César Chávez

Does anyone see the problem with Xero's comment above ?
Well, he deliberately confuses the issue by putting the BIBLE and denomination in the same 'pot'.  
Adherence to the BIBLE is NOT the same as adherence to any particular denomination. But xero trys to pretend it is all the same. Xero, you are wrong.
 

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago,  have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men.
Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah:
*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***
What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized.
I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned.
This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

I don't deny that this was a subtle (and to some, not-so-subtle) way of insulting others. I have only denied specific false claims about ways in which persons claimed I had insulted them.
I don't mind calling out trolling behavior. I have specifically pointed it out with JB/4J2 and I don't mind that you have said that this can be insulting to others. There's an admitted element of trolling in what I just did, too.

Musing more on conscience.
To listen to some, you'd imagine they'd suggest that to promote adherence to the Bible or any particular denomination one would have to first find one which currently had zero debatable anomalies in official statements from any imaginable scriptural, historical, archaeological or scientific "truths" perspective w/regard to belief otherwise to these, you're committing some kind or moral crime unless you in detail provide an exhaustive analysis of defects along w/the appendices of apologias on each side of the arguments.
 

I know they don't exist any more, but they did.
PS. You want I should show you my green bible and list of "Back Calls"?
Shibboleths are shibboleths.

I agree w/all of this.
I'm reading the pdf attached...Even though it's writing about evangelicals in general, the outline does discuss the problem that not only Ex-JW's are examples of in many cases (I don't know all), but the spirit that operates in the world right now - the deification of the individual conscience (low church (deification of conscience) vs high church(deification of organizations) are the terms he uses and discusses the "ditches" each represents)

Sigh—I don’t want to be crude, but the unaccustomed volume of friend requests means I’d better not see much cleavage and preferably none at all. To say you are approving friends based upon not seeing cleavage, I know sounds crass, but there you have it. I can see why social media wears people out. My wife has those things too, you know.
Don’t people know that I do nothing but think about God all day?

1. God may not be actually supplying Holy Spirit to any Org rignt now.
2. An Org can indeed give instructions, but those instructions are only the words of Men not guided by God or Christ.
3. The instructions from the Watchtower/JW Org have proven to be false prophecy and twisted scripture. 

So you are admitting that it is men chosing men. And none of them have any proof of being anointed either.
No Holy Spirit involved there then. 
You JWs really do not like true scripture do you ?  10 men clinging to the robe of a JEW. 
Acts 2 16 - 18.
On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17  ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams,l 18  and even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
Now, doesn't the Watchtower / JW Org say we are 'in the last days' ? 

See the deal is 1. Jehovah is using at least 1 org 2. Instructions are coming from this org 3. The instructions are scriptural
Whether someone is wearing a magic beanie is immaterial. Now if they come up w/some new junk and it's not in the Bible, I had better see some Moses-like Miracles performed and the new junk better harmonize w/the previous junk.
Man do people geek-out on this. Do you imagine Jesus would do this? Or ANY of the apostles?

Whatever the thinking behind the new light of the GB being the faithful & discreet slave, one thing it undeniably does it work for “God not being a God of disorder or one of peace.”
When the ONLY criteria for being anointed is to say you are, & then immediately demand a stage, as Witness does, wowee! What a formula for disorder that is!
Of course, the anointed that we all knew and grew up with did not demand a stage at all, nor lay claim to any special Status or Audience as anointed, unlike some “anointed” today, who could be genuine, could be nuts, could be sincere, could be unbalanced, and even could be liars, since the only “requirement” is to say, “I’m anointed.”
With the present arrangement, a prospective GB member will not be a Johnny-come-lately, and will have spent decades in full-time service, giving ample opportunity for existing GB to look that one over.

No, that is not problem, really  it is not.
So many others in Bible times were wrong, is not good way to excuse yourself (myself, etc) for wrongs, errors we made. Justify one's own mistakes with a general truth like this; that we all make mistakes, is not the right way. To make justification in fact. Because, when we make a mistake, then we need to admit the mistake, correct the mistake and ask for forgiveness. I am sure you will agree. 

I think maybe JWI and others here and (gasp!) myself are part of a yet-to-be-identified great multitude class who is faithful, but not AS, faithful, and perhaps needs a special designation & place to go. 
I see Brother Cesar is on the upcoming speaking roster in Washington. I wonder if he will tell this class where to go?

Another Bible quote came to mind; My Father’s house has many rooms - John 14
So there’s something being said here about the idea that some will go to heaven. What does a lot of rooms (mansions, dweling places, abodes) mean? How many rooms and apartments are there? How many beds per room? If it really mattered or determined, I guess Jesus would have mentioned that thing. Or maybe not. But even this paragraph does not speak in favor of a fixed number of 144,000.

It could be. Some writers of WT study articles elaborated about mental state of people who take symbols, who are partakers. Yes, you make good point :)).  

Just to introduce another item into this consideration. It seems that the number 12 or its multiples in the Bible always appears as literal, never symbolic.
Jacob's 12 sons (males) were exactly 12   The 12 tribes of Israel were actually 12, not 13   The Levitical priesthood was organized in a multiple of 12, namely 24 divisions (1Chr 24: 1-19)   The recruitment of assistants and officers who served David were organized in groups of 24,000 per month, from the 12 tribes, giving a total of 288,000 soldiers. All multiples of 12, and all exact numbers, real and non-symbolic.   Also, Jesus literally chooses 12 apostles, as we know. Literally.   The following is very interesting, in my opinion. When there were only 11 faithful apostles alive, just before Pentecost, they prayed intensely to Jehovah for guidance during those days (Acts 1:14), as a result of which, it was for divine guidance that they chose a twelfth apostle again, thus when Spiritual Israel began at Pentecost there were literally 12 foundations.   And, precisely at Pentecost, how many were gathered when the nucleus of the anointed ones who would go to heaven was formed? 120. Another multiple of 12 (Acts 1:15) It is true that in Revelation numbers like 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are symbolic. But I have my reservations for 12 or 144,000 as symbolics.
Indeed, if 144,000 is symbolic, many things are fixed, as has already been said: the large number of Christians during the past 20 centuries who will easily have exceeded that number. The problem of replacement anointed ones, and I suppose others that now escape me.
The best answer I can give is: I'm not sure, I don't know.

@xero is back to his/her jealousy of the True Anointed ones. He/she is also back to the GB's idea of mentally unbalanced. We all know the scripture at Zechariah 8 : 23
This is what the LORD of Hosts says: “In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue will tightly grasp the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’ ”
People of spiritual thinking will know that the JEW in this scripture refers to the True Anointed remnant. Therefore it is important to know who are the True Anointed, otherwise people could follow the wrong 'Jew'. Unfortunately over 8 million people are following the wrong 'Jew' of the Watchtower/JW org right now. 
 

Okay, but I ask, where is love for neighbor with this doctrine, a doctrine that for those who may not be like you, but totally embrace this timetable? Where is your love for your neighboring JWs?   This date is at the root of the organization’s teachings, and is a source of disfellowshipping for many who reject it.  Perhaps that is why you may be keeping your opinion to yourself? (Prov 29:25; Mark 10:29,30)
I just heard a video clip that stated a document was prepared by the Chairman’s Committee of the GB, to change the date of 1914 to 1957.  Ray Franz comments on this document he was holding in the video:
"Now, in this document, they suggest and advances an idea, that uh, the generation that would see the time of the end of all things should not be counted from 1914.  They fix on Jesus’ statement that there would be signs in the heavens, and so they suggest here that the date should be moved up to 1957, when the Sputnik was sent into space by the Russians, and they say, now this is the celestial phenomena that would indicate the generation that would see the final” (I didn’t catch the last word).
It seems that this “Sputnik” idea was even brought out on this forum since I've been a member.  Someone can correct me on that.
So, there you go.  If the doctrine of 1914 was correct, well established by the “slave” under the guidance of Jesus Christ, there would be no reason to consider moving the date.  There would be no need for David Splane to twist and turn the dates of Fred Franz’s birth and baptism…to make a new understanding of a date...they are too cowardly to admit is a lie. 
And yet, it is a tool used to kick people to the curb, and why?  To save the face of men who have no pity for the damage they have done, to the lives of millions over the years. 
Differing weights and varying measures—
both are detestable to the Lord.  Prov 20:10
Their hypocrisy should be detestable to us also.
Have they proven to be “faithful and discreet”?  The word translated as “discreet”, actually has, as its definition…“wise”.  Matt 24:48-51
There is no love for neighbor, no truth, no wisdom, no insight in the doctrine of 1914. 
Yet, this date characterizes the organization that you belong to.
"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. " Rom 16:17,18
 
 
 
 

I know you are being sarcastic, but if anything changed, then it wouldn't be for the first time, you know that. And really, it is not a fundamental problem whether the number is literal or not, (even though I said it could solve the problem of increasing partakers, as you say, it could be because some have dropped out etc.. ) Ultimately God knows the correct interpretation, we can only do our best to understand it, and we can be wrong, as so many others in Bible times were. I am not worrying about it.

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

I have wondered about that too, for the same reason. If the number was not literal, it would help in solving the problem of ever increasing partakers each year. I would not be surprise if it was dropped one day....

This would make perfect sense as an interpretation of Revelation 7. After all, the apostle Paul said that Israel would now be made up of the "full number" of Gentiles even though the number of "all Israel" would also have to come in. And, of course, Jesus said that the lost sheep of the house of Israel would be visited first, but that he had other sheep which were not of that fold which would also come in. Paul used Hosea to show how both Jews and Gentiles would make up Israel.
(Romans 9:24-26) 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it? 25 It is as he says also in Ho·seʹa: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not loved, ‘beloved’; 26 and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
(Romans 9:6) . . .For not all who descend from Israel are really “Israel.”
(Romans 9:27) . . .Moreover, Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.
(Romans 11:25, 26) . . .For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved.. . .
Our current teaching accepts that Paul was speaking of literal Jews and Gentiles, but Jesus' statement about "other sheep" and Revelation's "144,000" from Israel and the "great crowd" are understood as "spiritual" Israel and "spiritual" Gentiles (where both groups are mostly physical gentiles).

You may be right,
“And the number of the people of Israel will be like the grains of sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said to them, ‘The sons of the living God.” Hosea 1:10

Yes, of course. There are very few numbers in Revelation that are taken literally. Even the number 144,000 is made up of a non-literal number of tribes (12) each made up of a non-literal number of persons from each one of them (12,000).
The rationale for taking this one literally is that it is compared with an uncountable number of gentiles who come out of the great tribulation. We don't teach that these are literal gentiles either.

In general, that statement is true. Except when this particular mystery doctrine was being explained by Russell. For example, in Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, page 239, Russell showed that the 144,000 were "Joint-sacrificers" with Jesus Christ.

As I mentioned above, these 144,000 joint-sacrificers are correctly referred to as "gods," per Russell:

[also, Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, p.239]