JW Insider

The theme of the covers is about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, at that!

Wow! I won't do that again!
Look, we are on the same team, and all. Moreover, you have been places I have not. And I agree with your general sentiment that 
In both my books, I deliberately take on controversial matters. In my second book (No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) ["He's plugging his books again!" shrieks the Librarian, falling off her chair and landing on her fat keister. "After I ordered him not to!"] I describe at some length two greatly flawed persons, with names changed. One, an elder like Diotrophes, who bullied the elder body and plotted to kill his wife so that he could marry his girlfriend without suffering discipline, and two: a man who placed his hand on a teen's rear end and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed exile out of remorse. He had run away from a foster home at 16 and spent 20 years traveling with a carnival before coming into the truth; he was terrified at slipping back into what he had one been. At a time when everyone was doing high speed internet, he refused more than a slow dial-up connection, necessary for his business, so he would not instantly fall victim to internet porn. He may have masturbated himself to death, but he did not revert to what he had been.
Okay? I don't shy from controversy. Besides, I like you. If you are 'out there' in some ways, so am I. Even so.....having said that....it's amazing what you choose to spill. Surely the same GB member who told you of certain doings also told you about Proverbs 11:13. Clearly, there is something 1 Corinthians 5: 1-8esqe about your posting this here.
So there's my rebuke. I'm uncomfortable giving rebukes to a brother, for it isn't my place. But please don't squawk about it overmuch - you know you have it coming. A little squawking is okay, if need be, since I speak without the knowledge a counselor should always have; namely, I know neither you nor your history and I might speak differently if I did. But don't carry on too much.
Now, if the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. What can we do with it? Perhaps it is not such a bad thing after all to have aired things.
Since it is not child abuse, it doesn't belong in a thread devoted to child abuse. If we are to discuss all our slimeballs, then everyone else must, too, and they are not - because the topic is something else.
 
Not only is 'homosexual tendencies' vague, open to much interpretation (I am cautious here, for fear you will next post 8X10 glossies) but, again, he doesn't belong in a thread about pedophilia. Frankly, in the world's eyes, he becomes a heroic victim, his 'true sexuality' repressed by a homophobic organization - oh, yeah, I can hear the gears turning now in the murmurers' minds.
So we are down to three. I heard once about Greenless, but not the other. However, 'accused' is different than 'established.' With President Duarte's complaint, we were speaking of abuse that is frequently - some would say usually - rape. On the other hand, the person in my book would be put on the sex registry list today, but he plainly was not a threat to anyone - it is only the predators you need keep track of, otherwise you will keep track of damn near everybody, for it seems there are few who have not, at some point in their lives, touched a child inappropriately. (and if what you allege to have happen happened at Bethel, then it happened with young men, not children, and thus, was not 'child abuse,' even if innappropriate. It's most unlikely that abuse accusations here remotely approach the gravity of the Church leaders.
Lastly, we come to
Firstly, I accept you as a truthful source. Having said that, I am in no position to verify matters so my acceptance cannot be taken without a grain of salt. And I'm not saying that the above is great, but come on! We are contrasting this with serial rapists in the Church! And while perhaps the 80+ year old was 'getting off,' perhaps he was not. When I was in a health club years ago, it was not unusual for guys to sit in the sauna naked after a workout - I honestly don't remember it I ever did or not; I think I probably did. Guys his age will remember the YMCA, where boys and men routinely swam together naked; I remember that well as a child, and he probably had 30 years on me.
Moreover, not all in the sauna were naked. Some in the sauna were "semi-naked." Do you ever find anyone fully clothed in the sauna? When you go to the beach, aren't they semi-naked there? And what about the pervert Michelangelo, who sculpted 'David?' And aren't ALL art students - aren't they all perverts, for they have all painted nude models? Look, many people consider the human body beautiful.
What about tattoo artists? In a reflective manner, I once asked one whether, when they are tattooing intimate areas, they get a charge out of it, or is it just art. "It's art!" he told me indignantly. What about nudist colonies? Are they all perverts? When my homeschooling wife made high-ranking friends in the school system, one of them asked her to join his group where they would swim...um, you know...naturally. Nudist colonies are frequented by entire families, including the children.
There is mass hysteria here is what I'm saying. All 'abuse' is not the same, and some is abuse only in the eye of the person determined to see it that way. It's why Economist Magazine advised in April, or was it August? - it was an A month - of 2009 that we should all get a grip on ourselves. Only ten percent of those on the sex registries pose any significant threat to the public. All the rest are better handled (my point, not theirs) through parental training such as is encouraged in the Caleb and Sophia series. 
There! Much ado about little, in my estimation. I did not say it was obscene for commissions to examine any accusation of abuse that they see fit to examine; that's what commissions do. But I continue to hold that it is obscene not to slap down anyone who would attempt to equate abuse in Jehovah's organization with abuse in the general religious world. After all, unlike most religions, our spiritual bread and butter emphasizes keeping ourselves morally chaste. Surely, some of that training sticks and gives us a leg up on persons who don't receive it.

Because this is now demanded of them by law, and the legal department of the Society gives them strict instructions to carry it out the letter of the law if they have not already done so.
Notice that this method of dealing with a person actually increases the trust we have in elders, increases the respect given to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion that does not tolerate such things, and makes it far less likely that anyone could expand a lawsuit to include liability to this "brother's" congregation or branch. Had this not been immediately exposed to the authorities, a legal liability connection to the Society could be made through claiming bad process and bad training.
Had this been an abuse of a child under similar circumstances, the elders should also make sure it is reported according to all current procedures, as I understand them.
Using drugs from medical waste to maneuver to abuse someone sexually is a whole other level of abhorrence.

The theme of the covers is about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, at that!

The caption below the picture in the link says approximately the following in Portuguese:
A new line of research, known as intelligent design, believes that the complexity of life and the perfection of nature proves the existence of a higher being. At the core of research in science, faith and society, newly opened by one of the largest universities in São Paulo, in partnership with American institutions, scholars discard the creation of the world by mere chance and analyze genetic codes as a kind of 'signature of God '.
Of course, "intelligent design" is actually an old line of research, not a new one. And everything else said about intelligent design here in the above quote is correct. However, these attempts to make it seem like a science are extremely flawed and nearly always end up embarrassing themselves by joining with "young earth" enthusiasts who claim the earth (and sun, for that matter) are no more than 6,000 years old. They often either deny the existence of dinosaurs, or say the fossils were placed here by God or Satan as a test of our faith, or claim that dinosaurs were alive when Adam named them, but died in the Flood.
The idea that DNA is a kind of signature of God is a good way to put it. But throwing in the idea that the NAME of God might be found in DNA is completely fake. By whatever methods anyone can tell you that the name YHWH is in DNA, those same methods will also be able to prove that the name Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebul, Devil, Hezekiah, Lincoln, Trump, Hitler, Jesus, Putin, Petunia, Sally, etc., are found just as easily -- because anything can be done with numbers. People will see what they want to see. (A little like 99% of all the so-called Biblical chronology predictions that have gone on for the last 1,000 years.)

I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."
I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.
So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.
With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.
I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.
So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

Because this is now demanded of them by law, and the legal department of the Society gives them strict instructions to carry it out the letter of the law if they have not already done so.
Notice that this method of dealing with a person actually increases the trust we have in elders, increases the respect given to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion that does not tolerate such things, and makes it far less likely that anyone could expand a lawsuit to include liability to this "brother's" congregation or branch. Had this not been immediately exposed to the authorities, a legal liability connection to the Society could be made through claiming bad process and bad training.
Had this been an abuse of a child under similar circumstances, the elders should also make sure it is reported according to all current procedures, as I understand them.
Using drugs from medical waste to maneuver to abuse someone sexually is a whole other level of abhorrence.

http://news.sky.com/story/manchester-arndale-centre-evacuated-after-security-alert-10889787
 
 

You can always start another thread if one gets enormous.
I doubt you caused any real angst for anyone. Anyone who shares an internet forum or even responds to a youtube video will be well prepared for just about anything. I had hoped you would share what caused you to make such a big decision about religion recently.
I've seen several who decide to leave the Witnesses and not to come back. They take various paths, often immersing themselves in a lot of study and research to be sure they made the right decision. Sometimes, depending on their motives, they are able to offer something valuable in a kind of "exit interview." I think people would be surprised at all the things that were changed for the better, specifically because an "infamous GB apostate" once decided to write a book about his experiences.
So if you have any constructive criticism, I think it would be welcomed. From what I could gather from these last several posts, it was a lot of different things that piled up at once and crowded out the ability to see light at the end of the tunnel, as it were.
The reason I put it this way to you is not because I think my way of looking at doctrines is so much better, but because I think you showed exactly the right motive when your frustration with doctrinal discussion led you to see Christianity more in terms of 'what sort of persons we ought to be.'
As you might have gathered from other posts, I believe we have the Trinity right, hell/soul/torment right, new heavens and new paradise earth right, neutrality/war right, preaching activity, etc., etc., etc. And I've seen many dozens of positive adjustments in my lifetime. But I also think we have several things wrong, and probably need more adjustments even on the things we have right.
I could list all the things I think we might have wrong in one single place, and this might seem overwhelming, but I prefer to deal with the evidence for one thing at a time. And this is easier on others, too.
I hope you feel welcome if you continue to contribute here, or wherever else you decide.

When I realized I didn't know nearly enough about this subject, I decided to look into 4 questions that came up from reading the NWT Appendixes:
Point A. Did the Tetragrammaton appear in all the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT in the first century? Point B. What was the general history of the appearance and use of the Divine Name and at what point did it begin to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek-speaking Jews? Point C. Did some (many? most?) of the LXX texts available to the first-century Christians already contain replacements for the Divine Name? Point D. [Based on the new claim in the NWT Appendix 2013-2017, not the old claim from 1984] Primary Question: Is there any evidence showing that it was sometime during the second or early third century C.E., when a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts among those copying the manuscripts to replace the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God? Secondary Question: Is there any evidence showing that those same copyists just mentioned (in the 2nd and early 3rd century) may have copied from manuscripts where this had already been done? More questions have come up since, but these are still basic questions I'm interested in. So far I have either skimmed or read the following articles, papers, and other research that make points relative to these questions. If anyone is really interested in some of these I can summarize them and make fair-use quotes from them, but my access to them does not give me the right to quote long portions without permission. Some or several of them might be publicly accessible.
The Divine Name Yahweh Author(s): Raymond Abba Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), pp. 320-328 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature YHWH, THE INEFFABLE NAME: AVOIDANCE, ALTERNATIONS AND CIRCUMVENTIONS IN THE NON-BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS AT QUMRAN by JOËLLE ALHADEF-LAKE. https://www8.twu.ca/library/theses/330418_pdf_331138_23B9F692-8718-11E4-B9A0-5421EF8616FA_lake_j.pdf [187 pg pdf, very detailed and useful, imo] Concerning Exod 34:6 Author(s): Norman Walker Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Sep., 1960), p. 277 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature The God Yahweh-Elohim Author(s): Raphael Patai Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Aug., 1973), pp. 1181-1184 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Reviewed Work(s): Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible by G. H. Parke-Taylor Review by: Herbert B. Huffmon Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Dec., 1977), pp. 580-581 [This work is often quoted in the most relevant research by others scholars, I haven't obtained the original work yet, but intend to obtain it, even if I have to pay for it.] Reviewed Work(s): De Septuaginta, Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday by A. Pietersma and C. Cox Review by: G. D. Kilpatrick Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 380-382 [The Review of Pietersma's contribution covers the major points on the topic "Kyrios or Tetragram" {in the LXX and NT mss} is long enough and very relevant to this topic]  Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues Author(s): Albert Pietersma Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 35, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1985), pp. 296-311 Published by: Brill [not as relevant as his work on "Kyrios or Tetragram" in the LXX, but gives a detailed background to what we know about the LXX variations.] The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal Author(s): L. W. Hurtado Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 117, No. 4 (Winter, 1998), pp. 655-673 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature [very relevant] The Gnostics Speak Again: The "Gospel of Truth" Author(s): Virginia Corwin Source: The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Winter, 1960), pp. 218-228 Published by: The Massachusetts Review, Inc. [Gnostic studies are surprisingly helpful due to the number of references to the Divine Name(s)] “The god Iao and his connection with the Biblical God with special emphasis on the manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb” («Ο θεός Ιαώ και η σχέση του με τον Βιβλικό Θεό, με ιδιαίτερη εστίαση στο χειρόγραφο 4QpapLXXLevb»), Vetus Testamentum et Hellas, Vol. 4 (2017), pp. xx. https://www.academia.edu/30967321/_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb_Ο_θεός_Ιαώ_και_η_σχέση_του_με_τον_Βιβλικό_Θεό_με_ιδιαίτερη_εστίαση_στο_χειρόγραφο_4QpapLXXLevb_Vetus_Testamentum_et_Hellas_Vol._4_2017_pp._xx Pavlos D. Vasileiadis Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek Open Theology 2014; Volume 1: 56–88 THE NAME OF GOD, A STUDY IN RABBINIC THEOLOGY Author(s): SAMUEL S. COHON
Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 23, No. 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifthAnniversary Publication 1875-1950 (1950-1951), pp. 579-604 The "Horned Hunter" on a Lost Gnostic Gem Author(s): Roy Kotansky and Jeffrey Spier
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), pp. 315-337
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School [relevant to pronunciation of YHWH] Gaulish Tau and Gnostic Names on the Lamella from Baudecet Author(s): Bernard Mees
Source: Latomus, T. 66, Fasc. 4 (OCTOBRE-DÉCEMBRE 2007), pp. 919-928
Published by: Société d'Études Latines de Bruxelles [Again, a surprising find related to spelling and pronunciation of YHWH] Gnosticism and the New Testament Author(s): G. Quispel
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1965), pp. 65-85 Published by: Brill A HYMN AGAINST HERETICS IN THE NEWLY DISCOVERED SCROLLS Author(s): ISAIAH SONNE
Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 23, No. 1, Hebrew Union College Seventy-fifthAnniversary Publication 1875-1950 (1950-1951), pp. 275-313 Published by: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion Jewish Gnosticism? Author(s): Joseph Dan
Source: Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1995), pp. 309-328 Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG Once Again: The Minim Author(s): Harris Hirschberg
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Dec., 1948), pp. 305-318 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature [References to the Minim in Jewish Talmud, etc, sometimes considered to be Christians] Philo and the Names of God Author(s): A. Marmorstein
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jan., 1932), pp. 295-306 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press NOTES ON A PHOENICIAN DRACHM BEARING THE NAME IAHVE Author(s): A. W. Hands
Source: The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, FourthSeries, Vol. 9 (1909), pp. 121-131
Published by: Royal Numismatic Society Speaking with Angels: Jewish and Greco-Egyptian Revelatory Adjurations Author(s): Rebecca Lesses
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 41-60
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School  [More on IAO and YHWH] The Origin and Interpretation of the Tetragrammaton Author(s): Hans H. Spoer
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Oct.,1901), pp. 9-35
Published by: The University of Chicago Press [Includes info on whether IAO was a transliteration of YHWH]  
These are in no particular order, and of course there are many more to list. In case some appear unrelated or completely worthless, well, it's true. Some are nearly worthless, anyway. But some points might still be useful to compare or reference. For example, take this little "gem," mentioned above: The "Horned Hunter" on a Lost Gnostic Gem. Here is a quote from it attached as an image (so I don't have to reproduce the Hebrew/Greek/phonetics). Note that it discusses an early pronunciation of "Jehovah" close to the first century:
 

I think the photo is correct for the 1970 revision of the green 1961 NWT.  Would have looked the same as the cover of the 60's versions. The actual "Fat Boy" was a direct rebinding of the 5 previously released volumes that came out in 1953, 1955, 1957, 1958 and 1960 until the entire Bible was complete. (The Greek Scriptures came out first, then Genesis through Malachi split across several volumes.)
So the "spine" was about half the width of the cover, not 1/4 of the width as shown in your photo. But more than that, the "Fat Boy" has cross-references down the middle, which your PDF doesn't have.

I finished the two papers by Vasieiadis. I have previously read what George Howard said and found him convincing at the time. What I'm trying to do now though is start from scratch, with no bias for or against any position, and just see where the evidence takes us.
His research into "IAO" would be rather devastating to the position that the NWT translators have held, and that the Watch Tower publications promote. It has similarities to a lot of the research that AllenSmith has just presented, which would also be devastating to the Watch Tower's currently accepted research if even half of it were true. Recall that the NWT Appendix said:
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time [in the first century C.E.], the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).
What is striking about Vasileiadis's research, is that he claims that the original Septuagint [LXX] which came from Egypt, might have never contained YHWH, but initially contained the name of an Egyptian "Almighty God" who went by the name Iao. He says this could have been based on Hellenistic syncretism, especially prevalent among Jews who lived outside of Palestine. This is nearly the opposite of what the NWT Appendix claims above:
On the other side, the god named Iao is found in Greek and Latin works of the Hellenistic period already since the 1st century BCE. It mainly appears in writings displaying marks of religious syncretism, used as one of the names designating either the highest God or one of his emanations. In the following the possibility is examined that the use of the name Iao, instead of another form of the Tetragrammaton, in the manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb (4Q120; Rahlfs 802) may be the result of a Hellenizing rather than a re-Hebraizing tendency, a view that tends to prevail in the Septuagint studies. Evidence coming from Christian writers shows that for few centuries CE Bible manuscripts that contained the theonym Iao were circulating among them and even possibly produced by them.
He traces the possibility through the large Jewish community at Elephantine since the 6th & 5th century B.C.E.  (famous for the second ancient Jewish Temple). These Jews had long used a 3-letter "Tetragrammaton:" YHW (likely pronounced "Yaho"/"Ya'u"). Scholars have said that this Jewish community was syncretic almost to the point of being polytheistic, similar to the common problem that all the prophets continued to warn the Jews in Jerusalem about. But it wasn't about polytheism so much as the idea that various cultures in Hellenistic society had a pantheon of gods, but identified one of those gods as "the Supreme Being" or the "Highest One." He says this would include usually, Zeus, Helios, Sarapis, and Iao. 
He doesn't mention it, but this may not be so different from how Zeus becomes Dzeus or Deus, which many languages use to refer to the Almighty God of Christianity and Judaism. (Dios, Deity, Divine)
Also, his research doesn't mention it, but it seems that it would have been the same as if the LXX had happened 400 years later in a Latin translation and the choice had been to translate YHWH as either "Jupiter" or "Jove," the equivalent of the Supreme, Highest God (Jove=Zeus). Following the logic of his research, they would have likely chosen "Jove" because it was a close compromise to YHW. But, who knows, even Jupiter could have been possible, because its derivation is likely related to changing DZeu-pater or God-the-Father. Easy to rationalize as a good name for any Almighty God.
He says that many of the Gnostic influences (also widespread in Egypt) popularized IAO as the name of angels or subordinate deities from the 1st century BCE to the first century CE. (Then again, the Gnostics also subordinated Jehovah as a lesser deity.)
On the point of subordinate deities, I found this particular footnote interesting:
Sean McDonough, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in Its Hellenistic and
Early Jewish Setting, Tübingen 1999, 95–97. For instance, in late
Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Ιαω [IAO] was a prominent name of the lion-
headed Sabaoth, the Biblical Creator, who could assume many
names and be identified with some gods or heroes. He was Mihos
for the Egyptians, Ialdabaoth for the Ophite Gnostics, Judas, Michael
or Moses for other Judaizing sects, and also the Greek hero
Perseus. He was the god of amulets and was invoked in several
magical spells. Also, he was depicted to use the powerful divine
snake Chnoubis as his weapon. . . . This is widely observable all over the
Mediterranean world in inscriptions of that period.
Of course, YHWH is also called Jehovah-Sabaoth in the Bible [Lord of Hosts/Jehovah of Armies], and the name Sabaoth remained intact through Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The mention of the magic amulets and papyri is interesting, because in the magic of the time, the idea was to pronounce the name of a god properly to gain the power or influence of the god. The papyri might even offer several possible pronunciations, and at least two of the magic sources even give us some hints as to how YHWH was to be pronounced.
I found another academic source that claims that although "Yahweh" was the more likely Jewish pronunciation of YHWH, it claims that "Yehova/Jehovah" was a pronunciation given in the magical papyri for casting spells, gaining power, etc.
 
 
 

I understand this and I agree. I gleaned many points from it that were valuable and were not at all devastating to the positions promoted in our publications.
I was speaking about a specific position he posits that would be devastating if it's true.  It would be devastating because it would take away the entire point we make about YHWH in the LXX. We would probably stop making use of any argument about the LXX and YHWH.
1. That's because the basic point is that the original LXX may have used IAO instead of YHWH. IAO would have come first because of the pagan and Hellenistic influences that remained in copies of the LXX well into the Christian era, even copied by Christians who made copies of the LXX. Then, he says, it could have been later Hebraist influences that were intended to correct the "pagan" influence, by putting YHWH into the places where IAO had originally been.
2. But another point is that the use of YHWH in the LXX was to keep it from being pronounced, while the use of IAO made a word like Iao (Ya'o, or Yaho), easy to pronounce. In some cases the term YHWH was put not just in Hebrew/Aramaic characters but in 1,000-year-old style archaic Hebrew letters, which would further assure that it was not pronounced. 
Both these points are devastating to our argument about IAO because we have said it was so that a form of YHWH would be pronounced.

Can't be. Leviathan is male in Hebrew, and Behemoth is female. Just the opposite of what you'd expect if that was the answer.
Enoch apparently draws from Jewish legends or ancient folklore. There were Jewish legends that said that although God made two Leviathan, both a male and female, that he only allowed the male to be free to inhabit the waters. If he had allowed the female to be free then they could have had children and resulted in more chaos.
The Behemoth was the less chaotic but still untamable beast of beasts (it's a single entity using a plural word, very rare in Hebrew) who roamed the land portion of God's creation. The Leviathan was conceived to be a huge dragon-like sea-serpent with seven heads that could breathe fire.  And although God made all things, this represented God's control over chaos. A part of the Jewish folklore about Leviathan (during the few hundred years before Jesus was born) was that Leviathan was 300 miles long, and that the female was being saved up, perhaps in Tartarus, until the great banquet just after judgment day for all of the "elect" to feast upon in the many mansions of heaven.
I think the following is a place to start.
 

Thanks for pointing this out and making the links easy to get to. It's also up to date on the 2016 Watchtower Library, [v.18 with regular online updates through 2017].
The resources provided by the Watch Tower Society are excellent, of course, but they are not always clear about which statements are assumptions (and therefore subject to change) and which statements are 'statements of fact.' Sometimes even the word 'proven' is used, when it's only a strongly held assumption or belief.
I'm working through it now to see which are which:
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
When Jesus and his apostles were on earth, the divine name, or Tetragrammaton, appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts of the “Old Testament.” (See Appendixes A4 and A5.)
Undoubtedly, the divine name or Tetragrammaton appeared in the Hebrew mss of the OT. Perhaps not in all of them, but apparently in the vast majority. I'm trying to do a quick, last-minute study to get a sense of what the evidence shows about Hebrew mss of the OT in this time period that did NOT contain the Divine Name. [POINT A, for further research] To get a sense of the evidence for this, I'm also trying to look into the overall time period when the Divine Name began to fall out of general use among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek-speaking Jews. [POINT B, for further research]
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
The divine name also appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the “Old Testament” that was widely used in the first century C.E. At that time, the divine name was represented in the Septuagint by either the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).
This first sentence is also undoubtedly true. Almost every quote of the OT in the NT follows the Septuagint [LXX] instead of the Hebrew text that the NWT (and almost everyone else) uses for the OT, wherever the LXX and Hebrew are known to differ.
The second sentence is true, too, but I don't think we are really saying definitively that, in the first century, the divine name was always represented either by YHWH or IAO in the LXX. We know of various other divine name abbreviations, and it might still be true that some LXX texts, even in the first century C.E., may have already contained replacements for the divine name. [POINT C, for further research]
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Some portions of manuscripts of the Septuagint from the first century C.E. and earlier still exist today, and they prove this fact. So when the inspired writers of the “New Testament” quoted from the “Old Testament,” they must have seen the Tetragrammaton, whether they were quoting directly from the Hebrew text of the “Old Testament” or the Greek translation of that text, the Septuagint.
The first sentence is correct again, and what they "prove" is that at least some of the LXX copies (which we currently date to the first century C.E. and earlier) have YHWH (or a form of this) or IAO, which we consider to be a transliteration of IAO.
The second sentence states that the inspired writers of the NT when quoting from the OT, must have seen the Tetragrammaton in one of these two forms, at least. This may very well be true, although I'm not sure it was always necessarily true based on "POINT C," which I still need to research further.
Also, of course, it may very well be true that they saw the Tetragrammaton and purposely, even through inspiration, chose NOT to copy it. This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't utter the divine name. It's even possible that they knew that Jesus had uttered the divine name when quoting from Isaiah or Psalms for example, and yet the inspired Bible writers produced their initial manuscripts with "kyrios" or "theos" for example. This latter point is not something I expect to research further, or draw a conclusion from, it's only that I don't wish to jump to any conclusions not actually evident from the facts.
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
Today, however, no manuscripts of the “New Testament” from the first century C.E. are available for us to examine. So no one can check the original Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” to see whether the Bible writers used the Tetragrammaton. The Greek manuscripts of the “New Testament” that would have a bearing on this issue are copies that were made from about 200 C.E. onward. The more complete manuscripts are from the fourth century C.E., long after the originals were composed.
Nothing to research further here. These are all statements of proven fact. (Until and unless further evidence or manuscript discoveries are disclosed.) Further disclosed discoveries or evidence would not necessarily help the side of the argument that we are expecting it to help, however.
*** nwtsty C1 The Restoration of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” ***
However, sometime during the second or early third century C.E., a practice had developed where those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with a title such as Lord or God or copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.  *
We might already have enough evidence to test this particular claim. [POINT D, for further research]
I believe it already shows that the NWT translators have backed off the stronger claim made earlier in 1984 (and quoted by Micah Ong, above):
*** Rbi8 p. 1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures [1984] ***
Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Kyʹri·os, “Lord” or The·osʹ, “God.”
Also the footnote  * in the new C1 Appendix, opens up the possibilities much more widely, and removes the need to have mentioned the second or third century scribes in the first place. After all, these scribes, it is admitted, might just be copying from manuscripts where the Tetragrammaton had already been replaced with "Lord" or "God." In the worst case, this comes very close to admitting that it might have already been done up to and (technically) even including the initial manuscript, where an inspired NT writer might have already removed the Tetragrammaton reference from an LXX quotation, for example. That's obviously not the intent of the NWT Appendix writer to state this, but especially with the footnote material in view, it shows just how little is left of the original claim.
The last point for further research, therefore, might not include the claim from the 1984 NWT about second and third century scribes removing the Tetragrammaton from the LXX. The real important question is just the NT manuscripts here. It was always an odd claim anyway that both Jewish and Christian scribes would have agreed at some point as late as the third century to remove the name from both the NT mss and the LXX mss, as if all the dozens of manuscript copies were under some central control. Recensions of various types would still exist, because there is no way they could have got them all. And if we find evidence of this being done before the second and third centuries, the entire argument loses its meaning.

Yes, I understand. I just saw your link and now I recognize that I have already purchased from you several times. In case that link disappears, I wanted to quote from it. I hope you don't mind. I wanted to have access to comment on what you said:
 
I was just doing some reading last night and this morning to try to get a better sense of what the DSS actually show us about the use of the Divine Name during the time period(s) represented. So I'll want to get back to this soon.

Thank you. No I didn't have it already prepared. So far, I've always written "on the spot" and it sometimes shows when I leave out something important.
There is a better way. One of the things I left out is that our doctrine is not strictly Arian, but it is very similar. And I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is directly reflected in John's gospel. It is merely one attempted "solution" to the one-or-two-or-three-Gods issue, and it happens to be one that we agree with in more aspects than not. I believe I'll get to those differences when I get a chance to respond to Cos again.
That might be a semantic 'distinction without a distinction.' An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written. This would be especially true if a doctrine has been partly obscured and buried by apostate teachers.
Yes, I agree with that. It is both wrong and an anachronism to say that the original teaching of the Greek Scriptures is "Arianism." I had said that "I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John," and I meant this in about the same way that someone might read C.T.Russell's early Watch Tower publications and say that he could trace the fundamentals of "Russellism" to the Bible, even if he still disagreed with much of it. My main point was that the parts of Arianism that Witnesses agree with completely really are found in John's gospel, even if Arius wasn't born until perhaps 150+ years after John wrote.

I'm glad you got right to the point. Asking "why associate with an organization that...?" clearly means that you think Christians should leave the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are bringing up points that could be put in a thread of their own, but I'll assume that you are tying these points to survival of the Great Tribulation, which many (most?) Witnesses conflate with any fear of a third world war or the potential of world-wide persecution.
Asking that question, "why associate?" means you have given up on the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are a true and valid representation in this twenty-first century of the Christian congregation in the first century.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with you bringing these issues up for whatever reasons. I bring up similar issues regularly for clarity, so that fellow brothers and sisters are aware of the counter-arguments to our beliefs, and so that we don't fall into the trap of dishonesty where we simply say that something can't be true if it makes us look wrong. I would be happy to engage fully with your points especially if I thought your purpose was to help remove potential error from our teachings. That said, I don't actually believe that we survive the Great Tribulation of Revelation 7 by "washing our robes" through perfectly clean teachings, but by the cleanness of our conscience, by clean conduct. Therefore honesty about doctrine is even more important than claiming to have the right doctrine:
(Matthew 7:21-24) 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does them will be like a discreet man who built his house on the rock.
Therefore, it's a matter of what sort of persons ought we to be, not what sort of doctrines did we believe.
But there is also considerable overlap between doctrines themselves and how we should honestly conduct ourselves. For example, we should trust that we don't need to participate in the world's politics and wars if we think about what it must mean to remain 'no part of this world.' That is very difficult for most people, and most religions. I won't get into dozens of other points like that here, but I'll try to get to the question of using the name "Jehovah."
I have a 1-year old granddaughter who calls me g'PA and sometimes GanPA and sometimes Gam'PA and sometimes GAM'pa. She identifies me correctly when she sees a picture on their wall, or in my iPhone, or on Skype or FaceTime. She has another grandfather who she calls Papa and Poppy (she calls her father Dada and Daddy). When I come through her door a few times a week to babysit along with my wife, I smile inside and out when she calls out g'PA. That's my name to her. She doesn't use that term for anyone else. I don't mind in the least that she mispronounces "grandpa" by leaving out a couple of whole consonants, or turns two syllables to one syllable.  Someday, she will probably try to distinguish her two grandfathers by including a more specific name like Grandpa Beezlebumps vs. Grandpa Hamhocker. Having her know that I have a more personal and specific name is probably not that important to me, as long as she knows me.
I can understand why we could be just as happy to "know" the personal specific name for God and use it for circumstances like public prayer and discussion, and use a title like "Father" in private, in the same way that my granddaughter calls me "g'PA." But we have the example of the Israelites whose history as found in the Bible contains the specific name THOUSANDS of times. That's the reason we think it's important. Because of the Bible. Jesus used the term Father (also Aramaic, abba) in his speech and prayers. And when the apostle Paul speaks of distinguishing our God from other gods, he doesn't use the divine name, but also calls Him, "God, the Father."
(1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.
No one thinks it's a magic name that must be pronounced exactly right, or exactly the same in each language. That's not the point. The point is that we try to use a name that is distinctive, based on the tetragrammaton, with whatever vowels are common and understandable, and so that others know who we mean.
Also, just because Greber translates John 1:1 as we do, doesn't mean that the NWT depended on Greber or has any relationship to him. It's just an acknowledgement that other translators have translated the verse as the NWT does. People don't usually have a lot of complaints about how the Greber translation turned out, usually only two or three passages. Another one is about how the bodies turned up from an earthquake. We like Greber's version here, too.
(Matthew 27:51-53) . . .. 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people.  [NWT shown, Greber presents same idea]
My point is that people don't complain about the Greber Bible as a bad translation with a lot of mistakes. They only point out one or two. They also complain about a claim of "spiritism" made about his translation process. Martin Luther made similar claims. One might even say that the apostle Paul made similar claims. It's what some people expected the direction of "holy spirit" to feel like.

So do I. But I don't think that's what the question about making predictions was about. For example: saying that we are sure we will see an increase of at least 3% in worldwide activity in a specific country due to a campaign to encourage more publishers to join the rank of pioneers in that country is not a Bible-based prediction.
Saying that the end of this system of things is expected within a few short years or even months after 1975 is a Bible-based prediction if we based it on Daniel 4 to get 1914 and we were adding a 70 year generation who were at least 10 years old in 1914, and who 'would not pass away' and found that all this coincided with a Bible-based belief that 6,000 years of human existence should coincide with a seventh day we believed to be 7,000 years long, where the 1,000 year reign should also fit within that 7,000 year period. We said that the 1970's would be the "appropriate time for God to act" based on Bible interpretations. 
If we had predicted that 50,000 anointed would be joined by 500,000 of the other sheep based on an interpretation of '10 men taking hold of the skirt of a Jew' then this might have been said to be Bible-based. 
I also remember a brother saying that Knorr had predicted that he could get a crowd bigger than a Billy Graham convention. Supposedly this was the reason that instead of having multiple assemblies across the nation in 1953 and 1958, Knorr decided to promote single US conventions in New York City in both these years.
.

I'm guessing that @Kurt who worded the thread "Are JW's able to predict future events?" was specifically avoiding the idea that the Governing Body has claimed to serve as a prophet. In fact, his first words were "JWs are not prophets." In the past however, from long before I was baptized until at least a decade afterwards, the faithful and discreet slaved claimed to be a prophet. They also claimed that the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is indeed a prophet -- and not just a "prophet-like" organization. There has not yet been a direct retraction of this claim. However it has not been repeated since the 1980's as far as I remember. 
But we can't say that it is not still implied. Many articles have been published on the topic of the "faithful and discreet slave" and many of them have in some way connected their function to that of the prophets of old. Comparisons are drawn between respect for the faithful and discreet slave and respect for various named prophets and leaders of Jehovah's people in the past. This is admittedly more subtle, but it creates a belief system that implies that the spirit-directed organization will be able to provide specific direction during the great tribulation which is going to be directly related to direction by the holy spirit. We are told to expect that it is direction that will not necessarily make sense from a rational or logical or human perspective, but that we will need to obey it when the time comes. I think that this type of thinking has obviously already permeated some of the heightened expectations with regard to current world events and Russian suppression. 
If anyone questions that point, I'd be happy to discuss some of that evidence again. However, I think the subject here is about whether anything ever predicted has come true, yet. 
For now, I will merely claim that Watch Tower publications have never yet not made a Bible-prophecy related prediction that has come true yet. Naturally, I am willing to adjust that belief if evidence is forthcoming. And according to your definition of "predict" dozens of specific prophetic things have been predicted with the expectation that they should have already occurred.
I base that belief on evidence from topics that have already been touched upon. This does not mean that future expectations won't turn out to be true, but I do think that it's better to have an understanding of the track record of the past before we stick our neck out and say that we are absolutely sure we know how future events will turn out. I'd say that we don't really know if it's true for a fact that the United Nations is the beast. We have identified it in other ways in the past. We don't know if any particular entity will turn against religion as a whole and leave our organization intact as a single organization. We don't know in what way survivors of the great tribulation will be identified or protected -- whether as a single identified group or as individuals.
We don't really "know" anything that was based on interpretation of prophecy. We don't really know if a generation of the type Jesus spoke of could be "overlapping" or even if Matthew 24 was about our own specific time period. It's a reasonable and rational belief, but it is a prophecy that has been redefined in every generation since it was first prophesied. Our own track record has always shown, through hundreds of changes so far, that all of our past, non-current interpretations of prophecy were based on private interpretation. 
Again, we might have it absolutely right this time. Past performance may have no bearing on future performance as the financial industry is apt to claim as a caveat about putting stock in stocks. 
Survival through this system of things will always turn out to be a matter of "what sort of persons ought we to be." 
I can't think why anyone would "seize upon" these words and fault Knorr for underestimating hundreds and thousands when it turned out to be millions. Knorr was a very good predictor when it came to logistics. By collecting a lot of data about monthly book and magazine campaigns and by watching how closely the goals were met, and by comparing month-to-month and year-to-year estimates versus actuals, Knorr was able to have the right number of books and magazines in the pipeline at all times. This is why he was such a good factory manager, and it's what he taught Max Larson, then Richard Wheelock and Dean Songer. I'd say that Knorr was an excellent logistical predictor. I've heard that Brother Dean Songer was said to be slightly better, and he kept that job for many years due to his excellent math skills. 
Of course, I'm not considering these types of mundane predictions to be part of the Watch Tower's track record on Bible-based predictions. If Knorr's numbers seemed limited, I doubt that he intended them to be. Rutherford, especially in his later years, had often argued that every assembly was probably going to be the last before Armageddon, and he even argued that the preaching work was done, which is why he argued against Knorr's idea of a missionary school. Rutherford began to argue, as Russell had argued many years before him, that we don't need to "convert" people in every nation, only be a part of providing a "witness" to people of every nation, and Rutherford was sure that this was already accomplished. 
Knorr's tone could have merely been a "hedge" between what he hoped for and what Rutherford had stated, and this might be based on an understanding of Bible prophecy, but I don't remember anyone actually making a prophetic interpretation that would put an upper or lower limit on the numbers that might come in. The video I mentioned earlier made a connection between the League/UN prophecy and a desire for expansion, but I think this is an interpretation made for the recent video. I don't remember anything like it being made at the time. 

Threads like that have been started by others and I didn't want to be the one to start a new one. I don't think that the Watch Tower Society needs to be beat up any further on the topic, if the point is merely to rehash old material that embarrasses us. The only way in which the question still has relevance is when someone today uses the modern day history of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to make claims that aren't true. Sometimes this is done by opposers, but we don't want to be guilty of making untrue claims, too. 
The basic idea of the question in the context of previous comments has always been about whether the Watch Tower Society has ever made a correct prediction based on their understanding of Bible prophecy at the time a prediction was made. For this definition, all we have to do is takes Eoin's dictionary contribution and add a contextual limitation to it.
A prediction, in reference to the Watch Tower Society, would be any time that the WTS has published a statement or estimate about a specific thing (or consequence of something) that would happen during a specified range of time in the future. Whenever such a prediction has been made, has it ever happened as predicted? In other words, have the Watch Tower publications ever yet made a prediction that came true?
I think that many persons on this forum have seen the WTS historical videos, especially the following two hour long videos:
Jehovah's Witnesses—Faith in Action, Part 1: Out of Darkness  https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-ivfa1_x_VIDEO  Jehovah's Witnesses—Faith in Action, Part 2: Let the Light Shine https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO In those videos, as I remember them, there are only 2 predictions noted that were expressed as evidences that Jehovah's holy spirit was truly with the leadership of the Watch Tower Society. One of them is featured prominently in Part 1, and one of them is featured prominently in Part 2.
In Part 1, from about the 40:15 time-mark to the 45:00 time-mark, the subject is "1914 -- A Marked Year. " After making clear that this was a prediction made by Russell starting in 1876, two members of the Governing Body come into the video where Brother Losch says (at 44:05 to 44:30) that "it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others." Brother Morris adds (around 44:30) that "it was significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!" That was the entire point and concluding words of the section: that it was predicted to the year, and that this was phenomenal!
In Part 2, from about the 15:50 time-mark to the 19:05 time-mark in the video, we hear about the prediction in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise again proving that a time of peace was coming. This prophecy sets up the section: "Taught by Jehovah." It's the prophecy about how WW II would not end in Armageddon, but that there would be a time of peace, (and therefore a time of potential expansion) based on the correct understanding and prediction that the League of Nations would arise again after going down into the abyss. (Revelation 17:8) Two members of the current GB (Morris & Jackson) come into the video and explain how this prediction came true after 1942, when the United Nations took the place of the old League of Nations in 1945.
Both of these same predictions have been used together in later commentary from the Society. I think that they are considered to be the only actual cases of true predictions in the Watch Tower publications. 
I don't believe the Watch Tower publications ever predicted the rise of Hitler, although after a very brief period of support they exposed him for what he was. I don't believe that the Society ever predicted the ban in Russia over 10 years ago, either. The 1914 prediction has been discussed already, and it's clear that all the predictions the WTS made about it were wrong except for a correction made to the 1874 to 1914 timeline in the year 1904. Until then it was believed that a time of trouble must begin before 1914 and not after it. But it was realized that this would result in a harvest that was cut short due to the fact that at least one or more years' worth of tribulation would be expected prior to 1914. Some features of this impending tribulation were expected around 1910. So these "several months" of tribulation that were originally expected to precede the end of all national systems, and all religious systems, and all the world's institutions -- this expectation was moved to a short period just following 1914 and lasting at least until October 1915. Armageddon was still to start in 1914, although 1914 was now expanded to a 12-month period running from October 1914 to October 1915.
With respect to Hitler, of course, the  Governing Body's (Rutherford's) initially praised Hitler and made statements to the effect that Hitler's ideals were something like a political expression of the same ideal Kingdom of God that Witnesses stood for. So I don't believe this coexists with any predictions about Hitler that were true. 
I don't know what anyone might mean by claiming that this current Russian persecution was predicted. If this is in relation to the "king of the north" then the idea is not correct, anyway, per the more recent admissions made in the publications. 
I think the only exceptions the Watchtower can claim to the track record of "batting zero" are the following, then:
 the 1904 adjustment to the teaching about the nature of the 40-year harvest period starting in 1874 the idea that they predicted that the League of Nations would rise up again sometime after 1942 Unfortunately, both these claims have proved to be misleading in several ways.

This topic recently started (again) over here:
In that conversation @James Thomas Rook Jr. said: "The Society has NEVER been right about ANYTHING they predicted .. which is why "new light" is discovered AFTER the facts become evident.  I remember as a preteen boy accompanying my Mom to Assemblies where the "King of the North" and "Gog of Magog" were discussed . . . ."
@Eoin Joyce included this in his response: "As JTR laments above, prophecy has it's many interpreters, but no there is no truer statement than that found in our Insight Vol 2 p.1141: "full discernment of the prophecy’s application may have to await God’s due time for its being carried out."  This is in complete harmony with Jehovah's own word at 2Pet.1:20: "For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation."
In the same conversation @Aaron Mathewson mentioned a couple of items that he believed were "predicted" correctly, when he said: 
"Saying nothing has ever come true is completely false. Early in the history of the org there were incorrect assumptions, some of which partly made it into print. But after they saw the need and started basing their "prophecies" on scripture and only predicting what was obvious from the Bible, everything they have said has come true. They knew something bad would happen in 1914, and warned about Hitler's years before he tried to conquer the world, and they also predicted this ban in Russia over 10 years ago."
In my response in that same conversation, I tried to put a definition to what kind of predictions we were talking about. I assumed it was something like this: 
I think this is why it's actually very true that we've never gotten anything correct (yet) when trying to make a prediction based on prophecy. . . . to put a time limit on [Biblical/prophetic] events, or predict that [such] events will happen within a certain time frame, or even try to tie a Biblical event to a particular entity in our current time frame." 
I don't know if these definitions work. Perhaps, Eoin, you have a workable definition of the term "predict" in the context of making predictions based on our understanding of Bible prophecy. 

As a Witness, I am happy that our accepted understanding of Scripture has been made so relevant for our day from the perspective of morality and lifestyle, and in so many other practical ways. The worldwide brotherhood creates the moral support we need to remain encouraged and faithful in a world that is so full of stress. We avoid unnecessary involvement in the world's affairs, refuse to take sides in divisive politics and wars. We shun the idolatry of national symbols and worldly ideologies. We shun the materialistic viewpoint of the world, and related philosophies, and the "showy display of one's possessions."
(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life* [NWT footnote: "the bragging about one's possessions"] —does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
The organization we are associated with has laid the foundation for one of the most effective and widespread preaching and teaching programs in the entire world, and we also are privileged to participate in it. The spirit of active giving and self-sacrifice creates a climate of happiness and closeness with one another. We learn to get along with a varied cross-section of brothers and sisters from anywhere in the world, and from many walks of life.
I believe we embody a twenty-first century version of that first-century movement in a way that makes the same issues we find in the Greek Scriptures come alive in our own congregations. Yes, some of those issues are about imperfections and flaws, one of them being the constant misunderstandings about the "last days" and the "time of the end." Finally, Paul, said that 'we don't need anything to be written to us about the times and seasons because it's coming without warning; therefore we need to be ready at all times.'
(1 Thessalonians 5:1-11) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. . . . 6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. . . . 11 Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing.
I take that quite literally. We need NOTHING to be written to us about chronology, about the times and seasons, because Jehovah's day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. There is no advance warning of any kind.
I think this is why it's actually very true that we've never gotten anything correct (yet) when trying to make a prediction based on prophecy. There are a couple of apparent exceptions to the rule, similar to the ones you mentioned, and I'd like to try to address them in the next post. But the rule remains true, even when you get one or two things right out of nearly 100 attempts to put a time limit on events, or predict that events will happen within a certain time frame, or even try to tie a Biblical event to a particular entity in our current time frame.
Our track record on prophecy does indicate that we really know nothing about prophecy before a fulfillment takes place. In fact, even when the "fulfillment" has taken place, we are also still guessing, because almost all the "fulfillments" we claim to have known about have also been changed over time, in our publications' explanations. All we have, therefore, are the latest guesses ("private interpretations" to borrow a phrase from 2 Peter 1:20) of what prophecies in our day might mean, or might have meant. The vast majority of these predictions have already been dropped, and the vast majority of applications we have made from prophecy and prophetic drama have also been dropped or changed significantly. This goes for EVERYTHING, even things as simple as the wheat and the weeds, the faithful and discreet slave, the sheep and the goats, the prodigal son, and the meaning of various parables about the Kingdom of God.
Based on all the evidence so far, we would have to admit that we have never had a clue about the application of specific future events. And that's the way it should be. We need nothing to be written to us about events related to the times and seasons.
We should concern ourselves with being witnesses for the good news about Jesus, encouraging others and being the kind of persons we ought to be. We do this rather than join the stress and/or excitement of worrying about:
whether "World War III" is imminent, or worldwide persecution is imminent, or concerns about who is the "king of the north," or who and where is "Gog of the land of Magog," or whether the UN is getting ready to make a move against religion. None of those things need concern us. We trust in Jehovah and throw our burden on him.
I believe it is true, then, that Jesus already told us what we need to know about the time of the end. To that point, I will also respond to something that Eoin said about Amos 3:7.
If Paul says there is nothing more to reveal about this matter, I think we should believe him. It appears, from our experience so far at least, that the gift of "prophecy" may have already been done away with.
(1 Corinthians 13:8) . . .But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with. . .
The prophecy that Jesus gave about the time of the end, and various other references to the end for which we are still awaiting fulfillment, should be sufficient for us. Anything more that Jehovah would reveal of "his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" would be the equivalent of giving prior knowledge. It would become, in effect, an additional sign of the imminence of the end. How would one square that with the words of Jesus?
(Matthew 24:36-42) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. . . . 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. . . . 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
Also of possible interest:
(Daniel 8:23-25) 23 “And in the final part of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to a completion, a fierce-looking king who understands ambiguous sayings will stand up. 24 His power will become great, but not through his own power. He will bring ruin in an extraordinary way, and he will be successful and act effectively. He will bring mighty ones to ruin, also the people made up of the holy ones. 25 And by his cunning he will use deception to succeed; and in his heart he will exalt himself; and during a time of security* [NWT footnote adds: or possibly, "and without warning"] he will bring many to ruin. He will even stand up against the Prince of princes, but he will be broken without human hand.
The effectiveness of the "fierce-looking king" and his ability to bring even many mighty and holy ones to ruin, is through cunning and deception, during a time of peace and security. This does not imply any advance warning, but something that can go on over a potentially long period of time, up until a stand is taken against the Prince of princes. It's our responsibility not to be deceived by 'the ruler of this world' or any of the powers of this system of things, but to remain no part of the world, on the lookout not to get bogged down in the things of this world. But it may also mean that our watchfulness should be all the greater when things seem to be going well for us, without hindrance, because that's the easiest time become like the unfaithful slave who says 'my master is delaying.' Yet most of us seem to raise the alert levels only when those portions of the world that we pay attention to are the most stressed.
(Galatians 6:9, 10) 9 So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due season we shall reap if we do not tire out. 10 Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.
(2 Timothy 4:1-5) . . .I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is destined to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his kingdom, 2 preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season, reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all long-suffering and [art of] teaching. 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. 5 You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.
During times of stress and fear, we are quick to wonder what end-time prophecy is being fulfilled. Yet during a "favorable season," a time when people are enjoying relative peace and security, that's when another very important prophecy is being fulfilled: the prophecy of 2 Tim 4:3, for example, about when people will want to have their ears tickled with false stories. The Watch Tower publications say that this type of thing began to happen especially after the apostles died out around the year 100 C.E. During all these years, people were susceptible to false stories because during times of relative peace and security, it appeared the master was delaying and the temptation therefore presents itself to take advantage. People would ridicule the prophecy about Jesus' parousia, manifestation and kingdom and say that all things are continuing as they always were.
(2 Peter 3:1-18) . . . Beloved ones, this is now the second letter I am writing you in which, as in my first one, I am stirring up your clear thinking faculties by way of a reminder, 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” . . . 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . .11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . . 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, . . . 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness.
So, from verse  17, we already have "this advance knowledge," the knowledge that Jehovah's day will come as a thief. We need nothing more to written to us about it. People are therefore saying that all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation's beginning. This is apparently what Jesus was saying, too, when the apostles asked him for a sign and, instead of giving them a sign, he said:
(Matthew 24:4-8, 23, 27) . . .“Look out that nobody misleads you, 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. . . . 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. . . . signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Instead of a sign or signs to watch out for, we know that the presence comes suddenly, like lightning. if anyone tells us there are signs, or that Jesus is already present somewhere, we are not to believe it. We have been forewarned.
I know this isn't the way we usually read Matthew 24, but it's the way that seems to make the most sense with all the rest of the scriptures that comment on it. It's one of the most important prophecies we use when referring to this particular part of the last days we find ourselves in. Yet, it tells us not to get concerned about things we might have thought were signs of the end, because the end could happen at any time, with or without the things we tend to think of as "signs." Wars and reports of wars and persecution and preaching would continue to happen during the last days, but the end is not yet. Since the end could still happen at any time, this must mean only that these are not "signs" of the end.

When either a religious group or a group of religions are singled out for suppression of their freely chosen movement and activities, then this might be termed persecution. To the extent that the reason for the suppression was related to teaching and preaching the message of the Bible or following Bible precepts, then this is the same as being persecuted for our Christianity (being persecuted for Christ's name's sake). Therefore, at least a portion of the suppression is "persecution" and Jesus said that Christians would be persecuted for following him.
Obviously, we don't want to suffer for breaking a law of Caesar's (assuming that Caesar's law doesn't conflict with God's law).
(1 Peter 2:19, 20) 19 For it is agreeable when someone endures hardship and suffers unjustly because of conscience toward God. 20 For what merit is there if you are beaten for sinning and you endure it? But if you endure suffering because of doing good, this is an agreeable thing to God.
(1 Peter 3:17) 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good, if it is God’s will to allow it, than because you are doing evil.
(1 Peter 4:15, 16) 15 However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.
This is the only prophecy that we can be sure is related to the ban in Russia. Jesus prophesied that persons bearing the name "Christian" would be persecuted. Even though the courts have claimed that the ban is not for being Christian, but for other things like:
"encouraging suicide" "claiming superiority over other religions, thus infringing on the freedom of conscience of others" "breaking up family associations" "enticement of minors into religious associations" "requiring that members proselytize in order to convert persons of other religions or ideologies." But at least a couple of these so-called "problems" with JWs should be intrinsic to basic Christianity. Therefore another Christian precept is to "defend and legally establish" the good news.
(Philippians 1:7) 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news.
The suppression in Russia does not prove that we are the most persecuted religion on earth. (In fact, the vast majority of lands that we preach in benefit from freedom of religion laws that uphold peaceful assembly and the right to preach and live in almost any way we wish.)
The suppression in Russia may end up being just another pendulum swing in the legal battles Witnesses have had with the Russian government. It could all go another way in a matter of months. (And it could get much worse.)
Most of all, it does not mean anything specifically with regard to the "king of the north" or the idea that the U.N. might take a stand against all religion. We do not know who the "king of the north" is. As JTR said, all the guesses made in the past have never panned out as predicted. It's quite possible that our biggest test of faith will be the realization that the prophecy about the "king of the north" already came true two thousand years ago or more. 
It may also be true that we should NOT expect a special cry of peace and security. The context of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians actually makes this a real possibility. Paul may have been saying no more than "you won't be able to predict the time of the end by looking for wars and rumors of wars -- it could just as easily come during a time when at least some people are speaking about 'peace and security.'"
This would be the near equivalent of what 2 Peter says:
(2 Peter 3:4) . . .“Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”
That matches the way that Jesus predicted that it could occur during a time of peace and security:
(Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
It's the kind of peace and security that keeps people from paying attention and keeping on the watch. In other words, there will be no sign. If Paul was speaking of a separate cry of peace and security, then this would be an obvious sign, which Jesus said we would not get.
In fact, this was Charles Taze Russell's view of Matthew 24 prior to 1914 and it was a view that continued even after 1914. The following is from Studies in the Scriptures, Volume IV:
The History of Eigtheen Centuries Briefly Foretold --Matt. 24:6-13; Mark 13:7-13; Luke 21:9-19-- "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors [threats, intrigues] of wars: see that ye be not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are primary sorrows." Matt. 24:6-8
Thus briefly did our Lord summarize secular history, and teach the disciples not to expect very soon his second coming and glorious Kingdom. And how aptly: surely the world's history is just this--an account of wars, intrigues, famines and pestilences--little else. Our Lord separates the history of the true Church and states it with similar brevity, thus:
"Then [during that same period, the Gospel age] they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations [peoples] for my name's sake. And then [during that same period] many shall be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets [teachers] shall rise and [D567] shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Matt. 24:9-13
In the light of history would it be possible to portray the course of God's true Church in fewer words? Surely not. The likeness is perfect. "Whosoever will live godly shall suffer persecution," is the Apostle's declaration; and whoever has not shared it has every reason to doubt his relationship to God as a son. (Heb. 12:8)
 
I doubt that such a change in doctrine will happen any time soon, but this doctrine about Matthew 24 (as it was once taught in the Watch Tower publications) is probably a change in doctrine that has a good chance of being accepted again, assuming that the scene of the world does not change too significantly over the next few decades. (Chances of that seem pretty slim, too.)
This leaves us exactly where we should be, trusting in Jehovah, in any and every situation, whether in favorable season or troublesome season:
(Psalm 56:3-12)  3 Whatever day I get afraid, I, for my part, shall trust even in you.  4 In union with God I shall praise his word. In God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. What can flesh do to me?  5 All day long they keep hurting my personal affairs; All their thoughts are against me for bad.  6 They attack, they conceal themselves, They, for their part, keep observing my very steps, While they have waited for my soul.  7 On account of [their] hurtfulness cast them forth. In anger bring down even the peoples, O God.  8 My being a fugitive you yourself have reported. Do put my tears in your skin bottle. Are they not in your book?  9 At that time my enemies will turn back, on the day that I call; This I well know, that God is for me. 10 In union with God I shall praise [his] word; In union with Jehovah I shall praise [his] word. 11 In God I have put my trust. I shall not be afraid. What can earthling man do to me? 12 Upon me, O God, there are vows to you. I shall render expressions of thanksgiving to you.  

In 1948 the Biblical Archaeologist journal had an article that ran about 20 years after the discovery of some related Canaanite Ugaritic texts, that purportedly shed some light on the background of the Leviathan:
Howard Wallace wrote the article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1948), pp. 61-68. I found the following on page 62 and 63:
Be that as it may, there is no question but that the most famous monster of western civilization is the Biblical Leviathan, whose immediate background is to be sought, not in Babylonian, but in Canaanite mythology. The Ras Shamra texts, found in Syria at the ancient site of Ugarit nearly twenty years ago, record Canaanite myths of the period from 1700 to 1400 B.C. A section of one text tells of the fight of Anath and the dragon. At one point Anath shouts:
"I have destroyed the Sea-Dragon, beloved of El,
I have slain River of El, the Chief;
I muzzled Tannin, I muzzled him (?).
I have destroyed the winding serpent,
Shalyat of the seven heads
I have destroyed the underworld dragon, beloved of El."
In another of the texts ("Baal and the Waters"), we learn of the seven-headed Lotan, the very name from which the word "Leviathan" in the Old Testament is derived. A comparison of the vocabulary of Isaiah 27:1 and three lines from the Ugaritic epic, "The Death of Baal," shows the direct borrowing of the Hebrew from the Canaanite. Two words which describe Lotan and Leviathan are identical in the two languages. They are brh, usually translated "swift" or "gliding," and 'qltn, usually translated "crooked" or "tortuous." [twisted]
I also found these points interesting from page 65:
It must be noted that several Old Testament words are basically related to Leviathan. One is tehom, a word designating primeval chaos. While it is not personified, it is mentioned in Job 41:31,32 as being the dwelling place of Leviathan. (See also Job 28:14; Pro. 3:20; 8:24; Psa. 42:7; 71:20.) Yam, "sea," is more than a mere body of water in many passages; it is an active force, probably reflecting the old myth of the struggle between order and chaos. One of the most interesting of these passages is Job 7:12: "Am I a sea, or a sea-monster, That thou settest a watch over me?" In Ugaritic epics, Baal fights against Zebul-Yam, Prince Sea. The waters or sea rebel against the ruling power in Canaanite mythology, and therefore must be watched by the main god. Leviathan dwells in the sea. Rahab, a sea monster, can be equated with Leviathan in several O. T. passages (Job 9:13; 26:12; Isa. 51:9; Psa. 89:10). Tannin can mean a similar sea monster (as in Psa. 74:13), though having other translations.
Before getting to the next section of the article, I'll quote and highlight some relevant portions of Rev 12 & 13 from the NWT:
(Revelation 12:3-13:4) 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; . . . 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, . . . 7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, . . . “Now . . .  the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! . . . 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, . . . 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is to be fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. . . . 13 And it stood still on the sand of the sea. And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. . . . 3 I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed, and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration. 4 And they worshipped the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they worshipped the wild beast with the words: “Who is like the wild beast, [Michael="who is like El?"] and who can do battle with it?”
Not sure if any of these other points from the article are very useful, but they might be interesting so I'll include them anyway from page 67-68, with some portions highlighted.
In Rev. 12:3, the "great red dragon, with seven heads, and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his head" is mentioned. Drakon, "dragon," is the usual Septuagint rendering of Leviathan. Only once is Leviathan translated ketos, "sea-monster" (Job 3:8). From Rev. 13:1 on, the beast and the dragon are used interchangeably, as are Leviathan and Rahab and Tannin in the O.T. It may also be noted that abyssos is the Septuagint rendering of tehom, the watery deep. However, by New Testament times, it had become a bottomless pit full of fire and smoke.
In the description of the war in heaven between the dragon and Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7-12), verse 9 is especially interesting. . . . The war in heaven is an echo of the war in which Tiamat and her hordes were defeated by Marduk and the gods in the Babylonian Creation Story, and in which Baal of Canaanite lore fought against the rebellious waters. Yahweh destroyed Leviathan in the dim past. . . . The primeval struggle between Yahweh and the powers of chaos is transformed in the Christian context into a struggle between God and Satan. Though the heathen powers, and Rome especially, rage as they will, God will triumph over them in the end.
In Chapter 13, two beasts appear. "And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns, . . . Both descriptions seem to be based on Dan. 7:2 ff., and upon the idea that Leviathan has seven heads. Verse 11 reads: "Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth;. . . "
The beast from the earth and the beast from the sea appear very much like Behemoth and Leviathan in Job, chs. 40, 41. II Esdras 6:49-53 indicates that Behemoth and Leviathan will both occupy portions of the world until Judgment Day. Leviathan, as has been stated, was specifically assigned the watery portions, and Behemoth the dry portions. Since both of these beasts play such an important part in Jewish Apocalyptic writings, the author of the Book of Revelation would turn to them in attempting to paint the vivid picture of the coming of the last days.
The last part of chapter 19 and the first part of chapter 20 picture the over-throw of the beast and his armies. "The dragon, that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan" in Rev. 20:2 is bound and thrown into the [abyss] bottomless pit. The abyssos and its relation to tehom is again indicative of the whole Leviathan strain, in which Leviathan is the representation of the restless forces of chaos, later to become the representation of evil. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more (Rev. 21:1)." The turbulent waters, the sea, which had been in rebellion against the gods in Babylonian mythology, against Baal in Canaanite literature, and against Yahweh in the O. T., the sea was gone! This is a graphic symbol of the complete abolition of evil in the world.
The article doesn't mention it, but it was interesting that the early rabbinical sayings spoke of the taunting message written on Leviathan's horns. I don't think it's useful to draw more parallels between the ancient symbols used by Canaanites and Babylonias, but more could be drawn from literary evidence. There is another point, not made in this article, but I'm sure some commentators have made it, which draws parallels between Paul's words about the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11, and the actions of the beastly powers mentioned in Revelation.
The more interesting parallels are between the book of Enoch and Revelation. Commentators argue over the idea that Enoch gets quoted verbatim in the book of Jude. But there are at least a dozen more times that ideas found directly in Enoch (and not found directly in the Hebrew Scriptures) are alluded to in the book of Revelation.