JW Insider

Sort of. I was referring to both. And our steers were only stunned with the head shot, not killed outright, so the heart was still beating. I was just saying there was a time when I was more interested in the various processes, so as to compare them, partly because of the blood issue, and partly because we had raised our steers from calves (along with a heifer and a milk cow). I therefore had a concern about their suffering. Naming them was a bad idea. I was interested in the process then, because a true kosher slaughter, at least at the time, required that the animal be readied for stringing up and then the throat cut as soon as the animal was strung up. There was no stunning or bolt gun with the kosher method, with the idea that the heart (and fear of the process) would help the heart beat stronger, and pump out more blood. How much more, I don't know. I might not have even been given completely correct info. The bolt-shot (stunned) unconscious animal might be in a kind of shock, lowering the heart rate I would assume, but I suppose the amount of blood drained could be similar, but might take longer, when compared with an animal that is fully alert, and the throat is slit with a fully beating heart. I think it's interesting that our slaughterhouse told us that the kosher method is faster because the animal is so afraid of dying that the blood is pumping more strongly and the heart rate is off the charts. But more recently, when more people are interested in whether the animal experiences fear and suffering, the kosher method is sometimes touted as "instant death" -- which it definitely is not. That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself. But it looks like your argument boils down to something like this: No one can actually get rid of all the whole blood cells that will be found in meat by any practical process. And the Bible's laws never technically meant that absolute full drainage was required anyway, as the idea of "lifeblood" was intended, not blood, per se. Therefore, if we were not supposed to worry about small amounts of whole blood, we should not necessarily worry our conscience about fractions or particles of blood, either. I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to," but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.

I agree that you could make such an argument. But the heart stops beating before all the blood is drained. That was my point. The animal can have a lot of blood still remaining and yet dies while being drained. The heart stops and there is plenty of blood to be drained. (We had 3 of our bulls slaughtered when I was about 15. Technically they were "steers.") I was interested in the process due to the blood issue, because in this case, the animals were shot in the head first (bolt gun), then strung up to drain. Technically, we were supposed to ask the butcher not to save the blood for fertilizer or feed or any other purpose, and we would pay him a bit more for disposal. (In those days the Watchtower told us that we should not even let our dogs and cats eat unbled meat.)

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc. In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know.

I finally saw Hitchens' documentary. When I first tried to watch it, the local Blockbuster video store kept saying they had 5 copies, and I put one on hold, until they realized they had all been stolen, or checked out by fake ID's, never to be returned. I think we should be fair with the old man. He should not be executed until after a trial. He is guilty of war crimes, but that's also true of almost every U.S. president since Eisenhower.

If Iraq is asked to pay only $15 Billion from Germany and could choose to pay, say, $20 Billion to the U.S. for the equivalent work, they would almost surely have to waste the extra $5 Billion on the U.S. But this will be nothing new to Iraq. The US was behind the sanctions (mostly under B.Clinton) that literally killed about ONE MILLION PEOPLE (mostly women and children) by intentionally bombing and sabotaging Iraq's clean water, agricultural and power infrastructure long before the US invasion of Iraq. And recall too that the US invaded Iraq due to the actions of a man that the US had supported, Saddam Hussein. So, in a perfect world, you might think that the US owed the Iraqi people billions of dollars in war reparations, rather than worry about whether a US company gets a lucrative contract. It reminds me of how even during the intentionally murderous sanctions, a large US corporation (military contractor) continued to "secretly" make hundreds of millions of dollars by doing oil related work in Iraq. They paid less than 10 million dollars in fines over their intentional breaking of US law, but were then quickly awarded 1.2 billion in contracts in Iraq, even though these contracts were supposed to go to the lowest bidder. That was Halliburton, of course. But the same thing happens with many US companies with respect to controversial defense contracts. Some of these companies, like G.E., Google, etc., are not even typically thought of as defense contractors, and many have been awarded contracts for work for which they have little to no experience.

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped. Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking. (Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible: (Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . . When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven." To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice . Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life. Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here: http://www.moyak.com/papers/hesiod-theogony.html ) Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course: (Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God. Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

Technically, what the meat contains is leftover blood, not "blood by-product." By-product would be the blood that was separated or drained, not the blood still in the meat. Just read a rather disturbing article about the many ways in which animal by-products, including whole blood, and blood plasma, are used around the world. Some of the data comes from the USDA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614052/ Your write-up, btw, was excellent imo, fwiw.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct. Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society. But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions. On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

For an actor, timing is very important!

I expect you are right. But miraculous intervention would have played a part. Besides, considering how salty the oceans are even now, only some 4,000 years later, plants must have been given capabilities they no longer have.

As described, such a quick and violent flood would wash away the topsoil, and this would make it the worst time to plant, and for many years into the future.

At least 100 Watchtower articles have not been pulled. Several hundred entries in the "Insight" books were not changed. The "Choosing" book is still there, the "Family Life" book is still there. So is "Is This Life All There Is?" etc. “Forward, the Light Brigade!” Was there a man dismayed? Not though the soldier knew Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die. As it's often quoted: "Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die."

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course). There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses. Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons: Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.) So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time. This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220. All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org. I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

*** w17 June p. 8 par. 17 Jehovah Provides Comfort in All Our Trials *** Before the Flood, Seth’s descendant Lamech worshipped Jehovah. That family man said of his son Noah: “[He] will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that Jehovah has cursed.” That prophecy was fulfilled when the curse on the ground was lifted. *** w13 8/1 p. 15 He Was Kept “Safe With Seven Others” *** God lifted the curse on the ground. Back in the days of the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God had pronounced that curse, making cultivation unusually difficult. Noah’s father, Lamech, had named his son Noah—probably meaning “Rest,” or “Consolation”—and had foretold that his son would lead mankind to a time of rest from that curse. Noah must have beamed when he learned that he would now see that prophecy fulfilled and that the earth would respond more readily to efforts to cultivate it. Little wonder that Noah soon took up farming!—Genesis 3:17, 18; 5:28, 29; 9:20. *** w96 11/1 p. 8 par. 8 Look to Jehovah for Comfort *** How relieved Noah and his family must have felt after the Flood as they came out of the ark onto a cleansed earth! How comforting to find that the curse on the ground had been lifted, making agricultural activity so much easier! Indeed, Lamech’s prophecy proved true, and Noah lived up to the meaning of his name. (Genesis 8:21) So evidently the idea is that the ground in Eden was fantastic, and the ground around the garden was supposed to be ready for fertile and fruitful cultivation as the human family expanded. But then God cursed the ground and it became more difficult. And then the Flood, (Après à fois le déluge. ..) after which it became much easier again to cultivate the ground, but not perfect as in Eden. I don't recall the animal theory ever being spelled out relative to this curse on the ground.

I began to address this in a thread some time ago. As far as my status I mentioned this under another topic today: I am a Witness. I still associate and preach regularly and maintain my congregational privileges. To avoid specific conflicts and contentions I requested some time ago that I be allowed to step down from former congregational privileges. On the question of why I didn't leave the organization, it's because I've never been asked to leave. I don't consider myself to be as "obedient and loyal" a Witness as others, but I see no reason to leave. There are hundreds of people in our brotherhood whom I love dearly, and I could not associate with them or do things for them if I chose to leave. I have no problem with the general intent and motivation of the organization, even if I see problems here and there. The problems certainly do not outweigh the good. It's not the religious organization that makes us Christian because we all stand on our own before Jehovah. Only if and when we are asked to obey men as ruler rather than God should we take a stand against the authority of men. I was born and raised a Witness. I know that this illustration won't make sense to most Witnesses, but Paul said the following about the the outward appearances that can signify our religion to others, and he implies that the specifics that matter so much to others shouldn't matter so much to us personally. (1 Corinthians 7:17-24) Nevertheless, just as Jehovah has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And so I give this directive in all the congregations. 18 Was any man already circumcised when he was called? Let him not undo his circumcision. Has any man been called while uncircumcised? Let him not get circumcised. 19 Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20 In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21 Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22 For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24 In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God. If a person conscientiously feels that they are in a kind of servitude to men because of the religion, then they could seize the opportunity to get free, and I would not judge such a person, but would still want to help them maintain their spirituality. (But note that our true freedom is not our outward situation, but between ourselves and the Lord.) It's much easier to be a Christian with a loving brotherhood of Christians around us, related to us in the faith. Christianity is "social" and we need each other for encouragement and to continue to incite each other to good works toward one another. (Heb 10:24,25) I believe that the Witnesses provide this brotherhood. It's not specifically the doctrines, but it's the value we place on God's word, studying from it and teaching from it. The value placed on the Bible produces sensible faith-strengthening doctrines that honor God. It also helps us build a Christian character that can keep us free from the world's immorality, and free from the world's nationalism, conflicts and wars. With that in mind, I do not find it difficult to remain in the state I was called.

I am a Witness. I still associate and preach regularly and maintain my congregational privileges. To avoid specific conflicts and contentions I requested some time ago that I be allowed to step down from former congregational privileges. I believe that what I said about the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is true, and it's easy to support Biblically with the Scriptures. And it's very close to what we originally believed as Witnesses from the time of the very first Watch Tower publications. Of course, it's not the official belief now, so I would not say this in a congregational setting. In a congregational setting I treat others the way they way I assume they would want to be treated. For those who come online where they already know that they must be prepared to deal with thousands of potential stumbling blocks, I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss items of controversy that cannot be discussed in the congregation. Here, everyone is welcome --and already well prepared-- to treat my opinion here with any appropriate level of disdain or approval that they see fit. The Biblical qualifications for elders in a congregation include age, experience, reputation, among several other things. But, as Witnesses, our preferred type of worship is not only informed by the elders of the local congregation but also by elders who are deemed qualified to look after the practical and spiritual interests of a world-wide congregation. I think "Governing Body" is a terrible name, and has no scriptural support. But the general idea of a body of elders for the overall congregation makes practical sense for the same reasons that a local congregation needs a body of elders. It's not that I think they are supposed to come up with "new truths" or "new spiritual food recipes" but they are in a position to hear communication from all the congregations world-wide, and are therefore in a unique position to know what things might be useful, necessary, and timely. If a lot of difficult questions come in about a certain doctrine, then they are also in a unique position to request research in order to clarify doctrinal issues, too. Based on the way they are chosen from among anointed elders in full-time service, they would typically be better teachers, have better abilities to direct, have more experience, etc., than most other Witnesses. This doesn't mean they are better in the sense of being more spiritual or having more holy spirit. They do not claim this for themselves, just as they don't claim to get spiritual food directly from Jehovah. But they often speak of realizing the seriousness of the responsibility to the overall congregation, as they should. Yes. This has been both stated and implied about 3 or 4 times. Some of those were due to the rise in the numbers of partakers at the Memorial that went against a teaching that a drop in the number of partakers was a sign of the closeness of the end. This is no longer considered to be a necessary sign of the end. It's probably true that some have mental issues. I think I've witnessed this phenomenon with an anointed sister in my previous congregation. Saying it in the publications has made it easier for others to begin questioning and judging the anointed status of many others and this is probably unfortunate. The point of the statement(s) you refer to seem to be tied to the idea that the Governing Body has (for decades) said that they "represent" the remaining members of the anointed, but without ever meeting with them or asking their opinions. It's probably meant as an explanation to those who consider themselves anointed as to why their opinion is not requested, nor would they ever expect it to be. For many decades the entire anointed remnant was considered to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and this probably raised the question about why they weren't ever involved in doctrinal issues unless they were already part of the Writing Department or Service Department at Bethel. Now, as of 2011, this has changed and the GB claims to be the equivalent of the FDS, which tends to remove the question about why the rest of the anointed are not involved. The GB has had 12 members at one or two points in its official existence (since about 1971). It once had 18 members at the same time. But I think they have purposely avoided trying to keep it at 12 or 13 so that it is not seen as a kind of "apostolic succession" associated with a couple of other churches. People would surely complain that it would be a sign of haughtiness to present themselves as modern-day apostles. Having members that better represent the entire world would be a good thing. Some have come from foreign branches, too. But they are usually chosen from among those who have proven themselves to be long-time, loyal office workers in the Branch offices, where the heads of those Branch offices usually came from the United States before their assignments in those foreign branches. There are currently a couple of members who are not originally from the United States.

It was the word used in the publication itself. I agree that it is one of a range of words we use so as not to highlight "previous error" or "former false teaching" etc. But, in my opinion, it really is a clarification, because the former false teaching was unclear ("muddy" as you say) or didn't fit the scriptures, which is often admitted in the "reason behind the change." No one claims that God directly gives the GB the spiritual food they see fit to distribute. But it's also true that Christians should expect that some who devote themselves to the hard work of teaching are worthy of double honor. I have also expressed my personal opinion that Jesus did not intend for this illustration to be taken as a means to give authority to a few leaders in the congregation. He meant it for all Christians to think about how they would treat one another and how they would handle their own responsibilities if the end of the system seemed to be so long delayed that some would think they could get away with misconduct. Peter provides a commentary on this illustration and this same potential situation with respect to the parousia when he speaks of its apparent delay and adds "What sort of persons ought you to be?" (2 Peter 3:11-14) So this illustration is for all of us. All of us should be faithful stewards. "In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful." (1 Cor 4:2) All of us should do our part in feeding Christ's sheep. But this doesn't mean that some wouldn't lead in different ways, especially with respect to a worldwide teaching ministry, we would expect some attempts at doctrinal conformity and continued clarification as new things are learned. But it also applies to all of us, even if some take the lead in teaching, and the illustration could have just as easily called us the "master of the house" not only a servant in the household. The specific household position in the illustration isn't as important as the conduct of the person in the illustration. In this next one we are likened just as easily to the "master." It doesn't mean that some of us should be called "leader" (or governors) for our leader is one.: Matthew 13:52: Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” So the illustration wasn't about serving perfect food, just about the attitude and motives we should all have when we handle our Christian responsibilities.

We will probably find that the appeal will include exactly those arguments in defense of the the WTS. On appeal, the judgment will likely be reduced to less than $10MM because the excuse to raise it to $30+MM was very tenuous. Appeal was guaranteed on that count alone. But if the WTS attorneys can move the fault to local congregation elders, then the monetary judgment will be minimal.

That's interesting. Thanks.

I wasn't even implying that the sister who was speaking had a problem with extreme ego. I think this would be the rarest of problems of those giving materially. (I mentioned it with a view to those Pharisees who might have compared their own contributions to that of a widow's "mite.") I misworded the statement with the word "only" but wasn't trying to be comprehensive. In the context of some recent videos and many of the Broadcasts on tv.jw.org, I have noticed a lot of statements where the term "Jehovah" is apparently confused with the term "Jehovah's organization." I had just seen two other JWB examples in the few minutes before seeing this one and thought I should speak up. (A little leaven, etc.) It's just an opinion, of course, but I think it's very possible this sister in the video is doing the same thing (using the term Jehovah as a shorthand term for Jehovah's earthly organization) which I'm seeing by so many others. It's my sense that it is even becoming more common in convention prayers, which might be an indication of the influence of JWB. I have seen more examples on JWB than in print.

Yes. That's a part of it. Note the even the "free page" here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561026?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Even some early "Church Fathers" thought that these changes were being made to undermine Christianity, and opposed the revisions and their authors (mostly directed at Symacchus and Aquila). What I was reading was from other sources but Wikipedia implies the same here in the entry about Symacchus: Saint Jerome admired his style but faulted his translation in two areas important to Christians, saying that he substituted the Greek word neansis (woman) for parthenos (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:43.[13] Symmachus' Greek translation of the Pentateuch appeared in Origen's Hexapla, . . . According to Eusebius Symmachus also wrote commentaries, then still extant, apparently written to counter the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew, . . . .

You have touched upon a real danger in the very specific ways in which the prophecy is interpreted for imminent fulfillment. I blew up the picture to 400 percent, and agree that Brother Herd is definitely intended, but don't know how much most of us will read into it. But other statements do make the concern about chronology real. The "subtext" is to renew faith in 1914, 1919, the Organization, etc., and equate pure worship (sacred service) with doing things closely associated with the directives we get from the Organization. Although our current chronology is based on unsupported interpretations, this does not mean that the book is not useful. In fact, our situation is very much analogous to the points made in Ezekiel. And, in general, I think these important spiritual lessons from Ezekiel are highlighted in a very useful way. Ezekiel was concerned about restoration of pure worship in spite of the very problems and temptations that pulled God's people away from pure worship in the first place, internally and externally. And now, after the temptations of Babylon, and a desolation of both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judea, it could be even more difficult to imagine such a restoration without Jehovah's intervention. Also, the clarifications move us into a place where we can get much more value from the book without using it to judge Christendom, or highlight the distinctions between the anointed remnant and the great crowd, for example. One of the clarifications even moves us further from the temptation to specifically apply everything to the beginnings of the Organization under Russell and especially Rutherford in 1917/1918. I think it's clear that all of the clarifications move us closer to truth. Here are just a few of those clarifications. Note the elimination of dividing the other sheep from the anointed. Also, the earlier "man with the writer's inkhorn" was considered to be Russell himself, then a strong implication that it should be Rutherford himself. This is a welcome change: Previous understanding: The man with the inkhorn represents the anointed remnant. By means of the preaching and disciple-making work, the anointed are now putting a symbolic mark on the foreheads of those who become part of the “great crowd.”—Rev. 7:9. Clarification: The man with the secretary’s inkhorn pictures Jesus Christ. He will mark the great crowd when they are judged as sheep during the “great tribulation.”—Matt. 24:21. The meaning of the "two sticks" could be interpreted as a reversion to the distinction, but recall that these two sticks are united. And next we lose the self-righteous judgmental attitude toward "Christendom." Previous understanding: Unfaithful Jerusalem is a prophetic type of Christendom. Hence, the destruction of Jerusalem prophetically foreshadowed that of Christendom. Clarification: Conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—such as idolatry and widespread corruption—remind us of Christendom, but we no longer refer to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem. Reasoning behind the change: There is no clear Scriptural basis for such a type-antitype approach. And here is one way we have begun removing the specific emphases on 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922, etc., by moving the focus from this period back the 2,000-year period preceding the types of clarifications from about a hundred-year period beginning 1919 . Previous understanding: In 1918 the persecuted anointed were brought into captivity to Babylon the Great, experiencing a deathlike condition of near inactivity. That short captivity ended in 1919 when Jehovah revived them as Kingdom proclaimers. Clarification: The deathlike condition of spiritual captivity lasted a very long time and began much earlier than 1918. It started in the second century C.E. and ended in 1919 C.E. and basically parallels the long growing season in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds. We haven't completely removed the unsupported chronology, of course, and the book even references the God's Kingdom book for further support, but I appreciated all the changes nonetheless.

What did I miss?

A site that appears closely related to Barbara Anderson's activism has an article claiming to be from an Elder who recently left over the same issue of Child Sexual Abuse. https://scaars.org/2018/10/16/an-insiders-account-about-how-a-report-of-child-sex-abuse-is-handled/ It highlights the problem brought up by John Butler. These are from 3 through 6 of the 10 bullet points from that article: Two elders would be assigned to talk to the victim and her parent to gather details. If they determine that the child is giving a truthful account, they would report back to the Coordinator about their findings. The proper legal authorities would still not be notified. Their next step would be to call the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBS) in New York. The Legal Department would then direct them as to whether or not they are legally obligated to contact the proper legal authorities to report the case. The default stance taken is that, unless there is a specific state law directing them to do so, the authorities need not be notified. The elders then determine if there will need to be an internal judicial hearing about the accusation. If there is only one witness to the abuse, as is the case in almost every instance of sexual abuse, they will not pursue it further. If there are two witnesses to that specific instance or if there are multiple reports from different children that this has happened at the hands of the same person, they will form a judicial committee to determine whether the offender is repentant. This committee will decide whether the offender can remain a member of the congregation or will be excommunicated, or disfellowshipped according to Jehovah’s Witness nomenclature. If the offender is not disfellowshipped, other members are not informed about the situation. At the most, an announcement might be made that the offender was “reproved” but displayed repentance. No mention of the type of crime will be divulged to the congregation. Parents will be unaware that a sexual offender is in their midst. They will continue to socialize and trust that their children are safe even in the presence of the offender.