JW Insider

I was referring especially to a book by Rolf Furuli, which is almost 100 percent supportive of the NWT, but does admit that some theological bias is inevitable. Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses There has also been another book by Greg Stafford, who might no longer be a JW. He was definitely a Witness when he first wrote the first 2 or more editions of the book, and admits that a few specific passages show theological bias: Greg Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: A Reply to Scholars and Critics There have been additional scholarly books that make the same point for specific passages and verses, though not necessarily by JWs. Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (Mr.) Lynn Lundquist, The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures Gerard Gertoux, various online writings. The WTS has never claimed that the NWT was itself spirit-directed, or inspired in any way. If that had been claimed it would not have made sense to make the 2013 Revised Edition so different.

Not this again! But this time I won't get involved. I counsel myself: (Proverbs 26:17) . . .As one grabbing hold of the ears of a dog is anyone passing by that is becoming furious at the quarrel that is not his.

For several years I worked for the same company, and when I moved into 787 7th Avenue, I had my first corner office on the 40th floor. An incredible view of Central Park and the Hudson River. The building is over 50 stories, and they used to have a company subsidized restaurant with several chefs to accommodate staff meetings and high profile clients on the top floor. I could get fantastic meals and make appointments with friends and family to come on up and show off our "Windows on the World" private restaurant. Then a French company bought our company out for a few billion, and all those expensive (and wasteful) perks disappeared, but I got to keep my nice corner office for a few more years. So I'm retired now, and haven't been in the building for a while, except to pass through the marble lobby as a scenic shortcut, and check out an art museum they still keep in it. But today, a helicopter crash-landed on the roof, and it killed the pilot. It also started a fire and a full evacuation ensued. They say it took half-an-hour just to get down from the 29th floor, so I can imagine what it would have been like from the 40th or 50th. It must have felt like 9/11 to some of them. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/manhattan-helicopter-crash-june-2019/index.html

Of course, I accept scholarly works where they provide good, interesting and useful information. In fact, if you may recall, it was one of the reasons I defended Allen Smith. I said that very often he includes scholarly works that are very good, interesting and useful. In fact, I appreciated the scholarly works you added here in this very thread. No one gave you any garbage about posting them. In my case, I only pointed out that you mixed up a couple of different references interspersed with a sentence or two of your own, but you didn't tell anyone here where you were copying and pasting from. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that even scholars agree with the WTS. There have been times when you have done this while giving the impression that scholars are not in agreement. And there have been at least two times when Allen Smith provided some very old scholarship in order to show where the chronology arguments of the Watchtower might be "improved" with respect to Nebuchadnezzar, his father, and a couple references in "apocrypha"/"pseudepigrapha". (Even on those ones, Allen, only included page images and copied text, no source reference, so I had to look up and point out where the source was, which I found on Google Books.) So I hope you see the difference. You have long known that I accept some scholarly works with interpretation. The Watchtower publications also accept scholarly works with interpretation. And they sometimes quote them just to show the differences when they are not reflective of WT interpretation. If you are referring to me again, you should know that I have never scoffed at the word academia. There is good, mediocre, and bad in most fields of study.

I don't think it falls under the same issue as adding and taking away from the scroll of Revelation. Bias in translation is a well known feature of the "art" of translation. It's not a science as JTR says. Scholarly JWs have admitted that it's a common problem to include bias (as to meaning/interpretation) within the supposed confines of accurate translation. If a word can mean both during or at, and you believe the Parousia is 105+ years long, then you would say something happens during the parousia/presence. If you believe it is a future event that might only last a day or a few days, then you would translate "at" the parousia/presence. If you really believe that the meaning can only be conveyed by adding a bit of the previous verse into the next verse, then this could also be from "bias" as to interpretation.

So you were the one holdout that kept Wikipedia from being able to say " . . . used by all Witnesses"

I think I already had some fun with that idea in this post from 6 months ago when I discovered that Gog is spelled the same way in Hebrew as one would spell GOOG and that it appears as EL-GOOG in Hebrew which is read from Right to Left instead of Left to Right. אֶל־גֹּוג means when transliterated EL-GOG. But the O between the two G's is actually a 'vav' which when used as a vowel (as it is here) is not just used for O, but also for U, pronounced OO. Therefore: אֶל־גֹּוג can also be transliterated as EL-GOOG. Transliterated left to right as it appears on paper, this is אֶל־גֹּוג or GOOG-LE.

I agree completely. But he asked. (And he asked nicely, and I think he was really interested.)

I don't think I know everything about the Watchtower, and I don't think I am a professional linguist. The translation problem is a very simple one. These exact types of issues have been pointed out by professional linguists, and Greek language scholars.

Yes, it does, and the verse seems pretty convincing. You quoted the verse inside the Watchtower quote. I'm repeating it here for reference: Sometime after the attack of Gog begins, all the remaining anointed ones on earth will be taken to heaven. Then Revelation 17:14 tells us about the reaction in heaven to Gog’s attack. The enemies of God’s people “will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.” Thus, Jesus, together with his 144,000 anointed kings in heaven, will rescue God’s people here on earth. 17 That rescue will result in the battle of Armageddon, which will bring glory to Jehovah’s holy name.................... You probably have heard people say that you shouldn't create a doctrine that is based on only ONE SINGLE Bible verse, especially if that verse is only found in a book like Revelation where symbolic, literal, past, future, present and prophetic references are commonly juxtaposed. But there is another thing about this particular verse in Revelation 17:14. It's not translated correctly in the NWT. An additional meaning is added to it, to try to make it clearer to understand. That "meaning" might be correct, but it's commentary and interpretation, not translation. When an assumption requiring interpretation is required to make sense of a specific wording then a translation should make a note somewhere (through brackets or footnotes) that it was added. The Greek here very clearly (and simply) says the following " . . . but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him, called and chosen and faithful.” ". . . καὶ [and] οἱ [those] μετ’ [with] αὐτοῦ [him] κλητοὶ [called] καὶ [and] ἐκλεκτοὶ [chosen] καὶ [and] πιστοί [faithful]." The Greek "with" could mean they are "WITH HIM" in the sense of being on his side, or even (rarely) WITH HIM in the sense of being "AFTER" him, but this would be unlikely in context. The best translations don't try to add meaning, but just go with what it says, even if the meaning is not immediately clear. For example, the CEV says: "But he will defeat them, because he is Lord over all lords and King over all kings. His followers are chosen and special and faithful." (Rev. 17:14, CEV) Of course, even here, the phrase "WITH HIM" was interpreted to limit it to the specific sense of "FOLLOWERS" but this is just as likely as a translation that requires the repeating of a verb action that isn't even found, such as by adding: "will do so." [NWT] But even by adding the interpretation "will do so" doesn't necessarily tie it back to mean they will BATTLE with him. To me, the most likely meaning, and the very reason for the kind of vagueness about specific action, is because the phrase ties back to the idea that they CONQUER with him, just in a different sense from "battling." It reminds me of a similar verse in Revelation that I'll get to in a minute. At any rate, there are several ways to make sense of this verse without the implication that humans raised to heaven will battle the enemies of God's people from heaven. It seems likely to me (but not definitive) that the main idea is not about the TIMING of when these chosen ones are in heaven during that particular BATTLE, but every sense will imply the fact that these are ones who are on the same SIDE as Jesus Christ, and very likely that these chosen ones are ALSO conquerors over God's enemies, and therefore are reward to share in the "crown" as kings (not just priests). There is another sense of these chosen ones battling God's enemies in Revelation 11, and through certain plagues on God's enemies that they (the chosen ones) are involved with: (Revelation 11:3-12) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and consumes their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, this is how he must be killed. [probably meaning that their own words, or their own "weapons" will be turned against them.] 6 These have the authority to shut up the sky so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every sort of plague as often as they wish. 7 When they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will wage war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 . . . 11 After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. 12 And they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them: “Come up here.” And they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies saw them. and: (Revelation 13:7) . . .It was permitted to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. Nearly all of this is symbolic of course, but the idea is that the chosen witnesses (and those they represent, we can assume) PARTICIPATED in the conquering through their faithfulness, and were thus key actors in the battle against those enemies. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Revelation 2:7) . . .To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ (Revelation 2:11) . . .The one who conquers will by no means be harmed by the second death.’ (Revelation 2:17) . . .To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and written on the pebble is a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 2:26, 27) . . .And to the one who conquers and observes my deeds down to the end, I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will shepherd the people with an iron rod so that they will be broken to pieces like clay vessels, just as I have received from my Father. This last one is more closely related to the interpretation that the NWT gives to Rev 17:14. Rev 2:27 indicates that "he" refers to each of the chosen/anointed who have conquered on earth will gain authority in heaven to shepherd the nations with an iron rod, just as Jesus does. But just how literal this is we can't say, because it may even refer to the authority to keep the peace for 1,000 years during, perhaps even referring to the entire period, up to the time at the END of the thousand year reign, when the nations gather together again: (Revelation 20:7-10) . . .Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Of course, there is another way to read Revelation 20 which avoids the idea that it merely an unlikely repeat of the Armageddon as depicted in Revelation 16, but this time a thousand years later. That "other way" solves some problems and creates some problems. This other method is quite radical, but if accepted the NWT would not have to add those parentheses around Revelation 20:5. It would make more sense as originally found in the Greek without the additions. I'm sure that didn't really answer your question, not directly anyway. So I'll just repeat that the judgment in Matthew 25 need not be a specific point in time that we call the "Judgment Day" but it makes sense either way. (Back when I was baptized, we were still teaching that the great tribulation had started in 1914.) I think the focus is on the final Judgment Day, similar to the wheat and weeds at the time when the bundles are separated for burning or glorification. (Matthew 25:31) . . .“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. . . We once thought that was 1914, but many of the ideas we associated with 1914 have now been seen to make no sense scripturally: *** w13 7/15 p. 8 par. 19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** 19 In review, what have we learned? In the beginning of this article, we raised three “when” questions. We first considered that the great tribulation did not begin in 1914 but will start when the United Nations attacks Babylon the Great. Then, we reviewed why Jesus’ judgment of the sheep and the goats did not begin in 1914 but will occur during the great tribulation. Finally, we examined why Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings did not occur in 1919 but will take place during the great tribulation. So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles. Your reference to Mt 24:22 was initially the primary reason that the great tribulation was seen as starting in 1914, but after nearly shutting down the WTS, it was seen as a relief in 1918/1919 when the days of that tribulation were stopped, giving the WTS a chance to regroup and grow. In terms of the chosen ones, it would seem to indicate what I said above, that the BATTLE against God's enemies is going on while there were still chosen ones on earth needing protection from the ones causing tribulation. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) . . .This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. It could also be interpreted, based on this and Revelation, that these ones causing tribulation will temporarily conquer all the chosen ones through death, but the verses about the "harpazo" (rapture) show that not all would die. Of course, the recent tendency in explaining all these verses tends to minimize the importance of 1914, but that's another topic.

I love it. Galatians is about the best book to do that with because it's so dramatic. True. There are several widely published translations that don't veer too far from your version here, at least in places. It can actually do "double-work" as commentary. Some widely used translations are rather jarring here with expressions like: "I wish the knife would slip."

*** w54 8/15 p. 502 par. 22 The Power of Hope *** While the anointed remnant expect to serve on earth for a period after Armageddon, as it pleases Jehovah, and while the other sheep expect to serve Jehovah without a break in life clear through to the end of this system of things at Armageddon and on into the unending time of the new world, yet death due to natural causes or due to keeping integrity may occur before Armageddon. That idea remained "on the books" until about 1990 and was changed in 2013: *** w13 7/15 p. 5 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** : One of the events mentioned in these verses is the ‘gathering of the chosen ones.’ (Matt. 24:31) Hence, it appears that all anointed ones who still remain on earth after the initial part of the great tribulation has passed will at some point be raised to heaven before the outbreak of the battle of Armageddon. This adjusts what was stated on this subject in “Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of August 15, 1990, page 30. Even in 1990 it was admitted that the Bible didn't say one way or the other, but we speculated that it would happen with a few, at least. It was again, partly based on turning Bible narratives into "prophecies" which was beginning to disappear, especially after Fred Franz became ill and was no longer included in Writing Department approvals. Notice how the following article sort of "lets it down easy" on those who once taught (as in Gilead School) that Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, all had a parallel to be fulfilled in the New World. *** w90 8/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** Will some anointed Christians survive the “great tribulation” to live on earth in the new world before being taken to heaven? Pointedly, the Bible does not say. . . . What of a Bible account that might parallel such survival on earth? One example that has been presented concerns Noah and his family. Noah has been viewed as typifying Jesus in this time of the end. (Genesis 6:8-10; Matthew 24:37) As Noah led his wife and their three sons and daughters-in-law through the end of that ancient system, Christ will provide leadership for the remnant of his bride class and those who become children of the “Eternal Father,” Jesus. Noah’s wife survived the Flood and shared in the renewing of true worship on a cleansed earth. A parallel might be the survival into the new world of a remnant of the bride class.—Isaiah 9:6, 7; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:2, 9. Other Biblical accounts have also been viewed as suggesting that some of the anointed might live into the new world. For example, Jeremiah survived the destruction of Jerusalem; “the man” with the secretary’s inkhorn remained to see the executional work before he went back to give his report.—Ezekiel 9:4, 8, 11. Comments about the possibility that some of the anointed might survive into the new world are made with good intentions and in the light of Biblical precedents for trying to understand prophecies or patterns that could have later parallels. If it turns out that none of the anointed are left on earth, there will be no reason for dissatisfaction. We already have accepted that Biblical matters are understood better as time passes. For instance, The Watchtower of July 15, 1981, discussed Micah 5:6-9 again and explained that “the remnant of spiritual Israelites have not had to wait until after . . . Har–Magedon in order to be as a ‘dew’ of refreshment to people.” This discussion again offered the possibility that the remnant might survive God’s great war and for a while “continue to be as a refreshing ‘dew’ to the ‘great crowd’ of ‘other sheep.’” We can see, though, that the passing of time and the increase in spiritual light can broaden and alter our understanding of prophecy or of Bible dramas.—Proverbs 4:18. Notice how these prophetic parallels were again being turned into "interesting possibilities" just like the the 1918 "first resurrection." But they weren't officially dropped, and were still being taught in Gilead School into the 2000's.

Good question. I see you are actually thinking about the topic rather than just being pulled down into the squabbling. When the end comes, and the judgment comes, we can expect that there will be anointed on earth. To me this seems clear from Paul's account of the end: (1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:2) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. In other words, at some surprisingly sudden point in time, the dead (anointed) are raised to heaven together with those who are surviving right up to the time of the "parousia of the Lord." The timing has always been a matter of much conjecture. We don't like to use the term rapture, so our previous doctrine here taught that the parousia started in 1914 (as it still teaches, officially) but that the first resurrection (including Paul's resurrection) was supposed to have happened in 1918. This was a leftover from our old parallel dispensation teachings under Barbour, Russell, and early Rutherford. In fact, it was explained that because Jesus appeared as Messiah/Christ in 29 and was resurrected 3.5 years later, that the invisible appearance of Christ in October 1914 would be followed by a resurrection of all the dead saints in the spring of 1918. But 1918, although it once appeared more often than 1919 in our publications, has now been almost completely removed from our repertoire of prophetic dates, and replaced with dates like 1919 and more recent events. Jesus no longer inspected his temple in 1918, nor do we teach that the first resurrection must have happened in that year. Instead of just making a sudden change to the doctrine, it was changed from an important prophetic date to just "an interesting possibility." *** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! *** At this point, it may be helpful to consider what might be viewed as a Bible parallel. Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. We still liked the idea of starting that resurrection "early in Christ's presence" and especially wanted to have it start before 1935. The article continues: This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.” (1 Corinthians 15:23) Rather than occurring all at once, the first resurrection takes place over a period of time. . . . “A white robe was given to each of them; and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they also had been.”—Revelation 6:10, 11. . . . So after war, famine, and pestilence began to ravage the earth, members of the 144,000 who were dead, represented by the blood at the base of the altar, were raised to heavenly life and clothed in symbolic white robes. . . . God’s Word does not disclose a precise date for the first resurrection, but it does reveal that it occurs over a period of time, during Christ’s presence. The first to be resurrected are anointed Christians who died before Christ’s presence began. As Christ’s presence progresses, anointed Christians who faithfully finish their earthly course are changed “in the twinkling of an eye” into powerful spirit creatures. (1 Corinthians 15:52) Will all the anointed receive their heavenly reward before the war of Armageddon? We do not know. We do know, however, that in God’s due time, all the 144,000 will be found standing on the heavenly Mount Zion. You might notice the mistake that I highlighted. The dead (whose sacrificial blood cries out for justice) are told to wait until the number was filled. But if we place this parousia from 1914 on up through the great tribulation, then we don't really have them all being changed together so that no one group of anointed has to be concerned about going to heaven before another group of anointed. Revelation says they all wait until the number is filled. Thessalonians says they all go together, at the time of that trumpet call. In fact the scripture in 1 Cor 15:52 just referenced says: (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed. This sounds very much like the "rapture" teaching that we had avoided for years by using the word "during" Christ's parousia, and "during" the last trumpet. Actually, the Greek in context here provides better support for translating "at his parousia" not "during his parousia." and "at the last trumpet." So, more recently, the Watchtower stopped discounting the idea about the "rapture." We still don't like the word because it reminds people of some false teachings still associated with the "rapture." But the basic idea of a "rapture" is now accepted. We still look to fit it all into our timeline for the first resurrection, Gog attack, great tribulation, marriage of the Lamb, etc. *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-16 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. 15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. 16 Once all the 144,000 are in heaven, the final preparations for the marriage of the Lamb can begin. (Rev. 19:9) But something else will happen before that joyous event. Remember, shortly before the remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven, Gog will attack God’s people. (Ezek. 38:16) Much more to say, but I hope you can at least see what I meant by including the heavenly anointed in the "sheep and goats" parable.

Just in case anyone wondered why I had thought to make the point that it was my own opinion that the sheep separated to Jesus' right would include the "anointed" -- here's the reason: Our current Watchtower publications very often imply that the sheep that Jesus separates to his right do NOT include the anointed. Because of the distinction made between Christ's brothers and these sheep, I think most Witnesses already understand it this way, but it's rarely stated explicity and succinctly except in some convention talks. The most succinct statement I remember in writing is here in the Insight book: *** it-1 p. 1184 Illustrations *** Notice that the “sheep,” who are put on the right hand of the enthroned Son of man, are shown to be different from Jesus Christ’s “brothers,” to whom they did acts of kindness.—Mt 25:34-40; Heb 2:11, 12. There have been several significant historical changes to our interpretations of this doctrine, which might make for an enlightening discussion to some. But I won't intentionally drag out this particular thread to explain. The 93 and 95 Watchtower references from the WT Publications Index will give some significant quotes about former doctrinal beliefs on the topic: [Matthew] 25:32 it-1 1183-1184; w15 1/1 13; re 123; w98 8/15 20; w95 2/1 12-13; w95 10/15 22-24; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164; w89 5/1 19; w87 3/1 29; w87 5/15 12-13 [Matthew] 25:33 it-1 1029, 1184; w95 2/1 12-13; w93 5/1 19; jv 163-164 [Matthew] 25:34 it-2 1207; w95 10/15 26-27; jv 164; gt 111; w90 5/15 8; w90 6/1 6; w89 9/1 19-20

I'm glad you think so but that isn't the important thing, as you already know. I guess your first point was that when I referenced the parable of the sheep being separated from the goats, I mentioned that I thought Jesus was separating two kinds of sheep from the goats. You requoted a portion of what I said as follows: I believe that when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats he is separating the anointed sheep as well as other sheep who don't identify themselves as anointed. (Matt 25:32) You had asked for my opinion, and I told you this was part of my opinion. Absolutely nothing has changed. When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, these sheep will include anointed sheep and other sheep who do not identify themselves as anointed. Let's assume for example, that you believe you are one of the anointed sheep, and I believe I am one of another class of sheep, as I do not identify myself as anointed. When Jesus comes to separate the sheep from the goats, I am hoping that he favors both of us with a place on his right hand, and that we are not going to be with the goats on his left. You tried to explain that I meant something like this: There is actually so much ambiguity in that first sentence that it is difficult to parse your meaning. Perhaps I worded it in a way that confused you, but I can't find the logic in the idea you apparently got out of it. I never said anything about who any of the goats were and where they might come from. I'm including sheep who claim to be anointed and sheep who claim not to be anointed in the sheep category who Jesus will place on his right. I didn't say anything about who the goats are. I don't see a problem, and I don't see any reason to change, revise or edit anything. Strange. I take this to be more of the kind of blame-shifting and projection that you have become infamous for. In the past, you have often copied pages from Christendom's commentaries, and pictures of scholarly looking book covers that have titles that appear to support your claims. Then someone points out that the contents of the book show just the opposite of your claim. Then you go twisting and scrambling to make it look like you never made a mistake after all. I've even seen this type of twisting and scrambling for something as simple as a typo or mistaken definition, or misused vocabulary. When someone pointed it out to you, you doubled-down with some absolutely incredible pseudo-explanation to avoid admitting even a minor mistake. Sometimes, you apparently resort to meaningless word-salads or other types of word-play, and I can't tell if you think it worked to impress others, or to obfuscate. But whenever you get a piece of criticism like this you can be counted on to counter-claim that it is others who use word-play and word-salads, or you go on a temper-rant claiming that people are making fun of you. I'd recommend that before you start claiming that I say things "in order to confuse" just ask others if they were also confused. Maybe they were, and this means I should rewrite it, but if it's mostly just you who's confused, just ask more questions, and I'll be happy to explain further the things that you might not have understood correctly -- just as I am happy to do now. You also apparently had a problem with my statement that Zechariah 8 (in context) gives us some good ideas about helping others to become Christians, which should be a goal of our ministry. You requoted a portion here: “My own opinions here are somewhat separate. Although on the matter of Zechariah 8, I think that chapter really does provide an excellent and important image for us to remember about our own attempts to make converts to true Christianity” Again, I don't see what kind of a problem you would have with this. We want people we meet in our ministry and persons whom we hope to have study the Bible with us become converted to true Christianity. Right? The context of Zechariah 8 had shown how this would be fulfilled in the midst of economic hardships and disappointments and even the incursion of enemies/opposers. I had already pointed this out and also wanted to show how the image of having people come to us can sometimes be more important that us coming to them. If we are true Christians, we will be known by reputation. As Jesus said (and as my very next sentence began after the portion you quoted): I partially understand why you wish to disagree with me whenever you have a chance, but you very often seem to forget that when you are so anxious to be an opposer, when not careful, you can end up opposing Jesus' own words, too.

Most of us know this, but this case has been noted by many organizations around the world. Here is an example from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom: https://www.uscirf.gov/dennis-christensen ---------------------remainder of post quotes the article ---------------------- Key Fact: Danish citizen and Jehovah's Witness Charges: "continuing the activities" of an extremist group (Jehovah’s Witnesses) Sentence: 6 years imprisonment Biography: Dennis Ole Christensen is a Danish citizen who lives in Oryol, Russia. Before his detention, he worked as a carpenter while living with his wife, Irina Christensen, who is a Russian citizen. As of May 2019, Russian authorities have brought 74 criminal cases against Jehovah's Witnesses across Russia, and are investigating a total of 197 Jehovah's Witnesses. The current Russian state campaign against the Jehovah's Witnesses began with a crackdown on the faith community's literature and legal entities. Since 2007, Russian courts have banned at least eight local Jehovah's Witnesses organizations. The authorities have also placed over 95 pieces of Jehovah's Witnesses literature on the state list of banned extremist materials. In June 2006, the Oryol Regional Court determined the local Jehovah's Witnesses group to be "extremist." On May 25, 2017, members of the Federal Security Service (FSB) disrupted a Jehovah's Witnesses prayer service in Oryol. Detaining some 70-80 people wihtin the building for several hours, the authorities held about 20 persons overnight before arresting Dennis Christensen and 15 Russian citizens. On January 30, 2019, the prosecution demanded Mr. Christensen be sentenced to six and half years under Criminal Code Article 282.2, Part 1 for "continuing the activities" of an extremist group. On February 6, 2019, after appearing over 50 times in court and being detained for over 600 days, Mr. Christensen was sentenced to six years imprisonment. On May 23, the Oryol Regional Court denied Christensen's appeal and upheld the February decision to sentence him to six years in a penal colony.

And here I thought it was other types of sinning you desired . . . https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79686-a-circuit-overseer-states-your-faith-is-garbage-and-needs-to-be-torn-down/page/2/#comments

I have seen this type of attitude go overboard even from those who lived most of their lives in the world, and I cringe for new ones who might be wondering where we get this from. As a parent, I admit that I've tended to exaggerate the moral problems of the world myself, and I've learned that this fear-mongering doesn't work at all with high-school kids. In fact, my own kids (3) learned to choose their friends based on morals and maturity, but some of their Witness friends didn't really make the grade. When my daughter got married, she felt bad about having to replace some of her best friends with her "more worldly" Witness friends when it came to choosing bridesmaids. Of course, some Witnesses had terrible experiences in the world, and the organization has truly provided a safe haven, and a spiritual paradise, relatively speaking. His abuse of others. In fact it was an over-the-top eulogy of how great he was with kids and how he was always interested in their spiritual welfare that seemed to trigger a muffled outburst during the talk, and just after the talk there was an argument by others in the family about always keeping quiet about shameful things. It finally spilled over to others outside the immediate family. And this brother's own granddaughter had no idea about it until the funeral. It was a mess!

I've seen a lot of love and long-lasting friendships. I've seen some awful things too, and heard about many more. But the congregations I have been in over many years (from age 0 to 66) have had very few of these problems. I thought there had not been any cases of CSA in any congregation I had personally been in, but there was a huge commotion at a recent funeral of a local elder when several tales of his abuse were exposed by family members for the first time AT THE FUNERAL itself. Several (including me) were shocked and surprised. But this is far from the norm. I've worked in the sound "A/V" booth at many assemblies/conventions since I was a teenager, and have made friends from all over the world. Then, when traveling, I have often met up with these friends. Perhaps I assume that this has been the norm for most Witnesses. I know that there has been a trend toward more problems, although that's also just my opinion. But I hear about more problems and also see attendance down in several places. We'd all like to see CSA eliminated from everywhere. I don't believe that we will ever be immune from problems the rest of the world has. But I'd hate to think that it's just as common with us as it is in some other religious institutions. But I don't blame the two-witness rule for the crime, but I do blame it for the slow wheels of congregational justice. And who knows? I think people like Raymond Franz had a chance to fix that part of the problem much earlier, and yet he was evidently blind to it. I have a feeling that both CSA and shunning will both be "fixed" to the best of the organization's ability from a procedural/rules perspective within a couple of years. It will still happen, of course, but the policies will be adjusted to conform to something more loving. I heard a well known brother in a responsible position at Bethel say that there were only two things that needed to change to nearly remove all the "deserved" animus against us: our shunning policy and our blood policy. He thought both of them should be changed for scriptural reasons. I'm sure he hadn't realized how big the CSA problem would be when more fully exposed. Local squabbling will always be a problem when brothers see titles as positions of "power" for their ego, instead of opportunities to serve one another more efficiently. I've seen a share of it, and assumed it didn't happen as much elsewhere. I was in a place to hear some yelling and screaming back in the 70's and 80's at Bethel, and a friend tells me that he thinks all the GB get along very well, but that the "helpers" have been known to squabble loudly. Perhaps some things are worth squabbling about. (and most things probably aren't) The apostle Paul speaks of such things even in his own life as a Christian. Well, you probably know that I don't try to defend everything that's wrong, and I think that everything that's wrong should actually be exposed in the city gates. Exposure actually reduces bad behavior. I've seen it happen directly a few times. Perhaps even bad doctrines and bad decisions and bad policy can be revisited if enough people raise questions publicly. I heard a brother in the Writing Department say that he'd like to see all the things fixed right away that Raymond Franz exposed, and he lamented that some would not be easy to fix. But many of them have already, by now, been fixed.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a big deal to repeatedly say there is no academic understanding here. You began repeating that idea (under other names, I think) when someone implied that it would be OK to make longer quotes from other sources for education purposes, based on common practice for commentaries on other person's writings under 'fair use' law. But that's not what this is about. It's been a common practice of yours to sometimes just dump a bunch of commentary from various places, but without any comment of your own as to whether you think it even applies to your own view or someone else's view. Often it is contradictory to the Watchtower's view (as it was this time), which is why I think you either hadn't even read it, or at least why you didn't comment on any of it yourself. It seemed pretty academic, but you didn't give a source for any other readers here, who might not have been able to tell whether it came from a Watchtower source or a Christendom source or some other academic source. And for someone who is bent on repeating there is no academic understanding here, it makes no sense that you had just done this earlier in this same thread with the words: Of course, you didn't give any reference or attribution to that either, and you were addressing someone else, not me. And by the way, I didn't just automatically know where the references came from; I had to look it up. I didn't sidestep the questions, I only indicated to you why the questions, as stated, didn't mean much of anything. As a reminder, here were the questions I "sidestepped": In between those two questions, you merely copied information from "Christendom's" commentaries without any context. Those don't even sound like legitimate questions to me. They sound like questions from someone trying to imitate post-modern pretentiousness and who thinks vagueness sounds impressive. Wow! And did anyone mention your propensity for projection? Your resources did not agree with the Watchtower's view. You yourself have seemed to question the Watchtower's stated view on who makes up the Body of Christ, or else you just wanted to be disagreeable. Your own questions and statements often sound something like this: BTK: Why do you say that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! Response: But the Watchtower says that only the anointed are in the Body of Christ and I believe this is correct. BTK Then why do you say the anointed are not in the Body of Christ? That's untenable and seals your fate as an apostate! I don't see how I have failed to see that I copy/paste from Watchtower literature. I actually show the reference each time to show exactly where I copy/pasted from, and to make it clear that I am posting from Watchtower literature. See the difference?

Thanks for explaining. This was the impression I got from you, and it was reinforced with this other idea that you conveyed: that since the scriptures were only written to and for the anointed, we must take a kind of 'sit-and-wait' attitude until it becomes obvious who they are. You also have said that you think the end will not take place before the end of your own lifetime, an idea probably also partly based on the fact that no group of anointed has yet become so obvious in our day that '10 men are taking hold of them' because they can see that God is with them. One reason I responded with an entire thread on this was because this overall idea seemed too passive. It really would lead to the idea that unless some group of truly anointed were making it extremely obvious that they were right in some inspired kind of way, then all of us can just sort of wait until that changes. But Jesus seemed to say that preaching and converting others through making disciples of him was going to be the way in which this message about God and his Kingdom through Christ would reach to the ends of the earth. To me that seems quite different. Also, just my opinion, but I don't think we need anything except to keep our eyes open and see the works of various Christian brotherhoods to know whether or not Jehovah's spirit is acting upon them. By their works you will recognize them. It's not that works result in our salvation, but that the "works" of the spirit result in "love, joy, peace, patience, etc., etc." If our hearts desire Christian association with loving, peaceful, patient persons, we would find such ones to associate with. The nuances of doctrine (like "who is the Jew with the 10 men at his robes?") is completely unimportant. But a doctrine of peace that results in them not going to war with each other would seem quite important. Personally, I would not wait for a group that explains Scripture better than the next group. That has always just been a "sub-religion" much like the philosophies of the Greeks that they thought was real wisdom. Scripture is already there for us. We don't have to understand it any further than what was already put there. In our hearts we know enough about Jesus parables just by reading the overall message. We have no further need of prophets, and voices, and tongues, and inspiration, because Jehovah has already put the basic message in our hearts from what inspiration has already written. This is one of the reasons that the book of Revelation was almost voted out of the 66 book canon. It was written in such a way that it took away from the idea that we need nothing further to be written to us (by future interpreters). Yet even this book exercises the depth of our Christian faith if we remember that it should not distract from the idea that the end could come at any time, and that we are not waiting for specific events to happen, but that it can happen at any time. On that topic, remember that Jesus said the end could happen at any time, and it would be a surprise, as if without warning of any kind. Of course, he also made it clear that it could happen at any time immediately after the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem, which basically happened in 70 CE. Your own view makes it easy to put this off, by waiting for an additional sign. Paul did mention an additional sign prior to 70 when he said that we weren't waiting for a group of semi-inspired anointed to watch for, but that there would be a semi-inspired powerful force that would have to come first. This kept the Thessalonians from getting too excited about the end coming when 70 CE had not even come yet. He told them that we needed nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons of the parousia because it would come as a surprise, like a thief in the night, even though we are "awake" enough so that it will not overcome us as victims the way a thief overcomes his victim. He reminded the Thessalonians that people could be taking note of peace and security, and therefore it would be a complete surprise. But he also told them to prepare for the possibility that they would sleep in death before Jesus returned. But that semi-inspired or pseudo-inspired powerful force to watch for apparently turned out to be the many anti-Christs that John spoke of in his letters. Paul had put it in "apocalyptic terms" and I think the book of Revelation even more so: I'll end on this because it's long, but I think it's curious that Paul's only warning sign prior to the parousia was about a man of lawlessness (the apostasy already at work) and a counteracting force of restraint that was almost out of the way. (This was apparently the apostles, but some could argue that it extends to our day as the apostleship continues to be represented by men governing the congregation.) (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. John, possibly the original apostle by that name, apparently outlived the year 70 CE, and he still says something similar, but his solution is that all of them were anointed and all of them therefore have no need of someone or some group to continue teaching them, because the anointing itself teaches all of them the truth. (1 John 2:18-27) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort. 20 And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you have knowledge. 21 I write you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie originates with the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also remain in union with the Son and in union with the Father. 25 Furthermore, this is what he himself promised us—the life everlasting. 26 I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie.. . .

I definitely agree with that. No matter how sure I might sound, I am just giving an opinion on what I believe a Scripture might mean. Even if I don't have any doubts about it, it doesn't make it true. And that too. BTW, it's this tendency to conflate "inspired" and "anointed" that made me think you might have thought that the GB ought to be "inspired" in some way even though they have clearly said that they are not. I know you have never said it that way, but you have made previous comments that make me think that you believed a TRUE "faithful and discreet slave" should "in effect" be inspired in some way. You have said things like the following: I probably read too much into it. I personally do not think of the Governing Body as "THE faithful and discreet slave." I don't think anyone, or any particular identifiable group is "THAT slave." It was merely an illustration that showed how some Christians might be like that good slave, and some might be like this other bad slave. In fact, Jesus gave many more examples of how the slave might be bad than might be good. I think that Jesus gave the illustration, not to create a hierarchical group that might try to "lord it over" their fellow Christians, or try to be "governors of their souls" or "guardians of doctrine." I think Jesus knew that most Christians, imperfect as we are, would strive to do good and probably fall short many times. Jesus is already identified as the "One Governor" of our faith, and he told us not to follow those who want to be called Leader, Father or Teacher. We can find many different teachers under many different circumstances in our Christian experience, and we can try to be one of those many teachers to others, when called upon. I think Paul dealt with people who looked to men (like Paul, Apollos, and Cephas) to be their Governing Body, or other superfine apostles. But Paul spoke out against the idea in several ways, even though Paul himself really was a "guardian of doctrine." Here are some excerpts from the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 4, where we actually find some comments about supposed "faithful" and "discreet" "stewards" and the idea of "lording it over others" which is exactly what Jesus' illustration warned against: (1 Corinthians 4:1-21) . . . A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . . the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, these things I have applied to myself and A·polʹlos for your good, that through us you may learn the rule: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. 7 For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it? 8 Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us? I really wish that you had begun ruling as kings, so that we also might rule with you as kings. 9 For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men. 10 We are fools because of Christ, but you are discreet in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in dishonor. . . . 14 I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me. 17 That is why I am sending Timothy to you, because he is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord. He will remind you of my methods in connection with Christ Jesus, just as I am teaching everywhere in every congregation. 18 Some are puffed up with pride, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if Jehovah wills, and I will get to know, not the speech of those who are puffed up with pride, but their power. 20 For the Kingdom of God is a matter not of speech but of power. 21 Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and mildness of spirit? To me this sounds like a commentary on the parable itself. It contains the idea that some would want to beat their fellow servants. They would want to take matters into their own hands before the Lord comes in his due time. Some would be puffed up and wish to begin ruling as kings (governors). These human tribunals (governing bodies) are considered unimportant to Paul. They are trying to judge matters before their time. They are drunk with power, puffed up with pride. Not even the apostles look for "honor" or present themselves as "discreet" and yet these persons want to present themselves as discreet (wise). So Paul sends people to them (like Apollos and Timothy) who are NOT at all like that, people such as Timothy who follow the mild and loving methods of Paul, who will treat them like a father admonishes beloved children. And as far as "guardians" Paul says that they may have "10,000 guardians" not just 8 or so. 10,000 was on the order of the actual number of Christians in the Roman Empire at that time, according to Acts. Now most Witnesses probably think about the GB as exactly the kind of loving admonishers that Paul and Timothy and Apollos must have been. So this should not be taken as an indictment of the idea of a Governing Body. But I understand some of the problems you have with the Governing Body and their claims.

When you don't reference the sources you copy from, you make it difficult to see the actual questions you are asking and separate it from the material you are merely copying. In this case, it's probably obvious that most of what you copied can be found, verbatim, in the New Oxford Annotated Bible as can be found here, on page 1363: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0190276061 Other parts you copied can be found verbatim: here, the ESV Global Study Bible: https://books.google.com/books?id=unuwCAAAQBAJ and/or here: the Scofield Study Bible -ESV found here: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0195278755 So "what fundamental aspect could be drawn" is the fact that you copied from some commentaries and references. Based on some ideas you mentioned before, I would therefore guess that this was done for reasons you already outlined here: I assume, then, that you thought that by merely copying a few commentaries, unattributed, that it would make this look like a well-researched academic site, and that it was intended to impress. Since there was nothing of your own in any of that, I assume you also thought that you were using the understanding in these commentaries as a kind of crutch to avoid expressing your own personal understanding. Then, you did finally add a question of your own, although it makes no sense as a serious question the way it is currently worded. You probably left out some words. So, going back to some other things you've said on this topic, I assume you might be confused as to what the Watchtower is trying to relate. I say this because the Watchtower has been very clear and simple on this topic, and was quoted here very clearly. Yet, you indicated you didn't realize it was the correct Watchtower explanation, and you apparently thought it was misapplied, as you said in a previous post on in this thread:

Not at all. Everything I said was a FULL truth about what the WT taught, or a FULL truth about what others think, or a FULL truth about my own opinion. No half-truths. Yes. The Body of Christ is the "Church" and there is a sense in which everyone in the "Church" is part of Jesus' body, so I would never disagree with this or claim that they could not. The "great crowd" mentioned in Revelation chapters 7 and 19, and who are also referenced again in chapters 21 and 22. Scripturally, they appear to be part of the heavenly kingdom, the New Jerusalem, because they are spiritual Israelites, too. True. But you don't give any context to why you mentioned this. The closest we came to discussing servants is the mention that the 'great crowd' render sacred service in the inner sanctuary of the temple. (Elsewhere the Watchtower associates the inner sanctuary, naos, with heaven itself.) But in the context of this particular great crowd we actually do not have the mention of 'bond servant.' We do know that elsewhere, the anointed Christians are referred to in some contexts as "bond servants." Even the person we identify as an angel in Revelation 19:10 is also a "doulos" or "bond servant" (and he tells John not to worship him). All Christians should humbly be able to see themselves as "good for nothing slaves" in comparison to the glory of God's kingdom. Christians should recognize themselves as "bond servants" and yet the promise is that Jesus would make the first last and the last first, and therefore can crown these servants as kings in glory, as he sees fit. I agree that this makes sense, and it is a part of what I presented earlier. It looks like you are giving an example of how I might have added some confusion here, but the problem is that you left off the introductory part of the same paragraph. If it can make it simpler, I'll just highlight some main points here: [In my opinion, for what it's worth] During his earthly ministry, Jesus and his disciples were sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In John 10:16 Jesus refers to "other sheep" outside of that fold (Israel) which he would later bring into the same flock. These would therefore be persons of the nations, the gentiles, who would also share in the same promises of anointing and son. (It shouldn't be surprising that Jesus would make such a momentous announcement to his disciples as this becomes a major theme of the scriptures after Jesus is resurrected.) Paul makes a similar point about how the two folds become one in Ephesians 2:14 ("For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off.") And Paul explains that until recently the nations had been fenced off from the nation of Israel, but now the two groups are one. Since this was such an important event in the history of Christianity, it appears in Revelation 7 symbolically as a "great crowd" of persons who serve in heaven with the same white robes associated with the Bride of Christ. In comparison with the limited number of Israelites who had come in, the great crowd of persons who come out of every nation are innumerable. So, as I said, the other sheep and the great crowd appear to refer to the same group of anointed persons from all nations who join their Israelite brothers in New Jerusalem, a spiritual Mt Zion, made up of both Jews and Greeks (gentiles): (Galatians 3:26-29) . . .You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise. Interestingly, according to the NWT, the New Jerusalem in Revelation is said to be nearly TWO MILLION square miles, and the entire structure is TWO AND A HALF BILLION cubic miles. That's a city about the size of entire area from New York to North Dakota to Texas to Florida, the whole portion of the United States east of the Rockies. Larger than the entire Roman Empire at its maximum. But that doesn't matter of course. What might matter is that there is nowhere in the Bible where it limits the number of those who would be anointed or who would serve as heavenly kings and priests to only 144,000. Apparently, although it could be a literal number referring to the full number of Jewish Christians who came in as "first-fruits" it could also be a number that symbolizes these Israelites in the way that the 12,000 from each tribe is clearly just a symbolic number in Revelation 7. Note how Paul refers to the number of Israelites compared to the number from the nations who come into spiritual Israel: (Romans 11:11-26) . . .Certainly not! But by [Israel's] false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their [Israel's] full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. . . . 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. . . . remember that it is not you who bears the root, but the root bears you. 19 You will say, then: “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Do not be haughty, but be in fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. . . . 23 And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them back in. .24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 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.. . . It is not possible to make this refer to spiritual Israel, because it speaks of Israel's lack of faith being a factor. It speaks of the "natural branches" of Israel. Surely we can't claim that the nations were added in only because "spiritual Israel" lost faith! Basically, there was a "witness" to Israel, and a "witness" to the nations (gentiles). And this is represented by the natural olive tree and the wild olive tree, all grafted into one tree representing "spiritual" Israel. We have another mention of the two olive trees and two witnesses in Revelation 11: (Revelation 11:3, 4) . . .I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth. (Galatians 2:7-8) . . .they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . . Even the two lampstands can be tied back to Paul's and Jesus' illustrations about the Jews and the Gentiles. (Luke 2:30-32) . . .because my eyes have seen your means of salvation that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.” (Mt 5:14-16) “You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when situated upon a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the house. Likewise let your light shine before men, that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens.” (Acts 13:46, 47) . . .Then Paul and Barʹna·bas boldly said to them: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you [Israel]. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. 47 For Jehovah has commanded us in these words: ‘I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the ends of the earth.’” And, of course, in the temple sanctuary, only pure olive oil could be used to light the physical lamps.

I know, but it's still related. Do you expect it to be a group LIKE the GB in the sense of a group of leaders of a certain religion, or leaders who promote a certain set of specific doctrines, but whom you accept because they also give evidence you can accept of being "anointed." I think you imply that the GB claim to be inspired (although they would never use those exact words). Would you expect the person(s) who fit the actual "Jew" of Zechariah to claim to be inspired?