JW Insider

Curious. I've often wondered why Bible Speaks and Queen Esther and, to a much lesser extent, "you and yours" engage in self-up-voting. (TTH did this at least once, too.) But I agree that they are of zero value. There is a whole generation of people today who seem to live and die (sometimes literally) over the concept of digital approval. Facebook had to get rid of the down-vote because it caused the break-up of so many real and "social" friends. But the up-vote is still useful as a way to react to a good or funny comment, or express appreciation for the good and useful research that has gone into comments. You have received at least a dozen from me for the latter reason; probably a couple of them are in this very topic. I don't believe I have ever given a down-vote. So credit where credit is due. I don't see any reason to remove it. I hope not. I didn't think you were doing it on purpose. I just thought you sometimes saw a book with an impressive sounding title and assumed that the book supported something the GB was saying before you read the actual book. I have access to JSTOR and a lot of the full books you have referenced through a university alumni account. So, you probably don't know how much time I've nearly "wasted" trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Curious, again. You have usually been more careful to always deny that COJ had a scholar's view. I wonder if you would consider Gerard Gertoux to be a scholar. A few minutes ago, I just emailed him, asking for his permission to quote and discuss his view on the chronology of the destruction of Jerusalem. He appears to agree with COJ that the date must be either 587 or 586, not 607 BCE. The purpose of the email was also to double-check if it is still his current view.

I've never accused you of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because you often quote scholarly authorities who contradict the Governing Body in almost every way possible. That includes the "Kyrios Christos" book you just introduced above as an "example" which says basically that the New Testament was influenced by false religion. And I've never accused the Governing Body of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because they use and quote outside scholars, too, but usually in a much more judicious manner than several of your recent examples. You include in your answer that Jesus was explicitly referring to the Pharisees and applying the verse as if he were saying that the Pharisees themselves were gods. I think this goes beyond any claim in the Watch Tower publications, which seem carefully worded to avoid this same implication. Note: *** si p. 196 par. 19 Bible Book Number 43—John *** In answer to their charge of blasphemy, he reminds them that in the book of Psalms, certain mighty ones of earth are referred to as “gods,” whereas he has referred to himself as God’s Son. (Ps. 82:6) He urges them at least to believe his works.—John 10:34. Other than your wildly inaccurate personal accusations, however, I found several parts of your answer to be useful, which is why I have given you another "up-vote." Thanks.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402011525 We can enter into Jehovah’s rest if we obey him and work with his organization. 17 But we are acting against Jehovah’s purpose if we do not obey the faithful and discreet slave or if we choose to obey only what we think is important. It has become harder to search on text from the Simplified Watchtower in WOL.jw.org.

@Anna, BTW, I only commented up until near the first half of this. There are things in the second half I found to be just as bad. But I didn't want to spoil anyone else's chance to comment first.

Don't know how long Gerard Gertoux has been a Witness, but two years ago I was asked to look over a paper (thesis-length) he had written on chronology. I went to get it about a year later and all the links had this item removed, but no others. Fortunately there was still a roundabout way to get a copy. I think this is his most complete work on chronology and it's excellent and comprehensive but it "demolishes" any chance that he could have believed 607 was the date for destruction of Jerusalem, at least at the time he wrote the paper. It was actually a very good paper, and I don't really know why it was removed from so many places. (I can guess, of course, but I could be wrong.) The next time the subject comes up, I'll be happy to quote at length from his paper, although I would respect his wish not to quote directly from it, if this is his wish. Does anyone here have a current contact for him? If so, please PM me. Does he frequent any forums that anyone here knows about?

Tomorrow? I certainly hope not. Even our most current explanations have begun to admit a less dogmatic perspective: "The angel gives no clues as to when this period begins or ends." (Daniel's Prophecy book, quoted above.) This is a far cry from 1977's comments on the same time period: *** go chap. 8 p. 133 par. 27 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** The fact that the once secret and sealed “words” are now unsealed and brought out of secrecy adds to the abundance of proof that, since the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, we have been in the exciting “time of the end.” We see how the “appointed time, appointed times and a half” of Daniel 12:7 have fitted into this “time of the end.” I fully expect an update in 2021, when we'll have 2020 hindsight.

Thanks. I usually go with a policy of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So it is useful to test whether there is anything broken in the current explanation before trying to see if a "fix is possible." That sounds a bit too inflexible, and prophet-like for my taste. There have been many new explanations on such things. We hardly go a year or two these days without some former understanding changing. And I'm sure you don't know just how close the Watch Tower came to making some changes on this back in 1977, starting just after the "World Government" book came out. Yes. A judgment starts with his people. If you mean punishment in the sense of discipline, I will accept the probability. An outright negative judgment for all (punishment) is not what we expect from a merciful and loving God, especially in light of Jesus' words. But maybe you mean something a little different when you say "his own people."

I think it's about the same as it has been for decades. In the US, sports in school were once provided in a gym / PE class, which has become rarer, so that the only way to participate in some schools is to join a team where competition with other schools comes into play, along with the likelihood that practice and games will interfere with meetings. We have less meetings, shorter assemblies, and a bit more flexibility in our schedules on the one hand. On the other hand, kids have less opportunities to participate in sports without a larger time commitment. Balance is a difficult thing.

Same as always. As I said: I thought you were saying you had addressed this with scholars, so I was interested. I was interested in whether you had run across some useful information that either debunks the connections that several scholars have made, or perhaps put them in a more understandable light. You quoted from some sources that, as far as I can see, just take us further down into the same connections I was hoping to avoid, so I have my doubts that any of these sources can help. But I try keep an open mind. Which is why I was interested in your take on this.

I just read the article. Interesting -- and today would be the anniversary of that eclipse, if true. Also noted that it works fairly close to the Bible chronology of several modern scholars, but does not fit the chronology of most religions who pay attention to that sort of thing. (Witnesses, for example.)

Just another note. An older publication of ours (One World Government - God's Kingdom) from 1977, attempted to put exact days (Month, Day, Year) on each of these time periods, but the inconsistent lengths never made sense to anyone because none of them matched, often being more than a month off, and beginning and ending at times when there was no event to pin it to. Here's an example: Beginning date: *** go chap. 8 p. 131 par. 23 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** This they accomplished by the end of the foretold three and a half years on June 21, 1918. Thus this period began on December 28, 1914, in the first northern winter of World War I. End date: *** go chap. 8 p. 140 par. 43 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** September 14, or, Elul 21, 1922, Bible calendar time, when would the 1,335 days end? As the 1,290 days amounted to three lunar years and seven months, so the 1,335 days would amount to three lunar years, eight months and fifteen days. Counting now from Elul 21 (or, September 14), 1922, we find that three lunar years from that date would end on Elul 20 (or, September 9), 1925. To this we add eight lunar months and fifteen days and arrive at the date Sivan 6 (or, May 19), 1926. Seemingly referring to this same book which was under discussion at a dinner table at Bethel in the summer of 1977, Brother Sydlik said we ought to just scrap our entire chronology and start from scratch. There was an embarrassing amount of discussion about how the math didn't work out on any of these time periods. But more importantly, overall the entire period of these 1260, 1290 and 1335 days from about December 28, 1914 to May 19, 1926 is a total of 4,160 days. If we were to add 1260+1290+1335 they total 3,885 days. So there are obvious gaps between the time periods, too.

I think you are right that the basic idea here is more likely a set of time periods from the same starting point. If I were to tell someone that they are going to have to wait 1260 days for something, but that they might really have to get to 1290 before seeing it, and that they will be truly happy if they wait for 1,335 days, then I don't think it's likely that anyone would guess that I meant 3,885 days in total. And yet this is something like the Watchtower's view. I also think that if such a specific number of days were intended for us today that they would match to a specific number of days in a calendar. I agree, too, that the 1,260 of Revelation 11 & 12 is key. (And of Daniel 7:25; 12:7) The Watchtower also generally agrees on this point, even though they move the 1,290 as a completely new time period away from the 1,260. The explanation given in the Watch Tower publications, as you say, are "greatly rounded." None of them can even reach back as far as October 1914, the most important date/event in modern history according to the new "God's Kingdom Rules" book. The best they can do is start it near the end of December 1914, just a few days from January 1915. In fact, since they end it around June 21, 1918 it must start around December 21, 1914. To even catch this little piece of the tail-end of the all-important year 1914, they must end this period with the sentencing, rather than the actual imprisonment. In the scheme of things, the sentencing was just another part of a process that had begun in the "scheming" that began back in March 1918 when the FBI was building a case based on the Finished Mystery book. *** dp chap. 9 p. 142 par. 28 Who Will Rule the World? *** God’s witnesses would preach dressed in sackcloth for 42 months, or 1,260 days, and then be killed. When did this time period begin and end? . . . Hence, beginning in December 1914, that small band of witnesses preached “in sackcloth.” . . . Harassment of God’s anointed ones climaxed on June 21, 1918, when the president, J. F. Rutherford, and prominent members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society were sentenced on false charges to long prison terms. Intending “to change times and law,” the “small” horn had effectively killed the organized preaching work. (Revelation 11:7) So the foretold period of “a time, and times and half a time” ended in June 1918. The start of the next period 1,290 days does not even attach to the first period without a several month gap. And again, even to get it as close as possible they used the "proposal" of the League of Nations rather than the actual start of the League of the Nations: *** dp chap. 17 p. 300 pars. 22-23 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End *** The League was officially proposed in January 1919. At that time, then, both conditions of Daniel 12:11 were met. So the 1,290 days began in early 1919 and ran until the autumn (Northern Hemisphere) of 1922. During that time, did the holy ones make progress toward becoming whitened and cleansed in God’s eyes? They certainly did! In March 1919 the president of the Watch Tower Society and his close associates were released from prison. They were later exonerated of the false charges against them. Aware that their work was far from over, they got busy immediately, organizing a convention for September 1919. In the same year, a companion magazine to The Watch Tower was first published. Originally called The Golden Age (now Awake!), it has always supported The Watchtower in fearlessly exposing the corruption of this world and in helping God’s people to remain clean. By the end of the foretold 1,290 days, the holy ones were well on the way to a cleansed and restored standing. In September 1922, right about the time when this period ended, they held a landmark convention at Cedar Point, Ohio, U.S.A. Notice again that the periods do not work out. 1290 days is about 17 months, so that a starting date in January would have to end in August, and the convention wasn't until September 1919, which is why it ends at a time when they were only "preparing" for this assembly. And the next period of 1,335 days is even looser in terms of anchoring to any specific occasions. Note: *** dp chap. 17 pp. 303-304 pars. 24-26 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End *** “Happy is the one who is keeping in expectation and who arrives at the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days!” (Daniel 12:12) The angel gives no clues as to when this period begins or ends. History suggests that it simply follows on the heels of the preceding period. In that case it would run from the autumn of 1922 to the late spring of 1926 (Northern Hemisphere). Did the holy ones come to a state of happiness by the end of that period? Yes, in important spiritual ways. 25 Even after the convention in 1922 (shown on page 302), some of God’s holy ones were still looking longingly to the past. The basic study material for their meetings was still the Bible and the volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, by C. T. Russell. At that time, there was a widely held view that pointed to 1925 as the year for the resurrection to begin and for Paradise to be restored to the earth. Thus, many were serving with a fixed date in mind. Some proudly refused to share in the work of preaching to the public. This was not a happy state of affairs. . . . The issue of March 1, 1925, carried the historic article “Birth of the Nation,” giving God’s people a full understanding of what had happened in the 1914-19 period. After 1925 passed, the holy ones no longer served God with an immediate, explicit deadline in view. . . . At the convention in May 1926, the book Deliverance was released. (See page 302.) This was one of a series of new books designed to replace Studies in the Scriptures. No longer were the holy ones looking to the past. They were looking confidently to the future and the work ahead. As prophesied, the 1,335 days therefore ended with the holy ones in a happy state. If Daniel had spoken of the 1,335 days as culimating in the most unhappy time period ever for God's people, then this could have made more sense. It would have been very easy to show why this was the most UNHAPPY time period in our organization's history. 1925 had been hyped since 1918 as one of the most important prophecies that the "prophet" -- the Watchtower -- had ever proclaimed, and it turned out to be a miserable failure: a false prophecy. People were now leaving in larger numbers, even those who had hung on past the 1917 organizational debacle. In 1926 Rutherford began to systematically throw away all the old foundations for the time prophecies of Russell. More people were upset. Although Rutherford claims that he had been fighting against Russellite creature worship all along, this was actually the time when Rutherford himself stopped making great claims for Russell and began pushing against Russell's teachings almost "en masse." Rutherford was beginning to fight with colporteurs and pioneers because they no longer wanted to sell Russell's books if they were pushing doctrines that were now considered "from Satan" (pyramids, etc). But Rutherford still had large stockpiles of these books and insisted that the Lord wanted them sold to the public. The "Bulletin" (Later Informant, later Our Kingdom Ministry) claimed that anyone who balked at this particular edict by Rutherford was going against the Lord himself. More people left the organization over this, and from 1926 to 1932 the campaigns to sell Russell's books continued. We could go on and on comparing this particular period of sadness and gloom with the periods before and since, but there is definitely enough to make us wonder why these particular time periods were chosen for the 1260, 1290, and 1,335 days. I think there are enough weaknesses in it, that the Society will revisit it -- especially if they realize that more and more Witnesses are looking at the prophecy more closely. If I get a chance, I'll explain more of the problems I have with the primary solution that is being promoted from the original post in this topic. I think there is a much simpler solution -- it's one we already have used in the publications on a closely related set of time periods related to the half-week (3.5-year period) in the final 70th week in the week-of-years prophecy. I don't doubt there are other possibilities that might seem more exciting, but some of those ones here imply that we can currently predict the times and seasons, and this particular period is one in which Jesus said the end events would come like a thief in the night. I admit that this is more boring than tying current events to Daniel and Revelation, but there are some excellent reasons to look at it this way (I think) starting with the "two witnesses" and the "olive trees" in Revelation 11. Paul explains the two olive trees very well in Romans 11, and we had already used this tie-in to a 3.5 year period in the discussion of the "keys of the kingdom." Note: *** w79 10/1 p. 23 pars. 1-2 “The Keys of the Kingdom” and the “Great Crowd” *** IN THE year 36 C.E. a marked event in Christian history took place in Caesarea on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Whether Philip the evangelizer had settled there by that year we do not know for certain. If he had done so, then why was he not used in connection with a certain army officer of the Italian band of soldiers then stationed there? Philip had preceded the apostle Peter in Christian activity in Samaria, so why not now in Caesarea in 36 C.E.? The inspired Scriptures give us the answer. The Law covenant that Moses had mediated between Jehovah God and Israel at Mount Sinai in Arabia was abolished on the basis of the impalement of Jesus Christ, the descendant of Abraham and King David. That was three years and a half from the water baptism and spirit-anointing of Jesus back in 29 C.E. Nevertheless, Jehovah continued to give preferential treatment to the natural Jews and Samaritans also during this period for three years and a half more, to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27a. This “week” or period of seven years terminated in the seventh lunar month (Tishri) of 36 C.E. From then on the Israelite descendants of Abraham would be put on the same spiritual level as the people of the non-Jewish nations, the uncircumcised Gentiles. After that no more preferential treatment to the Jews by the God of Abraham! How was this demonstrated in 36 C.E.? From here, we already have a Biblically consistent tie-in between the two witnesses (the witness to the Jews, and the witness to the Gentiles) and the two olive trees (natural Jewish olive tree and the grafted Gentile olive tree) the 42 months or 1260 days. If we look at a few other events with respect to the week of Pentecost of 33, Christ's ascension, etc., we can attempt to work out the differences between a simple 1260 and 1290 and 1335, but I don't even think this is necessarily the answer here.

The Watchtower never mentions the Canaanite or Ugaritic texts with respect to ELOHIM, or the Divine Council of EL, although it does refer to these texts with respect to EL (the Bull; or "Father Bull"). Our references never mention that YAHWEH was considered to be one of the sons of EL, just as BAAL was another son of EL. A couple of intriguing points are made in the Insight book, however: *** it-1 pp. 976-977 Gods and Goddesses *** Canaanite Deities. Extrabiblical sources indicate that the god El was considered to be the creator and sovereign. Although El seems to have been somewhat remote from earthly affairs, he is repeatedly shown as being approached by the other deities with requests. . . . In the Ras Shamra texts El is referred to as “father bull” and is represented as having gray hair and a gray beard. His consort was Asherah, who is referred to as the progenitress of the gods, whereas El is placed in the role of progenitor of the gods. . . . Most prominent of the Canaanite gods, however, was the fertility god Baal, a deity of the sky and of rain and storm. (Jg 2:12, 13) In the Ras Shamra texts, Baal is often called the son of Dagon, though El is also spoken of as his father. Baal’s sister Anath is shown referring to El as her father and he, in turn, calls her his daughter. Hence, Baal probably was regarded as the son of El, though he may also have been viewed as El’s grandson. In the mythological accounts Baal is depicted as assaulting and triumphing over Yamm, the god who presided over the water and who seems to have been El’s favorite or beloved son. But Baal is slain in his conflict with Mot, who was viewed as a son of El and the god of death and aridity. Thus, Canaan, like Babylon, had its god who died a violent death and thereafter was restored to life.—See BAAL No. 4. . . . Hence, at times Asherah and then again Ashtoreth may have been regarded as wives of Baal.—Jg 2:13; 3:7; 10:6; 1Sa 7:4; 12:10; 1Ki 18:19 We spoke of the Mesha stele as being the oldest extant mention of YHWH from about 890 B.C.E. Some of the next oldest extant mentions of the divine name YHWH are from Kuntillet Ajrud about which Wikipedia says the following: (Arabic: كونتيلة عجرود‎‎) is a late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE site in the northeast part of the Sinai peninsula.[1] It is frequently described as a shrine, though this is not certain.[2] The inscriptions are mostly in early Hebrew with some in Phoenician script.[4] Many are religious in nature, invoking Yahweh, El and Baal, and two include the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" and "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah."[5] There is general agreement that Yahweh is being invoked in connection with Samaria (capital of the kingdom of Israel) and Teman (in Edom); this suggests that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, and raises a question over the relationship between Yahweh and Kaus, the national god of Edom.[6] The "Asherah" is most likely a cultic object, although the relationship of this object (a stylised tree perhaps) to Yahweh and to the goddess Asherah, consort of El, is unclear.[7] An image on the piece of pottery (belonging to a pithos vase) found at Kuntillet Ajrud is adjacent to a Hebrew inscription "Berakhti etkhem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and [his] Asherah"). The connection to the false gods of Canaan and surrounding areas are to be expected, based on the Bible's continuous warnings to the Hebrews about the influence of false gods. The shared language of the region probably facilitated such syncretism, too. For example, the Insight book mentions Yamm, the god of the Sea. The Hebrew word for sea was also Yam. The Insight book mentions Mot as the god of death. The Hebrew word for Death is also Mot. The Mesopotamiam Sun-god was Shamash, the Hebrew word for sun was Shemesh. But there is also a sense that gods could rise to the Most High of the "Council of Gods" (ELOHIM) and effectively replace EL. EL himself supposedly killed his father to reach this position, per the Insight book. Insight implies what some scholars have said: DAGON for a time might have been seen as the new EL making BAAL the son of DAGON rather than just the son of EL. This may also be an indication that as any god was seen to be the most powerful and ascendant, he became the "ONLY GOD" and that GOD becomes the MOST HIGH, therefore the ruler of the COUNCIL. Even in the Bible, the term MOST HIGH, does not just imply "The Most High over all the earth" but over all the other [non-existent, imagined] gods of other nations. (Psalm 77:13) ". . .What god is as great as you, O God?" Poetically, at least, the Hebrews could still imagine a heavenly scene reminiscent of the common view of a "Divine Council of Gods." (Psalm 82:1-8) God [ELOHIM] takes his place in the divine assembly [literally, "Council of EL"]; In the middle of the gods [ELOHIM] he judges: 2 “How long will you continue to judge with injustice And show partiality to the wicked? (Selah) 3 Defend the lowly and the fatherless. Render justice to the helpless and destitute. 4 Rescue the lowly and the poor; Save them out of the hand of the wicked.” 5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They are walking about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are being shaken. 6 “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. 7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’” 8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth, For all the nations belong to you. It's possible, of course, to make these "gods" simply powerful men who are judges, but then you have the problem of verse 7 which says that these "men" are going to die just as "men" do. And, of course, Jesus invokes verse 6 as a way of showing that he has every right to call himself the "Son of God" because the Father sanctified him and sent into the world from heaven. The Christian view is, of course, clarified here: (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . ., we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. So, our position on all of this is very clear, and I'm sure we are in agreement about it. I was only asking if you had found points that are useful in countering the claims of too much similarity. I think Mormons have embraced some of these similarities, but they are obviously foreign to core Hebrew and Christian concepts. The points you copied above that are found on the site: http://www.garshin.ru/linguistics/historical/author-comparisons/jehovah_eng.htm are very interesting. I see that this source is in agreement with some of the points we have brought up before, but the source also takes some liberties that might not be warranted. The book you have pictured deals with a very similar theme of syncretism in early Christianity. In both cases these questions are likely dealt with improperly by most authors. The book you reference apparently treats the subject in a way that I find awkward based on a publisher's description (below). I know nothing about this book, except from excerpts I have just looked at today, but wonder what relevant information you might have learned from it. There is nothing relevant or useful on the pages you chose to copy. (I'm assuming you might have read more of it.) In Kyrios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset argues that the Hellenistic Church's declaration of "Jesus as Lord" is a transformation of the pre-Christian Judaic community's understanding of Jesus as the Son of Man. This unique distinction between the primitive Palestinian community and Hellenistic Christianity reveals how the earliest Christian beliefs were informed by existing religious influences.

I don't see any problem with the Watchtower's rendition of known facts. The Watchtower has never addressed the arguments that some scholars bring up with respect to Elohim as it has been related to a Divine Council. I thought you were saying you had addressed this with scholars, so I was interested. What you responded to above is not the same issue. I suspect we agree on all most issues related to God's name -- assuming you agree with the Watchtower's general view on the topic. Probably the only area where we might differ is how we defend the inconsistent method of the NWT using Jehovah for kyrios in the Greek when it is not a quote or direct allusion to the Hebrew Scriptures.

I am well aware of the claim, and that it accounted for a portion of the Watchtower's chronology differences. But are you are saying that this is related to why they were so wrong about 1914? So you are saying that the reason no one discerned the parousia or Jesus' kingship in 1914 is because it would only be witnessed by a few? So why was it discerned by NO ONE in 1914, if it was supposed to be noticed by a few. Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would END, not begin, in that marked year. But then, less than a decade before 1914, they changed this to a time of trouble would begin in that year based on the idea that all human institutions would fail that year, so that it would only be a few months before complete chaos ruled instead of any kings or national groups. So evidently they could not have imagined just how inaccurate that prediction turned out to be.

For how long a time has this info about Anochi been "new"? Otherwise, I agree with using either Yahweh or Jehovah, with preference for whatever people understand best in the context of communication. For us , this means "Jehovah" is best, in English, at least. Don't think I'll ever be using "Anochi" for either Jehovah or as some would say, for Jesus (in John 4:26 or 8:28 etc). Do you have a good answer for those who argue that EL was the name of the Most High Canaanite God, represented usually by a bull? The argument usually goes that they also had a "COUNCIL of GODS" called "The ELs" (GODs), or in their language and Hebrew: "ELOHIM" (plural). The COUNCIL of the Most High, EL, included GODs whose names were JEHOVAH, DAGON and BAAL, for example, depending on the nations/tribes governed by the Most High, EL. Temples to the Most High in the area of Canaan, Palestine, Israel, Judea, etc., would include images and sculptures of bulls. This is supposed to explain why the most valuable sacrifice to Jehovah was the bull. (2 Chronicles 4:1-5) 4 Then he made the copper altar, 20 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 10 cubits high. 2 He made the Sea of cast metal.. . . It stood on 12 , 3 bulls facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south, and 3 facing east; and the Sea rested on them, and all their hindquarters were toward the center. 5 And its thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. The reservoir could hold 3,000 bath measures. (Numbers 23:22) 22 God is bringing them out of Egypt. He is like the horns of a wild bull for them. (Deuteronomy 33:17) 17 His splendor is like that of a firstborn bull, And his horns are the horns of a wild bull. With them he will push peoples All together to the ends of the earth. They are the tens of thousands of Eʹphra·im, And they are the thousands of Ma·nasʹseh.” *** it-1 pp. 374-375 Bull *** Bulls were offered in sacrifice by the Israelites (Ex 29; Le 22:27; Nu 7; 1Ch 29:21), and at certain times the Law specifically directed that bulls were to be sacrificed. If the high priest committed a sin that brought guiltiness upon the people, he was required to offer a bull, the largest and most valuable sacrificial victim, this undoubtedly in keeping with his responsible position as leader of Israel in true worship. A bull also had to be offered when the entire assembly of Israel made a mistake. (Le 4:3, 13, 14) On Atonement Day a bull was to be offered in behalf of the priestly house of Aaron. (Le 16) In the seventh month of their sacred calendar the Israelites were required to offer more than 70 bulls as burnt offerings.—Nu 29. Of course, the primary argument that the Hebrew ELOHIM came from such a source is that the term in the plural came to refer to Jehovah who was ONE God. The ideas of EL and ELOHIM and MOST HIGH and the COUNCIL are supposedly seen in various scriptures such as the Psalm here: (Psalm 89:5-14) 5 The heavens praise your marvels, O Jehovah, Yes, your faithfulness in the congregation of the holy ones. 6 For who in the skies can compare to Jehovah? Who among the sons of God is like Jehovah? 7 God is held in awe in the council of holy ones; He is grand and awe-inspiring to all who are around him. 8 O Jehovah God of armies, Who is mighty like you, O Jah? Your faithfulness surrounds you. 9 You rule over the raging of the sea; (2 Chron 4:2, above) When its waves surge, you calm them. . . . 12 The north and the south—you created them; Taʹbor and Herʹmon joyously praise your name. 13 Your arm is mighty; Your hand is strong; Your right hand is exalted. 14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;. . . . (2 Chron 4:4, above: the four directions of the bulls) By translating both EL and ELOHIM as God, it's possible to lose sight of the actual argument being made, so here's another take on another Psalm commented upon in Wikipedia, marked in "blue" below: In the Hebrew Bible, there are multiple descriptions of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts. Some interpret these assemblies as examples of Divine Council: The Book of Psalms (Psalm 82:1) states "God (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim) stands in the divine assembly (בַּעֲדַת-אֵל ); He judges among the gods (אֱלֹהִ֔ים elohim)" (אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט). The meaning of the two occurrences of "elohim" has been debated by scholars, with some suggesting both words refer to Yahweh, while others propose that the God of Israel rules over a divine assembly of other Gods or angels.[9] Some translations of the passage render "God (elohim) stands in the congregation of the mighty to judge the heart as God (elohim)"[10] (the Hebrew is "beqerev elohim", "in the midst of gods", and the word "qerev" if it were in the plural would mean "internal organs"[11]). Later in this Psalm, the word "gods" is used (in the KJV): Psalm 82:6 - "I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High." Instead of "gods", another version has "godlike beings",[12] but here again, the word is elohim/elohiym (Strong's H430).[13] This passage is quoted in the New Testament in John 10:34.[14] In the Books of Kings (1 Kings 22:19) the prophet Micaiah has a vision of Yahweh seated among "the whole host of heaven" standing on his right and on his left. He asks who will go entice Ahab and a spirit volunteers. This has been interpreted as an example of a divine council. The first two chapters of the Book of Job describe the "Sons of God" assembling in the presence of Yahweh. Like "multitudes of heaven", the term "Sons of God" defies certain interpretation. This assembly has been interpreted by some as another example of divine council. Others translate "Sons of God" as "angels", and thus argue this is not a divine council because angels are God's creation and not deities. ---end of Wikipedia quote--- But the curious issue of how to translate Deuteronomy also comes up here. For years, most translators found the Masoretic text preferable to the Septuagint because the Septuagint implied that people still remembered the Canaanite idea of a council of gods. (Not just Canaanite, but also Egyptian, Mesopotamian/Babylonian, etc.) The NWT has: (Deuteronomy 32:7-9) 7 Remember the days of old; Consider the years of past generations. Ask your father, and he can tell you; Your elders, and they will inform you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When he divided the sons of Adam from one another, He fixed the boundary of the peoples With regard for the number of the sons of Israel. 9 For Jehovah’s people are his portion; Jacob is his inheritance. But, after the Dead Sea Scrolls supported the Septuagint, the RSV, for example changed its translation from the Masoretic to say: (Deuteronomy 32:7-9) Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. Also: New Living Translation When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court. English Standard Version When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. International Standard Version When the Most High gave nations as their inheritance, when he separated the human race, he set boundaries for the people according to the number of the children of God. NET Bible When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly. Commentaries had said that the LXX was probably corrupted because, as the Pulpit Commentary said: From the very beginning, when God first allotted to the nations a place and a heritage, he had respect in his arrangements to the sons of Israel, who were his portion, and had as it were kept their interest in view in all that he appointed and ordered. According to the number of the children of Israel. When the Most High portioned out to the nations the heritage of each, he reserved for Israel, as the people of his choice, an inheritance proportioned to its numbers. The LXX. has "according to the number of the angels of God," an arbitrary departure from the original text, in accommodation, probably, to the later Jewish notion of each nation having its guardian angel. The Canaanite idea was that the Most High divided the nations and gave a portion of the sons of men to each God of the Council. Baal got the Canaanites, and therefore Baal presided in the Council of EL as far as the Canaanites were concerned. Jehovah was given the sons of Israel, and therefore Jehovah presided in the Council of EL as far as the Israelites were concerned. To the Babylonians it was Shamash, the Sun, who presided in the Divine Council. This "division" might have been said to have happened in the days of Peleg and was facilitated by the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel, about the time of his generation: (Genesis 10:25-11:9) 25 Two sons were born to Eʹber. The name of the one was Peʹleg, because in his lifetime the earth [earth's population] was divided. The name of his brother was Jokʹtan. 26 . . . all of these were the sons of Jokʹtan. 30 Their place of dwelling extended from Meʹsha as far as Seʹphar, the mountainous region of the East. 31 These were the sons of Shem according to their families and their languages, by their lands and their nations. . . . 11:1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. . . . They now said: “Come! Let us build a city for ourselves and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered over the entire face of the earth.” . . So Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why it was named Baʹbel, because there Jehovah confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah scattered them from there over the entire face of the earth. Some have tied this idea of each nation getting a guardian angel to the "watchers" of the books of non-canonical Enoch and canonical portions of Daniel. This is why Michael is the guardian archangel of Israel, and other nations have their own guardian angels. This relates to a question that @Anna asked recently on this forum. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47150-why-do-we-understand-the-prince-of-persia-in-daniel-1013-to-be-a-wicked-angeldemon/?tab=comments#comment-69704

No the apostles did not honestly believe they were above Christ. Some did believe they should be above other Christians, even above each other, and Jesus counseled them about that. (Mark 10:35+) So why bring up a "false" allegation that somehow Witnesses are giving "undue reverence" to the Governing Body? Easy. Because the Watchtower said they were. If you don't believe the Watchtower's claim, take it up with them. Did you think that the counsel in the 1/16 Study Watchtower was unnecessary? *** w16 January p. 27 “We Want to Go With You” *** At times, well-known representatives of the Christian congregation—perhaps circuit overseers, Bethelites, members of the Branch Committee, members of the Governing Body as well as their helpers—may attend a convention or theocratic event that we also attend. The counsel given referred to the kind of attitudes matched in the picture above from the same article. Similar counsel was repeated again in the 3/17 Study Watchtower. *** w17 March p. 9 par. 6 Give Honor to Whom It Is Due *** Most imperfect humans are strongly influenced by the spirit of Satan’s world. That is why people tend to idolize certain men or women rather than just show them appropriate honor and respect. They place religious and political leaders, sports figures, entertainment stars, and other celebrities on pedestals, often considering them to be almost superhuman. . . . However, Jehovah’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it. Due to the problem of people worshiping Charles Taze Russell as if they were in a cult, up until at least 1931, Rutherford did all he could to separate from that type of mentality and move that kind of adulation to the theocratic organization itself, rather than a human being. You may have already seen the discussion on this topic linked here:Charles Taze Russell: Was he recently "canonized"? The Watchtower itself claims that the Watchtower was in error (at one time or another) with respect to almost every prophecy they have ever attempted to explain. It's only the current version of the explanation of any of these same prophecies that is considered not to be in error, unless of course, they also go back to one of the previous explanations and say it was correct after all, which has also happened. I'm sure you think yourself a good judge of what degree is "fine" and what degree is "NOT fine" in this regard. However, there is no scripture that says that God inspires, entrusts, or commissions the GB to understand scripture for our benefit. I accept that they do understand scripture for our benefit, but there is no such commission by God specifically for the GB to do this. We accept their leadership in this regard because it works for unity and peace and consistency in our teaching, which therefore allows for the efficient distribution of Bible-based publications with a common message we can all support whole-heartedly. Every religious group realizes that some can preside better, some can speak better, some can manage better, and some can teach better. Among true Christians today these are considered "gifts in men" where such ministries combine to help to maintain peace and unity in the worldwide congregation, just as they would in individual congregations. So there is nothing unbiblical and nothing wrong with accepting the services and benefits of a Governing Body. But they are not inspired and there is no Biblical commission for this specific group of brothers to teach and understand the Scriptures for us. I am pretty sure I don't claim to share in the "anointing of the holy spirit" in the same way that you and others here might claim to share. This might not have been addressed to me, but since I chose to respond I thought I should clear up the fact that I certainly don't claim to be one of the 144,000 anointed. I agree that there is more to say on these topics, but I think the info about God's name is more relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll bring those points up in my next post.

I don't see any direct parallels here, but it is curious that the scripture you used referred to "false brethren secretly brought in who had sneaked in." In the context of Galatians 2:4, it appears that it was at least one member of the "Governing Body" who sent these false brethren. (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, . . . (Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars,. . .

But it was "Pastor Russell's" own journal "The Bible Students Monthly" that included the following, in 1915, while Russell was still alive. I'll include the entire portion, although it was not the only contribution of its type found in issues of the Bible Students Monthly. http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm How Pastor Russell Ranks in Greatness Dr. Jackson Analyzes Elements That Constitute True Greatness of the Man A LEADER IN MANY LINES His Temperament Poetic, Literary, Scientific, Analytical and Strong for Business The world seldom recognizes its great men. Few or none saw the magnificent greatness of Lincoln until after his death. To the prominent and learned of the Roman Empire, Saint Paul was only an insignificant Jew; but we can see that in all that constituted real greatness he towered above them all, like a giant among pigmies. So it is today. If you ask "the man on the street," who are the great men of today, he is not likely to name Charles Taze Russell first, but let us see: C. T. Russell commenced business for himself while yet a boy and with very little capital. When he was eighteen he owned a store, when he was twenty-four he owned five stores and was worth three hundred thousand dollars, and this at an age when John D. Rockefeller had hardly made a start, and J. P. Morgan, with his inherited capital, had but little. If C. T. Russell had devoted his life to business it is easy to guess that John D. would not now be the richest man in the world nor J. P. Morgan have been the prince of financiers. However, that is the least remarkable thing about the career of Pastor Russell. With all this phenomenal talent for business he gave it all up and surrendered the most brilliant opening for obtaining wealth and power that has ever been offered to an American in order to take up a humble religious work. Such a thing as a man with surpassing wealth-getting power, voluntarily giving it up was unknown before in all history. He made no mistake, for the Master said, "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant." With an insight into the higher things that enabled him to choose aright, he saw from the Scriptures that the time had come for the greatest work of the ages to be done, and as he was the right man for the place, the Lord chose him to be his servant to lead the visible earthly part of this work, namely, the harvest work of the end of the Gospel Age. In the case of the Apostle Paul the Lord chose a man of great business ability to do his work then, but in this "End of the Age," when business is on a scale a thousand fold greater than in Paul’s day, business talent is all the more necessary, and so the man chosen for His work today is a Napoleon of finance and business. History shows that other men great in business and finance have not been richly endowed in other departments of the mind, but Pastor Russell in addition to his financial talent has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character. He has a frame of mind that may be described as a poetical mind that gets an insight into deep things by intuition, like a great poet or a Hebrew seer; it is as if Isaiah and J. P. Morgan were united in one individual. Poets are not usually of a logical scientific form of mind but Pastor Russell has these talents also, that is, he has the acute discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer, that can test the truth of things and sift the evidence on which they are founded. Thus the fallacies of the creeds of Christendom were brought to light as they had never been before. His literary talent would distinguish him among the writers of his generation if he was tested by this alone. Without any special literary training he writes English in a simple and idiomatic style that sometimes reaches the sublime and that will make many passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many sided greatness is his scientific talent. He has the mind of an investigator and student, a scientific love of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the freedom from bias, the willingness to accept truth wherever found, willingness to be corrected, no difference how humble the instrument, in short a mind like Agassiz and Newton. The field of research to which Newton applied himself was the physical world, the earth and sea and sky wherein God’s plan is revealed in regard to physical things. The field of research which Pastor Russell chose was the moral world, the plan of God in regard to mankind as revealed in the Bible. As Newton discovered the great Law of the Attraction of Gravitation which binds the universe together and brings order out of seeming confusion, so Russell discovered the grand "Plan of the Ages" which binds all history together and brings order into the field of theology where before there was so much confusion and error; founding all his teaching upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, his position has been unassailable. The united talent of Nominal Christendom has striven for thirty-five years to overthrow his teachings but has not been able to meet him on his own ground (the Scriptures), with a single fair argument. Standing, as we do now, in the midst of the battle of Armageddon we can thank God and take courage because the Lord has sent us so great a leader. Courageous as a lion, pure as snow, wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, a knight of God without fear and without reproach, no obstacle can turn him, no danger dismay him, no grief or pain distract him from his grand purpose. His motto is the words spoken for him by the prophets: "For the Lord God will help me; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded."

Yes. I corresponded with Schroeder and Swingle openly multiple times per year. Starting a couple of years before Brother Schroeder died, I started to send about one letter a year. I don't personally know any current members of the Governing Body except Brother Lett, and recently I have sent extra letters to Bro Splane on the generation, and Bro Jackson on child punishment and child abuse. The letters are not negative, and usually fairly short (believe it or not). They always agree with everything possible, then pose a problem and ask a simple question. The letters sent to them are intended to be anonymous, and I therefore do not expect a direct answer, although I kept a P.O.Box for this purpose for a while, and I always give an email address. But sometimes the answer comes in another way. I still speak on the phone with a couple persons (might be down to only one, now) whom I have known for years. I have had long conversations even until very recently with Fred Rusk, Ciro Aulicino, and Harry Peloyan until their health became an issue. All of them have been very well aware of my questions. And I have received many answers over the years.

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book, *** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.” In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so. I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece." It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble. But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes: *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish. Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan): *** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight *** Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same: *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America *** With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"]. *** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany *** For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931: *** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany *** Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell: *** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral: "Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss): "The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says: "Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss. I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all. (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation. But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"? Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong? What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7? So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either. And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions. I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975. ----------------------------- Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook | October 2017 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3 “Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy” Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Your focus was probably on the reason for this practice, which I gave as "because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out." The source you gave didn't include any reason different from the one I gave, but this new answer referring to the idea of an Israeli chemistry teacher gives a different reason which is worth considering. He evidently said it was because as you said: " The word in Hebrew for existence is a form of the name of God, and is not used as it is in English." Then the person who made that comment added the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah which says nothing of the sort. So we could easily consider whether the "zero copula" is due to this particular reason. One point to consider is that after reading the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula we notice that there are many languages that do the same, including Arabic, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Maori, Ganda, Irish, Welsh, ASL, and several Native American languages. Again it's mostly done for the present tense in these languages, too. There are several situations in which we follow this practice in English, too. And we surely don't do it because it's a form of God's name in Hebrew. And these languages with no relationship to Hebrew surely don't do it because of an issue in Hebrew or any similar issue in their own language. It might also be worth considering that even when the name of God was spelled out in Hebrew at a time when there were no prejudices against using the name out loud, the zero copula was already in effect. We see this in at least 350 places in the Hebrew text. One obvious example is the twenty-third Psalm which says "Jehovah [blank] my shepherd I shall not want" יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָֽר So the practice could not very well have started because it is a form of God's name. Even in the context of Exodus 3:12-15 the same practice is found: It's found in the future tense in 3:12 and "famously" found in the present tense in 3:14, of course, but is left out of the surrounding verses: (Exodus 3:13-15) 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is [blank] his name?’ What should I say to them?” . . . 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is [blank] what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is [blank] my name forever, and this is [blank] how I am to be [blank] remembered from generation to generation. Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula." I have no problem with sarcasm in general. It's not usually necessary, but can sometimes help to make a point. It was just that, in this case, you said you were using sarcasm to make a point different from mine, and then immediately quoted someone who apparently agreed with me 100%, so the sarcasm lost its effect.

I believe this, although I don't know if what you think of as "many" is the same as what I think of as "many." One of my concerns was with the idea that so many sisters that my wife knows believe that they suffer more depression than non-JW counterparts due to lack of marital prospects, and some think that their only way of being noticed at all by brothers who are "marriageable" is to pioneer, for example. But this is not possible for all, yet the examples and attitudes presented at meetings/conventions from fellow sisters is nearly always presented by a sister who is also a pioneer. I've known sisters who quit their jobs to pioneer in good part to help solve this issue, which is ironic, because the second most important factor in a sister finding a marriage mate in our circuit anyway, is for the sister to have a job. I wasn't at Bethel at the same time as she was, although I had met her husband a couple times. I have a good friend in the Writing department who STILL has the highest regard for her, even though she is disfellowshipped.

My. You certainly get around. And I was worried a few weeks ago when a hurricane was pounding FL. My sister married and moved to Copenhagen from the US about 15 years ago. Took her several years of Danish lessons before they'd give her a citizenship. We are visiting next week. Last time we visited wanted a Norwegian cruise and missed the chance. Too cold, now, I think.