JW Insider

Yes. Good point. The paragraph that GF called rubbish was both true and false. Just like the opening post in this topic way back on page 1. I wasn't sure how much of it GF knew to be true, but the primary point was about what we do when something is partly true and partly false. Our instinct is often to dismiss it all, but labelling it ALL as rubbish might not be the right way to handle it.
Looks like GF just responded. I'll go read it and see if I misunderstood.

Good point again. It's easy to create an over-the-top persona and whip up a pile-on of up-votes to go with it. There appears to be a lot less of this in real life. But it's still something to be careful about. One of the elders in our congregation has created a kind of "formula" at the end of all his prayers over the last few years, where he thanks Jehovah for the Governing Body, then "redundantly" offers thanks for the  wonderful food provided by the Slave, through Jesus Christ. Amen.  He prayed at a backyard bar-b-que this summer and accidentally thanked Jehovah for "this food provided by the Slave."  I thought he meant one of our wives.

Good point again. It's easy to create an over-the-top persona and whip up a pile-on of up-votes to go with it. There appears to be a lot less of this in real life. But it's still something to be careful about. One of the elders in our congregation has created a kind of "formula" at the end of all his prayers over the last few years, where he thanks Jehovah for the Governing Body, then "redundantly" offers thanks for the  wonderful food provided by the Slave, through Jesus Christ. Amen.  He prayed at a backyard bar-b-que this summer and accidentally thanked Jehovah for "this food provided by the Slave."  I thought he meant one of our wives.

Not sure what you mean. What you showed is completely unrelated to Pleiades. Pleiades lore has never been "respectable academic anthropology."

Not sure what you mean. What you showed is completely unrelated to Pleiades. Pleiades lore has never been "respectable academic anthropology."

That has been true of many teachings that just get ignored long enough, and then no one has to be reminded (or surprised) that we ever taught such a thing. In the case of the Pleiades, however, this had been repeated in about 6 or 7 places, including Studies in the Scriptures (which were sold well into the 1930s) and it had been repeated in Watchtowers in the 1920s. It might have even gotten tangled up in the Photo-Drama of Creation. But remember too that back in the 1950's, the KH Library was the primary source for research, and the unwritten rule was that it was still "on the books" unless expressly changed. And it was one of those things that Rutherford had repeated in the 1920's and he had not changed during those years when he would positively "binge" on change from 1927 to 1931.
So it's true that it hadn't been mentioned for a couple of decades (unless we had "talk outlines" in the 1940's and 1950's that I don't know about.) But the real reason was scriptural. It was thought that continuing this teaching could result in a subtle idolatry or astrology:
*** w53 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
Hence it is useless to indulge in unprofitable speculations. Incidentally, Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the universe. Were we to think of the Pleiades as his throne we might improperly view with special veneration that cluster of stars.—Deut. 4:19; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18.  

I know that the counsel about not exposing dirty laundry is sincere, and for this I thank you. As far as I can tell, such counsel should not apply to this particular situation. Obviously, then, we see our duty in this regard quite differently, and so, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15,  I feel I should explain. 
The dirty laundry is already hung up for everyone to see. This is the Internet. Anyone can simply Google the information claimed in the original post of this topic, and they will discover that there is plenty more information out there. As usual, some of it is true and some of it is false.
So we are back to discussing the old dilemma about whether we should reveal truth in response to falsehood, or just ignore it. For the most part, we just ignore it. But there are times when it is obvious that the person posting does not necessarily know that the claims contain false charges. Or perhaps they know for sure that the information is skewed toward the false but that there is still some truth in it, and yet, other people who read the skewed information may not know what to believe. Perhaps they think it's all true, or all false. Perhaps their first instinct is to call the whole thing "rubbish." But what if calling something "rubbish" is not really honest either, because perhaps it contains more truth than falsehood? Is there any value to pointing out the error? What if an interested person who has Googled the information now sees us as a people who are just too anxious to cover up facts?
Through private messaging on this forum someone just asked me why I think JWs have so much turnover. I know that we are always anxious to say that our moral standards and expectations are very high and we are expected to judge those people who leave on their own as persons who just didn't want to live up to those expectations. But in speaking to many of these persons, we often come away with a different picture. I think it's more of a matter of realizing that nothing is quite as perfect as it appears at first. When people first study and are baptized, it is with the understanding that we have the only true religion in the entire earth. Therefore, it is expected to be the most perfect. Even though they are warned that it isn't perfect, it still sets up the highest expectations. Then they learn that not all the brothers and sisters live up to the moral standards as well as they expected. They learn about or perhaps see examples of lack of love, or even racism, shunning, child abuse, or gossip. When they are disappointed, they often start to believe that there is no religion that is really what it claims to be, and they often leave all religion altogether. In spite of the focus of ex-JWs online, I think it's rarely about past JW or IBSA history, or related issues with doctrine.
If this were merely about the error of a brother or sister who made a false step in the past, then we would do best to just ignore it. Love covers a multitude of sins. But what if the errors are being denied specifically because it would reflect on the trustworthiness of current doctrine?
That last question reminds me of your own statement here:
Does telling the truth about the past undermine respect for information we now get from the same channel? What you said appears to be an inadvertent admission that it does. If it does, then it is probably all the more important that we offer a true and honest perspective. I should mention that personally, I don't even see much real importance in wallowing in the problems of yesterday or last week, much less the problems of 100 years ago. This applies to the Governing Body, too. I know that one person here often comments that no one should try to use the past examples of Bible Students to shed light on our current beliefs as JWs, even if we consider the same "Governing Body" to have begun in 1919. But I don't even consider the Governing Body of last year to be the exact same "channel" as the Governing Body of this year, even if they be the same persons. That's partly because none of us are expected to be the same from day to day:
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18) 16 . . .  certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. . . . 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting. On the other hand, it must necessarily be the case that if an honest approach to the Governing Body's past can undermine the respect for the present Governing Body, then this is almost a direct admission that both the present and the past is being misrepresented. And, of course, it's easy to show that we regularly misrepresent our past almost every time we print a book about it or make a claim about it. We do it as individual humans and we do it as an organization. It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are. It's what's behind the instinct to call something "obviously rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbledygook" even if it's more true than false. (That's the reason that I included that paragraph about Rutherford that you reviewed as you did. In fact, there was a lot more truth to it than falsehood. Not just as a Bible Student, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Rutherford really did believe that the holy spirit was no longer available to us after 1918, and that new truths could now be revealed with the direct help of angels. And the idea that Jehovah's throne was in Alcyone, the brightest star of Pleiades, was still being promoted and taught from the 1880's into the 1930's, and not dropped officially until well into Knorr's presidency in November 1953. Details available upon request.)
One of the most dangerous problems among many Witnesses that we can see today is the equivalence that is made between the Governing Body and Jehovah. Surely this is what serves the same interests of the one behind spiritism. Idolatry is also something Jehovah hates.
On this forum, several persons who have presented themselves as sincere Witnesses have recently said that the way we "follow the Lamb wherever he goes," is to follow the Governing Body wherever they go. They have said that they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR than to accept the Bible where it is known to differ from the current teachings of the Governing Body. The slave has become greater than his master. Witnesses here have defended having this kind of faith in men even where they KNOW personally that something is amiss.
This is a good reason to be completely honest, and not try to whitewash either the present or the past. I think it's important to show that we are not trying to please men, and to make it clear why we should NOT put our faith in princes, nobles, or any humans, where we feel that faith is related to salvation:
(Psalm 146:3) “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." (Luke 16:15) “. . .For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

I know that the counsel about not exposing dirty laundry is sincere, and for this I thank you. As far as I can tell, such counsel should not apply to this particular situation. Obviously, then, we see our duty in this regard quite differently, and so, in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15,  I feel I should explain. 
The dirty laundry is already hung up for everyone to see. This is the Internet. Anyone can simply Google the information claimed in the original post of this topic, and they will discover that there is plenty more information out there. As usual, some of it is true and some of it is false.
So we are back to discussing the old dilemma about whether we should reveal truth in response to falsehood, or just ignore it. For the most part, we just ignore it. But there are times when it is obvious that the person posting does not necessarily know that the claims contain false charges. Or perhaps they know for sure that the information is skewed toward the false but that there is still some truth in it, and yet, other people who read the skewed information may not know what to believe. Perhaps they think it's all true, or all false. Perhaps their first instinct is to call the whole thing "rubbish." But what if calling something "rubbish" is not really honest either, because perhaps it contains more truth than falsehood? Is there any value to pointing out the error? What if an interested person who has Googled the information now sees us as a people who are just too anxious to cover up facts?
Through private messaging on this forum someone just asked me why I think JWs have so much turnover. I know that we are always anxious to say that our moral standards and expectations are very high and we are expected to judge those people who leave on their own as persons who just didn't want to live up to those expectations. But in speaking to many of these persons, we often come away with a different picture. I think it's more of a matter of realizing that nothing is quite as perfect as it appears at first. When people first study and are baptized, it is with the understanding that we have the only true religion in the entire earth. Therefore, it is expected to be the most perfect. Even though they are warned that it isn't perfect, it still sets up the highest expectations. Then they learn that not all the brothers and sisters live up to the moral standards as well as they expected. They learn about or perhaps see examples of lack of love, or even racism, shunning, child abuse, or gossip. When they are disappointed, they often start to believe that there is no religion that is really what it claims to be, and they often leave all religion altogether. In spite of the focus of ex-JWs online, I think it's rarely about past JW or IBSA history, or related issues with doctrine.
If this were merely about the error of a brother or sister who made a false step in the past, then we would do best to just ignore it. Love covers a multitude of sins. But what if the errors are being denied specifically because it would reflect on the trustworthiness of current doctrine?
That last question reminds me of your own statement here:
Does telling the truth about the past undermine respect for information we now get from the same channel? What you said appears to be an inadvertent admission that it does. If it does, then it is probably all the more important that we offer a true and honest perspective. I should mention that personally, I don't even see much real importance in wallowing in the problems of yesterday or last week, much less the problems of 100 years ago. This applies to the Governing Body, too. I know that one person here often comments that no one should try to use the past examples of Bible Students to shed light on our current beliefs as JWs, even if we consider the same "Governing Body" to have begun in 1919. But I don't even consider the Governing Body of last year to be the exact same "channel" as the Governing Body of this year, even if they be the same persons. That's partly because none of us are expected to be the same from day to day:
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18) 16 . . .  certainly the man we are inside is being renewed from day to day. . . . 18 while we keep our eyes, not on the things seen, but on the things unseen. For the things seen are temporary, but the things unseen are everlasting. On the other hand, it must necessarily be the case that if an honest approach to the Governing Body's past can undermine the respect for the present Governing Body, then this is almost a direct admission that both the present and the past is being misrepresented. And, of course, it's easy to show that we regularly misrepresent our past almost every time we print a book about it or make a claim about it. We do it as individual humans and we do it as an organization. It's a common human failing to want to be seen as better than we really are. It's what's behind the instinct to call something "obviously rubbish" and "nonsensical gobbledygook" even if it's more true than false. (That's the reason that I included that paragraph about Rutherford that you reviewed as you did. In fact, there was a lot more truth to it than falsehood. Not just as a Bible Student, but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Rutherford really did believe that the holy spirit was no longer available to us after 1918, and that new truths could now be revealed with the direct help of angels. And the idea that Jehovah's throne was in Alcyone, the brightest star of Pleiades, was still being promoted and taught from the 1880's into the 1930's, and not dropped officially until well into Knorr's presidency in November 1953. Details available upon request.)
One of the most dangerous problems among many Witnesses that we can see today is the equivalence that is made between the Governing Body and Jehovah. Surely this is what serves the same interests of the one behind spiritism. Idolatry is also something Jehovah hates.
On this forum, several persons who have presented themselves as sincere Witnesses have recently said that the way we "follow the Lamb wherever he goes," is to follow the Governing Body wherever they go. They have said that they would rather follow the Governing Body into KNOWN ERROR than to accept the Bible where it is known to differ from the current teachings of the Governing Body. The slave has become greater than his master. Witnesses here have defended having this kind of faith in men even where they KNOW personally that something is amiss.
This is a good reason to be completely honest, and not try to whitewash either the present or the past. I think it's important to show that we are not trying to please men, and to make it clear why we should NOT put our faith in princes, nobles, or any humans, where we feel that faith is related to salvation:
(Psalm 146:3) “Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs." (Luke 16:15) “. . .For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight."

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew!
Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!
 

Well, after viewing that GIF, you've convinced ME!
( pours handful of pills back into bottle, and gives the glass of milk to the cat ....)

Yes.
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
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. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible . . . *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “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. . . . 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. I should add that the writer of the 2007 article still believed that the first resurrection had already begun at some point "soon after Christ's presence began." But the only initial premise starts out within the following range:
*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Now look at chapter 17 of Revelation. We read there that after the destruction of “Babylon the Great,” the Lamb will conquer the nations. Then it adds: “Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him will do so.” (Revelation 17:5, 14) “Called and chosen and faithful” ones must already have been resurrected if they are to be with Jesus for the final defeat of Satan’s world. Reasonably, then, anointed ones who die before Armageddon are resurrected sometime between 1914 and Armageddon. The attempts to get closer than that rest on very flimsy evidence, even bordering on spiritism: the idea that Rutherford potentially communicated with the dead.
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Many in Christendom believe that persons who die are still alive as spirit creatures, and the Bible says that communicating with these spirit creatures is spiritism:
(Revelation 21:7, 8) . . .. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth . . . and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.
 

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.
The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.
The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.
So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.
 

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.
I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.
One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . . When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.” Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains: “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”  

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.
The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.
The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.
So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.
 

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article. When it comes to the thoughts of early Christianity, I can only assume that "a god" is closer and much better than translating "the God." (THE God is understood, of course, by just translating "God" in a monotheistic context.) But I think that Paul explains it even better by saying:
(Philippians 2:6-10) 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 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— (Colossians 2:8-10) . . .to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.
 
The basic idea is shown in the word for "godship" is pretty much the same as our word "divinity."
*** Rbi8 Colossians 2:9 ***
“Divine quality.” Lit., “godship.” Gr., the·oʹte·tos; Lat., di·vi·ni·taʹtis. *** Rbi8 Romans 1:20 ***
“Godship.” Gr., Thei·oʹtes, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹni·tas. *** Rbi8 Acts 17:29 ***
“Divine Being.” Gr., Theiʹon, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹnum. But although very common, the definite article is not always necessary to refer to THE God. It's still sometimes dependent on context. We don't translate "In a beginning, the Word . . . " just because the definite article is missing. And it could go either way here in John 1:49
(John 1:49) . . .Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (NWT) This would just as proper as:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” (not NWT, but common in other translations) But it would sound odd to say:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are a King of Israel.” But I think even this last one is just as OK as saying "a god" in John 1:1. That's because there might have been so much emphasis on the word "King." It's as if Nathanial was saying, you are not just here as a man, you are here as a KING!!!
I think that's quite possibly a way to look at John 1:1. Saying "a god" is just fine as long as we remember that the point was saying the same thing, that Jesus was not just in heaven as any other angelic being, but Jesus was in heaven as a GOD!!!
 

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.
I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.
One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . . When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.” Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains: “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”  

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.
This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).
Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.
Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)
So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)
But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.
But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.
But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.
John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.
This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).
Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.
Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)
So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)
But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.
But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.
But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.
John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that:
This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to:
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame. (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? 
In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run.
(Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.
Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

Those are actually excellent rules for getting rid of a person who comes to your door to sell you something you don't want. There is nothing "military" about them. I've used them myself on people who call at the door selling goods and services or political candidates. We should all learn from such rules how to be direct and honest with people, instead of being vacillating. I'm impressed.
Now as to the Catholic doctrines which are listed below, these are the ideas that we should be able to rebut. But we should not be overly concerned just because some Catholics might be able to learn ways to be more honest with us. We should be appreciative, so that we can spend our time on persons who are looking for something better.

All anonymous! None of it's any good! No one was qualified!
I'm quitting this religious gig and enrolling in college! There everyone is qualified. I know they are because they all went to college themselves.
I just hope that idiot dropout Bill Gates doesn't come around or the ghost of Steve Jobs. They are not qualified either and I just trashed my iPad and my laptop on that account. If my wife can prove she has a Home Economics degree, I'll ask her to make me coffee.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of who they work for or who they speak for, or even if 99.9% of scientists all said the same thing. In past millennia when "science" was more of an art, it was possible for 100% of "scientists" to be wrong about a premise or hypothesis. (And of course I'm not talking about being wrong in the sense that Isaac Newton was supposedly wrong just because Einstein and others came along and improved on the physics out at the extremes of experience.)
The only relevant question is whether there is data to support the idea that humans are having an effect on the earth's climate. If a few conservatives had discovered data to support this idea, liberals might be going crazy trying to deny it. If a few liberals had discovered data to support this idea, conservatives might be going crazy trying to deny it. That's why it's best to just look at the data, and not who is presenting the data. Otherwise we are more interested in the ad hominem argument instead of the facts themselves. Besides, remember how often you yourself have pointed out that even if Satan himself (aka Al Gore?) were to present truth then it's still truth. 

TTH:
Perhaps I will fire up my old software, "Dragon Naturally Speaking, Version 12", (DNS) which I bought to write MY books with, and it will transcribe my voice almost as fast as I can speak with about 99.5% accuracy, and get into a phone book long debate, just for the fun of it.
I have been trying to use previous versions over many years, and it (for me) was all hopeful thinking junk.
I wasted money on all that came before version 12.
Version  12  evolved into a TERRIFIC piece of software.
So good, I have NOT considered an upgrade.
Remember though ... I used to do Solar Insolation calculations for a living, at $105 an hour ( plus per diem ) ... and if I did not understand what I was doing the engineering firms I worked for would fire me in an instant.
I am also an avid amateur astronomer and amateur astro-physicists only to the level of popular science magazines such as "Scientific American" BUT I can naturally visualize energy transfers between materials, and thermal inertias and dynamics .... it drives my wife crazy I gush about how light and energies beyond visible light bounce off, and is absorbed by things,  when I am driving.
I use Reverse Polish Notation math, and she teaches Algebra in High School .... a completely different way of thinking.
One problem with extended debates is that the watchers often do not have enough background to understand  ANYTHING ... except that someone appears to be losing, and someone appears to be winning ... and If I did it .. it would be to teach physics and astronomy, and the laws of thermodynamics, for the fun of it.
I care NOTHING about winning for the sake of winning.
Except perhaps in a gun fight.
Besides, one of my dogs had an "accident" in the corner of my writing room, and I have to clean up dog poop.
After that, I am fixing us blueberry pancakes for breakfast.
I will try not to get those three  jobs  mixed up.
In the meantime ... see if Ebay will sell you an old version of DNS version 12, cheap ... it's worth the search, and you may want to carefully read Wikipedia's article on Milankovitch cycles, at the following link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Those two  are extremely helpful.
So is winning a gun fight.
.
 

You gotta lot of moxie, JWI .... even Jesus did not slander Satan.

Come on, big boy - have at it. Seriously. I really want to see it. I will even allow that I probably fall into your camp on this, but I want to hear the other side from someone informed yet not obnoxious or condescending and @JW Insiderseems good to go and I have extracted a promise from him to keep his submissions under the length of a phone book.
I probably won't join in much because I agree with @Queen Esther that it is not the prime issue for a Christian, but that does not mean it's not something well to hear both sides of. 
If you hang out on one side, you will think the other side global elitists who want to use concocted  'climate change' as a wedge to advance unlimited government intervention. If you hang out with the other side, you will think the climate change 'denyers' (itself a term of ridicule) are self-centered greedy people who gladly sell their own grandchildren down the river so they can enjoy their profits and high living now.
It is typical of the way the world addresses anything today and is the reason the system will not be missed when it is replaced by the kingdom. Two big stupid animals ramming each other with their horns: THAT is the image you want to send into outer space to tell any aliens how we run things here. 
The moment has arrived. right here on the World Media News forum, to begin a civil and informed discussion - the first one ever about anything. History will be made. In heaven they will say: 'you know, people can get along, they are not the basket cases we thought they were - maybe it's time to feel regret over our plans.' 'Why don't you be wise and make MY heart rejoice for a change,' says the Devil. 'Come on! Just once show that people outside of theocratic concerns can talk to the other side without resorting to hurling insults.'
Do not shrink back. Advertise advertise advertise the claims of one side or the other and let the inquisitive reader decide!