JW Insider

This is not difficult to grasp at all. But I do think there is something wrong with thinking that this says the same thing as the current publications are saying. It may have been a "trial balloon" for the current doctrine, but it's very different from the current doctrine. That is a very sensible explanation of the economics-related overlapping generations model. Note that it is plural as it ought to be. Quoting, the article, with extra highlighting, it states: The Watchtower "model" is the singular, and very non-sensical "overlapping generation" model. The difference one little "s" can make is important. Note that in Spanish "esposa" means wife, but "esposas" means handcuffs. For most people, that's quite an important difference.

Actually, Acts 1:7 says there is something wrong with us banging on about the generation. It says it's none of our concern. It's not in our domain. Knowledge of the times and seasons does not belong to us. It belongs to the Father alone. Anyone who tries is overstepping their authority. (Acts 1:7) . . .” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction [NWT fn: "authority"]. This is why Paul could say that we don't need anything written to us about chronology: (1 Thessalonians 5:1) Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

This certainly offers a rather crass view of the priorities. It makes it seem like the primary focus is on money. But it should not be overlooked that the contributions to the worldwide work are also designed to be providing the initial funds to set up Kingdom Halls in places that can't afford to build their own. Then the contributions in those congregations with new Kingdom Halls will pay back the cost through their own contributions at the rate that they can afford it. If and when the confiscation of properties in Russia is considered legally irreversible, the funds to the worldwide work can be used to help them rebuild when and if their situation changes. In the meantime, their excess contributions can be redistributed to places where Assembly Halls and Kingdom Halls are built legally. In our current suburban congregations, we are considered to be in a wealthier area, so the push is to build in areas of prime real estate value. In just a few years, we have sold off two halls, as soon as they were paid for, and the new bigger hall was built in a fancier area, with more congregations paying for it through maximized contributions. Any other halls in this area that are already paid for become prime targets for selling off and being replaced with bigger and better ones. There are two problems with this. One is that the hall must be set for the size of the largest congregation (of four that meet here) with room for a bit of expansion, so this means that the other three congregations meeting here fill up only 30 to 50% of the seats. The other problem is that we have created an environment where more people think that the idea is to keep all of us maximizing our contributions to pay for a hall that is much bigger and fancier than anyone would have thought reasonable. (This also makes it look as though the primary goal is to keep "feeding" the contribution boxes even though the profit on the last two "flipped" Kingdom Halls was enough to pay for most of the single, new hall where congregations from those last two halls now meet.)

Reminds me of a street sweeping vehicle that nicked the front of my car while I was waiting in a legal parking spot. I hadn't paid for the meter because I was waiting in the car. The street cleaner was actually doing the other side of the street, which was not legal on alternate days for the specific purpose of street cleaning, and he was going around an illegally parked car when he hit my car. He looked back at the car, saw the damage, a long scrape and a loosened fender that made a loud pop when it loosened, and he just went on driving, not knowing I was waiting in the driver's seat. So I ran out of the car and chased him down at the corner and told him what he did. I saw a policeman who spoke to the street cleaner and then rushed up to my car to give me a ticket. I asked him why, and he said he it was his job to "protect the street cleaner." I thought that was extremely honest, although very stupid. Later, I got out of the ticket but paid for the damage repair myself, as it was less than my deductible. Could have got the money back from the city, I suppose, but that would have been an unnecessary headache.

I think it was Russell who said that 99% of animals either die by violence or starvation. Of course, I think it was Bertrand Russell, not Charles Taze.

Growing up, I was always taught that our honesty, integrity, conduct, and acts of goodness and kindness were just as much as "witness" as going from door to door. Not that I didn't like going from door-to-door. At 5 years old, I loved going from door to door, and my mother says I always wanted to keep the house to house records where we would mark down each address, where literature was placed, who was not at home (or suspected to be home but hiding), who was busy, etc. At about 10 years old, I became a bit wary of going from door to door in case I met kids I knew from school, but at about 15, I started to like it again, especially if I met people I knew. By the time I was 16 I had already quit high school to pioneer, and after a couple years of pioneering, I had so many Bible Studies (students) that I had little time left for the door-to-door work, and I missed it again, especially in the city college/university territory and nearby rural "need-greater" territory. But through all of this, I think the growth of new congregations was based, not so much on the door-to-door work, but on the reputation we had among ourselves for being a happy, loving people who conducted ourselves with honesty and integrity. When someone was out of a job, another Witness would hire them, or help them to get something where he or she also worked. When a Witness started a small business, he hired Witnesses almost exclusively. We all pitched in when a brother or sister had storm damage to their home, or if someone had an emergency, or if a new family moved into the territory. When I look back now and remember who was related to whom, I realize that 90% of the growth in our congregations was from relatives of a core number of families who had been there from 1964, when we first moved into the initial congregation of that territory. I say all this, not to discourage or minimize the house-to-house work. I think that in some ways, our reputation that is due to the house-to-house work is very valuable, even if no one ever became a Witness through that activity. It defines a purpose and ties us to an idea about the first-century congregation, even if the first-century Christians never actually used this exact method themselves. So, with that said, I'm wondering if it's possible for the preaching work, the witnessing work, to be just as effective, or possibly more effective, if at least half our time was spent doing good for the neighborhoods and communities we live in. We would no doubt focus especially on those related to us in the faith, fellow Witnesses, but we would not limit it to that. In Hebrews 10:24,25 it says that we should not forsake gathering together at meetings to encourage one another to show love through good works. Perhaps we should even expect elders to make announcements about which specific good works we could join in together. It's also an idea for compliance with the Russian authorities that would not conflict with our obedience to God. I have wondered how it would change our preaching work if we never preached to anyone that the Russian Orthodox Church was part of Babylon the Great and that all those who have a good heart will desire to join the Witnesses in order to avoid destruction when that church is destroyed along with the rest of this system. The attraction to join the Witnesses would have to be based entirely on positive role modeling rather than fear of destruction. This doesn't mean that we would avoid explaining our beliefs when those related parts of the Bible came up. But that could not be a part of the primary attraction to join the Witnesses, according to the expected Russian regulations on preaching. Personally, I think that if the Watch Tower Society was willing to tell the Belgian authorities that we had changed our stance on blood, and disfellowshipping/shunning and to tell the Mexican branch to dispense with the "worship" portions of the meetings in Mexico for 50 years -- when the Watch Tower forbid the use of songs, and prayers at the meetings and forbid the use of the Bible in the door-to-door work -- then it would be just as possible to carry on the Russian work with a shift in focus. No one would change their core beliefs, they would just focus on good works, including the support of their own Witness families and friends first, and good works for the community, second. When persons are attracted to what binds Witnesses together, it would still be love for God and love for neighbor, and the rest of the beliefs would be much more palatable to those who would join us.

I don't remember where it might be, although I'd guess it would have been with the comments regarding the late sister, Audrey [Mock] Knorr. The story was known by my "table head" at Bethel. (I was the "table foot," for what it's worth.) By 1976, I only heard it "whispered" by this long-time Bethelite, and his younger wife kept trying to get him to keep his voice down about it. But she was also the one feeding him details of the story, as if she was the source. (She worked with Sister Knorr.) But that was while Brother Nathan Knorr was still alive. After Brother Knorr died, 1977, it was talked about more openly. It was talked about again, around 1990, when Brother Richard Wheelock committed suicide by jumping from a window of the Towers Hotel. The person who called me from Bethel to tell me about Brother Wheelock also tied it to the story of his past troubles, although he said he had just learned about those troubles. (BTW: Many people have said that Brother Wheelock jumped from the 8th floor of factory building where he worked. This isn't true.) So the story goes that Richard Wheelock was engaged to Audrey Mock. In those days Brother Wheelock knew that marriage meant leaving Bethel, probably to become a "circuit servant" in his case. But Brother Knorr really liked her and made it known to her that he was also interested in marriage. Audrey Mock had to tell Brother Wheelock that she was breaking off the engagement in favor of Knorr, and Brother Wheelock was so distraught that he threatened to kill himself if she did. The threat was "jarring" she said, but perhaps should have been taken more seriously. Brother Wheelock had ongoing problems with depression that might have been completely unrelated to what happened with Audrey Mock. Of course, she might have realized that she needed to get away from him as soon as he made the threat. It was not a common thing for a man to say and might have tipped her off that he wasn't a stable man. Richard was the factory overseer for the entire time I was at Bethel, and never seemed "off" or "depressed" to me. He did stay to himself, closed up in his office a lot, but this wasn't an unusual practice.

Yet, we do not know if Jesus would have corrected John, and Hebrews 1:6 indicates that he would not have. (Hebrews 1:5-2:4) 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. . . . 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? . . . [2:3] For it began to be spoken through our Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs and wonders and various powerful works and with the holy spirit distributed according to his will. These have even been used as proof-texts for Trinitarians, since the method of worshiping was "doing obeisance." Same as John was doing when he fell down in front of the angel. But again these are NOT prooftexts, but are here to highlight the unfathomable greatness of Jesus in his position at God's right hand. (Revelation 5:8-10) . . .the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) 9 And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, . . . (Revelation 5:13, 14) 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped. That was my point. They were written to give an overall picture that fully equips us to understand the position of Christ whether we are from an environment where it was taught that he was no more than a human, or from an environment where it was taught that he was no less than Almighty God. There is no scripture that claims that the Mighty God, Jesus, the Son of God, is equal with the Almighty God, the Father. But John 1 and Hebrews 1, for examples, were written so that we do not think to diminish Christ's position, or consider him unworthy of "obeisance."

Absolutely!! And by the way, it's: "reductio ad absurdum" although it could mean about the same thing in context. ("Having been reduced to absurdity.") But without context it would appear to say "I withdraw to absurdity."

Substitute "unthinkable" for "uncomfortable". I believe the publications have also drawn on the fact that IF this is understood as praying to or supplicating Jesus directly, the situation has to be understood. Both Stephen and John (at Patmos) and Saul/Paul (c. Damascus) have just seen a vision or had an experience in which they knew that Jesus had just shown himself in some divine way. I think that any human, including any JW, would suddenly feel as if it were proper to pray to or supplicate Jesus directly in such a context where his immense power is somehow conveyed to us. After all, John even felt like bowing down to an angel, in Revelation 22:8-10: …8And I am John, the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things. 9But he said to me,“Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!” Also, there was a time when the Christian Scriptures were just being written, when it was appropriate to emphasize the fact that Jesus was fully "divine," because the last thing most people would remember about him was that he had been humiliated and "broken" by Rome with the punishment meted out to common criminals. The reminder that he is NOW at God's right hand was especially important for the early Christians and it was almost the "motto" of the Greek Scriptures. (Psalms 110:1 is the most quoted verse from the Hebrew Scriptures.) Stephen's vision of a glorious Lord standing at God's right hand was a direct evidence of the fulfillment of Psalms 110:1. With this in mind, we might be surprised that there are not more scriptures that raise Jesus to a level that makes him seem almost equal with his Father, who is also spoken of as his God. But even in these verses where the Bible is emphasizing the divinity of the Son of God as opposed to the humanity of the Son of God, there is almost always a clear path away from understanding these passages as a direct claim of equality. (And even if one or two of these verses appeared to make the claim unambiguously, we would still need to understand it in the wider context of many more passages that directly state that the Son of God is NOT equal with the Father.) This happens again and again. In John 1:1, in John 10:33, in John 20:28 (Thomas addressing "My Lord and My God"). I think that even many scholarly Trinitarians have noticed that what they sometimes call proof-texts almost always contain a loop-hole, or some ambiguity to overcome. We rightly point out the ambiguities, and believe they are purposeful. I think some Trinitarians believe that these few passages, even though they contain some amgiguity, are meant to override verses to the contrary. It seems much more reasonable to see them as necessary to raise awareness of the status of Jesus which might otherwise be unimaginable to the first Jewish Christians, but always in the wider context of many more scriptures that must be understood with these verses. I often get the impression that Trinitarians are claiming that 5 ambiguous verses somehow overcome the teaching of 50 unambiguous verses. Surely it's best to consider that 50 unambiguous verses are teaching the basic truth, yet, on their own, they might inadvertently emphasize the inferior position of the Son of God. And while that might be technically true (that the Son is inferior to Almighty God) a full understanding might be better tempered with some of the more ambiguous verses that will remind us that this "inferiority" is a technicality, but that it should not diminish our regard for Jesus and and the greatness and wonder of his new position in heaven that is still not fathomed by mere humans.

Looks nice. Based on just the "cover shot" it looked like that they gave little people their own parking lot. They seem to be very appreciative, too!

I think the closest explanation would be the following from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dressed-to-the-nines.html: It seems clear that 'the Nine' that Rawlett was referring to were the Nine Muses. It is just as clear that 'dressed to the nines' is merely an extension of 'to the nine/s' and that we could equally well 'dance to the nines' or 'etymologise to the nines'. The search for the link between 'nines' and dress sense has unearthed no convincing candidates. I think what he has missed is the fact that poetry of this time period, as with Shakespeare's, often got mangled when quoted. I think that the real source is from the poem, but I'm guessing that it's based on a mangling of the original idea. What the poets and authors wrote, they "addressed to the Nines." [the creative muses] Therefore, anything that is extremely well-said or well-written (or poorly written, if you are being sarcastic) is therefore "addressed to the Nines." Especially "highfalutin" language, often combined with "highfalutin" dress, would become a candidate for saying it was was [ad]dressed to the Nines. The contraction 'dressed for addressed would make the phrase quickly evolve into a reference for highfalutin dress rather than language.

Mmmmmm! Can't wait to enjoy it. All my life I thought this was something I was really missing. And every time I get a craving for blood, I have to remind myself that I must wait until someone makes it artificially, or perhaps makes it out of 99% of each of the four major components, so that it isn't whole blood and it isn't a whole component. (Of course, I could always have that last 1% for desert, assuming my conscience allows it.) This seems pretty insane, if the real reasons for the 'invention' were to pick up a few more religious customers; but, then again, it seems pretty insane to process blood for food, too. My father still tells this old joke: JOHNNY: Mommy, this soup tastes like blood. MOTHER: Shut up, Johnny, and finish before it coagulates!

Yes.

Most engineers I know have been married an average of 0.5 times. For reasons only an engineer would know, I cannot say that the average was 0.50 or 0.500, indicating the limited scope of my data.

Did she think, perhaps, that your memes contained a hint of insensitivity, or something even worse?

There really is no difficulty in translating this. The Greek is as perfectly simple and clear as any other verses in the Bible that discuss resurrection. The problem is finding a way to understand it that fits the common beliefs about the resurrection. The explanation that the Watchtower article gives is very possible, but getting that explanation into the translation itself is just about impossible. Hardly anyone who studies the Bible would blame us for understanding it the way we do, however, because the verse actually says something that very few people can believe. In this particular place, the NWT is not really a translation, but as the Watchtower article quoted above indicates, it's a "rendering" that "does not confuse readers concerning the resurrection." To get a better idea of what the verses say, follow an interlinear to see what the verses say in Greek. If this is done with an online tool, you can easily look up each word in a good Bible dictionary and you can quickly see how that Greek word is used in every other place it occurs in the Bible. There are now several ways to do this. Here's one: Go to blueletterbible.com Look up Matthew 27:52 Click the link where the text of the verse is preceded by a column that says [TOOLS] and a column with the link: Matthew 27:52 The link opens up a table under the English verse with the Greek text, then a link to each word in the text that acts like an interlinear, a concordance, a link to Strong's, and a link to Thayer's. There are also tabs that take you to a list of about a dozen different translations, or commentaries, and cross-references for the particular verse. Let the mouse pointer sit over any of the Greek words of the verse under "Textus Receptus" 27:52 καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθη, Hovering the mouse over each word brings up the basic meaning of each word, which you can see in the table just below where each word is spelled out in its basic form for linking to other reference tools. Using this method, it's a quick online interlinear with quick links to some of the same reference tools that the NWT translators have used. Hovering the mouse over the last word in that verse, ἠγέρθη [egerthe], you could see a small 'text tool' that pops up to say [ 'arose' - From the root ἐγείρω (G1453) ]. If you click on the link G1453 below that place, you will see the definition based on the Bible usage along with Strong's Dictionary definition, Thayer's Lexicon reference, and every place in the Bible that this word is used, starting from Matthew to Revelation.

Glad it did. That was an excellent review.

Most of us think we are pacifists, even if we remember that we have been told otherwise. So it's a good question and we should figure out why. *** w03 1/15 p. 26 “Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers” Joyfully Assemble *** Early Christians were not pacifists, but they recognized that their prime allegiance was to God. Likewise today, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold firmly to the principle: “You are no part of the world.” (John 15:19) Since tests of our neutrality can arise quickly, families ought to make time to review the Bible’s guidelines on this subject. *** w79 11/1 p. 4 Neutrality in a Mixed-up World *** These neutrals of World War II were no pacifists. They were fighters in a spiritual sense, well trained in the use of “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.” (Eph. 6:17) They were integrity-keepers. And often they sealed their integrity with their lifeblood. They were not afraid to die for a righteous cause. *** w64 8/15 p. 484 Those Who Pursue Peace *** Actually, Jehovah’s witnesses are not in “rebellion” against the activities of any government, but they do maintain uncompromising neutrality as to the world’s political and military affairs, as they follow the Scriptural injunction to ‘seek peace and pursue it.’ They are not pacifists. They do not oppose any government’s program of military conscription or demonstrate against it, but they submit themselves to God’s arrangement of things. Of them the Bible says: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”—2 Cor. 10:3-5. *** w55 8/1 p. 478 Questions From Readers *** Jesus said: “Whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also to him.” How does this harmonize with the right of self-defense that Jehovah’s witnesses believe in?—K. K., United States. Jesus did not say if someone hit you with a club or with a clenched fist you should allow him to strike you again. If an attacker wants to hurt you physically he uses a weapon or at least doubles up his fist when he hits you. On the other hand, if he wants to insult or humiliate you or provoke you into a fight he may slap you with his open hand. A slap is not an attack with intent to injure or kill, but is to insult the one struck. Such personal insults or attempts to provoke one into a fight should not stir the Christian to retaliate. If the blow is struck and the striker then waits to see the result, the Christian will not retaliate and thus be drawn into a brawl. However, this refusal to pay back insult for insult does not mean Christians are to be pacifists or that they must never resort to self-defense. Christ Jesus himself will go forth to fight Jehovah’s battle of Armageddon, at the head of heavenly armies. Christians resurrected as spirit creatures will serve with him in that war. In ancient times Jehovah’s people fought at his direction and with his help. Today Christians rightfully defend the Kingdom interests, their meeting places, their right to assemble, their property, their brothers and sisters and their own persons. They do not arm in advance, in anticipation of trouble. But when attacked they may ward off blows and strike in defense, though not in offense. If attacked on public property they will call on officers of the law or withdraw, if possible, but in their homes or at their meeting places they need not retreat. They have Scriptural and legal rights to take defensive action. They are not thereby violating Jesus’ words at Matthew 5:39, for those words pertain to personal insults, not to attacks designed to do serious physical damage to one’s person. *** w51 2/1 pp. 67-68 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists *** Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists “Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name.”—Ex. 15:3, AS; Yg. . . . . We are not pacifists. . . . To charge that we are extreme pacifists is a lie.” 3 As defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d edition, unabridged, of 1943) pacifism means: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.” Such pacifism not even the Bible itself can be charged with teaching, and neither can Jehovah’s witnesses, who stick most scrupulously to the Bible. 4 When expressing a judgment upon Jehovah’s witnesses people are inclined to think of them as a religious body less than a century old. True, this unique name came into the limelight in 1931, when, by public acclamation, these faithful Christians all over the earth adopted resolutions rejecting the contemptuous names the enemies had tagged onto them and accepting the Scriptural name “Jehovah’s witnesses”. But their history is much longer than a century. Already in the eighth century before Christ the prophecy declared to God’s chosen people: “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; . . . I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, AS) In fact, the history of Jehovah’s witnesses runs all the way back to Adam’s son Abel, whom his brother Cain killed because Abel had received favorable witness from Jehovah God. The apostle Paul, in chapters 11 and 12 of his letter to the Hebrews, shows that fact. In all that history of almost six thousand years the record fails to show Jehovah’s witnesses accusable of “opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose”, which is the definition of pacifism. 5 We could go through the list of Jehovah’s witnesses from Abraham onward to show they were not pacifists. The apostle Paul tells us about Abraham “returning from the slaughter of the kings” and receiving the blessing of King Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:1-4; Gen. 14:14-21) He tells of Moses who led the Israelites to the borders of the Promised Land. Then he mentions one high light in Joshua’s war to purge the Promised Land of the immoral pagan inhabitants, and adds: “And what more shall I say? For the time will fail me if I go on to relate about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David as well as Samuel and the other prophets, who through faith defeated kingdoms in conflict, effected righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, stayed the force of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from a weak state were made powerful, became valiant in war, routed the armies of foreigners.” (Heb. 11:30-34, NW) Every one that Paul there names was a fighter. *** w51 2/1 p. 70 par. 13 Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Not Pacifists *** 13 Were Jehovah’s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make. Jesus Christ never did so, and he is Jehovah’s greatest witness, who has earned the title “The faithful and true witness”. (Rev. 3:14) Jehovah himself is no pacifist. Neither are his witnesses such, although they are conscientious objectors. *** g97 5/8 p. 22 Should Christians Be Pacifists? *** Is it Scripturally correct, however, to describe Jehovah’s Witnesses as pacifists? To clarify the matter, it may depend on what is meant by the word “pacifist.” Butler used the term to commend the Witnesses for their bravery in refusing, at great personal cost, to take up arms in warfare. Sadly, though, many people who are caught up in the fever of war see a pacifist only as “a coward or a traitor, who [is] anxious to shirk his responsibility to his nation.”

Well put!

It's very, very good. I have both books by B. W. Schulz. I love the style. Not in it to find controversy. They just go wherever evidence takes them. A lot of it is trivial, but this is still the best type of research. They aren't trying to draw conclusions for you.

The report was not true. (Numbers 13:31-33) 31 But the men who went up with him said: “We are not able to go up against the people, because they are stronger than we are.” 32 And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report about the land that they had spied out, saying: “The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size. 33 And there we saw the Nephʹi·lim, the sons of Aʹnak, who are from the Nephʹi·lim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.” They were able to go up against the people, whether they were strong or not. They had just seen that with "Moses v. Pharoah." The land obviously does not devour its inhabitants. Many different tribes and people were seen to be living there: (Numbers 13:28, 29) 28 Nevertheless, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the fortified cities are very great. We also saw the Anʹa·kim there. 29 The A·malʹek·ites are dwelling in the land of the Negʹeb, and the Hitʹtites, the Jebʹu·sites, and the Amʹor·ites are dwelling in the mountainous region, and the Caʹnaan·ites are dwelling by the sea and along the Jordan.” It was not ALL the people who were men of extraordinary size. Only the Anakim were identified as being of larger size. These were not actually the Nephilim, either. The bad report included the exaggeration that the Israelites would have seemed like grasshoppers to the Anakim. If all of them were as tall as Goliath, it would still be a great exaggeration to speak of even a young David-sized Israelite as a grasshopper. What made it bad was the attitude of unwillingness to fight for a land that was already promised, and would have Jehovah's backing, if they had a little faith in the promise. (Proverbs 26:13) . . .The lazy one says: “There is a young lion in the road, A lion in the public square!”

Yup. At the time, I didn't have a care in the world. Thought I would probably stay at Bethel as a 10 to 20 year career, and that there was a good chance this would also see me through the end of this system. Got married, and had to go out and get a real job. That's when the hindsight kicks in.

I think John was just looking out for you. Lot of truth in what he said, though, speaking personally, of course.

Note the footnote in the NWT Reference Bible: “Jehovah,” J18,22,23; אBC(Gr.), ton Kyʹri·on; P46D, “the Christ”; A, “God.” See App 1D. You can safely ignore the J18,22,23 as these have nothing to do with Bible manuscripts. But the א (4th century Codex Sinaiticus), B (4th century "Vaticanus" and C (5th century Codex Ephraemi) all say "kyrion" ("lord") here. P46 (2nd/3rd century Chester Beatty Papyrus) and D (5th/6th century Bezae Codices) have "the Christ" A (the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus) has "God" here. Therefore, we have one piece of mss evidence for "Christ" from around the year 200 C.E. The bulk of all other manuscript evidence, through the 4th century, has "lord" here. It is because of this word (lord) that there is an allusion to the OT quote, where the lord referred to "Jehovah." If the Bible texts had actually confirmed the word "Christ" in this verse, then it would (and still could) mean that the Word, Jesus prior to his "incarnation," was representing Jehovah on earth at that time, which is quite probable based on other verses.