JW Insider

Fortunately, as most of you have probably guessed, Billy the Kid and I are really the same person, 😎, and I/we would have been prepared for everything a-la-Rambo, Apocalypse Now, and probably a John Wayne movie or two, too, that I have forgotten about.

It may be that the pilot was one of your detractors here who hadn’t realized that you were retired.

WOW ... he had 20 years experience with a helicopter before he got killed.   That to me is amazing.
Then .... he decided to NOT wait out the weather.
There are old pilots .....
There are bold pilots ....
But there are no old, bold pilots.
That's how "The Big Bopper", and Audie Murphy died ...
Bold pilots, who ignored the weather.
 

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.

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years.
So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it.
But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years.
So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it.
But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

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.

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.

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

I don't think I know everything about the Watchtower, and I don't think I am a professional linguist. The translation problem is a very simple one. These exact types of issues have been pointed out by professional linguists, and Greek language scholars.

So you were the one holdout that kept Wikipedia from being able to say " . . . used by all Witnesses"

Now THAT is a GREAT piece of work!   Next time the Brothers have a talent show, do that as a routine....
... don't hold your breath.

Of course, I don't really believe this in the slightest. But I thought I would put it out here just to raise some interest in the actual meaning of Gog and Magog.
I looked on Google and could not find any places where anyone had made the connection yet between GOOGLE and GOG. This surprised me, because in Hebrew the verse at Ezekiel 38:2 actually says the following in the Masoretic text:
See it here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eze/38/2/t_conc_840002
  בֶּן־אָדָם שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ אֶל־גֹּוג אֶרֶץ הַמָּגֹוג נְשִׂיא רֹאשׁ מֶשֶׁךְ וְתֻבָל וְהִנָּבֵא עָלָֽיו׃
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.
Quite a coincidence for a word that has a curious prophetic meaning in Scripture, and a word that is so ubiquitous on the Internet that it transcends translation. It is a trademark, a mark of that wild, beastly thing we call the Internet.
Of course, that particular "wild beast" connection has already been done:

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.)

I don't think I know everything about the Watchtower, and I don't think I am a professional linguist. The translation problem is a very simple one. These exact types of issues have been pointed out by professional linguists, and Greek language scholars.

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. 
 

Ah so you were bored but not now :) 
And I agree with you about numbering verses. I'm probably as guilty as anyone for taking a vese out of context. 
When we look at Paul's writings as the letters to congregations that they were, the we get a much better meaning from them. 
I would have loved to have met him. A man that wasn't frightened to speak his mind. Not all mamby pamby like the JW Org pretends to be. 
I've always found that the Org here in UK tries to act toooo posh. 
There was an old Elder in the Honiton congregation and he was an ex farmer. Henry was his name.
He would pronounce Honiton as Onitun, and Exeter as Hexeter. Poor man was always being told off by other Elders. But it was him, his character, the man he really was. But it was easy to see the other Elders didn't like it. 
It was so easy to see, and so funny, that congregants would put on a posher voice in the KH. Then once outside or away from the hall, even on the ministry, then would be back to their 'real self'. 
In my opinion God does not want posh. Jesus did not chose posh people for his disciples / apostles.   

I love it. Galatians is about the best book to do that with because it's so dramatic.
True. There are several widely published translations that don't veer too far from your version here, at least in places.
It can actually do "double-work" as commentary.
Some widely used translations are rather jarring here with expressions like: "I wish the knife would slip."

And here I thought it was other types of sinning you desired . . .
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79686-a-circuit-overseer-states-your-faith-is-garbage-and-needs-to-be-torn-down/page/2/#comments

Just in case anyone wondered why I had thought to make the point that it was my own opinion that the sheep separated to Jesus' right would include the "anointed" -- here's the reason:
Our current Watchtower publications very often imply that the sheep that Jesus separates to his right do NOT include the anointed. Because of the distinction made between Christ's brothers and these sheep, I think most Witnesses already understand it this way, but it's rarely stated explicity and succinctly except in some convention talks. The most succinct statement I remember in writing is here in the Insight book:
*** it-1 p. 1184 Illustrations ***
Notice that the “sheep,” who are put on the right hand of the enthroned Son of man, are shown to be different from Jesus Christ’s “brothers,” to whom they did acts of kindness.—Mt 25:34-40; Heb 2:11, 12.
There have been several significant historical changes to our interpretations of this doctrine, which might make for an enlightening discussion to some. But I won't intentionally drag out this particular thread to explain. The 93 and 95 Watchtower references from the WT Publications Index will give some significant quotes about former doctrinal beliefs on the topic:

[Matthew] 25:32   it-1 1183-1184; w15 1/1 13; re 123; w98 8/15 20; w95 2/1 12-13; w95 10/15 22-24; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164; w89 5/1 19; w87 3/1 29; w87 5/15 12-13
[Matthew] 25:33   it-1 1029, 1184; w95 2/1 12-13; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164
[Matthew] 25:34   it-2 1207; w95 10/15 26-27; jv 164; gt 111; w90 5/15 8; w90 6/1 6; w89 9/1 19-20
 

I'm glad you think so but that isn't the important thing, as you already know.
I guess your first point was that when I referenced the parable of the sheep being separated from the goats, I mentioned that I thought Jesus was separating two kinds of sheep from the goats.  You requoted a portion of what I said as follows:
I believe that when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats he is separating the anointed sheep as well as other sheep who don't identify themselves as anointed. (Matt 25:32)
You had asked for my opinion, and I told you this was part of my opinion. Absolutely nothing has changed. When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, these sheep will include anointed sheep and other sheep who do not identify themselves as anointed. Let's assume for example, that you believe you are one of the anointed sheep, and I believe I am one of another class of sheep, as I do not identify myself as anointed. When Jesus comes to separate the sheep from the goats, I am hoping that he favors both of us with a place on his right hand, and that we are not going to be with the goats on his left.
You tried to explain that I meant something like this:
There is actually so much ambiguity in that first sentence that it is difficult to parse your meaning. Perhaps I worded it in a way that confused you, but I can't find the logic in the idea you apparently got out of it. I never said anything about who any of the goats were and where they might come from. I'm including sheep who claim to be anointed and sheep who claim not to be anointed in the sheep category who Jesus will place on his right. I didn't say anything about who the goats are.
I don't see a problem, and I don't see any reason to change, revise or edit anything.
Strange. I take this to be more of the kind of blame-shifting and projection that you have become infamous for. In the past, you have often copied pages from Christendom's commentaries, and pictures of scholarly looking book covers that have titles that appear to support your claims. Then someone points out that the contents of the book show just the opposite of your claim. Then you go twisting and scrambling to make it look like you never made a mistake after all.
I've even seen this type of twisting and scrambling for something as simple as a typo or mistaken definition, or misused vocabulary. When someone pointed it out to you, you doubled-down with some absolutely incredible pseudo-explanation to avoid admitting even a minor mistake. Sometimes, you apparently resort to meaningless word-salads or other types of word-play, and I can't tell if you think it worked to impress others, or to obfuscate. But whenever you get a piece of criticism like this you can be counted on to counter-claim that it is others who use word-play and word-salads, or you go on a temper-rant claiming that people are making fun of you.
I'd recommend that before you start claiming that I say things "in order to confuse" just ask others if they were also confused. Maybe they were, and this means I should rewrite it, but if it's mostly just you who's confused, just ask more questions, and I'll be happy to explain further the things that you might not have understood correctly -- just as I am happy to do now.
You also apparently had a problem with my statement that Zechariah 8 (in context) gives us some good ideas about helping others to become Christians, which should be a goal of our ministry. You requoted a portion here: “My own opinions here are somewhat separate. Although on the matter of Zechariah 8, I think that chapter really does provide an excellent and important image for us to remember about our own attempts to make converts to true Christianity”
Again, I don't see what kind of a problem you would have with this. We want people we meet in our ministry and persons whom we hope to have study the Bible with us become converted to true Christianity. Right? The context of Zechariah 8 had shown how this would be fulfilled in the midst of economic hardships and disappointments and even the incursion of enemies/opposers. I had already pointed this out and also wanted to show how the image of having people come to us can sometimes be more important that us coming to them. If we are true Christians, we will be known by reputation. As Jesus said (and as my very next sentence began after the portion you quoted):
I partially understand why you wish to disagree with me whenever you have a chance, but you very often seem to forget that when you are so anxious to be an opposer, when not careful, you can end up opposing Jesus' own words, too.

Good question. I see you are actually thinking about the topic rather than just being pulled down into the squabbling.
When the end comes, and the judgment comes, we can expect that there will be anointed on earth. To me this seems clear from Paul's account of the end:
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:2) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
In other words, at some surprisingly sudden point in time, the dead (anointed) are raised to heaven together with those who are surviving right up to the time of the "parousia of the Lord." The timing has always been a matter of much conjecture. We don't like to use the term rapture, so our previous doctrine here taught that the parousia started in 1914 (as it still teaches, officially) but that the first resurrection (including Paul's resurrection) was supposed to have happened in 1918. This was a leftover from our old parallel dispensation teachings under Barbour, Russell, and early Rutherford. In fact, it was explained that because Jesus appeared as Messiah/Christ in 29 and was resurrected 3.5 years later, that the invisible appearance of Christ in October 1914 would be followed by a resurrection of all the dead saints in the spring of 1918.
But 1918, although it once appeared more often than 1919 in our publications, has now been almost completely removed from our repertoire of prophetic dates, and replaced with dates like 1919 and more recent events. Jesus no longer inspected his temple in 1918, nor do we teach that the first resurrection must have happened in that year. Instead of just making a sudden change to the doctrine, it was changed from an important prophetic date to just "an interesting possibility."
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
At this point, it may be helpful to consider what might be viewed as a Bible parallel. Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility.
We still liked the idea of starting that resurrection "early in Christ's presence" and especially wanted to have it start before 1935. The article continues:
This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” (1 Corinthians 15:23) Rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time. . . . “A white robe was given to each of them; and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they also had been.”—Revelation 6:10, 11. . . .  So after war, famine, and pestilence began to ravage the earth, members of the 144,000 who were dead, represented by the blood at the base of the altar, were raised to heavenly life and clothed in symbolic white robes. . . . God’s Word does not disclose a precise date for the first resurrection, but it does reveal that it occurs over a period of time, during Christ’s presence. The first to be resurrected are anointed Christians who died before Christ’s presence began. As Christ’s presence progresses, anointed Christians who faithfully finish their earthly course are changed “in the twinkling of an eye” into powerful spirit creatures. (1 Corinthians 15:52) Will all the anointed receive their heavenly reward before the war of Armageddon? We do not know. We do know, however, that in God’s due time, all the 144,000 will be found standing on the heavenly Mount Zion.
You might notice the mistake that I highlighted. The dead (whose sacrificial blood cries out for justice) are told to wait until the number was filled. But if we place this parousia from 1914 on up through the great tribulation, then we don't really have them all being changed together so that no one group of anointed has to be concerned about going to heaven before another group of anointed. Revelation says they all wait until the number is filled. Thessalonians says they all go together, at the time of that trumpet call. In fact the scripture in 1 Cor 15:52 just referenced says:
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.
This sounds very much like the "rapture" teaching that we had avoided for years by using the word "during" Christ's parousia, and "during" the last trumpet. Actually, the Greek in context here provides better support for translating "at his parousia" not "during his parousia." and "at the last trumpet."
So, more recently, the Watchtower stopped discounting the idea about the "rapture." We still don't like the word because it reminds people of some false teachings still associated with the "rapture." But the basic idea of a "rapture" is now accepted. We still look to fit it all into our timeline for the first resurrection, Gog attack, great tribulation, marriage of the Lamb, etc.
*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-16 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43.
15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.
16 Once all the 144,000 are in heaven, the final preparations for the marriage of the Lamb can begin. (Rev. 19:9) But something else will happen before that joyous event. Remember, shortly before the remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven, Gog will attack God’s people. (Ezek. 38:16)
Much more to say, but I hope you can at least see what I meant by including the heavenly anointed in the "sheep and goats" parable.