ComfortMyPeople

There are evidently FOUR basic problems in the latest explanation of the "GENERATION" teaching. Of course, this is the teaching based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 where he says that "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." The latest update to the explanation is that Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed persons: the first group who could discern the meaning of the sign they witnessed in 1914, and a second group of anointed persons, whose lives overlapped with that first group.
#1. It creates a set time limit for Armageddon to occur. #2. It is based on the idea that the date 1914 was predicted in the Bible. #3. It is based on a false definition of the word "generation." #4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914. If we're serious about:
paying constant attention to ourselves and our teaching, (1 Tim 4:16) handling the word of God aright, having nothing to be ashamed of, (2 Tim 2:15) not paying attention to false stories, (1 Tim 1:4-7) making sure of all things, (1 Thess 5:21) knowing that teachers will receive heavier judgment, etc., (James 3:1) then we would not be very good Christians if any of us taught something that we were not sure about.
On this forum, participants have already dealt extensively with #1 and #2 above, but there has not yet been a thorough discussion and focus on points #3 and #4.

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?
The recent Watchtower stated:
*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:
“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.
There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

 

Not hardly!! Did you take note at how I knocked the formidable JTR out of the ring? I’ll have you for lunch!

 
By the way, I’m reading a new author of science fiction, Darth Dethway. In a very exciting chapter, the evil alien says:
”Surrender, earthlings! You have no chance!   Zip...zero...nada!”
Do you think?

Just in case anyone is interested here are the 'closed club' rules:
This club is intended for active publishers associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses only. Anyone who does not fall into this category will be denied membership. Members should keep in mind that an opinion on something of a doctrinal nature that is not in line with current understanding does not mean that the current understanding is wrong. Therefore it’s not necessary to take offense, or start defending current understanding just for the sake of it, without actually presenting a reasonable counter argument.   Members must realize that one of the objectives of this club is that members should feel comfortable expressing their ideas and discussing things which can be viewed as controversial, as long as these do not become dogmatic and/or are aggressively promoted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it works both ways. Biblical principles to keep in mind: (2 Timothy 2:23-25) Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,  instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. (Titus 3:9, 10)  But have nothing to do with foolish arguments and genealogies and disputes and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine. (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. Not allowed: obscene, vulgar, and/or hateful talk, racist remarks, ad hominem attacks (against anyone, which includes the GB), trolling, and links to apostate websites.

That's the same kind of mistake I was referring to above. We can't base our beliefs about the timing of Armageddon on anything we think might have to happen first here on earth. Jesus wove the first century parousia on Jerusalem right into the parousia on the entire earth using the word immediately to tie the two together.
(Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. It was in Peter that we have the explanation that "immediately" could easily be 1,000 years or more, because:
(2 Peter 3:4-9) . . .“Where is this promised presence of his? . . .  8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise. . .  

Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.
You haven't been clear about what "it" is that active JWs understand, and do not minimize or dismiss.
Perhaps there are, and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.
*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year. This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

For what it's worth, I noticed that you did bring up several other issues besides child abuse. Child sexual abuse (CSA) seemed to be the issue that remains most unresolved for you, and it spilled over into discussions of elders, GB, the congregation fear of elders, two-witness rule inconsistency, clergy privilege, etc. To be fair these other topics were often already related to the CSA issue.
Jehovah can use any of us, and any government, ruler or organization to accomplish his will. He can use our mistakes to accomplish his will, and he can use our feeble and foibled attempts to minister to him, too, of course. I think Jehovah continues to cleanse "JW Org" every time we show humility as an organization and show ourselves malleable to his will. (Like the potter's vessel illustration from @Bible Speaks you commented on.) You made a comment under that topic to the effect that Jehovah does not "mold" us to his will through congregation elders. This made no sense to me, because the utilization of congregation elders is very much a part of Jehovah's will as we can see in the Biblical direction given to congregations. Of course, if there are specific things elders do, you could address those things, but the generalization is not scriptural.
On the issue of Armageddon, there is a range of belief among Witnesses, so I assume you mean the standard idea that Jehovah destroys all the wicked, especially the wicked organizations, and only Jehovah's people survive. That range of belief might include questions about who really get counted as "wicked," who really get counted as Jehovah's people, or whether a large number of JWs actually do not survive, too. What happens with children and those who remain innocent by lack of hearing, or inability to comprehend? What happens with those who would gladly have joined us, but who were stumbled at haughty elders, or false prophecies, or issues of child abuse that seemed to them to be the fault of an organization, rather than just the perpetrators?
Also on the issue of Armageddon, you know that while it might not be dangerous to think that it might be a long way off, it is dangerous to live our lives according to the idea that it might be a long way off. The point is to keep it close in mind because it could come at any time, without further warning. We are warned that it will arrive, but we have absolutely no warning as to the times and seasons. This makes me wonder about what several members have done on this forum by speculating about what things are "obviously" going to happen in the near future that will prove this or that scripture to have been accomplished. I think this is also a mistake, because even if we think a certain action on the part of a government, a person, the UN, or anything else must happen first to fulfill some Bible prophecy before the end, then I think we have failed to understand that Armageddon can actually arrive 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight. And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914. This is just as un-Biblical and therefore un-Christian because it claims we know something about the times and seasons with respect to the time of the end.
An organization is not a person with motives you can judge. Yes, many JWs are blind to the faults of the Organization. But you should know members of the "Private" club for JWs as opposed to the "Public" club for JWs (now called "Open") is just as apt to discuss faults of the Organization as it is in the Open Club. As TTH pointed out, it has actually become easier to discuss these criticisms without people changing the subject at will, or asking people to defend their choices on some barely related topic.

I saw that you just accuse and accuse the GB and your knowledge is very little.... so I usually do not argue with people  who think they know it all and have so little knowledge.  You also seem very immature and your reasoning does not have much logic going on.....  .... well.  I think Anna has been patient with you and kind.....   I would not be so nice...   
 
What you want is a proper witch hunt of JWs to go after a person in public and persecute him.....maybe get a newspaper article?   You do not sound reasonable at all.   We do our duty in the congregation and we do it in the reporting to the police  (if there are legal laws in place).  What else do you suggest we do? I recall Anna asking you this question and you did not answer it.
If there are no legal laws for reporting  the crime in place then police are not obliged to follow it up - logic conclusion heh?   Does this compute?  Even if there are laws in place it seems the police are too busy to do anything regarding the matter these days.
The person involved must then file a civil law suit.... maybe the incentive to get a lot of money will get them to report it.... 
Mr Butler - It is easy to take the moral high ground and try to prove you are so righteous and justified to  criticize the GB and elders....... but I do not think you have any experience in running such a large organization and you cannot even imagine it.... if you could you would have shown more reasonableness.
You may find yourself one day being accused of a crime you did not commit - then you will be grateful for people showing caution to not just condemn you without proper evidence.  There is two sides to every case.

Yes - there were no proper laws to prosecute people back then.  It is the fault of congress for not having decent laws.   I was alive in the 50, 60s.   It was only in the 60s when people started to talk about sex with "flower power" and the sex revolution took place.  It took much longer for sexual abuse to be discussed in public.  Only after this laws started to appear in some first world countries but they were very weak laws to be able to get a conviction. 

I did not read the comments above.  I did my own research on the history of the laws regarding this subject a few years back.  I just get so sick of those who always want to put the Organization in the bad light - they use the available information to twist the truth to look like the organization is full of pedophiles and condoners of it.
In Australia  there were records to the effect that Jw's had about a  thousand people since 1950 - which means , in the last 70 years - these were alleged child sex abusers.  Some of these were accused but there was not sufficient proof to put them out of the congregation.  In this time there were about 40 years that there were no proper laws in place to prosecute - and later when they could there were still not child services readily available and the laws were very bad.  It did not protect the child from a victimization via the court system.
Of all the organizations interviewed (almost 2000) - our organization was the only organization (of all the churches, youth organizations, sports organizations that work with children) which kept notes on these people because there were not laws in place to prosecute.  JWs kept notes on them so they could not go to another congregation and not be informed upon.
While it is a heinous crime and bad people can slip into the organization I think people are incredibly naive if they think that this number is high.  
In 2003 a law was passed in United States which made prosecution of sex offenders easier.  Before that the child could be cross-examined in court by the defender's hostile representatives.  They allowed for taped evidence etc. 
It is easy to look back with todays laws in place and judge the past on this.   I have mentioned it before on this forum and then the very same people after a while open up the same subject again - which means that they are not prepared to be reasonable and really weigh the evidence.
The purpose of the Australian inquiry was to address the gaps in the law and they were investigating the procedures various organizations were following to  find out where the gaps were so better legislation can be put in place.

1507940147251-drlcss.mp4

It is not a problem, it is exactly how it is. The jurisdictional system in a congregation deals with sin, the Jurisdictional system of the Government deals with crime and both can be applied to the same instance at the same time. In the case of child sexual molestation, it is both, a sin and a crime. So both jurisdictional systems are needed.
It might seem like that. But if you read the context, and other scriptures which talk about this subject, then it becomes clear that for Christians, God is to be obeyed above anyone: Acts 5:29: "In answer Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men". For example, secular law does not prohibit Adultery or fornication. However God does.
So, as you say, there are two parallel  jurisdictional systems. One is religious, based on sin (adultery and fornication are a sin), the other one is secular, based on crime (adultery and fornication are not a crime).  That is why Paul was able to say: "After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says, “Remove the evil person from your group.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).
These would have been personal disputes between two brothers (or sisters) that did not involve a sin or a crime.  It would be better if these brothers could handle this between themselves peacefully, rather than get "worldly" courts to judge who was right and who was wrong.
Possibly. But in any case, we can be sure that ultimately God will judge everyone (Romans 14:12)
If you were an elder, what decision would you make?

Yes - the age of the creation is a different matter to the sudden appearance of all animals which are fully  formed.  It is two separate subjects.  Evolutionists usually ignore the Cambrian explosion and do not talk about it.

If you really know your chemistry and how things work you can calculate the rate of radiation buildup... especially if you know what you are looking for...   Most scientists do not believe the bible so they do not even try. 
My brother has a special talent for discovering what a new molecule looks like - hence his profession of researching new poisons (on the plants in Africa which often kill animals).  This of course sent him to jail because he refused to help the government kill dissidents by providing them with unknown/new  poisons which he isolated and described the structures of.  
I must add my brother has  no ego - he is talented but does not look for any kind of recognition at all - so he is not in search of some holy grail - he just loves knowledge  and the bible.  
I
We still have this curse on the ground and this produces weeds and unwanted elements which makes it hard to produce food.  But - weeds and overgrowth and warmth do not affect animals - only the livelihood of humans
So with a water band the animals will have been OK, big and fat and the pollution was not yet what it is today.  What is significant in all of this is that they had never seen a rainbow before - so after the flood there was definitely a difference in the composition of the atmosphere to view a rainbow for the first time. 
Also - the grapes will have produced more sugar than before the flood with the stronger,  unfiltered sun.  Hence the event that Noah may have underestimated the amount of alcohol in his wine (not the same as before). Wine people know that stronger sunlight gives more sugar in grapes .... and hence more alcohol when fermented.
So there are quite a few indications in the bible that things changed after the flood.  For me the sedimentary layers which came during the flood are full of animals that could have lived until the flood....  but for this information I guess we have to wait until after  Armageddon to find out. 

To be clearer, I should have said that the idea that the earth was a temperate, tropical climate just before the time of the Flood is also unprovable. It very well may have been temperate and tropical for many thousands of years, or even for many millions of years. However, without accepting the methods of dating the various eras and eons on earth, we can't tell if this state of climate was true in all parts of the earth at the same time. We can only theorize. And it might be a very good theory.
When Genesis describes Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden, it describes an immediate time of hardship in planting and cultivation, trying to eke out produce amidst thorns and thistles. This is not the state of affairs usually associated with a temperate and tropical climate and it was likely meant for a time more than 1500 years before the time of Noah.
(Genesis 3:17-19) 17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” It's a very common claim that has been theorized by fundamentalist authors for many years. And it might be true, but is still only a theory. I would love to be able to communicate with your brother, but no paper can "prove" anything about radiation levels before and after the Flood. Nor can anyone determine a specific reason for the sudden 90% drop in human lifespans.
That's interesting, but it's still not possible to use the word "prove" even when matching a formula to the Biblical time period.
It's a kind of holy grail for scientists. When working from one set of "true" non-quantum assumptions you can get one good answer, and when you work from a set of "true" quantum assumptions you get another good, sensible answer. The problem is that those answers are several orders of magnitude apart from each other. Other methods of mixing the math from the small scale energies of the electro-magnetic world and trying to map them to the large scale energies from the the gravitational space-time world will devolve into string theories. Not just one string theory, but several different string theories, some of which result in a "necessary" postulation of several simultaneous universes. So there really is no string theory, or at least it has gotten nowhere.
My son graduated from Harvard with a degree in theoretical physics (also music) and we have discussions about this quite often, and of course it's over my head. But he claims that many scientists have tried it, even attempting to use the ideas to "prove for God" as the source of the dynamic energies that would explain dark matter, and poorly understood energies -- even gravity itself.
You'll notice that the WTS does not teach us that this condition lasted until the Flood, implying that it is likely it was a condition limited to the context (day 3) in the creation account summary of Genesis 2.
*** it-2 p. 728 Rain ***
At an early point in the history of the preparation of the earth, “God had not made it rain upon the earth,” but “a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.” The time referred to is evidently early on the third creative “day,” before vegetation appeared I'm sure you are aware, as you have already mentioned several of these points, but for those who don't know that these same theories have been common in Christendom for many years, one need only look at various commentaries of Genesis. Here's some excerpts from one example, which will take up the rest of the post:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_685.cfm
. . .
Water Vapor Canopy
. . .
Astronomer Donald B. DeYoung lists the arguments in favor of a water vapor canopy.
. . .

To me, you do not give the impression of being careless at all. I get the impression you have not only been careful but very thorough in looking for evidence defending creation. And not just from a single source but clearly by being selective among some of the best ideas from many sources, which also means rejecting bad ideas.
I think this is great!
What I did hope to convey was the difficulty we have in simply re-interpreting every bit of existing evidence into a simple version of creation. All of us tend to do this because most of us want simple answers. A good scientist should look at ALL the evidence related to her or his branch of science and continue to readjust an overarching theory that fits every bit of it, including all the anomalies. We can't really make a good counter-claim in defense of our own position until we have done the same. As TTH above has said:
More importantly, we can't "judge" the conclusions of individual scientists, if they are based on a cache of thousands of pieces of evidence that we have not ourselves been able to explain.  As TTH aleady added:
Creationists have unprovable theories, too. We often invoke the problems of the unknown antediluvian atmosphere to counter evidence from Carbon 14 that appears to measure things fairly well back to 50,000 years. But our counter theory is not proved at all. It's just our own conjecture (actually the conjecture of previous fundamentalists). That the air pressure was different during a time of pterodactyls is also an unprovable theory. That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable.
We do have a small piece of evidence in favor of our theory in the Bible, but there are no details provided in the Bible, so some Witnesses and a lot of Fundamentalists simply impose a lot of conjecture upon the "water canopy" theory. 
In fact, the water canopy theory is very weak. From the standpoint of physics, the claims made for it are not even possible. So we are really invoking a kind of "miracle" that held a theorized "band" of water in the sky. Even the evidence from the Bible on the "water canopy" is not definitive. For one thing, you can see from the footnotes in the NWT that the word translated heavens is actually the same word for "sky." Genesis 1:1 is really saying: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth." And this word for "expanse" in Genesis 1:7 is apparently just a reference to the visible sky that holds the rain clouds above us. We can't really say for sure that this separation of the waters and the waters is any more than just the fact that Jehovah made it possible for water to be both on the surface of the earth and also high above our heads in the form of water vapor in the form of clouds. A reason for saying this is that Proverbs apparently replaces the idea of this water separation, merely with the word for "clouds" when referring to the major milestones of the earth's creation:
(Proverbs 8:28) . . .When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, And rather than support the theory that this separation of the waters disappeared at the time of the Flood, Psalms says it's still there:
(Psalm 148:3-7) . . .Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.  7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, You great sea creatures and all deep waters, In fact, just like Proverbs referring to these waters as clouds, Psalms (see also Job) also credits these waters from above as the "rain" that continued to make things grow during the days of the Psalmist:
(Psalm 104:12-14) . . .Above them roost the birds of the sky [heaven]; They sing among the thick foliage. 13 He is watering the mountains from his upper rooms. With the fruitage of your works the earth is satisfied. 14 He is making grass grow for the cattle And vegetation for mankind’s use, To grow food from the land. (Job 38:36, 37) 36 Who put wisdom within the clouds Or gave understanding to the sky [heaven] phenomenon? 37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds, Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven? (Psalm 147:8) . . .The One who covers the heavens with clouds, The One providing rain for the earth, The One making grass sprout on the mountains. In fact, based on similar texts and language used in other near eastern ancient documents the idea of this sky/expanse was the vault or dome that held the clouds above, and allowed the stars to shine through at night. Amos, too, shows it had not disappeared, and that it included the process by which sea water was turned into rain water.
(Amos 9:6) . . .‘The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his [dome, vault] over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth —Jehovah is his name.’

There are no life forms in the evolutionary record which proves step by step development of feathers or flight etc. Cambrian explosion proves that. 
Fortunately nano-biotechnology has also proved the evolutionary theory to be a simplistic view of all life.  Life is irreducibly complex and "connected"  .  With the word "connected" I  mean this: the eye cannot see without the brain to interpret and why would that part of the brain to interpret develop if there were no eye.  There is "foresight" in the development of both organs at the same time ....  This proves design and intelligence.  So everything is connected in the body. One does not need a biology degree to understand this.
The evolutionists were winning the propaganda war  a few years back - in schools and everywhere.  It is pushed by the UN too - the 2030 agenda wants all children to accept the new morality and reject religion (Christianity).  This is why we find pictures of "proven evolutionary frauds" still presented in school books as fact - current text books.  
Fortunately there is much more evidence available now to disprove the horrible book of Dawkins and other high priests of evolution. Dawkins turned so many people away from the bible....  but I am sad to say he no longer debates any Christians.  He just goes on university forums where he an fellow evolutionists discuss the "plausible" side of evolution to his eager fans.  I have seen a few debates where he bit the dust against people who are not even biologists.  These philosophers managed to show him the logic and interconnectedness or morality with the god of the bible. 
Thanks for your input.  I hope I did not create a "careless" impression by my choice of words.  I am never surprised at the wonderful diversity and abundance Jehovah has created.  Some dinosaurs could have been ground browsers like chickens, and others could have been water birds.  Some could have been carrion eaters etc.
I think - personal opinion - when one is right in the center of the group which needs to research and write about these things it can get a little distorted and panicky.  
I am not surprised - when the above "evidence" of bird evolution was presented without knowing it was a fraud..... they must have been consternated, flabbergasted  and concerned - no matter how strong the faith....to present their readers with a logic answer.  How do you counteract this kind of evidence?  There is no logic to counteract it.  One has to wait until the truth about this "evidence" comes out.  It is always easier with hindsight to realize one should have waited  - not when you are in a difficult situation.   Trust in Jehovah is important and even anointed people can lack this at times.  They are after all only people....prone to panic and prone to feel the heavy responsibility put on them.   The older you are the more difficult too!
 To give guidance to many people is a large responsibility and when one is confronted with lies - not knowing it is a lie - can be difficult.  This is why Jehovah says we must grow to maturity and in devotion but this only grows with experience ..... and time.  Jehovah knows we are dust.... 
 

I agree that it should not bother us that dinosaurs may have had hollow bones like birds and may have had feathers, and may have even been beautifully colorful.
But it can be misleading to claim that the bone structure of dinosaurs falls into two categories: birds and reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves are categorized into "bird" and "non-bird" dinosaurs, but not their bone structures. In fact, the bone structures of the most reptilian theropods have three birdlike toes/claws and hollow bones, and many of them show evidence of feathers, even though they did not fly. The Tyrannasaurus Rex was a theropod.
Wikipedia shows the following theropod, stating that it has three toes and hollow bones:

And here is the Anchiornis, also a theropod, with the skeletal structure of other theropods, but with feathers:

Here is the approximate bone structure of the Anchiornis. It could not fly, just as many species of birds cannot fly.

Of course, even if this idea of feathers on dinosaurs doesn't bother us, it sure bothered researchers at Bethel. This is because claims were made that created a kind of logic trap. If you look up feathers and dinosaurs in the Watchtower Library you will find this one reference:
*** g 7/07 p. 24 Feathers—A Marvel of Design ***
FORGED “EVIDENCE”  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found. Clearly, the Awake! wasn't ready for a feathered dinosaur. (The forgery was created in China, where true feathered dinosaur fossils would soon be discovered and studied. It was unveiled by National Geographic in October/November 1999, and NG announced the investigation into the probability that it was a forgery about 4 months later, and took until October 2000, a year later, to publish the results of the investigation, with an apology.)
The same article also said:
Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual. Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.
The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones . . .
The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.
Of course, contrary to the above claim, most paleontologists do consider the "bird-dinosaurs" to be an ancestor of modern birds. Those necessarily lighter, hollow bones have also been verified throughout many dinosaur species, and now even the evidence of only partially formed feathers has been seen, which the Awake! magazine had called "intermediate forms" and suggested that such a find, if it ever happened, would indicate evidence of evolutionary theory.
It would have been better to just accept that there might be hundreds of new discoveries indicating a variety of life created for purposes we cannot yet understand.

Can you explain how a mortal soul can accomplish this? Perfection means a sinless state just as was Christ. Adam and Eve lost that sinless state. How can an imperfect person be perfect?

This is how the GB explain themselves when stating they are not infallible.

It seems witness keeps misunderstanding the ramification. I guess he believes the Catholic POPE when they state they are infallible.

That’s one good point to trust in God’s spirit direction instead of trusting on your own.

Personally, I wouldn’t trust someone that doesn’t understand scripture and they think they are perfect. This becomes a problem when one shares falsehoods to appease themselves rather than serve Jah.



So, how would that differ from the criticism given toward the JWorg when people believe the Org spread falsehoods?

Was the Catholic Church wrong when it stopped using soldiers like the crusaders to win a holy war? Does this not mean changes were made? Which church can be side not to change their understanding when a new discovery makes it necessary to adjust previous understanding, such as in language or time?

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

I think that the exception has been pretty consistent. It has always been with respect to the primary goal of finding more ways to spread the Kingdom message more efficiently.
(Philippians 1:4-7) . . ., 5 because of the contribution you have made to the good news from the first day until this moment. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that the one who started a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. (1 Timothy 2:1-4) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. JW attorneys have not worked with the goal of fixing this world through better laws and more inclusive civil rights, but I see no reason why this would be condemned. Cases have been argued right up to the supreme court of the United States and in high courts elsewhere with the goal of legally establishing the preaching work. (See especially Covington, Moyle and some more recent cases.)
So while it's true that Jesus did not push for social reform directly, he was concerned about protecting as many as possible from the situation that was about to come upon the lost house of Israel. Paul, however, used political leverage to help establish the preaching of God's Kingdom.

Carbon 14 breaks down very quickly. Look it up on Wikipedia.   Mr. Butler - do not be too humble my dear.... one does not need  intelligence to understand it - one just needs to take a little time to do the research.... search and you shall find.   Jehovah's spirit helps with the rest and an honest and unbiased spirit helps to find the truth.
There are many kinds of scientists but I do not believe that evolution is a science - no scientific method to speak of and not much evidence (fossil record non-existent especially at the bottom (basis) of the evolutionary tree - also no evidence how birds developed. ... all conjecture.  There are really too many unexplained miracles (miracle: a remarkable event or development that brings  only positive consequences.)
(The Cambrium explosion shows that all species suddenly appeared fully developed.  Here is a definition of it Cambrian explosion - I quickly looked it up:  "The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively short span event, occurring approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record." (Of course these dates are totally manufactured dates.... similar to the so-called pictures of the progression of man.)
Dating is also a subject that has not withstood the "science" test. There is a lot of data available in this to read.
The foundation of our belief is Jehovah and Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of the first prophecy of a seed / king that would pay the ransom and then later rule to restore the original purpose of God.  Additionally, how God worked throughout the ages to fulfill this prophecy and how he gave us a genealogy and a timeline to understand the progress of his plan. 
I did not  know that evolution versus creation was the most important subject - as you indicated in your remark.  For me the Bible is enough evidence that God exists and created everything and has a restoration plan - but evolution versus creation helps to provide the additional proof. Whether it is 7000 years or not does not change the fact that he created it all and we are now in the day of rest which is about 6000 years so far. According to Hebrews 4 there is another rest within the rest waiting - the 1000 years.
I have seen quite a few videos where the high priest of Evolution - Mr R Dawkins said that something can come from nothing.  I also have seen the audience laugh at this - which is quite right.   I also have seen him say on two occasions that 'aliens' seeded our life...... that is the extent of the evolutionists brilliant philosophy.  His book: the god delusion, has misled thousands of people and these people believe he is so smart.  When one uses the magic word 'science" these days everyone thinks it is infallible. 
I have some of my own opinions but I do not go and preach my own personal opinions because I believe the kingdom message is the most important and this is what we must preach.  There is no doubt in my mind that the faithful slave understands the kingdom government perfectly. Other Christian religions fail on this topic completely.
Mr Butler, a person can make a lot of trouble for yourself if you go and preach your own message.  Jehovah will correct all discrepancies in his own time.  If you do not trust Jehovah to correct things then you cannot be a witness and serve alongside his other servants. ... and then you may lose your everlasting life.  One cannot act in an immature way and act independently and insist you are right - it is disruptive and egotistical - anointed or not.  
I agree - the dynamic energy of Jehovah created the entire physical universe  - Isaiah 40 says that the stars came forth by his dynamic energy (projected energy).  So the physical universe did not come from nothing.  If one can put this in a human scale - I always think of Jehovah bringing forth the entire physical universe (with all its galaxies) and with its beginning of  time and  the 3 dimensions of space and all the different forces such as gravity, weak and strong force, into existence by his  dynamic energy as small as a single dust particle.  (it may have been a singularity but then the explosion would have been totally controlled to bring forth the elements in the universe)
"The big bang theory actually proved a 'beginning' so scientists quickly moved away from this and started playing with math and string theory to try to prove alternative universes (23 of them) to increase the 'chance' of life starting somewhere out there.
One need not be a scientist to understand the creation - there are many books out there written for a lay person and many books that also show the 'science delusion".  A very good one is The "devils" delusion by Dr Berlinsky which actually shows one the delusion people have about science.
People always think scientists are not driven by ambition and ego and always follow the truth -  where the facts lead.  Think again.  I do think there are some sciences which are more scientific than others but do not be mislead at what goes on behind the scenes and the reputations involved.  
To believe that one needs a science degree to understand creation is ludicrous - it is similar to the Pharisees which did not believe that Jesus or his disciples could understand the scriptures because they did not have higher education in the Mosaic law.
 

But they weren't were they? Paul admitted failings. Peter admitted failings. Paul chastised Peter, James and John. All of them had wrong ideas. We can think that they got all they needed at Pentecost to make them "perfect." But these failings lasted well beyond Pentecost. So we are forced to take a reasonable approach to what it means to be "perfect." There are scriptural principles which probably explain this saying of Jesus perfectly well in the context of the Christian congregation. For now, I think you will at least agree that the apostles were not perfect. Yet we can still imitate them in ways defined by scripture.
And the early teaching was that the great crowd were also anointed. Lately there have been articles that teach that many scriptures which were only recently applied just to the anointed, can now also be applied to the great crowd who have an earthly hope.
To the extent that they have exalted themselves, they are wrong. To the extent that they have tried their best be servants (a faithful slave class) they have perhaps seemed exalted, too. I don't think this is the criteria by which we accept or reject the doctrines they promote.

I don't think the GB praise themselves as much as is implied here. They have recognized that they have an awesome responsibility caring for the flock. And if they are true believers that the blessings bestowed upon this organization truly come from Jehovah, then this recognition of the seriousness of the responsibility of trying to lead such an organization is a given. They see themselves trying to organize the worldwide work, coordinate the distribution of Bible-based publications, make decisions about serious issues affecting the ministry.
One of the obvious issues is legally establishing the preaching work in an effective manner under the current laws of many countries. When those laws are not in our favor they have pushed to have them changed or clarified such that religious and civil rights are protected. This has helped others, too. There are even cases where those laws are so much against our preaching activities that the GB have devised ways to try to circumvent those laws because we honestly feel they conflict with God's law to preach the good news of the Kingdom. This has sometimes been effective and sometimes not and sometimes we just can't know whether it is or it isn't.
It should be seen that the position of a Governing Body is a natural outgrowth of such a work and such an organization. It makes sense that the Lutheran Church, the Methodist, the Baptists, etc., all have similar groups that act as leaders of their activities. When the GB look back for Biblical precedents, they see the apostles, but do not wish to claim "apostolic succession." So they look for another Biblical precedent, and find one that seems appropriate. Jesus once told about how, in the time of the end that his servants could be likened to a household where the Master had gone for some time, and his return was delayed. It would be easy to imagine the chaos that could overrun a household of servants in such a situation. It would be easy to imagine how some would invariably act faithfully, and some would act unfaithfully. How do employees act when the boss has been away for some time and no one knows if he is returning tomorrow, next week, or next year! Jesus said that  that he would be able to identify who was really a faithful and wise servant, and who was an unfaithful and unwise servant. This would be by the way they acted during the time that the Master was gone.
This illustration seems appropriate because it had traditionally been referenced as far back as Nelson Barbour to hint that he might be that faithful and wise servant. Russell used the same verse to indicate that he himself was that "faithful and wise servant." Personally I don't think it's about any particular leaders at all, it's just a parable showing how easy it would be --due to the apparent delay of Christ's parousia-- to act unfaithfully and unwisely if we aren't putting the interests of the "household of faith" first. It's an illustration that spends a lot more time on the ways that this "servant" might be shown to be UNFAITHFUL rather than focusing on how faithful a particular slave might be. It's about one of the difficulties in remaining faithful, as we walk by faith not by sight, putting faith in the one who is unseen.
This fits Jesus words in related parables:
(Luke 18:7-14) . . .Certainly, then, will not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, while he is patient toward them? 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” 9 He also told this illustration to some who trusted in their own righteousness and who considered others as nothing: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give the tenth of all things I acquire.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing at a distance, was not willing even to raise his eyes heavenward but kept beating his chest, saying, ‘O God, be gracious to me, a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home and was proved more righteous than that Pharisee. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humiliated, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” The irony of course is that the Bible says not to be wise in your own eyes. To most Witnesses if anyone disagrees with the GB on any particular topic, they are accused of becoming "wise in their own eyes." So the fact that the GB are considered "wise" is used as a kind of weapon to "beat" their fellow slaves. It's true that a lot of so called "wisdom" that people put forward about their own view of the Bible and critiques of various doctrines are clearly so far off that it really ought to be brought under some kind of arrangement to produce unity and agreement in our speech and doctrine. And it might seem that the only way to speak in unity about doctrine is to accept some person or small group as the doctrinal authority. For about 100 years in our organization this was always pretty much one person at a time: CTRussell, JFRutherford, FWFranz. So again, it makes sense that a specific person or small group who agree on what is right is the easiest and most logical fallback position - from a human standpoint at least.
Some of what you said is specific and is based on discussions of specific scriptural points. These points are good and should be discussed. But part of this argument seems based on the supposed absurdity idea of a group of imperfect persons, making doctrinal mistakes, could still provide doctrinal and other types of organizational leadership.
I accept that you have pointed out some claims that should not have been made from a scriptural point of view. These should be taken seriously. But I also think that it is natural and expected that a "governing body" of this sort exists, imperfections and all, and is used for a particular purpose that is very close to the current purpose.