JW Insider

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1).
I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found:
*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding.
I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that!
Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925.
Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914.
I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss.
You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings.
I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.
Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower: 
*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?
Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.
Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.
 
 
Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .
If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:
(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.
In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.
It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.
(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .
Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:
(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.
Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.
But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:
(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

An interesting take with a lot to say for it.
When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows in Early Christianity. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually.
I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century:
*** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like.
I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off. 
It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  

Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.)
But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility. 
This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place.
When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater piped elsewhere with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.

Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials....
Read comments, they are entertaining
 

I’m not really sure what “worshipful” means. 
When celebrities come into town, they are mobbed by fans. Are those fans worshipful? I might say yes, but the fans themselves will just say they they are flocking to them out of respect for their accomplishments. If brothers pose for selfies with the GB members (much to the latter’s annoyance, I am consistently told, someone said with the possible exception of Lett) are they “worshipful?” It’s in the eye of the beholder, I think.
Though I have a great many faults, admiring personalities is not one of them. I would love to have a GB member stay at my house so I could ignore him. “There’s your room—make yourself at home. If you’d like to visit, that works fine, but you have many things to do and if you ignore us completely that also works fine with us,” 
Probably there are few words they could hear that would please them more.
And no, @James Thomas Rook Jr., I wouldn’t present them with a list of my QUESTIONS that, as MEN of HONOR, they are obligated to answer,

Yes. Just watched it.
I like that you talk about the broad effects of the impact whistleblowing has had in this particular area. It's not just the Witnesses, but many institutions. Many guilty people would have probably got away with sexual abuse 20 years ago, but not so much today. Even royalty have been put under the microscope. History is rife with stories of rich dirty old men having sex with underage girls and getting away with it.
When enough people make noise, it can't be ignored.

I think that’s very unlikely. I mean, come on, are you going to cuss out an angel—dare him to a fight? Unless you no longer believe in angels, but then the phrase loses its meaning.
I think it makes more sense, partly because of the above reasoning and partly because of the aspect of Law that Paul recalled when he cussed out the high priest: “You must not speak injuriously of a ruler of your people.” These ones of Jude had no problem with it.
I think that expression is probably like what your mother used to say when upbraiding you for some act of disobedience, prefacing her scolding with: “I suppose you are proud of yourself, are you?!” She doesn’t actually think you are proud—just disobedient, maybe that you think you know better. And in the case of those Corinth elders, negligent—perhaps with some self-exalted view of “tolerance” as you suggest or perhaps just plain negligent. Arguing for the latter is the fact that when they did lower the hammer on this lout, Paul had to counsel them to let up in his next letter—the rebuke of the man had had its effect, but they were slow to see that—or perhaps just negligent once again in the other direction. Negligent is as negligent does.
I played a little loose with the term, admittedly. Actually, to the extent that the GB are the successors of those who brought the truth of God’s word to us in the first place, they are the biggest whistleblowers of all time—blowing the whistle on the deceptions of religion claiming to represent God.
A lot of detractors today pose as “whistleblowers”—unheeded reformers, who say they do not have anything against Jehovah’s Witnesses—they just want to curtail what they think are wrong practices. It’s hard to ferret out who’s who, here, because these persons mix here with ones who truly would like to see the whole JW structure AND the message they spearhead blown to smithereens. It is easy to overgeneralize, as @Arauna perhaps has done. Still, Shultz on my Twitter feed (of deVienne & Shultz) observed that whistleblowing in the case of JWs is often just a blind for not wanting to live the morals and principles that Witnesses do.
It’s hard to believe that those slimy ones of Jude’s letter would have acquiesced to Jude’s description of them. It is far easier to believe that many of them would have repackaged themselves as reformers, whistleblowers, even escaped cult members. The congregation they left was simply too strict, too unyielding, even abusive in “forcing” its version of morality on others, and they would change that.

Word for word.

I have a better idea, big boy.
You write a letter—that way I do not have to—and ask about the specific reasons that Tim Cook was made part of the Governing Body. Specify that you want details.. Do not settle for “he was a pioneer for so many years, then a missionary, then a Bethel servant.”  No.
Ask about specific praiseworthy deeds, abilities, or accomplishments that made the others think: “We have to get this guy on the GB!” 
How bout it, sport? Write that letter. Make it certified. Send a copy to the BOE. Send a copy here, even, so that we can all see the answer. Hold their feet to the fire!
My guess is that you will not get anything more than the generic, and you may not get even that. Instead, you may get references to verse like 2 Corinthians 10:12
 For we do not dare to class ourselves among some or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. Certainly they in measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves have no understanding.
or there might even be counsel not to fall into the pattern of “admiring personalities.” (Jude 16)
When you get this reply, fire off another letter to them about how as MEN of HONOR, they owe it to you to SPILL when you say SPILL. Remind them of their scriptural obligation to TRUTHFULLY answer anyone who asks a question. Tell them that since you are asking them about good things, and not bad things, there is NO REASON for them not to oblige you. 
The reason that they still will not satisfy you is that they are not into honoring persons. It is very hard to get the laudable specifics about any individual. They view humans, even themselves, as placeholders used by God, and when this or that is accomplished, credit goes to Jehovah, not the GB character or helper or branch servant who dreamed it up or got the job done.
You have only to watch Sam Herd giving the Gilead talk in the most recent broadcast, shaking his jowls like Nixon, parodying those slobbering over the “Govnin Body” —a skit that I am still trying to get down pat for imitation—before he says it’s not any of them doing anything—you could do the same were you in their place—but it is Jehovah who should get all credit.
They are not into zeroing in on the accomplishments of humans. Humans are placeholders. The good things they do are attributed to Jehovah, the bad things to human imperfection. I doubt you will get specifics for either. 
Be a sport, JTR. Give it a go. Save me a stamp.
 

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

I would like to expand on the above quote.
New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".
So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?
(Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)
(Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)
 
 
 
 

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.
Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower: 
*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?
Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.
Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.
 
 
Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .
If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:
(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.
In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.
It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.
(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .
Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:
(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.
Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.
But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:
(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

I have carefully considered all of the above points, and concerning the willingness to die for one's beliefs, I have this to say about that:
Actor, comedian, and film producer, etc., Woody Allen said it best when asked about one of his latest movies, and the body of movies he had made in the past, either as star, producer, director, or all three ...
"Would you, through your movies, like to live forever in the hearts of your many fans?"
He replied "I would like to live forever, in my apartment in Manhattan."

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.
Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 
Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 
There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 
On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:
Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.
That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.
From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 
The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.
I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.
True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:
(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.
By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.
(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.
The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.
Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:
Jehovah is the Creator, Jesus' Ransom, Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise The Resurrection The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.
Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the
Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE, or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.), or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI, or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth. But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)
That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.
If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
• “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”
I'll explain later today.

Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.
The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.
Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:
Jehovah is the Creator, Jesus' Ransom, Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise The Resurrection The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.
Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the
Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE, or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.), or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI, or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth. But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)
That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.
If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
• “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”
I'll explain later today.

Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this:
Jude 4
I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives.
This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness."
(1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst?
Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels?
It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?

Jude did not write about whistleblowers. Jude WAS the whistleblower!

wonderful???

WAS IT DESIGNED?
The Storage Capacity of DNA
COMPUTER users generate enormous amounts of digital data that has to be stored for access as needed. Scientists are hoping to revolutionize current methods for digital storage by imitating a far superior data-storage system found in nature—DNA.
Consider: DNA, found in living cells, holds billions of pieces of biological information. “We can extract it from bones of woolly mammoths . . . and make sense of it,” says Nick Goldman of the European Bioinformatics Institute. “It’s also incredibly small, dense and does not need any power for storage, so shipping and keeping it is easy.” Could DNA store man-made data? Researchers say yes.
Scientists have synthesized DNA with encoded text, images, and audio files, much as digital media stores data. The researchers were later able to decode the stored information with 100 percent accuracy. Scientists believe that in time, using this method, 0.04 ounce (1 g) of artificial DNA could store the data of some 3,000,000 CDs and that all this information could be preserved for hundreds if not thousands of years. Potentially, this system could store the whole world’s digital archive. DNA has thus been dubbed “the ultimate hard drive.”
What do you think? Could the storage capacity of DNA have come about by evolution? Or was it designed?
JEHOVAH  ALONE  HAS  THE  OMNIPOTENCE !!
Thats of sure the solution  ❤♥☼♥❤
https://www.jw.org/de/publikationen/zeitschriften/g201312/speicherkapazitaet-der-dna/#?insight[search_id]=f0fabc05-17a4-45ec-85e2-e7e283c6ad9d&insight[search_result_index]=11
More you can see by  jw.org

No surprise there!  
What I do NOT understand is the logic of the men who hate JWs.   They try to prove that we are impure and allow homeosexuality (when we clearly do not) and in the next breath critisize us when we shun unrepentant homxosexuals and fornicators in cases where we DO have sufficient evidence..  They neglect to remember that experts find it hard to gather evidence.
We are too harsh for our detractors when we shun when we have sufficient evidence and  too compassionate when we do not have enough proof.  We are too compassionate when  someone has confessed (the law protects lawyers and spiritual leaders from disclosure of confessions - especially if this can be used against them in court - and the government has not removed this law but wants JWs to act against the law of the land. The police must do their own investigation and come up with the evidence or the congress must change the law...... but I doubt this will ever happen because many high officials are child molesters) ) and JWs are too compassionate to allow people off the street to attend our meetings not knowing if they have been molesters. 
So the best is to do the best possible we can do and leave the rest to Jehovah.  Our detractors are angry because we DO follow the  bible and its principles and the majority DO try to live clean lives .....  they hate it because they want to feel more pure while not caring for bible principals at all  or still adhering to impure teachings such as trinity, immortality of the soul etc. 
That is a blanket statement and that usually is an indication of bitterness and resentment.......