5 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

Anyone have a question or topic suggestion(s) for an upcoming thread?

Talks we'd like to hear at the 2019 Convention

@Space Merchant, More importantly, the claim that is most confusing is one you are apparently still trying to hold onto for some reason.

I said:

On 8/29/2018 at 12:23 PM, JW Insider said:

The Septuagint has nothing to do with the original manuscript of 1 Timothy 3:16. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original, older Hebrew manuscripts of the "Old Testament." Timothy is in the "New Testament."

And you replied:

On 8/29/2018 at 9:59 PM, Space Merchant said:

To some degree it does, mainly to what we have which is in connection with The Septuagint itself or 4th century sources, for it is the only reason as to why I said what I said, putting them in the same category as the oldest and most reliable source,

This is still completely false. There is no degree to which the Septuagint is related to 1 Timothy 3:16.

You are right about 1 Timothy 3:16 not having the word "God" in the original, just as nearly all NT scholars would agree. I am only wishing to correct any misunderstanding your statements might cause with respect to the nature and value of the Septuagint.

On 8/29/2018 at 9:59 PM, Space Merchant said:

The thing here is, it is considered the oldest and most reliable source, as well as to what connects to it, and it is indeed known by all, even to those of other faiths, well, those who try to take in the information if possible.

This still doesn't seem to speak to what the Septuagint actually is. The writing of the Hebrew Bible (OT), in Hebrew, was generally completed by the 5th century BCE, (the 400's BCE). The most important parts of the Septuagint (LXX) were completed in the mid 200's BCE, and some parts as late as the 130's BCE.

A lot of what the Septuagint translators did is considered very accurate. In many cases it was perhaps more accurate, (closer to the older Hebrew originals) than the work of the Masoretic scribes, who claim to have carried on a tradition of maintaining accurate copies of the original Bible manuscripts from the original Hebrew.

But unfortunately we don't have any of those original Septuagint manuscripts from the 200's BCE. And we only have fragmentary portions from the second and first century BCE. We don't really have any effectively complete Septuagint translations until the 300's CE, the fourth century CE. That's as much as 600 years after this Greek translation was first made! And 800+ years after the original Hebrew OT was complete.

On the other hand, we have the "Dead Sea Scrolls" including both fragments, and in some cases, full or nearly complete scrolls of some Bible books in Hebrew evidently going back into the first century BCE, up to as late as 70 CE. (Some of those Hebrew scrolls may date even into the second century BCE.)

So what does that do to the claim that the Septuagint is the oldest and most reliable source? Remember you said:

On 8/29/2018 at 12:09 PM, Space Merchant said:

The Septuagint, The Oldest and Most Reliable Source of which the Bible originates from and it is known by ALL persons who know of and study it

The oldest parts of the Bible originated in Hebrew, and the oldest known Hebrew manuscripts and texts go back, hundreds of years in some cases, prior to the oldest known manuscripts of the Greek translation, the Septuagint. In a few cases, such as with the 'Great Scroll of Isaiah' this first-century Hebrew scroll effectively matches the text that the Masoretes had maintained even 1,000 years after that Isaiah scroll. (I use the words "effectively matches" because even though there are hundreds of differences, they are usually small and don't change the meaning significantly.)

Of course, the OT quotations found in the NT almost all came from the LXX, so it was considered accurate enough to be the translation used in the NT. There are places where it is undoubtedly more accurate, closer to the original Hebrew manuscripts, than those Hebrew manuscripts we currently rely on. Some of these points were discovered when the Qumram scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls; DSS) came to light. There are even some fragmentary portions of the Greek LXX among the mostly Hebrew DSS.

But many portions of the LXX are highly questionable, too. Jeremiah is fully 1/7th shorter in the LXX. That's a difference of about 7 chapters worth of content missing from dozens of different places around the book, plus hundreds of other wording differences. Also the LXX contains many portions and passages interspersed within the OT that most religions, including JWs, do not consider part of the Bible.

As you probably know, like nearly all Jewish and Christian denominations, the WTS has chosen to publish the OT of the NWT Bible based only on the Masoretic text, and does not rely on the LXX as the correct text when there are differences between LXX and the Masoretic text. This might be surprising, since much of the Masoretic text is known only from about 900 years ago, and yet we know much of the LXX from about 1,700+ years ago. But even the DSS, known from closer to 2,000+ years ago is not often used in the NWT when it corrects the Masoretic text.

[To simplify, I greatly rounded some time estimates, edited out a lot of details about Alexander and the spread of the Greek language, which portions of the OT were in Aramaic, etc., to cut this down to a more readable size.]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It not surprised me that people came to such conclusion about some JW practice and doctrines..

And it would be easy to fix, and make us better Christians, imo. A son of a Governing Body member who was assigned to handle "Public Relations" for a time, once confided (to someone else) that almost all of our public relations problems would just go away if we changed our stance on shunning and blood.

Well we already changed our stance on the stictness over blood, accepting just about every available medical blood therapy up to and almost including whole blood transfusions, which are becoming rarer in Western countries anyway, due to the expenses related to some blood therapies.

And we have no Biblical reason to maintain our stand on shunning as strictly as we tend to promote it. 

The only major new item that has come up since this brother mentioned these two items is the child sexual abuse scandal. And we're doing almost everything we can do on that one.

True Christians will always be spoken against, but it is best not to give anyone a good reason.

• (1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good, if it is God’s will to allow it, than because you are doing evil.

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No, it is possibly not history repeating itself. Mark Twain said that does not happen. History does not repeat, he said, but it does rhyme a little.

I think the most important thing to remember from your Serena Williams [Ohanian] write-up is that there is no real evidence that Mark Twain ever said this. ?

Mark Twain might have said that history doesn't repeat itself, but there is no evidence that he ever added the part about the rhyme:

This is about the closest thing he is known to have published, or co-authored:

History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.  --1874 edition of “The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day”

Another contemporary humorist, from the time of Mark Twain said:

• “History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.” -- Max Beerbohm, 1896

The closest claim anyone has to originating the 'saying' is probably from this:

• history repeats her tale unconsciously, and goes off into a mystic rhyme; ages are prototypes of other ages, and the winding course of time brings us round to the same spot again. -- “The Christian Remembrancer”  October 1845

All this info and more can be found here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/

To both @Srecko Sostar and @Space Merchant

Thanks for the clarification, both of you, and I didn't mean to get you to rehash this same conversation. I remember this particular one, although I didn't take so much of an interest in it because it seemed that Srecko Sostar had made some gullibility mistakes and Space Merchant had correctly pointed that out. I thought that might be the thread you were speaking about. But when you, Space Merchant, had worded what you said about a certain one of his December 2017 claims being forever immortalized, I thought I had missed a followup thread or some of the posts from that thread that had perhaps been deleted, as you said. I was interested because you made it sound as if it were much more sinister of a problem than I had recalled. I remember the excellent research you put into that rebuttal for both Witness and Srecko. But I understand where you are coming from, and I understand that Srecko has learned something from you. I had never looked into some of the information you provided there, Space Merchant, and I appreciated it, too. I personally had looked at "Six Screens of the Watchtower" a couple times, a couple years ago, and thought it was one of the worst of the anti-JW sites for its lack of accuracy. What a waste of time.

Just an aside, but when a person sees he has made a mistake, no longer believes fully in a specific point he has made, and he or she removes the mistaken, confusing post for that reason, I think this can be the right course of action.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Last year i meet my mother on street, first time after my living JW. I said, "Hello mom" . Mom turn her face and she passed by me.

Also my brothers, siblings did the same.

Yes. I am aware that this happens. But remember that we are discussing a special case where, let's say, you now have children that your mother would like to visit. In this case, as much as she might want to be able to shun you completely, she now needs to make contact with you to get the necessary permission.

Some parents are probably angry at the fact that a child who is now DFd has ruined their reputation as a good, exemplary parent who raises God-fearing children. Mothers lose as much "reputation" as fathers  (or even more) in this situation, and anger is a way to eclipse the natural affection we should have been born with. I have heard of parents and siblings and others in the congregation who will literally spit on the ground in the direction of the DFd person. The Watchtower magazine in the past has implied that there might even be a desire by the parents to kill such children. A Watchtower article that came out when my parents were first considering having children made it sound as if parents would need a reminder not to kill their apostate child:

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***

• In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
• We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
• Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

The article makes it sound as if we should be disappointed that we don't live in a "theocratic" nation like Saudi Arabia, or under a Taliban-like rule where we could still kill our children. The closest consolation the same article could offer was the following:

• The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors . . . . Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.

I'm reminded of this more recent article where the idea of shunning is conspicuous by its absence:

*** w01 10/15 p. 14 par. 10 Who Will Separate Us From God’s Love? ***

• Some Christian parents have been accused of hating their children because of not allowing them to accept medical procedures that violate God’s law or not letting them engage in pagan celebrations. . . . Some opposers have spread slanderous lies in the media, even falsely accusing Jehovah’s Witnesses of being a dangerous cult.

   

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is cruel, mean, extreme, despicable,  hateful, and hypocritical .... and does not lend itself to sane thinking.

I often chalk up your statements as hyperbole-laden rants. But this I must agree with whole-heartedly. One can make an argument that our process is actually Biblical, but then Jesus said it was OK to throw out some of those legalistic principles in favor of love and mercy.

@TrueTomHarley, That was 1974. And you'll notice that one of the reasons was the reproach it would bring on the organization when a worldly person would be the only one to see that the woman would be treated kindly and humanely. Because the person would be parked close to the Kingdom Hall, the worldly person would instantly make the association that these people do not have love among themselves, a mark of true disciples. What if the worldly person had influence in the community?

But there were cycles oscillating back and forth between strictly shunning family members and relaxing the rules a bit in favor of mercy, then going right back to tightening up the rules again when considered too loose.

The time of the "Inquisition" as it was called at Bethel in late 1979 and early 1980 up through the resignation and later DFing of R.Franz, was a time of very strict 'straining of gnats.' Congregations on their own would probably tend toward the 1974 article, but Percy's DFing came from Bethel elders.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Somewhere there is an example of if a DF person was stranded with a flat tire that comes to mind.

*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***

• But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We all know that there are instances in which persons feign 'repentance' so as to become reinstated. The ruse succeeds. They are reinstated, and seemingly their banishment is over.

I haven't seen this so much. And, of course, it also implies that the elders are easily fooled by claims of repentance. You go on to say that the ruse doesn't really work and they get shunned again although reinstated. I have seen a few situations which, if representative of anything, would imply quite the opposite of what you seem to claim here.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is not draconian shunning, but it was not draconian shunning in the first place. Necessary family business was never forsaken.

Draconian shunning is usually reserved for 'apostasy' and is rationalized as especially excusable, even demanded, when it has the organizational backing of the "DF" label. Often, necessary family business really is completely forsaken, including weddings, funerals, medical care, and family businesses brought to failure due to abandonment by the Witness partner who did not wish to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. But I also know of cases where the Witness considers all debts to the DF'd to now be cancelled, and more recently a request for "permission" to suspend the shunning just long enough to fight an estate will that might bring advantage to the Witness.

But here is where anecdotal experiences I have heard, more clearly diverge from your example:

There are cases, you have probably seen them, where two siblings or a married couple have have shown themselves to be apostates, by claiming that the JWs are a cult, that the FDS/GB is a made-up construct, that we don't follow the Bible, etc., etc. But for some reason, only one of the two was disfellowshipped. There is absolutely no known difference between the beliefs of two siblings, or the two married persons. The Witness relatives will use the DF label as the reason to shun one of them, as expected. But the lack of the DF label is the excuse to continue associating with the other, as if nothing had happened.

Many, perhaps even most Witnesses are reasonable and don't shun in a draconian way, and some don't even shun at all, and things seem to go on normally. But it is true that if they are caught not shunning, they could end up being counseled by the elders themselves, which in rare cases could lead to disfellowshipping if their reasons for continuation of not shunning do not align with the reasons expected. The person could say to the elders that there are special circumstances, such as mental illness or physical handicap, and they must continue to associate so that a stable mental or emotional state of the exJW is maintained. All elders I know would give a "dispensation," and say, that's fine, just don't advertise it, or make a big deal about the exception. But if the person being counseled for the very same reasons in the very same circumstances will say that they believe the FDS/GB must be wrong on this point because the Bible demands mercy in such cases, this will lead to a discussion of why they don't fully accept the FDS, the organization, Jehovah's arrangement, and depending on the elders, could easily lead to the Witness holding their ground according to their conscience, and being disfellowshipped themselves.

I don't say these things lightly. I was personally involved in a case where I risked making that exception and my wife and I took care of a 90-some year old long-time Witness named Percy Harding. I'll give his name because it's been discussed elsewhere. He attended the same Kingdom Hall as my brother attended in Brooklyn, while I lived in the adjacent borough of Queens. The old brother, a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford's time in the WTS, had grown a bit cantankerous in his old age and thought the FDS was overstepping its bounds in some of the claims that tended to draw an equivalence between the rules of the organization and "the Lord." But he loved the brothers and didn't want to be disfellowshipped. My brother's best friend, and best man at his wedding, was married to a nurse. They were both Witnesses, of course, and when Percy was disfellowshipped, the nurse was threatened with disfellowshipping herself if she continued to care for the old man. (He was nearly bedridden, and Witnesses were dropping off his groceries for him, and two Witness sisters, one of whom was a nurse, were visiting him about 4 times a week.) The husband balked at this threat, and he was threatened with disfellowshipping, too. My brother had the idea that my wife could take over as one of the sisters because she worked in Brooklyn at 144 Livingston, not far from Percy's house on President St, just off 4th Ave, a few blocks away. Also, I often drove through Brooklyn for my job in NYC (Manhattan). I also had a few friends at Bethel who would give me a pass, a dispensation, if I explained my reasons in a careful way.

We ended up taking care of him for a couple of years, and enjoying our visits with him. Unfairly, my wife would cook and clean, and I would help him manage some of his physical therapy and toilet, and listen to stories about Russell and Rutherford. These were usually positive, upbuilding stories, but he pulled no punches when he disagreed with something. (He said that the WTS went through a time under Rutherford when equating the WTS with 'the Lord' was even more blatant and explicit.)

He finally died with NO OTHER WITNESSES daring to visit him. But I did see several exJWs who had learned of his case and who helped ease the burden by helping to take care of him.

4 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Are we talking about the JW shunning that I am familiar with? If so, a JW parent will completely cut an exJW child off. Nothing more than well-being checkups. You know the gravity of that--it's not a minor thing.

I thought we were talking about the same thing. And I'm not saying that what some in the congregation do isn't "evil" in some sense. The policy itself can be implemented in a terrible way, especially in cases where the peer pressure coming from convention talks, CO visit counsel, and WTS videos makes it nearly impossible for the Witness to do the scripturally right thing in their own circumstance. (And I'm not saying that all shunning is necessarily bad, either. I'm pretty sure I would shun a close relative perpetrating child sexual abuse, for example.)

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Christians shouldn't return evil for evil, but they also shouldn't reward bad behavior. There has to be a balance. And shunning of children goes beyond what can be tolerated--it is an immoral practice.

For the most part I agree. But part of that balance is recognizing that Jehovah makes it rain upon both the righteous and the unrighteous. The principle might be that an exJW allows himself to be wronged, and still does a good thing for the grandparent of their own children. After all, we must be talking about a case where the parent of the exJW must still ask permission to see their grandchildren. The grandparent may be wrong in shunning their own child, but they are not wrong to want to see their grandchildren. The exJW would naturally want to make sure there are ground rules since the exJW is still the spiritual head of their own household, and responsible to see to the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of their own children. They would likely request that the grandparent not attempt to take over that role in any way, and that they never say anything that is in the least bit judgmental about the grandchildren's own parents. And although it might not seem fair, the exJW will still have every right to help their child make a correct judgment call about this particular unchristian aspect of the behavior of the child's grandparents who unlovingly shun their own child. (Although I'd think they would not wish to burden the child with such issues until their child is ready to understand that this is strange and unloving behavior on the part of the grandparent.)

The exJW, if they want to live a Christian life, will still wish to honor their mother and father, and just because they are shunned by the choice of their Witness parents, it does not mean that the exJW is under any such rules to shun their own parents. They should continue to do good for their unloving parents and show that they have no intention of following unchristian rules. The Witness parents will probably make a harsh ultimatum for their son/daughter, and the son/daughter should make it clear that this will reflect badly on the way their grandchildren will see them, and that it will just as likely reflect badly on Jehovah's name in the eyes of everyone who learns about it. The exJW should probably make it clear that he or she has no reason to hide this embarrassing situation and the unscriptural reasons for it, from their own children, or anyone else who might wonder about the strange situation. But I think that purposefully withholding a grandchild from a grandparent is done out of anger, not out of Christian motivation, or even a motivation to avoid rewarding bad conduct.

Of course, until someone is in this situation, no one can judge how correct, incorrect, or impractical this advice really is.

Still, although the grandparent may not have a "right" to see the grandchildren, I can think of some good, practical reasons to allow the visitation. It becomes a teaching moment. The kids will go to school wondering why other children have grandparents, or even two sets of grandparents, while they might wonder what a grandparent really is. The grandparent, by asking, is showing natural affection and can probably therefore be trusted to want to make a good impression on the grandchild so that there is very little danger that the child will not get some benefit from the experience. It will also likely create situations where the grandparent will be caught unable to shun their own child, which is another good thing.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I have been drop-kicking them through a hedge ....

Happened to me once. Ended up with a torn hibiscus.

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

Does that make me naive?

Not, of course, if you came to that conclusion after multiple interactions among several different types of personalities under several different types of circumstances.

We are naive if we jump to such conclusions prior to seeing good evidence about someone, or at least the personalit(ies) they represent. On social media, people are apt to represent only specific sides of their personality, or specific (or special) aspects of their life and lifestyle. It's very difficult to get a well-rounded view of a person on such a limited basis, no matter how much they write.

That said, I agree that we can all get a good sense of the personality of all the people you mentioned, among many others (yourself included). But I was rather surprised to see that picture of you with the King of Siam when I looked you up on the Internet. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course, they are not. But if you open with that assumption, and never entirely discard it for anyone you do not know personally, you are golden.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much one of three opening assumptions that I keep in mind too, even outside the Internet, even when I know someone personally, too. That's why I'm also doubtful of claims from anyone that someone's claims had to be swept under the rug, as it were.

2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

and to this day his December 2017 claim will forever be immortalized on this forum prior to him sweeping his claims under the rug or him trying to use a Registry and Census as proof of owning a business, the irony here it is nothing to do with information from sources that is murky, the information he posed was of his own design.

So, @Space Merchant, what was that about? Can you point me to the post you are talking about?

@Space Merchant, I think you are a bit confused about the Septuagint is.

9 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

The Septuagint, The Oldest and Most Reliable Source of which the Bible originates from and it is known by ALL persons who know of and study it, me included.

Almost every point in that portion I requoted from you is debatable.

12 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

GOD/THEOS (θεός) was added into the text in the 16^th century when the original manuscripts (The Septuagint) does not say TEHOS (θεός) at all, therefore, 1 Timothy 3:16

The Septuagint has nothing to do with the original manuscript of 1 Timothy 3:16. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original, older Hebrew manuscripts of the "Old Testament." Timothy is in the "New Testament."

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

In this sense, it can be applied to a large warehouse or work environment, example, Toyota or Honda manufacturing areas where workers assemble together for the same type of work function.

Yes, it could be applied that way, but it almost never is. It's called a Toyota assembly plant because that's where they assemble Toyotas, not because workers assemble together. They should only assemble there when they are not assembling.

Jehovah's Witnesses -- Some Assembly Required!

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

watch as a Boeing 767 takes a GB member to a European Assembly in Business Class seating at about $11,000 a ticket.

My goodness! I think they get a special deal, so that if each of them forgo the Business and First Class tickets for just 5 times in one year, that they save enough to each get a Rolex. Also, if they purchase Business and First Class tickets for just 10 times in one year, they earn enough mileage points to each get a Rolex. Decisions! Decisions!

However, a little more seriously: a workman is worthy of his wages. You don't muzzle the bull when it's threshing out the grain.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Good answer! Typically JW Insider

In case that sounded too flippant, I wanted to add that I have full confidence in the insight and guidance that the slave displayed when Losch put that scripture (Proverbs 14:15) in the center of his speech.

18 hours ago, Anna said:

So what was your opinion on Br. Losh's opening talk on trust in the March 2018 broadcast?

My opinion? I believe that Proverbs 14:15 is an excellent scripture. ?

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What is the source of this quote?

I didn't see where @Space Merchant answered yet. I think all of that came from Wikipedia under Restorationism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

13 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

Notice @JW Insider or @James Thomas Rook Jr. hasn't called me out on any of these?

What is this? There's a hierarchy here, too, that I didn't know about? I thought this was a joke. Parts of it were funny.

18 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Even in a box of Animal Crackers with Lions and Giraffes, the Giraffes often get their necks broken.

MY policy is " ... eat 'em all ... let God sort 'em out".

Now that Barnum and Bailey has folded its tents, you may get less and less of these. I found this on https://www.drsoda.com/baancrb.html

Barnum's Animal Crackers (Bag)***DISCONTINUED***

So, who knows, a little self-control and an unshaken box with pristine, unbroken giraffe necks might someday yield $50 on eBay. I thought I'd sell my basement full of Hostess Twinkies on eBay when they were to be discontinued in May 2013. But since a new company bought them out of bankruptcy and resurrected them in July 2013, I guess I'll just have to use them for insulation, or maybe to stuff into pillows or something.

39 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

approximately 10,000 Brothers and Sisters were murdered by the Nazis.

We stopped using that number in the 1970s. The jw.org site has a better approximation now:

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-holocaust-facts-concentration-camps/

• About 1,500 of Jehovah’s Witnesses died during the time of the Holocaust, out of some 35,000 Witnesses living in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries. The cause of death is not known in all cases. Since research is ongoing, figures and other details may be updated in time.
• Executions: Close to 400 Witnesses were executed in Germany and in Nazi-occupied countries. Most victims were tried in court, sentenced to death, and beheaded. Others were shot or hanged without a formal court hearing.
• Severe detention conditions: More than 1,000 Witnesses died in Nazi concentration camps and prisons. They were worked to death or died as a result of torture, starvation, exposure to cold, illness, or poor medical care. As a result of the brutal treatment, others died shortly after their liberation at the end of World War II.
• Other causes: Some Witnesses were killed in gas chambers, subjected to deadly medical experiments, or given lethal injections.

The last group under "other causes" could have been as many as 100 Witnesses. Further study on this shows that many of those deaths we might still be counting as "Jehovah's Witnesses" were actually "Bible Students" who were either still one of the other factions of "Russellites" or who had returned to "Bible Students" associations after certain issues they had with J.Rutherford especially after 1927 and after 1933.

1 minute ago, Jack Ryan said:

Apostate Jehovah's WItnesses Take Down The Vatican While Aiming At Watchtower / JW.org

I'm drawing a few inferences, and I don't know if more and better details might be discussed over at another forum where some of those persons are known to post. But if any persons here know which forum I am talking about, I'd be interested if anyone is crediting anyone over there with some of this. I've looked at that forum a few years ago, and for me personally, it was a big vortex of time-wasting craziness. It still comes up in Google searches, and it seems just as crazy. But I know that some people here might know.