LloydSt

Micah, I ask a question in passing by? Whose name was Jesus making known while here on earth? His own or his Father? As stated by his words at John 17:26? And if it was his Father's they would have known it and used it correct? And it would have been written down even in the Greek right? Such as when quoting from the Hebrew word for word, correct? So how if a correction is made there is an adding when all is being done is placing his name where it has been removed? And using your premise, who gives them the right to remove it from where it was being used by his son Jesus who was making it known to his disciples? The knowledge they had was not trivial it was deep about Jehovah and personal. Not him being in 2 places at one time, mystical and stuff. Revelation states Jehovah is the reason all live exists, ALL, even that which is the Word, this being had a beginning. No other creature, life existed other than Almighty God without a beginning, without creation. 

So avoid anyone named "Who".
What?
No, Who.  What's our second baseman...........................

Holly, as I have explained several times now, investigation of Bible truths is similar to investigation of the physical heavens or the human cell or a jillion other matters. Progression in understanding is the natural normal way for things to go.  There may be the occasional misunderstanding, but the path is generally positive, and upward.  Quibbling about whether new information conflicts with the older, to what extent, and whether or not that would violate Russell's maxim, "new light never extinguishes older light," has little value.   It does seem obvious however that Russell was likely speaking about basic, well-established truths and not looks at things that may need need further clarification.  In physics, math, and astronomy for instance, there are well established truths such as Newton's Laws and Archimedes' Principle.  But that doesn't mean that nothing new can be learned and that adjustments can't be made where needed.   
Then too, as was written in the Revelation Climax book:
"It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times."
I'm certain Russell would agree that what he wrote was not infallible, don't you?  
Look, in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940;s, 1950's and so on, Astronomy was taught to students.  There were tests to be taken and answers had to be given according to the progress in knowledge up to that point in time.  In the 1920's the answers given on tests might have resulted in a high score.  But those same answers might have resulted in a much lower grade in 2016.  That's how things work.  Progress.  An increase in light or knowledge.  I don't think we can define exactly just to what extent Jehovah points the way or to what extent we grope in the direction he gives, but no matter.  He remains the Father of Light and we do well to progress in understanding.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

How can you miss the point of the illustration HollyW?  It is simple, practical, reasonable, and follows other disciplines wherein one attempts to understand a thing in a logical progressive way.  Nor is there any conflict with God being a person of Light, without darkness, as I have already explained. Jehovah doesn't just spoon feed those who want to serve him.  He has given them incredible brains and reasoning abilities and allows them to pursue the truth rather than just forcing it down their throats.  Along the way, those who are humble can grow in understanding by admitting that they may have been off a bit initially and are willing to adjust to what has become clearer.  Again, this is the clear advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have other many other religions.
Your view of Russell/Rutherford change in views was covered in the illustration wherein one tries to discern what the seedling 30 yards away was.  One might not understand initially just what sort of plant that is.  One might get the wrong idea and have to change one's view in light of new information.  That could even happen several times.  But eventually the evidence starts to mount and conclusions become more solid.  This is common sense.
If your point is that the light must be increasing in a strictly linear fashion, then I would suggest you take a step back and view the forest before you view the trees.  Views on things like who the superior authorities are went back and forth for a time.  So what? Eventually that became clear, and if one can step back, one can see the general slope favoring a positive, clearer direction of understanding overall.  Again, this is simple reasoning.  As one grows in knowledge, insight, and understanding older ideas that may have missed the mark are discarded, just as they are in the scientific community, and the truth becomes ever clearer. 
(Note: You said: "You illustrated something being seen in the darkness.  1 John 1:5 shows that this could not be from God because in Him there is no darkness at all."
That is correct.  The darkness referred to the major misunderstandings that Christendom still promotes today, and out of which Jehovah's people came via a generally progressive and positive beam of light)
 
Holley, here is where one can get into trouble.  That is by holding people to standards that are unreasonable and that reflect a strictly "black and white only" point of view. 
Someone says "progressive light" and you focus on the definition of "progressive" instead of the incredible advances of knowledge.  See the point?
Become humble in your understanding.  Open your mind and you will be much more likely to find you way.
 
 
 
 

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "
I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures, that in no way conflicts with the fact that God is Light and in him there is no darkness.  I fail to see any connection between those facts and the fact that we try to progress in our understand of the scriptures.   
The same would be true as regards James 1:17 ( Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ).  You seem to be trying to say that since Jehovah gives perfect gifts and good things means that our attempts at understanding the scriptures must be perfect from day 1, but that doesn't make logical sense nor does it harmonize with other scriptures.  Need I list scriptures wherein Biblical characters grew in knowledge?
And you misunderstand Russell.  He did said, "any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  But he was speaking about truth and not about the attempts at understanding it.
Further, you misinterpret my illustration.  It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination.
Moreover, does it really makes sense to you that Jehovah would "speak from the heavens", so to speak, on every little point?  Is that how you see him, as a micro-manager being sure that every single nuance of every single act at understanding the scriptures is rigorously correct at every point in time?  
Or is he not a God who let's folks grope for him and search for him.  Isn't he in fact a God who reveals things progressively, Jesus stating that there were certain things that the disciples were "not able to bear" at a certain point in time.
Doesn't progressive understanding make much more sense?  If pertinent, it would perhaps be wise to not allow pride to get in the way of logic and reasonableness.
 
 

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?
But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 
Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  
Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.
This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  
The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"
By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!
Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.
 
   
 

I use PLA app from the google store, (uses e-pubs you have to down-load from JW.org). The Bible set up is like the JW app is and you can put notes in it.  At the meeting I keep my PLA app open on my Bible and use either the JW app (for workbook) or Moonreader (for WatchTower). Not quiet the answer just an ideal you might try.

We  thank  you  Brother  C.T.  Russell  for  showing  us  the  TRUTH ❤

These articles are quite good for Jehovah's people in general because so many actually "hate" gay people. I was sitting in a car with brothers and sisters who got talking about gay people. everything they said was "hateful" of gay people. They had forgotten that it's the act not the person that we should hate. I spoke up and asked, what would happen if a gay person became a brother or sister, would we still talk that way, or would we think they no longer had the desire just because they became a witness. Some said yes quoting "because that's what some of you were." 1 Corinthians 6: 11. It was an awkward discussion, but they only realized how they sounded when someone raised the issue.
On the other side, many gay people may allow the act or even the desire to act to define who they are. 
While we define it as a person who "acts" on the urge and commits such "acts". The world holds the view that if you have even the desire to act you are gay. Most witnesses that I've listened to talking about gay people don't differentiate it either. When you hear it from the platform, it's not differentiated and much of the time it's hate for the people using words like "they are disgusting or filthy." Not the acts they do. This is really unfortunate. And I believe it is our own fault. 
Those whom I have known to have come out of that lifestyle, have really struggled in the truth. From vicious back biting, mockery and isolation. Yet, we preach a message of peace but do not always show it to "all sorts of people." For them, it can be a very lonely place within the organization.
Yes, it is sad that when you call in to see a Bible Student, that they tell you how brother so-and-so told them to be careful of brother x because he is gay. Notice it was not past tense as in "that is what some of you were."
Such, brothers and sister who struggle with same sex attraction would prefer to hide who themselves if they knew the whole congregation viewed them as "unchanged".
I just think, we have a long way to go in many area's, we are not as righteous as we make ourselves out to be at times. I believe this is a big problem at the moment especially with a big focus on it in the last year. That focus has not instilled wise or loving traits in Jehovah's people. Granted not all of us are "hateful" or "malicious" of gay people. But I think we do need to realize some things:
1. For a gay to convert is a really difficult challenge, it cannot be compared to a straight person turning to God.
2. There is a difference between being gay and no longer committing gay acts, it does not mean they stop having gay desires.
3. Many are now our brother's and sister's but they know that if they were open about it that they would be treated badly, so they work hard to hide that side of them to the detriment of the physical and mental health.
We need to be more loving to those who were gay, and realize how hard it is for them to exist in the truth. We should be amazed at their daily struggle to resist the flesh, it cannot be compared to straight people's struggle with sexual desire. If you want to show love, involve them in group socializing. And just so some get to know, it's not the one's that are known that should be worried about. Many "straight looking" brothers may have a struggle as well, they may even persecute or mock those who are known or even be married now, with children. It's not as simple as, that brother looks "camp" so he must be gay or he has a gay voice or likes ballet etc Feminine traits are not always an indicator of gay desire. You don't have to "look" gay to have that desire.
I hope some witnesses will change from a "hateful" disposition toward gay people. We are not the judges. However, this problem is so big it will not likely change over night, sad, but true.
To all you brothers and sisters out there who struggle everyday with gay desire. May the God of peace grant you peace and reward your efforts.
 
 
 

Bicycle witnessing in the Netherlands
Via

Ukraine
Via

The 2015 Watchtower Library on DVD for Windows has an update available.  If you clicked on the box to update and you are connected to the internet, it will bring up a box and ask you if you want the current update (212 MB).  It adds the 2016 Wt and Awakes , some brochures, the Meeting Workbooks and other things.  
As of the 2015 DVD release, the plan is to release updates twice a year: in July and in January.
 
As of the 2015 DVD release, the plan is to release updates twice a year: in July and in January.

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?
But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 
Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  
Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.
This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  
The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"
By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!
Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.
 
   
 

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?
But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 
Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  
Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.
This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  
The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"
By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!
Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.
 
   
 

Agree totally. Be as postmen in your territory. With the people and the Angels. Maybe, just maybe one day someone will have need for what we have on the cart. 

Since this post was entered,
Placed a lot of literature with folks from places far away from territory, including seamen on rest days. Arranged and followed up return visits with people previously met but impossible to find at home. One study started this way. Met several inactive ones, starting one Bible study with someone unbaptised raised in the truth but away from meeting 16 years.
This is in a fairly remote small town. Must be great in a big city. My suggestion? Stick with it. Get known in the community. Make yourself available to the angels.
 

MY Life Story :-)
*
 

David trying to preserve his life was not cowardly but acting in accord with God's will for him to stay alive.  David also did not speak against God's anointed one or against God's organization or arrangement for true worship, even though the head one or king (Saul) constantly sought to kill him, and made excuses to do wrong.  David continuously expressed his concerns to God.
I also don't think anything is worth the expense of one's spiritual well-being especially if one's eternal life is at stake and relationship with Jehovah.  I remember a verse about heaping coals of fire on one's chest.  There is a coaxing or drawing of persons to the truth by means of Bible study.  If a person decides to get baptized, he has made a dedication and vow to serve God and Christ and should fulfill that obligation.  It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into.  They had a choice to get baptized or not.  The Israelites were in a covenant with God, and death was the penalty for breaking it.  Children were also born into the same covenant and had no choice in the matter, yet experienced the same punishment and consequences.   There are consequences to one's actions.    
 
2 Chron 15:12  "Furthermore, they entered into a covenant to search for Jehovah the God of their forefathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13  that anyone that would not search for Jehovah the God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
 
Of course ones can fall away or lose faith which it is understandable how this can happen with Satan sowing so much doubt in the world.  They would need help in this regard, prayers, etc. to assist them in getting back on the right path.  However, if ones were willing to be disowned by their fleshly family to come into the truth despite financial lost, homelessness or any alienation, detriment to mental or emotional distress, others should hold the same convictions instead of making an excuse it's because of my family.  God always provides for those doing his will just as he provides for the birds or lilies of the field, even if we meet with some hardship in the beginning. 

I'm a bit late to the table, but would like to share my thoughts using science as an example. One hundred years ago, science knew all they could know at that time. Today, with the exception of some, many of those facts have changed. Were they wrong? No, not for their time. Today, one hundred years later, yes they are. Why? Because there are various limitations in our abilities at any given time. One hundred years ago, we simply did not have the technology to allow us to see more of what's out there. Right now, we understand that we are limited in our abilities to understand some things, but we can predict what we think should be out there with mathematics and physics calculations. Often we have to wait for the technology to become available to test out those "theories". Some things get proven right, others get disproved and so we must move with the evidence.
So to with spiritual truths, in one hundred years time, spiritual truths will be quite different to how we know them today. A friend of mine died in 2009. Since then there have been so many changes that if he came back today he'd be mind blown! Now, think back a couple thousand years, the apostle Paul was given a vision of the third heaven. But he could speak about the things he saw. It is quite possible that part of what he saw was the spiritual paradise we enjoy today (according to current thinking) But what we know today, might be "words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say." Like scientists who wait for the technology to be invented to allow them to understand deeper truths about the universe, we too must wait on Jehovah, through Christ, to shine light on things we cannot see - isn't that what having faith is?
 

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "
I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures, that in no way conflicts with the fact that God is Light and in him there is no darkness.  I fail to see any connection between those facts and the fact that we try to progress in our understand of the scriptures.   
The same would be true as regards James 1:17 ( Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ).  You seem to be trying to say that since Jehovah gives perfect gifts and good things means that our attempts at understanding the scriptures must be perfect from day 1, but that doesn't make logical sense nor does it harmonize with other scriptures.  Need I list scriptures wherein Biblical characters grew in knowledge?
And you misunderstand Russell.  He did said, "any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  But he was speaking about truth and not about the attempts at understanding it.
Further, you misinterpret my illustration.  It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination.
Moreover, does it really makes sense to you that Jehovah would "speak from the heavens", so to speak, on every little point?  Is that how you see him, as a micro-manager being sure that every single nuance of every single act at understanding the scriptures is rigorously correct at every point in time?  
Or is he not a God who let's folks grope for him and search for him.  Isn't he in fact a God who reveals things progressively, Jesus stating that there were certain things that the disciples were "not able to bear" at a certain point in time.
Doesn't progressive understanding make much more sense?  If pertinent, it would perhaps be wise to not allow pride to get in the way of logic and reasonableness.
 
 

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?
But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 
Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  
Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.
This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  
The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"
By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!
Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.
 
   
 

>"I know you probably worked hard on your illustration, but it seems to me to be out of harmony with what the Bible reveals at 1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "
I"m sure you worked hard on your response as well, but I fail to see how my illustration conflicts with John 1:5.  You gave no explanation. What is true however is that though we may progress in our understand of the scriptures, that in no way conflicts with the fact that God is Light and in him there is no darkness.  I fail to see any connection between those facts and the fact that we try to progress in our understand of the scriptures.   
The same would be true as regards James 1:17 ( Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. ).  You seem to be trying to say that since Jehovah gives perfect gifts and good things means that our attempts at understanding the scriptures must be perfect from day 1, but that doesn't make logical sense nor does it harmonize with other scriptures.  Need I list scriptures wherein Biblical characters grew in knowledge?
And you misunderstand Russell.  He did said, "any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth."  But he was speaking about truth and not about the attempts at understanding it.
Further, you misinterpret my illustration.  It simply shows that what may appear to be one thing in the darkness, may prove to be something else entirely in the light and upon a closer examination.
Moreover, does it really makes sense to you that Jehovah would "speak from the heavens", so to speak, on every little point?  Is that how you see him, as a micro-manager being sure that every single nuance of every single act at understanding the scriptures is rigorously correct at every point in time?  
Or is he not a God who let's folks grope for him and search for him.  Isn't he in fact a God who reveals things progressively, Jesus stating that there were certain things that the disciples were "not able to bear" at a certain point in time.
Doesn't progressive understanding make much more sense?  If pertinent, it would perhaps be wise to not allow pride to get in the way of logic and reasonableness.
 
 

My Dad used to take me deer hunting when I was a teenager.  We'd go out when it was dark and be in a deer stand in a tree as the light began to come up.  At first you could make out precious little, but as the light slowly intensified, the tree stump that may have initially looked like a sleeping bear, became more easily identifiable.  Once the morning had broken, much more became clear.  Now if someone had asked me at that point if I felt I was required to believe that what I had thought was a bear really was a tree stump, the question would make no sense.  Of course, it was a tree stump.  Why would someone ask a person was required to believe it was tree stump when that was so obviously clear?
But what about the seedling that was growing out of the ground 30 yards away?  Well, at first, that was not even visible when  there was little light.  But then at mid-morning, one could see the seedling, but still it was unclear exactly what it was.  Likely a relative of a nearby plant or tree.  But upon returning to the sight a while later and doing some in research into the leaf shape, etc, we might come to some pretty good conclusions.  But even then, the passage of time made the identification more discernible. 
Of course, in some situations, identification of the plant could have been mistaken or need to be altered if one realized that there could have been a slight error at the initial or subsequent examinations.  
Likewise, JW's understanding of the scriptures continues to grow and mature.
This is one of the great advantage that Jehovah's Witnesses have over most other religions.  It is their willingness to change or adjust based on new insights or investigations.  That is in fact how science works (or at  least is supposed to).  How silly it would be to be required to, for instance, be bound to the beliefs astronomers had back in the 1900's.  As Hubble peers into space and other bits and pieces of information are discerned, our knowledge of the stars and space grows.  Likewise with the scriptures.  
The question as to whether we are required to believe the new insights might be best rephrased, "Does one want to progress in knowledge or not?"
By way of contrast, it is most apparent that most churches are mired in the doctrine of the third - sixth centuries. They cling to, for instance, the Athanasian Creed.  It's as if they are required to believe that the tree stump is really a bear!
Now as to which camp one chooses to belong, that is a choice for each individual.  But as for me and my household, we choose continual progress.
 
   
 

I don't know why, but even after a good night's sleep, when I sit down in my seat at a convention, I almost immediately start to fall asleep.  I don't want to, but it has happened to me time and again.  And it's really almost impossible to resist, especially after lunch, no matter how light I eat.  And I know I'm not the only one.  It happens to one especially well regarded sister I know of as well.  And a look around will almost always find others fighting it or with eyes shut.  
For some reason, it really helps me if the speaker has some humor in his talk.  Or if I sit close to the speaker.  Also, sometimes I've used the trick of crunching some ice.  That always wakes me up when I'm driving and starting to get sleepy.  But I always fear that my ice crunching will be distracting for others.  (I'm the kind of guy who almost prefers distractions, or at least is never bothered by them, so feel free to crunch away if it's just you and me)  But I know some are easily distracted, so if I use that technique, I do it as discretely as possible.  Another technique I've used is going to try and find a "lonely place to rest up a bit" at lunch.  A 15 minute nap can be so refreshing for me!
But here's a new technique that is working, though I have no idea why.  I recently acquired a 12.2 inch Samsung tablet, and you can buy a Logitech keyboard to go with it, which I did.  And that keyboard is very quiet.  So, using the free Evernote app, I started taking notes on that tablet with the quiet keyboard, and guess what? I stay awake!!! 
You'd think the same would work by just taking hand-written notes.  But I still fall asleep when I do that, even to the point where my pen trails off into a flatline, humorously indicating little brain activity.  That ever happened to anybody? 
But typing works!  Maybe because it requires me to listen and quickly find the right keys to press at the same time.  I don't know.  But it works for me, so I thought I'd pass it on.   

I don't know why, but even after a good night's sleep, when I sit down in my seat at a convention, I almost immediately start to fall asleep.  I don't want to, but it has happened to me time and again.  And it's really almost impossible to resist, especially after lunch, no matter how light I eat.  And I know I'm not the only one.  It happens to one especially well regarded sister I know of as well.  And a look around will almost always find others fighting it or with eyes shut.  
For some reason, it really helps me if the speaker has some humor in his talk.  Or if I sit close to the speaker.  Also, sometimes I've used the trick of crunching some ice.  That always wakes me up when I'm driving and starting to get sleepy.  But I always fear that my ice crunching will be distracting for others.  (I'm the kind of guy who almost prefers distractions, or at least is never bothered by them, so feel free to crunch away if it's just you and me)  But I know some are easily distracted, so if I use that technique, I do it as discretely as possible.  Another technique I've used is going to try and find a "lonely place to rest up a bit" at lunch.  A 15 minute nap can be so refreshing for me!
But here's a new technique that is working, though I have no idea why.  I recently acquired a 12.2 inch Samsung tablet, and you can buy a Logitech keyboard to go with it, which I did.  And that keyboard is very quiet.  So, using the free Evernote app, I started taking notes on that tablet with the quiet keyboard, and guess what? I stay awake!!! 
You'd think the same would work by just taking hand-written notes.  But I still fall asleep when I do that, even to the point where my pen trails off into a flatline, humorously indicating little brain activity.  That ever happened to anybody? 
But typing works!  Maybe because it requires me to listen and quickly find the right keys to press at the same time.  I don't know.  But it works for me, so I thought I'd pass it on.