JW Insider

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

My position with the definition of spritism is that Jehovah has provided an adequate definition of what is encompassed in this practice in His Word.  From comparing both Deuteronomy 18:9-12, and Galatians 5:20, it is quite easy to conclude correctly that engagement in this condemned activity is on the part of the human practicer, as it is both legislated against in a law code for humans, and later described as a "work of the flesh".

My position is that we must be very careful about anything that could fall under the definition of spiritism and not try to limit its meaning to something narrower. Also, I have only seen these claims of getting knowledge from the spirit world used as excuse to fortifying a doctrine that has no purely scriptural basis such as the old 1935 doctrine, or evidence that Russell was personally "That Faithful and Wise Servant" who had been appointed over the household of faith. Remember that the typical purpose of spiritism was to be able to claim otherwise secret knowledge that was not available through proper channels. It was often about being able to claim knowledge of the future. This is why I think that spiritism also includes divination. And if we are not careful to avoid all types of divination, we could be susceptible to the influence without being aware. It is a work of the flesh, because people have a desire to claim special knowledge, have their ego stroked, to claim special privilege, or special gifts. It's often because they want to be able to Lord it over their fellow man. Just like immorality is a temptation for some, spiritism is therefore a "temptation" for others, perhaps because it's like fits of anger, hostility and strife, divisions and sects, in that these are all related to trying to show one is better or more right.

• (Galatians 5:19-21) 19 Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, 20 idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these.. . .

The acceptance of communication with the spirit world for the purpose of gaining secret knowledge, no matter who initiated it, might be spiritism. This does not mean that all forms of communication with the spirit world is included. Prayer is an obvious exception. But you and I do not accept that we should be communicating with angels. The brothers in the Governing Body have made it clear that there is no communication with angels. Communicating with the spirit world is surely a questionable practice. Is it ever recommended that you or I might also be susceptible to such communication from members of the 144,000 who have died? Is it a good thing? Are we led to expect that this is only for special purposes for those deserving or needing special knowledge? What would we think if Brother Albert who sits in the back of your Kingdom Hall claimed to have received such special knowledge through such a communication? Does it only then seem like something might be amiss about such a claim?

46 minutes ago, Cos said:

I would say you can definitely bank on the fact that it was not your late president in communication with the Watchtower Society after his death, but that’s not to say that something else wasn’t.

I can agree with this. But I do not think it was either Russell or Satan or demons. Although I think that demons and the occult can be an improper influence, I do think people who tend to decide that everything is either Satan or Jehovah are more likely to fool themselves into thinking in black and white. When they don't understand something and think it's positive then that must be Jehovah. When they don't understand something and they think that it's negative, then it must be Satan.

Russell didn't have that problem, based on several things he wrote. He was able to see gray areas and understand that the world was full of things and people that could be both positive and negative.

From reading the work of Woodworth and Rutherford, I think they suffered from this kind of polarized thinking which tells me that we can't really trust their view of their own experiences. Rutherford, for example, taught that the Great Pyramid was Jehovah's witness in stone, just as Russell had. Then, when he changed his mind, he gave no indication that Russell was merely making a mistake, but Rutherford decided that the Great Pyramid was now Satan's witness in stone. Rutherford did this many times. He saw Satan in everything he disagreed with. You were either on Rutherford's side (which he called the Lord's side) or Satan's side.

Woodworth also seems to have suffered from the same bifurcated thinking, which is a better explanation for when he said these words, found in the 13th Souvenir Convention Report, p. 274:

• I came directly under the influence of evil spirits, so much so that for three days I was as completely under demonical control as was Mrs. Eddy when she wrote "Science and Health."

But notice what he said in the Finished Mystery:

• Have you enjoyed this work so far? Are you convinced it is of the Lord-- prepared under His guidance? Have you carefully and prayerfully read the comments on Rev. 7:1? Then brace yourself for the truth that it is evidently God's purpose soon to allow the minds of many of His little ones to become an open battle ground, upon which the fallen angels shall be judged, and the manner in which we meet the tests will prove our worthiness of crowns at the same time that it proves these disobedient spirits unworthy of life on any plane. This is something with which some but not many are yet familiar.... without actual experience it is quite impossible to conceive of the intensity of such struggles.... The base of the brain is seized as in a vise. Interpretations of Scripture, ingenious, but misleading beyond description, are projected into the mind as water might be projected through a hose. Visions may be tried, wonderful illuminations of the mind as by a soft but glorious greenish or yellowish haze. Seductive suggestions may be made, based on circumstances of the environment. Offers of inspiration may be made. The privilege of sleep may be taken away for days at a stretch. All this with the object of forcing the unfortunate into at least a temporary insanity.... the mind may be flooded with thoughts that are vile beyond description. THEN REMEMBER THE VOW.

Most of us would have no way to make a connection between the Vow, temporary insanity, colorful illuminations of the mind, and "offers of inspiration." But Woodworth explained the connection earlier during the convention speech noted above (summer of 1913):

I WISH to speak to you of something that I certainly never intended mentioning at this convention. I presume you have all taken the vow, but perhaps some of you have not. . . .

Then began my troubles. . . .  I thought that . . . Brother Russell was wrong . . .

There was a time for five consecutive nights when I never slept a wink; then came a time when the strain was too much; my mind became unbalanced, and I came directly under the influence of evil spirits, so much so that for three days I was as completely under demonical control as was Mrs. Eddy when she wrote "Science and Health."

Previous to this time I had prepared a 36-page book against the Vow, printed in double column, in which all scriptures which seemed to be directly or indirectly against the Vow were arranged. I know now that all these Scriptures were suggested to my mind by the evil spirits. One of the suggestions was... (and this I believe was a truth, for these "lying spirits" do sometimes tell the truth) that in the fifteenth chapter of Numbers where it mentions the "Ribband of blue," it had reference, anti-typically, to the Vow. But then these lying spirits turned the truth into a lie by claiming that the Vow had been suggested to Brother Russell by the evil spirits. See how clever they were!

But when Russell was able to point out a scriptural mistake in his book Woodworth burned it, so that Woodworth thereafter finally believed that Russell was "That Servant" [whom his master appointed over the household of faith] and that the Vow was "inspired of God."

Until this time I had never settled in my own mind that Brother Russell was "That Servant.".... I never settled the matter until I yielded and took the Vow which he advised all the Lord's saints to take.... I firmly believe that this "ribband in blue" is the Vow and inspired of God...

To me all this shows how susceptible Woodworth was to this "all or nothing" "black and white" thinking. He seems to have had no clue that trying to stay up 5 days in a row might also drive one to the brink of insanity. It is rumored that his work on the Finished Mystery was also done with the same lack of sleep.

4 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Isn't what the Bible condemns as spritism the initiation of communication by humans with wicked spirits (demons) who in the main actually pretend to be the spirits of past deceased humans.

We know that this is included, but I would suggest that neither you nor I know all the things that might be included in spiritism. The Bible never says where it is initiated. The Bible also never says that the spirits being communicated with are limited to demons pretending to be spirits of past deceased humans. What we do know is that the primary point of spiritism is not about who initiated the communication but is the communication with spirits itself. I would agree with this statement in the Insight book:

*** it-2 p. 1027 Spiritism ***

• A major feature of spiritism is claimed communication with the dead.

What we believe about the persons who have died is irrelevant. You and I might believe they are still alive as resurrected spirits, and some others might believe that when the human dies, their spirit continues living on in some way.

• (Ecclesiastes 3:21) 21 Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?
• (Ecclesiastes 12:7) 7 Then the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.

None of us claim communication with angels or demons. These are spirit creatures and we should not be communicating with them either directly or as a perceived proxy or representative of a human who has died. But even if we believe that the person we are communicating with is a resurrected spirit of someone who is one of the 144,000, then that person is still a spirit creature, and was in fact created as a recreation of the spirit of that person that returned to God who gave it. This is what makes the resurrected person the same person.

So, yes, we could rationalize that it's OK for someone like Rutherford to claim that it was an angel or spirit of some sort communicating with him about the "great crowd" prior to 1935. The Watchtower implies that he was communicating with the resurrected spirit of a human who had died. You could rationalize that Rutherford didn't initiate this communication, and this somehow makes it OK. But how do we supposed such a thing would have happened? Was Rutherford more susceptible to this kind of communication with the spirit world? If so, how? Wouldn't this make Rutherford a "medium"?

*** it-2 p. 1027 Spiritism ***

• The belief or doctrine that the spirits of the human dead, surviving the death of the physical body, can and do communicate with the living, especially through a person (a medium) particularly susceptible to their influence.

It's also important to notice how a simple mistake opens us up to the charge of spritism and divination. Look what happened when Rutherford published the idea that Russell was managing the Society from beyond the grave:

Notice, however, that this was in 1917. So what was this communication? And why was there "no doubt" that Russell was exercising strong influence and supervising every feature of the harvest work? The Watchtower stopped teaching that there had been a resurrection of Russell in 1916, so all this information stated so clearly and "without doubt" turned out to be a false teaching. In fact, Rutherford admitted this in 1934:

• No one of the temple company would be so foolish as to conclude that some brother (or brethren) at one time amongst them, and who has died and gone to heaven, is now instructing the saints on earth and directing them as to their work. (Jehovah 1934 p. 191)

But this rejection didn't stick. The idea was resurrected in the Revelation book:

• *** re chap. 20 pp. 124-125 par. 17 A Multitudinous Great Crowd ***
  From the time of the apostle John and on into the Lord’s day, anointed Christians were puzzled as to the identity of the great crowd. It is fitting, then, that one of the 24 elders, representing anointed ones already in heaven, should stir John’s thinking by raising a pertinent question. “And in response one of the elders said to me: ‘These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?’ So right away I said to him: ‘My lord, you are the one that knows.’” (Revelation 7:13, 14a) Yes, that elder could locate the answer and give it to John. This suggests that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. For their part, those of the John class on earth got to learn the identity of the great crowd by closely observing what Jehovah was performing in their midst. They were quick to appreciate the dazzling flash of divine light that emblazoned the theocratic firmament in 1935, at Jehovah’s due time.

We are very forgiving of the former Watch Tower belief that Russell, who we now believe to have been dead in the grave and NOT resurrected in 1917 was believed to be directing every aspect of the organization's work in 1917. But would we be as forgiving of other religions who speak of communicating with angels and spirits? I found this quote someone wrote about Rutherford:

• Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the WTS, believed his spiritual enlightenment came from angels because the Holy Spirit had ceased functioning since 1918. The angels channeled information into his mind from God residing on the star Alcyone. (Preservation 1932 pp.51; 201-203; Watchtower 1931 November 1 p. 327; The Watchtower 1934 April 1 p. 105)

Is any of that quoted paragraph true?

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

Not recently? I think this was dealt with in 2007 1/1 WT was it not?

Yes.

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible . . .

*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***

• This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

I should add that the writer of the 2007 article still believed that the first resurrection had already begun at some point "soon after Christ's presence began." But the only initial premise starts out within the following range:

*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• Now look at chapter 17 of Revelation. We read there that after the destruction of “Babylon the Great,” the Lamb will conquer the nations. Then it adds: “Also, those called and chosen and faithful with him will do so.” (Revelation 17:5, 14) “Called and chosen and faithful” ones must already have been resurrected if they are to be with Jesus for the final defeat of Satan’s world. Reasonably, then, anointed ones who die before Armageddon are resurrected sometime between 1914 and Armageddon.

The attempts to get closer than that rest on very flimsy evidence, even bordering on spiritism: the idea that Rutherford potentially communicated with the dead.

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***

• It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

Many in Christendom believe that persons who die are still alive as spirit creatures, and the Bible says that communicating with these spirit creatures is spiritism:

• (Revelation 21:7, 8) . . .. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth . . . and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.”

Yet, as soon as it comes to our belief that those persons of the 144,000 who died are still alive as spirit creatures, then we think that we can safely ignore what we have condemned others for believing.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.

 

I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”.

That's not what I was saying. I was trying to point out that these particular scenarios are no longer real to Witnesses. Russell, as a resurrected spirit, could not have been really been communicating from beyond the grave in order to run the entire operation of the Watch Tower Society in 1917. This is because, after a few years, it was decided that he hadn't really been resurrected until the spring of 1918. Now, even that idea is in question, according to the Watchtower. Technically, the Watchtower even admits that it is possible that Russell has not been resurrected yet, as this could happen any time before the end of the Great Tribulation.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…?

The actual credentials of other scholars or writers are not usually considered important. If a Bible or a commentary is published, that's the main thing. If it appears scholarly or has been quoted by someone who looks scholarly, then it is important to the extent that it supports our teachings. Prior to the year 2000, it was the exception in our publications to even mention the name of the book or or person we were quoting, and we more often would see expressions like "a well-known author once said that . . . " or "a 19th century scholar has said . . . " These kinds of quotes were actually unchecked by the proofreaders, who were sisters, and would only ask for the original if they used lengthy direct quotes. The interpretation of those quotes was not questioned by the sisters, even if it was clearly wrong.

The Awake! magazine once made up an embarrassingly inaccurate chart of earthquake activity to try to prove that earthquakes prior to 1914 were almost meaningless compared to the ones after 1914. These false statistics got picked up by a writer in Italy who didn't say he got them from the Awake! (even though it should have been obvious). The Watchtower then quoted that Italian author as evidence that the 1914 evidence was real. Although exJWs will say we did it on purpose to make it look like we had independent support, I'm sure it was the kind of accident that happens when papers and books are scoured just to find support for our beliefs. There were many times when the sources quoted didn't really support us at all, but the Bethel writer just misunderstood a phrase taken completely out of context while looking for support. I worked right outside one of the office of a well-known Bethel writer who spent most of his day scouring newspapers and Reader's Digest and Time, Newsweek, U.S.News, etc., just to find little quotes he could use to prove we were in the last days. History books were scoured for the "holy grail" which would be any quote that pointed to 1914 as the end of an era, even if the same history book also pointed to 5 other dates as the end of an era, too.

So I really doubt that it was even noticed that the Greber who was denounced in 1955 and 1956 was the same Greber whose translation was still sitting on the shelf in the Bethel Library and was therefore referenced again in 1962 through 1976. Seems it wasn't until about 1983 that someone noticed it again. I can even admit that I looked at the copy of Greber's Bible in 1977 and noticed the John 1:1 passage myself, and it never occurred to me at the time to read the accompanying information in the foreword.

2 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, the presumption that the Watchtower has added, like a few others, has become exceptional when attempting to convey the thoughts of early Christianity,

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article. When it comes to the thoughts of early Christianity, I can only assume that "a god" is closer and much better than translating "the God." (THE God is understood, of course, by just translating "God" in a monotheistic context.) But I think that Paul explains it even better by saying:

• (Philippians 2:6-10) 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—

• (Colossians 2:8-10) . . .to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.

   

The basic idea is shown in the word for "godship" is pretty much the same as our word "divinity."

*** Rbi8 Colossians 2:9 ***

• “Divine quality.” Lit., “godship.” Gr., the·oʹte·tos; Lat., di·vi·ni·taʹtis.

*** Rbi8 Romans 1:20 ***

• “Godship.” Gr., Thei·oʹtes, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹni·tas.

*** Rbi8 Acts 17:29 ***

• “Divine Being.” Gr., Theiʹon, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹnum.

But although very common, the definite article is not always necessary to refer to THE God. It's still sometimes dependent on context. We don't translate "In a beginning, the Word . . . " just because the definite article is missing. And it could go either way here in John 1:49

• (John 1:49) . . .Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (NWT)

This would just as proper as:

• (John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” (not NWT, but common in other translations)

But it would sound odd to say:

• (John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are a King of Israel.”

But I think even this last one is just as OK as saying "a god" in John 1:1. That's because there might have been so much emphasis on the word "King." It's as if Nathanial was saying, you are not just here as a man, you are here as a KING!!!

I think that's quite possibly a way to look at John 1:1. Saying "a god" is just fine as long as we remember that the point was saying the same thing, that Jesus was not just in heaven as any other angelic being, but Jesus was in heaven as a GOD!!!

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Here we go! An ex-bethelite to the rescue. How does [was god] make sense to you? You admit, NOT knowing Latin. Do you know Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew? To distinguish between a definite and indefinite article. Your friend sure doesn’t.

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.

I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.

One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.

*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***

• It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . .
• When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.”
• Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains:
• “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

And don't even get me STARTED about the Australian JW Michael Jackson Day Care Centers!

What??? Never heard of them.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I really don’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you don’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them.

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.

On 9/3/2017 at 12:01 AM, Cos said:

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).

Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.

Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)

So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)

But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.

But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.

But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.

John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

16 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

Rules that the American Catholic sect is giving to their parishioners to get rid of Jehovah's witnesses.
Would you be able to rebut these almost military standards?

Those are actually excellent rules for getting rid of a person who comes to your door to sell you something you don't want. There is nothing "military" about them. I've used them myself on people who call at the door selling goods and services or political candidates. We should all learn from such rules how to be direct and honest with people, instead of being vacillating. I'm impressed.

Now as to the Catholic doctrines which are listed below, these are the ideas that we should be able to rebut. But we should not be overly concerned just because some Catholics might be able to learn ways to be more honest with us. We should be appreciative, so that we can spend our time on persons who are looking for something better.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But then paragraph 2 or 3 said that the author of Psalm 147 is unknown. I slammed my iPad down in disgust and stalked out of the auditorium. Anonymous? They're wasting my time with an anonymous Bible writer? How do I know he is qualified?

He just remained anonymous so he wouldn't get laughed at. What possible other motive could there be?

Turns out that all 4 of the gospel writers are also anonymous. There is absolutely no Biblical evidence that a man or apostle named Matthew wrote the gospel that came to be known as Matthew. There is not even a hint within the book itself. It's from a later tradition that decided that there should be only four gospels, and would assign an author to each of the four. (Luke says there were many gospels in his day.) Of course, the book of Luke does not ever say it was written by a person named Luke. The book of Acts, which was obviously written by the same person who wrote the book we call Luke, also never says it was written by Luke. Same goes for Mark, of course. The traditions that matched authors to each of these books comes from a later generation or two (or three) from a different part of the world outside the places they were written. The Gospel of John also never claims to be by an author named John. Instead, it teases us with its anonymity. It only says it was written by the disciple that Jesus loved.

57 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Actually, most "Climate Scientists" directly and  indirectly work for the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, (NOAA) which runs the U.S. Weather Bureaus .... and these agencys have evolved over the years into bastions of liberal "groupspeak" ... where "facespeak" is a fine art.

Ultimately, it's not a matter of who they work for or who they speak for, or even if 99.9% of scientists all said the same thing. In past millennia when "science" was more of an art, it was possible for 100% of "scientists" to be wrong about a premise or hypothesis. (And of course I'm not talking about being wrong in the sense that Isaac Newton was supposedly wrong just because Einstein and others came along and improved on the physics out at the extremes of experience.)

The only relevant question is whether there is data to support the idea that humans are having an effect on the earth's climate. If a few conservatives had discovered data to support this idea, liberals might be going crazy trying to deny it. If a few liberals had discovered data to support this idea, conservatives might be going crazy trying to deny it. That's why it's best to just look at the data, and not who is presenting the data. Otherwise we are more interested in the ad hominem argument instead of the facts themselves. Besides, remember how often you yourself have pointed out that even if Satan himself (aka Al Gore?) were to present truth then it's still truth. 

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

I do not know what this means. Is someone trying to hold the GB accountable for man's influence on climate change?

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The ONLY real "greenhouse gas" is water vapor which makes big dark clouds that are white on the top, covering whole (smaller) nations at a time. There are OTHER gasses, but they are,  for considering climate change, completely irrelevant.

 My opinion is that this is completely untrue. There are several other gases that can now be modeled very accurately as greenhouse gases. These models can be shown to predict real-world situations, both closed experimental environments and now planetary environments.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.... perhaps a new thread should be created for a science lesson I could talk for days about.

Yes. Please do.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Different Scientists put different data into different "Climate Change Computer Models" .... all get different answers ... and THEN they discard the results that do not agree with what they WANT to believe ... or more to the point ... what their sponsors want to hear.

Scientists interested in publicity or sponsors will always be with us. And it is quite true that a lot of scientists come into their field with overarching beliefs so that they skew results, or ignore data they disagree with. However, the best way to get publicity or sponsors is to ignore the very similar results that 98% of climate scientists are getting, and skew the results in favor of the 2% whose results are all-important to the fossil fuel industry. Guess where the paying sponsors come from. (Hint: the fossil fuel industry.)

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Follow the money.

Yes. Indeed.

14 hours ago, Bible Speaks said:

Could this be Peace and Security? Never Before Seen! ?????

Saw this on CNN:

• In fact, the Dow has reached a new high, on average, once every seven days since fully recovering from the Great Recession in March 2013. And it's happened under both Trump and former President Barack Obama: The Dow has hit an all-time high in 30 of the last 54 months since fully coming back from the market collapse of 2007-08. And it happened more than 100 times under Obama since 2013.

I worked in the financial industry for nearly three decades after Bethel. I have assumed for all these years that there is a kind of "greed machine" going on behind the stock market numbers. We have been in a kind of "bubble" that is driven to ever larger profits by those who invest in the stock market generally. Sure there are many, many losing companies in the markets, but in general the bubble is driven to expand in a way that will always profit the financial industry. Even for those times when the bubble "burst" (e.g., 9/11/2001, 9/29/2008, etc.) there were built in safety measures to only let a certain amount of air out of the bubble instead of letting it truly burst.

I expect that the greed factor is so high that the whole thing can come crashing down at any time and the safety measures will not be able to keep the bubble afloat. But it's only money, so this hasn't stopped me from putting half my 401k into the market since 9/31/2001 and then "swing-trading" the other 50% whenever the market drops or rises by triple-digits. In general, this means keeping an average of about 33% of that other 50% in the market, but moving it to 0% on any day that the market rises by triple-digits, and 100% on a day that the market drops by triple-digits. That might sound backwards, but this is set up to work on funds which only change value at 4:00 pm, so that any decision can be made or over-ridden by only looking at the market for 1 to 5 minutes at about 3:45 pm on weekdays, and ignoring the market at all other times of the day.

There is no peace and security in the stock market.  By definition, a rising stock market actually refers to the confidence that corporations will keep finding greedy new ways to exploit workers, exploit fear, consolidate power, and continue to find ways to squeeze out more profits -- generally always to the detriment of 95% of the world. 

2 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

a common tradition of descent from the patriarch Abraham, and, as scientific research shows - a common genetic ancestry, as well.

When I was taking a few semesters of Hebrew in college, I was surprised at the level of prejudice among Jews. Rabbi Acker, who taught the first two semesters, would curse out Israelis from Palestine who came in for an easy "3 credits" because they already spoke Hebrew and shouldn't have gotten into the beginning classes (Hebrew 101 and 201). To the rest of the class, he would call them "dirty" etc. But the most surprising thing was that several non-Israeli Jewish-American students already knew the Hebrew sentence for "To kill an Arab is a blessing" which accidentally came up when someone was trying to remember the Hebrew word for "blessing." Rabbi Acker chastised the person who brought it up saying that it was "Anti-Semitic" which resulted in a clamor of disbelief. He explained that in the Bible, the Arabs were Semites just like the Jews, therefore prejudice against Arabs was anti-Semitism.

1 minute ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Your 6 out of a possible 30 just proves your fallacy on why I brought up 1874 since your past comments indicate a "false" presentation of Russell's own words. So, I don't need to keep count, like a child, you do pretty well on your own.

That was just from the memory of what went through my mind when I created the post. I remember finding about 30 quotes on the Watchtower Library CD that made the opposite point of the same one you have referenced here. I remember only quoting only a few of them, because once the point is made, there was no reason to belabor it. Also, if you now say that you brought up 1874 because it was my own past comments that indicated a "false" presentation of Russell's own words, then you would only have to produce one single example. No need to keep count. Just find the one example and say what's false about it. So far I have always tried to correct any false statements made, so I'd be happy to see it and find out what was false about it.

But your example above says that someone (apparently an ex-Bethelite) had said that Russell predicted the end of the world in 1874. I know that this wasn't me, because I have never believed that. In fact, when I saw that claim come up here once, I made it clear that it wasn't true. Perhaps it came up again by someone else and I missed it on another occasion. So until you have some evidence that what you are saying is true, I'll have to assume it is false and mistaken. 

32 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One of these days I will point out that you seem the best one here at keeping oneself restrained under evil.

Thanks, but do it quickly before I have to hurt somebody.

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's an excerpt just written from the next book. It doesn't perfectly fit here. But I wanted to try it out.

Figured as much. I thought you were doing that for a while on a few other threads, too. Haven't seen a problem with the "fit" on any of them, though. It allows any of us to read into them whatever we see fit, sometimes. I've been correctly counseled by you on several occasions already, whether it was aimed at me or not. This is appreciated when the counsel is thoughtful.

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but I have a certain knack for refocusing matters and combining ingredients in ways not typically combined, and I am a writer with great command of the language, assuming you are not fussy.

I agree with you on both of your claims, and it's greatly appreciated. But I still had not heard you make such a claim before. (Although I only read about half of what goes on here, because some people tend to go on forever and ever with their posts!!!)

49 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But you should recall, too, that it is the Watchtower, not any of us, who have clumped together the Bible Student ideology with the Witness ideology.

How, is your statement factual? and how is my statement not been proven?  For someone that indicates wordplay by others, you sure use a lot of it!

You cut off the portion of the answer that already did show how it is factual. Also, you probably recall that when you have made the claim in the past that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot claim to have been Bible Students, I presented about 6 out of at least 30 quotes from the Watchtower that supported my point very clearly. You found zero that supported the point you were making. If you think it's necessary to rehash that point, I'll find that post again for you. By the way, making a clear point with supporting evidence is not called "wordplay."

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, that would speak more to bible understanding than clarity of perception by uneducated bible based people.

One day you (correctly) highlight the fact that it is the uneducated, unlettered and ordinary persons who can more easily see the wisdom of God's word, and at other times I see you touting someone's education, PhD's, and titles as proof that persons like COJ, for example, should be judged as unworthy of consideration.

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

A simply misguided perception would be with Russell and 1874. Up until 1876, Russell had “NO” interest in the year 1874. It was only when Barbour mentioned that Christ Presence had begun in 1874 that Russell started looking into Jesus return, as an invisible return, not a visible one.

Exactly! I believe you are exactly correct on this point. (Although I'm not sure why you brought it up.)

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

But, Russell never “predicted” anything at all concerning 1874. So contrary to an ex-bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge? Evidence points to that FACT, not the made-up nonsense, from opposers, especially the one that supposedly points to Russell claims of the “end of the world” in 1874.

Exactly! Russell could NOT have predicted anything concerning 1874. As far as we know he was even disdainful of Second Adventist chronology until late in 1875 or early 1876. So whatever you meant by the question" "So contrary to an ex-Bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge?" you are right to point this out, just as I have, by the way.

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Therefore, who then, makes a play on words, when the shoe is on the other foot. Apostasy comes in many colors and shapes. So, how is a bible student supposed to shift through “spirit directed truth” in literature rather than the assumptions given by opportunist? JWI, JTR, O’Maly etc.

A complete non sequitur. Just because I have pointed out the same thing you just did, you were forced to use a kind of "vagueness" about this supposed accusation involving an ex-Bethelite. I'm sure you knew that I have never ever even implied that Russell claimed the end of the world in 1874. So to answer your question about "who then makes a play on words" the answer is quite obvious. You just did! 

And it's this same kind of twisting of words and meanings about which many people have pretended that doctrinal issues have been answered. This is one of the bad things that happens to Witnesses when they have doctrinal questions or believe that they can see a contradiction in some of our traditional teachings that go back to the time of the Bible Students. If the question cannot be answered through bluster and wordplay, then the next step is to just dig in our heels and call the questionable doctrines "spirit directed truth" and associate all concerns and questions as "apostasy."

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So let us NOT be superficial when claiming to be well versed in the English language when evidence shows the contrary from the supposed intellectual "left". No one commands the English language no better than any other language.

'Nuff said! Thanks. I didn't see myself, or you, or TTH, or anyone else here claiming to be well versed in English or commanding the language better than any other.

Just now, J.R. Ewing said:

That's funny, I find the same with some of you!

It's called projection. I've seen you do it now under almost all of your personas. The problem with your projection is that I have never posted here under any name except @JW Insider.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have misinterpreted the remarks - or did I? - of these guys so many times that I have given up. That is not to say it is intentional, though it could be. But it might also be from coming from a very different part of the world or from using English as a second language. 

The following, as always, is just my personal opinion: A few times you have started off with a misunderstanding of the position of two out of the "three persons in one" that I mentioned. I have counted about six different monikers that all appear to come from the same source. But these last three just mentioned are the most used recently, in my opinion. I think that you might have been surprised that you have sometimes (even very recently) been "judged" especially by the primary one of the "three in one" as supporting dangerous ideas, even though you have mostly defended that same primary one. Having been here for nearly three years now, it's easier to get a handle on a person's reactions, language, style, and even which words are repeatedly misused/misspelled across the various personas. Some of these "elements of style" have already been explained by Allen under a couple of previous topics. I once defended Allen's language by also guessing that it was from using English as a second language. Big mistake! I was accused for a couple of years as "making fun" of him. Allen has since explained that some of these same types of misunderstandings are related to dyslexia. Still, I only bring this out because I think more people would be less confused by his take on things if they understood where the personas were coming from.

9 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

As for the younger generation of witnesses that enter into a perception of faith, only to be throttled by “bias” teachings are a good example for causing someone to stumble. The difference is, No one here is willing to see the person in the mirror to object to such callousness.

Exactly!

9 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now, the use of Russell, and Rutherford to benefit the argument, when most of the time, their core doctrine was rarely understood, especially by people with no scriptural understanding. How about a reality check, of not clumping together Bible Student ideology with Witness ideology? Then, perhaps, the understanding of “revision” made by Christ to the Jewish laws can be understood, as it is done, in modern times.

You are probably thinking only of the times when Russell and Rutherford held beliefs that we now consider ridiculous. I was thinking about the times when Russell and Rutherford made statements that were Biblically and logically true. (For example: when Russell pointed out that the wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine mentioned in Matthew 24 were NOT signs of the last days, but were the kinds of things that "must happen" over the entire course of the 1,800+ years since Jesus mentioned them. Or when Rutherford spoke about how evidence works, and how one piece of evidence is not worth that much, but when two or three pieces of corroborating evidence confirm each other, the likelihood of truth cannot be overlooked, and when that is multiplied half-a-dozen times we have something that might as well be called absolute truth.)

But you should recall, too, that it is the Watchtower, not any of us, who have clumped together the Bible Student ideology with the Witness ideology. The Governing Body is identified as beginning in 1919 among Bible Students. Elijah is now supposed to be a prophetic picture of Russell from the 1870s to 1916 preparing the way for these "Bible Students" to come on the scene 1919. Some of the major Bible Student traditions that have been dropped were not dropped until 1943/4, and one of them in 1961/2. Of course, many of the Bible Student traditions have not been dropped at all. And many of them should not ever be dropped because they were correct from the start.

10 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

As for it being a requirement of acceptance of “all” core doctrines are based on scripture with a complete understanding of prophecy. No different than in ancient times. If that is the case, people here, are unwilling to submit to understanding GOD’S law and have gone rogue with their own understanding.

There is no more need to go back to the problems of ancient times to use them as a justification for making the same mistakes in modern times. The examples were meant for our instruction. When Jesus says to watch out for something it is so the same mistakes are not repeated in future generations.

11 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then, the next generation of witnesses should reframe themselves from such association as not to have their faith tainted by “false” teachings of scripture.

To some it could sound like you are suggesting that the next generation of Witnesses should break off and form their own association, something like what Rutherford did, or even what you suggest Jesus was doing in breaking off from Judaism.

8 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I assume, the reference is to how, people “dogmatically” push their own “doctrine” of scripture on others to think, just because they are unwilling to explain a doctrine that cannot be, conceivably defended by them or anyone unwilling to view the logistics the correct way, doesn’t mean it has NO defense.

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 

This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 

One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.

You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.