JW Insider

I remember once when Jesus demonized some pork, but it was at their own request. (Demon's request, not the pork's.)
(Matthew 8:31) . . .So the demons began to plead with him, saying: “If you expel us, send us into the herd of swine.” But Jesus also gave some good dietary instructions for raising pigs. They evidently don't digest beads of calcium carbonate very well, or else perhaps it doesn't sit well with them and makes them violent.
(Matthew 7:6) . . .“Do not . . . throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.  
 
 

No the apostles did not honestly believe they were above Christ. Some did believe they should be above other Christians, even above each other, and Jesus counseled them about that. (Mark 10:35+) So why bring up a "false" allegation that somehow Witnesses are giving "undue reverence" to the Governing Body? Easy. Because the Watchtower said they were. If you don't believe the Watchtower's claim, take it up with them.
Did you think that the counsel in the 1/16 Study Watchtower was unnecessary?
*** w16 January p. 27 “We Want to Go With You” ***
At times, well-known representatives of the Christian congregation—perhaps circuit overseers, Bethelites, members of the Branch Committee, members of the Governing Body as well as their helpers—may attend a convention or theocratic event that we also attend.
The counsel given referred to the kind of attitudes matched in the picture above from the same article. Similar counsel was repeated again in the 3/17 Study Watchtower.
*** w17 March p. 9 par. 6 Give Honor to Whom It Is Due ***
Most imperfect humans are strongly influenced by the spirit of SatanÂ’s world. That is why people tend to idolize certain men or women rather than just show them appropriate honor and respect. They place religious and political leaders, sports figures, entertainment stars, and other celebrities on pedestals, often considering them to be almost superhuman. . . . However, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it.
Due to the problem of people worshiping Charles Taze Russell as if they were in a cult, up until at least 1931, Rutherford did all he could to separate from that type of mentality and move that kind of adulation to the theocratic organization itself, rather than a human being. You may have already seen the discussion on this topic linked here:Charles Taze Russell: Was he recently "canonized"?
The Watchtower itself claims that the Watchtower was in error (at one time or another) with respect to almost every prophecy they have ever attempted to explain. It's only the current version of the explanation of any of these same prophecies that is considered not to be in error, unless of course, they also go back to one of the previous explanations and say it was correct after all, which has also happened.
I'm sure you think yourself a good judge of what degree is "fine" and what degree is "NOT fine" in this regard. However, there is no scripture that says that God inspires, entrusts, or commissions the GB to understand scripture for our benefit. I accept that they do understand scripture for our benefit, but there is no such commission by God specifically for the GB to do this. We accept their leadership in this regard because it works for unity and peace and consistency in our teaching, which therefore allows for the efficient distribution of Bible-based publications with a common message we can all support whole-heartedly. Every religious group realizes that some can preside better, some can speak better, some can manage better, and some can teach better. Among true Christians today these are considered "gifts in men" where such ministries combine to help to maintain peace and unity in the worldwide congregation, just as they would in individual congregations. So there is nothing unbiblical and nothing wrong with accepting the services and benefits of a Governing Body. But they are not inspired and there is no Biblical commission for this specific group of brothers to teach and understand the Scriptures for us.
I am pretty sure I don't claim to share in the "anointing of the holy spirit" in the same way that you and others here might claim to share. This might not have been addressed to me, but since I chose to respond I thought I should clear up the fact that I certainly don't claim to be one of the 144,000 anointed.
I agree that there is more to say on these topics, but I think the info about God's name is more relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll bring those points up in my next post.

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book,
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.”  In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.  
 
I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece."
It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble.
But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. 
The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish.
Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan):
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same:
*** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"].
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931:
*** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany ***
Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell:
*** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral:
"Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss):
"The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says:
"Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."
 

Your focus was probably on the reason for this practice, which I gave as "because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out." The source you gave didn't include any reason different from the one I gave, but this new answer referring to the idea of an Israeli chemistry teacher gives a different reason which is worth considering. He evidently said it was because as you said: " The word in Hebrew for existence is a form of the name of God, and is not used as it is in English." Then the person who made that comment added the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah  which says nothing of the sort.
So we could easily consider whether the "zero copula" is due to this particular reason. One point to consider is that after reading the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula we notice that there are many languages that do the same, including Arabic, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Maori, Ganda, Irish, Welsh, ASL, and several Native American languages. Again it's mostly done for the present tense in these languages, too. There are several situations in which we follow this practice in English, too. And we surely don't do it because it's a form of God's name in Hebrew. And these languages with no relationship to Hebrew surely don't do it because of an issue in Hebrew or any similar issue in their own language.
It might also be worth considering that even when the name of God was spelled out in Hebrew at a time when there were no prejudices against using the name out loud, the zero copula was already in effect. We see this in at least 350 places in the Hebrew text. One obvious example is the twenty-third Psalm which says "Jehovah [blank] my shepherd I shall not want"  יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָֽר
So the practice could not very well have started because it is a form of God's name.
Even in the context of Exodus 3:12-15 the same practice is found:
It's found in the future tense in 3:12 and "famously" found in the present tense in 3:14, of course, but is left out of the surrounding verses:
(Exodus 3:13-15) 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is [blank] his name?’ What should I say to them?”  . . . 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is [blank] what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is [blank] my name forever, and this is [blank] how I am to be [blank] remembered from generation to generation. Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula."
I have no problem with sarcasm in general. It's not usually necessary, but can sometimes help to make a point. It was just that, in this case, you said you were using sarcasm to make a point different from mine,  and then immediately quoted someone who apparently agreed with me 100%, so the sarcasm lost its effect.

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss.
I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all.
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation.
But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"?
Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. 
So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong?
What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7?
So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either.
And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions.
I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975.
-----------------------------
Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook  |  October 2017
 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3
“Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy”
Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work
Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too. If they are trying to hide this fact they have not done a good job. Obviously, the language and expressions in the video also indicates that it is from Witnesses.
There are some huge logical gaffes in the video.
Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW) and it is the "Moabite stone "Mesha stele" (from the 9th C BCE) that is the oldest known use of the tetragrammaton example we have in writing. (The Moabite stone, the first tetragrammaton, is nearly 500 years younger than the older trigrammaton.)The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.
On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.). This is argued from its supposed rarity as a standalone name. But Furuli says it's found 20 times in hallelujah, and 19 times as a standalone name, which totals 49 times (20+19=49). His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices. Of course, the name "Yah" is also embedded in many proper names of individuals in the same way that this video had already shown that others like Nebuchadnezzar, Ramses, etc, included the name of their god(s) in their names. This gets discussed starting at minute 21 of the video.
Then they show Furuli and Gertoux disagreeing about the importance of the final H, where Gertoux says it means the pronunciation was like the a in "ah" but Furuli correctly points out that it was only "very often" and could also stand for either "A" or an "AE." He indicates through his pronunciation that "AE" means either a short "eh" sound or the vowel sometimes represented by the term "schwa").  Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't. See also http://creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/6-ah-eh.pdf for a different point on the vowel to be included with the ending "H".
On the point that the vowels for ADONAI (Lord) were attached to the Tetragrammaton the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH. (YaHoWaH vs. YeHoWaH). But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known. This is the place in the video where Gertoux tries to apply the age-old conspiracy theory that scholars know something but don't want to upset their fellow colleagues. This happens under centralized power structures all the time, but this of course is in direct contradiction to the parallel claim that scholars are always in competition for something new and will sacrifice their own mother for gaining a bit of attention in the academic world. In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.
6 of the 60 Masoretic manuscripts are known to have the full vowels corresponding to Yehowah. (Note minute 46 of this interview with Nehemia Gordon, the same person interviewed in the Reibling video in your original post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q  )
 
"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy. (18:52)
What they have left out here which is very important is that the vowels roughly corresponding to Adonai were NOT the only vowels that the Masoretic texts applied to YHWH.
In the portion of the video about embedding the divine name as part of an individual's name assumptions are made about the vowel pronunciation that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. (Gordon sells books based on the premise that Hebrew was a resurrected language, not spoken for 2000 years, which allows him some extra freedom for "discovery.") There are also known differences in initial vowels that were long and become short based on the pronunciation of the second vowel in a word. Contractions based on syllable emphasis are common and are even seen in the various verb forms. An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.
(Ezra 10:15) 15 However, Jonʹa·than the son of Asʹa·hel and Jah·zeiʹah the son of Tikʹvah objected to this, and the Levites Me·shulʹlam and Shabʹbe·thai supported them. This only covers some problems from the first half of the video, which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study. I'm sure we shouldn't discount the possibility that "Jehovah" (from "Yehowah") is one of the possible alternatives. If however, the entire point of the Masoretic text was to produce vowel-pointed pronunciations that helped readers avoid the true pronunciation, then they did a terrible job by supposedly giving away the true vowels in some places but not others. I believe I wrote a note to the Librarian here once that had some evidence about this in the Masoretic texts. I'll see if it's still here and post it.
 

-----Found it (from a private conversation)...
No. It's a common vowel pointing. It showed up this way sometimes in the Masoretic texts about 1,000 years ago. I know you already know that there were no vowel points in the older Hebrew texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Usually it did not include the "o" (holam) point after the first "H".
Here's an example at https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septuagint-part-1/
It doesn't say, but it's the Aleppo Codex of Joshua 1:1 . . . . It includes the "e" and the "a[h]" but not the "o".
Here's an example at http://danielbenyaacovysrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/parsha-tetzaveh-youshall-command-shmot.html
It doesn't say, but it's also from the Aleppo Codex of Ezekiel 28:2 and it includes the "o". I included the picture, because it highlights the tetragrammaton.
So, yes, it's one of the possible vowel pointings, which may have been used to remind readers to pronounce with the word ADONAI, ELOHIM, or HA-SHEM, etc. 
Notice the evidence that this Adonai vowel pointing was NOT supposed to be the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but a replacement pronunciation of the entire word "ADONAI" (Lord). What would happen (sometimes) if the term used in the original Heberw was already ADONAI YHWH? The reader would end up saying ADONAI ADONAI. This happens in Judges 6:22 for example.
Judges 6:22 in the same Aleppo Codex, uses different vowel points shown in the smaller picture, attached. These are the vowel points for ELOHIM. It's evidently because it follows the word ADONAI. (Notice that the "o" is left off Adonai here, too.) It's not consistent, as the Ezekel 28:2 passage showed, but the fact that the name has inconsistent vowel pointing is evidence that whatever vowel points are used were NOT intended for pronunciation. That fact alone is evidence that these two vowel pointings become evidence of two ways in which the name must NOT have been pronounced. (Although someone could argue that an exceptional vowel pointing could have been an accidental slip that revealed the actual way it was pronounced at the time of the Masorete scribes.)
 
 

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT:
(Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision:
(Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’” Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here:
(Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT) (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you?  (NWT)
 
Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.
 

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix.
Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.
Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.)  I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side.
The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it.
----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites-----------------
A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2
Where the Money Came From
On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the
program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking:
Walter Zaremba
Gunther Reibling
New York Community Trust
A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page:
Independent Television Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Reibling Foundation
Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a
connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following:
Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings
Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at
University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children.
It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba.
A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case:
BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..
----------------
Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company] ------------------
Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times:
NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.
 

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss.
I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all.
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation.
But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"?
Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. 
So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong?
What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7?
So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either.
And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions.
I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975.
-----------------------------
Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook  |  October 2017
 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3
“Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy”
Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work
Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Aside from the slightly negative review above, Benny Golson is in the 2004 Tom Hanks movie, The Terminal. It is a heart warming story and a chance to see a real jazz legend, who is also one of our brothers. The story has a focus on getting his signature on a wonderful photo. If you haven't seen the movie yet...don't miss it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Great_Day_in_Harlem_(photograph)
(L - R) Hilton Jefferson, Benny Golson*, Art Farmer, Wilbur Ware, Art Blakey, Chubby Jackson, Johnny Griffin, Dickie Wells, Buck Clayton, Taft Jordan, Zutty Singleton, Red Allen, Tyree Glenn, Miff Molo, Sonny Greer, Jay C. Higginbotham, Jimmy Jones, Charles Mingus, Jo Jones, Gene Krupa, Max Kaminsky, George Wettling, Bud Freeman, Pee Wee Russell, Ernie Wilkins, Buster Bailey, Osie Johnson, Gigi Gryce, Hank Jones, Eddie Locke, Horace Silver, Luckey Roberts, Maxine Sullivan, Jimmy Rushing, Joe Thomas, Scoville Browne, Stuff Smith, Bill Crump, Coleman Hawkins, Rudy Powell, Oscar Pettiford, Sahib Shihab, Marian McPartland, Sonny Rollins*, Lawrence Brown, Mary Lou Williams, Emmett Berry, Thelonius Monk, Vic Dickenson, Milt Hinton, Lester Young, Rex Stewart, J.C. Heard, Gerry Mulligan, Roy Eldgridge, Dizzy Gillespie and Count Basie curbside. (*still living today)

That might be so, but I believe it would help if sisters knew how to use their feminine qualities (not necessarily physical) to attract brothers. Spirituality should of course play a big role, but if a sister warns a prospective brother she is interested in, that when she has her monthly days she has to lock herself in her room, eat chocolate and breaks out in pimples is not an attractive visual. This honestly happened to a friend of mine. Needless to say he struck her off his list, despite the fact they were both pioneers and she was physically attractive AND had a job.  If she had kept this to herself, I am sure he would have never noticed had they got married. Some sisters just don’t seem to know that too much information is just too much information.

I believe this, although I don't know if what you think of as "many" is the same as what I think of as "many."  One of my concerns was with the idea that so many sisters that my wife knows believe that they suffer more depression than non-JW counterparts due to lack of marital prospects, and some think that their only way of being noticed at all by brothers who are "marriageable" is to pioneer, for example. But this is not possible for all, yet the examples and attitudes presented at meetings/conventions from fellow sisters is nearly always presented by a sister who is also a pioneer. I've known sisters who quit their jobs to pioneer in good part to help solve this issue, which is ironic, because the second most important factor in a sister finding a marriage mate in our circuit anyway, is for the sister to have a job.
I wasn't at Bethel at the same time as she was, although I had met her husband a couple times. I have a good friend in the Writing department who STILL has the highest regard for her, even though she is disfellowshipped.

Insider - thanks for kind words.  No - I would never presume..... but maybe I should write a song!  How about that! 
But first I have to learn for driver's license in Sweden - and pass it - it is hard.... and get better in my Svenska! Too much on my plate.   I have been very ill - a throat infection for two weeks - so bad that the glands do not want to go down... so this is why I have spent more time here on the forum because I just could not get myself to concentrate on my books!

Winter starting...... Yes, my husband took job here so I can preach to the Arabic refugees.  Of course I did not foresee the language difficulties..... and getting new, potent, germs! I am learning Swenska so I can understand the meetings and keep talking!.  We only have an Arabic group here and have one new meeting attendee!  He changed his name - Muslim before!   Not baptized yet.  but exciting!

Were it not for the flood of hateful remarks directed at theocratic authority, I would most likely agree with you. But like pus from a wound, it is everywhere. Maybe there is a place for someone from us who spills the dirt before the scoundrels do.
Online there are endless persons who spill dirt on God's organization. Often it is true dirt, or it is based upon something true. 'No human is able to exercise perfect self-control,' today's Watchtower says. Same with other qualities. Therefore there will always be dirt. Opposers misrepresent and exaggerate and always always always impute wrong motive. Eventually, John Q Publisher comes across it, and because he has been exposed to not a hint of it, he is floored - and in many cases he swallows it along with the negative spin supplied - and the spiritual consequences are dire. Therefore it may not be a bad thing if someone spills dirt in a 'loyal' context. You could almost liken it to a vaccine - exposure to a little bit of the crap by a physician better prepares one for when they encounter it in the wild. At any rate, you can do nothing about it, so you may as well adapt.
I don't think it is great, either, but there may be a practical use to it. People spill all kinds of confidential stuff here. It amazed me at first. Then they say where there is secrecy there is tyranny. The remark is not completely wet, but it is misplaced. 'Confidential' is not the same as 'secret.' Nor is it the same as 'not intended for public distribution.' John gave the reason that not everything is intended for everyone, and it reveals no ill intent whatsoever. Quite the contrary. 'I have many things to say to you, but you are not yet ready to bear them,' Jesus said. "Oh yes we are," says everyone on this forum (including me). I can picture some (if they dared) combing through all the stuff Jesus held back so that they could post it online in order to to fill our 'right to know.' Still, since the liars abound,  'loyal' ones can put a proper spin on the dirt they reveal.
Though I don't like to see confidential things displayed online, they yet serve to strengthen general confidence in the organization God uses. Shiwiii, for example, posted that confidential letter in which Bethel reminded local publishers to donate timely. He was hoping I would be outraged at the greedy Watchtower. Instead, I feigned outrage at the greedy Bible writers, for it was clear everything the organization did was based upon scripture. Even when you don't like the general direction in which godly counsel is heading, you nonetheless have to concede that it is godly - supported scripturally - and thus you can ask yourself: 'to what degree am I willing to be 'taught by Jehovah?' even as the ones publishing it ask themselves the same question. 
I will go out on a limb here and risk being presumptuous, but I'm not sure the brothers know what to do with the pure deceit that is so readily spewed online by many. I think they probably reign in some instincts on how to respond because that is what the Bible says they should do. Maybe I should too, and others here. But we get clobbered by apostates and one wants to do something about it, if at all possible. "I am stronger than you, and I thank God for it," says Miss Pross to the wicked foreign woman who would cut her throat. She fights not for herself, but for someone to whom she is loyal. It is the first century playing out all over again. There is not a NT writer who does not deal with it. The apostate issue was fueled by same thing then as it is today: a contempt for authority. (Jude 8) It's hard to know how to deal with it. 

@Arauna I am a feminist but I still loved what you said in your post. It shows that you are keenly aware of what sisters think, what they go through, and how they should think in order to build up the congregation under their circumstances. You really should consider submitting a version of this to the brothers at Bethel. Your husband apparently knows your value and your values. I'm sure he would help facilitate this if it's not something you feel comfortable with.
I know a sister who wrote a couple articles for the Awake! while her husband worked in the Service Department, and another sister (now ex-sister, unfortunately) who was very well respected by Brother Lloyd Barry and both Brothers Karl and Don Adams and put together a huge portion of the Proclaimers book. At least one sister I know is currently involved in research, perhaps there are more.

I see we have a few feminists here.  If you investigate where feminism comes from you will not be so eager to promote this way of thinking! 
Any case I am female and I am very happy in the congregation.  Sisters have a wonderful opportunity to spread LOVE, look after the sick, preach, look after their husbands and children in a godly way and use their wisdom to advise the young sisters and accomplish much good in the congregation! 
One can support the young ministerial servants and just be a force for good and teaching the younger ones to care for others...... No, our job is much nicer than that of the older men who sometimes have to take sad cases of those who are disruptive etc. ..... We can help the disruptive ones before they can become a problem!  And if you do it in the right way..... you will never be a threat to anyone! 
And we have time to study and bring great honor to Jehovah in much preaching work and just teach the younger ones to be more grateful (not greatful!) for the things Jehovah has done for them.  Good women can be a powerhouse in a congregation !!- and don't underestimate the power of the bright side! ...... keep those lamps shining!
Single sisters have a hard time to stay single - and many never have the hope of a husband. Give them some attention because they can feel lonely and depressed!  How nice a kind hearing ear is.  They are eternally grateful and when they have a problem they know where to go!  Also the sisters who have an unloving husband.  They need to trust someone who will not say anything about it to someone else.  How nice when a mature sister can use her talents and knowledge gained from the scriptures in an upbuilding, positive way! ... or just give a hug! Difficult marriage can be very hard on people! One can give tips on what helped for you - but not in preachy way - in friendship way.  Reveal the problems you had and how it was overcome - it builds trust ...... but NEVER talk bad of anyone!
Older sisters have the maturity to spread themselves out and also see when younger ones are ailing or going in wrong direction.... give attention.... this is how we should look after each other.
I am NOT feminist!  I used to ask my husband if I wanted to send money to family members or anyone because he knows I will never do anything he is not aware of. (And I earned a pretty good salary at the time!)  I do it because I WANT to; because I think it is right; and I think it builds trust!  Trust is very important in life and yet many people underestimate its power.  He respects me for respecting him!... and he trusts me!
I tone down my talking (I love to talk) when I am around brothers who are still unsure of themselves or immature.  You get those who feel that they are supposed to know it all because they are  men - especially in spiritual way.  They still need time to help them grow.  I am quick to pick up when people are threatened -  it is a way of being kind to them and also to keep yourself out of trouble. 
There are many smart women out there - but if you have to show it off all the time - shame on you!   I think emotional smartness is better.  Learn to watch people and learn from their reactions.  
I have often said (my husband says it too!) :  If you meet a person - even if it is a worldly person - and they have not learnt to be compassionate and kind........ their life - the time they spent on earth has been in vain - they never learnt anything!
 

Certainly. The links are included for further context.

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

https://bible.org/seriespage/1-holy-spirit-hebrew-bible-and-its-connections-new-testament
I see Jeremiah's words as inspired as I do those recorded in 1Kings 8:27, and with no contradiction.
Of course it is. In a metaphorical sense.
Still do. Is there a language issue here?
erudite: learned, scholarly, well educated, knowledgeable, well read, widely read, well versed, well informed, lettered, cultured, cultivated, civilized, intellectual.
articulate: eloquent, fluent, communicative, effective, persuasive, coherent, lucid, vivid, expressive.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with his opinion on everything though does it? I mean, I think you are articulate and erudite in your field and in expressing your opinons, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you say.

Complicated question but:
v 23: Jehovah can draw near to those who draw near to him according to James 4:8. "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." No geographical location change is required for this. So in the words of Jeremiah 23:23: "Am I a God from near," I understand this in the sense of Hebrews 4:13 "And no creature is hidden in the sight of him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of him to whom we must give our account" or Act 17:27 "And indeed he is not far away from each one of us".
v24: Men hide both literally and figuratively from accountability before God. Literally, as did Adam and Eve "And the man* and his wife hid themselves" (Gen 3:8) and figuratively  "The wealth of the rich is ⌊his strong city⌋,* and like a wall, it is high in his imagination." (Pro.18:11). So I would say it refers to any kind of hiding on the part of those to whom these words are addressed.
As regards Jehovahs geographical location in such a matter, I understand this to describe figuratively what Paul mentioned at Hebrews 4:13 above, there is no place in all of creaion that is out of Jehovah's reach. As Solomon said at 1Kings 8:43 of the prayer of a foreigner: "you shall hear in heaven, the place of your dwelling, and act according to all that the foreigner calls to you".
Entirely agree. I think the problem is the rather absolute connotation you attach to these words. 
But my point is that whilst communicating their meaning clearly, articulate expression of opinions does not require that the hearer agrees with that meaning. He may understand completely that person's position, but not agree with their opinion, no matter how clearly expressed.
We have to remember that, unlike Jehovah whose sayings are clarified "seven times", in the words of men there does not fail to be error. So as stated earlier, the absence of Mr Ellicott allows no room for discussion on his understandings, therefore no possibility of further clarifiication or adjustment to his ideas which remain, for me, expressed in an "erudite and articulate" manner, whether I agree with them or not.

Do you think a little more detail in writing would be prudent in case you are not conscious????

Actually I did, hence the dots......I only put what I thought was relevant to the discussion, the other bit was...."or with my health care surrogate in case of my incapacity"
By the way you never got back with me on that discussion HERE
 

From a medical point of view, I would submit that it is not just the children, but very few JW parents themselves could "demonstrate an ability to understand the implications of the consequences of refusing treatment." I would also posit that very few JW parents have even fully considered the Biblical point of view on blood transfusions for themselves either. We can surmise this from the fact that the vast majority of JWs accepted what the Watchtower said about rejecting all organ transplants as final, right up until the time the Watchtower changed its position on them. Immediately, the vast majority of JWs accepted the opposite position about accepting all organ transplants as final. Clearly, JWs had not considered the matter for themselves, and had not been using their own thinking abilities or even their own conscience in the matter.
If any have had any dealings at length with persons on the Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs) in various congregations, then it is likely obvious to that JWs do not generally make up their own mind on the matter of blood, either. We merely submit to the "mind" of the Watchtower. JWs continually consult with the Society or HLC members about what blood-related therapies could be acceptable to their conscience and which ones are not allowed to be acceptable to their conscience.
(Romans 14:1-5) 1 Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.
There is a relatively new problem that medical professionals and medical authorities have been dealing with and this is finally being considered in the laws of the "superior authorities." (Romans 13:1-5)
(Romans 13:1-5) 1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. . . . 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.
The new problem is that there are now several Jehovah's Witnesses who have "surprised" the medical professionals and medical authorities by asking that they or their child be treated as an exception to the general rule for Jehovah's Witnesses. They will accept blood or otherwise "forbidden fractions" for themselves or children and make this a matter of conscience. These Witnesses make this decision in spite of the risk to their spirituality and/or the risk to their standing and acceptance in the congregation. This new problem has already been discussed in several respected medical journals. It's difficult to imagine the complication that this can cause for hospital professionals, even where the HLC has done its best to explain the Watch Tower's position. (The medical journals even discuss the legal implications of keeping the final decision of the parent or child from getting back to the HLC or other representative from the congregation.)
Even putting aside the Biblical aspect for the moment (i.e., consideration about prospects for eternal life), many JWs simply reject that there is ever a time when a blood transfusion offers the best chance of saving (i.e., extending) the life of the patient. There are supposed to always be alternatives, and even if not available, the risks of blood transfusion have been so magnified that many JWs often believe that the medical risk of accepting always overrides potentially life-saving medical benefits.
But the Society has admitted that blood transfusions (and other blood therapies that JWs do not accept) are often actually life-saving (from a medical viewpoint, not a spiritual viewpoint). 
To understand the complications, therefore, let's assume that there are times when the Society is right and the medical authorities are right, and that there really are times when a blood transfusion (or related therapy) is the best chance for saving the life of the patient. We are only considering those types of cases below.
Now consider the Law, for example and consider what should be the JW view toward the "superior authorities" in the following circumstances? How much effort should the HLC (or other consulted elders) put into convincing parents or child to conform to current "Watch Tower" policy in these situations?
What is listed below are 28 different situations with the following "variables:"
The person faced with the question is either:
6 or 16 years of age  (6/16) - the 6-year-old is only considered in these cases with JW parents. Baptized or Unbaptized (B/U)  - only applied to the 16 year old, where a 16 year old may be associating with Witnesses even though the parents are not JWs Parents are JW or not JW (PJW/NJW) - "mixed" marriage where only one spouse is JW is not included in any scenario. The child herself either wants to Accept, Reject or is Unconscious [and without directive] (A/R/U) The parent of the child either wants to agree with the child's decision or disagree (PA/PD) - note that if child is unconscious, then disagreement with a stated decision does not apply (although it is possible that a child carries a blood directive that JW parents reject at time of emergency) In other words, as an example, case #1 means that the child is 16, unbaptized, parents are JW, but the child wants to accept a blood transfusion, and the JW parents agree that she can choose to accept it. Case #28 is a 6-year-old unbaptized child with JW parents, where the child wants to reject a transfusion, but the parents disagree, and want her to accept it in this case.
16,U,PJW,A,PA  16,U,PJW,A,PD 16,B,PJW,A,PA 16,B,PJW,A,PD 16,U,PJW,R,PA 16,U,PJW,R,PD 16,B,PJW,R,PA 16,B,PJW,R,PD 16,U,PJW,U,PA 16,U,PJW,U,PD 16,B,PJW,U,PA 16,B,PJW,U,PD 16,U,NJW,A,PA 16,U,NJW,A,PD 16,B,NJW,A,PA 16,B,NJW,A,PD 16,U,NJW,R,PA 16,U,NJW,R,PD 16,B,NJW,R,PA 16,B,NJW,R,PD 16,U,NJW,U,PA 16,U,NJW,U,PD 16,B,NJW,U,PA 16,B,NJW,U,PD 6,U,PJW,A,PA 6,U,PJW,A,PD 6,U,PJW,R,PA 6,U,PJW,R,PD The complication of a child having one JW parent and one non-JW parent, is not considered at all here, and might be further complicated by the acceptance of gender roles, where, for example, a husband who is a non-JW demands that he be accepted as the "scriptural" spiritual head of the family. Also, even where the parent and child are in agreement, they may still be at odds with either the medical professionals or the HLC. The "law" of the superior authorities can also become a concern, and may also be a concern that the JW parent (or child) will see differently than the HLC based on their conscience. All these scenarios might be a clue as to why the Apostle Paul rejected the kind of Pharisaism that would try to account for all the various scenarios and merely left "legal" matters up to each individual conscience.

Haven't heard that expression in years. In Missouri, in 1966 just before I was baptized we actually had a whole Witness family in our congregation who were publicly reproved or "put on probation" or something like that for water witching. They had been doing this for years and somehow had come to think of it as a "service" they were providing for their fellow country neighbors who wanted to dig a well. Of course, in this part of Missouri, you could pretty much dig 50 feet down in any solid low area and find the aquifer.

@Witness Thanks for responding. Too much to respond to right now, but I never had the impression that many who claim to be of the anointed have concerns about doctrinal differences anyway. There are often quirky persons among them, but in my experience, they seem to be quite loyal to the GB, and among the GB themselves, they seem quite loyal to the existing doctrines.
Wasn't GB member Martin Poetzinger a person who had gone through Nazi persecution? He never spoke much when I was at Bethel, even though he was on the Governing Body, so I never heard him tell his own experiences, but I understand he spent a total of 8 or 9 years in concentration camps.