Anna

“Whoa, big fella! Whatcha doing here?!”
I can’t picture it. It’s not as though Moses wasn’t being severely tested. Probably Aaron felt the pressure of the same test. He was probably just as upset with the people and only sensed vaguely what Moses was doing wrong, or even if he was.
Even today, it’s hard not to excuse Moses. I liken it to, when a brother gives a good talk and ones approach him to say, ‘Good talk!’ he will, likely as not, murmur something to the effect that it is not he, but Jehovah. He says this even though it is perfectly possible for ones to speak persuasively without any help at all from Jehovah. So what are we to make of someone who takes full credit for doing something that no human in a thousand years would be able to do?
But it’s not immediately obvious. Most fail to make the point stand out as to how outrageous Moses’ response really is.
 

To me, more often than not, instances like this fall into a category of assertion called affirming the consequent.
- Jerry says, "On Sunday the Jets will win."
- On Sunday, the Jets win.
A person could assert "Jerry was Divinely inspired to prophesy the Jets would win, and the outcome proves he was inspired!" when what Jerry was really doing was just guessing. There was no prophesying at all. There was nothing Divine going on at all. The consequent (the Jets winning) does not support a notion that Jerry "was Divinely inspired" just because the Jets happened to win.

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.
 

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 
The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me
Also you seem to have a few irons in the fire and I get a bit confused ..so I’m just speaking on the blood issue here .
The me…thinks one shouldn’t be disfellowshipped for taking blood but going by all those scriptures in the articles…it would amount to a death sentence by Jehovah himself…before and after Noah’s time and it was of such importance out of three things from the Law …blood was one of them for the new Christian’s.
We are talking about blood here..Frank blood.
Im guessing someone like you wrote in and explained how fractions of blood were in vaccines and certain injections…( which was good )..so then the fractions had to be explained.
As to some of the treatments you have explained and as to why one would get disfellowshipped and not for the other…I wouldn’t have a clue.
I read in one of our articles some one felt okay to transfuse cows blood…..( I remember thinking,,,,what the heck,,,and why would they even publish that)
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree …..for me..it’s like taking the fruit…..but I would never look down on or judge anyone if they took it or disagreed with me,
You go back a long time and it’s a shame in those days there seemed to be blind obedience with children and youths of your time…no internet…some had not even a library to compare things. In a way you could say you were a victim of your era
I on the other hand come from the 70s and questioned everything….I could see a number of worrying things….wrong things…but I was like one of those no good Egyptians grabbing hold of the hem of that Jew…. .not sure where he was taking me nor not really wanting to go…but I knew he was heading in the right direction.
You’re expecting too much Miles….lives have been lost because of wrongful beliefs pushed on us ( organ transplants)…just as King David lost tens of thousand of lives …for his error…so it happens today as then….and will until Michael comes and finishes it.
Your an interesting man with a lot of fascinating experiences…I hope we hear more of them…you sure write really well….now I wonder where you learnt to do that hey 😉

My cousin, a non Witness, studied medicine. She never got her doctor's license because she decided to sell drugs instead. By that I mean pharmaceuticals. She told me that many people do not realize how risky blood transfusions are and that she would never have one herself. But of course as Witnesses that is not our reason for not accepting blood transfusions. I am aware that there are lots of other views on what "abstaining from blood" means. Personally, I think that all of it should be a conscience matter. I don't normally comment on the open forum, so this is all I am going to say about it. 

Sure, but we are interested in how Jesus' disciples understood what blood meant, when they said to abstain from it. 

In Bible times there was only whole blood. In modern times blood can be separated into 4 components and then these 4 components can be further separated into fractions. The question was: when is blood no longer blood? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and so the line was drawn at minor fractions because it was deemed that although derived from blood, it was no longer blood. 
The doctrinal position comes from that premise.
P.S. I honestly don't know why the line wasn't drawn at only 2 main components: red blood cells and platelets, as these two components are only found in  blood. The other two, plasma and white blood cells are also found elsewhere in the body. 
 

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

I know.....

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 
"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"
"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.
That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.
And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing.
I mean, really. Think back to 1957, when people readily complied with all things without complaint. Back when my dad would shear my hair like the barnyard animals he grew up with, leaving just a little tuft in the front like a hood ornament. He blew his stack when the Beatles came along and I tried to grow my hair one millimeter longer.

I know.....

I do not oppose anything, I just think it should be a conscience matter, purely because the scriptures you are talking about could be interpreted a few different ways, as has been shown.

I know.....

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 
"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"
"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 
"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"
"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

…

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.
Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.
I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.
When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.
Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.
Compare these two articles:
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099
In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.
Those internal articles are just the tip. 
People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.
In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.
 
 

The book “1984” was supposed to be a warning …. not an instruction manual.

That's an odd thing to think. Does a library force people out because it contains books addressing many subjects from many perspective in many disciplines. Doesn't each person decide which book he pulls from the shelf, what subject he wants to learn more about, etc.?
The only negative thing I see here (and I've not been here for long) is an apprehension to offer straightforward answers to straightforward questions. But it's not really negative in the sense that it bothers me. It's only negative in that it impedes engaging beneficial discussion.
 
I've not observed a single participant here who thinks themselves flawless. Who are these people you speak of?
Even the organization recognizes it is made up of people, each of which has their own personal conscience which varies from person to person. So we all have differences. Having differences is no reason to leave. Why run from what God has given us as a gift. Choice. So long as we act genuinely to do His will we have no reason to think His eyes will look upon us in a bad way. Our worship must be our own. If we just blindly follow what someone in authority tells us to do all we're doing is worshiping God for someone else.
 
We should live each day in expectation. But we also do well to make today's decisions based on God's testimony (Bible and creation) and sound reason. There's no reason not to do both, and every reason to do both.
The notion that red cells provide nutrition when transfused has been debunked since the 1940s. The notion that plasma (including cryosupernatant plasma) could provide nutrition when transfused has also been known since the 1940s. This is not new information. If you need reference material I'd happily reference my library and provide citations. You should be able to access the material either online or from you local library.
It is good to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine.
 

@Many Miles I second all of what Thinking said in the last post.