JW Insider

No one can or should try to judge the claim of any specific individual. However the current teaching is only saying that if any persons claim to have become "of the anointed" after the first group died out, then the length of their life doesn't matter anyway in trying to determine the length (or makeup) of the generation. The point has nothing to do with whether their claim has any "merit." 
The first generation is assumed to have died out already, although who could say for sure if there was not a 120 year old brother or sister somewhere who was of the anointed at age 16?  If so, that first group has not died out yet, but will likely die out in the next year or so. If we assume that the last member of group one died on January 1, 2000 at 12:01 am EST, then it is quite possible that two brothers who were twins, born in say, 1980, could both be of the anointed. If one of the twins (let's say, the younger one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes before 12:01 am EST on January 1, 2000 then he would be part of the "generation" that would not pass away. If the other one (let's say, the older one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes after his twin brother, then he would not be part of that generation.
So it's even very possible for a younger person to be a part of the generation where his older brother is not part of it.
Hope that makes sense.
 

Phew!!!
Emotions understandably are running high over the issues faced by our dear brothers in Russia. Our sense of justice is outraged by the treatment meted out to our brothers, especially when we see videos like above. Let's not forget that the roaring of the lion (1Pet.5:8) is aimed to frighten and confuse the sheep. The last thing we want is to be bickering with each other over how to best support our brothers at this time. Recognise that oppression can drive even the wise one into madness (Ecc.7:7).
We can be sure that the Head of the congregation, Jesus, is as well aware of what is happening to our brothers now as he was in the 1st Century in connection with the congregation in Smyrna (Rev.2:8-11).
We have been provided with our current publicity strategy by the Governing Body, and are yet to see the impact of this. Additional action has been taken under theocratic direction as reported on https://jw-russia.org/news on 31/3/2017. The Society has posted videos and news reports on oppressive action both recently and in the past on jw.org, even naming brothers where appropiate.
As for sympathisers (either Witnesses or non-witnesses) posting videos and information under their own authorisation, this is a matter for them and their own consciences. It would hardly be appropriate for we, who demand freedom of expression for ourselves especially in religious matters, to restrict that right for others. However, with every excercise of freedom there is a price to be paid and a consideration on how our actions effect others.
In fairness to @Lussier Denis, the campaign instructions do contain the request: "Do not mention the names of individuals in Russia who are Jehovah’s Witnesses.". We need to apply the words of Proverbs 20:1 here: "by skillful direction wage your war", and for Jehovah's Witnesses, that skillful direction will come from the Head of the Congregation, Jesus Christ, and through the instructions given by the Governing Body and it is through following these that victory will come. It will not come through individually initiated skirmishing, independent of that "skilfull direction" and the inevitable disunity such action brings.

Beginning with a comment made to an anointed one:
"While there are some glaring doctrinal errors embedded in the faith of Jehovah’s witnesses I do not see any conflict with scripture as to when they hold the Memorial. If as you stated there is no evidence that Jesus left any specified date and time to hold the Memorial then the matter of partaking is left up to the conscience of the individual partaking. As such there is no impropriety associated with continuing the practice of observing on Nissan 14th. In fact it supports scripture and the gospel accounts to do just that.
We know from scripture that Jesus was killed on the same day that the other Passover victims were being killed and according to the Law of Moses this could have only occurred on the 14th of the month. We can’t change the order of events to support his last supper at the expense of his death.
His death as a sacrificial offering had to conform to the sacrificial system otherwise it could not be accepted as payment or atonement. The yearly Passover was not only a commemoration of the past but also a rehearsal for the future antitypical atonement sacrifice that God himself promised to provide in the future. According to your account this never happened and God to date has not kept his word.
Jesus remained under law and the law remained in effect until his death, in order to fulfill the law he had to complete the law first. Keep in mind that the sacrificial system, the law and the temple arrangement originated with God and he is not above his own law. God’s own righteousness would demand that he work within the confines of his own system to provide atonement for mankind. To suggest otherwise calls into question the legitimacy of the sacrifice as the day you have rearranged Jesus death could not have had any legal precedent in scripture. If we take your assessment at face value, God accepted an illegitimate sacrifice which would be illegal payment for sin and extended forgiveness without any legal justification. In essence your narrative convicts God of Unrighteousness and delegitimizes Jesus sacrifice. "
Reply:
Thank you for leaving a comment. Sorry for the time it took to reply. I am presently caring for an elderly parent.
The purpose of my post above (as well as the link it contains), provides scriptures that convey a clear picture, as to when Christ both held the last supper with his disciples, as well as when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Since you express that you believe that day to be Nisan 14;  I will provide those verses more pointedly for your consideration, and if you do not interpret those cited scriptures in the same way as I, I would appreciate your expressing here, your   own understanding of those cited verses.   "Jehovah's Witnesses" claim to hold the Memorial on Nisan 14, and also establish this Jewish date as the time to celebrate... not the Passover, but the Memorial of Christ's last meal with his chosen disciples. I do not challenge the proper date for the Passover Sabbath, as being Nisan 14. But I have logically deduced by means of scripture, that Jesus neither held the Last Meal with his disciples, nor died, on Nisan 14.  The scriptures also reveal, that the Passover lambs were sacrificed at twilight, as Nisan 13 was ending and Nisan 14 was starting. At twilight, the days overlapped, just as our days do, as night gradually leaves at sunrise.   The Passover lambs were to be eaten that evening, after nightfall, on the new day of Nisan 14 (Exodus 12:5-8,12-13,22,29). After nightfall of Nisan 14, was the Passover. Therefore, it was the twilight of Nisan13-14, when the lambs were slaughtered. Jesus died at 3pm, before the arrival of that twilight, while it was still Nisan 13. God however, created a premature supernatural "twilight" as Jesus was dying (Matt.27:45-46,50; John12:35; 9:5,4), making it impossible for the Jews to have a valid twilight sacrifice and Passover in God's estimation, in the nightfall to come, on Nisan 14, 33CE. In 33CE, the Jews had their Passover and ate the lambs, after nightfall on Nisan 14, and after Jesus died at 3pm the afternoon before. He  was laid in his tomb, previous to the onset of that day's natural twilight. The lambs had to be slaughtered at the twilight of 13-14 (The Day of Preparation), in order to be eaten during the night of Nisan 14. Otherwise, if slaughtered on the twilight of Nisan14-15, the lamb would have been eaten on Nisan 15. Although you rightly claim,    "If as you stated there is no evidence that Jesus left any specified date and time to hold the Memorial then the matter of partaking is left up to the conscience of the individual partaking."...... I have also said it is up to each partaker. But I must personally rely upon what scripture conveys... Paul referred to the timing of the Memorial, at 1Cor.11:25-26.  He referred to a specific "cup" and a specific "bread". He referred to the emblems, which Christ shared with his disciples. When did that originally occur?  Was it on the Passover Sabbath? Was it Nisan 14?    No to both. It was the day before, on the Day of Preparation... when all the Passover lambs were also to be sacrificed as that day began to evaporate.  Reason and scripture dictates, that this was the specific "date" when the original partakers originally partook, and logically, the time Paul referred to as to when the annual anniversary would occur, to partake of that specific bread and cup (1Cor.11:26). When Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me" (Luke22:19); He said it on Nisan 13.   If your own reasoning concludes that an anniversary should be celebrated the day after the original event, because a previous covenant was celebrated a day later, than your reasoning differs with mine. I do not judge you or those who think like you. I simply offered (at the link) an explanation for why I had decided to partake on the Day of Preparation, for the sake of those who had requested to partake with me. I needed to tell those who wished to partake with me, my decision... Did I not? How else could we partake together? And since my decision differed from the norm, would it not be inconsiderate to set an unexpected date, without an explanation? For anyone whose conscience disagreed with my decision, they could then know to make other arrangements.   I clearly stated in the link above, that in light of 1Cor.5:7, I do not take a dogmatic approach, nor judge another, as to whether they choose to partake on the Jewish Passover (which date, commemorates a dead covenant), nor do I judge those who choose to partake on the date when Jesus and his disciples inaugurated the NEW Covenant (Heb.8:7).  I choose to be identified with the New Covenant and its original Memorial, and not the Old Covenant foreshadowed by Moses and Egypt. The saving blood of God's new Lamb fulfills that which the literal Passover lambs only hinted at. I wish to embrace that fulfillment, over keeping the Jewish law (Gal.4:9-11; 2:21). In fact, when the Jews celebrated the Passover after nightfall (at midnight) at the start of Nisan 14 33CE, it was a futile act. They had already condemned and executed the previous afternoon, their only real hope... the fulfillment of God's "Passover" and salvation of the "firstborn" from the Destroyer
(Heb.11:28; 12:23; Luke10:20).   Why would we who have been set free by Christ, want to continue to imitate the timing of those hypocrites, who failed their time of inspection? From Christ's death on Nisan 13 onward, the Jewish Passover is futility. You stated,
"As such there is no impropriety associated with continuing the practice of observing on Nissan 14th. In fact it supports scripture and the gospel accounts to do just that." It would be considerate when writing to someone who wishes to be guided by scripture, to provide the scriptures you refer to at the time of your assertion.   You also state: "We know from scripture that Jesus was killed on the same day that the other Passover victims were being killed"... This is correct, and it was Nisan 13... The Day of Preparation, which ran from twilight of Nisan12-13 to twilight of Nisan 13-14. Jesus both conducted the Memorial and died, during that Jewish day of Nisan 13. You continue: "and according to the Law of Moses this could have only occurred on the 14th of the month."... No, according to Moses, the eating of the Lamb and the Passover by the Destroyer, occurred on Nisan 14... not the slaughter of the lambs, nor the other preparations, which were to be completed by nightfall on the Day of Preparation (Nisan 13), when the twilight of Nisan 14, began. Jesus died at 3pm, on Nisan 13. The Passover lambs were to be slaughtered before nightfall that same day. You continue... "We can’t change the order of events to support his last supper at the expense of his death."... That is correct. But since the Jewish day is from sundown to sundown, Christ instituted the Memorial, and died, on the same day... the day of Preparation, on Nisan 13. He had the supper after sundown, and died before the next sundown, and before the start of Nisan 14 (Luke 23:52-56). You state: "His death as a sacrificial offering had to conform to the sacrificial system otherwise it could not be accepted as payment or atonement."   In fact, Jesus stated repeatedly, that he matured to become no part of the system you speak of, as he expects his followers to be no part. In fact, he exposed and ultimately destroyed that "world"/"system", for the sake of Truth (Luke21:5-6; Matt.23:38-39; John2:18-21; 1Cor.12:27; Eph.2:6,20-22). I don't know where you get the idea that atoning sacrifices can only be validly offered on Nisan 14, but the scriptures disagree. Blood is needed for forgiveness (Heb.9:22). But such sacrifices for sin occurred on many days (Lev.17:11; 1:2,4), just as our own sacrifice for sins comes before God, irrespective of the date (Phil.3:10; Rom.6:5; Rev.6:9; 7:14; 6:11; Zech.11:4; Mark 8:35).  These verses speak of a New Covenant that requires a sharing in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, irrespective of the literal date... not of a dead and empty ritual which reflects a lost promise, due to unfaithfulness (Matt.21:43).    Christ has already fulfilled the Law... not by a date, but by his blood. If you regard that blood as invalid because it was shed on the Day of Preparation, then I have no response, other than to say that you are guilty of your own accusation against me... "According to your account this never happened and God to date has not kept his word." On the contrary, I acknowledge what Christ accomplished, and when he accomplished it according to scripture. It is you who deem that sacrifice as invalid, because it was not on Nisan 14. Why do you believe that God requires us to respect the literal timing of a covenant that has been replaced since Nisan13, 33CE, rather than respecting when Jesus established a New Covenant, by his Last Supper and Death?  Please send me the scriptures that lead your thoughts in this way.   You state: "Jesus remained under law and the law remained in effect until his death, in order to fulfill the law he had to complete the law first."   And what was the Law, which Jesus fulfilled? Was it the Jewish Law? Did he live subservient to the Jewish Law?     Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt.22:37-40). (Rom.13:10; Gal.5:14) See Matt.12:2,10,22,13-14; John5:10-11; etc. Jesus fulfilled the Law (John10:11; 15:10; 14:31) and so must we (1John3:16; John13:34-35), but as is seen from the above scriptures, Jesus and his apostles rightly lived according to greater truths.    You state: "the law and the temple arrangement originated with God and he is not above his own law. " God's laws were not for God, but for us to be taught by them (Mark2:27; Matt.19:8). Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. He was over it, and went beyond it's lessons to a sinful nation (Matt.12:2,5-8).  His disciples followed that example.   You state; "God’s own righteousness would demand that he work within the confines of his own system to provide atonement for mankind. "   God keeps His promises, and concerning the seed promised to Abraham, as well as the Passover Lamb (the Jewish festival of Passover lasted a week), God kept His promises. They were fulfilled.  But do not confuse God's promises with the embellished system created by the Jews, or God's shepherding staff of Laws to guide His nation, as an obligation for God to follow. He condescended to deal with mankind and their sinful state (Ps.113:5-6; 8:4) when providing the moral guidance they needed. His ways are above all the ways of mankind (Isa.55:9), including the guidance necessary for an unruly people who needed regulation. Do not make the moral deficit of such a people and their need for discipline, into the image of God. If you believe that Christ's sacrifice was "illegitimate" because he both died and commemorated his death on the Day of Preparation... your contention is not with me, but with God.   Again, if you interpret the timing of  Mark14:12; 15:42-43; Matt.26:17;  John19:14,31,42 in a different way than I do, please explain, and include the scriptural backing, so that I may benefit. Please keep in mind that all Jewish days ran from sundown to sundown, including the Day of Preparation and the Passover Sabbath. The Jewish twilight was what we ascribe to sunrise, regarding the start of a new day. It is also notable, that according to the Jewish method of arriving at Nisan 14 (Spring equinox and the previous new moon), "Jehovah's Witnesses" partook this year, on Nisan 15.   We are told at Mal.3:1-3, (Zech.13:9) that it is not "Jehovah's Witnesses" that God's refinement is directed toward at Christ's arrival. He comes to purify his own priesthood (Rev.3:19). If our beliefs are accurately based upon scripture (Matt.7:24; 1Cor.3:11-15), our fire-resistant faith will not perish (2Pet.3:10-12), nor the teachings we have sourced in God's Word (John15:16; Rom.3:4; Matt.12:37). We all have been defiled by the demonic exhalations of the wicked steward (Rev.2:20; 17:2; 1Tim.4:1; Rev.16:13-16)... becoming drunk on that harlot's wine.  We all need to obey Christ, and wake up (Matt.25:5-7; Mark13:33). Once we do, we can either "buy from those who sell" (Matt.25:9-10; Rev.13:17) and become their branded slaves (Rev.13:16; Isa.44:20; Col.2:8; Rev.13:10; 17:5)... Or return to God and His Word, "buy" from Him (Isa.55:1-2; Rev.3:18), and be marked as His slaves (Deut.11:18; Rev.7:3; 14:1; 22:4-5). Now is the time of separation and harvest, just as it was among the Jews of the first century.
We can celebrate the Passover when they impotently did,
or on the day that Christ memorialized his death and died, according to his request (Luke22:19; 1Cor.11:23-24,26).  
The Memorial - When? - http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-memorial-when.html

This rumour of GB morning worship instruction is passing round everywhere.
This is just like the emails pretending to be from banks, phishing for personal details. 
Our Governing Body does not communicate worldwide on serious matters by third party source via email, social media, or any other random channel.
We have our instruction on how to conduct this campaign here: 
https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/russia/jw-mobilize-global-response-to-threat-of-ban/
This is also the source for information on progress with this vital campaign.
ANYTHING else, including the postings on this site, is unauthorised at best. I will leave you to decide what it is at worst. 
Compare the Apostle Paul's words at 2 Thess 2:1-2 where he says
"we ask you  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us"
 
 
 
 
 

It is a daily struggle to make sure that we are in line with Jehovah's requirements.  The distractions are so many and our own flaws make it hard.... but every day we have the opportunity to show Jehovah that we love him again.
Satan wants us to stumble - to be defiled in some way - so keep on the watch!

I understand the claim that we "tear families apart" but we can always point to Jesus' words:
(Matthew 10:34-37) . . .. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.
Does anyone have any documentation on exactly what the complaint is behind the term "indoctrinating young people"? Is this a concern over young baptisms that feed into the disfellowshipping practice. Is it the government's fear of "cult" mentality that we saw with France? (Probably just an excuse) In Bulgaria it was about not even serving in supportive civilian roles to replace military service and the fact that we disfellowshipped those who chose to accept blood even when it was chosen as a life-saving alternative. In Bulgaria, of course, we merely invoked the change that was already in the works in some countries to allow JWs to serve in non-combatant civilian roles as alternative military service. On the blood issue we changed it from disfellowshipping to disassociation, which sounded different to the government, even though we clarified that nothing had changed on the congregational level regarding the shunning, etc., since we were to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated exactly the same.
I went to visit Denmark last year, and was suprised to learn that almost no one pays attention to the name and beliefs of the major "national religion." It's like a state religion, that is just there to provide services for marriages and funerals, and otherwise no one seems to care. This is one of the things that makes Islam and Jehovah's Witnesses "scary" to some of them.
I suspect that Islam, and Baptist and JW missionaries looking for converts is seen as disruptive for similar reasons. The "state religion" after years of supposed atheism has drifted into just a kind of traditional decoration that symbolizes unity and peace. There is a Russian Orthodox hierarchy, but they don't ask for any political influence. I think the Russian government has therefore become more sensitive to any religious groups who take their religion too seriously, and have their own "judicial systems" within these organizations. It's one of the things that Spain complains about with JWs, they don't even want the Catholics to have an internal judicial system. (Especially when crime is treated only as sin, and there is no transparency into what goes on behind the curtain.) Of course that might be an overreaction in Spain because their reputation suffered over the Inquisition, just like Germany tends to react at Nazism more harshly than surrounding nations.

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me.
If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable.  We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority.
I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you.
(Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light.
Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent  for speaking the truth.
To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...."
(1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here:
(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.
We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me.
If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable.  We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority.
I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you.
(Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light.
Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent  for speaking the truth.
To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...."
(1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here:
(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.
We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

One problem might be the continuing support of Rutherford's remarks. Note how we understand expressions like "a third of the sea became as blood" in Revelation 8:8,9:
*** re chap. 21 pp. 134-135 pars. 21-22 Jehovah’s Plagues on Christendom ***
21 “And the second angel blew his trumpet. And something like a great mountain burning with fire was hurled into the sea. And a third of the sea became blood; and a third of the creatures that are in the sea which have souls died, and a third of the boats were wrecked.” (Revelation 8:8, 9) What does this frightful scene picture?
22 We may best understand it against the background of the convention of Jehovah’s people held in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., on August 18-26, 1923. The featured Saturday afternoon talk by J. F. Rutherford was on the topic “Sheep and Goats.” The “sheep” were clearly identified as those righteously disposed persons who would inherit the earthly realm of God’s Kingdom. A resolution that followed drew attention to the hypocrisy of “apostate clergymen and ‘the principal of their flocks,’ who are worldly men of strong financial and political influence.” It called on the “multitude of the peace and order loving ones in the denominational churches . . . to withdraw themselves from the unrighteous ecclesiastical systems designated by the Lord as ‘Babylon’” and to ready themselves “to receive the blessings of God’s kingdom.” . . . Meantime, with the blast of the second trumpet, Jehovah pronounces judgment against a third of it—the unruly part that is in the realm of Christendom herself.
In the context of our current beliefs about Revelation, we are quick to include what amounts to death threats especially to all of Christendom's denominations, and continue to believe that when Revelation speaks of "trumpets" and "plagues" and "woes" that these often came through the very words of Rutherford. That's current belief, not past belief.
 

I have less time lately to participate. Perhaps this night. The issues in this topic realy make feel sad, because the news are regarding my country, and I personally know some of the brothers on jail. 
EDIT '[I'm not using my normal PC, the persons I know were mentioned in other post about Spain, this that mention brothers on responsability on the Supreme Court in Spain]
At this time I only wish to point out my confidence in that this is Jehocah's people. But, why are we sure all the refination happenned in 1918? What if the "best is to come"?
Why have we applied 2Tim 3:1-5 to worldy people, when the context is with no doubt talking about situations INSIDE the congregation? In this way, when I know about this bad news in the congregations I see more proof we are living in the last days!

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me.
If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable.  We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority.
I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you.
(Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light.
Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent  for speaking the truth.
To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...."
(1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here:
(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.
We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

I am a faithful believer and have "privileges" in the organization. I am also aware of things that most people are not aware of and wouldn't believe even if I told them. (And no, I don't come by this by way of apostate websites and such. I am there at ground zero with eyes on the ground, in first person testimony). These are the types of things that you will never read about in our publications - and for good reason. People would be stumbled - some things are just too outside their field of experience to rationalize within the context of their faith and they wouldn't thank you for knowing about it anyway because they don't want to know. (It would be like asking: "Can you tell me something that's going to kill me?") And yet, none of these things should come as a surprise. The Bible clearly warns us of "wicked men and imposters," men who would advance from bad to worse. Sometimes the things that happen are so "out there" that the only ones you would be able to identify with are faithful men described in God's Word who have experienced similar things that some of us experience in a spiritual sense today. Yes, some men in authority - "stars in Jesus' right hand" are not what they appear to be even though they may appear righteous to men and have a badge of authority. Of course, most people expect imperfection, but there are times when you have to call it what it is: wickedness. (I can't say whether that applies in the case referred to above here since I don't know all the facts and wasn't personally there - even though it looks bad). No, but as referenced above, we "shouldn't be too surprised considering the other kinds of hidden crimes that we already know about." I get elders asking me from all over the place about these things and I respond the best way I can, always honestly, but in a way that will help them maintain their faith in Jehovah and respect for his organization - with the proviso that sometimes that respect is for the authority men may have, but not for who they are. (i.e.. David's respect for Saul, even though Saul, using theocratic resources, was orchestrating a murderous campaign against a faithful servant of Jehovah that went on for years).  
 The short answer is that, our relationship and dedication to Jehovah God should never be dictated by the decisions other humans make, regardless of what "position" they have, or how much we may fell hurt by them. Even when that "position" is viewed by many as being righteous. Power can have a corrupting influence and when men aren't held to account quickly, they can become hardened to do bad. Especially when they have the authority to control matters to hide and protect themselves. To be clear I'm an not pointing or accusing the Governing Body as such - (although there have been some disturbing issues in the past), but rather pointing out the fact that there is no level within the Organization where corruption has not existed at one time or another. (in what year was corruption no longer allowed?  Not yet anyway...) It is also important not to paint with too wide a brush as if the whole organization was bad - based on the choices of a "relatively" few bad apples. When you think about the people you associate with at meetings, the ministry and at conventions, you see that most JW's are good at heart, happy, kind people who want to do what is right and please Jehovah despite their imperfections - just like we are. 

Hahaha, that is a kind of oxymoron as the conscience is a personal matter and what is acceptable to one persons conscience might not be acceptable to an other. I have a feeling the Society has recognized that this thinking (by the JWs who consult with them) is a bit flawed because it takes away personal research and personal conviction and the gift of free will. Like in the WT study article a couple of  weeks ago quoted a woman " Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier." 
I don't know if you or anyone else noticed a BIG change in the new Advance Directive. There are no longer any options for minor blood fractions that you can check. There is merely several lines of space under point 4 "Regarding other health care instructions" . So the holder of the directive is invited to put in his own words what other health care instructions he/she may wish to insert. When I filed it out,I did not consult with any elder as to what I should put there I merely broadly mentioned that "I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will have to be discussed with me...." Of course in order to be able to discuss any details, one has to inform oneself so that one knows what one is talking about, and that is the point I think. I mentioned this to the elders and they just looked at me. Then it crossed my mind that I wonder what they would have said if I asked them what I should write under point 4. I have a strong feeling they would have told me to go and do some research, and perhaps told me what publications to look up. I also have a feeling that this is also because of legal implications. No one can then say anyone was coerced into stating a particular wish. So really it is a good idea that portion 4 is left blank and it is up to the holder to inset his/her wishes. A definite improvement to get publishers to use their brain!

Sad.
Looks like it will be difficult even to have 'home church services' if groups are caught advertising such services without permission. Based on this report from a few weeks ago. Odd that they will still allow a business bank account but with only enough money in it to pay fines and taxes.
 
 

So how come Trinitarian groups are being targeted as well?
RUSSIA: Alleged "missionary activity" prosecutions continue
July 2016 – March 2017 prosecutions ...
... Prosecutions have involved individuals or communities belonging to the following religious communities: independent Protestants – 18; Jehovah's Witnesses – 13; the Society of Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishna devotees) – 7; Baptists – 5; Seventh-Day Adventists – 4; Buddhists – 2; New Apostolic Church – 1; Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox Church – 1; and Salvation Army – 1. One village elder who permitted an independent Protestant church to display a banner at a village festival in the Mari-El Republic was also charged.

Maybe you should start writing more clearly. I don't even know what any of that jumble means in relation to my comment.

There is no precise way yet to conclusively determine what was actually in Paul's mind in his use of Deut.21:22-23 relating to instrument used in Jesus murder. The analysis in the posting is interesting, and I particularly like the connection with the account regarding Haman's experience in the book of Esther.
If anything, the information presented persuades me more to the single stake view, particularly when I consider the active interest Jehovah must have taken in all the events surrounding the sacrificial death of His son Jesus. The idea (if true) that the word for stake had slipped in meaning due to custom and practice of the time, and that this would render a single pole method of execution as unusual (although not impossible), rather piques my interest. If anything, it would certainly have drawn even more attention to the event at the time, even if the detail is not specifically recorded in any extant source. I am also inclined to think that an ancient definition of the word would be more appropriate in view of Paul's reference to Deuteronomy.
However, we just cannot be sure, and for that reason I am happy to accept for now the current view we as Jehovahs Witnesses hold "the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty."  https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/
Of course, the matter will be clarified in the future, but it is obviously more important for us now to focus on the meaning, rather than the implement, of Jesus' death.  

I think the best way to address it is to look carefully at the word used for "stake" and see how else it gets used in the Bible. This is mostly from the NWT Appendix 5C:
Of course, Paul is quoting from Deut 21:22,23 which says:
(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) 22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake*, [*footnote: tree, wood] . . . something accursed of God is the one hung up; - NWT
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "stake" is used about 328 times, and over 300 of those times it can be correctly translated as "tree" or "wood" or (when plural) "trees" or "timber" So it could easily mean "tree" in this case.
(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, KJV) And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
But in the few times when it can be translated as something else, it clearly means wooden things like stick, branch, staff, gallows, plank. In the context of hanging someone up, "stake" does not always appear to be the most appropriate, but it's still possible. In the context of hanging from it, we have a description of Haman and Mordecai's gallows:
(Esther 7:9, 10) . . .“Haʹman also prepared a stake for Morʹde·cai, whose report saved the king. It is standing at Haʹman’s house, 50 cubits high.” At that the king said: “Hang him on it.” 10 So they hanged Haʹman on the stake that he had prepared for Morʹde·cai, and the king’s rage subsided. - NWT
(Esther 6:4) . . .having Morʹde·cai hanged on the stake that he had prepared for him. - NWT
A 75-foot high "gallows" sounds like more than a single, simple stake, and the Hebrew gives a sense that it was prepared, (produced, worked on, fashioned, wrought) not merely "put up."
(Esther 7:9, ESV)Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Moreover, the gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.”
But here below we have what is apparently a single beam, probably from a vertical beam from 8 to 12 feet in height.
(Ezra 6:11) And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account. - NWT
The Greek word for all these Hebrew items in the LXX is 'xylon' and it's, of course, the word Paul uses in Galatians 3:13. And here again, it is can be translated "tree" or "wood" in most other places in the Greek. 13 of 19 times.
(Acts 13:29) And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree,and laid him in a sepulchre. - KJV
(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree - KJV
 
(Revelation 2:7) 7 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ - NWT
But it can even be the word for stocks:
(Acts 16:24) . . .Because he got such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
For what it's worth, my take on this is that there is such a wide range of possibility, that this is just more evidence that it didn't really matter what the instrument looked like exactly, and there was definitely no specific description that we could or should "draw" from to create an important symbol.
The description of how words like stauros were used is also informative in that in earlier Greek, it seems to refer more often to a simple stake, as it was used especially by Greek writers hundreds of years before the Bible was written in Greek. But as the world got more acquainted with the Roman form of "crucifixion" the word tends to connote an upright pole and crossbeam. But we have seen that this is only suggestive of a more likely form used in Jesus' day, nothing definitive.
I like what Allen included that showed that the standard upright and crossbeam form was more popular and the quote from Seneca and Josephus, below, because it implies a wide variety of postures which are much more likely if the crossbeam were employed:
'So the soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest
Much of the book Allen quoted from is available on Google.  https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1451414196
Crucifixion: In The Ancient World And The Folly Of The Message Of The Cross (Facets)
by Martin Hengel and John Bowden
I am glad Allen quoted from it and brought it to our attention. It seems to be an excellent source, and it also speaks to the wide variety that keeps us from saying anything dogmatic or definitive.
 

Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?

“I was just a boy when Stalin exiled my family to Siberia merely because we were Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sad and reprehensible that my children and grandchildren should be facing a similar fate. Never did I expect that we would again face the threat of religious persecution in modern Russia,” says Vasiliy Kalin, as Russia petitions the Supreme Court to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Of course, it’s all going to go against us eventually in this system of things. When Jesus said his followers would be hailed before courts, it wasn’t so that they could receive ‘good citizenship’ plaques. When Jesus himself was dragged before Pilate, he didn’t sweet-talk his way out of it, did he?
It’s all the doings of the ‘house’ church. Many countries have house churches, who agree to be strictly subservient to the state. Russia, once officially atheist, found they could not stamp out the urge to worship, so they settled on the house church, which they seek to harness as a force for national unity. “What can we do for you?” they ask the house church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.
Putin doesn’t care, most likely. It’s not his thing. “Give the house church what it wants,” he reasons. “That way I keep them out of my hair.” After all, he has a country to run. It was just that way with Pilate, who tried to get Jesus off, but in the end, gave in to fanatics.
‘What are they saying about me, here?’ said Paul to the Jewish leaders in Rome. ‘Are they digging up any dirt on me?’ But there was no internet in the first century, and snail mail was snail mail. “We have not received letters about you from Judea, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. But we think it proper to hear from you what your thought are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere,” they told him. (Acts 28:21-22)
It is a mark of true religion today. Depend upon it to be “spoken against everywhere.”
Surely, the house church make Russia look like utter fools on the world stage. You cannot view jw.org, banned in Russia and Russia alone, and think for one moment that it is extremist. One would think that ISIS would have taught the Russians what extremism is. Still, while we hate persecution and we pray for our Russian brothers under trial, persecution does often turn out for advancement of the good news. “Why are they making trouble for the Jehovahs?” some people ask. “They’re nice people.”
"In their literature, there are some very harsh statements and very insulting statements about other faiths," says Alexander Dvorkin, a former Russian Orthodox priest who now teaches the history of religion and cult studies at St. Tikhon University in Moscow. "Of course, every religion has the right to criticize other faiths, but that should be done in a non-insulting manner, especially if you are talking about [my faith] the faith of the majority." (brackets mine)
The reason you can and should criticize other faiths is that, as any non-religious person knows, religion has historically served as chief cheerleader of war and killing. That’s why a growing number of persons would like to ban it.
“Dvorkin says that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.” (from NPR) Got it? It’s also violence at the hands of Trinitarians. A more intolerant bunch you will never see.

@AllenSmith I am not defending ANY religion on here. All I am asking is that you refrain from attacking others based on their beliefs. I don't care if they worship a cow in India with purple earrings... You have a right to your opinion just like others do. State your opinion and move on. 
 

That makes a lot of logical sense. So really, there could have been two stakes, the ones already in the ground, and then smaller stakes (the cross beams) which the victim carried. This would not necessarily contradict the scriptures since they do not specify WHAT stake (stauros) Jesus carried. And also by saying Jesus was hung on a stake does not necessarily exclude a cross beam either.

As a Witness, I have realized that we JWs are just about the only group who are vexed about the seventy years, because there are very few others who have any kind of a doctrinal stake or tradition that requires a specific interpretation of the 70 years. Naturally, there are a variety of interpretations of any Biblical passage. Not all scholars and commentaries believe it was a full 70 years. Neither do we as Jehovah's Witnesses since we like to end it a year or two after 2 Chronicles ends it.
(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled. . .
We believe that the kingdom of Persia began in 539, but believe the 70 years ended in 537. We needed two extra years because we have a doctrinal stake in keeping 607 instead of claiming, for example, that the Fall of Jerusalem actually happened in 608 or 609. 70 years prior to the first year of the King Cyrus.
This is like the much bigger problem that scholars and commentaries and our own Watch Tower publications have with Isaiah's words about Tyre, already mentioned above, when Isaiah says that "Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years." But we, as JWs, don't believe it was a full 70 years that Tyre was forgotten. In fact, our publications indicate that it was a much shorter period.
*** it-2 p. 179 Kittim ***
Similarly, many from Tyre evidently sought haven in Cyprus during Nebuchadnezzar’s 13-year siege of Tyre, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s proclamation.
*** it-2 p. 1136 Tyre ***
Since the nations mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:8-11), this suggests that both the prophecy of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah related to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Tyre. Also through Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, Jehovah pointed to calamity for Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. (Eze 26:1–28:19) . . .(Eze 29:17-20) According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the siege lasted 13 years (Against Apion, I, 156 [21]), and it cost the Babylonians a great deal. Secular history does not record exactly how thorough or effective Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts were. But the loss in lives and property to the Tyrians must have been great.—Eze 26:7-12.
When the Israelites returned from Babylonian exile, however, the Tyrians were able to assist in supplying cedar timbers from Lebanon for a second temple, and they resumed their trade with the rebuilt city of Jerusalem.—Ezr 3:7; Ne 13:16.
*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship in 607 B.C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus, drawing upon Phoenician annals and other previously written history, states that Nebuchadnezzar’s siege against Tyre lasted thirteen years.
So if you have read this closely, and noticed the scriptures from Ezekiel you will see that the following secular dates would fit this 13-year period, when Tyre was forgotten. These particular dates can be found in many places. I pulled them from Livius.org based on an understanding of various chronicles and texts. http://www.livius.org/articles/person/nebuchadnezzar-ii/
598: Beginning of the siege of Tyre?
597: First capture of Jerusalem; king Jehoiachin is replaced by king Zedekiah
596: Campaign against Elam
595: Renewed campaigning in the west
587 (or 586): Second capture of Jerusalem; deportation of the Judaean elite
585: Peace with Tyre, after a siege that had lasted thirteen years
  Of course, you can just add 20 years to each of those dates to get the Watch Tower version of most secular dates in this period. Therefore 618 to 605 would be the Watch Tower dates of the same 13 year siege. Notice how this is completely contradictory to the claim made in the Insight book which claims it was started after the fall of Jerusalem when even our own date for it would have mapped to 618. .
*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship. . .
And while we are on the subject, notice that Ezekiel can also help to date the fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel dates his prophecies to the year of king Jehoiachin's exile, which started in 597 [617 Watch Tower]. This is why for example, our publications say the following:
*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision . . . (Eze 40:1–48:35)
(Ezekiel 40:1) . . .In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen,. . .
and we know the end of the siege had to be completed in or before the 27th year because Ezekiel puts it in the past tense:
(Ezekiel 29:17, 18) 17 Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre. Every head became bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army received no wages for the labor he expended on Tyre.
Note that this, when combined with other Biblical and archaeological sources, also provides a bit of additional evidence for the 587/6 date for the fall of Jerusalem. The city had fallen in the 14th year, but it was now two years later when the Tyre siege had been put in the past tense in year 27, in the 16th year after the city had fallen. That siege ended in 585, putting a likely time for Jerusalem's fall in 587, no more than 2 years earlier.
The Watch Tower solved this particular "vexation" by saying that these 13 years of siege fulfilled the '70 years of being forgotten' referring to the 70 years for Babylon, even though it wasn't a full 70 years for Tyre itself. Isn't it amazing that this is the solution for Tyre? Yet we still hold out on Judah, even if it requires pseudo-archaeology to accomplish it.
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error. . .
In order to support our tradition about 607, we have gone so far as to mis-translate Jeremiah 29:10.
(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you,and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’
The Hebrew in all our manuscripts says for Babylon, not at. Even the NWT translates the same Hebrew preposition as for elsewhere in such a situation, not at. Only here is it so important to mistranslate the Hebrew. And yet, oddly, we give it the meaning of "for" when similar language is used about Tyre. Also, only for would fit the previous mention of the 70 years quoted above from chapter 25.
This should give us an idea about just how vexed the Watch Tower has become over the 70 years. What's worse, is that Watch Tower publications don't even teach that exiles were in Babylon for 70 years. If we start from the first exiles, including Daniel, it could be upwards of nearly 90 years according to Watch Tower chronology, but this would make the 70 years with respect to Tyre a full 90 years long, not 70. If we start from the time the Watch Tower says that Jerusalem was destroyed, then those exiles from a destroyed Jerusalem could only have been "at" Babylon for 67 to 68 years. 607/6 to 539. Very vexing indeed in the Watch Tower's chronology attempts.
But it's not vexing at all if we look at the Bible and realize that, on this topic, the Bible has also been vindicated again by secular archaeology.

It seems like everyone who studies this subject in any depth, realizes the same thing.
 
 
 
And the Watch Tower publications have said pretty much the same thing on many occasions. For example:
 
So, seriously, does this mean the Watch Tower publications were being dishonest, or just sloppy when they said the following in 1995?
*** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small ***
20 The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake.
Or this in 2008:
 
Or this in 1975:
*** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America ***
A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”
1992
*** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? ***
The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·rosʹ.
Or this is 1972:
*** w72 9/15 p. 572 Christendom—Fighter Against God ***
Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. . . . The cross, on which Christendom’s religions claim Christ was put to death (though it was actually a stake), is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity.
On the issue of whether "Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau" [Greek letter] we have this interesting piece of evidence for why the same could not be true of Jesus:
*** g76 11/22 pp. 27-28 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.
Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.”
I find it amazing that a researcher could notice this in 1976, yet not think to correct the Watchtower from just a couple years earlier in 1972.
The same article says:
*** g76 11/22 p. 27 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.
This means that Watch Tower researchers already knew in 1976 that some Christians might have thought that Jesus had died on a two-beamed cross, long before the 4th century.
 

It seems like everyone who studies this subject in any depth, realizes the same thing.
 
 
 
And the Watch Tower publications have said pretty much the same thing on many occasions. For example:
 
So, seriously, does this mean the Watch Tower publications were being dishonest, or just sloppy when they said the following in 1995?
*** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small ***
20 The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake.
Or this in 2008:
 
Or this in 1975:
*** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America ***
A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.”
1992
*** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? ***
The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·rosʹ.
Or this is 1972:
*** w72 9/15 p. 572 Christendom—Fighter Against God ***
Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. . . . The cross, on which Christendom’s religions claim Christ was put to death (though it was actually a stake), is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity.
On the issue of whether "Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau" [Greek letter] we have this interesting piece of evidence for why the same could not be true of Jesus:
*** g76 11/22 pp. 27-28 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.
Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.”
I find it amazing that a researcher could notice this in 1976, yet not think to correct the Watchtower from just a couple years earlier in 1972.
The same article says:
*** g76 11/22 p. 27 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.
This means that Watch Tower researchers already knew in 1976 that some Christians might have thought that Jesus had died on a two-beamed cross, long before the 4th century.