JW Insider

Allen,
You have made a lot of good points. In fact, there are no points made in any of the evidence you quoted from that I disagree with. I still agree with every one of your sources.
I think the problem is that we have come at this issue with a different understanding of what it means to be "influenced." I notice that you keep going back to questions about whether Rutherford had a positive influence on the NOI, and you have spent a lot of time showing that the NOI is very different from the Watch Tower Society and perhaps not even worthy of any influence by the Watchtower. I still agree on those points too.
I'm guessing that you have thought about this idea of "influence" and are thinking of the perspective that if there is nothing of any socially redeeming value in the NOI, then there must be no evidence that it was influenced by something good. I understand your perspective.
I think you have also wanted to make the point that if I am claiming that there was some level of influence on the NOI from the teachings of Rutherford, that this somehow reflects badly on Rutherford or the Watch Tower Society. I didn't understand this, but I'm thinking that it must be based on the corollary of the idea just stated. It must have sounded like I was saying that if something that is so "totally bad" (like the NOI) was influenced by the Watch Tower Society, then it's like saying that the WTS influenced something to be "bad." I don't believe the WTS produced any kind of bad or negative influence -- AND I don't think that what I am calling influence produced anything positive in the NOI. The only possible, potential advantage I mentioned was that any familiarity with Rutherford's teachings might have made the transition just a little easier if anyone would have later decided to convert from NOI to JW.
In fact, my reason for bringing up this idea in the first place was to support something you had said earlier about the variety of beliefs within the supposed "umbrella" of the Bible Students. In fact, I have always agreed with you on this point: that there was no actual "umbrella" that defined all groups of Bible Students. You mentioned the Bangalore Bible Students, and I thought you might also be aware of some of their differences, and that there were dozens of Bible Student groups that would draw crowds and congregations after themselves in many countries around the world. There were several who had associated with Bible students, and then made themselves "prophets" or claimed to be the fulfillment of some prophetic Bible character as a modern-day "antitype." Some used a small part of the original Bible Student message that they had picked up from Russell and then created something quite strange and almost unrecognizable from it.
In fact, you can still go back to the topic where this came up and see that I was supporting something you, Allen, had recently presented.  http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28202-what-does-it-mean-with-the-april-2017-study-edition-of-the-wt-are-all-who-wereare-baptized-still-bound-to-this-vow/ The following is an exact quote from that topic, although below I highlighted the sentence where I had mentioned you.
The idea that the NOI had been "influenced" was just mentioned as an extreme example of how some of the Watch Tower Society's teachings have been misused. Apparently you might have agreed with the idea had I worded it a little differently. Perhaps you have a better idea how to word it in a way that supports the point you had made in previous posts.
 

via TheWorldNewsOrgWorld News

Reverting to the original question and ignoring the complex analysis of detail since, could we reword this as:
Did the demon influencing the teachings of the "Nation of Islam" plagiarise Watch Tower Teachings (erroneous or otherwise) from Rutherford's Time, to create confusion in the minds of the "ignorant and unstable"?
or is that going a "bridge too far"?

The basic idea that 'comes to our rescue' is that the Watch Tower Society was on a path that would soon lead them into more and better light.
But I understand your point, and if Jesus were looking for those who were faithful in what is least, then he must have been looking at their future, not every "least thing" they were doing and saying at the time. The 1917 "Finished Mystery" was a book filled with falsehoods by today's standards. Some of it was perfectly ridiculous. The 1918 preaching and convention campaign was based on the false prophecy that millions of people then living would never die because they would survive until the fulfillment of the Biblical promises in 1925. Rutherford promoted the Great Pyramid for another decade. He admitted that he helped promote "creature worship," in other words, the "cult" that had formed around "Pastor Russell."
We can look back on false doctrines and false prophecies now and justify them as mistakes based on the limits of what they could know at the time. But in reality, it was possible to know that Jesus had specifically said not to follow anyone who would say that the "time is at hand" with reference to his presence (parousia). Yet, Rutherford, in 1916 to 1933, continued campaigns to distribute a book by Russell with that very name: "The Time is at Hand."
Yet these were all mistakes by humans who wanted to do the right thing. I think it's pretty obvious that the motivation was pure, at least for the vast majority of these Bible Students. That's why I'm happy to overlook those mistakes of the past. But I also have brought up some of these same points, which probably sounds like I'm not overlooking those mistakes of the past. But that's not what the problem is.
The problem is that -- now, in the present -- we keep looking back on these times in our history and repeatedly claiming things about them that weren't true. Of course, these things that we currently claim are partially true, but this just makes the untrue parts more insidious in the way that they can mislead us. Are we really honest today, if we think we need to use some deceptions to try to clean up our reputation from the past?
We sometimes, for example, make a big deal out of the fact that the churches of Christendom all praised the League of Nations as "the political expression of God's kingdom on earth." This supposedly showed why the prophecy in Revelation was fulfilled against them:
(Revelation 17:8) 8 The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
It turns out that it was not all these "churches of Christendom" that had praised the League as the "political expression of God's kingdom" and who found it something to "wonder" at, and "admire." Notice what the Watchtower said about it in the February 15, 1919 issue, page 51:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.”
This is exactly what is meant by the phrase claiming that the League of Nations is a "political expression of the kingdom of God on earth."  In addition the Watchtower expressed that we wondered admiringly at it. Rutherford changed his mind and began saying instead what many "evil slave" Bible Students, and many church leaders had already begun saying about it.
But even as late as 1933, Brother Rutherford continued to be fooled into thinking that proposals by political leaders were an "expression of the kingdom of God on earth."  Rutherford said the following in his letter to Adolph Hitler regarding the ideals of the Nazi party:
The conference [WT convention] of five thousand delegates also noted - as is expressed in the declaration - that the Bible Researchers [Bible Students] of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator. The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich [German Nazi Party]. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich. Based upon the supposedly strong language of our literature, some of our books were banned. The conference of the five thousand delegates pointed to the fact that the contents of the books which were criticized, only refers to the situation and actions within the Anglo-American world power - especially England - which is responsible for the League of Nations and its contracts and burdens imposed upon Germany. What is written in our literature - no matter whether from a financial or political point of view - is only directed towards the suppressors of the German people and their country, but by no means refers to Germany itself, which is trying hard to fight against the imposed burdens.
This idea of using a lack of honesty about our past is clear even in this 1933 letter to Hitler. Of course, Rutherford quickly understood that the deception was not going to work to stop the ban on our literature, and again, Rutherford changed course accordingly.
These are just a couple of important examples, but it should be clear that what we say about not being neutral before 1919, but learning our lesson was not really true. The majority of Rutherford's books, speeches and booklets were politically charged for decades, and took sides on many issues, especially between labor and capital, for example. When the publications sided with another politician, they could be praised as if they were a Biblical prophet.
For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:
We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.
Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."
Of course, this was during a time when Rutherford was campaigning that 1925 was even more of a sure thing than 1914 was.

Some scholars read the two canonical letters to the Corinthians as compilations of several letters, with some duplication likely left out. I haven't read all their reasons, but when I come up with a question on my own based on a text-based issue, I often find that some scholars' explanation for that particular question makes as much sense as any other explanation.
Psalm 14 and 53 shows that duplication has happened. (The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many Jews had kept 151 songs as canonical, not 150.) Jude and 2 Peter contain identical passages.
Paul does not appear to necessarily think of his own words as inspired in all passages when he says:
(1 Corinthians 7:12) 12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:. . .
Jesus does not necessarily speak of Moses as inspired in all passages when he says:
(Matthew 19:8) 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning.
Yet, the Jews were given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not:
(Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew,. . . 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.
And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, in spite of "Babylonian captivity," were apparently given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not for the Greek Scriptures. One of the last books by the apostle John gave them good advice:
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 

I understand many of the things you mentioned, and many of them have been discussed on here. I also understand what you mean about there being no niche where you can feel safe to discuss your thoughts. This is why it's nice to be able to go on here. What I would like to ask you is what makes you think that Jehovah might need to punish the Witnesses. Is there a specific reason (reasons) to lead you to this conclusion? I know you have already alluded to a few, but could you be even more specific?
By the way your English is fine!

Because of these quotes I started to buy books from commentators and enjoy reading them. I remember with special affection, of those days, "New Testament Words” from W. Barclay. I think reading these publications did not hurt me. But I understand the possible effect on others: doctrinal disparity and divisions, in the style of The Watchtower says this, but according to this author could also be this other thing ...
In relation to this, I think we can be both loyal and intelligent. Let me ask you. Can a JW be cultivated, erudite, disagree with the slave's focus at any given time, and still be loyal? (Note: I was not thinking of myself as scholar or intelligent, I hope no one think this way!)
Regarding this question. Some time ago the media contact of our branch came to my city for a certain public event regarding Nazi’s period and our brothers. He gave this wise advice to a brother helping him related to that occasion. "When you are asked in the University about our beliefs, do not say ‘the Bible says this or that’, but rather, ‘we think that the Bible says this, we believe the Bible says this thing else’, otherwise we would appear dogmatic."
And I have copied this example when I teach my students about subjects that, to myself, I am not sure they are one hundred percent this way. I take the opportunity to transmit them loyalty in spite the changes they inevitably will find. I hope I’m not putting part of the world to fire and sword.
More or less this way: "After much investigation and prayer, the Witnesses came to understand this teaching. (I think teaching is better than ‘truth’, truth never changes). Perhaps over time God will continue to help us to understand it better and we may see it from another way.” Now, I continue: “of course, it is not a good idea to teach different things at the same time. The Bible says we must be united. God reveals things to his people gradually", and this kind of thing.
Does this mean that I don’t need the slave class? Perhaps that I receive the teaching from our brothers with suspicion or skepticism? Certainly not! To the contrary! Please, let me explain a little bit more!
I began to learn the truth when I was a teenager in 1971. Now, I’m about 60. What I’ve learnt all these years has been wonderful. It has changed my life and, the most important for me, has allowed me to approach God. At the beginning believed there were three states of be informed:
1. The Bible writer, inspired and unerring. 2. You and me, error prone. 3. An intermediate state, the ‘slave class’, almost the first -inspired- class, because they are guided by God’s spirit and, we belong to a people guided by Him. Aren’t we? And we use to say ‘what God teach us’ with relation what these brothers prepare. Well, over time, as informed and thinking person, I began to think that it isn’t possible that God ‘transmits’ supposed ‘truths’ they proved to be, over time, not only wrong, but sometimes ridiculous (House of the Princes, 1925, ridiculous in the words of the brother Rutherford himself) or dangerous (1975).  At this point I know others leave the congregation. Others slow down.I began to think more, to meditate more, to study more and to pray more. It has been a process of many years, still underway.
1. When on history of God’s servants they have had a perfect understanding about his will? Never. So, why to expect God’s people these days to have this kink on knowledge? 2. I sincerely believe that the ‘core’ teachings I believe are the same Russell and his relatives and friends had in the beginnings: The death situation, the Earth destiny, no existence of a hell of fire, trinity and others. For me, these are sufficient to proudly identify myself with the heirs of this group, and preach zealously with the congregation. I think ALL, or almost all religions believe in life after death, burning of earth, trinity and so. For me, this is demonstration of the blessing of God for these persons. My brothers. It is a world apart the field of PROPHECIES! A new post topic perhaps. 3. Jehovah’s way to transmit information to his people has been different according the eras. Face to face to Moses, speaking loudly to some prophets, inspiring to apostles… but, regarding the last days, I find that the mechanism would be absent from miracles. I’ve tried to explain this in other post http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28606-the-path-of-the-righteous-is-like-the-bright-morning-light/#comment-36721 4. I’m even ready if God deems it necessary to punish or even discipline we the JW. Yes, yes, yes… now we are living in a wonderful spiritual paradise only waiting for the prize (after the persecution) and no punishing at sight according our present point of view. But, what if this view, as many other PROPHETICS turn out to be wrong? Hasn’t be always the case God allowed these same situations to his people, his worshipers? I’m not saying this is going to happen, but what if this occur? Remember the very same thing was prophesized regarding the true worshipers in the last days, with no ‘type-antitype effect’, it’s only a matter of time: If it has happened or if it has to happen: (Revelation 11:7) “When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them.”
(Daniel 11:35) “And some of those having insight will be made to stumble, in order to do a refining work because of them and to do a cleansing and a whitening until the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed.”
If this were the case, I’m ready to suffer the same fate that my brothers, waiting God’s forgiveness.
One final thought. The reason I openly mention these ideas is because there is no niche inside the congregation to express them. And I find it logical and scriptural. But, on the other hand, I know THERE ARE a number of loyal brothers with these kind of thoughts, some of them a little confused, or disappointed, or wondering if they are in the true religion, or temped to go to places to get information handled for resentful persons, that hate us, skilled in mixing truths, half-truths or plain lies. Or imputing us false motives when we have been, simply, wrong. I prefere these brother find posts like mine, a thinking, active brother that in spite of his ideas loves not only God (easy) but also his people (sometimes a little bit harder.)
And, if any of you is kind of share some thougts showing me a better way to think, no doubt I’ll consider with appreciation!
[Disclaimer: I sincerely apology because reading my English must be a painful experience]
 

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities.
The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events.
All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 
Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained.
But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. 
I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect.
So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change.
Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs.
I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house:
Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.)
So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles."
If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

thank you for your answer. my intention is not to take your valuable time. you write many things. !!!!  
sorry I did not want to make you write all that !!!! 
yes 1 "famous" verse is included ! yes there are many letters missing... 
 
 

I don't want to ruin the "game" if anyone else wants to play, but this has long been my favorite kind of "puzzle."
The prior verse is a very popular one, but it's very puzzling here because there are so many letters missing on the partial line on the right and it's sometimes more difficult based on the fact that the words that start at the beginning of the column often start in the middle of a word.
For example: EUSOMETHA (Which looks more like "EYCOMEθA") on the top line must be only part of a word, since several words end that way, but it's not a real word on its own here. The second picture says it's really "PEYSOMEθA"  (the C is actually S). Since the P is the way the Greek language makes an "R" then this word ends in ". . . reusometha." The most common word here would be "poreusometha" (πορευσόμεθα) which is a verb meaning to proceed, go, depart, walk, etc. The root of this verb will contain poreu- but it can have literally FIFTY different endings. This particular ending will make it 1st person, plural, middle voice, and either Future or Aorist. So we could bet that the word would be translated "we [1st pers, plural] will/shall [future] walk." If not, "we will walk" or "we shall be walking" or we could try "we shall go" or  "we will go" or "we will proceed" etc, and this would also narrow down the location.
A very similar puzzle shows up in the next line which is also the verse prior to the verse with the divine name. It's the word that looks like "..HKOAMEN" or based on the tiny piece of the previous letter, either "...MHKOAMEN" "...LHKOAMEN" or "...KHKOAMEN." The first two choices don't make much sense, but if it's "..KHKOAMEN" then this is surely part of the word "AKHKOAMEN." Since the H is the long E, and the E is the short E, this is the word "akekoamen" which is a form of "to hear" or "understand" or "hear a report" etc. The particular form of the verb is 1st person, plural again, but this time it's not in the future tense, but in a "perfect active indicative." This means that the action of "hearing" has already been completed and the verb indicates the result of this, such as "we have heard" or "we heard."
 

I didn't mind at all. I did this while waiting for my wife to get ready for a meeting . I was hoping to express some of the fun that can be had while learning a language. Some people like crossword puzzles, cryptograms or sudoku and the like. I like them too, but I especially like language-based puzzles, and this particular type is guilt-free.

I don't want to ruin the "game" if anyone else wants to play, but this has long been my favorite kind of "puzzle."
The prior verse is a very popular one, but it's very puzzling here because there are so many letters missing on the partial line on the right and it's sometimes more difficult based on the fact that the words that start at the beginning of the column often start in the middle of a word.
For example: EUSOMETHA (Which looks more like "EYCOMEθA") on the top line must be only part of a word, since several words end that way, but it's not a real word on its own here. The second picture says it's really "PEYSOMEθA"  (the C is actually S). Since the P is the way the Greek language makes an "R" then this word ends in ". . . reusometha." The most common word here would be "poreusometha" (πορευσόμεθα) which is a verb meaning to proceed, go, depart, walk, etc. The root of this verb will contain poreu- but it can have literally FIFTY different endings. This particular ending will make it 1st person, plural, middle voice, and either Future or Aorist. So we could bet that the word would be translated "we [1st pers, plural] will/shall [future] walk." If not, "we will walk" or "we shall be walking" or we could try "we shall go" or  "we will go" or "we will proceed" etc, and this would also narrow down the location.
A very similar puzzle shows up in the next line which is also the verse prior to the verse with the divine name. It's the word that looks like "..HKOAMEN" or based on the tiny piece of the previous letter, either "...MHKOAMEN" "...LHKOAMEN" or "...KHKOAMEN." The first two choices don't make much sense, but if it's "..KHKOAMEN" then this is surely part of the word "AKHKOAMEN." Since the H is the long E, and the E is the short E, this is the word "akekoamen" which is a form of "to hear" or "understand" or "hear a report" etc. The particular form of the verb is 1st person, plural again, but this time it's not in the future tense, but in a "perfect active indicative." This means that the action of "hearing" has already been completed and the verb indicates the result of this, such as "we have heard" or "we heard."
 

That's true. They have both been re-published by various publishers through the years. At Bethel, in the 1970's when we quoted from it a lot more often, we only knew of one edition of Matthew Henry, although that same edition with same page numbering was also in a three-volume paperback version. For Albert Barnes, there was an 1850-something version that was on the shelf until 1977 and it disappeared, probably to someone's office. There were also a couple of old stand-alone volumes from an incomplete set, or from prior to the combined set. We also had two single-volume Barnes' Notes on the New Testament both from Kregel Publications: a 2nd printing 1963, and a 7th Printing from 1974. The page numbering was nearly the same. Also, Brother Schroeder had, in his office, a set of them which had been published in several separate volumes, along with some standalone OT commentaries by Barnes. They had completely different page numbering.
It's not wrong to mention only the publishing date, which could be any of about 25 different dates for Barnes (less for Matthew Henry). But in WTS publications, we sometimes mentioned a date, but without a page number, and we sometimes mentioned a page number, but without any date. I was primarily commenting that the Watchtower readership would generally have no idea if these men were from modern times or hundreds of years ago. Since Insight, the Watchtower, as far as I know, has never put a date next to quotes from Matthew Henry, or Albert Barnes.  Since the 1980's, except for two footnotes (without dates), all references to Matthew Henry do not refer specifically to a commentary or a book, but to Matthew Henry as a commentator, scholar, or British author:
*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry . . .
*** w07 4/15 p. 14 Follow Paul’s Steps to Beroea ***
They tested what they heard by using the most trustworthy touchstone. They carefully and diligently searched the Scriptures. Bible scholar Matthew Henry concluded: “Since Paul reasoned out of the scriptures . . . .
*** w98 9/15 p. 14 par. 17 Times and Seasons in Jehovah’s Hands ***
Some Bible scholars link this expectation to Daniel’s prophecy. In commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry wrote: “We are here told . . .
*** w94 2/15 p. 11 “What Will Be the Sign of Your Presence?” ***
British author Matthew Henry commented: “The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was very terrible, but this exceeded it.
Prior to Insight, references to him more often included the name of his work: "Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible" even if without a hint about the fact that it originally came from the 1700's.
With the exception of one side note (like a footnote) this is similar to the "Barnes' Notes" references. Since Insight, there is never a date or name of his books or commentaries, although at least the term "19th-century" is mentioned a couple of times. Examples:
*** w11 9/15 p. 22 par. 9 “Run . . . That You May Attain It” ***
Scholar Albert Barnes observed: “As a runner would be careful . . .
*** w07 4/15 p. 27 Let the Congregation Be Built Up ***
Bible scholar Albert Barnes recognized that Jesus’ direction to “speak to the congregation” could mean . . .
*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .
*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .
*** w00 6/15 p. 17 par. 2 “All You Are Brothers” ***
. . . it is contrary to the ‘simplicity that is in Christ,’” noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. . . .
With reference to what I said in a previous post on the use of commentaries in the Watchtower magazine, Albert Barnes is referenced 10 times in the 1970's (positively) and only 2 times in the 1980's (once negatively). Yet, his works, such as "Barnes' Notes" are mentioned 8 times in the 1970's (positively) and have only been mentioned twice since the 1970's until now. And one of those was a negative reference in 1984. Discounting the negative reference that means only one time, positively, since 1978. And even that supposedly positive reference said he "makes an honest admission" that something was true. (Imagine how "positive" we would take it if someone said that Brother Splane had to honestly admit that something was true.)
There is also a tendency, as partially indicated above, to reference any commentators as persons: as scholars, commentators or theologians, but not necessarily as authors, and therefore with very few references to their specific books. Before Insight, it was much more common to also reference the title of their commentaries or books. 
Sorry for a lot of trivial detail, but if you are looking for subtle differences between the Aid Book research "era" and the Insight research "era," then the above does express a kind of trend to quote commentaries less. Although the two commentaries I used in the examples above are almost always used favorably, except in the 1980's, it is a little more common now to quote a commentator as a "bad" example, too. I think this helps serve as a kind of reminder that we heard in the 1980's, in warnings against seeking out commentaries for a different view of something.  

You are right in many respects and this is why it is good to get into the habit of reading around a particular scripture, (the whole chapter usually) especially with scriptures which are "popular" and used over and over again and "usually" applied one way, or the way we are used to. In my opinion this is what it means to be a deep Bible student.

That's true. They have both been re-published by various publishers through the years. At Bethel, in the 1970's when we quoted from it a lot more often, we only knew of one edition of Matthew Henry, although that same edition with same page numbering was also in a three-volume paperback version. For Albert Barnes, there was an 1850-something version that was on the shelf until 1977 and it disappeared, probably to someone's office. There were also a couple of old stand-alone volumes from an incomplete set, or from prior to the combined set. We also had two single-volume Barnes' Notes on the New Testament both from Kregel Publications: a 2nd printing 1963, and a 7th Printing from 1974. The page numbering was nearly the same. Also, Brother Schroeder had, in his office, a set of them which had been published in several separate volumes, along with some standalone OT commentaries by Barnes. They had completely different page numbering.
It's not wrong to mention only the publishing date, which could be any of about 25 different dates for Barnes (less for Matthew Henry). But in WTS publications, we sometimes mentioned a date, but without a page number, and we sometimes mentioned a page number, but without any date. I was primarily commenting that the Watchtower readership would generally have no idea if these men were from modern times or hundreds of years ago. Since Insight, the Watchtower, as far as I know, has never put a date next to quotes from Matthew Henry, or Albert Barnes.  Since the 1980's, except for two footnotes (without dates), all references to Matthew Henry do not refer specifically to a commentary or a book, but to Matthew Henry as a commentator, scholar, or British author:
*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry . . .
*** w07 4/15 p. 14 Follow Paul’s Steps to Beroea ***
They tested what they heard by using the most trustworthy touchstone. They carefully and diligently searched the Scriptures. Bible scholar Matthew Henry concluded: “Since Paul reasoned out of the scriptures . . . .
*** w98 9/15 p. 14 par. 17 Times and Seasons in Jehovah’s Hands ***
Some Bible scholars link this expectation to Daniel’s prophecy. In commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry wrote: “We are here told . . .
*** w94 2/15 p. 11 “What Will Be the Sign of Your Presence?” ***
British author Matthew Henry commented: “The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was very terrible, but this exceeded it.
Prior to Insight, references to him more often included the name of his work: "Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible" even if without a hint about the fact that it originally came from the 1700's.
With the exception of one side note (like a footnote) this is similar to the "Barnes' Notes" references. Since Insight, there is never a date or name of his books or commentaries, although at least the term "19th-century" is mentioned a couple of times. Examples:
*** w11 9/15 p. 22 par. 9 “Run . . . That You May Attain It” ***
Scholar Albert Barnes observed: “As a runner would be careful . . .
*** w07 4/15 p. 27 Let the Congregation Be Built Up ***
Bible scholar Albert Barnes recognized that Jesus’ direction to “speak to the congregation” could mean . . .
*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .
*** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth ***
19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . .
*** w00 6/15 p. 17 par. 2 “All You Are Brothers” ***
. . . it is contrary to the ‘simplicity that is in Christ,’” noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. . . .
With reference to what I said in a previous post on the use of commentaries in the Watchtower magazine, Albert Barnes is referenced 10 times in the 1970's (positively) and only 2 times in the 1980's (once negatively). Yet, his works, such as "Barnes' Notes" are mentioned 8 times in the 1970's (positively) and have only been mentioned twice since the 1970's until now. And one of those was a negative reference in 1984. Discounting the negative reference that means only one time, positively, since 1978. And even that supposedly positive reference said he "makes an honest admission" that something was true. (Imagine how "positive" we would take it if someone said that Brother Splane had to honestly admit that something was true.)
There is also a tendency, as partially indicated above, to reference any commentators as persons: as scholars, commentators or theologians, but not necessarily as authors, and therefore with very few references to their specific books. Before Insight, it was much more common to also reference the title of their commentaries or books. 
Sorry for a lot of trivial detail, but if you are looking for subtle differences between the Aid Book research "era" and the Insight research "era," then the above does express a kind of trend to quote commentaries less. Although the two commentaries I used in the examples above are almost always used favorably, except in the 1980's, it is a little more common now to quote a commentator as a "bad" example, too. I think this helps serve as a kind of reminder that we heard in the 1980's, in warnings against seeking out commentaries for a different view of something.  

I think it's "spot on."
I also hope you continue to give further examples in your posts. I think this point is closely related to one of the absolutely most important recent changes to our teachings. I wanted to add some info from a historical perspective on this point. For better or for worse, I got involved in this same subject in 1978, and learned something interesting from the experience. (Interesting to me, at least.) 
For me, the experience gives some additional perspective on why it took forty-two years to make the official change, from the time this 1972 article first presented this same important question about extended applications, sometimes called: "type-antitype" applications.
The 1972 Watchtower you quoted was actually a summary of what Ray Franz had learned from the team that researched and put together the Watch Tower's first Bible encyclopedia: "Aid to Bible Understanding" (finished in 1971). The "Aid Book" research resulted in adjustments to the elder arrangement and the GB arrangement. It contains literally dozens of statements about how we can't be absolutely sure of the meaning or reason for certain Biblical references. But the biggest practical change for the Writing Department, was that this Bible dictionary/encyclopedia revolved almost completely around Biblical context. It was not a doctrinal reference.
I thought this idea about the importance of Biblical context was almost a "radical" idea, because it changed the way that many of us would read and study the Bible. The article you quoted presented the first evidence that we could question the overly specific extended applications (types and antitypes) that we were so accustomed to. It subtly moved the "type-antitype" application from a specific prophetic drama about specific classes of Christians to lessons that taught all of us something about Jehovah's unchanging principles. Everyone on the "Aid Book" team believed that only a few few specific "types and antitypes" should be a part of our doctrinal teachings. (Only the ones that were specifically said to be "type-antitype" in the Bible itself.) But this would mean that literally hundreds of type-antitype applications would have to be dropped. It was too many doctrines to change all at once. Brother Fred Franz, who was the source or "keeper" of many of the type-antitype teachings, argued against dropping them. Brother Fred Rusk (Watchtower Editor) also supported keeping them. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most of the Governing Body at that time would have sided with Fred Franz on anything doctrinal, since he was still treated as "The Oracle" at this time.
Therefore, the 1972 article was an important and controversial move, but ultimately ended up "compromising" or postponing a big change on this very important point. (The very next article was supposed to balance the idea you quoted with the idea that there are still "prophetic dramas" that have difficult and specific meanings that are too difficult to grasp from principles and context alone.)
The suggested change was not finally made until October 2014 at the Annual Meeting by Brother Splane. This was forty-two years after it was first presented in 1972. The specifics of this change were credited to Bert Schroeder during the Annual Meeting in 2014. Brother Schroeder had died in 2007, though, and I have no idea what time period Brother Splane was referring to. But I do know that Brother Schroeder suggested this change not long after the death of Fred Franz. His reasons might be clearer with a little more context.
The primary members of that "Aid Book" team continued to contribute work for the Writing Department from 1972 to 1980, and they were easily the most prolific writers of our Bible-based study material and convention releases. Many others in Writing worked from "news" material, spending a lot of their day reading about wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilences, and commenting on "pro" and "con" references to "Jehovah's Witnesses" found in outside publications. About 25% of the study material came from Fred Franz, mostly indirectly from those who based their "new" articles almost totally on prior articles from Franz had written. While I was there, about 75% of the study articles and all but a few of the convention releases came from the  "Aid Book" team.
The four primary members of that team were dismissed from Bethel in mid-1980. One was disfellowshipped at the time, and another (R Franz) was disfellowshipped in 1981. A couple of them tried to keep a low profile in their congregations, or even continued to get research assignments for the Society for several more years, being given a bit of support through the "special pioneer" arrangement. (Ironically, some of those continuing assignments were related to replacing the Aid Book with the updated Insight Book.) But ultimately all of them, I'm told, finally found themselves outside of the organization even though all of them, as far as I knew, had wanted to quietly remain inside the organization for as long as they were allowed. One of them lasted at least a couple of decades in his congregation, serving as an elder and special pioneer for years, but I do not currently know his status. I haven't heard from him or about him in 10 years, but I heard a rumor that he was "pushed" out.
While at Bethel, when I read through a large portion of the Aid Book for technical errors and typos, I was a bit troubled at first by the neutral, undogmatic style that sometimes said, "we don't know for sure." I mentioned this to someone on the "Aid Book" team, and said that I'm beginning to understand that the style was necessary as s a kind of public-facing, academic style. In 1978, I asked if it was troubling to anyone else. He said: "There are a lot of people here who would LOVE to hear that about the Aid Book." This really surprised me, because this was early in 1978 and it was a hint of trouble. He explained that the Aid Book was considered "dangerous" and had created a division between Fred Franz supporters in Writing, because it put a new value on context, and relatively less value on "extended applications."
He said that the most common response (letters/comments) from those who had become familiar with the Aid Book's style were commenting on how much more value they were getting out of their Bible reading because they were realizing for the first time that the meaning from context was now more open to them. For example, they no longer read Ezekiel 18 as just the chapter that had a verse or two about the soul dying (18:4). There's another message in the context that is also very important, and they hadn't noticed it before. By 1975 there were many brothers who had been so overjoyed at this "new" way of reading the Bible that groups of Bethelites would join others in their rooms just for Bible reading. The Aid Book "style" was being credited. Because all of these Bible reading groups were "banned" in 1980, and even brothers on the Governing Body spoke out against them, it was assumed that these all had something to do with the apostasy. But there were dozens of them, and hundreds of Bethelites participated. It's true that most of the "apostates" had also participated, but the majority of participants remained in responsible positions.
I regularly attended one in the room of a brother from Writing that often went on for three hours on Wednesday. Whenever I could, I also started attending another one after the Monday-night Watchtower study for one hour. One of these had one of the "Aid Book" team and I was questioned about it later in 1980, although I continued to do research for Brother Schroeder from 1977 until 1983. Schroeder kept a good measure of personal control over who was and was not dismissed for "apostasy" 1980 through 1983. Yet, even Brother Schroeder quietly sided with the "Aid Book" team on this same point about "type-antitype" during the 1980 crisis. My best friends in the Writing Department also included Brother Fred Rusk, who gave my wedding talk later in 1980. (I last saw and spoke to Rusk in 2013, at a funeral talk.) Rusk and Schroeder were both very strong opposers of the entire Aid Book team. But I kept friends on "both sides of the aisle."
I don't know how easy it is to tell that the writer of the article below was asked to write in support of types and antitypes but was intentionally "subversive" or "ambiguous" in a way that would still get past the editors.
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. . . .
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The Christian disciple James answers: “With evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (Jas. 1:13). . . .
We can therefore read what took place with ancient Israel and surrounding nations and know that they were just as real as our situation today and that God will act toward us according to the same principles, just as surely as he did back there. As we benefit from the record of God’s dealings with his people in the past, we experience a readjustment of viewpoint. But, of course, at times there may be points that we find difficult to grasp.
 
 
 

Yes. There are many subtle differences between Aid and Insight. All of them together make Insight much better, and much more valuable as a Bible reference. Aid was printed at a time when we did not have the ability to print multi-color and at a time when we rarely referenced our sources as a matter of policy. Content-wise, the vast majority of the Aid book remained unchanged. The subtle differences will be in the style of the additional material. The additional material is primarily based on more recent, or updated information and a lot more relevant photographs. Naturally there will be exceptions to every rule, but I don't think you were looking for a discussion of all the trivial differences. As far as minor mistakes and typos remaining in the latest material, I don't know of any in Insight. The Aid book went from Remington-Underwood-Selectric style typewriters to linotype typesetters. Everything was therefore typed twice and there was no direct transfer through Word Processing or Spellchecking utilities, and some typos and mistakes remain in the latest printed version. Insight took advantage of both. 
I'll quote the Watchtower article below at the end of this post, and it explains the best reasons for Insight, and draws several comparisons. The one point you made that is relevant here is the fact that the Insight book tried to push some doctrinal material into the content, and the Aid book almost always avoided this. While working on the Aid book, writers were suprised that the factual, non-doctrinal style had allowed commentaries like Matthew Henry and Barnes Notes to remain valuable for a hundred, or even 200 years, and they were amazed at how much Biblical knowledge could still be drawn from them.
A lot of the "in-demand" speakers from Bethel (those usually called upon to give talks in area congregations), along with Governing Body, District Overseers and Circuit Overseers) began to quote more often from such commentaries, and they were more often made use of by everyone in the two Bethel Libraries. (124 for Writing and 107 for Gilead Students). Bethelites could even order their own copies through Dean Songer's Department in the factory. Of course, 1980 put a stop to all that. One of the first moves was to stop the ability of Bethelites to purchase commentaries through Society channels. The Bethel Library was then made off limits to Bethelites, the Gilead Library now had very limited access, which was also then removed from easy Bethelite access. These were replaced with a few bookshelves placed in public access areas of the larger Bethel residential buildings with mostly just Society publications. Governing Body members spoke out against the use of commentaries to the Bethel family.
This was the reason that the Insight books needed to get an update. The article on the Faithful and Discreet Slave was updated in 2015 to match the latest Watchtower changes, for example. There were a few other articles with more minor changes, relative to some parables. The Insight book has added information about 1914 in the Gentile Times article and the Earthquake article. Some of these changes that add specific doctrinal material to the content might make the Insight book subject to more frequent revision as was required in 2015. I believe in these cases, that the Aid book remained just as accurate all along. Both of them had some trouble with chronology, but the Insight book sticks its neck out a little further with claims that might not prove accurate.
Here's the Watchtower's assessment of the differences. Quoted in its entirety:
*** w89 3/15 pp. 10-11 “Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia ***
“Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia
AT THE “Divine Justice” District Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses, announcement was made of the release of a new Bible encyclopedia entitled Insight on the Scriptures. This is a two-volume publication, with a total of 2,560 pages, all of it in clear, readable type. At present it is available only in English, but translation is already well under way in a number of other languages.
Insight on the Scriptures includes much of what was formerly in the book Aid to Bible Understanding and a great deal more. In what respects is it different? Scores of sections have been revised and updated. There are also many new articles as well as added features in Insight on the Scriptures.
Books of the Bible
Each book of the Bible has been given special attention. Valuable background material is presented. There are fresh outlines of all the books of the Bible, each one drawing attention to the book’s distinctive features. These convey a concise but comprehensive view of the contents of the book in a manner that is easy to grasp. For example, there are four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, each having a different objective. When introducing the Gospels, the respective outlines present those objectives in this way: ‘The apostle Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life was written primarily with the Jews in mind. This Gospel demonstrates that Jesus is the foretold Messianic King.’ ‘Mark sets out a concise, fast-moving account of Jesus’ life, presenting him as the miracle-working Son of God.’ ‘Luke’s account of the life of Jesus was written to confirm the certainty of events surrounding the life of Christ and in a manner that would appeal to people of all nations.’ ‘The apostle John’s account of the life of Jesus highlights the theme that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, by means of whom eternal life is possible.’ After these introductory remarks, the outlines present the contents of the books under a limited number of main headings. This can help you to remember the principal ideas that the Bible writer developed.
Refinements
Careful analysis of statements in this publication has been made in the light of the meaning of words used in the original languages of the Bible. Details have also been included to enable the reader to appreciate the Biblical scope of meaning of the original-language words. Additionally, Biblical name meanings have been refined in the light of the way the basic elements of those names are actually rendered in the New World Translation.
A diligent effort has also been made to bring the material in this publication up-to-date with what has been published in The Watchtower in recent years. For example, we have learned much about the heart, the book of life, being declared righteous, and many other things. This information has been embodied in Insight on the Scriptures.
Details of secular history have been checked against the original sources, where available, instead of simply relying on what other writers have said about the content of those sources; hundreds of references have also been included to show where such information can be found. Scientific aspects of the articles have been updated. There has been a complete reappraisal of geographic locations on the basis of archaeological research done in recent years.
A Bible Atlas
Insight on the Scriptures includes some 70 maps, showing hundreds of locations mentioned in the Bible. Thus, included in this publication is a comprehensive Bible atlas. In most instances, an individual map focuses on just a limited aspect of Biblical or secular history. Hence, it draws attention to places that are of special significance in that context. You will find a map setting out the travels of Abraham, one outlining the wilderness wanderings of Israel, another covering the conquest of the Promised Land, one for David’s life as a fugitive and another for events associated with his kingship, a series of maps outlining the places to which Jesus traveled during his earthly ministry, and a number of maps showing details of Jerusalem during various periods of history. A map index is provided to help you to locate the specific maps that provide the most helpful information regarding given places or locations.
With many of the maps, there is also a list of place names, along with scriptures that show why the places are significant in the particular historical context under consideration. On the adjoining pages of the book are color photographs of locations featured on the map. These features can help you to benefit more fully from the Bible accounts, as you see the relationship of one location to another, read details as to what took place there, and see what the places look like today.
Special Features in Full Color
In preparing this publication, museums in North America, Europe, and the Middle East were combed in order to locate valuable objects related to the Bible record. Pictures of the most worthwhile items were obtained. In addition, a number of collections of photographs of places mentioned in the Bible were reviewed, in order to select the ones that would be most helpful. The results have been worked into eight 16-page full-color inserts that are of practical value. These are fascinating highlights that you will enjoy and will be able to use in many ways when teaching others.
For example, there is a section entitled “How We Got the Bible.” Graphically, it depicts the steps through which the Bible has reached us—from the original writings down to modern translations. It contains pictures of portions of some of the oldest manuscripts and visual evidence testifying to the care taken by early scribes, even to the point of counting the letters in manuscripts that they copied.
Another section is about the “Flood of Noah’s Day.” It considers such issues as, “Could the ark have held all the animals?” and, “Where did the floodwaters go?” It also presents an analysis of Flood legends from six continents and the islands of the sea to show that memories of the Deluge of Noah’s day are found among people of diverse cultures all over the earth.
Other sections deal with geographic features of the Promised Land, ancient empires whose activities affected Israel, and a picture tour of places that visitors can see in and around Jerusalem today. Altogether, there are 50 of such topics developed in full color.
All this information has been made easily accessible by means of comprehensive indexes right in these volumes. These indexes direct you to the choicest discussions of scriptures cited and subjects listed.
Taking an overall view of the work, these introductory comments appear in the first volume: “The objective of this publication is to help you to acquire insight on the Scriptures. How is it done? By bringing together from all parts of the Bible the details that relate to subjects being discussed. By drawing attention to original-language words and their literal meaning. By considering related information from secular history, archaeological research, and other fields of science and evaluating this in the light of the Bible. By providing visual aids. By helping you to discern the value of acting in harmony with what the Bible says.” So within the pages of Insight on the Scriptures is a wealth of truly valuable information that you can use to benefit yourself and others.
 
One thing I noticed that I thought was a bit funny is that the Insight book quotes Barnes Notes about 5 times and Matthew Henry about 2 times. But each time it quotes Barnes it always references only the date 1974, and each time it quotes Matthew Henry, it always references only the date 1976.
This reference method tends to obscure the fact that Barnes Notes was completed in 1832, not 1974. It also obscures the fact that Matthew Henry was written in 1706, not 1976.

Shows we have one spirit.  I was thinking the same thing recently that we pin the scriptures too much to one point or aspect of the scripture.   Jehovah’s word is  deep, wide, high and long at the same time, so it can tell us many things, so we can use it as a multi-purpose  tool to do and learn many things  (2 Tim 3:16,17).  Jehovah’s spirit helps us to understand even with language limitations. Jehovah’s Word also encourages us to perceive what the will of God is. (Ephesians 5:17) Everything will not be spelled out for us.
 
 [I find your (ComfortmyPeople) language ability is wonderful.]
The apostle Paul acknowledged this long ago as we can see at Ephesians 3:17-19.
 
(Ephesians 3:17-19) . . . May you be rooted and established on the foundation, 18 in order that with all the holy ones you may be thoroughly able to comprehend fully what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of the Christ, which surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness that God gives.
 
(Romans 11:33) O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!
 
Jehovah is the originator of language and he has no problem helping us to understand or using his holy spirit to reveal things to us. He has used the faithful and discreet slave to feed us well over the years but the Bible is written to all of us personally as well. If Jehovah wishes to teach us personally something from a particular text who should limit that?
 
 (John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
 
 (Rev 22:7) 7 Look! I am coming quickly. Happy is anyone observing the words of the prophecy of this scroll.
 
Anyone can benefit from and apply God’s Word.
 
I have also noted that when I pay attention to a particular scripture, seeing something in it that I had never paid attention to before, often I find that it is highlighted also by the current CO when he comes.  I will have to start writing these things down so I can give a few examples in the future.  I often forget the details but the knowledge of the times it occurred remains with me.  I am sure JWInsider and Anna would have had similar experiences.
Look how many years we thought that only the anointed had Jehovah’s spirit.  Jehovah gives his spirit to anyone who wants to find him and serve him. We know the instance of Cornelius and his family who got it even before Peter got there and before they wee baptized.
Really enjoyed the post and the comments of Anna and JWI.
 

I think it's "spot on."
I also hope you continue to give further examples in your posts. I think this point is closely related to one of the absolutely most important recent changes to our teachings. I wanted to add some info from a historical perspective on this point. For better or for worse, I got involved in this same subject in 1978, and learned something interesting from the experience. (Interesting to me, at least.) 
For me, the experience gives some additional perspective on why it took forty-two years to make the official change, from the time this 1972 article first presented this same important question about extended applications, sometimes called: "type-antitype" applications.
The 1972 Watchtower you quoted was actually a summary of what Ray Franz had learned from the team that researched and put together the Watch Tower's first Bible encyclopedia: "Aid to Bible Understanding" (finished in 1971). The "Aid Book" research resulted in adjustments to the elder arrangement and the GB arrangement. It contains literally dozens of statements about how we can't be absolutely sure of the meaning or reason for certain Biblical references. But the biggest practical change for the Writing Department, was that this Bible dictionary/encyclopedia revolved almost completely around Biblical context. It was not a doctrinal reference.
I thought this idea about the importance of Biblical context was almost a "radical" idea, because it changed the way that many of us would read and study the Bible. The article you quoted presented the first evidence that we could question the overly specific extended applications (types and antitypes) that we were so accustomed to. It subtly moved the "type-antitype" application from a specific prophetic drama about specific classes of Christians to lessons that taught all of us something about Jehovah's unchanging principles. Everyone on the "Aid Book" team believed that only a few few specific "types and antitypes" should be a part of our doctrinal teachings. (Only the ones that were specifically said to be "type-antitype" in the Bible itself.) But this would mean that literally hundreds of type-antitype applications would have to be dropped. It was too many doctrines to change all at once. Brother Fred Franz, who was the source or "keeper" of many of the type-antitype teachings, argued against dropping them. Brother Fred Rusk (Watchtower Editor) also supported keeping them. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most of the Governing Body at that time would have sided with Fred Franz on anything doctrinal, since he was still treated as "The Oracle" at this time.
Therefore, the 1972 article was an important and controversial move, but ultimately ended up "compromising" or postponing a big change on this very important point. (The very next article was supposed to balance the idea you quoted with the idea that there are still "prophetic dramas" that have difficult and specific meanings that are too difficult to grasp from principles and context alone.)
The suggested change was not finally made until October 2014 at the Annual Meeting by Brother Splane. This was forty-two years after it was first presented in 1972. The specifics of this change were credited to Bert Schroeder during the Annual Meeting in 2014. Brother Schroeder had died in 2007, though, and I have no idea what time period Brother Splane was referring to. But I do know that Brother Schroeder suggested this change not long after the death of Fred Franz. His reasons might be clearer with a little more context.
The primary members of that "Aid Book" team continued to contribute work for the Writing Department from 1972 to 1980, and they were easily the most prolific writers of our Bible-based study material and convention releases. Many others in Writing worked from "news" material, spending a lot of their day reading about wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilences, and commenting on "pro" and "con" references to "Jehovah's Witnesses" found in outside publications. About 25% of the study material came from Fred Franz, mostly indirectly from those who based their "new" articles almost totally on prior articles from Franz had written. While I was there, about 75% of the study articles and all but a few of the convention releases came from the  "Aid Book" team.
The four primary members of that team were dismissed from Bethel in mid-1980. One was disfellowshipped at the time, and another (R Franz) was disfellowshipped in 1981. A couple of them tried to keep a low profile in their congregations, or even continued to get research assignments for the Society for several more years, being given a bit of support through the "special pioneer" arrangement. (Ironically, some of those continuing assignments were related to replacing the Aid Book with the updated Insight Book.) But ultimately all of them, I'm told, finally found themselves outside of the organization even though all of them, as far as I knew, had wanted to quietly remain inside the organization for as long as they were allowed. One of them lasted at least a couple of decades in his congregation, serving as an elder and special pioneer for years, but I do not currently know his status. I haven't heard from him or about him in 10 years, but I heard a rumor that he was "pushed" out.
While at Bethel, when I read through a large portion of the Aid Book for technical errors and typos, I was a bit troubled at first by the neutral, undogmatic style that sometimes said, "we don't know for sure." I mentioned this to someone on the "Aid Book" team, and said that I'm beginning to understand that the style was necessary as s a kind of public-facing, academic style. In 1978, I asked if it was troubling to anyone else. He said: "There are a lot of people here who would LOVE to hear that about the Aid Book." This really surprised me, because this was early in 1978 and it was a hint of trouble. He explained that the Aid Book was considered "dangerous" and had created a division between Fred Franz supporters in Writing, because it put a new value on context, and relatively less value on "extended applications."
He said that the most common response (letters/comments) from those who had become familiar with the Aid Book's style were commenting on how much more value they were getting out of their Bible reading because they were realizing for the first time that the meaning from context was now more open to them. For example, they no longer read Ezekiel 18 as just the chapter that had a verse or two about the soul dying (18:4). There's another message in the context that is also very important, and they hadn't noticed it before. By 1975 there were many brothers who had been so overjoyed at this "new" way of reading the Bible that groups of Bethelites would join others in their rooms just for Bible reading. The Aid Book "style" was being credited. Because all of these Bible reading groups were "banned" in 1980, and even brothers on the Governing Body spoke out against them, it was assumed that these all had something to do with the apostasy. But there were dozens of them, and hundreds of Bethelites participated. It's true that most of the "apostates" had also participated, but the majority of participants remained in responsible positions.
I regularly attended one in the room of a brother from Writing that often went on for three hours on Wednesday. Whenever I could, I also started attending another one after the Monday-night Watchtower study for one hour. One of these had one of the "Aid Book" team and I was questioned about it later in 1980, although I continued to do research for Brother Schroeder from 1977 until 1983. Schroeder kept a good measure of personal control over who was and was not dismissed for "apostasy" 1980 through 1983. Yet, even Brother Schroeder quietly sided with the "Aid Book" team on this same point about "type-antitype" during the 1980 crisis. My best friends in the Writing Department also included Brother Fred Rusk, who gave my wedding talk later in 1980. (I last saw and spoke to Rusk in 2013, at a funeral talk.) Rusk and Schroeder were both very strong opposers of the entire Aid Book team. But I kept friends on "both sides of the aisle."
I don't know how easy it is to tell that the writer of the article below was asked to write in support of types and antitypes but was intentionally "subversive" or "ambiguous" in a way that would still get past the editors.
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. . . .
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The Christian disciple James answers: “With evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (Jas. 1:13). . . .
We can therefore read what took place with ancient Israel and surrounding nations and know that they were just as real as our situation today and that God will act toward us according to the same principles, just as surely as he did back there. As we benefit from the record of God’s dealings with his people in the past, we experience a readjustment of viewpoint. But, of course, at times there may be points that we find difficult to grasp.
 
 
 

This is why I really love the sentiments of this quote a father once said to his daughter (It was in one of the WT)
"Plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your life time, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow"

An unexpected visit

Characters: Angel (A) You (Y) Narrator (N)

N- Imagine that an angel visits you today. He wakes you up in the middle of the night and says:

A- Jehovah granted me choose one of his servants to inform Armageddon’s date, and I’ve chosen to you.

Y- Wonderful! What a privileged man I am! When will it be?

A- January 1, 2025. Now, I’m going to give further information about this date of capital importance

Y- Errr, excuse me angel, thanks for this marvelous information, but my alarm clock is set at 5 AM, and I wish to sleep. Tomorrow I will have a hard day and I need to feel awake.

A- What a lack of appreciation! If only I had known!

N- The angel, sorrowful and turning its back on you, is ready to depart.

Y- Please angel, don’t feel bad. It remains 8 years. I have no savings to live without my secular work. Next month my wife has a surgery, and also I need to ponder the education of my children. You aren’t going to think I take my children off from the school all these 8 years!

 A- I think if you were more spiritual…

Y- One moment, I’ve just applied for the pioneer next month, and with my collaboration my wife is going to start the regular next September. What’s wrong with me!

A- And what’re your plans for next holidays? Now you know for sure the Date! Would not you rather dedicate it to preach?

N- The angel a little bitter, you a little worried.

Y- Well… perhaps you’re right… one moment!

A- Yes

Y- The brothers at Bethel, missionaries and traveling overseers, do you think they are, in general, spirituals?

A- Of course!

Y- And don’t have they fully conscience of the closeness of the end?

A- Yes, I think so

Y- And, don’t they enjoy of their holidays these years?

A- Well, I believe this, yes.

Y- Look. If you only had said to me this date is, let’s say, is in a few months, perhaps I could have made some arrangements. But believe me, dear angel, I love Jehovah and I’m trying make my most every day, without any date in consideration.

N- And they both say goodbye with affection

 

Abraham’s example

Some emphasis added: (Genesis 12:1-4) “And Jehovah said to A′bram: “Go out from your land and away from your relatives and from the house of your father to the land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will become a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who calls down evil on you, and all the families of the ground will certainly be blessed by means of you.” 4 So A′bram went just as Jehovah had told him, and Lot went with him. A′bram was 75 years old when he left Ha′ran.”

What would be your reaction if someone promises YOU all these things? Would it not be logical to expect the fulfillment of these words in your own life? Let’s continue with Abraham.

Some emphasis added: (Genesis 13:14-18) “Jehovah said to A′bram, after Lot had separated from him: “Raise your eyes, please, and look from the place where you are, to the north and south, east and west, 15 because all the land that you see, I will give to you and your offspring as a lasting possession. 16 And I will make your offspring like the dust particles of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust particles of the earth, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Get up, travel through the length and breadth of the land, for to you I am going to give it.” 18 So A′bram continued to live in tents”

Again, would it not be logical to suppose for Abraham to think he will receive these rewards during the span of his life?

Now, some years after, about ten perhaps, these words happen.

Again, emphasis added: (Genesis 15:13-16) “Then He said to A′bram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. 14 But I will judge the nation they will serve, and after that they will go out with many goods. 15 As for you, you will go to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. 16 But they will return here in the fourth generation…”

“What? What does this mean? It was assumed that I was going to get your promises in my life, and now, you’re going to say me that I’m going to die, and my reward is postponed until a very distant future, for some remote descendants.” Perhaps no one between us find this hypothetic answer odd or rare, but did Abraham felt deceived? Well, the rest of his life, very known for all of us offers a clear answer.

Conclusion

Did Abraham need date information to serve God with all his soul? No. Why? Because he simple loved God. And here I am, like all of you. Serving to Jehovah decades after our thoughts about when the end should come.  Because our main motivation is, simply, love.

What I’m trying to say with the little story about the angel visiting at night and the account about some passages regarding Abraham’s life is the danger of getting quickly excited with some developments, in the world or in God’s people. When I listen to some brother saying something like “look at the news today… China, Middle East, etc., the end is near” I always answer, yes, you’re right, but I also thought to myself “the same I believed when I was a child.” These recursive ideas bother me, because always lead to disappointment. I try to share the attitude of Abraham, attempting to serve Jehovah till the end of my days with all my soul.

 

Thanks. I have never heard about opposers promulgating this. I can't see how it would add anything or take away anything from our reputation. It's not something that we as Witnesses would promote as part of our history, but it shows why it's important to keep a legal distinction that defines membership. Several denominations handle baptism very similarly.
To help avoid too much off-topic discussion here, I've added a new question on this subject of Rutherford's influence:
 

Allen,
You did it again! You opposed something, but then provided evidence that you were wrong and that you were opposing the truth again.
I have often kind of "marveled" at how you often take an oppositional position to certain facts and ideas and then when you present the information to try to denigrate these facts and ideas, you end up providing evidence that you were wrong and the person you were opposing was right!
Here's how you did it this time:
Then you quoted, and even highlighted a portion of the evidence that agrees with the statement I made, and would indicate that you were wrong:
I would give the same two pieces of evidence you just gave, as evidence in support of the same fact that you are opposing. You offered these bits of evidence about "Fard" as if you didn't realize that he was one of the founders of the "Nation of Islam." Therefore, if you indicate that Fard used stories from the teachings of Joseph F. "Judge" Rutherford, then you are merely providing evidence that: "Rutherford's doctrines have even been traced as a factor in the growth of the Black Muslim [Nation of Islam] movement in the United States."
As a reminder to those who may not be aware, here is the opening Wikipedia entry for Fard:
Wallace D. Fard aka Wallace Fard Muhammad /fə.ˈrɑːd/ (born February 26, 1877[3]) was a co-founder of the Nation of Islam. He arrived in Detroit in 1930 with an obscure background and several aliases, and taught a distinctive form of Islam to members of the city's African-American population. He disappeared in 1934.

I see a danger in misunderstanding, because it is so easy to be idolaters without thinking much about it. This goes for idolizing money, materialism, the so-called American dream, sports and entertainment heroes, worldly ideas we try to copy, and any organization that we begin to feel we must have faith in. Jehovah tells us not to put our trust in princes in whom no salvation belongs, and we are not to be surprised that only God is really the only one to be found "true" and every man may be found a "liar."
If anyone takes the words from the KM above to mean ONLY Jehovah's earthly organization, as identified "generally" with the Watch Tower Society, then they are making a mistake. It's true that we must identify ourselves with Jehovah's heavenly organization, and we expect an earthly component, even today. And if we honestly feel that we can best serve his heavenly organization through our association with fellow Witnesses, then we will need to associate with an earthly component to continue serving in part of Jehovah's heavenly organization, and that's what's essential to our salvation, because meeting with others shows we have a desire to help others. (Hebrews 10:24,25) Christianity is social by definition. In effect, we are introducing our Bible students to this particular earthly organization as an option that they may or may not believe is a part of Jehovah's overall organization. When we are directing them to a particular organization, we are taking the lead, and they may or may not imitate our faith if they like what they see:
(Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
Personally, I am very comfortable among Witnesses, and I would not be comfortable associating with non-JW denominations that I am familiar with. I am happy to introduce Bible believers to my friends and brothers among the Witnesses. But I don't limit Jehovah's ability to work with any and all who serve him in any place on earth, under any circumstances they find themselves in. I personally believe that the wheat and weeds grow together inside and outside of earthly organizations, because it's not the earthly organization through which Christians are identified by Jehovah and Jesus. It's, in effect, only our heart and heart-motivated actions that identify us.
We sometimes say that "by their fruits you will recognize them" is a reference to the true "organization." But, of course, it's how individual Christians are identified. But all Christians whose circumstances allow it, should seek and find the most appropriate association of Christian brothers and sisters that best reflects the ideals of the first century congregation in the circumstances of the twenty-first century. If the Watch Tower based organization(s) were somehow dissolved, or became totally corrupted from a material point of view, then we should still be able to continue serving as Christians among ourselves, and even among other groups of people who want to be Christians like us, too.
If we have used our opportunities for Christian association and encouragement during our "favorable season" to refine our hearts and minds, and grow in love and faith, then we will always stay motivated to do the right things (morality, good works, sharing our faith). No obstacle can separate us from the love of Jehovah and his Son. Even if we temporarily felt alone, we would have comfort knowing that we are still part of an invisible brotherhood that Jehovah recognizes -- other sheep around the earth who recognize the voice of their shepherd Jesus. Even when Elijah was sure he was the only one left serving the true God, Jehovah told him that there were actually 7,000 people who hadn't turned the knee to Baal. Jehovah sees a visible brotherhood even where we can't see it.
(Romans 11:2-6) . . .Do you not know what the scripture says in connection with E·liʹjah, as he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Jehovah, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and now they are trying to take my life.” 4 Yet, what does the divine pronouncement say to him? “I have left for myself 7,000 men who have not bent the knee to Baʹal.” 5 So in the same way, at the present time also, there is a remnant according to a choosing through undeserved kindness. 6 Now if it is by undeserved kindness, it is no longer through works; otherwise, the undeserved kindness would no longer be undeserved kindness.
 
 

I was going through the catechism in the book "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot" (80 questions) when this article came out. I wasn't baptized until the next summer, but this is an important point to remember, even for those baptized under the 1985 (post-apostasy) questions. The fact that the new question replaced spirit-guided Word the Bible with spirit-guided organization still does not mean that we are dedicating ourselves to that organization, though. The idea is that our personal dedication vow to Jehovah and Jesus is what makes us a Christian. We then recognize that we are using this same opportunity to confess a faith that aligns us as members of a particular religion. It is part of our dedication in that we expect to make use of the congregation to keep our faith continually aligned through our association with other Christians, being built up and encouraged by their examples, opportunities to do good especially toward those related to us in the faith, and the discipline and reminders to remain on a righteous path and active in our ministry through the examples of overseers, elders and other servants who act as shepherds in the congregation by imitating the example of Jesus Christ in their own lives. The congregation is vital to Christians, and we recognize our best opportunity among fellow Witnesses. But we do need to be careful not to be confused about our dedication and begin believing that we are dedicated to the organization or to the structure and activity or people within it. Our dedication is to God and Christ.