JW Insider

These are excellent points. The reason I included what was written in Genesis 6 was because we absolutely need to include Jehovah in this discussion. In Genesis 6, it appears that Jehovah had already judged the world as wicked and only mentioned finding one righteous person, Noah. The way a person is known to be righteous to others is by standing up for what is right in their conduct, speech and of course, the important part that Jehovah sees, the right motivation. I have no doubt that Noah had distinguished himself not only in front of Jehovah, but also in front of others. As Romans 10:10 and Luke 12:34,35 shows, this would have included his speech. Therefore both his example and his speech apparently made him a preacher of righteousness. (Matthew 12:34, 35) . . .For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things. . . @b4ucuhear pointed out that Hebrews 11:7 shows that Noah showed godly fear and constructed an ark and through Noah's faith he condemned the world. It's not that much of a logical stretch to surmise that this was the way in which he "preached" but, as b4ucuhear also said, we don't know for sure whether this meant that he actually preached a divine warning. The point from Ezekiel 33 is about a person commissioned as a watchman to preach a warning to Israel. (Ezekiel 33:2-6) . . .“‘Suppose that I bring a sword upon a land, and all the people of that land take a man and make him their watchman, 3 and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the horn and warns the people. . . . 6 “‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and he does not blow the horn and the people receive no warning and a sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that person will die for his own error, but I will ask his blood back from the watchman.’ The others that Jehovah had condemned in Noah's day were not in the same situation as this, so we can't claim that Jehovah was required to do the same thing in Noah's day as he did for Israel when he commissioned Ezekiel to be a watchman. It was Jehovah who made the warning, but only to Noah. We don't really even know if Noah's family helped him or believed him. They were not said to be part of a band of preachers, nor does the Bible even say that they lifted a finger to help Noah with the ark-building project. We can only guess. I would guess the same as you have, but we can't claim that it must be true just because it's a good guess. Also, when you read about the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19, you notice that the warning came from Jehovah only to the people he wanted to save. Similar to what happened to Noah, the angels only asked Lot to get his relatives out of the city. We read of no warning to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, themselves. Jehovah had told Abraham that he (Jehovah) had already judged that there were not even 10 righteous people in Lot. Why else could Jesus say the following? (Matthew 10:14, 15) . . .. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day . . . (Matthew 11:23, 24) . . .if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.” My point is that it is a tendency of "human thinking" and "human reasoning" to add to the scriptures. It is always better to remember what you said: "Our reasoning imperfect and flawed, should always include Jehovah God, not human thinking and such."

The scriptures do NOT say that they laughed and scoffed at him. (This is the very kind of thing I was trying to address by pointing out. Just because something makes sense, and it might even be true, it's still just speculation.)

I know a lot of Witnesses who, deep down, believe that you can't really die from lack of a blood transfusion. Some Witnesses can't even bring themselves to admit that blood transfusions save thousands of lives every year. So there is this idea that doctors didn't do all they could, and that the doctors' representatives are only claiming that the patient died explicitly from the lack of a blood transfusion. Of course, there really is a lot of incompetence and malpractice and mismanagement and who knows what all the factors were in this case. But it's sad situation made even sadder if the reason were primarily based on the family's misunderstanding of the risks.

It's my guess that talk of how the "torment" works would still be on point. I wasn't sure how aware you were of the different definitions we (JWs) give to Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Second death is the lake of fire which would then be the same as Gehenna. Those were the only terms to which we would have applied the meaning of "Destruction." Death and the Grave (Hell) would be pretty much the same thing, and therefore the Grave (Hell) is NOT "destruction." That's why there can be a resurrection, whether of righteous or unrighteous. The Grave is not final destruction, second death or Gehenna is.

It makes sense, but the Bible never says that he became a preacher after being given divine warning. From the time Noah was given the divine warning, all we know, for sure, is that Noah built an ark and got it ready. And he apparently got his wife, three sons and three daughters-in-law to join him. Perhaps these are the only ones he preached to. Perhaps he only preached about righteousness, and never preached anything about a warning. Perhaps he had only been a preacher of righteousness BEFORE he was given the divine warning. We just don't know. What we DO KNOW is that Jesus said that the Flood came, in effect, without a warning. Even the expression "they took no note" -- even if this had been a proper way to translate the Greek -- still does not say that Noah warned anyone. Perhaps they "took no note" of the fact that Noah was building an ark. The idea of a warning is what WE WANT to read into the idea of "they took no note." Undoubtedly, it was also the reason to "translate" it this way. Perhaps there was no reason for a warning, because Jehovah had already made the decision before he picked Noah and his family as the only ones chosen for survival. In fact, that way of reading Genesis 6 is just as likely as the assumption that Noah decided to go preaching when Jehovah told him to build an ark. Perhaps it's even a more likely reading. Consider: (Genesis 6:7-14) . . .So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah. 9 This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God. 10 In time Noah became father to three sons, Shem, Ham, and Jaʹpheth. 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. . . . Notice that Noah was already a man who was righteous, and faultless, and walking with God. Notice that there was no reason to warn anyone as Jehovah had already decided to wipe mankind off the earth, to bring an end to all flesh. Noah didn't necessarily even try to convince the other 7 people in his household. He is only told to take them into the ark, not because they are righteous, too, but because Noah was righteous: (Genesis 7:1) . . .“Go into the ark, you and all your household, because you are the one I have found to be righteous before me among this generation. So your same point from Romans 10:10 would have produced the "preaching" from Noah long before the divine warning was ever given, and we know nothing about Noah preaching after he was given the divine warning. And whether he preached before or after given the divine warning, we don't know that he himself ever preached about a warning to others. Perhaps that would have been cruel and self-righteous, since they had already been condemned to drown, and Noah was not told that they could do anything if they wanted to.

A full explanation (aka, a REALLY long post) would probably appear like a pendulum swinging between the extremes of never reporting and reporting everything we are asked to report and then some. (Matthew 23:3) "Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe. . ." Similar to what @PeterR said, my opinions are expressed here as a "thought experiment" for anyone to consider and respond to. Yes, it's possible for "legalism" to exist side-by-side with proper motivation. Jesus dealt with this situation as a necessity during his own ministry when the legalism had not yet been nailed to the stake. Jesus put it this way: (Matthew 23:23) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Of course, when the Law is written on your hearts, this refers to the total primacy of the heart-felt motivation: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." But all of us need a bit of tutoring in our motivation, just as the Law was a tutor. But the Law showed us where we came up short, and therefore took away most of the joy. (Galatians 3:19) Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive. . . This is quite true, but counting hours is not the only motivation in keeping up the "status" of being a pioneer. It's the accolades from men that go with the title. The same could also be said of appointed elders, and ministerial servants, and the various types of overseers in the organization, and yet the terms are Biblical -- and these are privileges to be reached out for. Paul spoke of various thresholds of qualification for those "titles." But one of the legalistic problems with the various pioneer titles is that when considering something to be "full-time" service, there is no such thing as saying one person is in full-time service and another is not. 400 hours a month might not be full-time to one person, and yet 5 hours a month might be full-time for another. (Remember the widow's "mite.") In truth, all Christians must be full-time; that's what whole-souled means. (Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, . . .

If both terms can mean destruction, I can't tell if you distinguish in the same way between Hades and Gehenna. Naturally, I think it makes a lot of sense that Revelation shows Death and Hades thrown into a "Gehenna" (lake of fire), which is a fitting symbolism for the final destruction of Death and the Grave, through resurrection and the potential of eternal life, where the only type of death that remains is total destruction, a second death. When I first noticed that the 2013 Revised NWT was going to begin translating "Ha'des" as "Grave," I quickly rushed over to Matthew 10:28 to see if Gehenna might appear as "Destruction" with a capital "D." With this in mind, some have translated Matt 23:15 with “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. -- NKJV If this term "Gehenna" had become "Destruction" the verse could have read: "you make him twice as much a son of Destruction as yourselves" and then it would match the idea of persons like Judas and a person like the Antichrist. (John 17:12) 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. It would mesh well with other Biblical references. (Revelation 9:11) 11 They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is A·badʹdon [Destruction], but in Greek he has the name A·polʹlyon [Destroyer]. (Matthew 10:28) . . .fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna. Do you believe that the "torment" is only at the time of facing destruction? You mention 2 Peter where the word is Tartarus a word known from Greek mythology, and already used in the OT LXX (e.g., Job) a prison of darkness for the lesser gods/spirits. These spirit creatures are said to be alive and waiting in prison for the judgment. Do you believe that the "spirit" of humans who await resurrection also include those who will be resurrected to judgment? If so, do you think those spirits can be in a kind of "torment" while waiting, or do they possibly feel the "torment" after Hades is destroyed?

Makes sense. I was able to edit it out.

Which could just as likely have been supposed by working backwards from the sentiment found in John and Colossians, etc. The wording in John 1 might also allude to some Jewish "Wisdom" poetry we no longer have access to. Or even an outgrowth of the poetry that already exists, such as in the way Jeremiah appears to allude to Genesis 1:1 poetically: Jeremiah 10:12-16New American Standard Bible (NASB) 12 It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. 13 When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; (Proverbs 3:19, 20) 19 Jehovah founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in discernment. 20 By his knowledge the watery deeps were split apart And the cloudy skies dripped with dew. (Proverbs 8:22-31) 22 Jehovah produced me [Wisdom] as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. Then again, the multiple references to a personified wisdom in these allusions to Genesis 1:1 might be evidence of a one-time reference to a Logos/Word/Wisdom. But the fact that it could also be referenced without any such reference may be evidence that what we have is exactly what was originally written: (Isaiah 45:18) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

In fact, this is going the way of the sentiments of Carl Olof Jonsson, (and others) whose ideas are very similar to the rest of Christendom, and are a cop out contrary to Paul's admonition to Timothy and by extension any Christian: "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times; reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching. For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry"- 2Tim.4:2-5 I couldn't know what motivations @PeterR or you or anyone else might have. But I can say that what I said is (to me) merely a truism about legalism, and has nothing to do with taking it easy as you state. Also, I don't recommend that people stop reporting the types of service that help others prepare useful and appropriate publications, convention material, encouragement from circuit overseers, talks about local needs, etc. If you think you'll need 100 magazines next month in service, you should order 100 magazines; if you think you will need 10, order 10. Even in the days when we paid directly in advance for all the publications, I'd still see some Witnesses with rooms stacked with unused magazines and books. The specific need for printed material is no longer a big factor, as we are encouraged to make more use of electronic formats. (In some countries, more than others.) Obviously, we could also take it too far and forbid the reporting of our service to others, too, but this could end up being just another form of legalism. Our motivation for reporting our time and experiences might be purely meant as an encouragement for others who have trouble finding the time, or our motivation for reporting could be out of the pure joy of reporting on experiences in our ministry that make our sacrifice of time worthwhile. (Remember the joy that Jesus expressed when the 70 evangelizers returned to tell about what kinds of experiences they had just had. Giving a good report can be a matter of encouragement or just a matter of the mouth speaking out of the "abundance of the heart" -- not just preaching, but telling fellow Christians about our experiences in preaching.) However, the methods by which a "placement" or even a "return visit" can be counted have now made some of these reports mean less because people would be comparing Apple iPads to oranges. The differences in what some elders or family heads might count as a "Bible Study" might also be quite different from what the average pioneer will count. TTH is right that these numbers are not used in such a way that each congregation member knows who is more active than others, except by actual observation while working with others in the ministry, and by a couple of different level pioneer titles. Neither are they used at levels higher than a circuit overseer, in any form other than the aggregate. Other forms of "full-time" service might come with little or no field service, although there is overlap in the use of the "title." My brother, for example, was on a project at Bethel where Brother Wisegarver asked him if he could work 6 days a week for at least 4 months, and skip all his meetings except Sunday. I know several elders whose work on regional building committees kept them from almost anything else for several months at a time, and some have preferred it that way. My point is that the Law included measurements and even certain threshold requirements to meet the Law correctly. We SHOULD be working purely from proper motivation, but this will not be true of everyone. This is why the Law was necessary as a tutor. But our ministry that is pure from the standpoint of 'our God and Father' MUST include a lot of ministry that is not currently counted as "sacred" service, even if Jesus counts it as "sacred" service. (Looking after orphans and widows, for example.) I do think that if proper motivation is what is explained and encouraged at all meetings, then most of us would rebalance our ministries toward the other forms of service that Jesus counts as sacred. But we would also be looking for more opportunities to buy out more effective time in all our ministries, making time count rather than looking for ways to count time. My comments about the legalism behind the reports and titles might have sounded discouraging, but it's not so that anyone would do less, or lose their motivation. It's so that whatever we do is a JOY because of the motivation. The points about legalism include the confusion that most immature Christians have about being rewarded for "works." These legalistic ideas are really more obvious when we look at the history of the ways quotas and counting time and placements has worked since Rutherford's time. A quick reading of old Bulletins, Informants, Messengers, Kingdom Ministrys, Convention reports, etc., will make it clear what I mean by legalism in the sense that the apostle Paul spoke out so strongly against. I won't try to prove it here. But I would agree that we have also moved toward a more sensible and balanced view of time to remove the common "burdensome" nature of counting time and placements.

That idea in some commentaries could be very valid. But, as you have already said, a commentary is not the same as a translation -- at least it shouldn't be. There is a tendency in commentaries to conflate their interpretations of ALL the scriptures on a topic into a single coherent idea, in spite of the fact that Jesus may have used this illustration or circumstance to highlight a different idea. I think it gets back to the idea of the "heart" wanting to think that Noah must have warned everyone, so we want to understood "preacher of righteousness" to mean Noah gave everyone a warning. And he very well might have, but we are speculating if we decide that our favorite definition of "preacher" must fit this particular situation. Whether Noah gave a warning or not, Jesus' point seems more likely to highlight the fact that they acted as if they had had no warning -- as if there had not been a warning. So it's not a key point of the verse to point out that a warning must have taken place. It changes the sense of the verse and the context to try to add this point. Doesn't mean that there is no truth to the idea of a warning in another context. I think it's the same way in which many people think that Jesus' purpose (in Matthew 24) was to let the disciples know that there would be advance warning signs. This is what many commentaries WANT the whole chapter to be saying. There are one or two places that sound like something could be taken as a warning, and about 10 places where Jesus sounds like he was trying to say it would come as a thief, suddenly, without warning. It doesn't seem fair that it would be without warning at least to the faithful or at least to the angels, so we overthrow 10 clear verses in favor of one or two that could partially suggest otherwise. I think that some have looked at this idea and think I'm trying to say that we should not be giving a warning about the end of this system. This is not the point at all. We can always warn people about how deep we must be into the time of the end. The only thing we should NOT be doing is saying "The Time is at Hand!" That's the way in which Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21) would be misinterpreted, and why Jesus started out with a warning about how easy it would be to get misled. English Standard Version - Luke 21:8And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them."

This is true. And it's convincing up to a point. After all, Jesus had just given them a command under the highest "authority" in the universe. Who would have heard such a command in those very words and then disobeyed it by even one "jot and tittle"? But neither do Witnesses take it as a "formula" but only as a true statement, even if slightly expanded in meaning from the exact words Jesus used. Matthew also is the only gospel to use the term "parousia" in the question asked of Jesus by the disciples leading up to the "Olivet" sermon. This doesn't mean that it wasn't used at all in the context of the question, but it can also mean that Matthew himself was inspired to use ideas that the disciples had in mind even if not expressed literally. (Matthew himself could have been one of those disciples and would have known what they had in mind.) We know by comparing the gospels that what appears to be exact quotes are only quotes of "meaning" not verbatim quotes. So even though it's still possible that Jesus used the words or at least the meaning as they now appear, I agree that it makes more sense that the subsequent actions and statements of the disciples give evidence that Eusebius used the more accurate version.

I appreciate the fact that you expanded on this under a new topic heading. I am going to copy my initial response from the other thread "Would you like to know the truth about Hell?" [My initial response from last week is in italics below. I'll add some additional points later.] Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like. Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not. Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point. What I was trying to say is that, YES, it's been a suspected gloss not just in modern commentaries, but even, as I said, from the earliest years of textual commentary and criticism (meaning especially, Eusebius, who owned and had access to the most important libraries of documents from the previous two or three centuries of Christianity). Eusebius had his own prejudices about the Trinitarian formula, but he was also a very astute observer of the process of canonization, living at the last possible time period when the choices for canonical Bible manuscripts could still be considered "in flux." What I was also trying to say is that accepting the major theories of textual criticism involved here, are of a type that we have to be the most careful with. These are content and subject-based criticisms, which make a lot of use of the idea of an evolving theology. As you know, the Watch Tower Society makes much use of the scholarship based on such criticism where it relates to the evolving doctrine of the Trinity and especially how textual tampering might have taken place. The kinds of tools that help restore the most likely original manuscript when variations are found is related to this study, because variations were often inserted based on evolving doctrine. But it's another layer of textual-historical criticism that attempts to discover glosses based on evolving doctrine alone. Eusebius was an Arian (rather than an "orthodox" Trinitarian) and we do not have the original that he supposedly quotes from. It could very well have just been a variation that Eusebius preferred because any mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together was probably being seized on by Trinitarians. The "simplified gospel" for purposes of mnemonics was often abbreviated in early Christianity to the form of a kerygma, and the methods of explaining an abbreviated theology and Christology was also very likely an explanation requiring "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit." That "formula" was a good preaching "kerygma" for making points about Christ, points about baptism, and points about the kingdom, etc. If it were used by Jesus in the original, it could also provide a foundation for discussing our relationship with the Father, and our ability to come before his "presence" and how it has continued and will continue through the ages. This is implied in Jesus' words: "Look I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things." [by "kerygma" I mean not just "preaching" but the stype of abbreviated "bullet points" of the good news that could be easily remembered and then expanded upon in preaching, such as: "Jesus Christ, born of Mary, baptized by John, tried and killed under Pilate, resurrected by God, and now at God's right hand" or similar abbreviated gospels. There is evidence inside and outside the Bible that early Christians used such "kerygma."] So, I'm saying that it COULD have been part of the original. I think the Watch Tower Society would be very hesitant to dismiss it for several reasons. One is the danger of relying too much on this type of textual historical criticism. If this is suspect, then everything becomes suspect wherever there is a slight change of wording between the gospels, or between earlier and later letters of Paul or the pastoral letters. Another reason the WTS would be hesitant is because it would admit manuscript tampering during the second century, which we already are aware of, but we would not expect Trinitarian-oriented tampering to have happened so early in the immediate century after the Matthew was written. By the way, textual studies of the same type that make some scholars dismiss certain texts as tampered with, have also (in some other cases) made those same scholars dismiss various conclusions of Eusebius. The "two-witness" rule has a corollary in textual studies, too. I was hesitant myself to add my own view here because it's outside the norm for Witnesses. I have no problem supporting the verse as it appears in the NWT and pretty much all other translations and manuscripts known (which almost all come from after the council of Nicaea). I don't think it supports the Trinity in any way, so it doesn't bother me as a true statement about what Christians should preach. But I also personally believe that Jesus' original words were more likely to have matched the way Eusebius quoted them so often. This does not imply that I agree with all the other conclusions of Eusebius and those who have studied manuscripts giving credence to everything that Eusebius claims. My earlier comments also were intended to reflect the danger of using this particular verse as a proof that Jesus had not spoken about "hell" (hades and gehenna).

Thanks for the answer to my question. It's interesting. I'm away for a few days and would like to respond when I get back home.

FWIW, I think that you made your point very well, and the fact that you got people to defend a parallel between the way we measure spiritual health with the way we measure physical health made your point even stronger. At least to those who understand that you are coming at this from the viewpoint of first-century Christians. I heard two two Circuit Overseers (one was a "retired" CO) laughing about how the Apostle Paul would have probably thrown a fit if he saw how much emphasis was put on measuring numbers. It was their opinion that this is exactly what legalism was all about: measures vs. motivation. And it's not just Matthew 6:3, of course. It's the context of the entire "Sermon on the Mount" where it comes from. (Matthew 6:1, 2) . . .“Take care not to practice your righteousness in front of men to be noticed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. 2 So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . The idea of a "pioneer" or "full-time servant" as opposed to a publisher is just another legalism based on a measure so that we are "noticed" for our gifts of mercy. So the entire context of Romans (regarding "law") and other letters of Paul are just as applicable. We are being reminded that we probably would not have the motivation to perform such works without the "notice" that these "awarded" titles provide. Yet Jehovah does not reward "service" and "works;" Jehovah rewards only pure, heart-felt motivation. Works can be void of pure motivation, but pure motivation will never be void of the kind of works that Jehovah appreciates. Jehovah rewards only the motivation based on love for Him and love for our fellow humans. He sees our works, and does not ignore them of course, but it's our work done in secret, never reported to anyone, that is evidence of proper motivation. Otherwise, it is just as likely that it is men we are trying to please, not Jehovah. As I'm sure you already know, there are literally hundreds of other verses in support of this same idea.

Apparently B.Rando has a style that doesn't lend itself to the kind of discussion I expected either. But it's not often anymore that I meet people who believe in a "literal" hell where a person's soul can be kept eternally tortured. Can you explain your own position on hell.

Before taking this story seriously, I'd like to see Putin brag about it himself somewhere. This is exactly the kind of thing that war-mongers and regime-change-mongers monger for. Daily and nightly we see two or three major USA media outlets hawk for some kind of war against Russia in vicarious support of the person who came in second in our last presidential election. She apparently would have wanted it that way if she won, and the 52% (or so) of Americans that wanted her to win apparently think it would be poetic justice against Trump's imagined Russian friends [if we could start a war].

We don't know exactly what happened. I'm just saying you have to be careful with this kind of textual criticism, because it can ultimately turn the Scriptures into "Swiss cheese." It has a certain value, but we should always work from as many kinds of evidence as we can draw upon before stating that a conclusion is a fact. In this case, we need to look at the circumstance of the statement, too. Also, you left out many additional scriptures that have a bearing on what baptism would mean to the first century Christians. I won't make that list here, but you or someone could create a baptism topic if you wish to discuss it further. I think that the context of some of these might shed some light on the addition of "Holy Spirit" and I think it's possible that Acts 8:12, which you quoted, is a fair "expanded" explanation of the meaning of putting all three together in Matthew 28: (Matthew 3:1-3) . . .In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·deʹa, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” 3 This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: “A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah! Make his roads straight.’” (Matthew 3:11) I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. (Acts 19:1-6) . . .There he found some disciples 2 and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them,. . . (Acts 10:36-38) 36 He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—this one is Lord of all. 37 You know the subject that was talked about throughout all Ju·deʹa, starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power,. . . John's baptism focused on the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to allow entrance into the Kingdom of God. Jesus taught us to pray: "Father...Let your Kingdom come!" The good news of peace through Jesus Christ was the good news of the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 24:14) . . .And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth . . . (Matthew 28:18, 19) . . .“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them . . . With all that in mind, I now read Acts 8:12 highlighting each of the major points from the context: (Acts 8:11-17) . . .. 12 But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized. 13 Simon himself also became a believer, and after being baptized, he continued with Philip; and he was amazed at seeing the signs and great powerful works taking place. 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Sa·marʹi·a had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet come upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them, and they began to receive holy spirit. Notice that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was NOT enough. Making disciples meant baptism in the holy spirit, too. And to what end? That they can now enter the Kingdom of God the Father now being ruled by his beloved Son. (Colossians 1:13-2:12) 13 He [the Father, God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. . . . 22 he has now reconciled by means of that one’s fleshly body through his death, in order to present you holy and unblemished and open to no accusation before him— 23 provided, of course, that you continue in the faith, established on the foundation and steadfast, not being shifted away from the hope of that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .25 I [Paul] became a minister of this congregation in accord with the stewardship from God that was given to me in your behalf to preach the word of God fully, . . . 27 to whom God has been pleased to make known among the nations the glorious riches of this sacred secret, which is Christ in union with you, the hope of his glory. . . . in order to gain an accurate knowledge of the sacred secret of God, namely, Christ. . . .. 12 For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.

I'm sure Shiwiii was referring to the following, which we sometimes refer to as the "J-documents:" *** nwtsty C4 Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” *** Translations and Reference Works Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the “New Testament” Below is a partial listing of Bible translations and reference works that have used some form of the divine name in what is commonly called the New Testament. J1 Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, edited by J. du Tillet, with a Latin translation by J. Mercier, Paris, 1555. J2 Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, incorporated as a separate chapter in ʼEʹven boʹchan [“Tried Stone”], by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut, 1385. Edition: The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text, by George Howard, Macon, Georgia, U.S.A., 1987. J3 Gospel of Matthew and Letter to the Hebrews, in Hebrew and Latin, by Sebastian Münster, Basel, 1537 and 1557 respectively. J4 Gospel of Matthew, in Hebrew, by J. Quinquarboreus, Paris, 1551. J5 Liturgical Gospels, in Hebrew, by F. Petri, Antwerp, 1581. J6 Liturgical Gospels, in German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, by Johann Clajus, Leipzig, 1576. J7 New Testament, in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599-1600. J8 New Testament, in Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661. J9 The Four Gospels, in Hebrew and Latin, by Giovanni Battista Jona, Rome, 1668. J10 The New Testament . . . , in Hebrew and English, by Richard Caddick, Vols. I-III, containing the Gospel of Matthew to 1 Corinthians, London, 1798-1805. J11 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Thomas Fry and others, London, 1817. J12 New Testament, in Hebrew, by William Greenfield, London, 1831. J13 New Testament, in Hebrew, by A. McCaul, M. S. Alexander, J. C. Reichardt, and S. Hoga, London, 1838. J14 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt, London, 1846. J15 Bible books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, in Hebrew, by J.H.R. Biesenthal, Berlin, 1855, 1867, 1853, and 1858 respectively. J16 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. C. Reichardt and J.H.R. Biesenthal, London, 1866. J17 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Franz Delitzsch, London, (1981 Edition). J18 New Testament, in Hebrew, by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London, 1891. J19 Gospel of John, in Hebrew, by Moshe I. Ben Maeir, Denver, Colorado, 1957. J20 A Concordance to the Greek Testament, by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, Fourth Edition, Edinburgh, 1963. J21 The Emphatic Diaglott, (Greek-English interlinear), by Benjamin Wilson, New York, 1864, reprint by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, 1942. J22 New Testament, in Hebrew, by United Bible Societies, Jerusalem, 1979. J23 New Testament, in Hebrew, by J. Bauchet and D. Kinnereth (Arteaga), Rome, 1975. J24 A Literal Translation of the New Testament . . . From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, by Herman Heinfetter, London, 1863. J25 St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by W. G. Rutherford, London, 1900. J26 Bible book of Psalms and Gospel of Matthew 1:1–3:6, in Hebrew, by Anton Margaritha, Leipzig, 1533. J27 Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, by Dominik von Brentano, Third Edition, Vienna and Prague, 1796. J28 The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament—Peshitta Aramaic Text With a Hebrew Translation, published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986. J29 The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (An American Translation of the Aramaic New Testament), by Glenn David Bauscher, published by Lulu Publishing, 2012. J30 The Aramaic English New Testament, (Third Edition), by Andrew Gabriel Roth, United States, 2008. J31 The Hebraic Roots Bible, (with study notes), published by Word of Truth Publications, 2012. J32 The Holy Name Bible, revised by A. B. Traina, The Scripture Research Association, Inc., reprinted by Yahshua Promotions, 2012. J33 The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, by George N. LeFevre, 1928, (George N. LeFevre, Strasburg, PA). J34 The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, by William Graham MacDonald, 2009 electronic version. J35 Nkand’a Nzambi i sia vo Luwawanu Luankulu Y’olu Luampa, (The Bible in Kikongo), published by United Bible Societies, Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. J36 Bibel Barita Na Uli Hata Batak-Toba siganup ari, (Today’s Batak-Toba Version), published by Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 1989. J37 Arorutiet ne Leel ne bo: Kiptaiyandennyo Jesu Kristo Yetindennyo, (New Testament in Kalenjin), Bible Society in East Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 1968. J38 Ekonejeu Kabesi ni Dokuj Iesu Keriso, (in Nengone), London, 1870. J39 Jesu Keriso ve Evanelia Toaripi uri, (The Four Gospels in Toaripi), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1902, translated by J. H. Holmes. J40 Öbufa Testament Öböñ ye Andinyaña nyïn Jesus Christ, (in Efik), National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1949. J41 Testament Sefa an amam Samol o Rȧn Amanau Jisos Kraist: auili jonai kapas an re kris uili nanai kapas an mortlok, (in Mortlockese), American Bible Society, New York, 1905, by Robert W. Logan. J42 Ama-Lémrane̱ Ama-Fu ma O̱-Rábbu de̱ O̱-Fū́tia-Ka-Su Yī́sua Masī́a, (Temne New Testament), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1868. J43 The Gospels According to Matthew and John, (Translated out of the Greek into the language of Nguna), New Hebrides, British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1882. J44 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (Translated into the Indian language), (in Wampanoag), Printed by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, Cambridge, 1661. J45 Matīyū: Kū Nam Navosavos ugi, (in Eromanga), Printed in London, 1869. J46 La Bible traduite et présentée par André Chouraqui, (in French), translated by André Chouraqui, 1985. J47 Biblia Peshitta en Español, (in Spanish), translated by Antiguos Manuscritos Arameos, Broadman and Holman Publishing Group, Nashville, TN, 2006. J48 The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, (Translated into the Choctaw language), American Bible Society, New York, 1968 reprint. J49 Bosakú-W’ólótsi wa Yesu Masiya boki Matayo la Malako o Kótaka, (Translated into Lomóngo by A. & L. R.), Congo Balolo Mission, Upper Congo, 1905. J50 Nalologena wo se Yesu Kristo Kome Mataio, (The Gospel according to Matthew in the language of Tasiko, Epi, New Hebrides), British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1892. J51 The Restored New Testament, Willis Barnstone, published by W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 2009. J52 Messianic Jewish Shared Heritage Bible, The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Project, Destiny Image Publishers, Shippensberg, PA, 2012. J53 The Messages of Jesus According to the Synoptists (The Discourses of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke) by Thomas Cuming Hall, 1901. J54 Bibel, (Nauru Bible), The Bible Society in the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, 2005 printing. J55 Embimbiliya Li Kola, (in Umbundu), Sociedade Bíblica em Angola, Luanda, 1963. J56 Ka Baibala Hemolele, (Hawaiian Bible), 1948. J57 Te Nu Tetemanti, ae ana Taeka Ara Uea ao ara Tia Kamaiu are Iesu Kristo, ae Kaetaki man Taetaen Erene, (in Kiribati), 1901. J58 The Gospel According to S. Luke in the Tongue of Lonwolwol (Fanting), Ambrym, New Hebrides, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1899. J59 Intas-Etipup Mat u Iesu Kristo, Natimarid Uja, im Natimi Imyiatamaig Caija, Aneityum, New Hebrides, 1863. J60 The Bible in Cherokee, American Bible Society, New York, 1860. J61 Ntestamente Yipia ya Nkambo Wetu ni Mupurushi Yesu Kristu, (in Chiluva), The National Bible Society of Scotland, 1904. J62 Injili Mar Mathayo (The Gospel According to St. Matthew in Dholuo), British and Foreign Bible Society, 1914. [Footnote] Also called the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like. Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not. Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point.

Remember that most quotes from the "OT" are from the LXX though, not the Hebrew text. Where the LXX and the Hebrew differ a little bit in the sense of the translation, the NT makes use of the sense found in the LXX. Some of the points made in the NT when quoting the OT, make very little sense if you stick with the Hebrew, but make perfect sense if you go by the Greek LXX. Also, we have no proof yet that it was all, or even most of the copies of the LXX in the first century that had a form of the divine name. Perhaps it was rare, and the reason the NT never contains a form of the divine name is because these were EXACT quotes from the OT LXX. There is some evidence that the removal of the divine name had already gone into effect BEFORE the first century. We even see that one of the latest books of the Bible, Esther, never uses the divine name. This is also true of several of the Dead Sea Scroll documents. (And it's also true of almost ALL the oldest known versions of every additional Jewish book written between Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls, including Maccabees, etc.) And by the way, if Revelation 1:8 contains an OT quote, it would be quoting Isaiah 48:12. (Isaiah 48:12) . . .Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last. The divine name is not found in Isaiah 48:3-15, so any quote of Isaiah 48:12 should NOT have the divine name in it.

(2 Peter 2:4) . . .Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. When did God put the angels that sinned into Tartarus? (1 Peter 3:18, 19) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. 19 And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, When did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison? (1 Timothy 3:16) 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’ Was this the same time he "appeared to angels"?

If you are arguing that the formula found in Matthew 28:18-20 was a later addition to the first century Bible, then I understand why you are bringing it up in the discussion of "hell." This could be appropriate especially if you are also arguing that ideas about "torment" were also added later. (Even though it is possible to understand these references without thinking of literal, conscious torment.) I don't think it's necessary to posit that these scriptures were added later, but perhaps you are only saying that they were infused with a doctrinal "charge" at a later time. I hope you can clear that up. Personally, I think it was already quite common for people in Jesus' day to think of the dead as calling out from hades or sheol in some figurative way - much like the way in which the blood of Abel called out for justice, or John could speak of the "souls" of those who had been slaughtered, speaking. (Genesis 4:10) . . .Listen! Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground. (Hebrews 12:24) . . .and Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood, which speaks in a better way than Abel’s blood. (Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” I think this is probably a more likely key to understanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but I would assume that this type of parable could only have accompanied a common knowledge of what Jesus and his immediate followers believed about the condition of the dead. I think even that is answered when he spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "living." It's as if living in God's eyes, and therefore "asleep" as with Jesus' friend named Lazarus. All this is, of course, what we already believe as Witnesses. But there might still be more to learn on this topic. Which is why I asked.

This is quite possible. But it is also speculation. Therefore it's also possible that it's false, or only partly true. These other topics should really be discussed under another title, and let this one go to [the truth about] hell.

Jesus could use a false doctrine if he wished. He made many points based on the false doctrines that people around him believed. But in this case Jesus didn't explain whether or not the foundation of this illustration was false. I'm wondering if other Witnesses have come up with good ways to explain this.