Evacuated

No. Only when "people" assume that their "version" is my "version". To that I have an "aversion".
No. That not my "version".
Who cares? It is only a portal, like a public library. There are many.

More lame logic. Trust in men is presented as some sort of extreme error. There is nothing wrong in trusting men.

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10.
The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com).
Just my "version", of course.

No. Only when "people" assume that their "version" is my "version". To that I have an "aversion".
No. That not my "version".
Who cares? It is only a portal, like a public library. There are many.

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

What I have realised with many of the critical comments from some on this forum, is that they have rejected their own versions of what they think are the beliefs held by JWs. That is why it is so difficult to understand where they are coming from. Their perceptions are alien because they are personal. They assume they must be shared by all, hence the paucity of explanation, and the irrationality of their criticism. And judging from the murky glimpses of those perceptions through the sarcastic and complicated reasonings they present, little wonder they rejected them!

That is your cart before horse

You seem to be cart-before-horse-ing.

You seem to be cart-before-horse-ing.

There are many versions of this diagram available.
You can see hows the word epi is used in scripture. Interpret it as you will according to context.

That is rather poor research then. I know JW with Bibles with 4 different translations for that verse, and that is just looking through 10 Bibles of the many available. So, as you are already aware of Biblehub, then why not make your own mind up?

No.

Far be it from me to discuss something here that belongs in a different topic, 😉 but I was thinking the same thing. Outta Here pointed this out with a reference to something I had never seen before, and which appears to be a true sentiment of translators who let tradition invalidate parts of God's word. In this case, it refers to Zondervan's NIV:
 

Whilst this an excellent contextual question, the apostles' understanding of what Jesus said is hardly a sole criteria for understanding what Jesus said, John 14:9.

https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/International-Brotherhood-Comforts-Those-Impacted-by-Deadly-Pandemic/

Whilst this an excellent contextual question, the apostles' understanding of what Jesus said is hardly a sole criteria for understanding what Jesus said, John 14:9.

Whilst this an excellent contextual question, the apostles' understanding of what Jesus said is hardly a sole criteria for understanding what Jesus said, John 14:9.

https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/International-Brotherhood-Comforts-Those-Impacted-by-Deadly-Pandemic/

https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/International-Brotherhood-Comforts-Those-Impacted-by-Deadly-Pandemic/

I am not 100% sure but I am assuming it would have been the HQ at Warwick. I received this info in another language, from the CO in that country. I cannot verify the accuracy of it, but from experience these things are usually correct.....

This is an improvement
It is absolutely essential that anyone becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses is informed in advance, and realises what they are letting themselves in for.
They will become a target for defamation, criticism, specific discrimination, and a whole range of insulting and derogatory rhetoric, exemplified by some of the jibing type remarks found even on this site.
As Jesus said: "Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake." Matt. 5:11.

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

I fail to see the relevance of your GB jibes in this.They are like a sort of phonic tic that keeps appearing in your postings, regardless of subject matter.
Anyway, what has been said is that the shape of the instrument used to torture and kill Jesus Christ is of insignificance in that it was not deemed necessary by Jehovah to have this detail preserved in his word. The account in the gospels is very particular on certain details, but this I am afraid is just not one of them. So, to say that the illustrations in various WT publications are "wrong" is just not sensible unless you can indicate with certainty what is "right " so as to draw the distinction.This has not been done as far as I can see, although there are many interesting (and uninteresting) hypotheses on the matter.
As the world is awash with depictions of Jesus nailed to a two stave instrument of execution (almost 16 million Google results on crucifixion will yield untold numbers of images), I cannot presently see a problem with presenting an alternative view. 

Nor does Jehovah it would seem.

Quite so. And the understanding we have now, as proclaimed by the GB of Jehovah's Witnesses and supported by their application of Scripture, would appear to me to bear this out.
The various perspectives of those contributing to the discussion on this matter really would not exist at all if it were not for these proclamations at this time. The historical "curios" of understanding that have led people who have stuck with the organisation to this point of time are in the public domain, as are similar "artifacts" of all areas of human endeavour. 
Whether revered as trailblazing milestones in the search for truth, or ridiculed as crank-minded curios for the amusement of cynics, the body of historical thinking on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses serves really only one purpose. The 1st Century view of the apostle Paul on the effect of  various expressions of opinion on Christianty is as valid today as it was at the the time it was written:
"With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this. In fact, I will also keep on rejoicing," Phillippians 1:18