JW Insider

He joined on a lay-away plan?

He was just dying to be one?

Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. But there have been persons who spent years promoting and repackaging his work, who have since apologized and recanted after realizing through more serious research that they had been duped.
The Watchtower stopped citing him directly based on some information that came to light in researching the Aid Book, which was published in 1972. The Watchtower was supposed to stop quoting him after that, but one article slipped through around Christmas in 1978. Fred Rusk was the Watchtower Editor at the time and didn't let it happen again. (The Awake! had a different editor, Colin Q., and let a couple more Hislop references get through into the mid-1980's.)
Unfortunately, Hislop's work had already seeped into some Bible commentaries, including some of  the favorite ones that the Watchtower has especially depended on from the late 1800's, and which we still quote from now and then. This has allowed some of Hislop's debunked ideas to get quoted indirectly. 

Jesus was referring to the preaching about a specific phase of the Kingdom preaching before the "axe came down" on the current representation of God's kingdom, those who thought they were protected just by being part of the Jewish nation. So Jesus was referring to how the disciples would not even make it through the circuit of the cities of Israel before this phase of the Son of Man's "coming" to execute judgment was complete - before 70 C.E.
(Matthew 3:9-12) 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.”
(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
These cities all had a similar social structure. You could walk into a city and state your case and what you wanted to do and word would get around to everyone. If someone was interested they would invite you in to discuss it further. If no one was interested, the disciples could shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next city. But Jesus knew that there would be enough interest in his message so that there would be enough hospitality. So they needn't worry about anything. Enough people would be inviting them in and feeding them and giving them a place to stay, that they wouldn't even finish their work before the "end" of that particular phase of Kingdom preaching.
(Luke 10:8-11) 8 “Also, wherever you enter into a city and they receive you, eat what is set before you 9 and cure the sick ones in it and tell them: ‘The Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But wherever you enter into a city and they do not receive you, go out into its main streets and say: 11 ‘We wipe off against you even the dust that sticks to our feet from your city. Nevertheless, know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.’
Our Christianity should be flexible and adaptive to meet changing social conditions. Paul worked in different types of cities, and he said that:
(1 Corinthians 9:20-23) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. . . . I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.
The way we announce our intent to study with people in their homes and tell them about the good news is not the same as when we could make an announcement at the city gate and people would spread the word for us. Today we can go to as many houses as possible, and then come back to those who are willing to have us in their homes.
The type of hospitality that Melinda and Eoin have spoken about still happens, as was pointed out. And there are certain types of cities and social structures in the world where the preaching work takes on the same flavor as Jesus instructed the evangelizers in Luke.
In London in 1611 under King James, there was no city square or single public forum to announce yourself, and there was absolutely no guarantee of hospitality. So the translators evidently thought that Greek terms like "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) was a match to the idea of  "ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν" (from house to house) even though it produced an apparent contradiction to Jesus' instruction. Although it might be better to translate the Greek expressions at Acts 20:20 and Acts 5:42 with the term "in their houses" or "at home" it is still a distinct possibility that the expression could mean "from house to house" as it does when the context implies it. The better translation of Acts 5:42, is found in some more modern translations:
Acts 5:42 Revised Standard Version (RSV) And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
But Acts 8:3 in the same translation, for the same Greek expression, says:
"But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3, RSV)
Although the KJV is inconsistent in using "house-to-house" for these expressions, it translates "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) as "from house to house" in one place where the NWT doesn't.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46, KJV)
In that place, even though it is the same expression, "κατ᾽ οἶκον," [where the NWT usually translates "from house to house."] the NWT uses another expression this time:
(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart,
Paul evidently did not go from "house to house" to do any initial preaching --it was his usual practice to go into the local synagogue or an open agora or forum-- but he did teach in people's homes, and met the believers in their homes.  But if he had preached from house to house, we know that it would have been because of the different social structure in the places he went. It would not have contradicted Jesus' instruction in Luke 10.
 

When I said that not every Witness would agree, I mean that most of us would require a lot of context, and prefer to "nuance" our way around it, before ever just using the expression "Jesus is God" and leaving it at that. It would be a rare thing to hear a prayer at the Hall end like this:
". . . And in the name of Mighty God, Jesus, we pray. Amen!"  or even,
". . . We come to You in the name of the Word, who is a god, Jesus Christ. Amen!"
I started out a talk once with John 1:1 and gave it the emphasis that appears to be intended in the context of John 1.
". . . and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS A GOD!!!
And of course it widened a few eyes, because we almost always read it as a proof-text against the Trinity, saying ". . . and the Word with with God, and Word was AAAAY god."
John wasn't trying to point out that Jesus was only A god, as opposed to THE God. He was explaining the awesome privilege that mankind had just experienced by have a gOD in our midst, one who had spent a near eternity with the unapproachable, invisible GOD himself, and one who was therefore in the best position to explain the Father to us! John adds the following just a few sentences later:
(John 1:14,18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. (NWT)
In the talk, I could easily explain why I had given it the emphasis like that. But even though we might "call" Jesus "God" with a capital "G" you will find very few Witnesses who will "spell" it that way. That's why I pointed out the "pains" that the German NWT went to in order to make it different in John 1:1, even though all nouns have be to capitalized according to German grammar.

It would be nice to see a discussion of Trinity or one of it's sub-topics without so much diversion into topics about the phoenix bird, war, fish, and the pope's clothes. Someone said something about the phoenix and then someone else goes off on a tangent about how the word might have been translated in the LXX???? 
Oh wait. That was me. Sorry.
I usually stay out of Trinity discussions lately because I'm not very good at staying on topic.
I have seen well-organized, well-written topics started on related subjects though. Such as a topic about how the Bible writers spoke about the holy spirit, and why it appears to be treated as a person. As I recall, hardly anyone responded at all. Maybe because it wasn't worded as a question, and most people who share in discussions here already knew what the poster thought.
Here, Cos has asked a question, and the answers and responses range from mature to childish, some points are excellent and some are completely off-topic.
Rather than add to the discussion as it is, I would just like to clarify something I added earlier.
I don't know whether the earliest manuscripts of Job or the earliest LXX mentioned the phoenix bird. If it did, it does not necessarily mean that it was a real animal anyway. Apparently the book of Job makes use of references to symbolic animals or uses some "poetic license" and might even reference folklore. Getting off-topic, we claim that Jesus was doing the same when he drew on the common Jewish beliefs about life-after-death when he spoke of the "rich man and Lazarus." Perhaps this was no different than making a point while telling a humorous story that starts out: "A rabbi and a priest and a beggar all die at the same time and they are all standing at the Golden Gates in front of Saint Peter . . . ."  [How's that for a diversion!]
I personally doubt that the book of Job ever intended to refer to the phoenix bird, and I doubt that there is enough evidence to show that the LXX originally had a reference to such a bird in this place. Once something is believed to be true, it's easy enough to go searching for proof texts to support it. But we can't rely on human translators, and we can't rely even on learned rabbis from any century in history to tell us anything definitive. A lot of very good and interesting material comes out of their commentary and a lot of really stupid stuff is there too.
I like to imagine that we fretted over certain specific lines in the Bible for years, and maybe even "spilled a ton of ink" over it, and then we have an opportunity someday to ask Job what he meant here. I imagine he might laugh and say something that we would not have thought of in a million years:
"A 'phoenix bird'? That's what you thought I meant? No. A 'phoenix' was the name my Egyptian friend always called this big, loud annoying bug, a special kind of cicada that flew up from Egypt. We called it the Nile bug, and some people have now called it the '17-year locust.' You see, it disappears for 17 years and then keeps coming back. I wasn't talking about resurrection, anyway, just the fact that I always thought that I might live a long and comfortable life and if anyone tried to get rid of me, I'd always come back; I'd always be there.  Since the topic is really about Trinity, I'll divert my attention to that topic for a minute. I don't think it's fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century. I don't think it's fair to tie a fish symbol to Egyptian hieroglyphics (or to imply that Christians should be under Jewish laws about the use of graphics and symbols. I don't think it's fair to say that a word must appear in the Bible before we can discuss whether the teaching is there. There is no mention of the word Neutrality, yet we have a Neutrality doctrine. Someone already mentioned that the term "Governing Body" is not in the Bible. For that matter there is no "Seven Gentile Times" either, and yet some Witnesses pretty much treat some of these teachings as if they are the central doctrines of the Witnesses.
bruceq mentions that he has no problem saying Jesus is God (with a capital G). Not every JW would agree, but this is a good starting point, since we have some potential common ground to begin a serious discussion about Trinity without just "fighting about words." A lot of Trinitarians who put too much emphasis on a specific definition of Trinity would be happy to understand that we have a lot of good, Scriptural backing for our belief. On the subject of capital letters, I wondered how the NWT in German would get around the fact that, grammatically, it MUST put a capital G on "god" or any noun, even a "falsch Gott."
(John/Johannes 1:1, NWT German/Deutsch) Im Anfang war das WORT, und das WORT war bei GOTT, und das WORT war ein Gott.
Anyway, I'm not disciplined enough as a poster to try to get too involved in this conversation, but for the most part I'm enjoying it. Thanks.

Jesus was referring to the preaching about a specific phase of the Kingdom preaching before the "axe came down" on the current representation of God's kingdom, those who thought they were protected just by being part of the Jewish nation. So Jesus was referring to how the disciples would not even make it through the circuit of the cities of Israel before this phase of the Son of Man's "coming" to execute judgment was complete - before 70 C.E.
(Matthew 3:9-12) 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.”
(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
These cities all had a similar social structure. You could walk into a city and state your case and what you wanted to do and word would get around to everyone. If someone was interested they would invite you in to discuss it further. If no one was interested, the disciples could shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next city. But Jesus knew that there would be enough interest in his message so that there would be enough hospitality. So they needn't worry about anything. Enough people would be inviting them in and feeding them and giving them a place to stay, that they wouldn't even finish their work before the "end" of that particular phase of Kingdom preaching.
(Luke 10:8-11) 8 “Also, wherever you enter into a city and they receive you, eat what is set before you 9 and cure the sick ones in it and tell them: ‘The Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But wherever you enter into a city and they do not receive you, go out into its main streets and say: 11 ‘We wipe off against you even the dust that sticks to our feet from your city. Nevertheless, know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.’
Our Christianity should be flexible and adaptive to meet changing social conditions. Paul worked in different types of cities, and he said that:
(1 Corinthians 9:20-23) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. . . . I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.
The way we announce our intent to study with people in their homes and tell them about the good news is not the same as when we could make an announcement at the city gate and people would spread the word for us. Today we can go to as many houses as possible, and then come back to those who are willing to have us in their homes.
The type of hospitality that Melinda and Eoin have spoken about still happens, as was pointed out. And there are certain types of cities and social structures in the world where the preaching work takes on the same flavor as Jesus instructed the evangelizers in Luke.
In London in 1611 under King James, there was no city square or single public forum to announce yourself, and there was absolutely no guarantee of hospitality. So the translators evidently thought that Greek terms like "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) was a match to the idea of  "ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν" (from house to house) even though it produced an apparent contradiction to Jesus' instruction. Although it might be better to translate the Greek expressions at Acts 20:20 and Acts 5:42 with the term "in their houses" or "at home" it is still a distinct possibility that the expression could mean "from house to house" as it does when the context implies it. The better translation of Acts 5:42, is found in some more modern translations:
Acts 5:42 Revised Standard Version (RSV) And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
But Acts 8:3 in the same translation, for the same Greek expression, says:
"But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3, RSV)
Although the KJV is inconsistent in using "house-to-house" for these expressions, it translates "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) as "from house to house" in one place where the NWT doesn't.
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46, KJV)
In that place, even though it is the same expression, "κατ᾽ οἶκον," [where the NWT usually translates "from house to house."] the NWT uses another expression this time:
(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart,
Paul evidently did not go from "house to house" to do any initial preaching --it was his usual practice to go into the local synagogue or an open agora or forum-- but he did teach in people's homes, and met the believers in their homes.  But if he had preached from house to house, we know that it would have been because of the different social structure in the places he went. It would not have contradicted Jesus' instruction in Luke 10.
 

I had a Bible study that once said that the Bible condoned drug abuse. He used the Scripture that said "Stephen was stoned". Now you can see how Trinitarians try so hard to use that same kind of reasoning about  something that the Bible writers did not themselves even believe in. "Father Son and spirit are mentioned together means they are the same", by that reasoning "Abraham, Issac and Jacob" are also mentioned together several times does that mean they are all the same being? And BTW those three men were all JEWS and JEWS do not believe in God as a Trinity. {Shema Deut 6:4}.

"that they may be all one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."..... John 17:21  RSV
Is this not a clear example of Fifteenarianism? Come to my church (Pastor: Tom Harley) and I will tell you more.
As I pass the plate on the ends of long poles, they will shake to the music, so that coins will loudly chink. What we want is quiet money.

Very good point. After all if the Trinity was in the Bible in the first place then NO ONE would have tried to put it there by a forgery. Which of course proves it is not in the Bible. {Yet that is not the only Bible Scripture found only in the King James and Catholic Douay Bibles that was added by a scribe trying to support the Trinity}.
    Interestingly there are no spurious Scriptures trying to support the Resurrection. Why? Because it is taught in the Bible. There are no spurious Scriptures trying to support Baptism. Why? Because it is taught in the Bible. Yet there are about a dozen trying to support the idea of a Trinity that are only in a couple of Translations from 1610, 1611C.E. that have been proven by scholars to be spurious!!!
    This line of reasoning can also be applied to Evolution. Back in the early 20th Century scientists discovered the "Piltdown Man" but 40 years later it was discovered to have been a forgery by a Scientist trying to prove evolution of humans. Now ponder : Why if evolution was true and a fact would someone create a forgery to prove it? If it was a fact then no one would.  There are no Scientific forgeries for other things like "gravity". So the very proponents of evolution have exposed  that false teaching just as Christendom's scribes have exposed the false doctrine of the Trinity.

I'm not addressing a particular individual on this public forum, but I would like to contribute  to the general discussion.
Seems the Trinity idea takes a number of guises. This view differs substantially from what I was taught growiing up as a Roman Catholic.
"God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, united in their purpose of saving man. But they're obviously three different entities. Jesus while on earth prays to His Father in heaven. Jesus was neither a ventriloquist nor a schizophrenic. He was talking to His Father, and His Father answered Him. In the gospel of John, the disciples say, "We heard the Father answer Him." Doug Batchelor (Seventh Day Adventist Pastor.)
However, it seems to reflect current thinking amongst a number of different church groups.
For me, the principle Paul refers to at 1Cor.14:9 is relevant here:
"unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air" 
The vocabulary used in explaining the doctorine of the Trinity includes words/phrases such as: 
filioque dual procession appropriation perichoresis hypostases procession The Essential (also called Immanent or Ontological) Trinity The Economic Trinity Some different opinions (referred to as heresies) include:: 
Modalism Tritheism Partialism Adoptionism Arianism The Trinity doctorine does not appear to meet Paul's criteria of being expressed in "speech that is easily understood".
Neither does it's definition appear to be something in which the inspired Holy Scriptures can be used to "set matters straight" (2Tim.3:16). In fact, apart from convoluted, out of context, and distorted attempts to twist existing texts, eventually it was deemed necessary to add a completely spurious statement into scripture at 1John 5:7 which, in the King James version of the Bible, reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". ( I don't know why the forger just didn't go the whole hog and use the word "Trinity" here). Unbelievably, this text is still relied upon by many "grass-roots" Trinitarians.
(Lovers of detail may find this discussion of interest:  https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8)
Britain's good old "Aunty", the BBC, summed up the matter very simply when discussing the (not exclusive) beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on the matter of the Trinity: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/beliefs/beliefs.shtml
The traditional Christian idea that God is a 'Trinity' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is false and based on pagan ideas The doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with the Bible The doctrine of the Trinity contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught

The NWT Glossary says the following about Leviathan:
*** nwtstg Leviathan ***
An animal usually associated with water, apparently some form of aquatic creature. At Job 3:8 and 41:1, it seems to refer to the crocodile or some other aquatic creature of great proportions and strength. At Psalm 104:26, it may be some type of whale. Elsewhere it is used figuratively and is not identifiable with any one animal.—Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1.
So with words like "apparently" and "seems to refer" the Watchtower publications no longer tie the word to a specific real creature, although the crocodile (or perhaps a type of whale) is still preferred in the sense that it is the only real animal we know of that comes anywhere close to the description.
The Glossary also shows that two important uses (Psalms and Isaiah) are symbolic anyway.
(Psalm 104:25, 26) 25 There is the sea, so great and wide, Teeming with countless living things, both small and great. 26 There the ships travel, And Le·viʹa·than, which you formed to play in it.
This is the reference that the Glossary considers be a whale, since it is far out to sea -- not a place where crocodiles go. A careful reading of Job 41, however, also indicated the depths of the sea in the description of Job's Leviathan.
Psalm 74:14 is quoted here with more context, so that the symbolism is clearer. The symbolism would remind the Jewish readers (and psalm-singers) about Pharoah in Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, because both were major "taunters." In context, the main theme seems to be that the Temple had just been burned, and Jehovah seems to have abandoned them, yet they knew Jehovah's power, the same power that could kill a Leviathan. As the book of Job had said, Jehovah had made it and only its Maker could kill it.
(Psalm 74:1-23) 74 Why, O God, have you rejected us forever? Why does your anger burn against the flock of your pasture?  . . . Remember Mount Zion, where you have resided.  3 Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins. The enemy has devastated everything in the holy place.  4 Your foes roared inside your meeting place. They have set up their own banners as signs there.  5 They were like men wielding axes against a thick forest.  6 They broke up all its engravings with axes and iron bars.  7 They set your sanctuary on fire. They profaned the tabernacle bearing your name, casting it to the ground.  8 They and their offspring have said in their hearts: “All the meeting places of God in the land must be burned.”  9 There are no signs for us to see; There is no longer any prophet, And no one among us knows how long this will last. 10 How long, O God, will the adversary keep taunting? Will the enemy treat your name with disrespect forever? 11 Why do you hold back your hand, your right hand? Draw it out of your bosom and put an end to them. 12 But God is my King from long ago, The one performing acts of salvation on the earth. 13 You stirred up the sea with your strength; You smashed the heads of the sea monsters in the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Le·viʹa·than; You gave it as food to the people, to those inhabiting the deserts. . . .18 Remember the enemy’s taunts, O Jehovah, How a foolish people treats your name with disrespect. 19 Do not surrender the life of your turtledove to the wild beasts. Do not forget the life of your afflicted people forever. 20 Remember the covenant, For the dark places of the earth have become full of the haunts of violence. . . . Remember how the foolish taunt you all day long. 23 Do not forget what your foes are saying. The uproar of those who defy you is ascending constantly.
Several things I thought were notable here, not the least of which is the fact that Leviathan has multiple heads in verse 14. Leviathan therefore represents "the taunting adversary." The "wild beasts" in verse 19 wish to swallow up the afflicted people, but the prayer is that Jehovah remember his covenant, and take note that the "taunting" is against his name.
A quick aside: The taunt-song motif, by the way, is known in ancient psalms and poetry. Isaiah 14 is a good example. The idea was also used in one of our old Kingdom Songs. Note the song titled: "The Taunt-Song Against Satan" as Song 75 in the linked songbook that we used from 1950 to 1966. It's a song we rarely sang. The year before I got baptized we got a new songbook, so I barely remember it.
In Isaiah we have a similar reminder that Jehovah could strike the heads of Leviathan (without mentioning Leviathan) so that the Assyrians would have to let the Israelites go back home, just as Jehovah had struck at them when Pharoah trapped them at the Red Sea.
(Isaiah 11:15, 16) 15 And Jehovah will certainly cut off the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and wave his hand at the River [Euphrates, NWT fn]  in the glow of his spirit. And he must strike it in [its] seven torrents, and he will actually cause people to walk in [their] sandals. 16 And there must come to be a highway out of As·syrʹi·a for the remnant of his people who will remain over, just as there came to be [one] for Israel in the day of his coming up out of the land of Egypt.
Note how this same idea is carried forward in Isaiah chapter 27 to a time of full restitution:
(Isaiah 27:1-8) 27 In that day Jehovah, with his harsh and great and strong sword, Will turn his attention to Le·viʹa·than, the gliding serpent, To Le·viʹa·than, the twisting serpent, And he will kill the monster that is in the sea.  . . .  4 There is no wrath in me. Who will confront me with thornbushes and weeds in the battle? I will trample them and set them on fire all together.  . . .  8 With a startling cry you will contend with her when sending her away. He will expel her with his fierce blast in the day of the east wind.
I'm guessing that there might even be a connection between these multiple "heads of Leviathan" and the idea that the dragon and beast of Revelation has 7 heads.
(Revelation 12:3, 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;
(Revelation 13:1, 2) . . .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. 2 Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.
The tie-in to a taunting Adversary is the same as in Psalms and the similar idea in Isaiah. Traditionally, even the old pre-Biblical fables about a "Leviathan" also showed a beast with 7 heads. The similarly described Greek "Hydra" was often shown with 7 heads. This made it a useful symbol of the power of the beastly world powers (who get their power from Satan the Adversary) and which could only be broken at a time when Jehovah sees fit for these powers to be broken.
Note: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/56-ut-68-and-the-tell-asmar-seal/file
The picture is of the god "Baal" killing the 7 headed "Leviathan" or its near equivalent, dated to older than 2200 BCE. (4,200 years old!)
 
 

Me, too. We all know that the Bible refers to "beasts" and "dragons" in the apocalyptic books such as Daniel and Revelation, but I guess we just didn't want them mentioned as if they were "real" in the book of Job.
The Librarian pointed out that someone had asked me a question about Enoch (non-canonical apocalyptic book), where Leviathan and Behemoth are mentioned together in a very curious way. To answer that question, I thought it was a good idea to set up the background comparing what we have believed about Behemoth and Leviathan compared to what some of the Bible-believers in Bible times believed about them.
 

Sure sounds like Dragons to me.... (?)

When I was a boy, I heard my father give the Society's hour talk on the book of Job about 10 times. The talk spent a good portion of the time showing that Behemoth was a hippopotamus, and Leviathan was a crocodile.
Of course, very little time was spent on the fact that the book of Job also says the following about the Behemoth, which is not at all true of a hippo:
(Job 40:15-20) 15 Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. . . . 17It stiffens [or, sways] its tail like a cedar; The sinews of its thighs are woven together. 18 Its bones are tubes of copper; Its limbs are like wrought-iron rods. 19It ranks first [or, "it is the beginning" -- NWT footnote] among the works of God; Only its Maker can approach it with his sword. 20For the mountains produce food for it, Where all the wild animals play.
The little tail of the hippopotamus does not move or sway like a cedar. It was hardly the beginning of God's creative works. The mountains do not produce food for it. Creatures much more terrifying than hippos have been caught and hunted by man for centuries. When we know what Behemoth is we can then understand why it is tied to the creation of man (cf. "which I made as I made you"), and why it is said to be "first" among God's creative works. Another curious thing about "Behemoth" is that it is a plural word. If it is a type of "plural of majesty" (as in Elohim, or "God of Gods"), then it could mean something like, "Beast of Beasts."
The Leviathan is even less like a crocodile than Behemoth is like a hippo. Note:
(Job 41:1-34) . . .“Can you catch Le·viʹa·than with a fishhook Or hold down its tongue with a rope?  . . . 7 Will you fill its hide with harpoons Or its head with fishing spears?  8 Lay your hand on it; You will remember the battle and never do it again!  9 Any hope of subduing it is futile. The mere sight of it would overwhelm you. 10 No one dares to stir it up. . . . 12 I will not be silent about its limbs, About its mightiness and its well-formed body. 13 Who has removed its outer covering? Who will enter its open jaws? 14 Who can pry open the doors of its mouth? Its teeth all around are fearsome. 15 Its back has rows of scales Tightly sealed together. 16 Each one fits so closely to the other That no air can come between them. 17 They are stuck to one another; They cling together and cannot be separated. 18 Its snorting flashes out light, And its eyes are like the rays of dawn. Flashes of lightning go out of its mouth; Fiery sparks escape. 20 Smoke pours out of its nostrils, Like a furnace fueled with rushes. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, And a flame shoots from its mouth. 22 There is great strength in its neck, And dismay runs before it. 23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined together; They are firm, as though cast upon it and immovable. 24 Its heart is hard as stone, Yes, hard as a lower millstone. 25 When it rises up, even the mighty are frightened; Its thrashing causes bewilderment. 26 No sword that reaches it will prevail; Nor will spear, dart, or arrowhead. 27 It regards iron as straw, Copper as rotten wood. 28 An arrow does not make it flee; Slingstones turn into stubble against it. 29 It regards a club as stubble, And it laughs at the rattling of a javelin. 30 Underneath, it is like sharp fragments of pottery; It spreads itself in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31It makes the deep boil just like a pot; It stirs up the sea like an ointment pot. 32 It leaves a glistening wake in its path. One would think that the deep had white hair. 33 There is nothing like it on the earth, A creature made to have no fear. 34 It glares at everything that is haughty. It is king over all the majestic wild beasts.”
Do crocodiles snort out fire and sparks from their nostrils? Do their eyes shine brightly? Does lightning go out of its mouth? is it like a furnace inside, so that its very breath sends a flame that can set coals ablaze? Does it really stir up the deep seas like a cauldron? Looking again at the New World Translation it's hard for me to believe, now, that I ever thought this was a crocodile.
Of course, part of the problem is that Witnesses, like many fundamentalist religions, too, do not want to see "fabulous" creatures in the Bible. It opens up the Bible to ridicule if it refers to "real" dragons and unicorns and beasts that seem never to have existed. Yet the idea appears even more "fabulous" if we read from some other translations, or more especially, the "Septuagint" LXX era translations, which would have been based on Hebrew manuscripts from as early as 400 BCE, rather than the NWT which is based on Hebrew manuscripts from as late as 1100 CE.
Here are some of the quotes from Job in the LXX: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/28-iob-nets.pdf
Job 40:15-23 But look now you are familiar with "monsters" [Behemoth]; they eat grass like cows. Look now its strength is in its loins, and its power in its belly's navel. It stood up its tail like a cypress, and its sinews have been interwoven. Its flanks are flanks of copper, and its spine is cast iron. . . . This is the chief of what the Lord created, made to be mocked at by his angels. But when it went up on a steep mountain, it brought its gladness to the quadrupeds in Tartarus. . . . If there is a flood, it will never take notice. {*It trusts that the Jordan will tumble into its mouth.}
Job 40:25-41:26 [Masoretic 41:1-34] And will you catch a dragon [Leviathan] with a fish hook? . . . And do nations feed on it, and do the Phoenician races divvy it up? And a whole fleet, gathered, cannot carry the mere skin of its tail. {and its head in fisherman's boats}. But you will lay a hand on it, though you remember the battle that is waging in its body, and let it happen no more! . . . Who will uncover the front of what it is wearing? And who could enter the plate of its cuirass? Who will open the gates of its face? Fear is all around its teeth. Its inwards are bronze shields. . . . Light shines forth at its sneezing and its eyes have the look of the morning star. From its mouth proceed flaming torches, and fiery braziers are being cast forth. From its nostrils smoke of a furnace burning with the fire of coals. Its soul is coals, and a flame proceeds from its mouth. . . . Its heart is solid like stone, and it stands like an unyielding anvil. . . . It makes the deep boil like a caldron and regards the sea as a pot of ointment and Tartarus of the deep as a captive. . . . There is nothing else on earth like it, made to be mocked at by my angels. Everything high it sees, and it is king over all that are in the waters.
The basic idea remains in modern translations, but there is some evidence that the Masoretic text (which the NWT is based upon) has often cleaned up what was thought to be embarrassing to medieval rabbis in the intervening centuries. The references to "Tartarus" [see Greek mythology] are curious, especially due to 2 Peter 2:4. But the additional references to Leviathan in the Hebrew Scriptures are just as striking.

Trinity This... Trinity that... John said this.. John said that .. blahahahahaaa ...
If you want to know what the Apostle John knew and said in Revelation it's VERY simple... in LESS than  the FIRST 11 words!
In vision he saw BOTH God and Jesus in Heaven, and they were not  joined at the hip !
Be a sport ... look it up ..... Revelation 1:1 .... shows that GOD and Jesus are NOT the same. They at this time are BOTH in Heaven, and  GOD... IS NOT JESUS.
AAAAnd ... Revelation 1:1 is SOooo easy to remember.

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Berean Study Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

Berean Literal Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified it through having sent His angel to His servant, John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Heart English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

New American Standard 1977
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Jubilee Bible 2000
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John,

King James 2000 Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:

American King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Darby Bible Translation
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.

World English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Young's Literal Translation
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,
.
 

I'd LOVE to answer these questions!!!
But I have no idea where this question came from. I had to give far less attention here for a few days and found that I had more notifications than I could review. I'll try to find the original thread where this came from when I get a chance.
But, yes, I have read the book of Enoch, and I'm pretty sure I know exactly why Leviathan is female and Behemoth is male. Also, I have a pretty good idea about why Enoch mentions the 14th day of the seventh month, but nothing as definitive on that count. 
If you or anyone else knows where this question first came up, please let me know. This way I'll put the answer in the right place.

That can happen too often. And some (hopefully very few) who see the current emotional vulnerability of persons abused in the past may also "abuse" them again by claiming that they will get justice for them by collecting money to be that "voice." Persons completely unrelated to Witnesses and ex-Witnesses and Catholics and ex-Catholics have already begun knocking to take advantage of persons in both groups. (Heard from a witness in Australia. The persons involved were not attorneys.)

That's a really good way to put it: "The quality of critical thinking is going downhill." I've seen people who say they have turned to atheism and agnosticism because any critical thinker can see that it's all based on superstition. They they begin following their astrology signs, and claim that there really is something to it.
Astrology is one of the more insidious proofs that the quality of critical thinking has gone downhill. It has been around for thousands of years, probably as old as the human race. Yet it was always based on superstitions.
But it's primary fault is in the fact that it makes people think that there fate is quasi-determined by pre-existing external conditions. This means (partly) that they can drift into a non-thinking, non-planning view of life and that critical thinking skills are unnecessary.
When Peter told Jesus that he would not meet with a certain death as the outcome of his ministry, Peter told him, basically, not to worry, to think positively. Peter wasn't thinking critically. He wasn't taking in the whole picture, and only wanted to see something that fit his personal wishes regarding the fate of Jesus. He wanted to see the easy way out. Therefore, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"

"Fake" news. This is a "Fan Account." It's not the actual Twitter account of the Vice President.
The real VP has the following info on Twitter:
Vice President Pence‏Verified account @VP
This guy who apparently hopes to fool people names himself:
The Vice President @MikePenceVP

The quality of critical thinking is going downhill - it is painful to watch the news these days!  I hope this does not sound high minded or critical but I truly find that once you have been educated by Jehovah, to know the difference between right and wrong and you have a strong sense of justice - what is going on now in the world just boggles the mind! Satan is truly blinding the moral eyes of people!

I try not to be too judgmental on what others choose as to entertainment, dress and grooming... according to their conscience, even though I may not agree with what they find acceptable. (Obviously there are things that are a "no-brainer" that go beyond what is acceptable even under the "conscience" umbrella. It shouldn't be an "anything goes"...) Personally, (others will disagree), I try not to read too much into every detail either (although I also recognize that little things can add up to big things over time). Making human rules and regulations instead of principles tends to be unhealthy in my experience, because they often reflect the personal opinion and consciences of the ones making them, over others' - even when well intentioned. Sometimes strong opinions of what others should be doing can border on being the "masters" of their faith.  I also know the other side of the coin, on several occasions having experienced demon attack and harassment which was absolutely terrifying. (No Casper the friendly ghost there). But in no case was it possible to associate these events with my choice of entertainment, even though at the time I was just studying and coming into the truth.
I guess the short of it is, that I don't make lists and rules I think everyone else should be doing according to my personal conscience. I try to lead by example and show how well it works out in the hope that others may imitate my faith, to their personal benefit. (I was consciously trying to avoid the use the word "I" so much here because "I" didn't want my personal opinion to be the focus. But there was no other way to convey these thoughts without it's use).
 

Good! Because, for a minute there, I thought I recognized one of our local elders, there on the right.

People make excuses all the time.  If they can find a scapegoat they will.
I know someone who was offered a scholarship by the government of the day to study for a professional career, as his talent and qualifications were evident. (He was subsequently offered the same scholarship on two more occasions and did not accept.) He did not pursue any studies - just stayed in the field he was in at the ordinary level of a government officer. Years later after seeing that he was not as successful as he might have been with a professional qualification he laid the blame on his mother who raised him as a Witness.  He did not take into consideration that he was baptized for some years, was of legal age, and that the scholarships were offered to him several times and that his mother would not have footed the bill.
One or two of the contributors here have recently said that many of us could have been better off with a little more education and more purposeful planning of our lives, though not leaving out spiritual things.  However, even with this mistaken idea that you cannot be a spiritual person with a sound secular education, many of them have been able to provide for their families albeit with some difficulties.  The person is still a Witness along with his family - so there is still some success. (Hebrews 6:10)
Diligence and capability in all things can make life easier.  We have the example of Joseph, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel and the three Hebrew officials, Nehemiah, and  they were probably others not mentioned (John 21:25) who were diligent in all areas of their lives.  They put spiritual things first but were also excellent in their secular work.  If we have insight we will notice that God did not despise them for this. God used Joseph, Mordecai and Esther to save his people from annihilation; God use Nehemiah to restart true worship.
Today we also note that several persons are working in branch offices  who are well qualified secularly as well as spiritually.  I know quite a few whose parents sent them to study despite the suggestions.  I know of four of these who are now working in branch offices either full time or part time and others as resource persons.  (Isaiah 60:16)

How WE see us:
How some RUSSIANS sees us: