JW Insider

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.
 
It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

Who has to cite scripture to know Armageddon did not occur in 1914?

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.
Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 
Yes. He was.
"Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the ''battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)
Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.
What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

Right. Worse, the supposed "God-Inspired Truth" that the society cited from The World Magazine as a fulfilled extraordinary prophecy turned out to be false, because what Russell had actually predicted, Armageddon, did not come in 1914 as foretold.
The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from capitalizing on the fantastic media coverage that article brought to their front door. The society is still riding that pony to this very day.

The book Proclaimers talks about it. But who reads it today? Quote:
In 1876, when Russell had first read a copy of Herald of the Morning, he had learned that there was another group who then believed that Christ’s return would be invisible and who associated that return with blessings for all families of the earth. From Mr. Barbour, editor of that publication, Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874. * Attention was later drawn to this by the  subtitle “Herald of Christ’s Presence,” which appeared on the cover of Zion’s Watch Tower.
So 40 years should have passed between the "invisible presence" and Armageddon, according to their calculation. (40 is a biblical number so they must have liked how it went together). But, I think the years kept moving in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus. I don't remember if it was Russell or someone before him who came up with the "invisible presence" idea. And I don't know if I can completely believe every statement and description of events from the book Proclaimers.
Planting testimony and moving events is a specialty of some at WTJWorg. We read in book also this.
Quote:
 At first, they thought that by that date the Kingdom of God would have obtained full, universal control. When that did not occur, their confidence in the Bible prophecies that marked the date did not waver. They concluded that, instead, the date had marked only a starting point as to Kingdom rule.
Similarly, they also first thought that global troubles culminating in anarchy (which they understood would be associated with the war of “the great day of God the Almighty”) would precede that date. (Rev. 16:14) But then, ten years before 1914, the Watch Tower suggested that worldwide turmoil that would result in the annihilating of human institutions would come right after the end of the Gentile Times.
If the book (Proclaiemrs) is to be believed, then this change in predictions is reminiscent of this year's Annual Meeting with "new knowledge" about events that began, according to the old explanation, but still did not begin, according to the new explanation.
Pure confusion or, in a word, Babylon.
This text in brackets is not part of the original, it was already added to WTJWorg in that 1993 brochure you quoted. So another manipulation. The JWs came about after one of the schisms within the Bible Students. 
I didn't notice this until today. The title of the chapter is disastrous for GB. Their (GB) resistance to the term "inspired" is belied by this subtitle, as they unwittingly admit that the "truths" (they state several in that chapter) about 1914 are "inspired". So, they completely denied themselves, claiming that they came to the "truth" through "guided by HS" and through "study" and through "guidance of angels". 
Chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”

The society has wrapped a great deal of its theology around the year 1914. Even the 1919 teaching you allude to stems from the 1914 date. I won’t go into tremendous detail here, but it’s worthy of note what put legs on the teaching so that it got the traction it was assigned by the society.
In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”. This chapter is primarily designed to steer individuals toward JWs as the source of ‘God-inspired truth’. Within that chapter the last section is titled “The Greatest Evidence of All”. There, being introduced as ‘the greatest of evidence’ is this paragraph:
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8 Ever since the momentous events of that year, so accurately foretold in the Bible alone, the whole world system of things has been in its “last days.” (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993129?q=%E2%80%9Cfulfilled+an+extraordinary+prophecy%E2%80%9C&p=par )
At the time, the article cited here published by The World Magazine really stirred tremendous interest in the teachings of Charles Russell. The article got prominent position on pages 4 and 17 of the magazine, and it feature one of Russell’s intriguing line graphs of the ages.
But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.
The article in question is dated August 30, 1914. Hence at the time the publisher had no idea how 1914 would turn out. But we know today. We know for a fact that Armageddon did not occur in 1914, which is what Russell and the Bible Students had foretold.
What this means is:
1) “The Greatest Evidence of All” is based on a claim of fulfilled prophecy made in secular publisher in The World Magazine. This is what put legs onto the 1914 "prophecy". A secular publisher.
2) And, the “The Greatest Evidence of All” is no evidence at all about truth, because, as it turns out, prior to 1914 what Russell actually predicted for 1914 (Armageddon) did not come true. The would-be prophecy was false. So, something that we know was false is cited as 'the greatest evidence' for truth. That's a lot to take in!
That’s what the ellipsis dots camouflage. And it’s about a flagship teaching of the society.

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.
1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.
2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.
3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.
4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).
 
5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.
 
6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.
7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.
If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 
 
The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.
There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

I'm not even sure where to start responding to this. It completely overlooks so much of what I've presented, going contrary to much of it.
1) I do not believe it required more faith to be a Christian in the first century. Why? I've said this before. The early Christians had men among them who were working miraculous feats. Curing sick people. Feeding thousands with a few fish and loaves. Raising the dead. It's not hard to put faith in teaching coming from such men. In large part this is what led to Jesus having followers in the first place. Though a very loving man and excellent speaker and teacher, he turned water wine, he healed the sick, he raised the dead. This was enough to draw anyone's attention. After the Christ's resurrection and ascension Christ's apostles had similar supernatural power. You can't really refute that if it's real and you're there to witness it, which means you're doing well to listen and accept what they teach.
2) Though the early Christians could easily accept teaching from men working supernatural miracles, Paul warned not to accept even what they ("we") say if it departed from what they had already taught them and began teaching something different than they had accepted from prior teaching. I don't see how you can dispute this latter point. Paul said it point blank. To deny this is to deny the legitimacy of what Paul said, or to read a preferential interpretation into the text. Notwithstanding all that, what was to happen when the men with supernatural power to work miracles disappeared in death? Their very presence presented a restraint of false teachings and teachers. The answer is that they left behind their own inspired written works (miracle workers with supernatural power can be assumed to be inspired to also write a legitimate record of events and teachings). The earliest Christians had the inspired words available up to that time, which Paul spoke of to Timothy. But the new witness of words that we call the Christian scriptures today was left by inspired men for sake of Christians to come.
3) I've studiously avoided suggesting that any Christian should, as you say, 'trust in their own interpretation of scripture'. To say this is to totally misunderstand what it means to form a logical conclusion. Logical conclusions are not the result of personal interpretation. It's to the contrary. Logical conclusions drive bias to the side and puts what can be proven sound to the front.
4) Yes, I agree with that for the early Christians with exposure to teachers with miraculous supernatural powers. These men were walking and talking tangible evidence that they were teachers of truth. But when these men were gone Christians needed to take great care that they were not mislead by new teachers, and they needed to remember which loyalty is priority, which is to God and not men (no matter what position they may hold as teachers/leaders). They also needed to guard against following they own interpretations. The answer was learning to reason from the scriptures. I have to believe that the biblical notion of reasoning from the scriptures was sound reasoning (logical) and not unsound reasoning (fallacious).
 
5) I agree with everything you say here with one exception, which I've underlined. It's a false bifurcation here to say if a) they found their own conscience was uninformed then b) they were to conform to the mind of the congregation. This argument wrongly presumes two things, 1) that there is no alternative other than a or b (which is why it it's a false bifurcation) and 2) that "the mind of the Congregation" is "informed". Here's my question to you on this point: What if your mind is uninformed and the Congregation's mind is also uninformed? What then? Think about that. There is an good solid answer to that question.
 
6) In the presence of inspired biblical text and the testimony of God creation all around us, no one should form belief based on "their own interpretation", meaning how they prefer to see things. That would be no more than believing what you want to believe solely because that's what you want to believe, something I categorically reject.
7) You ask "was their an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation". For early Christians who had the testimony of miracle workers with supernatural power, my answer would be yes, unless (or when) they changed their testimony. This latter point is what Paul warned against. This is why obedience to teachers and teaching has a limit. For Christians that came after the men with supernatural power, they had the testimony left behind in the new witness which we call the Christian scriptures. Any teaching asserted based on the bible since the men with supernatural powers would have to conform to sound (logical) conclusions based on the testimony already given and codified as the Bible.
If the question is whether God expects us to obey Him ahead of whomever He may have placed in an appointed position, then we have to look to examples that test that question. This is why the incident of Aaron standing in passive support of God's appointed spokesman (Moses) is important. It succinct fashion it provides a very important object lesson. If we want to worship God then we have to obey Him no matter what anyone else tells us, even if that other person has, or is thought to have, divinely appointed authority. 
 
The priest at the ancient tabernacle in the wilderness had something standing above them that was unmistakable. It was a supernatural phenomena of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This made it pretty clear that what was coming from the priests should be followed because that supernatural phenomena demonstrated God's approval of what they were doing there. If you want to look to the priesthood to examine the question of whether a worshiper should passively support a wrong teaching or sin (like in the instance at Meribah) then you need to find and share an incident that tests that question, which you haven't done. We know Jews were told to obey the priests. But what about when those priests told somebody to do something wrong, or wanted someone to support them in wrongdoing? Were they supposed to obey them then?  Ultimately, though, Israel insisted on having a king like the nations around them, and God appointed a King over Israel. The first one was Saul. Saul went bad. Though he was the anointed of God, he went bad. David would not act to remove Saul from his position because God had installed him as king. But David did not obey Saul because he knew Saul could not be trusted. This, too, was another incident demonstrating that our loyalty/obedience to God appointed authority has limitations. If it was true of Moses, whose was "God" to Aaron, then it was also true of the priesthood of Israel.
There is too much here so that time does not allow me to proof read. If something is misspelled or you have a question of anything please just ask. I have yet to see anyone post a thing suggesting that there is not an appropriate limitation to our obedience toward leaders we look toward as teachers. You recognize that somewhat, and I respect that. But I'd recommend you spend some time honing your skills of logical construction. Learning how to reason soundly helps a person avoid the trap of falling for their own bad ideas, preference and/or biases, and it also helps us recognize unsound teaching coming from others.

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.
I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.
So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.
I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 
So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 
Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

It takes intellectual courage to do this. To investigate other positions fairly, and with an open mind, not only because we fear that we might currently be wrong, but also because we fear we might not presently know enough to keep ourselves from being deceived if we openly consider other positions. Intellectually stepping outside of one’s own tradition, and sincerely considering other traditions, takes courage and a kind of faith that there is truth to be found. Refusing to consider other traditions allows one to preserve the security of one’s own tradition. But for the truth lover, the risk of being deceived is worth taking, because one might presently be deceived, and the only way to find out is to start digging. That act of digging is like Peter’s act of stepping out on the water, it is uncertain, but it is willing to allow itself to be insecure and uncertain, in order that it might be lifted up by the truth.
I don’t think anyone is well enough to avoid error absolutely, but some people are better at avoiding error than others. When we work together as a community, we can help each other out, those with strengths in an area helping those with weaknesses in that area. So by jumping into the discussion, whether we are weak or strong, we can grow. When we look at someone’s evidence or examine an argument, it’s very important to determine if the assumptions and methodology at work in what people write or say are true. Once we know the difference we can begin to see who is using sophistry. 
As my friend said, "we have to eschew sophistry, and pursue truth, even when it hurts, even when it cuts us open, even when it takes away all our pseudo security and leaves us in a fog. Our heart must cry out: truth or die. We all know the Bonhoeffer line: “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” But Christ is the Truth. And when Truth calls a man, he bids him come and die. Sophistry and truth-loving cannot go together; to choose one is to reject the other. If you wish to join us, you have to set aside sophistry, come and die with us, pursuing truth. Those who pursue truth also pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. Those who do not pursue truth, do not pursue charity and the unity to which charity is directed. For that reason, sophistry is incompatible with our mission. Only truth-seekers (who are the genuine unity-seekers) may truly participate here; sophists couldn’t participate in our activity, even if they tried. It might look similar, but it would be a completely different activity, and that would start to become clear as the sophists refused to refute objections to their arguments, or modify their position when it was shown to be false. To participate, they would need to turn away from sophistry and take up the cross of the truth-seeker.

@Many Miles @George88 Witness recognize a hierarchy of authorities, similar to what the centurion in Scripture says in Matthew 8:9 and Luke 7:8, and found clearly in the epistles. The authority of someone lower in the hierarchy does not subvert the higher authority, but depends upon it, without reducing to it.
So applying the Apostles’ statement (Acts 5:29) to Aaron that we should obey God rather than men in is not a rejection of divinely established hierarchy. It is rather the claim that when human authorities oppose divine authority, then we must obey divine authority. Thus, rightly interpreted, the truth that we should obey God rather than men is not a justification for rebellion against divinely established authority, it is rather a recognition that rebellion against God on the part of those who have been given such authority does not require those over whom they have been given authority to follow them in that rebellion; indeed, we must not follow rebellious leaders in their rebellion against God. At the same time, the standard for obedience to God isn’t one’s own interpretation of Scripture, such that any leader who doesn’t conform to one’s own interpretation of Scripture is ipso facto in rebellion and therefore can rightfully be disregarded. That notion would eliminate the very possibility of a Governing Body.
I’m concerned we are perhaps glossing over the essential role of the interpreter and the interpretative framework they each bring to scripture.
So in order to determine whether it's right for us Christians to go against the Congregation's authorities, (like your example of Aaron) we need to know the principled difference between those situations in which one is justified in acting against the Congregation authorities, and those situations in which one is not justified in acting against them. Otherwise, the individual JW could treat every case in which he disagrees with the Congregation as a case justifying his acting against the Congregation. The Bible is just as adamant against vigilante Christianity as it is about false prophets. You will not find anywhere in the scriptures vigilante Christians ever praised for rebelling against lawfully ordained authority on the basis of their private interpretation of scripture. There being a standard by which acts of both the Governing Body and those who hold the office can be judged (and ought to be judged) is fully compatible both with Jehovah's Witnesses not being their own ultimate interpretive authority.
So no one is expecting any JW to be a blind follower, but God does expect them to distinguish between when they have such prerogatives and when they don't.
Jesus nor the apostles opposition to the authorities of their time serve as precedent, since they themselves were the new authority in Israel, as God’s Son and his commissioned apostles. Jesus opposers (Jewish leaders) were the lawfully-ordained authority of their day, when Jesus rebukes them is from one authority to the other not a case where someone on the basis of his private reading of scripture rebels and tries to correct those taking the lead (seat of Moses).
So we need to back up and answer a prior question. How do we rightly determine the criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority? Until we answer that question, we cannot determine objectively whether any particular leader has or has not lost his ecclesial authority, and we thus run the risk of rebelling against a rightful ecclesial authority. That's a very serious error that we shouldn't trivialize or take lightly. When the Amalekite reported to David that he had found Saul impaled on his spear, still living, and that he had killed King Saul, David's response was this, “Why did you not fear to lift your hand to do away with the anointed of Jehovah?” (1 Sam 1:14) Likewise, we too ought to have this kind of fear lest we be rebelling against the LORD's anointed ecclesial authority. That's why we need to know with certainty how to determine rightly what are the objective criteria by which those taking the lead lose their ecclesial authority, before we conclude that they no longer have ecclesial authority.

What I wrote here is, I believe, what Paul alluded to in his second letter to Thessalonia. There, he wrote of something that served, at the time, as a restraint to what he went on to describe as what we would term “apostate” today. 
 
Paul was an apostle personally appointed by Christ. He was in addition to the earlier apostles. These men manifested supernatural abilities to corroborate that their teachings were right and should be accepted. But, as Paul said to Thessalonia, as a “restraint” though these men existed they were only temporary. One day they would all be gone in death, and their “restraint” would therefore be gone in person. 
 
But these men left something behind for future generations of Christ’s followers. They left behind written words that today we know as the Bible. We are equipped with the Bible. In their absence we have what we need for competency for examining teachings for soundness. 
 
Another apostle, John, wrote that we have intellectual capacity for the purpose of knowing the true one. Yet another apostle, Peter, reminds us we must be sure to exercise intellectual capacity with a sound mind. 
 
Hence those who initially acted as a restraint against wrong teaching left behind themselves two important things for us. 1) Written words and 2) that which can be soundly concluded from those words. Today, these serve as restraint against wrong teaching, and our obedience should rightly end where wrongness begins. This limit of obedience is, I believe, something Paul was very straightforward about in his letter to Galatia. 

The same follower of Jesus that took time to put Jesus' prayer to paper also took time later on to comment about the unity of which you inquire.
At the very end of his first epistle, John wrote "But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ."
God gave us His written word. Today we call it "the Bible". This is God's inspired written testimony. God created the natural world we see all around us. God's creative work is His inspired testimony in the form of object lessons. Both of these inspired testimonies are equally of God. His testimony is truth.
Jesus' prayer included this, "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth."
So, we have God's testimony, which is truth. We have that word in two forms. Inspired words are God's truth, and inspired creation is God's truth. And, getting back to the closing words of his first epistle, we have what John said of Jesus, that "he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one."
This is what I've said in more concise terms on several occasions. God gave us His testimony, and He gave us brains, and He expects us to use them both. What it looks like is this:
1) Things that are present in creation or presented in express terms in the Bible, we accept for what they are, for what they say. Each of these serve as propositions useful to use our brains to deduce sound conclusions of what those express propositions imply.
2) Deductions we form of those propositions must conform to conventions of logical construction. That is called using our brain. This is called forming logical (sound) conclusions.
3) We assert express terms for whatever each proposition says.
4) We assert what is deduced from those propositions to the extent we can prove those deductions. Deductions of logical conclusions can vary in veracity, based on the strength of premises (propositions) applied.
5) Things we cannot soundly reason we leave people to decide for themselves, which is as it should be.
6) Aside from express propositions found in either the Bible or creation, every deduction we form must be falsifiable. This is part of logical conclusions.
Then is when and that is how we have the unity Jesus spoke of that relies on the truth of God and the intellectual capacity given by Jesus. We then have a community where all of us as friends are encouraging one another to use our brains, and where we find we are wrong we embrace the moment and rejoice that we've learned and grown as Christian men and women. But we do not ostracize (or otherwise beat!) those who ask that we prove something true and then fail to prove that thing true on the bases of solid testimony from scripture (or creation) or sound conclusions thereof.
 
 

abstain
verb [ I ]
US  /æbˈsteɪn, əb-/
to not do something you could do, esp. something that is unhealthy or gives you pleasure:
Some families abstain from eating fried food.
If you abstain from voting, you do not vote although you are permitted to vote.
to choose to refrain: he abstained from alcohol
abstain (from something) to decide not to do or have something, especially something you like or enjoy, because it is bad for your health or considered morally wrong
to abstain from alcohol/sex/drugs
I have already noted that the term "abstain" is weaker than the term "prohibition/ban". Abstinence is left to personal choice, personal willpower, personal motivation. Furthermore, the word, at least for me, gives the impression of a decision that applies in the short term. Or as a decision not to do something temporarily. For the benefit (in favor) of yourself or others.
 

That's a perspective I've not really explored, as least not that I can recall at the moment. In English translation from different original languages, we have:
Gen 2:17: you must not
Gen 9:4: YOU must not
Acts 15:20: abstain from
Could be the difference between you can't versus you shouldn't.
It's subtle. But it's a curiosity. I'm gonna give this more thought.

No matter the language a person speaks, everyone knows an infant suckling its mother teats is eating, and milk is the food.
Perhaps my statement you respond to here was too precisely worded. I was borrowing the phrase "green vegetation" and I did spell out photosynthesis, but in my head the real point is that I don't know of many creatures that dwell in the deep sea whose primary source of eating is vegetation.
Also, the fact that we know the Bible account fails to give every detail about available nutritional resources that humans and animals likely and legally (meaning God was okay with it) made use of is only one more reason to defer to what we see in the natural created world and accept what we find there as additional testimony of God's will. Ever heard of a salt lick? Natural salt licks provide animals with essential mineral nutrients. These are not vegetation, yet animals will seek out these mineral deposits because they need them. Just look at the tremendous effort that some mountain goats go to in order to get to these minerals, which they're not getting from vegetation alone. Yet Genesis is totally silent on this subject. Good thing the written testimony of the Bible tells us that we also have the unwritten testimony of creation that also tells us of God's will.

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway.
I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).
(Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. 
(Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28  Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.
True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations:
(Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . .
(Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . .
This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol. 

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway.
I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek).
(Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. 
(Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28  Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.
True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations:
(Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . .
(Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . .
This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol. 

JWI, you have my profound apology that I made you feel goaded into a response. It was not my intention. You articulate yourself as knowledgeable and willing to entertain subjects others would ignore because of the work of thinking. (And thinking is work!) When I run into a person like this I feel I can learn from them, so I engage. In this case it felt like goading on your end. For that I apologize.
What you've written sounds appropriate to me, especially the part about not being dogmatic in the face of a possibility "IT" could refer to everything God had just given to humans, not only the vegetation. And, to be sure, I'm not going to leverage a possibility here.
WARNING: What follows uses the term "eat" to mean take in the digestive track as food nutrition. If this usage offends a reader's senses this is forewarning.
Assuming the likelihood that "IT" only refers to vegetation that was given, that still does not change that, as vegetation was given, dominion of the animals and "all the earth" was also given. The antecedent of giving dominion of animals and "all the earth" had to have a consequent. If, as you propose, the consequent is not expressly stated then the question becomes, what is the consequent of being given dominion of animals and of being given "all the earth". So then we look at actions involving animals and "all the earth" that God approved of for an answer. What do we find? Here are a few examples:
- Humans could use animal skins as clothing; hence humans could use animal flesh to serve practical needs, including transplanting animal tissue onto their own tissue (that's what clothing is).
- Abel herded sheep, so humans could coral or otherwise control animals.
- Abel killed animals, so humans could take the life of animals for their own purposes.
- Abel offered choice animal parts to God, so humans understood the rich pieces of meat and offered those to God. (Would Abel have offered to God something for Him to consume that he [Abel] thought was indecent or inappropriate to consume for himself?)
- Humans could eat milk. This despite it not being vegetation.
- Humans could eat water. This despite it not being vegetation.
Given these, it is utterly impossible to conclude the consequent of being given dominion of animals did not include eating their flesh, and this is precisely the unstated consequent of being given vegetation presented in the near parallel account at Genesis 9. I mean, if humans could transplant animal tissue onto the own tissue, how does one argue this wouldn't include the tissue of the mouth and esophagus? Tissue is tissue.
I'm glad to hear this. I agree there is some sort of poetic prose going on in the early Genesis account. You've alluded to it yourself in former postings here, and in this case you do so by underscoring what comes across as deliberate intent in relation to vegetation (herbs, trees, et. al.). Yet we know humans being given dominion of animals and "all the earth" had some consequent, and if it's unstated that leaves practically endless possibilities. We know too that vegetation was not the sole thing humans could eat, because they could eat water and milk too (of necessity).
Which brings something else into question regarding animals. What, precisely, is the "green vegetation" that deep sea creatures are supposed to eat? The text doesn't say, and there's no photosynthesis to produce green vegetation.
When it comes to what soulical creatures could utilize as food, the early Genesis account is woefully incomplete. It paints a picturesque serenity, when in fact there was lots of defecation, death and ecosystem at work (what many people look upon as "gore"). It's interesting that, as an educated agrarian, my view understands all this (natural earth ecosystems) is at work all around me all the time (including in my own gut!), and it does not strike me as "gore". Even looking upon maggots existing and doing what they do is not gore for me to watch, it's a wondrous example of converting biological tissue into something useful for other forms of life to flourish. Anyone who grew up enough years ago also knows what an "outhouse" is. Anyone who says they never got curious and looked to the bottom to see what was going on is a liar. It's ecosystem on steroids. Those worms are just lapping that defecation up like their swimming a pasta! It's not green vegetation that those animals are eating. They're eating something that Adam and Eve were unavoidably defecating as a natural process. After eating that defecation the castings left behind by those worms is a super-food for botanical life in the form of nitrogen and other important nutrients.
 All this just strikes me as natural and normal. But, for whatever reason, the Genesis writer seems to have wanted to paint an idealistic view of Eden.
 

Sigh … well, I’ve thought of three ways to do it, without diodes, none involving strawberries ….
The feedback of the globe subjected to constant voltage changes to achieve equilibrium probably created torque and at 60hz bumped it up to rotational speed. Diodes would create a simulated DC  CURRENT to create the electromagnet, but it would stop and start at 60hz, possibly creating a bump effect. (?)
 
 

That doesn't explain it well enough for me. The "baggage" of Genesis 9 appears to be retroactively applied to Adam and Eve or at least their descendants up until Noah. If an animal that died on its own is not "soulical" (whatever that means) then an animal that was killed by another animal or by a human (like Abel) is not soulical either.
Also, when coming upon an animal that appears to have died on its own, how do you diagnose that it wasn't chased by another animal or human until its heart gave out? How can you quickly diagnose that a bird that's dead from an apparent broken neck had accidentally run into something or if an animal or human had caused it? A buffalo may fall off a cliff, but it may have been part of a herd that was driven off, or maybe it had mad buffalo disease and jumped. What difference does it make to its "soulicalness?"
I know that some kosher butchering methods attempted to drain blood before an animal was thoroughly dead, and this seems to fit the idea of draining "LIFE"-blood from it, whereas if the animal were killed first and then strung up to drain blood, the animal is no longer a "soul" in some sense apparently, and one is draining blood from a non-soulical animal. (The method was used because the living heart helps push out the blood so it drains faster, although the method has been deemed very cruel to the animal.) 
Also, others have already pointed out that an animal that dies on its own may have been an unhealthy animal, perhaps even dangerous for eating or feeding to other animals, no matter how fresh it was, or how well it was treated to preserve it.
You mentioned that carrion were easier to gather without the dangers of hunting, but why are we worried about the dangers of hunting? Noah had to "capture" an awful lot of animals, and it would only have been an incremental effort to kill a few of the ones captured. Adam may have had the animals subdued to such an extent that they just walked right up to him as he decided on names for them. And, for what it's worth, Adam may also have had a tattoo in the shape of a red herring in place of a belly-button. We just don't know. 
So, I still don't see what makes carrion such an important part of this question that started out as a discussion of the scriptural basis for refusing certain whole or partial blood products.
You have provided a thorough attempt to support a specific conjecture about the dietary decrees given to Adam and then to Noah. Up to a point it's an interesting Bible discussion to me, but it still feels like we are beating a dead horse. Don't ask me how it died.

Yes. I still believe that the implied food diet in Genesis for Adam and Eve was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Obviously, what they drank would include water and milk, but the important part of the dietary food decree is what they were allowed to eat, with no concern for what they would drink. 
Your question was not about whether Eve had mammary glands (or a womb) as this would be too obvious to mention, although I had already mentioned it anyway. Whether she had a belly-button is not so obvious. Your question was whether I believe the account was intentionally written without a reference to what they would drink. Since the account was about a dietary food command to the pair placed in the garden of Eden, I answered the question with that in mind. And since we don't absolutely know whether Adam and Eve had milk while within the garden (or out, for that matter) I answered the question with that in mind.
Personally, I am inclined more to believe that the first humans did not live by fruit or bread alone. I believe the first humans had millions of microbes in their intestines. I believe they likely needed protein sources from more than just beans and nuts and milk, but that's just me. I believe the reference to Abel killing livestock speaks to the fact that domestic animals were very early considered a meat food source in addition to a milk/cheese source. I believe that the idea of the Garden of Eden in Genesis was to show that Jehovah was ready to provide everything humans wanted and desired and it was easy picking. It was purposefully written to highlight this and left out what they would drink, and would leave us to believe that Jehovah would also provide sustenance for their protein needs without resorting to either killing or finding dead animals. 

Well I’m preety sure Eve had mammary glands as she had a womb…but I like the rest of your post.

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.
 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.