Anna

Hmmmmm....I have to disagree with you there I think. They are free to leave any time they want and not listen to a word you say. You are here to say what you feel is the right thing to say. We can't please everyone. This is not the Kingdom Hall

I'm not surprised since you give out likes like they were an endangered species! And then you go and like an enemies comment....
Of course, just because someone is opposed to most of what we do and say, doesn't mean we have to dismiss everything they say, even when it's true. Why should that stumble someone if we don't? As we've said on here before: "Truth is truth no matter who says it".  I think it's good to be fair...

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss.
I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all.
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation.
But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"?
Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. 
So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong?
What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7?
So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either.
And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions.
I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975.
-----------------------------
Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook  |  October 2017
 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3
“Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy”
Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work
Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

The verb "to be" in Hebrew works  the same way the declination of the verb "to be" works in Ebonics ....
I BE
YOU BE
HE BE
If you have any questions, YouTube has quite a few Ebonics language examples..
.
 

LOL! Exactly, that was so weird...you would have thought post- production would have caught that!

Yep, I thought what the heck....?
Well I for one would never be the one to argue with his math, hehehe
 
Yep, noticed that too...
That's the point at which I went a little brain dead for a few seconds...
 
That I didn't know
Interesting
I caught that immediately and cringed too....very dishonest and banking on the fact that many will not know who Furuli is, like I didn't know, until you told me...
Yes, I was surprised any assumptions were made when we as JWs ourselves have admitted we just can't know....
Interesting
Ahem..
-----------------------
All in all a terrible, haphazard, and unconvincing documentary in my opinion. A waste of time and money.
In any case, I always find the argument about the “correct” pronunciation of God’s name in English useless anyway. Would you say it was pronounced more correctly in Italian? Or German? Or  Chinese? (I mean come on, who speaks ancient Hebrew) It’s even spelled differently in many languages, but we all know we are talking about God's name Jehovah or Yahweh in its Anglicized form, and however else it's pronounced or spelled in other languages you use. It made me wonder what even was the point of the film? At least Knocking was more purposeful.....
 

That's funny, both me and my husband found it hard to sleep last night, was there a full moon or something?
Yep, I read this too, maybe from the same website you later quote from, although there are probably a few...
You are probably right, I was too hasty to assume. Just because someone is willing to work with the Witnesses doesn't automatically make them sympathisers. Yes, money definitely talks.
That is crazy and I've heard this before, didn't know he was part of the Reibling family. I knew about their involvement in a medical company that produces blood substitutes, but I didn't know their ties to Knocking as well. The great thing is that now anyone can be a successful detective without leaving their desk, thanks to google. And unfortunately, ex- witnesses make this job even easier because they've already done the work, all you have to do is confirm it. I just checked LinkedIn and wow, Lorenzo is a bigwig (I sent him a request, lol). My gut feelings tell me he is a Witness. Of course I can't confirm this because it doesn't say in his profile, but then it doesn't say in my profile either, but there are far too many Witness connections and leads and also what you spoke about. One can send him an email, so maybe one should just ask . I feel such a small fish in a big pond, but there is a congregation out there somewhere and all in those circles will know who he is and what he does. I know a few billionaire brother who were in the same cong. as me in Europe, and I am sure there are many, many like him, you just need to be where he is. The sad thing is I was sent this film in good faith, that it is a non denominational documentary, and had it not been for Furuli right at the onset, I might not have become suspicious (although the ending was kind of suspicious).  I told my step father who sent it to me and he then began to look into it a bit more and found that indeed it is a "Witness" film. I love how informed we can be if we want, nothing is a mystery anymore. Does it make a difference in this particular case? I don't know...one thing I won't be doing for sure is recommending it to anyone as proof that "even secular experts" recognize, what we as JWs already "know", and I think this will have been the intention of the many who assumed it is not from us. They would have found it faith strengthening, but then when you know the real story.....lol...So then would it be ok to have one's faith strengthened by something that is not what it seems? By something that is actually a false premise?  It's weird really isn't it?
Anyway, what I really want to do now is look at your analysis, which I merely skimmed through up to now, and look at the references you made to the movie. I can already tell a lot of it is pretty much what struck me as well!

That might be so, but I believe it would help if sisters knew how to use their feminine qualities (not necessarily physical) to attract brothers. Spirituality should of course play a big role, but if a sister warns a prospective brother she is interested in, that when she has her monthly days she has to lock herself in her room, eat chocolate and breaks out in pimples is not an attractive visual. This honestly happened to a friend of mine. Needless to say he struck her off his list, despite the fact they were both pioneers and she was physically attractive AND had a job.  If she had kept this to herself, I am sure he would have never noticed had they got married. Some sisters just don’t seem to know that too much information is just too much information.

I am assuming your husband would let you know ("consult") if he was going to send money to his relatives and not just do it without telling you, and not do anything that you are not aware of, it's called communication.  Marriage is a partnership, where both are equal but only one makes the final decision.
Unfortunately many husbands are quite happy to abdicate their responsibility as heads, as a lot of men can be quite lazy, and so it's easier for them Then there are others who think that the only way to exercise headship is to be a tyrant.  As for women, I would say they are much cleverer than men in matters of the emotions. Men (in general) want to please a woman (and I’m not talking about sex) and feel fulfilled as men when they succeed.  Women can take advantage of that and wreak havoc with men’s minds (Eve, Delilah, Cleopatra, etc. etc.)This is where women wield a lot of power over men and this can be misused much to the detriment of both sexes. A woman can make or break a household, that’s how much power they have, regardless of whether the man acts as the head or not. When the scriptures talk about a woman having respect for her husband, it goes both ways of course. When they respect each other’s God given positions, and respect each other as human beings, only good can come out of that.
Well, that's Anna's wisdom for today. Exhausted myself

I am assuming your husband would let you know ("consult") if he was going to send money to his relatives and not just do it without telling you, and not do anything that you are not aware of, it's called communication.  Marriage is a partnership, where both are equal but only one makes the final decision.
Unfortunately many husbands are quite happy to abdicate their responsibility as heads, as a lot of men can be quite lazy, and so it's easier for them Then there are others who think that the only way to exercise headship is to be a tyrant.  As for women, I would say they are much cleverer than men in matters of the emotions. Men (in general) want to please a woman (and I’m not talking about sex) and feel fulfilled as men when they succeed.  Women can take advantage of that and wreak havoc with men’s minds (Eve, Delilah, Cleopatra, etc. etc.)This is where women wield a lot of power over men and this can be misused much to the detriment of both sexes. A woman can make or break a household, that’s how much power they have, regardless of whether the man acts as the head or not. When the scriptures talk about a woman having respect for her husband, it goes both ways of course. When they respect each other’s God given positions, and respect each other as human beings, only good can come out of that.
Well, that's Anna's wisdom for today. Exhausted myself

Were it not for the flood of hateful remarks directed at theocratic authority, I would most likely agree with you. But like pus from a wound, it is everywhere. Maybe there is a place for someone from us who spills the dirt before the scoundrels do.
Online there are endless persons who spill dirt on God's organization. Often it is true dirt, or it is based upon something true. 'No human is able to exercise perfect self-control,' today's Watchtower says. Same with other qualities. Therefore there will always be dirt. Opposers misrepresent and exaggerate and always always always impute wrong motive. Eventually, John Q Publisher comes across it, and because he has been exposed to not a hint of it, he is floored - and in many cases he swallows it along with the negative spin supplied - and the spiritual consequences are dire. Therefore it may not be a bad thing if someone spills dirt in a 'loyal' context. You could almost liken it to a vaccine - exposure to a little bit of the crap by a physician better prepares one for when they encounter it in the wild. At any rate, you can do nothing about it, so you may as well adapt.
I don't think it is great, either, but there may be a practical use to it. People spill all kinds of confidential stuff here. It amazed me at first. Then they say where there is secrecy there is tyranny. The remark is not completely wet, but it is misplaced. 'Confidential' is not the same as 'secret.' Nor is it the same as 'not intended for public distribution.' John gave the reason that not everything is intended for everyone, and it reveals no ill intent whatsoever. Quite the contrary. 'I have many things to say to you, but you are not yet ready to bear them,' Jesus said. "Oh yes we are," says everyone on this forum (including me). I can picture some (if they dared) combing through all the stuff Jesus held back so that they could post it online in order to to fill our 'right to know.' Still, since the liars abound,  'loyal' ones can put a proper spin on the dirt they reveal.
Though I don't like to see confidential things displayed online, they yet serve to strengthen general confidence in the organization God uses. Shiwiii, for example, posted that confidential letter in which Bethel reminded local publishers to donate timely. He was hoping I would be outraged at the greedy Watchtower. Instead, I feigned outrage at the greedy Bible writers, for it was clear everything the organization did was based upon scripture. Even when you don't like the general direction in which godly counsel is heading, you nonetheless have to concede that it is godly - supported scripturally - and thus you can ask yourself: 'to what degree am I willing to be 'taught by Jehovah?' even as the ones publishing it ask themselves the same question. 
I will go out on a limb here and risk being presumptuous, but I'm not sure the brothers know what to do with the pure deceit that is so readily spewed online by many. I think they probably reign in some instincts on how to respond because that is what the Bible says they should do. Maybe I should too, and others here. But we get clobbered by apostates and one wants to do something about it, if at all possible. "I am stronger than you, and I thank God for it," says Miss Pross to the wicked foreign woman who would cut her throat. She fights not for herself, but for someone to whom she is loyal. It is the first century playing out all over again. There is not a NT writer who does not deal with it. The apostate issue was fueled by same thing then as it is today: a contempt for authority. (Jude 8) It's hard to know how to deal with it. 

I see we have a few feminists here.  If you investigate where feminism comes from you will not be so eager to promote this way of thinking! 
Any case I am female and I am very happy in the congregation.  Sisters have a wonderful opportunity to spread LOVE, look after the sick, preach, look after their husbands and children in a godly way and use their wisdom to advise the young sisters and accomplish much good in the congregation! 
One can support the young ministerial servants and just be a force for good and teaching the younger ones to care for others...... No, our job is much nicer than that of the older men who sometimes have to take sad cases of those who are disruptive etc. ..... We can help the disruptive ones before they can become a problem!  And if you do it in the right way..... you will never be a threat to anyone! 
And we have time to study and bring great honor to Jehovah in much preaching work and just teach the younger ones to be more grateful (not greatful!) for the things Jehovah has done for them.  Good women can be a powerhouse in a congregation !!- and don't underestimate the power of the bright side! ...... keep those lamps shining!
Single sisters have a hard time to stay single - and many never have the hope of a husband. Give them some attention because they can feel lonely and depressed!  How nice a kind hearing ear is.  They are eternally grateful and when they have a problem they know where to go!  Also the sisters who have an unloving husband.  They need to trust someone who will not say anything about it to someone else.  How nice when a mature sister can use her talents and knowledge gained from the scriptures in an upbuilding, positive way! ... or just give a hug! Difficult marriage can be very hard on people! One can give tips on what helped for you - but not in preachy way - in friendship way.  Reveal the problems you had and how it was overcome - it builds trust ...... but NEVER talk bad of anyone!
Older sisters have the maturity to spread themselves out and also see when younger ones are ailing or going in wrong direction.... give attention.... this is how we should look after each other.
I am NOT feminist!  I used to ask my husband if I wanted to send money to family members or anyone because he knows I will never do anything he is not aware of. (And I earned a pretty good salary at the time!)  I do it because I WANT to; because I think it is right; and I think it builds trust!  Trust is very important in life and yet many people underestimate its power.  He respects me for respecting him!... and he trusts me!
I tone down my talking (I love to talk) when I am around brothers who are still unsure of themselves or immature.  You get those who feel that they are supposed to know it all because they are  men - especially in spiritual way.  They still need time to help them grow.  I am quick to pick up when people are threatened -  it is a way of being kind to them and also to keep yourself out of trouble. 
There are many smart women out there - but if you have to show it off all the time - shame on you!   I think emotional smartness is better.  Learn to watch people and learn from their reactions.  
I have often said (my husband says it too!) :  If you meet a person - even if it is a worldly person - and they have not learnt to be compassionate and kind........ their life - the time they spent on earth has been in vain - they never learnt anything!
 

In all my years as a Witness I have never been aware of that. I wonder why?

Actually I did, hence the dots......I only put what I thought was relevant to the discussion, the other bit was...."or with my health care surrogate in case of my incapacity"
By the way you never got back with me on that discussion HERE
 

Haven't heard that expression in years. In Missouri, in 1966 just before I was baptized we actually had a whole Witness family in our congregation who were publicly reproved or "put on probation" or something like that for water witching. They had been doing this for years and somehow had come to think of it as a "service" they were providing for their fellow country neighbors who wanted to dig a well. Of course, in this part of Missouri, you could pretty much dig 50 feet down in any solid low area and find the aquifer.

@Witness Thanks for responding. Too much to respond to right now, but I never had the impression that many who claim to be of the anointed have concerns about doctrinal differences anyway. There are often quirky persons among them, but in my experience, they seem to be quite loyal to the GB, and among the GB themselves, they seem quite loyal to the existing doctrines.
Wasn't GB member Martin Poetzinger a person who had gone through Nazi persecution? He never spoke much when I was at Bethel, even though he was on the Governing Body, so I never heard him tell his own experiences, but I understand he spent a total of 8 or 9 years in concentration camps.

There are some things I have not quite gotten my head around - even given that names could be assigned retroactively, like Peter and the rock, but .... during his lifetime? To his face? Did he introduce himself: "Pleased to meet you. My name is Worthless"?
It is almost like God being Hosea's matchmaker. Could I be so big? It's easy enough to get stuck with a 'wife of fornication' all on one's own without requiring divine help. Okay, okay, some of them had concubines back then, but still.
And don't get me started on Ezekiel staring at a brick. "Honey, I'm hooommee!" he hollers. "Tell me about your day, dear," his wife responds.
It's why those depictions don't entirely fly when these guys are portrayed as Ozzie and Harriet types, ever concerned about their dress and grooming. But we recognize the good intentions, and so we play along. After all, who can say what things were really like back in the day?

That's the right question. A bit disturbing when you consider the question at that level, isn't it?
Yet, it could have been done fairly and honestly. All the people involved had the ability to present it that way if they wanted to. Then, of course, it would not have the same appeal. And it would only be information already known in scholarly circles. But that would still be of interest even if it admitted questions for further research.

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix.
Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below  that appear to be based on some evidence.  I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control.
Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.)  I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side.
The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it.
----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites-----------------
A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2
Where the Money Came From
On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the
program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking:
Walter Zaremba
Gunther Reibling
New York Community Trust
A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page:
Independent Television Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Reibling Foundation
Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a
connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following:
Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings
Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at
University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children.
It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba.
A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case:
BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba:
From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio..
----------------
Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company] ------------------
Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times:
NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.
 

Just had to comment on the point at 23:55 in the video: "In a well-known Bible translation we can read, 'I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.' " The video won't say, of course, what translation this is, but we already know it's the old NWT:
(Exodus 3:14) At this God said to Moses: “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to YOU.’” Of course, this was changed in the 2013 revision:
(Exodus 3:14) 14 So God said to Moses: “I Will Become (AHYH) What I Choose to Become (AHYH).” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become (AHYH)has sent me to you.’” Oddly, the new 2013 translation got rid of the verb form "prove to be [this or that]" in about 300 places, leaving only a few exceptions which seem now as if they are just accidental, vestigial remnants of the old translation. But it's also odd that in the new translation Jehovah CHANGES his name in the middle of this verse, leaving out the idea of "CHOOSING" even though it was never in the Hebrew to begin with. In the Hebrew there is a different "tetragrammaton" here "AHYH" and it never changes between the first two uses and the third use. (Using "A" for the consonant "ayin") It's actually just a form of the word "to be." It's the same word found here:
(Genesis 3:1) 3 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals. . . (NWT) (Judges 20:12) 12 Then the tribes of Israel sent men to all the tribesmen of Benjamin, saying: “What is this terrible thing that has happened among you?  (NWT)
 
Hebrew, like some other Semitic languages, does not always need the verb "to be" (or "am") especially in the present tense, because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out. It's used more often when it's useful in producing a non-standard "tense" of a verb. It's definitely given special significance in Exodus 3:14, but not so much that it requires various ideas to be added to the translation.
 

-----Found it (from a private conversation)...
No. It's a common vowel pointing. It showed up this way sometimes in the Masoretic texts about 1,000 years ago. I know you already know that there were no vowel points in the older Hebrew texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Usually it did not include the "o" (holam) point after the first "H".
Here's an example at https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/masoretic-hebrew-vs-septuagint-part-1/
It doesn't say, but it's the Aleppo Codex of Joshua 1:1 . . . . It includes the "e" and the "a[h]" but not the "o".
Here's an example at http://danielbenyaacovysrael.blogspot.com/2013/02/parsha-tetzaveh-youshall-command-shmot.html
It doesn't say, but it's also from the Aleppo Codex of Ezekiel 28:2 and it includes the "o". I included the picture, because it highlights the tetragrammaton.
So, yes, it's one of the possible vowel pointings, which may have been used to remind readers to pronounce with the word ADONAI, ELOHIM, or HA-SHEM, etc. 
Notice the evidence that this Adonai vowel pointing was NOT supposed to be the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but a replacement pronunciation of the entire word "ADONAI" (Lord). What would happen (sometimes) if the term used in the original Heberw was already ADONAI YHWH? The reader would end up saying ADONAI ADONAI. This happens in Judges 6:22 for example.
Judges 6:22 in the same Aleppo Codex, uses different vowel points shown in the smaller picture, attached. These are the vowel points for ELOHIM. It's evidently because it follows the word ADONAI. (Notice that the "o" is left off Adonai here, too.) It's not consistent, as the Ezekel 28:2 passage showed, but the fact that the name has inconsistent vowel pointing is evidence that whatever vowel points are used were NOT intended for pronunciation. That fact alone is evidence that these two vowel pointings become evidence of two ways in which the name must NOT have been pronounced. (Although someone could argue that an exceptional vowel pointing could have been an accidental slip that revealed the actual way it was pronounced at the time of the Masorete scribes.)
 
 

Most (perhaps all?) of the known people associated with the sponsor of the video (Reibling Foundation) are Witnesses, too. If they are trying to hide this fact they have not done a good job. Obviously, the language and expressions in the video also indicates that it is from Witnesses.
There are some huge logical gaffes in the video.
Furuli says that "as far back as we have evidence we can find the four letters of the divine name" immediately after showing that the 14th C BCE example is only a trigrammaton (YHW) and it is the "Moabite stone "Mesha stele" (from the 9th C BCE) that is the oldest known use of the tetragrammaton example we have in writing. (The Moabite stone, the first tetragrammaton, is nearly 500 years younger than the older trigrammaton.)The narrator tries to drive the point home by saying that this evidence AGAINST his premise indisputably proves the premise.
On "Yah" (Jah), the narrator says that "Yah is indeed God's name...the short version", after which Furuli argues that Yah is "absolutely not an alternative name for Jehovah." (And Gertoux argues that it is not a shortened form based on the pronunciation of the first syllable, but at 21:40 says that Yah/Yahu is God's name when it attached to the end of a personal name.). This is argued from its supposed rarity as a standalone name. But Furuli says it's found 20 times in hallelujah, and 19 times as a standalone name, which totals 49 times (20+19=49). His math is never corrected (either here or in his chronology books), probably because he speaks so authoritatively that no one notices. Of course, the name "Yah" is also embedded in many proper names of individuals in the same way that this video had already shown that others like Nebuchadnezzar, Ramses, etc, included the name of their god(s) in their names. This gets discussed starting at minute 21 of the video.
Then they show Furuli and Gertoux disagreeing about the importance of the final H, where Gertoux says it means the pronunciation was like the a in "ah" but Furuli correctly points out that it was only "very often" and could also stand for either "A" or an "AE." He indicates through his pronunciation that "AE" means either a short "eh" sound or the vowel sometimes represented by the term "schwa").  Then the narrator ignores this contradiction, pretends it's not one at all, and strangely uses it to leap to the conclusion that Jehovah is therefore correct and Yahweh is isn't. See also http://creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/6-ah-eh.pdf for a different point on the vowel to be included with the ending "H".
On the point that the vowels for ADONAI (Lord) were attached to the Tetragrammaton the video goes through a confused "proof" that this can't be true because the slight difference in the actual vowels of Adonai are different from the Masoretic INITIAL vowel pointing of YHWH. (YaHoWaH vs. YeHoWaH). But instead of showing the evidence, an interview with Nehemia Gordon shifts the subject to the middle vowel "O" as if this was not already known in the Masoretic text and he appears to pretend that he has discovered this "missing" vowel himself. He didn't "discover" anything except for himself; it was already known. This is the place in the video where Gertoux tries to apply the age-old conspiracy theory that scholars know something but don't want to upset their fellow colleagues. This happens under centralized power structures all the time, but this of course is in direct contradiction to the parallel claim that scholars are always in competition for something new and will sacrifice their own mother for gaining a bit of attention in the academic world. In truth, the reason it's difficult to get a hearing on some new theory is that you have to show good evidence that disproves the earlier theory which should mean that you deal with all the evidence already put forth for the previous theory. These types of videos are rarely ever based on ALL the prior evidence, but usually just some small piece of the evidence that can be made to appear weak. And the audience is often limited to those who are hoping for something, anything, that they can hang onto in support of their own pet theories.
6 of the 60 Masoretic manuscripts are known to have the full vowels corresponding to Yehowah. (Note minute 46 of this interview with Nehemia Gordon, the same person interviewed in the Reibling video in your original post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q  )
 
"Even the scholar Rolf Furuli speaks out against the form Yahweh" is so disingenuous as to be cringeworthy. (18:52)
What they have left out here which is very important is that the vowels roughly corresponding to Adonai were NOT the only vowels that the Masoretic texts applied to YHWH.
In the portion of the video about embedding the divine name as part of an individual's name assumptions are made about the vowel pronunciation that completely forget the prior admission that we don't know the pronunciation of the vowels as they were pronounced in ancient Hebrew. (Gordon sells books based on the premise that Hebrew was a resurrected language, not spoken for 2000 years, which allows him some extra freedom for "discovery.") There are also known differences in initial vowels that were long and become short based on the pronunciation of the second vowel in a word. Contractions based on syllable emphasis are common and are even seen in the various verb forms. An initial vowel that we might think would be unpronounced in some words could also develop into a well-pronounced longer vowel if the middle consonant/vowel combination was contracted. The ah and oh vowels were sometimes interchangeable in words so that even the Masoretic pointing for the "ah" is still pronounced "oh" in some words. The long O and U are also commonly interchanged so that even when WAW/VAV is used as a vowel, it can swap between the O "oh" sound and the U "oooh" sound. (Also in Arabic as in the difference between Osama and Usama, Koran/Quran.) In the Bible itself we see alternative names that give evidence of contractions where Yahu or Yeho at the beginning of a word becomes Yo, (Jonathan from Yehonathan, Joshuah/Jesus from Yehoshuah) but the ending Yah could include "YahU" as is admitted in the video by Gertoux at location 21:34. In the mention of Jehoshaphat, Joel is quoted.  It's not mentioned that Joel himself is a name that means Jehovah (Yo) is God (El) but without a Yehoel form known. Similarly, Elijah means God (El) is Jehovah (Yah). It's odd that the video says there are no exceptions when Jonathan himself is a name mentioned with one of the exceptions.
(Ezra 10:15) 15 However, Jonʹa·than the son of Asʹa·hel and Jah·zeiʹah the son of Tikʹvah objected to this, and the Levites Me·shulʹlam and Shabʹbe·thai supported them. This only covers some problems from the first half of the video, which appears intended to convince people who have not done a full study. I'm sure we shouldn't discount the possibility that "Jehovah" (from "Yehowah") is one of the possible alternatives. If however, the entire point of the Masoretic text was to produce vowel-pointed pronunciations that helped readers avoid the true pronunciation, then they did a terrible job by supposedly giving away the true vowels in some places but not others. I believe I wrote a note to the Librarian here once that had some evidence about this in the Masoretic texts. I'll see if it's still here and post it.
 

I would have never known he even existed were it not for JW Insider. You can just google his name and go to Wikipedia which gives pretty concise info. about him. His name has also been mentioned in our publications, but easily overlooked. He wrote the two articles in WT 2011 about when was ancient Jerusalem destroyed, if I'm not mistaken. Of course there is a lot more interesting stuff, as he is a big supporter of the 607 B.C. question. One can even contact him via a blog. (I think JW Insider had discussions with him)

Yes, I didn't want to mention this though so it wouldn't bias anyone, and left it up to them to do the research if they wanted. It was sent to me as an "independent, secular documentary". Of course, as soon as I spotted Furuli I became suspicious it was not, and then the contents. Just a little search of the names in the credits after the film brings out lots of other info. Many involved are Witnesses but not all. The director Fritz Poppenberg doesn't seem to be a JW, but obviously a JW apologist, Nehemiah Gordon is a Karaite Rabbi (never heard of the Karaite Jews, very interesting) and the sound director Peter Kaizar doesn't appear to be one. There is a website (obviously biased against JW) that analyses the documentary and the involvement of JWs....(but that's not where I got my info from).
I was hoping you would see this post as I was as sure you would have plenty to say (). I look forward to reading your critique later, and respond. 

@Anna It was really quite amazing. I always wanted to go back when I was retired and do this, but the opportunity never came up. For my work, I had visited Paris 8+ times (and worked there for up to two weeks at a time) even though my office was in NYC, but had only seen the Louvre once with a group of Bethelites 40 years ago, and one other short visit after work, made even shorter due to long lines that day. Finally, just two years ago, I was able to get a 3-day pass and spend more time over two leisurely visits. I shared a couple of pictures on the jw-archive forum from that Louvre visit. I took about 3,000 pictures. Didn't take as many at the British Museum, but still got nearly 1,000. I was finally able to go in through the Staff entrance once, escorted, but the vast majority of staff are there to help manage the huge gift shop (and restock things like Milk Duds in the vending machines).
I didn't get (or expect) answers to most of my questions, but could have gotten closer to an answer on a couple of topics. Naturally, a lot of new topics came up, too.
Since you can easily create your own tour with respect to the major empires of Bible history (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome) I was interested in whether any of the beast imagery in Daniel had more correlation with motifs and iconography of those nations. (Lions, bears, eagles, goats, leopards, etc.) Another topic that came up with one of the research assistants was the Flood evidence (which we like to say is known in every ancient culture), and the related issue with respect to the JEPD theory of the redaction of Genesis and "OT" texts. A research coordinator was very well-versed in the topic of early Christian history, and wanted to spend considerable time on the parallels between Christianity and contemporary popular religions of the first century. He showed me that this was an important topic for even the earliest "Church Fathers" to explain (which I had somehow missed in any cursory readings of Tertullian, etc.). A topic that came up here recently about just how early Trinity had reared its ugly head (heads?) also came up in the discussion of iconography of early Christianity, and I was given a lot of information on some very recent presentations on this topic. If any of these topics seem worthwhile on this forum, I will be happy to include them in discussions that come up, or topics that I start myself. I have a lot of information to sort through, and believe that a lot of my own assumptions were likely wrong. So I also need to get better grounding on most of these topics myself. 

This reminds me of brothers ribbing each other years ago. One, a new parent, went on a child-development conference, something called (ready for this? The Better Baby Institute). On returning, he was quizzed by another.
Did you go in service while you were there? .... No
Did you go to meetings.... No
Well, did you pray?
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!
 
Yes....
Actually, despite some flippancy, I used to be obnoxious at museums - slowing everyone down so I could read each exhibit. Someday I'd like to get to London and the Louvre