Shiwiii

How about applying the Law of Reason and the Law of Love ..........?
" you have been badly hurt in body and mind .. you are angry and confused ....you no longer feel comfortable in being around people who did not defend you in your most desperate time of need and you loathe walking into the Hall ..with its vivid reminders of your abuse ...so you want to be out....that's ok ....we understand..   but we still love you and we are here for you......."
Contrasted by: " you have chosen to disfellowship Jehovah's Organization ....how dare you......take her out to the city gate and stone her "
You just don't understand LOVE at all some of you! Christ-like love! You have never comprehended the Lesson of the meeting with the woman at the well that Jesus had.

There is a very simple test to see if the allegations that the Society confiscates private property of its followers is true ... or is NOT true.
The Brothers (and Sisters) who saved up or borrowed money to build their Kingdom Halls locally, and used their sweat and time to build it .. often with the help of Friends ... do they specifically have the right to sell it as they see fit, and use the money as they see fit?
Yes, or no?
You only "own" something, when you can control its use, and disposition. And when you pay off any mortgage, to reap the fruits of your labor. It works the same way when buying and selling cars.
I, as an example, am a home owner ... I own my house, although I borrowed money from my bank to buy the house. If I decide to sell my house ... the bank DOES NOT get the value of property, beyond the amount of my loan obligation. I look foward to the day my mortgage is paid off, even if I am not here to see it.
For those in Rio Linda, that means "died".
Today, how do mortgages work with respect to Kingdom Halls?
If my bank one day unilaterally should cancel the loan, I would naturally ( confusedly) have no objection, because I would STILL OWN THE HOUSE.
But I would wonder what nefarious scheme they have in mind for getting THEIR money.
Today, how do mortgages work with respect to Kingdom Halls?
If, however, my bank could unilaterally cancel the loan, or usurp my right to sell it .... but until the end of time, I had to make equivalent payments each month, as "contributions", that would show that in reality THEY owned the house.
.... ursurp my right is euphemistic for confiscate ...  which means STEAL!
I would have become merely a sheep to be sheared all the days of my life, and my wife's life, and my children's lives etc., thankful that they did not also unilaterally decide to EAT ME.
Today, how does this all work with respect to Kingdom Halls?
The reality is that my house would have been confiscated, (stolen from me...) as I, my wife, and children no longer had control over it.. and I no longer owned it.
Years ago, I was in the Congo, where the government of Mobutu Sese Seko "nationalized"  the sheep.
If in driving down a dirt road near Kananga, I  accidentally killed some of the Government's sheep (which the Zairian citizens were allowed to shepherd and tend...), it was a federal crime.
If a Zairian citizen  accidentally hit and killed a sheep, it was tantamount to treason.
I was told by my employer that if I hit a sheep while driving, to get to a British Embassy as quick as possible, as the U.S. Embassy was never any help at all.
Does any or all of this sound familiar?
Yes, or no?
 
 
 
 

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

Its unbiblical, that's what not to like about it. 

Yet again, no supporting evidence to prove your claim
Now look, you've got yourself all worked up over a side topic and NO ONE said anything about the letter j. If you reread my post it is a name for a group of papers which the wt tries to use to support YHWH being inserted into the NT. 

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

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

I am a hunter, no fumbling going on here with a firearm in any situation. I have been there in the midst of that chaos. I am comfortable with my own personal situation with my family's security.

Less so?
LESS SO?
Gimme a BREAK!
Sort of like a Catholic who died in the 14th century "going to hell" for eating meat on a Friday ... and being tortured continuously for 600 years, until the 20th century when the Pope changed the "rules", and said it was OK to eat meat on Friday?
It's the same idea.
"tremendously burdensome", or LESS "tremendously burdensome" is euphemistic for torture and LESS torture.
FOR NO APPARENT OR DISCERNIBLE REASON
EVERYBODY SAYS. 
"Everybody" includes the Society, which also extrapolates and interprets what Jesus said 2,000 years ago ... to a specific audience about a specific practice of that time, of getting new wives every few months, and dismissing the old ones. This was so the perpetrators could not be accused of fornication or adultery, and be stoned to death, to today's  cruel application that makes no sense at all ... in this specific example being discussed in this thread.
The Jews of that time figured out how to "juke the system" and with a pad of divorce certificates legally as far as the local law was concerned, and never be convicted of adultery, allowing them to  "play around" all they wanted with complete impunity, as long as they were legally certified.
They had their stack of "get out of jail free" divorce cards ready to show the Pharisees  with spears who showed up to accuse them of adultery ... but their "paperwork" was all in order.
In that case of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" ... PAPER beat ROCK(s).
In our time 2,000 years later ... the Brotherhood gets beat up with the same rocks they are forced to carry, for no REAL discernible reason.  "Because that's what we do" is not a valid reason.
Those thousands or tens of thousands in the Brotherhood who have been abandoned .. ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR NOT SCREWING AROUND!
... being PUNISHED for NOT screwing around.
When the one abandoned's FIDELITY and INTEGRITY is punished with a lifetime of hardship and cruelty ... JUSTICE is ONLY a seven letter word, and EVIL stalks the land.
In this specific situation ... does it serve Jehovah God's, or any humans', or ANY theocratic interests in any way, shape or form, for an innocent person to be stuck forever?
NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
If you know something I am missing, please explain it here, so the Brotherhood will know WHY (remember WHY?) they, although innocent,  are being punished.
.
 
 
 

Bible Speaks:
So far you have not shown me ANYTHING from the Bible that is wrong with taking calculated risks and gambling.
By the way .. EVERYTIME YOU GET IN YOUR CAR TO GO ANYWHERE ... you are gambling your life, health, and fortune. ... and the lives of those riding with you.
EVERYTHING in life is a gamble ... Oh, and by the way, the Society has perhaps a HALF BILLION dollars in Stock Market Investments and invested trust funds ... and have a whole DEPARTMENT to TRY and manage those ...(oh, what's the word I am lookng for ... oh yeah! ...) GAMBLE.
And in a Lottery, EVERY participant is there by his OWN FREE will .... in any enterprise entered upon with free will, there are no losers ... only those who did not win the pool.
And yes, YOU will be disfellowshipped for buying a one dollar Lottery ticket ... while the Society gambles with millions of dollars of OUR contributions... EVERY ... DAY!
What's wrong with THAT picture?
 
 
 

I usually avoid trying to explain myself in any detail, but with this specific confluence of comments, I'll take that risk. I've said several of these things before, but this time I'll do it without scriptures, so that no one need take it too seriously.
First, I believe that we all have a Christian duty to test, prove, make sure, and question. Some don't believe that, and that's just fine, too -- for them. Second, as you might imagine, I am not really anonymous to everyone, after giving away enough of my history, experiences, background, family history, age, year of marriage, year of baptism, past locations, current location. So I would agree that much of this is a lot like writing a long drawn-out letter to the Society. I have already talked openly (on this subject) to a few current members of the Writing Dept, which includes two of the current GB Helpers. These are brothers I have known long enough to feel "safe." I have also put some of my questions in writing, but I do admit that these have also been effectively anonymous. I am a coward! I no longer have any direct contact with any GB members. I have talked to Brother Lett longer than any of the others, but that was in his most recent assignment before being asked to join the GB. If this is considered bragging, I don't consider it so, but it's only right that I present enough of my background, my biases, and my reasons. Third, I chose this forum because the number of participants is low, especially the number who will engage in doctrinal discussions. I do not choose to have such open discussions with anyone in our congregation, or any other congregation. My wife, parents, a former Bethel roommate, a current Bethelite, and an uncle who is a circuit overseer, are the only regular exceptions. This is because if someone reacted in an immature way to something I said, or I was misquoted or misunderstood, then unnecessary problems could arise. On a forum, I can try to choose my words more carefully, edit when I go too far, etc. But more than that, a forum gives everyone deniability in the sense that no one has to accept that I'm telling the truth. Some who have studied and questioned the same issues will recognize that I am trying to tell the truth, but if someone else here does not wish to deal with the same questions then they can (and will) simply dismiss me as a crack-pot or apostate or haughty braggart. That's actually the beauty of a forum. I don't have to feel that I am presenting anything to anyone who doesn't want to hear it. A forum provides this "utility" by default, because there will always be someone with the views of bruceq, or AllenSmith, coming to the rescue to provide what they feel is a proper warning to others. Just in case that's not enough, I always try to utilize a fairly direct presentation style and a much-too-long-and-wordy style that will also provide a turn-off to those who don't want to deal with it, and will act as a kind of filter to make sure that those who wish to follow really do wish to follow. Fourth, on the issue of apostate (ex-JW) websites or books. I don't go to or refer anyone to apostate websites. I don't quote from ex-JW websites. I own 5 of the books people consider to be highly apostate, but all of these books are also books that the Society also owns. Also, the 5th of these books, was recommended by Brother Harry Peloyam while on the phone to the Society to get an answer to a question I had on the Hitler/Rutherford letter. He literally recommended M. James Penton's book on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich. I have two books by Raymond Franz, one by Carl Olof Jonsson (which I purchased in the midst of a discussion with Rolf Furuli), and two books by M. James Penton. I also bought two books by B. W. Schulz, although I have never checked to see if any of the writers/researchers are ex-JWs or apostates, yet. The Society's Writing Department, while I was there, kept at least one copy of most of the apostate books in a separate cabinet from the main libraries. After I left Bethel, I'm told by someone who has used them, that they purchased at least two copies of all these same books I just mentioned for the "apostate cabinet." In any particular topic, I have waited for someone else (e.g., Allen Smith) to begin quoting books by Raymond Franz (or, if necessary, Carl O. Jonsson) before quoting from them myself. From what I remember, there has been no quoting from apostate books or sites by anyone on this particular topic. Fifth, I have already admitted that I handled research assignments for both the Art Dept while working there for 4 years, and simultaneously handled research assignments for Brother Schroeder for just about three full years at Bethel and 2 more years after leaving. This involved a lot of reading of both the older and the newer publications and even proofreading some materials that came from the Teaching Committee. It's not like I was in the Writing Department, but I was in the Bethel and Gilead libraries almost daily and sometimes even in Brooklyn and Manhattan libraries at times. This did put me in contact with many members of the Writing Dept and several became life-long friends. And, yes, I grew to dislike a couple of them, too. Sixth, I'm a firm believer in transparency. I think that so many things would be much easier to understand and we would be seen as much more honest if we just stated what we know, without trying to hide anything. I think that in these days of search tools and databases that nothing remains hidden anyway. So we might as well get out in front of some of the issues that we wish would just go away. I think there is nothing wrong with showing the human side of people we have worked with, and admitting our own foibles, too. Knowing that Jehovah has worked with imperfect people and still accomplished so much is not anything to be ashamed of, just as it wasn't something that the Bible tries to hide from us when discussing various Bible characters. Seventh, Anna actually noticed the very point that triggered this particular conversation. I have had similar conversations here before, but never put all the potential related items out there to deal with at the same time. In fact, I've argued against doing this in the recent past. I think that it's easier to get through items of dirty laundry, or embarrassing episodes, or problematic doctrinal proof-texts, if we deal with them one at a time. But in this case, I put out several issues related to 1914 all at once. That's because the video about 1975 that has been brought up really does refer to putting the scriptures ahead of current teachings when something doesn't seem right. In this case, what doesn't seem right (to me) is the fact that every single feature of the 1914 doctrine is "problematic" in some way from a scriptural point of view. It actually seems surmountable when we deal with just one at a time, so that wouldn't have made the point as well about what "seems" wrong. Well, enough for now . . .
 

The difference between you and I,  bruceq, is that you are looking for stuff to support your orthodoxy ... and I am looking for TRUTH.
I do not care WHERE it comes from.
Any time someone tells you NOT to read something, or NOT to hear something, it is a red rocket in the night sky that they are trying to limit your powers of reason and MAKE YOU STUPID ...
... for your own protection ...of course.

.
.
 
You do of course (hahaHAhaha!) realize that EVERY TIME there is "new light" on any subject ... that by definition that means you are APOSTATIZING from what you believed YESTERDAY!
That is what happens when you search for TRUTH.
.
 
 
 

Very simple test TTH:
You have an unbroken 100% consistent record of NOT addressing issues .. instead ... castigating people's morals, perspective, and integrity.
PLEASE, for a change .. CHALLENGE what I say about ANY subject, and prove me WRONG.
If you don't, you have with your own fingertips on the keyboard ... condemned yourself as a petulant slanderer.
.
 
 

@Gnosis Pithos within reason.
The @admin is more liberal than I am.... you can see his guidelines section above.
..... I personally will act in this section when I feel someone is acting as a bully. 
Also humor has a way of making tough comments somehow more palatable. Try it sometime.

I did too, by my family who experienced the "code of the west" which was loosely based upon the Bible.
 
this is exactly the same thing going on. It is sad to think that the group mentality out weighs the moral compass in instances like this. It is a collective thinking instead of people making up their own minds on the matter, hence your statement of ignorant incompetence. Lemmings will go over the cliff, sheep will wander off together, but we were created with a mind to use and unfortunately some choose not to use it but relinquish it to others. 

It seems to me that AGAIN ... the WRONG question is being asked.
How about " ... if in the future the GB scrapped 1914, would you lose faith in the GB?"
The answer to that seems, from the discussions already made here, to be like closing the barn door after all the sheep have gotten loose .
But, I was assured yesterday at the 2017 Convention in Greenville, SC., that Jehovah God and the Governing Body LOVES our "young ones".
(...except in Australia, the UK, and California, where GB Member "most qualified" to testify, Gerritt Losch,  refused a subpoena to testify in a Child Sexual Abuse Court Case, and the Society was originally fined 11.5 MILLION DOLLARS.)
How about the question "" ... if in the future the GB scrapped 1914, would you lose faith in Jehovah God and his Christ?"
THE GB ...  AND JEHOVAH AND JESUS  ..... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

You could say it, but why? What's the reason we don't want to say Jesus was ruling as king in 33? We don't think he was occupying the royal office? Then why does Paul call him "King of Kings"? A crown is just another way of describing that he is king. One can also say he is ruling at God's right hand. There may be no such thing as a physical crown in heaven, or probably even our human concepts of "left" and "right." The Bible doesn't make a distinction about a crowned and an uncrowned king, so why should we?
Also, when the Watch Tower publications first spoke about Jesus not having the royal office until 1878 (which later become 1914) it was because he had not shown his power in any physical way yet. But now, since he had been physically present since 1874 he was going to make a physical mark on the world by removing humans in 1878 and taking them to heaven, a "harvest" if you will. Russell was sure enough of this to sell his belongings so as to distribute as many of Barbour's pamphlets as possible in time for the 1878 "rapture." ("Three Worlds, Harvest of This World"). The same idea became true of 1881, then 1910, then 1914, then 1918, then 1920, then 1925. Jesus was about to prove that he was MORE than just a king of his congregation.
Now, of course, nothing happened with any of these expectations except disappointment. The Watchtower's later claim in 1914 that the "world had ended" (but only those with spiritual discernment could see it) was based on all those prior expectations that nearly all earthly institutions would physically collapse within months of 1914. But the nations were not smashed with an iron rod. No major institutions collapsed. If anything many of them became more powerful than they were prior to 1914. It's as if all the talk about an invisible kingship became the new replacement for the expectations of a visible parousia in 1874 that Barbour had spoken about. It was only after the failure that Barbour and some of his contributors scrambled to make it an invisible parousia. Similarly, it was only after the failure of all the expectations of 1914 that Russell and some of his contributors made it an invisible end of the nations. Prior to that it was a physical end of the nations. (End of the times of the Gentile nations.)
To me, it's a little bit like we are participating in a cover-up.

Excellent point and great scriptures to support! 
 
I think it is unnatural for a parent or child or sibling to ignore their family member. Who is the closest to us? Who has know our tendencies from birth/childhood? When the family moved across country, who was there? Family. Family is part of what makes a community, but a community starts with a family. To treat family members lower than strangers is wrong, it is not loving, it is not encouraging nor is it up building. This practice is only meant to control

(Ezekiel 44:25, 26) “They should not approach any dead human, or they will become unclean. However, they may make themselves unclean for their father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or an unmarried sister. And after the purification of a priest, they should count off seven days for him”
 
The priest should not contact any dead human… except his nearest relatives. Jehovah is very reasonable and comprehensive when dictating rules.
Would not it be fine to apply the same principle when we deal with disfellowshipped people? Why Paul doesn’t mention these exceptions in 1Cor 5? Why Ezekiel doesn’t mention the priest’s wife? Perhaps, because the common sense would guide the application. It isn’t the same my cousin than my father, it is?
Other reference:
(Leviticus 21:1, 2) “Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Talk to the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them, ‘No one should defile himself for a dead person among his people. But he may do so for a close blood relative, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother,…”

How is this false teaching instead of false action? I see no reference to an actual teaching, but rather a reference to hypocrisy. 
 
Could this not be used for the teachings you referred to as being false? I mean using this as your reason, then you would have to refrain from spreading what you admittedly say is a false teaching.
 Yes, the Bible does, but that doesn't excuse you from the claim of what you think is false by others. You're pointing out what you believe is false in another group, while conjuring up an excuse for your own groups false teachings. That is the definition of hypocrisy and is demonstrated exactly by your quote from Gal 2:11-14.
 
I disagree completely!!!! Jesus did not follow false teaching. A good reference for this is the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Jesus wasn't following false teaching, but rather forcing those who teach it to put up or shut up, and it wasn't about the teaching being false but the hypocrisy involved. 
I agree we each will be accountable to God, but it is also ours to help others. 
 
 
 

So you agree then that Nathan was not speaking for God, then he could not be considered speaking false prophesy. Nathan was also a adviser to King David in addition to being a prophet of God. When Nathan spoke, he did not claim it was from God. Nathan was right when he said that God was with David, but he did not say that it was God who spoke to him to tell David to build. 

TTH
The only thing on YOUR watch is possibly Mickey Mouse.
We have been exchanging barbs for MANY months now, and there is a common thread .... when your reasoning is shown by example to be deficient .. you change the subject, deliberately misunderstand or... worse ... accuse people of bad character or apostates, and at least three times, have been vulgar about it.
You are FAMOUS for ad hominum attacks, open, thinly disguised, and heavily disguised ... but ALL to try and conceal your lack of reading comprehension skills, or faulty logic.
And the worst crime in your attempts to be funny ... almost without exception ... all you can manage is clever. Fracturing your personality into three parts each with a name and log-in WAS clever... and ALMOST funny.
You lash out about form (type style, type size, cartoons, memes, etc.) and never address the issues that are stapled to your forehead.
AND YOU NEVER GET THE POINT OF ANY DISCUSSION that interferes with your predigested view of how things OUGHT to be, even when presented with HARD EVIDENCE to the contrary.
You still have not realized that the rules of engagement here in this public forum are that you fight to the END to advance your beliefs ... and getting miffed, and hiding behind the curtain of the "loyalty agenda", is the equivalent of cowardice on the field of battle.
That is not only Mickey Mouse ... it's just plain ... *coff* .... Goofy.
TRUTH is born of fire and steel, and bad ideas need to die publicly.

Not one witness in 200 understands ( and I just made up that statistic ...) that the way "new truth" is determined is that it is proposed by someone, and VOTED ON ... and there has to be a 66.66% majority to apostasize from the "Old Truth", or come up with a "new" idea.
In 1957, when Sputnik was circling the Earth ... it was proposed that this be viewed as one of the "signs in the heavens", but it did not get enough votes to become "new light".
YOU CANNOT VOTE ON TRUTH!
Something is either true ... or it's NOT!
I remember pieces of a movie I saw on TV many years ago ... I think the movie's setting years were somewhere around the 1300's ... Omar Sherif playing somebody was being asked if there REALLY was such a thing as witches.
He replied "I hope so ... because we burn at the stake about 16,000 a year, in Germany alone." (paraphrased 50 year old memory fragment).
I understand the relationship between these two apparently disjointed ideas ... I hope you do also.
When people start "making up" theology from NOTHING ... they also start collecting firewood for those who will not, and cannot believe it.
.
 
.
 

That's a fair attempt to put it into your own words. What you are proposing is a "less stretched" version of the official doctrine.
First of all if this was how it was applied then we would be allowing for a few years beyond 1914, rather than 50 or so.
This is how it would fit into the evolution of the doctrine. I'm not going to dig out all the references, but a bottled history would look like:
1. in the 70's the "generation" had to be those who were old enough to see and comprehend the events of 1914.
2. since #1 didn't work out, later on it was decided that being born any time before 1914 would suffice
3. since #2 was looking shaky we took a break and detached the "generation" from a human lifespan altogether
4. since #3 didn't have the same sense of urgency a new formula was needed ...
Now if they had gone with your version they could have moved from #2 to "... or born a few years after". This would have, according to your example, bought maybe 10 years, to be generous. That would have probably been insufficient. So they indeed took your model, but streeeetched it out to something that no longer fit your model. By using the same words as your model while glossing over the actual damage to the language Jesus used, we end up with a kind of fudged version of what you're proposing.
What I believe it's important for you to note is the actual difference between your model, and the way it's being applied to a much longer time period.
 
Yes, but then you would have switched the question from "who was the generation who lived through 911" to a different question altogether.
It's effectively a verbal sleight of hand. If your audience isn't paying attention they don't notice when you make the switch. They know at the end that something's wrong, because that's not what "generation" means, but because each step you took sounded roughly okay and they didn't notice the step that made the switch, some of them end up accepting it.
 
So see what you did there? You took the original clause of "witnessed the event of 911", and then you introduced a new clause "contemporary of the 2001 student". And rather than connect the two clauses together by an AND condition as the logic would demand, you connected them by an OR condition.
Let me attempt to illustrate:
I can define dolphins as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae".
I can expand my definition to say that dolphins can be defined as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae" AND "animals that swim".
But if I substitute an OR for that AND, then I open the door to say that "clown fish" are "dolphins".
What you are doing is attaching an acceptable sub-clause to your "generation of 911", but then uncoupling it from the primary clause as if it can stand alone. But it cannot do so without doing damage to the sense of the primary clause.