JW Insider

Normally yes. But we now, unfortunately, have court testimony on record in at least three U.S. states where elders have admitted to not taking "circumstantial evidence" seriously, when the same person had been accused by a second victim -- which is now considered strong circumstantial evidence, but still not a "second witness." I'm not saying this is the fault of advice given by the WTS, but it still happened in spite of the elders looking to get advice from the WTS. It can be blamed on local elders. I hope it doesn't happen again. But if past is prologue . . .

I agree with this. It's excellent counsel to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, both for our brothers and as "witnesses" on display to the world. And it is excellent counsel to avoid the situation that might result in temptation because the heart is treacherous.

That many of us, perhaps most of us, are aware that there have been cases of disfellowshipping when there were ZERO witnesses. As Anna mentioned, it's true that "circumstantial evidence" can be counted as a "witness." But even this type of "witness" has sometimes been ignored in cases of CSA.

Sorry about this, but I'm going to play the "Bible's Advocate" here for a bit. First of all, there is nothing to disagree with on any of those questions because the answer is given only with Scripture, not interpretation of those Scriptures. Not one of the questions mentions "the generation," nor 1914, nor 1919, nor 1922, nor the United Nations, nor the "great crowd," nor the "other sheep," nor the "anointed," nor the meaning of at least a thousand different prophetic interpretations. Even the question, about the Governing Body spells out no specific opinion to disagree with, because the term is never mentioned in any of the scriptures: *** od pp. 201-202 Part 3 Jehovah’s Arrangement of Things *** 12. What is the Governing Body of the Christian congregation, and what role does it fill today? “Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: ‘Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue.”—Acts 15:1, 2. “As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem. Then, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day.”—Acts 16:4, 5. “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.”—Matt. 24:45-47. If anyone had studied the verses in Matt 24:45-47 carefully, along with the Watchtower's explanation, I would think it should have been obvious to them that the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be that faithful slave of Matt 24:45. So the question itself, when applied to the Scripture, would only go so far as to indicate that the Governing Body, like all good Christians, would only HOPE they are faithfully participating in fulfilling a role of a faithful and discreet slave. The reason, of course, has already been explained, but I'm always willing to explain again.

I know of a couple of Witnesses who were both disfellowshipped based on the ZERO-witness policy. Both were very good friends of mine, and were about my age. One never tried to be reinstated, and neither are JWs today. This was 1976. He was about 19, and was considered a spiritually weak, immature brother who had delayed getting baptized until just that year, and his father wasn't a Witness. He began dating a sister, 18, who had just begun regular pioneering. The gossip was tough on her from the beginning because neither her own family or many others in the congregation thought she should date a young, newly baptized, irregular publisher if she wanted to continue pioneering. He was accused of finally getting baptized just so he could date her. She worked in a hospital in the city on some kind of "candy striper" program that had turning into an internship, and she had to work til about midnight, and didn't drive, and wanted to stay in the city near the hospital. My parents had sold our country house in 1975 and had just moved into the city to rent, so that my mother could also pioneer. I had already moved to another congregation about 100 miles away where my brother had started a business. So my parents would often give this sister my old room in the rented city house. One night she stayed overnight with the brother she was dating at his home (when his parents were away). She claimed that they hadn't even gone on a date that night, that nothing happened, and it was just for temporary convenience that she remained there after falling asleep. She normally would have come to our house that night and slept in my old room. He also claimed that nothing had happened. They claimed it was one of those "Wake up little Susie, wake up!" situations after both of them fell asleep. Well, my parents had already informed her parents that she hadn't come to our house that night. (This was pre-cell phone days.) Her parents ended up finding out she was at the brother's house at around 5 am. She normally got up early from our house and got a ride home in the daytime. They were disfellowshipped for fornication, even though both of them denied it. They were obviously not repentant because both of them denied it. She had admitted staying at his house. He was the one who tried to get reinstated. He called me at Bethel the next year to ask about what might be done since he had not realized that he could have appealed it. I visited him on a summer off from Bethel in 1977 and he got reinstated within a few weeks after that. His own father WANTED him to stay disfellowshipped because he thought it would discourage him from going back to the Witnesses. He got reinstated, but was bitter about it. I have no idea if anything actually happened that night, but he (and she) always denied that anything at all happened.

The 2001 Watchtower stated this well. But what should we do when a mature Christian still does "advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding"? Seriously, I'm sure we've all seen examples of this. What's the best way to handle it? Ignore it? Go to the person privately? Write a letter? Another article said pretty much the same thing: *** w04 10/1 p. 7 “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”—How? *** One who is meek humbly accepts God’s standards in all aspects of his personal life; he does not insist on going by his own views or by other people’s opinions. He is also teachable, willing to be taught by Jehovah. The psalmist David wrote: “[Jehovah] will cause the meek ones to walk in his judicial decision, and he will teach the meek ones his way.”—Psalm 25:9; Proverbs 3:5, 6.

That you are not Muslim.

No problem. Your secret is safe with me.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.) Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7? Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6. But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc. I've kept an interest in this topic for years. In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered. It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others -- all in the pejorative sense. But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this. In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question: @Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

The abused child is one of the witnesses to the crime. If the abuser admits his crime, then the abuser becomes the second witness to the crime. (This only means that the congregation will not automatically take disciplinary action against the accused. It should never be used to avoid or discourage reporting the accusation to authorities.)

We had an elder who would tell uninterested people who lived in beautiful houses that after Armageddon he was going to live in their house after they were gone. He was such a cut-up that he could get away with these antics, but still . . .

Hmmm. You probably found some good counsel for me on that one. The beauty of some of these places really was impressive to me, especially the Huntington Library (Gardens). And so was the wedding, with "bowers of flowers" and other decorations everywhere. Also, I was not just "secretly" impressed either, as I gladly admitted it out loud. And, of course, I am also secretly impressed that all this "free vacation" for a week, cost me no more than the plane flight, as everything else was paid for -- through no merit of my own. (I paid for the plane ticket because my wife and I were coming out here anyway for an "anniversary trip" -- which mostly means that I am out here installing an automatic "lift" in the back of my parents' car so that my mother doesn't have to push my father's electric wheelchair/scooter up an aluminum ramp at a too steep an angle anymore. [She's afraid to just put it in gear and let it drive up the ramp by itself.] My father usually uses a walker, but for assemblies and other places with a lot of walking, he uses the scooter.)

Me missus wants to open up the castle in Capri. 🏰 Mmmmmmmmmm. 🙄

Not that I understand your reasons for the locomotive/circus, but the line "money does not impress me" reminds me of a group of us (6) driving in a rented van just a few hours ago. As it turns out, due to a "Grammys" connection, I am right now in a hotel in Beverly Hills for the wedding of a singer/songwriter who is also a dear friend of my daughter. Actually the father is the more internationally famous singer/songwriter (Bill Withers). The wedding was in the same hotel and the reception is going on right now and will last until about 1 am. It's a completely "worldly" wedding, very tasteful but ostentatiously expensive. At any rate, as we are driving through a Beverly Hills residential area to get here (from the Beverly Hilton past the Beverly Hills Hotel) we were in a neighborhood where the average house cost $50,000,000 and we passed up one that was for sale. My daughter joked that it was for sale for only $35,000,000. I told her she should be embarrassed for even knowing that fact, because it meant she had looked it up earlier. (She had passed it up yesterday because she drove here last night for a rehearsal dinner, and it caught her eye, so she looked it up later just for fun.) Personally, I can't imagine having anywhere near that much, because of all the good friends who would definitely be getting chunks of it. (Of course, having 35 million doesn't mean one could afford a house that costs that much, because over the next few years it would cost ANOTHER 35 million for maintenance and taxes. Missing this point has bankrupted many an entertainer, athlete or lottery winner who lost/stopped their income immediately after such a purchase.) You can make beauty even more beautiful with money, and the beauty can be impressive, but it isn't necessarily worth the extra expense because purely natural beauty can be just as pretty, even if less "concentrated." My wife and I visited the Huntington Library on our first day here on Wednesday. (Our 39th anniversary.) I visited it alone several years ago to see my first major exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I was surprised to see that this "library" is actually a set of art galleries and exhibitions set on the property of one of the top botanical gardens in the country. It's a huge place of beauty and many of the hundreds of different species of flowers and trees and other plants are discreetly labeled so you know what you're looking at. But the worldly attitudes toward money became very apparent at the hotel. We went up to the pool on the roof, and felt very out of place. Most of the visitors are merely "on display" never intending to go in the water. And, for some of the more female-looking types, I doubt their tiny thongs would even hold up if they got wet anyway. It's as if even people with a lot of money can't just be comfortable with it, even in laid-back California. They still have to make a showy display of it, speaking very pretentiously, holding their drinks pretentiously, etc, etc. They hope other persons will be just as impressed with their expensive style as they are with their own. Seems no one is really satisfied.

No. Not necessary. But exactly in the same way that works are not necessary for salvation. I believe that a lot of us still think that when Paul says that only faith, not works, are not necessary for salvation, he was referring to "works of Law" meaning the keeping of the Jewish Law. But a close reading of Romans and Ephesians especially shows that Jewish Law became (for Paul) a representation of all law. And therefore Works (of Law) became a representation of all works, even good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10) . . .By this undeserved kindness you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift. 9 No, it is not a result of works, so that no one should have grounds for boasting. 10 We are God’s handiwork and were created in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God determined in advance for us to walk in them. But notice that God still determined for us to "walk in" good works. This is because, if we have faith to truly love God, we will also love his creation, and love our neighbor. Faith and love provide the proper motivation. (Out of the heart the mouth speaks.) With this motivation, works will follow. The danger of an organization is that the organization starts believing that IT/THEY should provide the motivation, with the corollary idea that everyone can't be trusted, and people will just go "hog-wild" if they don't. This creates a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy so that, for example, in the United States there is a lot more unmarried, teenage pregnancy in the "Bible Belt." But just like good works will automatically happen with faith and love as the motivation, we also should expect that order and "efficiency" will happen where Christians are properly motivated. Christians will desire to get together to find out how best to "distribute" good works (and for a teaching and evangelizing ministry, preaching is one of those good works). This will be the motivation to meet together: "to incite one another to love and good works." We won't want to waste our time, but will want to buy out the opportune time, and offer our good works where they are especially helpful. We will therefore be receptive to those who are good at the service of administration. We will also be receptive to teachers who teach reasonable, orderly, "harmonious" doctrines. (Ephesians 4:16) . . .From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.

Probably a more likely place to start would be the example of Joseph who was a servant, and when in Potiphar's house, Potiphar's wife tried to seduce him into being unfaithful. But Joseph, as a servant in the house, was always discreet and faithful, and ultimately was granted "authority over all things." Daniel was another example of someone taken as a prisoner who proved himself faithful. Couldn't agree more.

But Jehovah didn't think they needed a king. It was a concession to their hard-heartedness. But a fully Christian system should be different. It transitions us away from the fleshly needs of Israel, and commends itself to our heart and spirit. (Jeremiah 31:31-33) . . .“Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.”

Not lying. Mistaken. Mistaken for almost the same reason that any of us --either currently, or in the past-- have believed the GB are a small group of men. When I believed it, I was not lying. It was just a mistake I was making at the time. I would guess that there are easily hundreds or thousands of Witnesses who notice the same thing in their Bible reading as they went through the illustrations of Jesus in context, and have reached through many of Paul's letters. Perhaps others will have already noticed that a leading member of this same Governing Body, F.W.Franz, once argued very coherently and scripturally that we should NOT see the Governing Body as a small council or committee like those apostles and older men in Jerusalem. I don't think I have more insight than the GB, I was convinced by the Scriptural argument of F.W.Franz. But there's a good reason why it would not be plain to them. Long before the Governing Body was defined in 1971, the 7 officers of the Watch Tower Society already realized that they were responsible to represent the entire remnant of the anointed on earth, and found themselves soon leading hundreds of thousands of Witnesses and interested persons. No matter what you think, there IS something special about this particular religion. It is unique as a teaching organization in many ways. I've gone into the specifics in the past, but for now, I'm just making a statement of opinion shared by millions of other JWs too. The GB who find themselves in positions of great responsibility for an organization that is believed to be specifically prophesied about in the Bible, would surely expect that their own position of responsibility must therefore also be prophesied in some way. This doesn't mean that they think they are inspired, only that God's inspiration must have foreseen, not only the fact of this organization, but also some special guidance for its leadership, too. They could have found this in "apostolic succession" as some other religions do. They could have found it in some special new "inspired" prophet as some religions have. They could have decided that a leader was the "angel to the church in Laodicea." They could have seen it in the "the Jew" with 10 men grasping their hem. But they see it in an illustration about servants feeding other servants. Compared to the ways many religions look to give "authority" to a select few, this is actually commendably low-key. But it's still a misuse of the verse. It's an inconsistency based on the March 15, 2015 Watchtower that shows why it is wrong to turn a parable into a prophecy.

Encourage is intended to be a broad term. But it is not separate from "Religious Matters." We humans often tend to be foolish and think that turning doctrines into some philosophical/exegetical exercise is somehow more important to Jehovah than justice, mercy, love, humility, etc. The specifics of certain complex teachings or prophetic interpretations are far down on the list of what is important. For the most part those things are not even "religious." As James said: "True religion means looking after orphans and widows in their troubles, and not being like the rest of the world." (James 1:27 - paraphrase) (1 Corinthians 12:29-13:9) . . .Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. 4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.

Let's say that it's 1924 and you truly believe that there are many sound Biblical reasons to anticipate that the resurrection of the "Old Testament" faithful men of God will start in 1925. You begin to believe it so strongly that you say there is more evidence for it than there was for 1914, and that there is more evidence for it than Noah had that there would be a Flood. If you didn't truly believe it, why stick your neck out for the embarrassment you'd face in just a few more months? Why risk losing the entire organization you worked so hard to lead. I'd say that Rutherford, the "chairman" and primary member of the "Governing Body" that had begun in 1919, must have truly believed in 1925. Similarly with several remaining mistakes --still based on a faulty set of chronology beliefs-- the current GB are not lying, they are mistaken. Did you, John, never say something that was not true, because you really believed it was true at the time, and then found out later that it wasn't? Were you lying? And for the second question, Yes, I agree that the GB are not the FDS. The members of the GB should be some of our best examples of faithful and discreet ministers. But there is no single group called the FDS. When Jesus said, "Who really is your neighbor?" he was not prophesying a class of people to be called the "Neighbor" or "The Good Samaritan." When Jesus gave an illustration about a man whose son asks for bread and the father gives him a stone, do you think he was prophesying a specific group of people who give stones for bread? (Matthew 7:9, 10) 9 Indeed, which one of you, if his son asks for bread, will hand him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, he will not hand him a serpent, will he? Who really is the good father in this illustration, the one who gives the proper food his son asks for, or the one who gives him a stone or a serpent instead? Who really is the judge who had no respect for God in the illustration of a judge who gets pestered again and again to give justice to a widow? Who is the widow? (Luke 18:1-7) These illustrations are not so different from the one that includes the FDS. Who really is a faithful slave when the master goes away, and the servants don't know how long he'll be gone? Is it the one who keeps the household running smoothly, and continues to serve good food at the proper time, or the one who starts taking all the food for himself, and gets drunk on the wine? Both illustrations are simple. One was about how Jehovah answers prayers, and one was about what sort of persons we ought to be while waiting for the parousia, even if it takes 1,000 years, or comes tomorrow: (2 Peter 3:11-14) . . .consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence [parousia] of the day of Jehovah, . . . 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. It's not about whether we claim to be anointed or not, it's about being faithful until the end. Most of the FDS illustration was about what happens to unfaithful slaves of different classes, not what happens to faithful slaves, so we know it was really a lesson to warn all of us, "everyone," about the kinds of problems that Jesus' parousia delay could cause, and the heavy responsibility to "watch ourselves." (Luke 12:45-48) . . .But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him. Who says this didn't already happen when Jesus walked the earth, or when Peter spoke at Pentecost and began to open up the hope to people of all languges, or when Peter and then Paul (Jews) began to preach to the nations, and the word was spread 10-fold, then 100-fold, then 1000-fold and more? Paul explained how the Jewish beginnings of Christianity were important to the transition that leads to Christianity for the nations. This was a wonderful fulfillment that has occurred and continues to occur. We need not wait for a specific new fulfillment, imo.

Just because they are not THE faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24:45, it doesn't mean that they aren't part of A class of faithful and discreet slaves, just as all of us should be. It has nothing to do with whether one is anointed or not. It's just a matter of whether we are being discreet and faithful as required when waiting for judgment at the parousia. In fact, as Jesus said, no one knows the day and hour of the parousia, because it would come as a surprise, similar to how the judgment quickly swept people away in Noah's day where people took no note of a warning. And similar to how the judgment on Sodom quickly swept people away with no particular warning at all. So if they feel the responsibility of a faithful and discreet slave, then great! These are elders who should then take on the responsibility to feed Jesus' little sheep. And they are definitely working on that very effort. What they tell us to do is rarely anything different from read the Bible, accept an obvious understanding and explanation -- which is probably correct 98 times out of 100. I'd guess that, in spite of difficulties in Bible translation, the number of verses that ended up perfectly well translated was an even better ratio than that. Also it's not correct to say that they claim only THEY can give instruction to God's people. Every publisher is allowed to present the good news of the Kingdom to those who may become God's people. Every speaker from a platform can be giving instruction to God's people. Every older sister who encourages a younger sister, every younger brother who encourages an older brother, etc. All the congregation feeds one another by building one another up and encouraging one another. I bring up the point about the parousia, even though you didn't, because it is that specific teaching that makes the GB believe it is absolutely necessary for the GB to take on the responsibility of a specific faithful and discreet slave for the purposes of feeding the entire worldwide congregation of God (since about 1919). It still doesn't mean that the rest of us should shirk our own responsibility to also be faithful and discreet slaves helping to build up the congregation of God. So it doesn't need to interfere with our Christianity. As Paul said, there will be sects among you. For most Witnesses, who prefer not to question, and not to make sure of all things, it probably makes them more comfortable this way.

These can all be separate topics. The WT's NWT Committee is a lot like all committees put together for the purpose of translating the Bible. They never claimed to be inspired, but they had certain criteria in mind for the NWT. One was to be accurate and consistent and also allow a high degree of literalness in the original. Sometimes this literalness even preserves Hebrew idiom. And yes, they had certain ideas about accuracy in mind when choosing words like "torture stake" instead of the Greek "stauros." Translating the Greek word stauros as "torture stake" is not any worse, and might even be better, than translating it as "cross." It depends on the accuracy of the research that went into knowing what a "stauros" really was at the time the Bible was written. The Romans never consistently used two pieces of timber in the shape of the small letter t or T as is often depicted. They definitely did use that form around the time of Jesus, and probably used it a lot, but not consistently. It still might not have been the most commonly used shape of a stauros in Jesus' time. But there is no sure way to know exactly what the shape was for Jesus' execution, because a stauros could take on many shapes. The main thing we know about it is that it was wooden, fashioned from a tree, stake, board, timber, etc., and that no matter what the shape it was used to bring about a torturous (and shameful) death. Even if we knew for sure that the particular stauros in Jesus case was "cross-shaped" it still would not necessarily mean "cross" is the best translation, as it might not get across the full range of meaning implied in the original word "stauros." Same for the word "brazen." The complaint, as I've heard it, is that it hasn't been specifically (and consistently) defined as to how it will be applied in judicial cases that come before a judicial committee (of elders). Unfortunately, this is the same problem with the original word in Greek, so maybe the translation is just fine. It's not much different than the word "immoral" which will have a range of meaning depending on who's doing the judging. And yes, bias is going to happen with all translators. If you have decided that the parousia is a 105-year-long event you will look for rules in Greek that would allow you to say something happens "during" the parousia instead of "at" the parousia. If you are trying to be consistent you should follow through and see if "during" works in all those other cases where you might have more naturally translated the Greek to the English word "at." If the range of meaning supports your own view of a doctrine, you will naturally drift toward those definitions that allow for your doctrine, even if they are not as common. If you had to do this in 10 different places, as our NWT translators did, then it should have given them pause to wonder if they were handling the rules of Greek correctly. But if you are a true believer in the doctrine you will more likely just be comfortably satisfied that the Greek actually "supports" your unique teaching. That's interpretation that can go wrong even when the translation is just fine. Really? You must think the Bible is full of all sorts of esoteric ideas that are required for some rituals that must be performed according to a specific type of knowledge. That's a gnostic way of looking at Scripture. The Bible is actually full of simple ideas that make us happy and unburdened and free. It was easy to understand the Law in Israel that had hundreds of individual rules. Then Jesus taught us how to transition from that old view to a view based on undeserved kindness and love of God and neighbor. This is not something only the anointed can understand. It's not so far up there that it's hard to reach. It actually brings a true conception of God down to us. (Romans 10:5-10) . . .For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the Law: “The man who does these things will live by means of them.” 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching. 9 For if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.

Technically, you are correct. The Watch Tower Society publications come very close to saying the same thing in the NWT Study Bible when discussing Romans 1:2: *** nwtsty Romans Study Notes—Chapter 1 *** 1:2 the holy Scriptures: Here referring to the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. In harmony with this verse, the New World Translation contains in its title the expression “the Holy Scriptures.” Other terms used in the Christian Greek Scriptures for this collection of inspired writings are “the Scriptures” and “the holy writings.” (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) At times, the terms “Law” (Joh 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1Co 14:21) and “the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12; Lu 16:16) are also used in a general sense to refer to the entire Hebrew Scriptures.—Mt 22:40; see study notes on Mt 5:17; Joh 10:34. There were no collected Christian Greek Scriptures at the time. Except in the sense that the Greek LXX was the Christian Bible as well as the Jewish Bible in that time period. The LXX was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (into Greek). Paul and all the Gospel writers quoted from the LXX. It is rare for any "NT" writer to ever quote from the "OT" in a way that shows preference for the Hebrew (as we know it today) over the LXX Greek. Of course, the letters of Peter also treat Paul's letters as inspired, and of "life and death" importance. If we accept that the Christian "church" is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, then we will, by extension, include the "NT" as inspired along with the "OT." Of course, it's not merely an internal claim that they are inspired, otherwise any text could have made the claim. It's the acceptance that inspired scripture can only be included if it is accepted as the words of apostles and those who had the approval of apostles during their lifetime. It also must harmonize with the rest of scripture. Where there is or was a question as to the harmony or authorship, we have a useful directive from 1 John 4:1. What we have really done of course, is accept the earliest collected manuscripts that were already accepted by consensus by the earliest known "Christian fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd century. Their criteria matched their beliefs about apostolic authorship and supportive contemporaries of apostolic authorship. By accepting the choices of the early "church fathers" we are actually putting faith in the fact that Jehovah made sure that sufficient manuscripts meeting the necessary criteria were saved and sufficiently "revered" to remain true to the purpose of scripture, uncorrupted. The scriptures were copied so often that we can now trace back (sometimes) to within a hundred years of the death of the last apostle (usually a bit over 200 years) and find that there was a high consistency to the copies of manuscripts, and enough manuscripts to remove any corruptions that did find their way in.