JW Insider

I think I already had some fun with that idea in this post from 6 months ago when I discovered that Gog is spelled the same way in Hebrew as one would spell GOOG and that it appears as EL-GOOG in Hebrew which is read from Right to Left instead of Left to Right. 
אֶל־גֹּוג means when transliterated EL-GOG.
But the O between the two G's is actually a 'vav' which when used as a vowel (as it is here) is not just used for O, but also for U, pronounced OO. Therefore:
אֶל־גֹּוג can also be transliterated as EL-GOOG.
Transliterated left to right as it appears on paper, this is אֶל־גֹּוג or GOOG-LE.
 

I agree completely. But he asked. (And he asked nicely, and I think he was really interested.)

Yes, it does, and the verse seems pretty convincing.  You quoted the verse inside the Watchtower quote. I'm repeating it here for reference:
Sometime after the attack of Gog begins, all the remaining anointed ones on earth will be taken to heaven. Then Revelation 17:14 tells us about the reaction in heaven  to Gog’s attack. The enemies of God’s people “will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.” Thus, Jesus, together with his 144,000 anointed kings in heaven, will rescue God’s people here on earth.
17 That rescue will result in the battle of Armageddon, which will bring glory to Jehovah’s holy name....................
You probably have heard people say that you shouldn't create a doctrine that is based on only ONE SINGLE Bible verse, especially if that verse is only found in a book like Revelation where symbolic, literal, past, future, present and prophetic references are commonly juxtaposed.
But there is another thing about this particular verse in Revelation 17:14. It's not translated correctly in the NWT. An additional meaning is added to it, to try to make it clearer to understand. That "meaning" might be correct, but it's commentary and interpretation, not translation. When an assumption requiring interpretation is required to make sense of a specific wording then a translation should make a note somewhere (through brackets or footnotes) that it was added.
The Greek here very clearly (and simply) says the following
" . . . but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him, called and chosen and faithful.”
". . . καὶ [and] οἱ [those] μετ’ [with] αὐτοῦ [him] κλητοὶ [called] καὶ [and] ἐκλεκτοὶ [chosen] καὶ [and] πιστοί [faithful]."
The Greek "with" could mean they are "WITH HIM" in the sense of being on his side, or even (rarely) WITH HIM in the sense of being "AFTER" him, but this would be unlikely in context. The best translations don't try to add meaning, but just go with what it says, even if the meaning is not immediately clear. For example, the CEV says:
"But he will defeat them, because he is Lord over all lords and King over all kings. His followers are chosen and special and faithful." (Rev. 17:14, CEV)
Of course, even here, the phrase "WITH HIM" was interpreted to limit it to the specific sense of "FOLLOWERS" but this is just as likely as a translation that requires the repeating of a verb action that isn't even found, such as by adding: "will do so." [NWT]
But even by adding the interpretation "will do so" doesn't necessarily tie it back to mean they will BATTLE with him. To me, the most likely meaning, and the very reason for the kind of vagueness about specific action, is because the phrase ties back to the idea that they CONQUER with him, just in a different sense from "battling." It reminds me of a similar verse in Revelation that I'll get to in a minute.
At any rate, there are several ways to make sense of this verse without the implication that humans raised to heaven will battle the enemies of God's people from heaven. It seems likely to me (but not definitive) that the main idea is not about the TIMING of when these chosen ones are in heaven during that particular BATTLE, but every sense will imply the fact that these are ones who are on the same SIDE as Jesus Christ, and very likely that these chosen ones are ALSO conquerors over God's enemies, and therefore are reward to share in the "crown" as kings (not just priests). There is another sense of these chosen ones battling God's enemies in Revelation 11, and through certain plagues on God's enemies that they (the chosen ones) are involved with:
(Revelation 11:3-12) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. [probably meaning that their own words, or their own "weapons" will be turned against them.] 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 . . . 11 After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them.
and:
(Revelation 13:7) . . .It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
Nearly all of this is symbolic of course, but the idea is that the chosen witnesses (and those they represent, we can assume) PARTICIPATED in the conquering through their faithfulness, and were thus key actors in the battle against those enemies.
To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’
(Revelation 2:7) . . .To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Revelation 2:11) . . .The one who conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death.’ (Revelation 2:17) . . .To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and written on the pebble is a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father. This last one is more closely related to the interpretation that the NWT gives to Rev 17:14. Rev 2:27 indicates that "he" refers to each of the chosen/anointed who have conquered on earth will gain authority in heaven to shepherd the nations with an iron rod, just as Jesus does. But just how literal this is we can't say, because it may even refer to the authority to keep the peace for 1,000 years during, perhaps even referring to the entire period, up to the time at the END of the thousand year reign, when the nations gather together again:
(Revelation 20:7-10) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Of course, there is another way to read Revelation 20 which avoids the idea that it merely an unlikely repeat of the Armageddon as depicted in Revelation 16, but this time a thousand years later. That "other way" solves some problems and creates some problems. This other method is quite radical, but if accepted the NWT would not have to add those parentheses around Revelation 20:5. It would make more sense as originally found in the Greek without the additions.
I'm sure that didn't really answer your question, not directly anyway. So I'll just repeat that the judgment in Matthew 25 need not be a specific point in time that we call the "Judgment Day" but it makes sense either way. (Back when I was baptized, we were still teaching that the great tribulation had started in 1914.) I think the focus is on the final Judgment Day, similar to the wheat and weeds at the time when the bundles are separated for burning or glorification.
(Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. . .
We once thought that was 1914, but many of the ideas we associated with 1914 have now been seen to make no sense scripturally:
*** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.
Your reference to Mt 24:22 was initially the primary reason that the great tribulation was seen as starting in 1914, but after nearly shutting down the WTS, it was seen as a relief in 1918/1919 when the days of that tribulation were stopped, giving the WTS a chance to regroup and grow.
In terms of the chosen ones, it would seem to indicate what I said above, that the BATTLE against God's enemies is going on while there were still chosen ones on earth needing protection from the ones causing tribulation.
(2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) . . .This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. It could also be interpreted, based on this and Revelation, that these ones causing tribulation will temporarily conquer all the chosen ones through death, but the verses about the "harpazo" (rapture) show that not all would die. Of course, the recent tendency in explaining all these verses tends to minimize the importance of 1914, but that's another topic. 
 

I have always deferred to you whenever you showed evidence that I was wrong and you were right. And, assuming I am right about your past avatars, this has actually happened more than once.
What I am still saying is that I am willing to accept where the Biblical evidence leads. And most of the time it leads me support the Watchtower. You have already seen this many times, but those areas where I support the Watchtower hold no interest to you. The biggest discussions always ensue over those areas  where the Biblical evidence leads away from the Watchtower's traditional views. These are for the most part chronology-related, or doctrines that we ended up getting locked into, because of our chronology doctrines (generation, etc.).
I have been very clear that I'm sure the Bible does not support our chronology teachings. I can now say that I have no doubts about this. The pseudo-archaeology we have used to try to get "outside" support for our chronology is undoubtedly also against the WT view, and it also happens to support the Bible's view. But I'm more interested in what the Bible itself says about our chronology doctrines.
I am 100 percent in agreement with our teachings on Soul, Trinity, Paradise Earth, War, Neutrality, Elders, Smoking/Recreational Drugs/Alcohol, Morals, Pagan Roots of Worldly Holidays, Meetings, Our Ministry, using God's Name, the Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, His Eternal Purpose, and probably hundreds more specific understandings of scriptures that vary from the way that most of Christendom understands them.
Also, it doesn't "suit me" to contradict the Watchtower in those areas where the Bible evidence leads away from certain traditional teachings we have not broken free from yet. These differences sometimes result in painful realizations. Sometimes it's the realization that many are suffering (or have suffered) unnecessarily. The difference in the way certain young brothers are now treated in several countries where they were once told not to accept any kind of alternative service when their conscience would have allowed it is an example. We now know that there have been literally hundreds or even thousands of abused Witness children for whom any kind of justice was made difficult due to a policy that put the reputation of the organization first. 
Any difference between my own views and those of the Watchtower must always be based on Biblical evidence, prayer, meditation, conscience, reasonableness, and always FIRST giving the benefit of any doubt to the elder men who publish our teachings in the publications and through approved representatives. This way, if I find there are areas of doctrine I can no longer support in good conscience, it is no longer based on any doubt or conflict. There are also certain areas where I am still trying to follow the Bible's counsel to "make sure of all things." Those areas where I am "making sure" I am also willing to discuss here. And I'm happy to hear any Bible evidence you have that is appropriate.

@JW Insider After quite some time reading this person's post, I cannot but feel that the proverb applies perfectly to this situation
 
(Proverbs 9:8) . . .Do not reprove a ridiculer, or he will hate you. Reprove a wise person, and he will love you. . . 
 This person (I think it is obvious to everyone who is) insults and disparages those who disagree with his thinking. Sadly, he thinks he defends Jehovah's Witnesses, but his unbalanced way of thinking is most confusing and pathetic. 
JWI, many appreciate your comments, but I would dare to advise you that, following the Proverb mentioned above, respond to this person in the most effective way: silence 

Brazen sounds a bit archaic, and can sometimes offer ambiguity if persons are familiar with another meaning of brazen, such as the ONLY definition (made of brass) that it had in the previous NWT. In the Appendix of the NWT Reference Bible (1984):
*** Rbi8 p. 1575 4D “Tartarus” ***
In Job 41:31, 32 (41:23, 24, LXX) we read concerning Leviathan: “He makes the deep boil like a brazen caldron; . . . "
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
I took 4 years of Hebrew in College (7 semesters) and learned a bit of Greek at Bethel. Still an amateur, of course, but learned enough to know that the NWT is actually an excellent translation with only a few verses where bias has created areas for further study. Most of its "mis-translations," in my opinion, do not necessarily add false informaiton, just interpreted information. Most of the time I'd say the interpreted information is quite likely true, just unnecessary for a pure translation.
Personally, I find both the 1984 and 2013 NWT to be very good, even the simpler revised version. But I couldn't do without an Interlinear. There was more consistency in the old NWT, and where words were added there were usually brackets around them. You have to really know a more literal translation well, for the Revised NWT to also be as useful. And, for the present, most JWs have a good knowledge of the NWT (more literal) and the NWT Revised, which puts them in pretty good shape. A simpler, easier to read version, is better for grasping the context, and a literal translation is better for study. We have them both, plus an excellent Interlinear (KIT).
I might have a few minor complaints with the NWT, but I have hundreds more with the KJV, RSV, and ASV. There are a few things I like better about the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV, but it doesn't matter so much any more. We all have the ability to check all kinds of good Bible language resources online, and dozens of parallel Bibles online for comparison.

I was referring especially to a book by Rolf Furuli, which is almost 100 percent supportive of the NWT, but does admit that some theological bias is inevitable.
Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses There has also been another book by Greg Stafford, who might no longer be a JW. He was definitely a Witness when he first wrote the first 2 or more editions of the book, and admits that a few specific passages show theological bias:
Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: A Reply to Scholars and Critics There have been additional scholarly books that make the same point for specific passages and verses, though not necessarily by JWs.
Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (Mr.) Lynn Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures Gerard Gertoux, various online writings. The WTS has never claimed that the NWT was itself spirit-directed, or inspired in any way. If that had been claimed it would not have made sense to make the 2013 Revised Edition so different.

Not this again!
But this time I won't get involved. I counsel myself:
(Proverbs 26:17) . . .As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.

Of course, I accept scholarly works where they provide good, interesting and useful information. In fact, if you may recall, it was one of the reasons I defended Allen Smith. I said that very often he includes scholarly works that are very good, interesting and useful.
In fact, I appreciated the scholarly works you added here in this very thread. No one gave you any garbage about posting them. In my case, I only pointed out that you mixed up a couple of different references interspersed with a sentence or two of your own, but you didn't tell anyone here where you were copying and pasting from. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that even scholars agree with the WTS. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that scholars are not in agreement. And there have been at least two times when Allen Smith provided some very old scholarship in order to show where the chronology arguments of the Watchtower might be "improved" with respect to Nebuchadnezzar, his father, and a couple references in "apocrypha"/"pseudepigrapha". (Even on those ones, Allen, only included page images and copied text, no source reference, so I had to look up and point out where the source was, which I found on Google Books.)
So I hope you see the difference. You have long known that I accept some scholarly works with interpretation. The Watchtower publications also accept scholarly works with interpretation. And they sometimes quote them just to show the differences when they are not reflective of WT interpretation.
If you are referring to me again, you should know that I have never scoffed at the word academia. There is good, mediocre, and bad in most fields of study.

I don't think it falls under the same issue as adding and taking away from the scroll of Revelation. Bias in translation is a well known feature of the "art" of translation. It's not a science as JTR says. Scholarly JWs have admitted that it's a common problem to include bias (as to meaning/interpretation) within the supposed confines of accurate translation. If a word can mean both during or at, and you believe the Parousia is 105+ years long, then you would say something happens during the parousia/presence. If you believe it is a future event that might only last a day or a few days, then you would translate "at" the parousia/presence. If you really believe that the meaning can only be conveyed by adding a bit of the previous verse into the next verse, then this could also be from "bias" as to interpretation.

You are wrong again. But that is not unusual. You have a terrible track record when you make such assumptions. I accept and appreciate the many scholarly opinions that support the accuracy and value of the NWT. I do not even support all the opinions of those scholarly works that I referenced. In many cases their opinions about the accuracy or inaccuracy of certain passages are colored by their own theological bias.
I didn't state this. Again, you completely make up things that I supposedly stated. As you can see I stated nothing like this and nothing even related to this. And furthermore I don't believe it's a problem to revise based on newly found evidence. Why would anyone?

Then you are right back to the points you were making with Outta Here about whether "spirit-directed" means the same as "inspired."
This is a big topic to explore:
It would be easy to imagine that the two words mean the same thing. We wouldn't be surprised at all if we looked up "inspired" in any dictionary and found one of the definitions to be "directed by the Holy Spirit" and perhaps another to be "directed by evil spirits." In fact the expression "borne along by holy spirit" in the Bible means inspired. Some translations say "carried along by Holy Spirit." The NWT now says:
(2 Peter 1:21) . . .For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
The word translated "moved" refers to "being driven" (in fact the German word fuhren, to drive or to be conducted, is allied with the Greek word phero used here). If you conduct something, like a cow through a field, you are directing that cow. If you are blowing wind into the sails of a toy boat, you are driving or conducting or directing that boat. So being moved by holy spirit means being spirit directed, and here, it also means inspired.
In our definitions among JWs, we treat the idea of spirit and holy spirit a lot more passively than the NT does.  We no longer say that a specific person is spirit directed. Only that the organization as a whole is spirit directed.
There was a time when "we" (Bible Students and early Jehovah's Witnesses) might even say that Russell or Rutherford was spirit directed. But we didn't stop there. We even thought that Russell was himself spirit directing the Society after he died. (Therefore he could even write a book post-humously and be considered the author, even though only about half of what was in there was actually based on his own earlier writings.) A woman could be spirit-directed in writing a book supposedly directed by one of the fallen angels who came down before the Flood of Noah's day. With a few corrections, her book could be re-packaged, promoted and sold through the Watch Tower Society. Just a few years ago Brother Herd from the Governing Body recommended the book as interesting reading after he found it in the Bethel Library.
A politician in England who agreed with Rutherford could be considered to be have the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, and be a prophet just like Rutherford was considered to be. There was no shame in stating that Rutherford had the spirit of the Old Testament prophets. There was no shame in stating that Russell was the "angel of the church of Laodicea" the "seventh messenger" of Revelation, and that he was personally the "faithful and wise servant" who provided food to the domestics at the proper time.
Then, in Rutherford's day, there were those "flashes of light" in Jehovah's temple. Not always considered to have been from Holy Spirit, but at least considered to have been directed from angels. We considered "1935" and the new understanding of the "great multitude" (great crowd) to be one of those flashes of light in God's holy temple, and we considered the new understanding that the "higher powers"/"superior authorities" were no longer the secular authorities to be another of those "flashes of light." But then we changed our view on the latter "flash" completely (180 degrees), and changed many of our views on 1935 too.
The Watchtower publications have explicitly stated that they do not feel that the translation (NWT) is inspired. But (and this is mostly for John and Billy) the Watchtower has found scholarly support for the translation in general. See here for example:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/new-world-translation-accurate/
 

Yikes. It's hard to believe it could be so "all or nothing." As you say, if we can't think like you, we won't really be able to understand. But it reminds me of a recent discussion about how God commanded "love" from the nation of Israel. They say you can't legislate love, but for some I suppose, even this idea can be a "tutor" leading to Christ. We go through the motions of love until we are responding the way a loving person responds, whether we think we have the same feelings most others do or not. For thousands of years, people have spoken this way about arranged marriages. It's the same part of Corinthians I just quoted from to Tom where the apostle Paul said:
(1 Corinthians 9:16-19) . . .Now if I am declaring the good news, it is no reason for me to boast, for necessity is laid upon me. Really, woe to me if I do not declare the good news! 17 If I do this willingly, I have a reward; but even if I do it against my will, I still have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That when I declare the good news, I may offer the good news without cost, to avoid abusing my authority in the good news. 19 For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible.
Sorry to second-guess, but I can just imagine that you would quickly focus on the expression "abusing my authority in the good news" and turn this into another comment about the GB. But my point is that we can also work alongside people we don't necessarily trust, and still accomplish some good. If and when we see them abuse their authority, we can point it out as Paul often did, but Paul also reminded the Corinthians here that it was OK for them to support (materially) some of those ministers who asked for material support, even though Paul wanted none of that for himself.

I was looking for an 80 percent up-vote emoji, (🤔?) but I gave you a full up-vote anyway because I think you have hit the target so well with several statements like the one I just re-quoted. I get the sense you are able to "aiming your blows so as not to be striking the air" and "not running aimlessly."
(1 Corinthians 9:24-27) 24 Do you not know that the runners in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Now everyone competing in a contest exercises self-control in all things. Of course, they do it to receive a crown that can perish, but we, one that does not perish. 26 Therefore, the way I am running is not aimlessly; the way I am aiming my blows is so as not to be striking the air; 27 but I pummel my body and lead it as a slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself should not become disapproved somehow.
Of course, it's not about striking back at others' arguments, but how we continually train ourselves to keep the faith with so many obstacles about. One of the obstacles will always be our own human failings, and how we keep trying to fix these, to become the "approved" person we ought to be. We don't have to broadcast our personal failings, and most of us won't; so we might always give the appearance that we are more concerned about the failings of those around us. Most of the time, we watch how we walk, but there are times when we should give attention to the failings of those around us, and watch how they walk.
This is one of the reasons for this topic, because someone is concerned about the potential failings of another. To some it will look like paranoia, but some persons have a more protective and sometimes "hovering" sense. Reminds me of Jesus' words:  (Matthew 23:37) . . .how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it.
Those who have seen the evil in people up close and personally may actually have a keener "intuitive" sense of potential evil. Or perhaps that "intuitive" sense has been destroyed for the same reasons. I have no idea, so I am not trying to answer John directly on this topic.
But to follow up on Paul's words about how we fight the fine fight of the faith for ourselves, Jude shows how we must also watch out for obstacles set by others:
(Jude 3-13) . . .Beloved ones, although I was making every effort to write you about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write you to urge you to put up a hard fight for the faith that was once for all time delivered to the holy ones. 4 My reason is that certain men have slipped in among you who were long ago appointed to this judgment by the Scriptures; they are ungodly men who turn the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for brazen conduct and who prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ. . . . 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.

I have never communicated with Greg Stafford in any way, although I did communicate several times with one of his friends and associates, Rolf Furuli. Furuli indicated that Stafford's NT Greek is excellent and that he writes meticulously on the topic of Trinity. I never had any interest in engaging Trinitarians because I think it's a "done deal." So there's really nothing left to talk about. At Bethel, someone had to do some research on Trinity, and managed to find some fairly new information that could be related to John 1:1 from Philo. It was the last time I ever showed any interest in it, because there is just so much out there, but it's all so repetitious.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
In 1984 there appeared in English a translation from German of a commentary by scholar Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar). It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, page 108, translated by Robert W. Funk.
Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”
A German-speaking brother translated that portion in 1981, because the book was only out in German at that time. I think it's an excellent explanation of John 1:1. I'm curious now if Greg Stafford uses it in his books.
I see he has several different books in several versions on a website here: http://www.elihubooks.com/content/books_media.php
That same site also has Rolf Furuli's book about Bible Translation selling on it, right next to Stafford's book: "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended." Made me think that Stafford might still be a JW, because I'm pretty sure Rolf Furuli still is. Haven't spoken to Furuli in several years now, although he sent me his books for free. I sent money anyway, but it was a nice gesture.
To the chagrin of some here, I have already told of brothers in the Writing Department, and even a few Governing Body members, who didn't fully accept 1914 (including GB members: Chitty, Swingle, Schroeder, Sydlik, R.Franz). For those who know the background discussions going on at the time --actually even since the late 1960's-- that might seem understandable. But another member of the Writing Department told me something that was less believable. He says that in the 1990's there was a brother in the Writing Department, brilliant with NT Greek, who actually came to believe, not in the Trinity, per se, but in Jesus Christ's full divinity. He evidently came to believe that John 1:1 says what traditional Trinitarians think it says. He had no problem with anything else as far as I was told, and I don't know how much longer he tried to stay and work with the Writing Department. But naturally, when it was more widely known, he was out of there.
I have a feeling this is one of the most rare things, to see a former brother who STUDIED the topic, start believing in that part of the Trinity. I would lose any last bit of respect for Stafford if he turns out to have gone back to believing in the Trinity, or parts thereof. Does anyone know?

@BillyTheKid46, I thought you mostly just employed @Foreigner for vote spamming. I see you are doing some of the dirty work under your own name. And I also see you are nowhere near done yet, because you have added several more just since I copied the two images below.
What's odd, however is that "both" of you have now voted down posts that contained nothing more than scriptures quoted from the NWT, and just above in this same topic, only 4 posts back, you (and Foreigner, of course) downvoted a post that does no more than introduce 3 Watchtower quotes about how long it took Adam to name the animals with surrounding context. Are you really that embarrassed by quotes from the Watchtower that you found it necessary to give two down votes to these Watchtower quotes????

Good point. This is why there are probably a dozen topics and at least 100 rumors and even well-known, documented incidents that I will never say anything about. There are even specific things that I made promises to the people involved not to talk about. If those incidents happen to make an important point, or provide a learning or teaching opportunity, there are always other ways or other available examples that can help make the same point.

Officially, the Watchtower's answer to @Bubba Johnson Jr is NO! Newly anointed persons would NOT necessarily be included in "this generation." If there was a person who was anointed prior to 1914, and who is still alive today, then it's possible that newly anointed persons today are still therefore overlapping with that first group of anointed.
(Technically there are not overlapping "generations" in the same sense as "this generation that will not pass away," there are only overlapping "groups" within that generation. In the natural sense of the word "generation" there are, of course, as many as 6 or 7 overlapping generations already since the generations alive in 1914, but those are NOT the type of generation the Watchtower is attempting to define here.)
It seems rather unlikely that there are still anointed persons alive now who were around to "discern" the events of 1914, and who were anointed at the time. Even if one could be said to be anointed at say, 8 years old, that would mean the person was born in 1906, and is already 113 years old. The most likely "known" example of a "group one" person was F W Franz who died a few days shy of 1993. Brother Splane made clear (in his chart) that Franz was only an example of "group one," and that there may be more examples. If we assume a person could be anointed only as young as 18 instead of 8, then the oldest possible person in "group one" would be 123 years old, and this seems like too much of a stretch.
The definition as explained by Brother Splane, makes clear therefore that newly anointed persons are NOT necessarily a part of "this generation" because their anointed life does not necessarily overlap with persons from group one. (Assuming all the "candidates" in group one have already died, and that these conjectured 113 to 123 year old candidates are not around today.)

I'm pretty sure that everything you said in this post was true. But with some caveats that I'd like to highlight. If we take Acts 15 as fully parallel to Galatians 2, as you and Outta Here have done, then I agree that we should not consider the apostles and older men of Jerusalem to be "Judaizers." In Acts, Peter and James are fully credited with doing things correctly, and all blame is placed on the sect of the Pharisees and believers like them.
Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men. Of course, in other places, and here, too, Paul also goes into a discussion of where his own authority comes from and why no one could say that any of Paul's authority came from Jerusalem. As in at least two other places, Paul sees fit in this context to compare his own authority, with that of the apostles in Jerusalem. 
It seems that if Paul were trying to exonerate Peter, James and John, (as Acts 15 does) then he would not be expected to add so many phrases that diminish their authority, and he would have no reason to highlight his independence from Jerusalem. He surely could have exonerated them by mentioning the decree that they had agreed to. If Paul had still considered this decree authoritative, it was the perfect answer to the Galatians who thought that James and Peter were on the side of circumcision, and the whole problem with the Galatians would be over. On another note, Paul doesn't even mention the "decree" in any of his letters. The closest he gets to discussing the decree is in 1 Corinthians 8, where he appears to contradict what it said about eating food sacrificed to idols.
However, I now believe I was mistaken in trying to tie this Judaizing so directly to Peter and John. And @Outta Here has me thinking it might not apply to James either. Not that they ever were ACTIVE Judaizers, but I thought Paul was including Peter's example, because Peter had publicly sided with the Judaizers even though admittedly temporarily. This had put a stamp of authority on the Judaizers which allowed Paul's audience to believe that those apostles with authority over Paul actually had the last word on circumcision. Judaizers were spoken of as being smuggled in, rather than just coming of their own accord. And Paul said that these men were "from James" implying that James, another man of great reputation and authority among the apostles at Jerusalem, had given a stamp of authority to the Judaizers.  
I'm not yet convinced, as Outta Here seems to be, that saying that a group of Judaizers came from James, is really about the same as saying that a group of Judaizers came from Judea. If he had said, "from John" would that also just mean "from Judea"? I'm sure that Paul is at least saying that James knew their beliefs and that he had sent them, purposely, perhaps not to engage with Paul to subvert him, but to listen carefully to what he was saying to gentile converts about the Mosaic Law. James would therefore be admitting tacitly that he expected a potential problem would need to be resolved and the people he sent would have been most sensitive to what Paul was teaching.
I also don't know if we can say that they worked things out so "amicably" but things did finally work out over time. I mention this for the same reason I mentioned a transition period that is indicated in Acts between chapters 15 and Acts 21. In fact, I think if we look closely at Acts, that it's easy to see that Luke's goal was to leave out a lot of detail when it detracted from the minimum that a Christian needed to know about the past. I'll get to that later, and the rest of this post will just be a background for later reference before talking about the way Luke/Acts selects details.
I once tried to reconstruct the timeline of Acts from the chronology markers, to match it up with Galatians and others of Paul's letters, and this is much easier to do now with the Internet (and the Bearing Witness book), and so many online reference works available. It might seem like a waste of time, but it might give also us some insight into the types of things Luke includes in Acts and what he leaves out. That might not seem important now, but for me, it was a key part of my overall opinion (which could be partially or completely wrong, of course) along with a comparison between Acts, Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians.
Here we can also compare Acts 21:20-26 to Acts 15:
(Acts 21:20-26) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. . . . 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them.
By this time, Paul had been teaching that Jewish persons need not follow the customary Jewish practices. And by this time, Paul had already been saying that if anyone gets circumcised, then they are under obligation to keep the entire Law. Undeserved kindness+faith was being contrasted with works of Law as the "path to salvation," but by the time Ephesians was written, undeserved kindness+faith was apparently being contrasted with good works of any kind as a path to salvation. Paul had already been teaching about circumcision and extending it to mean any type of putting oneself under law, just as trying to gain salvation by works had extended past works of Law to any good works. Ephesians 2:8-17.
Note that these verses were written to uncircumcised believers, but with an obvious application to circumcised Jewish believers, too:
(Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. (Galatians 5:2-6) . . .See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. 6 For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is.
(Romans 2:28, 29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.
The bt book mentions these same scriptures and notes that this case in Acts 21 depicts Paul becoming a Jew to those who are Jews to hopefully win them over.
(1 Corinthians 9:20) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. So far none of this is a problem to understanding it the way you (Anna) have presented it.

I liked Thayer's glossary definitions included in the post linked below. But to avoid diverting people off to another topic, I'll just repost that definition:
But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.
Note Thayer's:
ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].
 

Yes. Of course. Moses had a hierarchy. The Watchtower has admitted that the organization can be thought of in this way.

I don't really know any of them. I know how the position got there, and I know what doctrines and practices they promote. It's because I accept most of those doctrines. 100 percent of the important ones, in my opinion. I don't think of them as a "governing body" except in a functional sense as decision makers who try to keep the teachings as consistent as possible for the sake of unity around the world. This is a positive thing about Jehovah's Witnesses that a consistent set of teachings can be accepted by millions of persons without disorder or contentiousness. The method used produces a danger of making it too easy to accept (and "enforce") false doctrines in the same way, but there are very few "false doctrines" in my opinion. If, in your opinion, there are many false doctrines, or if the specific ones you believe are false are that important to you, then I understand why your judgment of them would be different than mine.
Yes. I think they are making a mistake in this regard too. But, in general, only a very small minority of those claiming to be anointed seem to think things should be different. I'd wager that the vast majority of them believe they are being well represented by them. Also the GB do not necessarily think of this position as "over" the rest of the anointed. Remember that the service they provide is a ministry of a "slave." One of the ministries that Paul spoke of was the ability to "administer." A portion of the idea that this puts them "above" the rest may spring from the mind of fleshly persons who cannot distinguish a specialized service from being special. However, the idea that they form some kind of tribunal that should judge other anointed, or that others should be obedient to is probably wrong, imo. It might, in fact, spring from the fleshly, unspiritual understanding from their own minds. This doesn't reduce the value of the kind of work they can accomplish in such a unique circumstance, but it is one of the dangers that could befall any of us imperfect humans.
(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
You may have pointed out a danger, or it could be that less educated are more humble and more receptive to spiritual truth. Therefore a decision has been made to focus the efforts on an audience that should have been focused on even more in the past. A simplified Bible, with simplified publications to go with it, and a simpler study method might all be good things, even from the perspective of Luke 14:11.
Personally, however, I agree that it has been like a pendulum swing to a slightly "simpler" audience after saturating a more sophisticated audience until further efforts on that latter audience appeared wasted.
Many current Witnesses have the idea that this is a kind of "dumbing down" of the audience resulting in a dumbing down of the new ones coming in. If persons are overly concerned about that, perhaps it is based on their own prejudices or an unrequited desire to show off just how sophisticated their own knowledge might be. In our congregational setting, the goal is love for one another. This should be even easier if all of us show more childlike love for one another, and can stop taking ourselves so seriously.
I think deliberate is a strong word to use with "err." For the most part, I think all the mistakes have been well-meaning. There are some mistakes that reveal a different kind of mental conflict, in my opinion. These can be looked at as deliberate mistakes. Sometimes it can include a deliberate choice to avoid a change when it seems a change is necessary both Biblically and practically. Sometimes it can be from a lack of courage or self-confidence. Similar to Peter and the "James gang" the organization has had a historical problem with cultishness. This is admitted in our own publications that there was a Russell cult. Fred Franz was steeped in that exact kind of cult thinking (parallel dispensations, numerology, date predictions, etc.) so that this mentality remained strong and respected until Fred Franz died. He had so much respect as an "oracle" that all these "class" definitions and prophetic explanations were never challenged much until a few years after he died. So some mistakes are more about deliberate hanging on to tradition, which blinds people to the validity of God's word. This kind of blindness is wrong, but not necessarily "deliberate."
Why would 12 be too many? 8 is about the same. 20 is about the same. Considering the new abilities of technology and the much greater size of the current congregations of JWs compared to the first century congregations, perhaps 1,000 would not be too many, or perhaps there is a way to allow millions to have input, and merely allow a secretary or a technology application "bot" to filter out the noise and produce a consensus. I don't think we'd be quite as comfortable with that. Humans tend to like hierarchies of people, representative government, etc., in spite of the potential errors.
Some do. I'm sure of it. But my point was that a hierarchy of people are in place to filter out and merge communications so that the GB aren't bothered by any and every little thing that comes up. Notice that in a response to something Outta Here said I quoted:
(1 Corinthians 1:11, 12) 11 For some from the house of Chloʹe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you.
Paul had no problem "snitching" about where the information came from, and noted they had been able to get their issue to Paul directly, and Paul addressed the issue in his letter. There is a lot of secrecy in these communications today that I think is unnecessary. And there are stories of repercussions by those who used their own name.
Well, I'll stop here.

I get it. To be born again, you first have to dye.

Of course, being born again is being born (one time) PLUS being born (a second time), or "BORN + BORN," not to be born SQUARED, which is "BORN x BORN." Then again, I think Jesus said the sons of darkness are better at math than the sons of light. Or something like that.

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?