JW Insider

There is no reference to "souls" in that context of Genesis 9, just all living animals and food and meat and blood.

To me, a distinction without a necessary distinction. Dead of natural cause could include a cow, sheep, horse, goat, or snake that had been strangled around the neck by a lion that ran off or was chased off before eating it. Genesis 9 is also open to interpretation: (Gen: 9:3,4) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. Technically, it doesn't say anything about bleeding an animal before eating it. Although that's a common-sense way to interpret it, especially in light of the Mosaic Law. One odd, but possible interpretation is this: You may now eat anything that lives and moves, but just don't eat it while it is still living and moving. You must kill it first. (or, even more technically: It must have died first.) Some of the rabbis interpreted this to mean that you couldn't strangle off a portion of meat to eat it while keeping the poor animal alive. If you had a goat giving good milk, or raising a baby goat (kid), you couldn't strangle off a leg just because you were starving. You had to kill the whole goat. You couldn't have your cake and eat it too. By the way, I knew a Witness who killed their chickens by strangling them: wringing their neck until the neck twisted off.

For me the issue is still a bit too complex: I would agree with the Watchtower publication quoted earlier that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that, as far as blood is concerned, we are being held to a LOWER standard than what the Mosaic Law stated concerning blood. The primary basis for the Acts 15 stance on blood was not the Mosaic Law, but the decree that Jehovah gave to Noah regarding eating animal blood and bloodguilt. By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled. According the Mosaic Law, a Jewish person could still make money off an unbled animal and would have no qualms of conscience about selling it to a gentile living in their midst, for them to make any use they wanted of that unbled animal, including eating it. But then there is the question about whether we are really held to that same lower standard that the gentile had. When the congregation and the elders at Jerusalem wanted to solve the problem of gentiles and Jews coming together as Christians, they agreed with the elders' statement that gentiles should "abstain from blood, things strangled, from things sacrificed to idols, and from fornication." Some commentators have said that this was a necessary solution until the Jewish Christians realized they no longer needed to follow the Mosaic Law which was still keeping them separate, not even eating at the same table as gentiles. That temporary nature would seem to fit Paul's statements in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians about it being OK to eat things sacrificed to idols, and OK to eat anything set before them by a gentile (which could apparently even include unbled meat, of from a strangled animal). That would mean that Paul might have thought Christians were still held to the LOWER standard of people under Jehovah's decree to Noah (with respect to blood and things sacrificed to idols). In Galatians, Paul dealt with the matter of Jews eating at the same table with gentiles. But Paul still argued against those who thought their liberty and freedom under Christianity could include fornication. But for those other things, Paul said it only held for the times when Jews around them were still "weak." Of course, this isn't the only way to interpret why Paul said Christians could eat anything a gentile set on the plate in front of them making no question about it.

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out. It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something. I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic. And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

I think that some brothers feel they can do a lot more good for both the organization and the congregations overall by not declaring themselves apostates, even if they hold beliefs different from the accepted doctrinal party line. For example, I recall very clearly when I did research for Brother Bert Schroeder (1977-1982) that he often hinted at different beliefs and sometimes even got in trouble for promoting them as "trial balloons" when giving talks during his travels. In those days, the accepted doctrinal party line, even among members of the Governing Body, was that it had to be whatever was already approved (or would be approved) by Brother Fred Franz. This kept other GB members from even attempting to propose alternatives to prophetic interpretations. In 1974 there were only 9 active members of the GB, and that number suddenly doubled almost exactly at the time when there was talk about changing the nature of the GB from a "non-governing" governing body into a GOVERNING Body. Along with the already declined health of Groh and Sullivan, it became known that Knorr might soon die and leave the non-governing GB with only 8. So 8 additional GB members were added in late 1974 to double that active number to 17 (although Brother Fekel wasn't very active). Until then, many of these same GB members, and even a lot of long-time Bethel "heavies" as they were called, were willing to talk about a pet doctrine that differed in some way from the party line. In fact, they appeared to take some pride in the fact that they could think independently of Fred Franz on a certain topic. When I started in 1976, there was still talk among various table heads (Bethel elders and "heavies") that up until 1974, it was easy to get Brother "so-and-so" to tell you his alternative explanation of this or that doctrine (or policy) [the mediator, the tribulation, parable of leaven, mustard tree, dragnet, etc]-- "but now he's on the Governing Body." As one example, I had questions about 1918 and 1919 and was told that Brother Sydlik had an alternative explanation. It took some doing, but I finally got Brother Sydlik to share what I was told he had shared freely before his appointment to the GB in late 1974. Also, when I worked for Brother Schroeder, he had alternative explanations to the "generation," to the various "type" and "anti-type" classes, to the meaning of "house-to-house," to the physicality rather than just the symbolism of the "heart," and several other ideas. He even asked me to research supposed health differences among people who were left-handed, right-handed and those who were forced to change from left to right at a young age. [He wanted me to "prove" that people who were forced to change had more blood sugar problems. It was the only research assignment that seemed to have nothing to do with the Bible.] Should Schroeder and Sydlik and all those Bethel "heavies" and other Bethel Elders have declared themselves apostate? They were among at least 5 GB members who, at least around 1978-81 didn't even fully accept our 1914 doctrine. Now I don't agree with most of the novel ideas that Schroeder had, but I think it there was some good in the freedom of thought and expression that allowed some to stand up against the "old guard" thinking of Fred Franz on some issues. Fred Franz fought back right in front of the Bethel family sometimes. I was there the morning he railed loudly against those who thought Jesus was "the mediator of every Tom, Dick, and Harry." My own table head at the time was one of those persons, as were probably many others. Fred Franz thought it was apostasy to even harbor a doubt in your mind about 1914, 1918 and 1919. But when Brother Splane gave the first major announcement about finally dropping the unsupported "type" & "antitype" classes, who did he credit with promoting this very idea from decades earlier? Listen to his talk and note that he specifically credited Brother Bert Schroeder, who had died about a decade before this change was finally implemented. So I would agree that "apostate" ideas are not good to promote as a certainty. But Schroeder was apparently more careful promoting them under Fred Franz tenure, but then more openly when Fred Franz died. And what was apostasy has now become something he is credited for promoting.

Exactly right. No one should ever embrace deception. Fortunately, for me, but unfortunately for the reviler, the predictions invariably came true. Truth is not the same as deception, although there are deceptive truths. At any rate, it doesn't matter to me any more, it was just a fun experiment in psychology, but it becomes boring when simple predictions become too easy so I moved on to other things.

Exposing your predictions can keep them from coming true. The opposite of self-fulfilled prophecy. I often place my predictions in 'white on white' text so that most browsers will make the text disappear completely. All you have to do is highlight the hidden text by selecting and you can read it clearly. In the olden days, when I cared enough, I had a lot of fun adding a sentence or two to the end of a post. They often would have embarrassed a certain reviler person who, under multiple disguises, couldn't help but bring up my name to cause some kind of dissension every few days. But then at the last minute I always decided it would be more Christian not to point them out, but some of the "hidden text" is still posted and can even show up in the site-search tool.

Rutherford had given talks and written booklets that I thought attempted to rework this doctrine into a kind of court case. (He sometimes had a theme of God's Plan as seen through the eyes of an attorney.) I think this is related to his repeated use of Isaiah 43:9.10 which finally became the very motto for the name Jehovah's witnesses in this universal court case. Let all the nations assemble in one place, And let the peoples be gathered together. Who among them can tell this? Or can they cause us to hear the first things? Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right, Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’” 10 “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed,

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Controversy_theme One of the 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists states: 8. Great Controversy: All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Ezek. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)[4]

I don't doubt the overall point you are making that ultimately we must stand "ourselves alone" before the judgment seat of God. And you are right, too, about "examining our past actions and behavior to ensure they were not influenced by our own flawed understanding and judgment." I like that. It's very clear, and its scriptural: (Galatians 6:3-5) For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4  But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5  For each one will carry his own load. The only thing I see a bit differently is not so important, but I hope you'll excuse me for pointing it out. The phrase "Am I my brother's keeper?" is not really meant to be a guide for our spiritual growth. More likely, in my opinion, it's a reminder that we SHOULD be our brother's keeper during the time of our spiritual growth. Ultimately, we stand alone and carry our own load, but penultimately, during our spiritual growth, we SHOULD be our brother's keeper. We have a brotherhood, because Christianity is a social religion that works best when we mutually support one another. (Hebrews 10:24,25) The very point Paul made in Galatians, above, was preceded by a verse that sounded, at first, like just the opposite: (Galatians 6:2) .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. I wouldn't have pointed it out, but it just sounded a bit jarring to think that Cain's words were some kind of spiritual guidance, when these were the words Cain used as he was trying to deflect and deceive Jehovah. He had just killed his own brother after harboring animosity and jealousy, and wanted to hide his crime.

Don't know if this will help, but I think he is just saying that when a foreigner comes to another country, that foreigner must still obey the laws of that country. But there is a limit to that obedience, because a foreigner isn't required to take an oath of allegiance or obedience in everything. For example, would a Chinese citizen visiting Australia be required to fight for Australia against China if war between the countries broke out during their visit? (Or vice versa.) In the same way, Russell says that Bible Students are all for obedience to the laws, but don't take an oath of obedience and allegiance in all things, because Bible Students are essentially "foreigners" in their own country when it comes to their higher allegiance to God.

I signed almost precisely the same oath on my first passport. And yes I noticed it but it was easily explained away by my parents as just a necessary part of doing business in this world, and that all the brothers who need a passport sign it. Still, it felt funny when reading this scripture: (Matthew 5:36, 37) . . .Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37  Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.

No. That was my own typo. Sorry. It was the phrase "So held me God" instead of "So help me God." And Pudgy was only highlighting the part that says "Port of departure" instead of "Date of Departure" where part of the word "ALLEGIANCE" appeared writ large. However, I note that Elizabeth's 1922 application (above) also contains "Port." I now suspect you are right however because I searched such images on Google and have now seen several different versions of the application form from the early 1900's, and I have now seen a few versions with typos in other places, although this is the only one I saw with the word "held". It was a ripe place for a typo however because some versions changed the font to italic only at that sentence. Some highlighted different words in that sentence. I brought it up, however, because major ex-JW sites are usually super-careful about never faking anything, especially because Witnesses so often claim that ex-JWs and non-JWs "always" fake things or take them out of context. Even claiming that photocopies of the literature have been faked. I have been through large portions of jwfacts.com, RF's CoC, COJ's GTR, etc., looking for exactly that kind of thing, and have never found a claim that could be countered with these common complaints. And where evidence exists elsewhere, it has ALWAYS supported the claims in those particular places. I can't say as much for ALL the ex-JW sites, because I haven't checked, but I know there is also a lot of misinformation out there from all sides.

I believe there must have existed a real document with similarities to this one on his actual passport application, and the signature matches that of JFR in other places. But I find it hard to believe that a document like this one would have contained such a blatant typo: So held me God. I have seen some other 1922 U.S. passport applications and had not seen one with this typo. Also the OATH OF ALLEGIENCE is in a different font on some of the others I have seen.

I have never held one, and don't recall the exact wording, although I vaguely recall seeing a picture. I recall finding some material in a University Library on Malawi, from a huge UN-sourced publication, in the very late 1970s and it tried to give a completely different impression of what had happened in Malawi and why. I chalked it up to governmental propaganda. Banda propaganda. I never thought about it much until I saw it brought up again in RF CoC. Then it struck me as something I should have looked into, because as a Southern Californian, we used to visit Mexican congregations as a child, and their meetings still stuck out as something that needed more explanation, which my parents tried to explain to me as best they could. Do you have a copy to share? Or a link to a picture of one?

@Juan Rivera I finally read through this whole topic, previously only noticing some side topics of interest to me at the time. And I see that you have often addressed me here and hoped I would offer "on-topic" comments much earlier. As I read through it, I think @Many Miles is offering exactly the kinds of responses I would have offered had I been a little more thoughtful and focused on the original topic. I agree that Galatians contains themes about doctrinal purity and, per Miles, the limit of obedience to human authority. We get valuable perspectives on these topics as Paul writes about many different things, including his own authority, the good news, being justified by faith and not works, and the difficulties Jewish Christians had fully appreciating that last concept (coming from a background of 1500 years of "salvation by works," i.e., law). But it seems that you also intend to find in Galatians some evidence for an ecclesiastical, God-appointed, human authority, such as a governing body that provides a basis for the proper type of Christian unity. I know you are aware from past comments that I believe Paul goes in a different direction on that question. I do think such an authority would be extremely valuable and convenient. But I see too many scriptures that fly in the face of expecting exactly that type of authority today. That doesn't mean that a type of human governing body doesn't serve a good purpose, of course. And this doesn't mean that the congregations are without human teachers and authorities. It just means that we, if we are truly Christian, must share the responsibility with them for what we accept and believe. Of course, just saying all that is easier than providing the scriptures and details behind it, but many of those points have already been made in this current discussion. And I like that you are looking for a more methodical approach. I appreciated this about "Rotherham" when I often went on for many pages in discussions with him (over a decade ago). He remained in a private "theology" email discussion group that I lightly participated in for years but I now only read comments from others now and then. Is he still around? Haven't heard from "Rotherham" for years now. Do you know about his health? And thanks for locating that blog from Apologetic Front on the web.archive. I found many pages there with some good ideas to review: https://web.archive.org/web/20150201214409/http://apologeticfront.com/category/faithful-slave/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150201220435/http://apologeticfront.com/category/governing-body/

Not a great source. Just a friend with connections in Germany (and Poland, actually) who has often been right about some things. It's pretty obvious to me that he had serious mental problems, but I didn't remember that from his website. I read two initial articles and then saw something rather stupid on a blog comment that "you just KNOW it must be because of JW shunning policy." Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of our version of shunning is unscriptural, and even the Watchtower's PR and Legal team must agree that it's bad based on how they have to deny it in front of authorities or courts. (Otherwise it creates liabilities for suicides etc.) But I just thought that if this is true, at least it takes some of heat off the Organization and puts it more squarely on the guy's mental state.

I just read that Shinzo Abe's alleged killer assassinated Abe (2020) because he thought that Abe had ties to the Unification Church (aka "Moonies") and because the killer's mother had given so much money to the church that he says it brought his family to ruin. This reminded me to ask if anyone here knows if there is any evidence for the rumors that the killer/murderer who shot and killed so many Witnesses in Hamburg was also angry that he had given so much money (millions?) to the Witnesses before becoming disillusioned. (Someone said that he had asked for his contribution back and was refused.)

A lot of great points brought up by several people on ths topic. Wish I had more time to go through and consider them more carefully. Unfortunately for me I need to take another couple of weeks off from commenting. Carry on! Till we meet again to "chew the fat" as it were. (I might just go to France to take in some Paris-sites.)

No need to apologize. I didn't mean to sound too serious. It was merely a setup to be able to say that I will "stop kicking against the goads" which I decided to skip saying anyway. I don't mind the overlapping meaning of eating with drinking on a technical level, but regarding Bible commentary, Hebrew and Greek both had separate terms for eating chewable food and drinking liquid food. So I don't know how much we could ever expect the term to overlap in Hebrew (or Greek). (Deuteronomy 9:9) . . .I remained on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights, eating no food and drinking no water. (Luke 17:26-28) Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27  they were eating, they were drinking,... and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28  Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. True. You can't expect a Bible account to give every detail we might wonder about. Much of the text is poetic shorthand. Also although the term does mean "green," the exact same term will often just mean grass/leaves/stalks etc. For example, both of the following are good translations: (Numbers 22:4) So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the grass in the field.”. . . (Numbers 22:4) 4 So Moʹab said to the elders of Midʹi·an: “Now this congregation will devour all our surroundings, just as a bull devours the green in the field.”. . . This reminded me that the term "devour" is actually the NWT choice for a word that technically means to "lick up" which is the way the KJV and others translate it. But I mention it because the usual term for "eat" is the same word often translated "devour," especially when it comes to beasts. It would be odd, but a translator would thus have the right to say that Adam and Eve were given every tree to "devour." Or to Noah "You must not devour [flesh with its] blood." That potential connotation could refer to the fact that the mouth is chewing something up and therefore smashing and crushing with teeth, for example. That may be part of the reason that the word is never used of milk, water, or alcohol.

I hoped to get back more directly to the topic of Acts 15. It seemed to me that the "James decree" had treated "abstain from blood" as if it had a more specific meaning that might not have included "things strangled." Otherwise why would it need to be added if it were already included in items that were not properly drained, for example? Today we think of the abstain from blood prohibition as already including "things strangled." Another thing I noticed is that Ezekiel seems to refer back to a rabbinic style Noahide list in Ezekiel 33, and if so it apparently breaks down the Noahide "blood" reference to some additional ideas related to blood, too. (Not that Noah directly mentions idolatry and fornication/adultery although some rabbis derived this from Noah's proper sanctioned sacrifice, and the command for moral sanctioned sexual relations that would "be fruitful and fill the earth." Note that passage mentions blood, idolatry, and fornication/adultery, more similar to Acts 15, but appears to expand "no blood" to unbled meat, murder/bloodshed, and reliance on the sword. (Ezekiel 33:25, 26) . . .Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You are eating food with the blood, and you lift up your eyes to your disgusting idols, and you keep shedding blood. So why should you possess the land? 26  You have relied on your sword, you engage in detestable practices, and each of you has defiled his neighbor’s wife. So why should you possess the land?”’

Here I thought I was done, then I get goaded into another response. A few semesters of Hebrew doesn't make me an expert, but I can say that this is simple, straightforward, unambiguous Hebrew. No expertise required. The term "IT" is not a standalone pronoun but is implied in the conjugation of a third person masculine singular verb. If the verb had been about a male person then, of course, the masculine implied pronoun could be translated "he." Sometimes the number and gender of an implied pronoun can help pinpoint an antecedent that is further distant than the current sentence, but we get no help to do that in this case. I'm not saying it's impossible, because Hebrew is pretty flexible in providing a range of meaning from simple constructs. But there is nothing that would push it back and a very strong hint that we should only look for a close antecedent. By that I mean, that the sentence is about "singular" EVERY HERB and "singular" EVERY TREE. Every tree sounds plural to us, but sometimes as in English, we could say, "I've given you [every] HERB and TREE from which to eat. IT's your food" In that case a singular construct is the same as the plural construct "I've given you all HERBS and TREES from which to eat. THEY are your food." In this case the Hebrew uses singular constructs with "every" and the actual [masculine] antecedent appears to be just as closely associated with the phrase like "in which trees a fruit bears a seed." As if to say "I've given you every herb bearing seed and every tree with fruit bearing seed . . . [every one, every where] . . . IT will be your food. In English we are sometimes more comfortable thinking of these are plural so it's OK to translate . . . "THEY will be your food." Since it's nothing too complicated, I think any of the following translations give the sense perfectly well: And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. NLT Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. NIV Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. ESV And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. CSB God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This will be food for you, NASB20 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; I am not dogmatic that this restricted their diet to fruit trees and herbs, only that the account is deliberately putting emphasis on Jehovah's provisions of herbs and trees. While subduing the fish and other animals might be a reasonable indication that would come into play regarding their diet, It's still a stretch to move the antecedent of IT in Genesis 1:29 back to include the dominion over animals as food. --------------- It's interesting that ancient Jews held an extra-Biblical belief concerning the coiled, multi-headed, dragon-serpent sea monster called "Leviathan." (see Job, Psalms, Isaiah) When paradise was restored to the world, Leviathan would finally be slain and provide a huge banquet of meat for all those living in Paradise. I suppose it must have been considered a clean animal, and it would be God or archangels who would do the slaying (rather than a fight with Behemoth, for example). Otherwise I suppose the following would apply, unless there was an exception for water creatures: (Exodus 22:31) 31 “You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs.

I'm tempted, but I grabbed a few of his notebooks and didn't see anything yet. He also wrote articles for Popular Electronics, Nuts and Volts, etc., and I was looking to see if this was in them. All I find so far are a lot of amp and pre-amp circuit designs etc. This just reminded me, I have an electric guitar (Mosrite/Ventures) that I once played in the District Convention orchestra, where my dad had built a simple amplifier into the case, into the small compartment along the neck for picks and extra strings. To save space he built it in "3-D" to fit into the box instead of on a larger flat circuit board, so the amp looks like an exposed mesh of wires and components attached to a 3 inch speaker, which could be mic'd at the assembly. I took it out when someone bought me a portable Marshall amp, but now I wish I had kept it as a "souvenir."

The easier one that I should have taken a picture of even though it didn't work anymore was the hanging globe. It's just a small hollow metal globe sitting in a 3' x 4' x 4' pitch black space like a large wooden box with a rounded back, dark enough so that he poked holes in it and attached a few fake diamonds of different sizes on black wires at different lengths to simulate a star field behind the earth. On one side of the box there was a bright light representing sunlight but it didn't light up the back so the background still looked pitch black except for the stars. Then there was a very sensitive photocell on the other side which picked up more light if the globe tended to get pulled down (gravity). That photocell voltage was amplified to activate a strong electromagnet capable of picking up the globe from nearly a foot no more than 6 inches away. As the magnet was strengthened by the stronger light, the globe tended to be pulled up which reduced the light and weakened the electromagnet so that it appeared to be in perfect equilibrium at all times. While designing it and tweaking it, he put a bit of black foam in front of the magnet so that it wouldn't start oscillating and smash into the magnet, which would mean painting a new globe. This could happen if you placed the globe in the air too far away from the magnet, and it got full power but couldn't stop the inertia in time to stop the globe in midair as it rose quickly to the magnet. The ability to spin it was something we didn't realize would be possible until after it was built because we thought that the magnetic field was so strong it could tend to magnetize the globe into a specific "hold" that would be difficult to spin out of.

I don't actually know. This is one of the surviving student teaching aids that he built. There were several designs, some with two lights and two switches, and they worked in different ways, so I can't tell you exactly how this one worked. Each of them taught something a little different but required some thinking for EE students to guess a viable solution. I spent enough time in his labs each afternoon when students came through that I wasn't told so that I wouldn't blab to to the lab assistants. I don't want to take this one apart for fear I'll mess it up, but some of them had two conducting wires within one side or the other of the transformer and the diode (one or two were buried in the socket for a 6v lightbulb). I remember that the bulb could be replaced but the socket had to stay. This one appears to be permanently attached to its socket, so maybe it's a different design. Of course, since a diode only allows electricity to "flow" in one direction, it can become a switch on its own, or remove reverse voltage spikes, etc. I see a more modern version of one of these tricks here: And a related discussion of the probable design here: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/23971/how-is-this-possible-3-leds-trick The way a hidden diode is attached to a penlight or flashlight bulb creates something similar to an LED (light-emitting diode). If it helps, I remember he made one version where if you turned the lights way down, you could still see just a tiny bit of light when it was switched on, but 10x more light when it was off. That's actually why I took the video in a dark room to see if this was one of those, but it wasn't.