9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Very interesting and thorough analysis and I agree with the substance of the argument. Did you have this already prepared? Thanks for putting it together anyway.

Thank you. No I didn't have it already prepared. So far, I've always written "on the spot" and it sometimes shows when I leave out something important.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The only issue for me is that there is a potential for a confused implication that Arianism predates Arius and that it is somehow reflected in John's gospel. There has to be a better way of expressing this.

There is a better way. One of the things I left out is that our doctrine is not strictly Arian, but it is very similar. And I didn't mean to imply that Arianism is directly reflected in John's gospel. It is merely one attempted "solution" to the one-or-two-or-three-Gods issue, and it happens to be one that we agree with in more aspects than not. I believe I'll get to those differences when I get a chance to respond to Cos again.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I wouldn't want to give the impression that the understanding of Jesus role and nature is an idea developed from Scripture. For me, it is a truth presented clearly in Scripture when originally written, but subsequently obscured and buried by apostate teachers, with attempts by some, such as Arius, to restore the suspected original over the years with varying degrees of success, in the face of continued opposition.

That might be a semantic 'distinction without a distinction.' An understanding of Jesus role and nature can still be developed from Scripture even if it is a truth already presented clearly in Scripture when originally written. This would be especially true if a doctrine has been partly obscured and buried by apostate teachers.

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Arius appears to me to be one who has made such an attempt with partial success. But his view is only of his time. He was only revealing (partially) something which was already there, and to associate his name with the original teaching inappropriately is to do injustice to the Master.

Yes, I agree with that. It is both wrong and an anachronism to say that the original teaching of the Greek Scriptures is "Arianism." I had said that "I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John," and I meant this in about the same way that someone might read C.T.Russell's early Watch Tower publications and say that he could trace the fundamentals of "Russellism" to the Bible, even if he still disagreed with much of it. My main point was that the parts of Arianism that Witnesses agree with completely really are found in John's gospel, even if Arius wasn't born until perhaps 150+ years after John wrote.

He joined on a lay-away plan?

11 minutes ago, Jay Witness said:

Being buried so close to a Freemason cemetery.... I wonder what connection he had.

He was just dying to be one?

1 hour ago, Cos said:

But I’m even more dumbfounded by the claim made that it is not “fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century”. This is historically incorrect.

Wikipedia says the following about Arianism: Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt.

But note that Origen was born in the late 2nd century and did most of his language and theological work in the early 3rd century. Of him, Wikipedia says: "Origen. . .  184/185 – 253/254),^[1] was a Greek scholar, ascetic,^[2] and early Christian theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. "

Personally, I trace the fundamentals of Arianism to the gospel of John. I think that Anti-Arianism probably was raised to a high pitch based on the public arguments between Arius and Homoousians leading up to a decision by council at Nicaea in 325 CE.

It turns out that the earlier manuscripts of John were more Arian than the later manuscripts. Just look at John 1:18

(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (NWT)

(John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

You might think that JWs would have preferred that this verse had read "only-begotten Son" instead of "only-begotten God." You might also think that Trinitarians in the 4th century had no reason to tamper with an expression like "only-begotten God" and would have no reason to change it to "only-begotten Son."

Yet that is exactly where the evidence leads. The manuscripts split here on this reading going all the way back to the major Bible mss of the 4th century. I won't take the time to explain the whole footnote here from the NWT Reference Bible, but the main symbols to be concerned with are: Alpha, A, B, C, and in this case P75 and P66.

(NWT footnote on John 1:18) “The only-begotten god,” P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”

The P66  refers to Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S. (Note the date!)

The P75 refers to Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.  (Note the date!)

The Aleph refers to the Sinaiticus:

א (ʼAleph)   Codex Sinaiticus, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.

The B refers to the Codex Vaticanus:    

Vatican ms 1209, Gr., fourth cent. C.E., Vatican City, Rome, H.S., G.S.

But notice that "only-begotten Son" appears first in the 5th century:

A       Codex Alexandrinus, Gr., fifth cent. C.E., British Museum, H.S., G.S.
 

The change was an obvious requirement after the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. You couldn't say that Jesus was an only begotten God after Arianism was outlawed. That was the crux of Arianism. Therefore a few major manuscripts of the 4th century begin to reflect this. Even 2nd/3rd century manuscripts support the Arian teaching. Two of the most well-read early Christian writers/historians/scholars were Eusebius and Origen. Both of them believed a form of Arianism.

Note this about Origen in a respected and scholarly theological journal:

THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM Author(s): T. E. Pollard Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, New Series, Vol. 9, No. 1 (April 1958), pp. 103- 111 Published by: Oxford University Press

Page 1 starts out:

THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM The question of the origins of Arianism is, at the present time, still wide open. 'It is a matter of considerable doubt whether Arianism is to be traced to Antioch or to Alexandria, and also how far it is due to the teaching of Origen.'¹ At the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Alexander of Alexandria connected Arius' doctrine yvith that of Paul of Samosata, that is with the Antiochene tradition,² and this view has been accepted by B. J. Kidd.³ On the other hand, F. W. Green asserts that 'to make Paul the father of Arianism is to add insult to a man already sufficiently injured, and rather unintelligent insult'.⁴ F. Loofs describes Arius as belonging to 'the tradition of left-wing Origenism', and in a footnote adds that 'the connection between Arius and Paul of Samosata, emphasised by Alexander of Alexandria, the opponent of Arius, is scarcely of importance for the understanding of Arian Christology'.⁵ Likewise, Père Bardy asserts quite categorically that there is no connexion between the teaching of Arius and that of Paul,⁶ and that the roots of Arianism are to be found in Origenism.⁷

After reading this entire article and a couple others like it, I'm personally convinced that Arianism does indeed date to a time prior to the birth of Arius. We can see evidence of the teaching in Origen. [And some important elements of it from Paul of Samosata (200-275). It was Paul's student Lucian of Antioch who is said to have had been a major influence on Arius, per the Wikipedia article on Paul of Samosata.]

But, more importantly, the textual evidence leads us all the way back to the earliest papyri of the gospel of John.

30 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yeah ... a great deal of Hislop was pure fantasy

To be sure, he recanted. The Watchtower has not cited his work since, which once upon a time, could be ordered through the congregation.

Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. But there have been persons who spent years promoting and repackaging his work, who have since apologized and recanted after realizing through more serious research that they had been duped.

The Watchtower stopped citing him directly based on some information that came to light in researching the Aid Book, which was published in 1972. The Watchtower was supposed to stop quoting him after that, but one article slipped through around Christmas in 1978. Fred Rusk was the Watchtower Editor at the time and didn't let it happen again. (The Awake! had a different editor, Colin Q., and let a couple more Hislop references get through into the mid-1980's.)

Unfortunately, Hislop's work had already seeped into some Bible commentaries, including some of  the favorite ones that the Watchtower has especially depended on from the late 1800's, and which we still quote from now and then. This has allowed some of Hislop's debunked ideas to get quoted indirectly. 

On 5/9/2017 at 8:18 AM, bruceq said:

I have no problem with Jesus being called "God" with a capital "G".

On 5/10/2017 at 2:19 PM, bruceq said:

You seem to be  arguing that Jesus is God but where is the third person. Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem in Jesus being called God so what is your argument about?

When I said that not every Witness would agree, I mean that most of us would require a lot of context, and prefer to "nuance" our way around it, before ever just using the expression "Jesus is God" and leaving it at that. It would be a rare thing to hear a prayer at the Hall end like this:

". . . And in the name of Mighty God, Jesus, we pray. Amen!"  or even,

". . . We come to You in the name of the Word, who is a god, Jesus Christ. Amen!"

I started out a talk once with John 1:1 and gave it the emphasis that appears to be intended in the context of John 1.

". . . and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS A GOD!!!

And of course it widened a few eyes, because we almost always read it as a proof-text against the Trinity, saying ". . . and the Word with with God, and Word was AAAAY god."

John wasn't trying to point out that Jesus was only A god, as opposed to THE God. He was explaining the awesome privilege that mankind had just experienced by have a gOD in our midst, one who had spent a near eternity with the unapproachable, invisible GOD himself, and one who was therefore in the best position to explain the Father to us! John adds the following just a few sentences later:

(John 1:14,18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. . . . 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. (NWT)

In the talk, I could easily explain why I had given it the emphasis like that. But even though we might "call" Jesus "God" with a capital "G" you will find very few Witnesses who will "spell" it that way. That's why I pointed out the "pains" that the German NWT went to in order to make it different in John 1:1, even though all nouns have be to capitalized according to German grammar.

On 5/11/2017 at 9:07 PM, Jay Witness said:

Do not move around from house to house.

Yet we all sing "From House to House"? Why?

Jesus was referring to the preaching about a specific phase of the Kingdom preaching before the "axe came down" on the current representation of God's kingdom, those who thought they were protected just by being part of the Jewish nation. So Jesus was referring to how the disciples would not even make it through the circuit of the cities of Israel before this phase of the Son of Man's "coming" to execute judgment was complete - before 70 C.E.

(Matthew 3:9-12) 9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 10 The ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. 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. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.”

(Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.

These cities all had a similar social structure. You could walk into a city and state your case and what you wanted to do and word would get around to everyone. If someone was interested they would invite you in to discuss it further. If no one was interested, the disciples could shake the dust off their feet and move on to the next city. But Jesus knew that there would be enough interest in his message so that there would be enough hospitality. So they needn't worry about anything. Enough people would be inviting them in and feeding them and giving them a place to stay, that they wouldn't even finish their work before the "end" of that particular phase of Kingdom preaching.

(Luke 10:8-11) 8 “Also, wherever you enter into a city and they receive you, eat what is set before you 9 and cure the sick ones in it and tell them: ‘The Kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But wherever you enter into a city and they do not receive you, go out into its main streets and say: 11 ‘We wipe off against you even the dust that sticks to our feet from your city. Nevertheless, know this, that the Kingdom of God has come near.’

Our Christianity should be flexible and adaptive to meet changing social conditions. Paul worked in different types of cities, and he said that:

(1 Corinthians 9:20-23) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. . . . I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.

The way we announce our intent to study with people in their homes and tell them about the good news is not the same as when we could make an announcement at the city gate and people would spread the word for us. Today we can go to as many houses as possible, and then come back to those who are willing to have us in their homes.

The type of hospitality that Melinda and Eoin have spoken about still happens, as was pointed out. And there are certain types of cities and social structures in the world where the preaching work takes on the same flavor as Jesus instructed the evangelizers in Luke.

In London in 1611 under King James, there was no city square or single public forum to announce yourself, and there was absolutely no guarantee of hospitality. So the translators evidently thought that Greek terms like "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) was a match to the idea of  "ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν" (from house to house) even though it produced an apparent contradiction to Jesus' instruction. Although it might be better to translate the Greek expressions at Acts 20:20 and Acts 5:42 with the term "in their houses" or "at home" it is still a distinct possibility that the expression could mean "from house to house" as it does when the context implies it. The better translation of Acts 5:42, is found in some more modern translations:

Acts 5:42 Revised Standard Version (RSV) And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

But Acts 8:3 in the same translation, for the same Greek expression, says:

"But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." (Acts 8:3, RSV)

Although the KJV is inconsistent in using "house-to-house" for these expressions, it translates "κατ᾽ οἶκον" (by houses) as "from house to house" in one place where the NWT doesn't.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46, KJV)

In that place, even though it is the same expression, "κατ᾽ οἶκον," [where the NWT usually translates "from house to house."] the NWT uses another expression this time:

(Acts 2:46) 46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart,

Paul evidently did not go from "house to house" to do any initial preaching --it was his usual practice to go into the local synagogue or an open agora or forum-- but he did teach in people's homes, and met the believers in their homes.  But if he had preached from house to house, we know that it would have been because of the different social structure in the places he went. It would not have contradicted Jesus' instruction in Luke 10.

It would be nice to see a discussion of Trinity or one of it's sub-topics without so much diversion into topics about the phoenix bird, war, fish, and the pope's clothes. Someone said something about the phoenix and then someone else goes off on a tangent about how the word might have been translated in the LXX???? 

Oh wait. That was me. Sorry.

I usually stay out of Trinity discussions lately because I'm not very good at staying on topic.

I have seen well-organized, well-written topics started on related subjects though. Such as a topic about how the Bible writers spoke about the holy spirit, and why it appears to be treated as a person. As I recall, hardly anyone responded at all. Maybe because it wasn't worded as a question, and most people who share in discussions here already knew what the poster thought.

Here, Cos has asked a question, and the answers and responses range from mature to childish, some points are excellent and some are completely off-topic.

Rather than add to the discussion as it is, I would just like to clarify something I added earlier.

I don't know whether the earliest manuscripts of Job or the earliest LXX mentioned the phoenix bird. If it did, it does not necessarily mean that it was a real animal anyway. Apparently the book of Job makes use of references to symbolic animals or uses some "poetic license" and might even reference folklore. Getting off-topic, we claim that Jesus was doing the same when he drew on the common Jewish beliefs about life-after-death when he spoke of the "rich man and Lazarus." Perhaps this was no different than making a point while telling a humorous story that starts out: "A rabbi and a priest and a beggar all die at the same time and they are all standing at the Golden Gates in front of Saint Peter . . . ."  [How's that for a diversion!]

I personally doubt that the book of Job ever intended to refer to the phoenix bird, and I doubt that there is enough evidence to show that the LXX originally had a reference to such a bird in this place. Once something is believed to be true, it's easy enough to go searching for proof texts to support it. But we can't rely on human translators, and we can't rely even on learned rabbis from any century in history to tell us anything definitive. A lot of very good and interesting material comes out of their commentary and a lot of really stupid stuff is there too.

I like to imagine that we fretted over certain specific lines in the Bible for years, and maybe even "spilled a ton of ink" over it, and then we have an opportunity someday to ask Job what he meant here. I imagine he might laugh and say something that we would not have thought of in a million years:

• "A 'phoenix bird'? That's what you thought I meant? No. A 'phoenix' was the name my Egyptian friend always called this big, loud annoying bug, a special kind of cicada that flew up from Egypt. We called it the Nile bug, and some people have now called it the '17-year locust.' You see, it disappears for 17 years and then keeps coming back. I wasn't talking about resurrection, anyway, just the fact that I always thought that I might live a long and comfortable life and if anyone tried to get rid of me, I'd always come back; I'd always be there. 

Since the topic is really about Trinity, I'll divert my attention to that topic for a minute. I don't think it's fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century. I don't think it's fair to tie a fish symbol to Egyptian hieroglyphics (or to imply that Christians should be under Jewish laws about the use of graphics and symbols. I don't think it's fair to say that a word must appear in the Bible before we can discuss whether the teaching is there. There is no mention of the word Neutrality, yet we have a Neutrality doctrine. Someone already mentioned that the term "Governing Body" is not in the Bible. For that matter there is no "Seven Gentile Times" either, and yet some Witnesses pretty much treat some of these teachings as if they are the central doctrines of the Witnesses.

bruceq mentions that he has no problem saying Jesus is God (with a capital G). Not every JW would agree, but this is a good starting point, since we have some potential common ground to begin a serious discussion about Trinity without just "fighting about words." A lot of Trinitarians who put too much emphasis on a specific definition of Trinity would be happy to understand that we have a lot of good, Scriptural backing for our belief. On the subject of capital letters, I wondered how the NWT in German would get around the fact that, grammatically, it MUST put a capital G on "god" or any noun, even a "falsch Gott."

(John/Johannes 1:1, NWT German/Deutsch) Im Anfang war das WORT, und das WORT war bei GOTT, und das WORT war ein Gott.

Anyway, I'm not disciplined enough as a poster to try to get too involved in this conversation, but for the most part I'm enjoying it. Thanks.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

3.    Palm tree

It appears that while early LXX translations went with "phoenix" in Job, the word for "palm tree" may have been produced as a kind of "pun" on phoenix to remove the reference to a questionable bird, since the word is  φοίνικος  (phoinikos, palm)  vs.  φοῖνιξ (phoinix). So because of the similarity of the two Greek words, it's actually difficult even in the LXX to see which was an adjustment of the other. The tie-in to the nest, however, is what made the Masoretic-text rabbis stick with phoenix. (Which came first, the phoenix or the nest?) Standard LXX goes with the "palm."

There is a potential support text for the phoenix, which was depicted as a special kind of eagle:

(Psalm 103:5, NWT)  5 He satisfies you with good things all your life, So that your youth is renewed like that of an eagle.

Here's an interesting compromise by Juan de Horozco y Covarrubias, Sacra symbola, Agrigento 1601, Emblem 6: Ut vivam. In the picture attached below, the phoenix bird sits atop a pheonikos (palm) tree.

Note too that the date palm is the hieroglyph symbol of the 365-day year in Egyption semiology. In Latin, the name of the date palm is "Phoenix dactylifera." Also note that Enoch lived for 365 years. (Some commentators about the Phoenix bird put the life cycle at 1,000 years, too.)

In 1948 the Biblical Archaeologist journal had an article that ran about 20 years after the discovery of some related Canaanite Ugaritic texts, that purportedly shed some light on the background of the Leviathan:

Howard Wallace wrote the article in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1948), pp. 61-68. I found the following on page 62 and 63:

Be that as it may, there is no question but that the most famous monster of western civilization is the Biblical Leviathan, whose immediate background is to be sought, not in Babylonian, but in Canaanite mythology. The Ras Shamra texts, found in Syria at the ancient site of Ugarit nearly twenty years ago, record Canaanite myths of the period from 1700 to 1400 B.C. A section of one text tells of the fight of Anath and the dragon. At one point Anath shouts:

• "I have destroyed the Sea-Dragon, beloved of El,

• I have slain River of El, the Chief;

• I muzzled Tannin, I muzzled him (?).

• I have destroyed the winding serpent,

• Shalyat of the seven heads

• I have destroyed the underworld dragon, beloved of El."

In another of the texts ("Baal and the Waters"), we learn of the seven-headed Lotan, the very name from which the word "Leviathan" in the Old Testament is derived. A comparison of the vocabulary of Isaiah 27:1 and three lines from the Ugaritic epic, "The Death of Baal," shows the direct borrowing of the Hebrew from the Canaanite. Two words which describe Lotan and Leviathan are identical in the two languages. They are brh, usually translated "swift" or "gliding," and 'qltn, usually translated "crooked" or "tortuous." [twisted]

I also found these points interesting from page 65:

It must be noted that several Old Testament words are basically related to Leviathan. One is tehom, a word designating primeval chaos. While it is not personified, it is mentioned in Job 41:31,32 as being the dwelling place of Leviathan. (See also Job 28:14; Pro. 3:20; 8:24; Psa. 42:7; 71:20.) Yam, "sea," is more than a mere body of water in many passages; it is an active force, probably reflecting the old myth of the struggle between order and chaos. One of the most interesting of these passages is Job 7:12: "Am I a sea, or a sea-monster, That thou settest a watch over me?" In Ugaritic epics, Baal fights against Zebul-Yam, Prince Sea. The waters or sea rebel against the ruling power in Canaanite mythology, and therefore must be watched by the main god. Leviathan dwells in the sea. Rahab, a sea monster, can be equated with Leviathan in several O. T. passages (Job 9:13; 26:12; Isa. 51:9; Psa. 89:10). Tannin can mean a similar sea monster (as in Psa. 74:13), though having other translations.

Before getting to the next section of the article, I'll quote and highlight some relevant portions of Rev 12 & 13 from the NWT:

(Revelation 12:3-13:4) 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems; . . . 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, . . . 7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, . . . “Now . . .  the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! . . . 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, . . . 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is to be fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent spewed out water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the river. 16 But the earth came to the woman’s help, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon spewed out from its mouth. . . . 13 And it stood still on the sand of the sea. And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. . . . 3 I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been fatally wounded, but its mortal wound had been healed, and all the earth followed the wild beast with admiration. 4 And they worshipped the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they worshipped the wild beast with the words: “Who is like the wild beast, [Michael="who is like El?"] and who can do battle with it?”

Not sure if any of these other points from the article are very useful, but they might be interesting so I'll include them anyway from page 67-68, with some portions highlighted.

In Rev. 12:3, the "great red dragon, with seven heads, and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his head" is mentioned. Drakon, "dragon," is the usual Septuagint rendering of Leviathan. Only once is Leviathan translated ketos, "sea-monster" (Job 3:8). From Rev. 13:1 on, the beast and the dragon are used interchangeably, as are Leviathan and Rahab and Tannin in the O.T. It may also be noted that abyssos is the Septuagint rendering of tehom, the watery deep. However, by New Testament times, it had become a bottomless pit full of fire and smoke.

In the description of the war in heaven between the dragon and Michael and his angels (Rev. 12:7-12), verse 9 is especially interesting. . . . The war in heaven is an echo of the war in which Tiamat and her hordes were defeated by Marduk and the gods in the Babylonian Creation Story, and in which Baal of Canaanite lore fought against the rebellious waters. Yahweh destroyed Leviathan in the dim past. . . . The primeval struggle between Yahweh and the powers of chaos is transformed in the Christian context into a struggle between God and Satan. Though the heathen powers, and Rome especially, rage as they will, God will triumph over them in the end.

In Chapter 13, two beasts appear. "And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns, . . . Both descriptions seem to be based on Dan. 7:2 ff., and upon the idea that Leviathan has seven heads. Verse 11 reads: "Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth;. . . "

The beast from the earth and the beast from the sea appear very much like Behemoth and Leviathan in Job, chs. 40, 41. II Esdras 6:49-53 indicates that Behemoth and Leviathan will both occupy portions of the world until Judgment Day. Leviathan, as has been stated, was specifically assigned the watery portions, and Behemoth the dry portions. Since both of these beasts play such an important part in Jewish Apocalyptic writings, the author of the Book of Revelation would turn to them in attempting to paint the vivid picture of the coming of the last days.

The last part of chapter 19 and the first part of chapter 20 picture the over-throw of the beast and his armies. "The dragon, that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan" in Rev. 20:2 is bound and thrown into the [abyss] bottomless pit. The abyssos and its relation to tehom is again indicative of the whole Leviathan strain, in which Leviathan is the representation of the restless forces of chaos, later to become the representation of evil. "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more (Rev. 21:1)." The turbulent waters, the sea, which had been in rebellion against the gods in Babylonian mythology, against Baal in Canaanite literature, and against Yahweh in the O. T., the sea was gone! This is a graphic symbol of the complete abolition of evil in the world.

The article doesn't mention it, but it was interesting that the early rabbinical sayings spoke of the taunting message written on Leviathan's horns. I don't think it's useful to draw more parallels between the ancient symbols used by Canaanites and Babylonias, but more could be drawn from literary evidence. There is another point, not made in this article, but I'm sure some commentators have made it, which draws parallels between Paul's words about the parousia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11, and the actions of the beastly powers mentioned in Revelation.

The more interesting parallels are between the book of Enoch and Revelation. Commentators argue over the idea that Enoch gets quoted verbatim in the book of Jude. But there are at least a dozen more times that ideas found directly in Enoch (and not found directly in the Hebrew Scriptures) are alluded to in the book of Revelation.

The NWT Glossary says the following about Leviathan:

*** nwtstg Leviathan ***
An animal usually associated with water, apparently some form of aquatic creature. At Job 3:8 and 41:1, it seems to refer to the crocodile or some other aquatic creature of great proportions and strength. At Psalm 104:26, it may be some type of whale. Elsewhere it is used figuratively and is not identifiable with any one animal.—Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1.

So with words like "apparently" and "seems to refer" the Watchtower publications no longer tie the word to a specific real creature, although the crocodile (or perhaps a type of whale) is still preferred in the sense that it is the only real animal we know of that comes anywhere close to the description.

The Glossary also shows that two important uses (Psalms and Isaiah) are symbolic anyway.

(Psalm 104:25, 26) 25 There is the sea, so great and wide, Teeming with countless living things, both small and great. 26 There the ships travel, And Le·viʹa·than, which you formed to play in it.

This is the reference that the Glossary considers be a whale, since it is far out to sea -- not a place where crocodiles go. A careful reading of Job 41, however, also indicated the depths of the sea in the description of Job's Leviathan.

Psalm 74:14 is quoted here with more context, so that the symbolism is clearer. The symbolism would remind the Jewish readers (and psalm-singers) about Pharoah in Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, because both were major "taunters." In context, the main theme seems to be that the Temple had just been burned, and Jehovah seems to have abandoned them, yet they knew Jehovah's power, the same power that could kill a Leviathan. As the book of Job had said, Jehovah had made it and only its Maker could kill it.

(Psalm 74:1-23) 74 Why, O God, have you rejected us forever? Why does your anger burn against the flock of your pasture?  . . . Remember Mount Zion, where you have resided.  3 Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins. The enemy has devastated everything in the holy place.  4 Your foes roared inside your meeting place. They have set up their own banners as signs there.  5 They were like men wielding axes against a thick forest.  6 They broke up all its engravings with axes and iron bars.  7 They set your sanctuary on fire. They profaned the tabernacle bearing your name, casting it to the ground.  8 They and their offspring have said in their hearts: “All the meeting places of God in the land must be burned.”  9 There are no signs for us to see; There is no longer any prophet, And no one among us knows how long this will last. 10 How long, O God, will the adversary keep taunting? Will the enemy treat your name with disrespect forever? 11 Why do you hold back your hand, your right hand? Draw it out of your bosom and put an end to them. 12 But God is my King from long ago, The one performing acts of salvation on the earth. 13 You stirred up the sea with your strength; You smashed the heads of the sea monsters in the waters. 14 You crushed the heads of Le·viʹa·than; You gave it as food to the people, to those inhabiting the deserts. . . .18 Remember the enemy’s taunts, O Jehovah, How a foolish people treats your name with disrespect. 19 Do not surrender the life of your turtledove to the wild beasts. Do not forget the life of your afflicted people forever. 20 Remember the covenant, For the dark places of the earth have become full of the haunts of violence. . . . Remember how the foolish taunt you all day long. 23 Do not forget what your foes are saying. The uproar of those who defy you is ascending constantly.

Several things I thought were notable here, not the least of which is the fact that Leviathan has multiple heads in verse 14. Leviathan therefore represents "the taunting adversary." The "wild beasts" in verse 19 wish to swallow up the afflicted people, but the prayer is that Jehovah remember his covenant, and take note that the "taunting" is against his name.

A quick aside: The taunt-song motif, by the way, is known in ancient psalms and poetry. Isaiah 14 is a good example. The idea was also used in one of our old Kingdom Songs. Note the song titled: "The Taunt-Song Against Satan" as Song 75 in the linked songbook that we used from 1950 to 1966. It's a song we rarely sang. The year before I got baptized we got a new songbook, so I barely remember it.

In Isaiah we have a similar reminder that Jehovah could strike the heads of Leviathan (without mentioning Leviathan) so that the Assyrians would have to let the Israelites go back home, just as Jehovah had struck at them when Pharoah trapped them at the Red Sea.

(Isaiah 11:15, 16) 15 And Jehovah will certainly cut off the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and wave his hand at the River [Euphrates, NWT fn]  in the glow of his spirit. And he must strike it in [its] seven torrents, and he will actually cause people to walk in [their] sandals. 16 And there must come to be a highway out of As·syrʹi·a for the remnant of his people who will remain over, just as there came to be [one] for Israel in the day of his coming up out of the land of Egypt.

Note how this same idea is carried forward in Isaiah chapter 27 to a time of full restitution:

(Isaiah 27:1-8) 27 In that day Jehovah, with his harsh and great and strong sword, Will turn his attention to Le·viʹa·than, the gliding serpent, To Le·viʹa·than, the twisting serpent, And he will kill the monster that is in the sea.  . . .  4 There is no wrath in me. Who will confront me with thornbushes and weeds in the battle? I will trample them and set them on fire all together.  . . .  8 With a startling cry you will contend with her when sending her away. He will expel her with his fierce blast in the day of the east wind.

I'm guessing that there might even be a connection between these multiple "heads of Leviathan" and the idea that the dragon and beast of Revelation has 7 heads.

(Revelation 12:3, 4) 3 Another sign was seen in heaven. Look! A great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and on its heads seven diadems;

(Revelation 13:1, 2) . . .And I saw a wild beast ascending out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, and on its horns ten diadems, but on its heads blasphemous names. 2 Now the wild beast that I saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.

The tie-in to a taunting Adversary is the same as in Psalms and the similar idea in Isaiah. Traditionally, even the old pre-Biblical fables about a "Leviathan" also showed a beast with 7 heads. The similarly described Greek "Hydra" was often shown with 7 heads. This made it a useful symbol of the power of the beastly world powers (who get their power from Satan the Adversary) and which could only be broken at a time when Jehovah sees fit for these powers to be broken.

Note: http://jewishstudies.rutgers.edu/docman/rendsburg/56-ut-68-and-the-tell-asmar-seal/file

The picture is of the god "Baal" killing the 7 headed "Leviathan" or its near equivalent, dated to older than 2200 BCE. (4,200 years old!)

Here's the curious way that 1 Enoch 40:7-9 refers to both of them:

7. And on that day were two monsters parted, a female monster named Leviathan, to dwell in the abysses of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. 8. But the male is named Behemoth, who occupied with his breast a waste wilderness named †Dûidâin†, on the east of the garden where the elect and righteous dwell, where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created. 9. And I besought the other angel that he should show me the might of those monsters, how they were parted on one day and cast, the one into the abysses of the sea, and the other unto the dry land of the wilderness.

One question that came up was why Behemoth is male and Leviathan is female. Why would such a detail be important?

Enoch doesn't say much about them, but does mention Tartarus and Chaos, which might become important to the overall discussion. When Enoch mentions the 7 archangels in chapter 20, he mentions that

CHAPTER XX. 1. And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. 2. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is over the world and over Tartarus. 3. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. 4. Raguel, one of the holy angels who †takes vengeance on† the world of the luminaries. 5. Michael, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ over chaos. 6. Saraqâêl, one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. 7. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents and the Cherubim. 8. Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise.

This is mentioned because if either Leviathan the Dragon, or Behemoth the Beast is tied to Chaos, we might expect Michael to be the archangel to fight him. If Tartarus it might be the archangel of Light [Uriel/Oriel=God is Light]. Recall that the Septuagint included the idea that these were created to be "mocked" by the angels. I believe that Bible verses create a link between the ideas of the words "mocked" and "taunted." Jewish ideas gave the killing of Leviathan first to Gabriel, however, the archangel over the serpents.

Just to start the response to the reason they are given different genders here, I can quote some of the other extra-Biblical works and traditions carried in Jewish literature. Here is a summary from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

On 5/10/2017 at 3:51 PM, AllenSmith said:

That depends, how far you wish to express your ignorance. As for the Watchtower claims, they categorized 1006 incidents, people like you made them up to be of sexual child abuse, just like the biased media made people think no one was held accountable in those cases.

Thought that the Watchtower provided the names as a response to a request for all the cases of sexual child abuse on file. (The cases cover quite a range that might not always be defined as criminal child sexual abuse, but it was the Watchtower intending to provide cases that fell under this definition.) Also, it wasn't 1006 incidents, but 1,006 files about the abusers. Therefore the number of incidents was higher than the 1,006 cases of abusers.

I also understand that several of the cases have already been turned over to the authorities based on time that has past, and evidence of criminality. A few of these have already hit local Australian papers. I've been sent 4 of them, and told about others, but I am not interested in posting them. Enough of that happens by others. (In one of the cases, where the person is much older now, the authorities decided not to prosecute, stating that his disfellowshipping by his congregation had already produced a severe punishment. I guess they consider disfellowshipping to be a bit like a prison sentence.)

26 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Sure sounds like Dragons to me.... (?)

Me, too. We all know that the Bible refers to "beasts" and "dragons" in the apocalyptic books such as Daniel and Revelation, but I guess we just didn't want them mentioned as if they were "real" in the book of Job.

The Librarian pointed out that someone had asked me a question about Enoch (non-canonical apocalyptic book), where Leviathan and Behemoth are mentioned together in a very curious way. To answer that question, I thought it was a good idea to set up the background comparing what we have believed about Behemoth and Leviathan compared to what some of the Bible-believers in Bible times believed about them.

Vince Foster's death was ruled a suicide by 5 separate investigations, 4 of which were handled by Clinton enemies who would have been anxious to determine something more sinister. Doesn't mean it was a complete coincidence, though. Embarrassment to Foster over some shenanigans at the time, for both the Clintons and Foster, could be blamed for deepening his depression.

Funny that William Jefferson Clinton fired William Sessions from FBI while Jefferson Sessions is now the AG. Also curious that Comey refers to Bill Clinton's unethical meeting on a plane, with AG, Loretta Lynch as his reason for going over her head at the time and making the untimely announcements about Bill's wife, who was under investigation at the time.

Bill is still a trouble-maker after all these years. 

I don't know if Bill ever made the points he wanted to make on that plane. I'm sure he had an angle, and it may be beside the point, but that's where I draw the line. I'm geometrically opposed to all of these figures.

When I was a boy, I heard my father give the Society's hour talk on the book of Job about 10 times. The talk spent a good portion of the time showing that Behemoth was a hippopotamus, and Leviathan was a crocodile.

Of course, very little time was spent on the fact that the book of Job also says the following about the Behemoth, which is not at all true of a hippo:

(Job 40:15-20) ¹⁵ Here, now, is Be·heʹmoth, which I made as I made you. . . . ¹⁷It stiffens [or, sways] its tail like a cedar; The sinews of its thighs are woven together. ¹⁸ Its bones are tubes of copper; Its limbs are like wrought-iron rods. ¹⁹It ranks first [or, "it is the beginning" -- NWT footnote] among the works of God; Only its Maker can approach it with his sword. ²⁰For the mountains produce food for it, Where all the wild animals play.

The little tail of the hippopotamus does not move or sway like a cedar. It was hardly the beginning of God's creative works. The mountains do not produce food for it. Creatures much more terrifying than hippos have been caught and hunted by man for centuries. When we know what Behemoth is we can then understand why it is tied to the creation of man (cf. "which I made as I made you"), and why it is said to be "first" among God's creative works. Another curious thing about "Behemoth" is that it is a plural word. If it is a type of "plural of majesty" (as in Elohim, or "God of Gods"), then it could mean something like, "Beast of Beasts."

The Leviathan is even less like a crocodile than Behemoth is like a hippo. Note:

(Job 41:1-34) . . .“Can you catch Le·viʹa·than with a fishhook Or hold down its tongue with a rope?  . . . ⁷ Will you fill its hide with harpoons Or its head with fishing spears?  ⁸ Lay your hand on it; You will remember the battle and never do it again!  ⁹ Any hope of subduing it is futile. The mere sight of it would overwhelm you. ¹⁰ No one dares to stir it up. . . . ¹² I will not be silent about its limbs, About its mightiness and its well-formed body. ¹³ Who has removed its outer covering? Who will enter its open jaws? ¹⁴ Who can pry open the doors of its mouth? Its teeth all around are fearsome. ¹⁵ Its back has rows of scales Tightly sealed together. ¹⁶ Each one fits so closely to the other That no air can come between them. ¹⁷ They are stuck to one another; They cling together and cannot be separated. ¹⁸ Its snorting flashes out light, And its eyes are like the rays of dawn. Flashes of lightning go out of its mouth; Fiery sparks escape. ²⁰ Smoke pours out of its nostrils, Like a furnace fueled with rushes. ²¹ Its breath sets coals ablaze, And a flame shoots from its mouth. ²² There is great strength in its neck, And dismay runs before it. ²³ The folds of its flesh are tightly joined together; They are firm, as though cast upon it and immovable. ²⁴ Its heart is hard as stone, Yes, hard as a lower millstone. ²⁵ When it rises up, even the mighty are frightened; Its thrashing causes bewilderment. ²⁶ No sword that reaches it will prevail; Nor will spear, dart, or arrowhead. ²⁷ It regards iron as straw, Copper as rotten wood. ²⁸ An arrow does not make it flee; Slingstones turn into stubble against it. ²⁹ It regards a club as stubble, And it laughs at the rattling of a javelin. ³⁰ Underneath, it is like sharp fragments of pottery; It spreads itself in the mud like a threshing sledge. ³¹It makes the deep boil just like a pot; It stirs up the sea like an ointment pot. ³² It leaves a glistening wake in its path. One would think that the deep had white hair. ³³ There is nothing like it on the earth, A creature made to have no fear. ³⁴ It glares at everything that is haughty. It is king over all the majestic wild beasts.”

Do crocodiles snort out fire and sparks from their nostrils? Do their eyes shine brightly? Does lightning go out of its mouth? is it like a furnace inside, so that its very breath sends a flame that can set coals ablaze? Does it really stir up the deep seas like a cauldron? Looking again at the New World Translation it's hard for me to believe, now, that I ever thought this was a crocodile.

Of course, part of the problem is that Witnesses, like many fundamentalist religions, too, do not want to see "fabulous" creatures in the Bible. It opens up the Bible to ridicule if it refers to "real" dragons and unicorns and beasts that seem never to have existed. Yet the idea appears even more "fabulous" if we read from some other translations, or more especially, the "Septuagint" LXX era translations, which would have been based on Hebrew manuscripts from as early as 400 BCE, rather than the NWT which is based on Hebrew manuscripts from as late as 1100 CE.

Here are some of the quotes from Job in the LXX: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/28-iob-nets.pdf

Job 40:15-23 But look now you are familiar with "monsters" [Behemoth]; they eat grass like cows. Look now its strength is in its loins, and its power in its belly's navel. It stood up its tail like a cypress, and its sinews have been interwoven. Its flanks are flanks of copper, and its spine is cast iron. . . . This is the chief of what the Lord created, made to be mocked at by his angels. But when it went up on a steep mountain, it brought its gladness to the quadrupeds in Tartarus. . . . If there is a flood, it will never take notice. {*It trusts that the Jordan will tumble into its mouth.}

Job 40:25-41:26 [Masoretic 41:1-34] And will you catch a dragon [Leviathan] with a fish hook? . . . And do nations feed on it, and do the Phoenician races divvy it up? And a whole fleet, gathered, cannot carry the mere skin of its tail. {and its head in fisherman's boats}. But you will lay a hand on it, though you remember the battle that is waging in its body, and let it happen no more! . . . Who will uncover the front of what it is wearing? And who could enter the plate of its cuirass? Who will open the gates of its face? Fear is all around its teeth. Its inwards are bronze shields. . . . Light shines forth at its sneezing and its eyes have the look of the morning star. From its mouth proceed flaming torches, and fiery braziers are being cast forth. From its nostrils smoke of a furnace burning with the fire of coals. Its soul is coals, and a flame proceeds from its mouth. . . . Its heart is solid like stone, and it stands like an unyielding anvil. . . . It makes the deep boil like a caldron and regards the sea as a pot of ointment and Tartarus of the deep as a captive. . . . There is nothing else on earth like it, made to be mocked at by my angels. Everything high it sees, and it is king over all that are in the waters.

The basic idea remains in modern translations, but there is some evidence that the Masoretic text (which the NWT is based upon) has often cleaned up what was thought to be embarrassing to medieval rabbis in the intervening centuries. The references to "Tartarus" [see Greek mythology] are curious, especially due to 2 Peter 2:4. But the additional references to Leviathan in the Hebrew Scriptures are just as striking.

On 5/8/2017 at 3:04 PM, The Librarian said:

This was addressed to @JW Insider ..... probably from a separate thread elsewhere.

I'd LOVE to answer these questions!!!

But I have no idea where this question came from. I had to give far less attention here for a few days and found that I had more notifications than I could review. I'll try to find the original thread where this came from when I get a chance.

But, yes, I have read the book of Enoch, and I'm pretty sure I know exactly why Leviathan is female and Behemoth is male. Also, I have a pretty good idea about why Enoch mentions the 14th day of the seventh month, but nothing as definitive on that count. 

If you or anyone else knows where this question first came up, please let me know. This way I'll put the answer in the right place.

17 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Anyone seeing the Watchtower sued will come forward seeking a big payout by vigorous attorneys (vultures) that are seeking a big payout for themselves.

That can happen too often. And some (hopefully very few) who see the current emotional vulnerability of persons abused in the past may also "abuse" them again by claiming that they will get justice for them by collecting money to be that "voice." Persons completely unrelated to Witnesses and ex-Witnesses and Catholics and ex-Catholics have already begun knocking to take advantage of persons in both groups. (Heard from a witness in Australia. The persons involved were not attorneys.)

I'm assuming that the talk is intended to cover the issue of child abuse, and the "evil" refers primarily to those who sexually abuse children.

On 5/6/2017 at 1:25 PM, Arauna said:

The quality of critical thinking is going downhill - it is painful to watch the news these days!  I hope this does not sound high minded or critical but I truly find that once you have been educated by Jehovah, to know the difference between right and wrong and you have a strong sense of justice - what is going on now in the world just boggles the mind! Satan is truly blinding the moral eyes of people!

That's a really good way to put it: "The quality of critical thinking is going downhill." I've seen people who say they have turned to atheism and agnosticism because any critical thinker can see that it's all based on superstition. They they begin following their astrology signs, and claim that there really is something to it.

Astrology is one of the more insidious proofs that the quality of critical thinking has gone downhill. It has been around for thousands of years, probably as old as the human race. Yet it was always based on superstitions.

But it's primary fault is in the fact that it makes people think that there fate is quasi-determined by pre-existing external conditions. This means (partly) that they can drift into a non-thinking, non-planning view of life and that critical thinking skills are unnecessary.

When Peter told Jesus that he would not meet with a certain death as the outcome of his ministry, Peter told him, basically, not to worry, to think positively. Peter wasn't thinking critically. He wasn't taking in the whole picture, and only wanted to see something that fit his personal wishes regarding the fate of Jesus. He wanted to see the easy way out. Therefore, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!"

"Fake" news. This is a "Fan Account." It's not the actual Twitter account of the Vice President.

The real VP has the following info on Twitter:

Vice President Pence‏Verified account @VP

This guy who apparently hopes to fool people names himself:

The Vice President @MikePenceVP

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is it okay to celebrate Groundhog's Day?

Go-pher it!

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What's the purpose of these examples?

They are surely examples that show there is no total control. After baptism people make decisions for themselves, and admit them to others, even if these would risk their fellowship and their "position." 

24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Minority Report precogs needed to make this work.

Not really. I was thinking about these very same types of issues when I gave the two bad examples above. The Service Department (Correspondence) received plenty of letters where people asked if it was OK not to believe certain things. Brothers Malone and Pruitt, both of whom were in Correspondence, (and attended the same congregation that I did) mentioned a wide range of questions that came in from brothers and sisters afraid to mention their belief to the local elders. Examples:

• Is it OK to believe that all the creative days were not exactly 7,000 years long?
• Is it OK to believe in 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem?
• And, my favorite, "Is it OK to believe in evolution, at least while I'm still in school?" 

"obeservations" -- reservations at a restaurant for gluttons?

On 4/30/2017 at 0:44 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!

As I've also stated before, there is no "total" control. There is a measure of control, and many feel it strongly, and many don't feel it at all. Some who feel it strongly, appreciate it. Some don't. Some who don't feel controlled in the least, may actually be the most "controlled." I think, too, whether we are uncomfortable with it, is probably a matter of who we feel to be in control. If we have trust that Jehovah is in overall control, no matter what the current situation in our congregation is, then we are likely to feel good about that kind of control. If we give too much credit (aka, blame) to the human leadership, then we are likely to feel less appreciative of certain kinds of control. Where control is discipline, most of us realize that 'whom Jehovah loves he disciplines' and  ¹¹  True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful;* yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11)

Some measure of control can therefore be a good thing. This assumes that we have humbly accepted human leadership, and are willing to be obedient to those who take the lead. It's not a good example, but I know a regular pioneer who believes in evolution. She has admitted it to my daughter and another JW friend, who are her best friends. (It was also obvious from schoolwork they did in high school together.) ...[edited to remove second example]...

I also think that the organization has changed significantly (for the better) since the time, about 35 years ago, when persons on the Governing Body even recommended that beliefs we keep to ourselves should also be grounds for disfellowshipping. One member of the Governing Body recommended that Bethelites stop doing "deep Bible study," and a cleaned-up version of his words make it into the Watchtower around the same time. At a meeting of Bethel elders, the same GB member even suggested that everyone take a "loyalty oath."

This was a time when some people might remember "total control" but it doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't mean there won't be a controlling elder here and there who always pushes a judicial committee to agree with him, and who always gets his way. There are many cases of injustice, and some never get appealed because they basically just create an atmosphere of toxicity that an offended person might not want to go back to. I'm pretty sure we all know of Witnesses who have moved from one congregation to another due to feeling an atmosphere of toxicity or they say "there was no love" in their previous congregation. I think it usually refers to a bad experience that colors their entire view of a congregation, even if others in the same congregation feel plenty of love. For some, an experience can clearly color their entire view of the entire organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

But I think that plenty of the complaints are actually carry-overs from ex-JWs who lived through the experience of a few decades ago, or just happened to be treated in this way more recently. I think that they hold onto their anger against the Witnesses due to the shunning practice, which they are sure they do not deserve. The basic issue is the loss of the love of family and relatives when a person feels that they can't associate any more. This is a much different experience than those who are disfellowshipped for a breach of conduct and know that it is only to help them get back into the congregation with a clean slate.