JW Insider

58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For whatever it's worth, his family, before becoming Witnesses, included some who claimed psychic status and did water witching. 

Haven't heard that expression in years. In Missouri, in 1966 just before I was baptized we actually had a whole Witness family in our congregation who were publicly reproved or "put on probation" or something like that for water witching. They had been doing this for years and somehow had come to think of it as a "service" they were providing for their fellow country neighbors who wanted to dig a well. Of course, in this part of Missouri, you could pretty much dig 50 feet down in any solid low area and find the aquifer.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Proverbs 16:28

At least half of the 20 GB members I have listened to over a course of several years seemed to be among the most humble of brothers. I can't say that for about 7 of them, but even where some might have seemed pompous at times, they were still usually likable and personable (F Franz, Sydlik, Swingle). Another 4 of them kept to themselves and didn't say much even during their weekly turns at morning worship from 1976 to 1982. But I have no trouble speaking out clearly and honestly about another 3 GB members who were more often pompous and insufferable to their fellow Bethelites and who even caused harm to the reputation of the Society and Jehovah's name.

• (1 Thessalonians 2:4) 4 but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts.
• (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . .
• (Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,. . .

• (Jeremiah 8:8, 9) 8 “‘How can YOU men say: “We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us”? Surely, now, the false stylus of the secretaries has worked in sheer falsehood. 9 The wise ones have become ashamed. They have become terrified and will be caught. . . .

• (Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

On a forum where some of us want to discuss Bible questions, it is all the more important to be open and honest about the times when "guardians of doctrine" have sometimes been guardians of traditions that made the word of God invalid. This is part of progressing to spiritual maturity. If the GB are given undue reverence some people will think that they cannot be questioned and then the discussion of Bible questions is rendered invalid.

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Strange at the qualities associated with leading - as in David, a downright hothead at times (Nabal, for example)

• (1 Samuel 25:22-25) 22 May God do the same and more to the enemies of David if I allow a single male of his to survive until the morning.” 23 When Abʹi·gail caught sight of David, she hurried down off the donkey and threw herself facedown before David, bowing to the ground. 24 She then fell at his feet and said: “My lord, let the blame be on me; let your servant girl speak to you, and listen to the words of your servant girl. 25 Please, do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless Naʹbal, for he is just like his name. Naʹbal is his name, and senselessness is with him.. . .

Abigail spoke disrespectfully of her husband and she became David's wife. Others who spoke disrespectfully of their "lord" in front of David did not fare so well. David was nothing if not inconsistent.

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients

Are there some?

Not from the heart tissue itself. Transplant patients sometimes have psychological issues however. There are still many transplant candidates who won't go through with it, often out of guilt for having messed up an organ based on their own bad health decisions and realize that by getting the organ from a recently-healthy donor they are taking away from a more deserving person farther down the list of transplant candidates. Those prone to depression or suicide might find themselves more often pondering life-and-death issues which could be a trigger for further depression and risk of suicide.

When heart transplants were first attempted, and people thought it Frankenstein-like, made-up stories started to appear about people who got transplants from criminals and then became criminals. Brother Schroeder (GB) started giving talks on this subject, where he made the heart the LITERAL, PHYSICAL seat of motivation, rather than just a representative one. Finally he got his long Watchtower article on the heart published that also made use of this idea. But this and similar articles were still getting responses with data that seemed to debunk it. (The letters I saw didn't come from Witnesses but from professionals who had been told this by Witness patients.) When I first started working for Schroeder as a researcher he wanted me to stay on the lookout for such things, not just about the heart, but about all anecdotes for any type of transplant.

This was our position in 1975:

*** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News ***

• It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance. 
• A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.

The second paragraph is, of course, unrelated to the study quoted. Schroeder had linked himself rather closely with the literal side of this, and didn't like the "compromise" claiming that the problem "may be largely or wholly mental." You'd have to know more about the personalities of both Fred Franz and Bert Schroeder to understand a later incident, (below) but it would help to know that Fred Franz was considered "The Oracle" in Governing Body circles and Brother Schroeder was sure he deserved to be the next "Oracle" after Franz died. So Schroeder would even go out and give unapproved talks that made such claims as if he were the new messenger of new truths.

Anyway, the "incident" was a Gilead talk that Fred Franz gave, in which you would never suspect that the entire 45 minute Bible-based talk was a tongue-in-cheek "attack" on Brother Schroeder. Most of Fred Franz' talks made it into the Watchtower, often as study articles. This one only got a small mention:

*** w77 6/1 p. 352 Examinations Yet Ahead for a Graduating Class ***

• Before the distribution of diplomas, F. W. Franz also addressed the class. He reminded them of the school examinations that they had had earlier, but then arrested their attention by asking: “Have you had the more vital and serious examination of your kidneys?” He showed from Job 19:27 that in the Bible “kidneys” often represent the innermost recesses of one’s being. So, when Jeremiah 17:10 says that Jehovah ‘examines the kidneys,’ Franz explained, this is not a medical examination, but is done in a judicial capacity. In their postgraduate life, the speaker pointed out, the missionaries will face such an examination of their kidneys. How? In that new situations in life will confront them. When put to the test, what will they really prove to be, deep inside? The psalmist David, though a sinner, did not fear such an inspection by God. (Ps. 26:1-3) Nor should we. Concluding, Franz advised: “Be genuine Christians, not hypocritical, not counterfeit. Be sound Christians down to the core of your personality. If you are, you will pass the examination of your kidneys with everlasting credits to yourself and a clean bill of spiritual health.”

The full talk was about the liver, the fat, the kidneys, and took several swipes at the idea that these Biblical representations were to be taken literally in a medical sense. Brother Schroeder was livid afterwards, and was even more anxious to find evidence to prove Brother Franz to be wrong. If I told him that the information he sought was in a library in Japan, I'm sure he would have sent me there. (Before I forget, Schroeder once asked me research his theory that people who were forced to change from left-handed to right-handed at a young age would become diabetic or get hypoglycemia [low blood sugar] problems. I have no idea what the Biblical connection could have been.)

I should note that by 1980 the Watch Tower Society no longer disfellowshipped people for getting kidney transplants, and decided to expand this to all types of transplants -- even the heart!

*** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

• Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
• Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. . . . Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. . . .  It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

This was pretty much the end of the line for Schroeder's line of reasoning on this topic. But this March 15, 1980 reasoning had been approved from the nephew of Fred Franz, also on the Governing Body, and there were rumors that this person, especially after his work on the Aid Book, was already being thought of as the next potential "Oracle." This would be Ray Franz, of course, whose research was often reasonable, but which could also be a mixed bag. He was far from perfect, and also far too low-profile and unassuming to be an organizational leader.)

It wasn't just about this issue, of course, but immediately after this article was written, Schroeder's personal campaign against R Franz ramped up, and Schroeder led every step of the campaign that resulted in R. Franz resigning from the Governing Body in May.

@TrueTomHarley,

They have just opened a new wing of the Museum to cover the most important features of the Anglo-American empire...  Visit it just after the Pharaoh Necco exhibit.

15 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, I didn't want to mention this though so it wouldn't bias anyone, and left it up to them to do the research if they wanted. It was sent to me as an "independent, secular documentary".

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix.

Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.

15 hours ago, Anna said:

The director Fritz Poppenberg doesn't seem to be a JW, but obviously a JW apologist,

Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.)  I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side.

The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it.

----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites-----------------

A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2

Where the Money Came From

On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the
program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking:
Walter Zaremba
Gunther Reibling
New York Community Trust
A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page:
Independent Television Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Reibling Foundation
Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a
connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following:
Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings
Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at
University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children.

It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba.
A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case:
BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..

----------------

• Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company]

------------------

Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times:

• NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all

Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.

@Witness Thanks for responding. Too much to respond to right now, but I never had the impression that many who claim to be of the anointed have concerns about doctrinal differences anyway. There are often quirky persons among them, but in my experience, they seem to be quite loyal to the GB, and among the GB themselves, they seem quite loyal to the existing doctrines.

Wasn't GB member Martin Poetzinger a person who had gone through Nazi persecution? He never spoke much when I was at Bethel, even though he was on the Governing Body, so I never heard him tell his own experiences, but I understand he spent a total of 8 or 9 years in concentration camps.

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT:

• (Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’”

Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision:

• (Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’”

Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here:

• (Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT)

• (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you?  (NWT)

   

Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.

18 hours ago, Anna said:

It is to be noted that both Rolf Furuli and Gerard Gertroux are both Jehovah's Witnesses.

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too. If they are trying to hide this fact they have not done a good job. Obviously, the language and expressions in the video also indicates that it is from Witnesses.

There are some huge logical gaffes in the video.

Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW) and it is the "Moabite stone "Mesha stele" (from the 9th C BCE) that is the oldest known use of the tetragrammaton example we have in writing. (The Moabite stone, the first tetragrammaton, is nearly 500 years younger than the older trigrammaton.)The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.

On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.). This is argued from its supposed rarity as a standalone name. But Furuli says it's found 20 times in hallelujah, and 19 times as a standalone name, which totals 49 times (20+19=49). His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices. Of course, the name "Yah" is also embedded in many proper names of individuals in the same way that this video had already shown that others like Nebuchadnezzar, Ramses, etc, included the name of their god(s) in their names. This gets discussed starting at minute 21 of the video.

Then they show Furuli and Gertoux disagreeing about the importance of the final H, where Gertoux says it means the pronunciation was like the a in "ah" but Furuli correctly points out that it was only "very often" and could also stand for either "A" or an "AE." He indicates through his pronunciation that "AE" means either a short "eh" sound or the vowel sometimes represented by the term "schwa").  Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't. See also http://creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/6-ah-eh.pdf for a different point on the vowel to be included with the ending "H".

On the point that the vowels for ADONAI (Lord) were attached to the Tetragrammaton the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH. (YaHoWaH vs. YeHoWaH). But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known. This is the place in the video where Gertoux tries to apply the age-old conspiracy theory that scholars know something but don't want to upset their fellow colleagues. This happens under centralized power structures all the time, but this of course is in direct contradiction to the parallel claim that scholars are always in competition for something new and will sacrifice their own mother for gaining a bit of attention in the academic world. In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.

6 of the 60 Masoretic manuscripts are known to have the full vowels corresponding to Yehowah. (Note minute 46 of this interview with Nehemia Gordon, the same person interviewed in the Reibling video in your original post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q  )

"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy. (18:52)

What they have left out here which is very important is that the vowels roughly corresponding to Adonai were NOT the only vowels that the Masoretic texts applied to YHWH.

In the portion of the video about embedding the divine name as part of an individual's name assumptions are made about the vowel pronunciation that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. (Gordon sells books based on the premise that Hebrew was a resurrected language, not spoken for 2000 years, which allows him some extra freedom for "discovery.") There are also known differences in initial vowels that were long and become short based on the pronunciation of the second vowel in a word. Contractions based on syllable emphasis are common and are even seen in the various verb forms. An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.

• (Ezra 10:15) 15 However, Jonʹa·than the son of Asʹa·hel and Jah·zeiʹah the son of Tikʹvah objected to this, and the Levites Me·shulʹlam and Shabʹbe·thai supported them.

This only covers some problems from the first half of the video, which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study. I'm sure we shouldn't discount the possibility that "Jehovah" (from "Yehowah") is one of the possible alternatives. If however, the entire point of the Masoretic text was to produce vowel-pointed pronunciations that helped readers avoid the true pronunciation, then they did a terrible job by supposedly giving away the true vowels in some places but not others. I believe I wrote a note to the Librarian here once that had some evidence about this in the Masoretic texts. I'll see if it's still here and post it.

@Anna It was really quite amazing. I always wanted to go back when I was retired and do this, but the opportunity never came up. For my work, I had visited Paris 8+ times (and worked there for up to two weeks at a time) even though my office was in NYC, but had only seen the Louvre once with a group of Bethelites 40 years ago, and one other short visit after work, made even shorter due to long lines that day. Finally, just two years ago, I was able to get a 3-day pass and spend more time over two leisurely visits. I shared a couple of pictures on the jw-archive forum from that Louvre visit. I took about 3,000 pictures. Didn't take as many at the British Museum, but still got nearly 1,000. I was finally able to go in through the Staff entrance once, escorted, but the vast majority of staff are there to help manage the huge gift shop (and restock things like Milk Duds in the vending machines).

I didn't get (or expect) answers to most of my questions, but could have gotten closer to an answer on a couple of topics. Naturally, a lot of new topics came up, too.

• Since you can easily create your own tour with respect to the major empires of Bible history (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) I was interested in whether any of the beast imagery in Daniel had more correlation with motifs and iconography of those nations. (Lions, bears, eagles, goats, leopards, etc.)
• Another topic that came up with one of the research assistants was the Flood evidence (which we like to say is known in every ancient culture), and the related issue with respect to the JEPD theory of the redaction of Genesis and "OT" texts.
• A research coordinator was very well-versed in the topic of early Christian history, and wanted to spend considerable time on the parallels between Christianity and contemporary popular religions of the first century. He showed me that this was an important topic for even the earliest "Church Fathers" to explain (which I had somehow missed in any cursory readings of Tertullian, etc.).
• A topic that came up here recently about just how early Trinity had reared its ugly head (heads?) also came up in the discussion of iconography of early Christianity, and I was given a lot of information on some very recent presentations on this topic.

If any of these topics seem worthwhile on this forum, I will be happy to include them in discussions that come up, or topics that I start myself. I have a lot of information to sort through, and believe that a lot of my own assumptions were likely wrong. So I also need to get better grounding on most of these topics myself. 

7 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

In my case, I’m grateful to see Noah’s symbolic ark door closing. Unfortunately, I won’t be around to see God’s Judgment Day. I just hope I am able to show Jah! That even in sleep, I made every possible attempt to “obey” and “submit” myself by faith to God’s ultimate decision for humanity. And this was done willingly as Christ instructed our hearts to be.

I'm sorry to hear about your particular situation, whether you are referring to health or a related issue. It's good to hear that you are confident in the outworking of Jehovah's purpose. 

5 hours ago, Witness said:

Where are the “firstfruits”/anointed ones and many others now found, but in the organization?  How did they get there and why are they there? Gal 3:29,26 They were introduced to a taste of truth, which lead to their “captivity” to lies.  Rev 12:17; Matt 2:18; Rev 13:7; 11:7; 6:9-11; Rev 13:10 Jesus well knew of this “delusion” that would come upon God’s people. 2 Thess 2:1-12

This common foundation in many of your posts confuses me. I've heard something like it before from a person who became an apostate. He thought that JWs were wrong on just about everything except moral standards, war/neutrality, Trinity and Hell. He was disfellowshipped for apostasy and holds the confusing idea that he needs to get back in so he can warn people to "get out of her, my people."

I'm curious as to why you think that all the anointed alive at this time were attracted to join this particular organization if this organization is so full of delusion, false prophecy, false directives, abusive and lying leadership, etc. Is it your opinion that Jehovah somehow makes it happen that all anointed go through a kind of tribulation through this particular organization?

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

pool of alligators

a load of croc

10 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

He said that the Watchtower legal department told them they would have to leave straight away if the outcome was negative.

My guess is that they all had return tickets, but not for leaving immediately after a negative outcome. I think they couldn't know in advance how long the case would take.

In the international company I worked for up until I retired about 5 years ago it would be against the fiduciary responsibilities toward the shareholders to have 18 lawyers and officers of the company on the same airplane. Seriously!! 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That's what happens when you get a blind Jewish Mohel.

It won't be long now. . .

. . . before I understand your joke.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Karl Marx was a Satanist! and many of his contemporaries atheists -  after which 40, million of its own Russian people were starved to death and murdered like fodder. This is the ideology where common  people are dispensable fodder.

Dark, anti-religious poetry does not make one a Satanist. I think it was best explained in a couple of short reviews for a book currently for sale on Am-a-zon called, "Was Karl Marx a Satanist?"

• Marx was an atheist Jew. He neither believed in the Christian conception of Satan, nor the Anton LeVay concept of Satan. The author offers no evidence, confusing mere hostility toward religion with Satanism, and offers some syntax-related conspiracy theories.
• "This sad book deosn't have any literary qualities whatsoever. This is pure Anti-semetic drivel full of ultra christian rhetoric from the extreme right. Marx was a philosopher and an idealist, this book doesnt examine him in anyway whatseoever it just descends into religious rants."

By the way, you have got to be the most interesting person to read on this forum and I always enjoy your politically-oriented comments. You do not come at the world's issues with the typical Eurocentric myopia that drives so many others (and which usually drives Adventist-style prophetic explanations, for that matter). Naturally, I disagree with a lot of what you say, too, but this doesn't much change the overall value of hearing your opinion on things.

2 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

Yes, I firmly believe that the Bible identifies Russia as the king of the north and I am equally convinced that it is the small horn that becomes great and that it drops three kings (what are the kings?) And I would have so many other things to say . If you want, you can go to see the article explaining the scriptural reasons because the king of the north is Russia (and he is the last king to remain on earth before the armageddon battle) you can read this article

I found the article, and read several of the other ones, too. (At least in a Google Translation from Italian to English.) I thought that most of your articles were very clear, and I appreciate that you are asking good questions about the many gaps and inconsistencies in our current explanations. Since Daniel is a book that many of us have just recently been reading in our Bible reading schedules, I think a separate topic would be great and timely. It would have to be under "Controversial Posts" because, of course, even the potential existence of gaps and inconsistencies is something that many of us must deny.

I have not yet come up with a good explanation that resolves all the gaps, although, the vast majority of them are automatically resolved by just accepting certain verses at face value, instead of imposing unlikely interpretations of them. Still, prophecy in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation are some of the most intriguing and I have not considered any of my digging to be conclusive. I can tell you have put a lot of thought and time into understanding them through scriptural references. I must tell you right from the start that my approach is similar, in always using other scriptures to find explanations, or just admit that we won't know if no specific scriptural support can be found. Still, even though you apparently think in the same terms, I can tell that we will still disagree on most of our current opinions. Of course, different opinions are just fine with me . . . so I still think a further discussion is worth the while.  

14 minutes ago, Arauna said:

because it is a red flag if you do not cooperate! or call them rulers!

I agree that it is a red flag if we do not cooperate. (Although you weren't clear on who you meant by "them.")

But the second part of what you said there might be ambiguous. Did you mean it is a red flag if you do call them rulers, or a red flag if you do not call them rulers? I assume you meant the organizing shepherds who care for us in the new system. But "them" in the quote above appears to speak of "red flags" in the present. This is why I'm confused as to whether you might be saying it's a red flag now to not call them rulers.

1 hour ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

prophecy clearly states that the "king of the north" would abolish the continuous sacrifice (or preaching work) and that it would have succeeded - Daniel 8:12
it is obvious that if you are unable to reconsider certain interpretations, you will not be able to understand what is happening.
The last dominant empire is the king of the north and is NOT the king of the south - Daniel 11: 40-45
If he is the king of the north, it is clear that he can not be the Anglo-American Empire.
The northern king is Russia and is also the last horn, the one that kills three kings and is defeated by the principle of the army - Daniel 8: 9-11
This horn is not the Anglo-American empire and the "three kings" are not France, Spain and Holland.
If you think this is "apostasy", you can not argue, you will not be ready for what's to come.
The Bible also says that another war (the last human war) is about to break out, which is what the Northern king and the king of the south are about to discover. He will be the king of the north to win.

Your take on this is interesting. I agree that there is a gap in the Watchtower's reasoning here. This was just barely touched upon at the convention this summer. I watched your video but didn't go to your site. Can you say what you think is a more likely view of the King of the North and South in your opinion?

8 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now, how much relevance is it for you to support a false claim about the Watchtower 1989.?

I never have supported a false claim about the Watchtower's statements in 1989. And I don't plan on starting to support any such false claims now.

23 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

If it hadn’t worked, all the reprints, for example, 2017 CD-ROM would have been 1917 CD-ROM and typing 20^th century would have come out as 00^th century.

This is strange. Everything else you said in the paragraph that this quote came from is very true. But this particular sentence quoted here is false. It would also be completely irrelevant to a printed document or an electronic version of a printed document. The Y2K problem (which the Society cared nothing about in 1989) would not have made a 2017 CD-ROM a 1917 CD-ROM any more than it would have made it a pre-Gutenberg 1317 CD-ROM. Your claim is meaningless. The CD-ROM programs from the Watchtower that came out in 1993 can still be made to work today. I think 1993 was the first one. 

There never was an impending disaster coming from Y2K. And there will not be one arising from the 2038 Unix Millennium Bug either. (An upgrade to the operating system can make over 99% of the 2038 bug go away immediately without changing software.) The original Y2K bug could cause problems in a whole range of areas, and most of us in IT had to waste several years of our careers becoming our own QA departments, certifying that all our programs were going to work without a glitch. My own department's programs were mostly in C during those years (and a little bit of dBase+Clipper, Turbo Pascal, Excel Macros) but relied on mainframe feeds mostly through SQL+DB2. But I was also surprised that so many of the COBOL programs we checked had already worked around the Y2K problem even without storing 4-character years. That even goes for solving financial range problems that crossed January 1, 2000 and/or February 29, 2000.

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Luckily Fortunately for everyone here, I will elucidate.

Hah! I noticed this little blast from the past (and present for many of us, too). Hard to believe that so many of us fell for this little mix-up between which word was the better one to use and which was not so good. Turns out that "LUCK" was more than likely just a term for success or loss that came into English from middle German where a lot of gaming and gambling terms came from in the 1500s. So we all replaced it with a word based on FORTUNE, which had been personified as a false Roman goddess during Bible times. Even when it came into English the earliest known instance is in the phrase "Dame Fortune."

Even in the Bible, the word translated "fortune" was associated with bad things:

• (Leviticus 20:27) 27 “‘Any man or woman who acts as a spirit medium or is a fortune-teller should be put to death without fail. . . .

of course, it was based on the translation of

• (Isaiah 65:11) 11 “But YOU men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck. . .

But the foot-note for that verse says

*** Rbi8 Isaiah 65:11 ***

• “For the god of Good Luck.” Heb., lag·gadhʹ; LXX, “the demon”; Lat., For·tuʹnae. Compare Ge 30:11 ftns.

Of course if you follow the footnotes for Genesis 30:11 you see that the same word for "Luck" here is translated "Fortune" in Genesis:

• (Genesis 30:10, 11) . . .. 11 Then Leʹah said: “With good fortune!” So she called his name Gad.

The name of the tribe was "Luck" just as "laggadh' basically means "to Luck" if the footnote for Isaiah 65:11 is correct. Or Isaiah was referring to the god of Fortune, if the footnote to Genesis 30:11 is correct.

It was about as silly as saying that we shouldn't say something was "destined" to occur, because this somehow invokes the god of Destiny.

• (Luke 9:44) . . .for the Son of man is destined to be delivered into the hands of men.”

• (Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are destined to come to a conclusion?”

  (Isaiah 65:11) . . .And those filling up cups of mixed wine for the god of Destiny.

7 minutes ago, Know Better said:

Elitists arranging chaos

Nice phrase. This sums up nearly the entire story of the world since nearly the beginning of the world.

55 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is not a conspiracy theory. Just look what happened to me:

Can't tell if you are trying to solve the Society's "generation" crisis, or trying to sell books, or just don't want to throw out your obsolete neckties.