JW Insider

I have been in contact with a couple research coordinators at the British Museum and one has already met with me twice in person this week. I meet another one tomorrow. I have been working from a list of questions, some of which are common questions from religious circles, and some of which are a little more specific to the interest of JWs. It's not that any one person can answer the questions but I can get good leads on recent, ongoing and upcoming research projects. I have found that when I want to contact someone who is working on a project that being able to say I spoke to so-and-so at the BM (or similar place) is an excellent way to start out.
My list of questions have included the following topics and research areas. In some of the topics I have dozens of specific questions already on my list. The general topics below might remind anyone of their own questions they might have always wanted to ask someone.
The earliest evidence of the use of a cross among Christians. Any Christian and Christian-related iconography prior to 200 C.E. Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Greek research on chronology from about 750 to 400-ish B.C.E. Habitation/Population evidence of Israel/Judea/Palestine from 740 to 605 to 589 to 539 to 518 B.C.E. etc. Questions related to identities of rulers mentioned in Daniel Questions about the date of the death of Herod the Great Questions about the identification of the Pharaohs who interacted with Israelites Linguistic "crossover" from Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew in religious subjects (priesthood, circumcision, temple-related artifacts) Religion of the Canaanite-related people before and during the Israelite conquest Dead Sea Scrolls as they relate to Second Temple period, and Essene, early Pharisee, and early Christian traditions  
(I am here for more than a week, staying across from Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park -- also here for a wedding.)
 

Did she think, perhaps, that your memes contained a hint of insensitivity, or something even worse?

We would assume that Michael, the archangel, became a fetus, a baby, then a toddler, then a young boy, then went through puberty, and became a young man, and then a full grown man who gave himself over to the authorities to be killed. This should give us a glimpse into the level of humility and love shown:
(Philippians 2:7-11) 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Michael means "Who is like God?" and Immanuel means "With us is God." The Bible never makes a specific point about identifying Michael as either Jesus or Immanuel or Christ. But this is not so different from Matthew saying that he will be called Immanuel, and yet we never hear Jesus called Immanual anywhere either. He was mostly called Jesus, Savior, Rabbi, son of man, son of God, and Messiah (Christ), etc.
I know this wasn't necessarily your point in bringing it up, but a lot of people think we are the only religion that ever thought of claiming that Michael was the same as Jesus Christ prior to his earthly presence. The idea had been around for many years before Jehovah's Witnesses came along. 

My guess is that they all had return tickets, but not for leaving immediately after a negative outcome. I think they couldn't know in advance how long the case would take.
In the international company I worked for up until I retired about 5 years ago it would be against the fiduciary responsibilities toward the shareholders to have 18 lawyers and officers of the company on the same airplane. Seriously!! 

I don't buy this, either. Was he under the influence of Satan? Sure. But who isn't in the realm of 'man ruling man to his injury?'
It's even true with Putin. I wouldn't want to live in Russia. However those who already do seem not in a hurry to get out, short of some well-publicized ones and now those for religious reasons. It is but another form of human rulership. Not everything is atrocious about it. Some things are better.
If you try to peer in his pants and tell of his soiled underwear, he gets mad. Keep out of his way, and usually you do fine. In all lands it is: 'ask the king his ground rules for maintaining public order, and then do them.' Our life is not about human rule. Do what he says and get on with life. Of course, when he turns against you, siding with the house Church, you are up the crick and our brothers have it very tough for a time. The only caveat is that they are used to it, as we would not be.
Does Putin amass wealth for himself? American politicians do no less. They come in poor and they leave wealthy. They come in wealthy and the leave wealthier. Trump is one of the few who go against the pattern. He comes in wealthy and sees his interests take a hit.
I also don't buy that the top guy of almost any system of government is a thug. As often as not they are conscious of a responsibility to govern and provide for the public good. As far as I can see, it is true of Putin. The trouble is, these guys think that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. They all think it. The problem with a system of concentrated power is that they are able to implement it. But that does not mean that their intention of providing public service for the citizenry is phony.
 

a load of croc

Dark, anti-religious poetry does not make one a Satanist. I think it was best explained in a couple of short reviews for a book currently for sale on Am-a-zon called, "Was Karl Marx a Satanist?"
Marx was an atheist Jew. He neither believed in the Christian conception of Satan, nor the Anton LeVay concept of Satan. The author offers no evidence, confusing mere hostility toward religion with Satanism, and offers some syntax-related conspiracy theories. "This sad book deosn't have any literary qualities whatsoever. This is pure Anti-semetic drivel full of ultra christian rhetoric from the extreme right. Marx was a philosopher and an idealist, this book doesnt examine him in anyway whatseoever it just descends into religious rants." By the way, you have got to be the most interesting person to read on this forum and I always enjoy your politically-oriented comments. You do not come at the world's issues with the typical Eurocentric myopia that drives so many others (and which usually drives Adventist-style prophetic explanations, for that matter). Naturally, I disagree with a lot of what you say, too, but this doesn't much change the overall value of hearing your opinion on things.

I found the article, and read several of the other ones, too. (At least in a Google Translation from Italian to English.) I thought that most of your articles were very clear, and I appreciate that you are asking good questions about the many gaps and inconsistencies in our current explanations. Since Daniel is a book that many of us have just recently been reading in our Bible reading schedules, I think a separate topic would be great and timely. It would have to be under "Controversial Posts" because, of course, even the potential existence of gaps and inconsistencies is something that many of us must deny.
I have not yet come up with a good explanation that resolves all the gaps, although, the vast majority of them are automatically resolved by just accepting certain verses at face value, instead of imposing unlikely interpretations of them. Still, prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation are some of the most intriguing and I have not considered any of my digging to be conclusive. I can tell you have put a lot of thought and time into understanding them through scriptural references. I must tell you right from the start that my approach is similar, in always using other scriptures to find explanations, or just admit that we won't know if no specific scriptural support can be found. Still, even though you apparently think in the same terms, I can tell that we will still disagree on most of our current opinions. Of course, different opinions are just fine with me . . . so I still think a further discussion is worth the while.  

Furthermore, while I am more well-read than many, college had nothing to do with it.
I once calculated I had read 55 of the 100 'most important books in history' on a list put out by the BBC. Nobody I encountered had read more.
I read almost all of them via 'Books on Tape' while working a humdrum job in which only my body had to be engaged, but my mind remained mine. Possibly I can credit college with stimulating an already existing appreciation of reading. But it's a rather expensive route just to take away that lesson. I'll share it for free: Read.
(that'll be $5.99, please)
And even with all that reading, I have found Bible-based literature to be the best framework for evaluating everything else, simple though that writing is.
 

Dark, anti-religious poetry does not make one a Satanist. I think it was best explained in a couple of short reviews for a book currently for sale on Am-a-zon called, "Was Karl Marx a Satanist?"
Marx was an atheist Jew. He neither believed in the Christian conception of Satan, nor the Anton LeVay concept of Satan. The author offers no evidence, confusing mere hostility toward religion with Satanism, and offers some syntax-related conspiracy theories. "This sad book deosn't have any literary qualities whatsoever. This is pure Anti-semetic drivel full of ultra christian rhetoric from the extreme right. Marx was a philosopher and an idealist, this book doesnt examine him in anyway whatseoever it just descends into religious rants." By the way, you have got to be the most interesting person to read on this forum and I always enjoy your politically-oriented comments. You do not come at the world's issues with the typical Eurocentric myopia that drives so many others (and which usually drives Adventist-style prophetic explanations, for that matter). Naturally, I disagree with a lot of what you say, too, but this doesn't much change the overall value of hearing your opinion on things.

I found the article, and read several of the other ones, too. (At least in a Google Translation from Italian to English.) I thought that most of your articles were very clear, and I appreciate that you are asking good questions about the many gaps and inconsistencies in our current explanations. Since Daniel is a book that many of us have just recently been reading in our Bible reading schedules, I think a separate topic would be great and timely. It would have to be under "Controversial Posts" because, of course, even the potential existence of gaps and inconsistencies is something that many of us must deny.
I have not yet come up with a good explanation that resolves all the gaps, although, the vast majority of them are automatically resolved by just accepting certain verses at face value, instead of imposing unlikely interpretations of them. Still, prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation are some of the most intriguing and I have not considered any of my digging to be conclusive. I can tell you have put a lot of thought and time into understanding them through scriptural references. I must tell you right from the start that my approach is similar, in always using other scriptures to find explanations, or just admit that we won't know if no specific scriptural support can be found. Still, even though you apparently think in the same terms, I can tell that we will still disagree on most of our current opinions. Of course, different opinions are just fine with me . . . so I still think a further discussion is worth the while.  

I agree that it is a red flag if we do not cooperate. (Although you weren't clear on who you meant by "them.")
But the second part of what you said there might be ambiguous. Did you mean it is a red flag if you do call them rulers, or a red flag if you do not call them rulers? I assume you meant the organizing shepherds who care for us in the new system. But "them" in the quote above appears to speak of "red flags" in the present. This is why I'm confused as to whether you might be saying it's a red flag now to not call them rulers.

Your take on this is interesting. I agree that there is a gap in the Watchtower's reasoning here. This was just barely touched upon at the convention this summer. I watched your video but didn't go to your site. Can you say what you think is a more likely view of the King of the North and South in your opinion?

I never have supported a false claim about the Watchtower's statements in 1989. And I don't plan on starting to support any such false claims now.

I found the article, and read several of the other ones, too. (At least in a Google Translation from Italian to English.) I thought that most of your articles were very clear, and I appreciate that you are asking good questions about the many gaps and inconsistencies in our current explanations. Since Daniel is a book that many of us have just recently been reading in our Bible reading schedules, I think a separate topic would be great and timely. It would have to be under "Controversial Posts" because, of course, even the potential existence of gaps and inconsistencies is something that many of us must deny.
I have not yet come up with a good explanation that resolves all the gaps, although, the vast majority of them are automatically resolved by just accepting certain verses at face value, instead of imposing unlikely interpretations of them. Still, prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation are some of the most intriguing and I have not considered any of my digging to be conclusive. I can tell you have put a lot of thought and time into understanding them through scriptural references. I must tell you right from the start that my approach is similar, in always using other scriptures to find explanations, or just admit that we won't know if no specific scriptural support can be found. Still, even though you apparently think in the same terms, I can tell that we will still disagree on most of our current opinions. Of course, different opinions are just fine with me . . . so I still think a further discussion is worth the while.  

That is always true when I use my right to bear arms ....
(... may not translate across languages ... )

Nice phrase. This sums up nearly the entire story of the world since nearly the beginning of the world.

Your take on this is interesting. I agree that there is a gap in the Watchtower's reasoning here. This was just barely touched upon at the convention this summer. I watched your video but didn't go to your site. Can you say what you think is a more likely view of the King of the North and South in your opinion?

I never have supported a false claim about the Watchtower's statements in 1989. And I don't plan on starting to support any such false claims now.

This is strange. Everything else you said in the paragraph that this quote came from is very true. But this particular sentence quoted here is false. It would also be completely irrelevant to a printed document or an electronic version of a printed document. The Y2K problem (which the Society cared nothing about in 1989) would not have made a 2017 CD-ROM a 1917 CD-ROM any more than it would have made it a pre-Gutenberg 1317 CD-ROM. Your claim is meaningless. The CD-ROM programs from the Watchtower that came out in 1993 can still be made to work today. I think 1993 was the first one. 
There never was an impending disaster coming from Y2K. And there will not be one arising from the 2038 Unix Millennium Bug either. (An upgrade to the operating system can make over 99% of the 2038 bug go away immediately without changing software.) The original Y2K bug could cause problems in a whole range of areas, and most of us in IT had to waste several years of our careers becoming our own QA departments, certifying that all our programs were going to work without a glitch. My own department's programs were mostly in C during those years (and a little bit of dBase+Clipper, Turbo Pascal, Excel Macros) but relied on mainframe feeds mostly through SQL+DB2. But I was also surprised that so many of the COBOL programs we checked had already worked around the Y2K problem even without storing 4-character years. That even goes for solving financial range problems that crossed January 1, 2000 and/or February 29, 2000.

@JW Insider
Oh yes! I have FORTUNATELY (FORTUNE) ? met you. Keep up the Good Works Brother.
The only destiny I know is Jehovah God and the New World ? and maybe a new husband in view! I’ll take it all! I’m not greedy? 
????????

It has been my good fortune to ... ah, no. Fortune......Luckily I ....no, strike that. Luck It is my good destiny to .....um, no..strike again. Destiny. What a wonderful quirk of fate that ....uh oh ...Fate    
Ah, forget it!
 

Why don't you just make it simple and say "Unforseen circumstantially....." or something?

Hah! I noticed this little blast from the past (and present for many of us, too). Hard to believe that so many of us fell for this little mix-up between which word was the better one to use and which was not so good. Turns out that "LUCK" was more than likely just a term for success or loss that came into English from middle German where a lot of gaming and gambling terms came from in the 1500s. So we all replaced it with a word based on FORTUNE, which had been personified as a false Roman goddess during Bible times. Even when it came into English the earliest known instance is in the phrase "Dame Fortune."
Even in the Bible, the word translated "fortune" was associated with bad things:
(Leviticus 20:27) 27 “‘Any man or woman who acts as a spirit medium or is a fortune-teller should be put to death without fail. . . . of course, it was based on the translation of
(Isaiah 65:11) 11 “But YOU men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck. . . But the foot-note for that verse says
*** Rbi8 Isaiah 65:11 ***
“For the god of Good Luck.” Heb., lag·gadhʹ; LXX, “the demon”; Lat., For·tuʹnae. Compare Ge 30:11 ftns. Of course if you follow the footnotes for Genesis 30:11 you see that the same word for "Luck" here is translated "Fortune" in Genesis:
(Genesis 30:10, 11) . . .. 11 Then Leʹah said: “With good fortune!” So she called his name Gad. The name of the tribe was "Luck" just as "laggadh' basically means "to Luck" if the footnote for Isaiah 65:11 is correct. Or Isaiah was referring to the god of Fortune, if the footnote to Genesis 30:11 is correct.
It was about as silly as saying that we shouldn't say something was "destined" to occur, because this somehow invokes the god of Destiny.
(Luke 9:44) . . .for the Son of man is destined to be delivered into the hands of men.” (Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion?”
(Isaiah 65:11) . . .And those filling up cups of mixed wine for the god of Destiny.

I never have supported a false claim about the Watchtower's statements in 1989. And I don't plan on starting to support any such false claims now.