new bricks and dropping them off in the middle of downtown areas videos of the same where black persons were pleading with one white driver not to bring the bricks into her neighborhood a video of two white women coming out from looting a fairly ritzy store as if they had treated it like shopping, but who dropped their bags and ran when they saw police. The DW (Deutsche Welle) news team where the spokesperson was shot with a rubber bullet while live on TV. (This gave credence to the CNN story of one of their journalists being arrested. Not that it didn't happen but that it could have been staged for attention from higher ups so that the persons it was happening to wouldn't have known it was staged.) Other videos were confusing enough to make one think this is all about someone paying for riots to help Trump win on a law and order ballot, or to try to do the same but in the hopes it would backfire on Trump, or to purposely destroy neighborhoods of color, or to take advantage of Covid-19 pent up energy for any of a dozen nefarious purposes. 

Vocational training is the best.  Countries which still offer this kind of training do well in manufacturing  Germany has a tradition if this kind of training and has combined it with on-the-job training while going to night school..
In south Africa we had many renowned vocational schools which were accepted al over the world (like the German model) .  Then the UN came in with their advice and  guidelines for generic degrees..... and they closed vocational colleges.  Joblessness sky-rocketed. 
I recall when I lived in UK, there was also a system for this kind of vocational training.  I have forgotten the name of it now.  But one could train for all kinds of vocations. My daughter studied for a specific type of buyer in supply chain management.  She works in the City of London in banking now and earns substantially more than her husband who has a master decree in chemical engineering, and a few additional diplomas such as project management.
If one chooses a career wisely one can still have a job in difficult times. My son did not choose a career in what he loved to do. He chose an essential vocation in manufacturing which is similar to an industrial engineer.
Later he did a degree in Packaging in which one learnt about all the different bacteria, temperatures etc in food packaging.   Last year, when he wanted to leave dangerous South Africa,  he immediately got a job in NZ (his vocational training got him in - not the degree).
There was a waiting list of half million people...... his prospective company requested the NZ government that  they needed him urgently and he was pushed to the front of the line. He is there already for 10 months and enjoying the working conditions. Not as stressfull as SA.
Vocational training is tops.  I can attest to that. The GB has always pushed vocational training in place of degrees...... and they are absolutely correct on this. Generic degrees are useless - just a debt-ridden piece of paper that does not guarantee a job.
And universities are hotbeds of foreign subversive propaganda these days.

Interesting words srecko. Any "aquired" demeanor is hypocritical.  I believe in being who I am and showing it.   JWs come from all parts of the world and have different personalities. As long as we show love and kindness, impartiality we are acceptable to jehovah and each other.  When we expect others to be like ourselves it is a red flag. Live and let live. 

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:
(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.
When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.
Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.
Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."
I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.
----------------
I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.
First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.
The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.
Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:
Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.
Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 
So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:
The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.
But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:
To which CC responded:
So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:
But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.
The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.
As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------
So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent.
Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:
(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.
When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.
Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.
Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."
I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.
----------------
I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.
First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.
The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.
Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:
Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.
Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 
So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:
The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.
But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:
To which CC responded:
So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:
But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.
The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.
As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------
So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

If one is already very familiar with a very literal translation, that stays close and consistent to the original Hebrew and Greek tenses and expressions, then almost any translation in more modern or flowing language will work.
I like the original NWT for a very literal translation because I'm familiar with it. The Hebrew Scriptures are a bit "stilted" and not very flexible, but that can be good for a literal translation. The Greek is very good and more readable even for a literal translation. You should already be familiar with all the controversial portions of the translation to make up your own mind on stauros, parousia, synteleia, etc.
Other good literal translations include the New Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) which also has excellent footnotes. I have not found it available online. The ASV and RSV and YLT are good for this too.
After the literal, then you are ready for almost anything. The NWT 2013 is a good compromise between literal and simple ease of reading. But just about anything will work as the second translation you read, even another literal.
 

To be honest I was surprised that you bothered replying and addressing some of the things he raised, but I admire you for it. I just don't have the patience for what seems like completely ridiculous ideas....but I did read your replies to him. 
Lately I find myself not bothering to reply to others like Witness for example when she says that buying liquor (Morris) is a sign of not being sound in mind. I just can't be bothered to defend ridiculous statements any more....
I would like to respond to more of what you say but I will have to wait till I can have my PC  back. Trying to do this on the phone is awful.

When my homeschooled son entered community college at age 16, he said in all innocence, “I had no idea that there were so many stupid people.”

Just for "fun" I did a comparison by flipping through three major cable networks last night while also doing a deep dive into twitter videos from several different perspectives on the issue.
CNN for several hours focused on Trump's photo op that was evidently driven by his anger over it being made known that he had been taken to a bunker, so that he needed an outside appearance to make up for it. To set this up he and his entourage ran over to the partly burnt church across from the White House. To make his paths straight and smooth, he ordered the clearing of the streets where protests had been perfectly peaceful for 8 hours. With a few minutes to go before they had to all clear, the police formed a riot wall to begin pushing them violently, and exploding tear gas in their faces. As two were knocked over by one of the policemen, one got up to help the person who fell with him, and the police knocked him down again so he couldn't reach the other person. They were pushed quickly so that a lot of teargas and slamming by the police knocked some others down, or made them trip. Most of the protesters were white. Trump made it to the church, among a very disorganized entourage of old white men (and Ivanka, who smartly held back from the photo op, almost hiding behind everyone). Someone handed Trump a Bible as he stood in front of the church, and he hardly knew how to hold it. He mostly held it up as if showing it off or waving it menacingly. With hardly any speech or response to reporters, Trump then leaves with no church-related message, just the picture, and walks back. CNN pointed out that Trump was hypocritically declaring his support for peaceful protest at the exact same time he had ordered them the one in his way to be violently broken up so he could make this photo op quick.
MSNBC spent a little more time interviewing local mayors and governors of the states where rioting issues were occurring. This tended to make for a more newsworthy discussion that touched on many of the subjects that had come up or were important through the day. Of course, MSNBC tends to look for supportive persons to interview, otherwise they can't control the narrative.
FOXNEWS was spending a lot of time just making fun of statements or condemning the most outrageous of the statements made by certain governors or mayors that appeared to be supportive of protestors instead of being supportive of ALL persons.
TWITTER/INSTAGRAM was overloaded with videos:
videos of white persons looting, videos of white persons looting with black persons trying to stop them -even making human chains in front of businesses to protect them from both white and black looters, videos of white persons bringing trucks or cars full of expensive new bricks and dropping them off in the middle of downtown areas videos of the same where black persons were pleading with one white driver not to bring the bricks into her neighborhood a video of two white women coming out from looting a fairly ritzy store as if they had treated it like shopping, but who dropped their bags and ran when they saw police. The DW (Deutsche Welle) news team where the spokesperson was shot with a rubber bullet while live on TV. (This gave credence to the CNN story of one of their journalists being arrested. Not that it didn't happen but that it could have been staged for attention from higher ups so that the persons it was happening to wouldn't have known it was staged.) Other videos were confusing enough to make one think this is all about someone paying for riots to help Trump win on a law and order ballot, or to try to do the same but in the hopes it would backfire on Trump, or to purposely destroy neighborhoods of color, or to take advantage of Covid-19 pent up energy for any of a dozen nefarious purposes. 

JWI is not there yet, and it is but wishful thinking from me that he will get there—but he is showing signs of the strain. I almost saw Space Merchant flame out the other day—not quite, but almost. 
It is lonely here in Bible 101, with my dunce cap attached.

Yes. The scripture in Hebrews 13 said very clearly we can do this by watching how their conduct (acts, activities) turns out, and then imitating their faith. If you want to argue that some scriptures have no meaning outside of the first century, then go ahead and throw those parts of your Bible away. Personally I find nearly ALL scripture useful and beneficial for teaching, etc.

Who said they wouldn't be spiritual? See the qualifications for elders and overseers in Timothy and Titus. What type of teaching did you think the Bible was referring to where I highlighted "teachers" in 1 Cor 12? If you require a book attached to each post, to cover all the bases for you, and fill in all the imaginary gaps, then you might just assume that I am using Bible definitions unless otherwise noted.

I meant it exactly in the ways that the Bible uses the word "episkopos" which literally means overseer. It can be used of elders who oversee a congregation. Perhaps the needs of all the congregations in Achaia or Galatia, for example, would have needed an overseer of several congregations, much like a "circuit overseer." Titus, for example, had to qualify as an overseer of elders and overseers in city after city:
(Titus 1:5-9) 5 I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you: 6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery or rebelliousness. 7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
An overseer is like a shepherd who looks after a flock, a congregation. Jesus looks after the whole world of congregations in a way that these local overseers and bodies of overseers cannot possibly do on their own. He is the great shepherd, and thus the great overseer.
(1 Peter 2:25) . . .For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.
Yet, humans can be called overseers and shepherds, too:
(1 Timothy 3:1) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work.
BTW, Titus 1:7 shows that all overseers should also be faithful and discreet slaves, "as God's steward, an overseer must be free from accusation," etc.

@JW Insider calls it an “intangible spiritual sheen” that the GB is shedding. @Anna calls it “revealing the man behind the curtain” I won’t go so far as to say it is deliberate, but they surely see it happening and make no effort to stop it. One brother said of JW Broadcasting—it makes perfectly clear that we don’t rely upon paid actors. “Image?—What’s that?” they all but say.
As in keeping with this thread about scholarship, it’s well to point out that at least two of them freely reveal themselves to be among the least scholarly persons on earth. I say, “I have no problem at all with this”—after I got over the problem I had with it—after I got my head around it. It is for honest-hearted persons to get their heads around their course. It is not for they to get their heads around the facades and pretentious doings of those who like to think—they love ‘scholarship’—but as to deeds?-forget about it! 
“How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another...” Jesus says. That’s what scholars (as a class) do, and one of their first initial practical deeds is to say they will not declare the good news publicly as Jesus did because that will surely detract from their scholarly reputation. Not to diss scholarship—far from it that I should do this—but it needs to be knocked down a peg or two. It is not the be-all and end-all. Doing God’s will is what counts. 
Accordingly, the record of the GB members is life-long full-time service, door-to-door with the Kingdom good news, motivated by love of God and neighbor. It is humble work if there ever was one, and it is ‘doubling down’ on the humility in that a large portion of it has been in developing lands. They’re not blue-bloods born to privilege, as that obnoxious self-described Norwegian apostate (not Rolf—the guy from a neighboring congregation) seems to think they should be, as he sneers—just like Celsus did—about how they were once “window-cleaners” God! The pretentions of these people! Look at the world that your “scholarship” has collectively built before you ridicule those who have by-passed it—when it goes down in the giant flush, hold aloft your degrees for special consideration.
I was surprised to find that JWI had a different take on the “superfine” apostles of 2 Corinthians 11. Chalk it up to a gentleman’s disagreement—but I still think he is all wet. Paul did the work. They wanted the credit. They were comfortable men—perhaps they thought themselves ‘scholars’—comfortably ensconced in their home congregations. Paul was so outraged at this ‘power grab’ that he “declared like a mad man, I am more outstandingly [an apostle of Christ]” And what was their [probable] response? “See, he admits that he is mad. Not us, though. We are smart and ‘balanced.’”
If GB members reveal the “man behind the curtain” and shed their “intangible spiritual sheen” now, why didn’t they do it before? Here, @Arauna comes to the rescue with the common-sense point that the geniuses completely ignore—everything must be judged in the historical context of its time. Was FDR a liar for not ‘outing himself’ as crippled by polio? Were the press liars for not reporting it?—for they all knew. Obviously not—for the good of the country it was thought necessary to convey strength. 
It is the same with the sexual immorality of which numerous presidents have been guilty. Of one, it is written that he made a whorehouse out of the White House. The press knew. Why did they not out him? Again, it is the completely understandable urge to preserve demeanor for those providing the lead. Today, “grab them by the p***y” makes headlines. It has not historically been that way.
So the GB’s reluctance to acknowledge human imperfection is completely within the spirt of the times. They are the last ones to accede to the new model that ‘leaders should spill’ because they are ‘no part of the world’ and it takes a while for it to register with them what has long since been normalized outside. 
The response to CSA accusations may be the prime example of this. When it turns out that instances of CSA can be found in the ranks of congregation members, they do not run to the press and say, “Us, too! We have some of that!” They have concern with reputation—JWI puts it well when he muses that they do not want to derail or sabotage the beneficial work they oversee. Was that wrong? It is being slogged out in the courts today, along with the ‘sins’ of every other person on the planet, as tort lawyers oversee the most massive transfer of funds in our age—with themselves netting a third.
Surely it is worth a comparison with Peter in the first century. Was he wrong to chum with the Gentile Christians, then flagrantly avoid them when the “men from James” (Jewish Christians) came around? It is an incredible record of cowardice for one in position of leadership!  And he had a track record! Wasn’t he the one who fell all over himself to swear that he didn’t know the Lord from a bag of beans? Was he removed? This is why it is so hypocritical to call for the head of GB members when they so much as hiccup. Arauna is very kind when she refers to the ones doing so as suffering from OCD.
 

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)
But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:
(Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
(Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.]
Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?

Notice that Jesus also gave a parable about the question . . . WHO is the real neighbor . . . .YOU as an individual need to recognize it to be able to give the answer. 🙂
In fact MOST of Jesus' illustrations and parables are effectively answers to such questions about WHO proves themselves to be the right kind of plowman, shepherd, builder, seeker, father, listener, sower, harvester, vine worker, neighbor, householder, servant, domestic, steward, investor, bridesmaid, friend, master, watchman, etc.
Of course, we all agree that we should be able to recognize who is the right kind of slave. To me, this is because we all need to be that right kind of slave who does not take advantage of the master being delayed, but stays always faithful and wise. The fact that some will have the ability to preside, and lead, and organizer better than others is a separate issue. I can't see why anyone would complain that a group of elders could be seen to be qualified for such a position of overseeing multiple congregations in the same way that some committees of elders qualify for a position to oversee a single congregation. The ones who excel at teaching, and speaking, and decision-making will naturally take the lead for such a useful position. And you are right, that taking the lead in spearheading a more efficient world-wide preaching, teaching, and disciple-making work can make use of skills that only a few would qualify for.
(1 Corinthians 12:28, 29) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?. . .
So, the idea that a committee of elders can qualify for such work as the GB have taken on, shows that they are desirous of a fine work. But Jesus illustration about the unfaithful and indiscreet slaves in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are probably not a source predicting a special set of men who would be appointed to a position mindful of those superfine apostles from 1919 on. To impute this meaning into it requires a very inconsistent method of dealing with Jesus' illustrations and parables.
That doesn't at all take away from the need for having some take the lead in a different way from others. We can find this in other scriptures.
(Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
There in Hebrews, too, we find that we should be able, as you said, to identify WHO really is a faithful person taking the lead, so that we can contemplate their conduct and imitate their faith.

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)
But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:
(Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
(Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.]
Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?