In a group, one Witness said. “I really like Brother Noumair’s talks. He’s a good speaker.” My friend waited . . . and waited . . . and waited . . .and then burst out laughing. She was waiting for a B part—an example, a qualification, a contrast. Nope. That was it, the complete comment. “*Everybody* likes Brother Noumair’s talks,” she told me. She had just assumed there would be a B part.

I thought of that exchange with regard to a short talk he gave recently about Job. “He’s a digger,” my wife says. I mean, the guy conducts the Gilead school, so of course they are going to select someone who has a gift for “digging.”

My latest book, ‘A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen’ opens with a verse-by-verse discussion of Job. It takes up 30% of the book. For the most part, it departs from whatever the Witness organization has said. In fact, it has to. A review of the JW Library app reveals large swaths of Job untouched by Watchtower publications, and some of the verses that are touched just lead to some type of ‘Bible trivia,’ like what the “skin of your teeth” means. My book instead considers a wide range of commentators. Since some regard the Book of Job as the greatest literary work of all time, it is not hard to find commentators

I would have squeezed Noumair’s remarks in there, somehow, had the book not already been released. They are that unique. He highlights the confrontation between Jehovah and Satan that results in a permitted test on Job’s integrity. He reviews verses to show that every inch of the way, Jehovah is in complete control, as he reveals what is in the Devil’s heart and allows an issue to be settled. As soon as it is settled, “the gavel goes down” and Job’s state of captivity, which likely lasted less than a year, is reversed. The lesson? Confidence in God’s power, which in turn leads to confidence on the part of those who trust him. And the assurance that trials, once they are endured, come to an end.

‘A Workman’s Theodicy’ goes on to cover a wide range of theologians, some of whom have asserted things nearly unrecognizable to those of any traditional Bible community. Scholars widely regard Job as a product of two books fused together. The first two and the final chapter are part of a “fable.” The poetry in between represents the “theology” of maybe one, maybe multiple authors. (Opinions differ) “Is the intellectual appeal of this approach that by so dividing Job into two portions, you are in position to understand neither?” I explore the question.

The book also looks at the theology of a popular Jewish rabbi, Harold Kushner, who has written much on Job and the light it sheds on God’s coexistence with evil. Guided by modern critical techniques, he all but presents Satan as God’s hit man, assigned to do his dirty work. He does not sense any particular enmity between the two parties—they work unitedly, in his view. He also resolves the question of evil by deciding that God is not all-powerful. He means well, but he is at time outmaneuvered by “Leviathan,” to whom he assigns a new meaning.

It is too bad I couldn’t have squeezed Noumair in the book. Maybe I will in case I revise it later. He would have made a fine addition. See: “We Can Endure Like Job,” a talk searchable at JW*org.

******  The bookstore

“Okay, so we DID cheat,” say the later guardians of the Septuagint. “But you didn’t CATCH us cheating! We managed to slip our fraud into the New Testament before you could catch us. So it’s all good.”

That’s what it boils down to with the Septuagint, the Hebrew-to-Greek translation of the OT that served as the basis for writing the New Testament. There is no question that early Septuagint manuscripts use the divine name. Latter Septuagint manuscripts have removed it. The issue becomes WHAT version did the NT authors use—the before or after? So far, evidence suggests the after, though common sense suggests the before.  (See the post: the Divine Name in the New Testament)

Say what you will about the Jews avoiding pronunciation of the Divine Name. They never REMOVED it. It takes a special type of sleaze to do that. But somewhere from early on, people with such qualities removed the Name for Lord (kyios) in the Septuagint, which has enabled a furtherance of the trinity doctrine. Prior to that, it had been either ‘YHWH’ transposed into Greek or the Greek equivalent letters (IAO) employed in that Hebrew-Greek translation.

The only question becomes, not whether there was fraud or not—there clearly was—but did the NT writers catch it? The record of extant NT manuscripts so far suggests they did not. Surely the Word of God will not be transmitted through such devious methods! That’s why translators of the NWT proposed a theory that, just as the Name was quickly defused in the OT, and removed in the Greek Septuagint, the same thing may well have happened with early Christian manuscripts.

Frankly, I suspect the New Testament writers DID search out the uncontaminated Septuagint copies. At least two such manuscripts date from the first century. A change so fundamental as that, removal of the divine name for ‘lord’ must surely have caught someone attention. It would be like attending the Kingdom Hall for years and years, then one day discovering it had been renamed the Empire Hall. Someone would have noticed that.

Almost always, persons who fervently argue the trinity do such from a personal revelation. In my time, it was Billy Graham’s “Come Down and Be Saved!” Conversion was instantaneous, whereas Witnesses are well known to require a long period of Bible study, along with a trial period of the JW way of life, before getting baptized. Trinity people are known to convert instantly. Thereafter, whatever the Word says or does not say regarding Jesus and his Father makes no impression at all upon them. If a point seems to go their way, they’ll take it. If it doesn’t they ignore it. They have acquired their sureness from another source, that of a personal revelation.

Perhaps “sleaze” is too strong a work for removal of the unique divine name, to be replaced with “kyrios.’ Perhaps it is just an extension of the same uber-sensitivity to the name that caused its disappearance. On the other hand, since you’re supposed to be careful in handling the Word, perhaps sleaze is the right term after all. Many acknowledge the confusion presented by the generic “kyrios” in the NT placed where the distinctive name of God in the OT used to be. But trinitarians welcome the “confusion” and pass it off as doings of the holy spirit.

The New World Translation’s move to restore the divine name in the New Testament is unconventional move. No one has said differently, nor have the NWT translators themselves in their appendix (A5). Obviously, I can understand how many people would think only existing NT manuscripts be considered, not shenanigans in the source Septuagint. Maybe the NWT even jumped the gun on this point. But they are honest with regard to their reasons, and the reasons do reflect scholarship. And except for the ferocity of those determined to advance the trinity doctrine, nobody is overly concerned about it. To them, it is just one more variation in the challenge of translation ancient languages related through multiple sources.

Counting revisions, every year or three someone presents a new English translation of the Bible. They all differ. But they all work. Each has its own reason for existence. Each thinks it can better represent the thought expressed in the ancient languages inspired by the Bible’s true author. Each incorporates the latest findings of scholarship. Each is unique—no one would go to all the bother of translating the Bible if it was just to rubber-stamp a prior version.

Bible readers have long accepted some accounts related in scripture as genuine, even though outside of scripture there is no evidence it is so. Then, archeologists come along and discover that evidence. In this case, the “account” is the clear testimony of scripture that Jesus and God are not one and the same. NWT translators think maybe some parallel development will shed more light on “kyrios” vs ‘IAO.’ In the meantime, they run with what they have based on Septuagint versions.

Several foreign-language translations of the Bible—in German, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese—do contain the divine name in the NT. I’ve never heard anyone make a complaint. If you ask AI about it, making clear you want no reference to Jehovah's Witnesses or the New World Translation, it still comes up with lengthy justifications, albeit minority, for included the Name in their New Testaments. I admit I was surprised at this myself. I thought it was only JWs who have reasoned this way. It’s not. Said AI (Grok):

“Some translators and scholars have argued for continuity in the use of the divine name across both the Old and New Testaments, especially in cases where the New Testament quotes Old Testament passages that originally contained the Tetragrammaton. For example, when New Testament writers cite passages like Isaiah 40:3 (“Prepare the way of the Lord”)—where “Lord” translates יהוה in the Hebrew—some translators believe it is appropriate to render the divine name explicitly as “Jehovah” in the New Testament to reflect the original intent of the quoted text. This approach is often motivated by a desire to preserve the distinctiveness of God’s personal name and to avoid conflating it with generic terms like “Lord” (Kyrios in Greek), which could refer to other figures in different contexts.

“Some translators and scholars have posited that the divine name may have been used in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, or at least in early oral traditions, but was later replaced with Kyrios (Greek for “Lord”) or Theos (Greek for “God”) in surviving copies. This theory, while speculative, is based on several historical and textual considerations:

“Some translators point to historical evidence suggesting that the divine name was known and revered in early Christian and Jewish communities, even in the Greek-speaking world. For example: - Certain early Christian writings, such as those of the Church Fathers, occasionally reference the divine name or discuss its significance, though they do not provide clear evidence of its use in New Testament texts.

“In certain theological traditions, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of God’s personal name as a means of distinguishing the God of the Bible from other deities or generic concepts of divinity. This theological perspective has influenced some translators to include “Jehovah” in the New Testament, even in the absence of direct textual evidence, as a way of highlighting God’s unique identity.

“In some languages, the transliteration “Jehovah” became a familiar and traditional way to refer to God, especially in Christian contexts. Translators in these languages may have chosen to use “Jehovah” in the New Testament to make the text more accessible and relatable to their audience, even if the original Greek text does not explicitly support it.bFor example, in certain African, Asian, or indigenous language translations, the use of “Jehovah” may have been adopted to distinguish the God of the Bible from local deities or to align with missionary traditions that emphasized the divine name. This practice was often driven by the cultural and linguistic needs of the target audience rather than strict adherence to the Greek text.”

******  The bookstore

My wife and I had people from out of state come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodeling project nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away on vacation. There are people who would pay anything for such a brotherhood in which you can place such trust in total strangers.

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Malihan heard of this and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside. The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O’Malihans returned to four bare walls. Steamed, they contacted the Independence Day church headquarters. “Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too,” they were told. “No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling.”

The first paragraph is true. I just made up the second. But what I like is how with Jehovah’s Witnesses, not only may you enjoy a good relationship with God and his Son, but as a pure gimme, you get a united worldwide brotherhood. Why anyone would throw that away from insistence that their own viewpoint prevail is beyond me.

The world is more dangerous than before, so the organization safeguards more than before. It is not like in the 1970s, when I, on a whim, drove to a St. Louis International Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses and presented myself at the rooming desk with the expectation that someone would put me up for the four or five days. They did. The only way that they knew I was a Witness was that I said I was. I stayed with an elderly sister and her non-Witness husband who treated me as though one of their own. But that was long ago, and “wicked men and imposters have advanced from bad to worse,” says the verse. Today there is vetting, only possible with organization, so that you know people are who they say they are. 

You can do more with organization than you can without. It is no more complicated than that. In the case of an organization such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, devoted to spreading “this good news of the kingdom throughout all the inhabited earth,” seamless organization of voluntary efforts has enabled an entirely new channel of Bible production and distribution,  so that ‘Big Business’ is not in charge of distributing the Word of God, and everyone stays on the same page in the process. Organization is the obvious way that Jesus’ prediction comes to pass: “Most truly I say to you, whoever exercises faith in me will also do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these.” Greater works than Jesus? It can’t be done through disconnected individuals.

******  The bookstore

Jehovah’s Witnesses stand on blood transfusion will have saved far more lives than it has cost. This is because, here and there, courageous doctors have sought to accommodate it. In doing so, they have made transfusion therapy safer for everyone, either by just not giving one or by using bloodless techniques in its stead. An April 2008 New Scientist article entitled ‘An Act of Faith in the Operating Room,’ reviewed study after study, and concluded that for all but the most catastrophic cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. In short, the “act of faith” referred to was not withholding a blood transfusion. It was giving one.

We all know blood is a foreign tissue. We all know the body fights to eliminate foreign tissue. Not that such complications can’t be dealt with, but eliminating transfusions where they are unnecessary avoids the problem entirely. Time was when a blood transfusion following surgery was more or less routine, like topping off the tank. It no longer is. Thank Jehovah’s Witnesses for that.

I wrote up a post of the New Scientist article, the first two paragraphs are reproduced here:

“When speaking medicine with someone who doesn’t care for Jehovah’s Witnesses, one finds that “blood transfusion” is always linked with “life-saving.” There are no exceptions. The noun and adjective must never be separated. At least, not until recently. At long last, the link is beginning to crumble. “Life-threatening” is fast emerging as a reality to offset, in part, the “life-saving.” Not among JW detractors, of course, who will still be chanting “life-saving blood transfusions” as they are lowered into their graves. But among those who actually keep up with things, matters are changing fast.

“It is the only conclusion one can reach upon reading the April 26, 2008 New Scientist magazine. Entitled ‘An Act of Faith in the Operating Room,’ an article reviews study after study, and concludes that for all but the most catastrophic cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. Says Gavin Murphy, a cardiac surgeon at the Bristol Heart Institute in the UK: “There is virtually no high-quality study in surgery, or intensive or acute care, outside of when you are bleeding to death, that shows that blood transfusion is beneficial, and many that show it is bad for you.” Difficulties stem from blood deteriorating in even brief storage, from its assault on the immune system, and from its impaired ability to deliver oxygen. In short, the “act of faith” referred to is not withholding a blood transfusion. It is giving one.”

The remainder of the post, for anyone interested, is found: Here

Of deaths attributed to refusing transfusions, it can never be said than refraining from blood is what killed the patient, since plenty of people die despite being transfused. Of the few who have died where bloodless techniques were not available, that indeed is tragic. Yet people routinely put their lives on the line for all sorts of causes—country, science, often things as frivolous as extreme sports, and they are always lauded for it. Only for an unpopular religion is it condemned. The New Scientist article doesn’t answer every concern regarding transfusion therapy. But it does provide context and helps defuse all the crazies who charge that JW are on a ‘right-to-die’ quest. Their stand has overall vastly improved medicine.

Not to mention how risks from declining transfusions are compensated 1,000 times over in the Witness arena by their no-tolerance policy of tobacco, illicit drugs, and overdrinking. An anti-Witness activist truly interested in preserving life would direct his or her attention almost anywhere else. It offends the sensibilities of any reasonable person to ignore the top 100 causes of death to fixate one’s fury on the 101th, yet that is exactly what anti-Witness “activists” do.

They are very single-minded in that anti-JW world, obsessed with one thing. Should nukes ever be employed, something that the 90-seconds to midnight Doomsday clock suggests, all people everywhere will respond with horror at the news. But on the anti-Witness internet forums, the crazies will be obsessed with how JWs might be using the catastrophe to “manipulate” people into thinking the world is bad.

******  The bookstore

For the most part, Witnesses can coexist with Darwin. The things he observed on the Galápagos Islands are but examples of  ‘animal husbandly,’ which has been around forever and is not controversial. Where Witnesses might speak against Darwin, it is because of (correctly) anticipating the truckloads of dogma that atheists will drive through the door he cracks open. But Darwin himself is not too controversial. His examples, what he wrote of, is called “micro-evolution.”

Witnesses look more moodily on “macro-evolution,” the notion of all species deriving from common ancestors. They don’t like it. But, generally speaking, they have the attitude: “Let scientists be scientists and Bible students be Bible students.” It’s not the hill they choose to die on. A book on macro-evolution, written in 1985, has never been replaced or updated. Macro appears to violate the “kinds” of Genesis, and for this reason it is looked upon skeptically. But the Watchtower has written that this wording in Genesis “implies” macro is wrong. Whenever I see “implies,” it is an indication to me of not being dogmatic. When push comes to shove, many who believe in God have said, ‘Okay, God did create the diversity of life we see today and evolution is how much of it happened.’ Frankly, life programmed to adapt via accumulation of genetic change strikes me as no less miraculous than potter-made life.*

The only aspect of evolution remaining is abiogenesis, which is technically not evolution at all. It is a matter how finding how life arose in the first place. Was it the ‘spark of God’ or was it the gradual accumulation of random chemical and physical circumstances? Jehovah’s Witnesses allow no place for the last option at all. Their most recent offering, “The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking,” downloadable at JW*org, is exclusively on this topic.

Written in 2010, it is cutting edge for its time. The questions it addresses have not changed, so it still comes across as cutting-edge. One wonders who wrote it. It will not have been the GB member who got straight A’s in high school science. I explored the idea in the book ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’ Every once in a while, there is some top-notch scientist who becomes a Witness. My guess is that after a certain ‘trial period’ so they know he or she is going to stick, they ask him to look over their science department with observations and even updates. My book tells of a certain scientist who became a Witness, who taught at Cornell, a published author on aspects of evolution, whose book comprised curriculum for some courses, to explore that conjecture.

***

By default, most persons not in Cornell suppose Hebrews 3:4 to be valid, that “every house is constructed by someone.’ They have never encountered anything different—not just of houses, but of anything. If it seems like it has been designed, it has been. They know of no exceptions. Therefore, they readily extends the idea to “but he that constructed all things is God.”

It actually takes a substantial dose of “education” to pound this bit of common sense out of a person. The school system is relentless at the task. Yet, even when it has succeeded, there are some who come to regard their efforts as brainwashing and revert to the common sense they once knew.

*On one of Nita’s Bible studies with Jade, a series that debuted at a summer convention and ran several episodes, Jade says something like, ‘You think he’s got a little factory up there where he just cranks them out?’ Nita doesn’t say that he does, and the study slides on to other things. The series seems to have come to an end. The apocryphal word is that the sister who played Jaded tired of the publicity—people stopping her everywhere to ask about it and her. Thus, she is like another sister I wrote about in Tom Irregardless and Me who was featured in a Memorial advertising campaign, on flyer, magazine cover, and video. Worried that the publicity might have gone to her head, I phoned her to find out. Her publicist said that it hadn’t.

There is also a report in the book of when Prince would attend conventions, dressed in a suit, hair not all frizzed up, blending in far better than anyone would expect. Some Witness was interviewed after his death who said his appearance would cause a “mild stir,” but for the most part, people would leave him attend in peace. But, what is a mild stir for him might have been overwhelming for anyone else. 

******  The bookstore

Should you visit Rochester, NY, you may decide to visit the George Eastman house, as I did when I was there. Mr. Eastman, who brought photography to the masses and who founded Kodak, turned philanthropist once he’d made his fortune and built half the city. His preserved mansion showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. But snoop thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his chums going senile, bedridden or wheelchair bound. He left behind a note: “To my friends - My work is done. Why wait?”

Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

a) His work was done. Why wait?

b) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for much too long.

c) His health was failing and he (a lifelong bachelor) dreaded the indignities of old age -with its dependence upon others.

Does anyone honestly think that, with health and youth, he would not have found more work in which to engross himself?

In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo DaVinci, artist of the Mona Lisa - likely the most famous portrait of all time. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a renaissance man; it may be that he originates the term. Yet toward the end of life, he reportedly sought God's forgiveness for "not using all the resources of his spirit and art."

Eastman and DaVinci - two fellows that typify Dr. Jastrow’s statement from yesterday’s post. And they would be joined by most everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure...you might well long for death if you can only envision more of that. Ditto for the frailness that comes with old age.

I recently attended a funeral of someone who had been happy, content, and productive throughout life. Nonetheless, death was not unwelcome, relatives assured me, since he’d grown “so tired of being sick.”

That’s why the Bible’ promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It’s Robert Jastrow’s dream come true - unlimited time to grow minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are “toiling for nothing.” . . .

“And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them.”    Isa 65:21-23

There’s a lot of things I’d like to do. I’ve done a few of them. But for the most part, I’ve just scratched the surface. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time shoveling aside the muck this system throws at you. No, everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all.

Thing is, with “everlasting life” you only know it is without end when you get to where the end should be and see it is not there. The Greek word itself ("aiónios") does not demand permanence to life—it is always contingent on God’s approval. It thus differs from Greek words that DO demand it—such as "aidios" of Romans 1:20 (eternal) and athanasia" of 1 Timothy 6:16 (immortality). For that reason, John 3:36–

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal ("aiónios") life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”

is rendered “everlasting life” in the King James Version. The New World Translation also says “everlasting life,” not “eternal life,” since there are other words ("aidios" and athanasia") that mean eternal or deathless. Why sow confusion?

It’s all very well to live fully in the present—everyone should do that—but to ignore the future so as to just immerse oneself in the present surely is unnecessarily shallow. I very much like the idea of living forever.

*****The bookstore

When they asked Robert Jastrow the physicist about living forever - would it be a blessing or a curse? - he said… it all depends:

“It would be a blessing to those who have curious minds and an endless appetite for learning. The thought that they have forever to absorb knowledge would be very comforting for them. But for others who feel they have learned all there is to learn and whose minds are closed, it would be a dreadful curse. They’d have no way to fill their time.”

In other words, our appetite for learning is endless, unless we have closed down shop ourselves. Jastrow is an egghead - a thinker - and so he focused on learning. But other things are probably boundless, too, like our capacity to create, and to love. However, pop culture has taken to selling death as if it were a benefit. It’s probably those atheists. There’s more and more of them, and buying into their thinking means settling for a final death sentence perhaps not too many years away. So they put lipstick on a pig.

Pay attention, and you’ll see the ‘death is beautiful’ notion a lot. For example, it surfaced in a recent [I wrote this is 2009] Dr Who episode - The Lazarus Experiment. The episode name itself is a giveaway, since Jesus resurrected a man by that name.

This TV Lazarus has invented a machine that makes him young again….he steps in a geezer, and steps out a young man, to the amazement of all the high-brow folk invited to his gala bash. But Dr. Who (was he invited?) smells something amiss. He follows the newly minted youngster, and sure enough, the machine has malfunctioned and dooms Lazurus to transforming back and forth from human to monster! (They like monsters on that show.)

See, in setting back his DNA, the machine has selected ancient mutations long-ago rejected by evolution. (Hmmm…yes…indeed, plausible, nod all the atheists watching the show….whereas if you mentioned anything about God to them, they’d throw up.)

The time lord doctor also lectures Lazarus on what a curse everlasting life really is, and what a dumb, greedy thing it was for him to want it. For when life drags on forever and ever and ever, you will get so tired of it. You will have been everywhere, done everything. Living will have become an endless, pointless trek to nowhere. You will long for it to end, but….fool that you were for choosing everlasting life….it will not end, but go on and on and on. Oh, the monotony! See, without death, it is impossible to savor life…. and so forth.

Please…. spare me (and Dr. Jastrow). This is atheist tripe. It all depends upon whether you see life as futile or not. If you do, then sure...you would want it to end. But as Jastrow stated, life’s only futile if you’ve made it so. Of course, baked into this system of things are ingredients to encourage that dismal view - for example, old age, frailty, and the continual aggravations of human misrule. But, if they could be removed . . . which is exactly what the Bible promises to do. From that promise comes the title: ‘Enjoy Life Forever.’

*****The bookstore

“True wisdom cries aloud in the street. It keeps raising its voice in the public squares.” (Proverbs 1:20)

For the most part, the greater world disagrees. Its counter-version is that True wisdom is found in the quadrangles. Only ignoramuses are found the streets and public squares. Witnesses have been known to use this verse to encourage each other, since they are in the streets and public squares a lot, the quadrangles not so much. One GB even cited the song as to what they look for there: “It’s the person, not the place. It’s the heart and not the face,” to which he added, “Isn’t that encouraging?” even though his appearance is not all that hard on the eyes.

Trouble is, in the quadrangles, one usually doesn’t find this:

“The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge.” (1:7)

That lack doesn’t harm the quadrangle’s math and engineering offerings. You may even need those to get where you’re going. But veer outside those fields and some of the others offerings will sabotage you. “The first effect of not believing in God is that you lose your common sense,” G. K. Chesterton said.

It’s like the passage from the highly recommended (by me) book, ‘Tom Irregardless and Me:’

“I’d be more impressed with that education if it bore fruit. Those who run the planet, in politics, business, or society, are well-educated almost to the person. The world is not run by commoners. It is rare to find someone in leadership position who has not had four years of higher education at a bare minimum, usually more. One would think the world they’ve collectively built would benefit from that education. Not a bit of it! It is an unjust, violent, chaotic mess, a poor return for their brilliance.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ignore education, but they do redefine it. Whereas the world’s education emphasizes intellect and soft-pedals moral values, Bible education does just the opposite. Its educational focus is on overcoming greed, pride, and selfishness. It is mental brilliance, the focus of the world’s education, that is assumed able to take care of itself as needed. . . . Witnesses have learned to yield to one another. Their Bible-based education is the reason.

“Nobody sends their sons or daughters to the university in hopes that they will learn love, fairness, justice, or selflessness. Nobody imagines that to be the purpose of this world’s higher education. In the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses, those qualities are the purpose of their education. Brilliance is outsourced. When it is needed, it is not hard to find someone who has it or someone who can develop it.”

I wrote this book in 2016. Some of it I would write differently today, but most of it still holds. I might even expand upon the role of Bernard Strawman, sharply critical of the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses allow a man like Tom Irregardless to go door to door, seeing as how he keeps using that word and each time it makes Bernard wince. I hadn’t told him about Tom’s public talks.

***

I don’t diss college as many in my faith do. Neither do I think it is the bee’s knees. On average, it does result in a higher income. Though, a certain employment counselor observed, “the funny thing about averages is that they don’t necessarily apply to anyone.” I know of several instances in which Witnesses without any college at all, regularly supervise college grads, even PhDs, in their secular work. They rose to their station on pure people skills and credit their religious activities for training them in interaction with others. I would never say it is the rule, but it does happen. I know of a pioneer who began part-time employment at a nearby 150-person company. They leaned on her to go full-time. She declined for the sake of her ministry. She figured that meant she would always be low-level, and she was okay with that. Nonetheless, in a short time they promoted her as trainer for all of their employees who interact with the public, and she remained the only part-timer in an outfit of full-timers.

Plus, in our area this very cold winter, there is a Witness from Africa who says, “I don’t know how the sun can be out yet it is so cold outside!” University isn’t helping him much, is it? for that is why he is here. :)

***

The purpose of the Book of Proverbs is stated at the outset: “To learn wisdom and discipline,” (Proverbs 1:2) which “only fools despise.” (vs 4) It is: “To acquire the discipline that gives insight, Righteousness, good judgment, and uprightness; To impart shrewdness to the inexperienced; [I like how these qualities are all linked.] To give a young man knowledge and thinking ability.” (3-4)

It is good not to ignore these things:

“A wise person listens and takes in more instruction; A man of understanding acquires skillful direction.” (5)

This is true even though you will find some among humans who have a black belt in dispensing knowledge.

Counsel is difficult to give when people bristle over their independences and rights. One speaker likened it to cautioning someone over his tire, which has gone very low on air. “Oh yeah?!” comes the retort. “Well, your car has a dent in the fender!”

The downside of internet life is that it caters to a “showy display of knowledge,” yet you have no idea whatsoever whether the person “practices what he preaches,” though Jesus said the latter was the only thing that really counted. In person this is much less likely to happen.

Too, anyone who undertakes counsel that affects the life of another can get blowback should anything go wrong. One thinks of Paul in the first century pleading: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.” (2 Corinthians 7:2) Why would he have said this unless to fend off frequent charges that they had?

The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom,” but the task is quickly delegated: “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father, And do not forsake the instruction of your mother.” (8)

Mom and Dad are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer but they are the most available. And they are the only ones that you know are not likely to be pointed at you, at least not deliberately. If you have good ones, they align you right for life. Even if you don’t, you take from them what you can and fill in the gaps when you move on.

Usually, they protect you from “attacks” sure to come out of nowhere:

“My son, if sinners try to entice you, do not consent. If they say: “Come with us. Let us set an ambush to shed blood. We will lie hidden, waiting for innocent victims without cause. We will swallow them alive as the Grave does, Whole, like those going down to the pit. Let us seize all their precious treasures; We will fill our houses with spoil.” (10-13)

And then, their invitation: “You should join us.” (14)

Why don’t they mind their own business? What’s in it for them?

“My son, do not follow them. Keep your feet off their path, For their feet run to do evil; They hurry to shed blood.” (15-16)

You can be sure that there’s something they’re not telling you. Like in verse 17: “It is surely in vain to spread a net in full sight of a bird.” This is why I never let the mice watch as I am baiting the traps.

Switching “traps”—not at all implying they are the same—some kids sail through college (the quadrangles) just fine.* Others regret being manipulated by an education industry that shoves you, unless your grades are in the toilet, directly into college upon completion of high school. Though I did reap some benefit from college, I also reaped chaos and would have been far better off holding off until having more maturity—or even not going unless and until I had the need for it, if possible doing so on an a la carte basis.

“How come you never taught me to do things, Pop?” I complained to my 92 year old Dad. He’d always been reasonably handy, whereas I was not. Lack of a trade has been a thorn in my side throughout life. “I did,” the amiable duffer replied. “But you weren’t paying attention that day.” I think he just fell for the modern mantra of ‘Send your kids to college and they can hire people to do the grubby stuff for them.” Raised on a farm himself, he trusted the experts to do better for his kids.

***

Working up to a grand finale here: “How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?” (1:22)

He keeps reaching out, almost pleading: “Respond to my reproof. Then I will pour out my spirit for you; I will make my words known to you.” (1:23)

But, whoa! Tell him to take a hike and you discover that he really has an edge to him:

“Because I called out, but you kept refusing, I stretched out my hand, but no one was paying attention, You kept neglecting all my advice And rejecting my reproof, I also will laugh when disaster strikes you; I will mock when what you dread comes, When what you dread comes like a storm, And your disaster arrives like a storm wind, When distress and trouble come upon you. At that time they will keep calling me, but I will not answer; They will eagerly look for me, but they will not find me, Because they hated knowledge, And they did not choose to fear Jehovah. They refused my advice; They disrespected all my reproof. So they will bear the consequences of their way, And they will be glutted with their own counsel.”

“Laugh when disaster strikes you?” It’s not exactly “Slow to anger, Quick to forgive,” is it? It is not hard to see from where comes the street-wisdom that the God of the New Testament is nice but the God of the Old Testament is mean.

Or is he? Just don’t push him over the edge, is the message. Until that happens, he is nothing but patience. Both the patience and the silence when the patience is abused are on display at the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem:

“Jehovah the God of their forefathers kept warning them by means of his messengers, warning them again and again, because he felt compassion for his people and for his dwelling place. But they kept ridiculing the messengers of the true God, and they despised his words and mocked his prophets, until the rage of Jehovah came up against his people, until they were beyond healing.” (2 Chronicles 36:15-16)

Jesus focused more on God’s loving side. Maybe this is because, by the time he arrived, humans had slid farther from the perfection the enjoyed at Eden. Maybe this is because they had more bad influences around them. Both of these factors are even more so today, so it is not surprising that ‘the God of the New Testament’ draws people so much more than ‘the God of the Old.’ But, those who suppose the God of the New is too much of a softie have not looked at Matthew 7:21-23. There, Jesus says:

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’”

When I do my ‘Read a Scripture and Leave’ approach in door-to-door and use this verse, I say the reason I chose it is that some are surprised Jesus would be like that. They hear so much about his love that they begin to imagine it’s almost impossible to get him riled. If these verses are valid, however, even many of those who claim to follow him he wants nothing to do with.

One must find a balance. Jesus even said that a course of following God might even divide families, the worst of all possible sins to hear opponents of Christianity carry on:

“Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” (Mathew 10:34-36)

Humans who accept God’s provision for redemption through the death of his Son: are we not all on a journey of sorts? That’s why Jesus’ analogies of the broad and spacious versus the cramped and narrow road work so well. It is also why I begin to think one of the greatest type/anti-types of all time played out right before me routinely as a boy—back when my siblings and I would ride in the back of the family stationwagon on long trips. Within a hour, we were peppering Dad with our discontent. Most of it centered around how bored we were, how much longer would the trip take? aren’t we there yet? lets stop at that rest stop, I want a snack, and so forth.

Dad would put up with it for a while, but at length would holler: ‘If you kids don’t stop crying back there, I’m going to stop this car and give you something to cry about!’

I thought he was just being mean. I was slow to realize that he was showing the wisdom of the ages, for sometimes that is exactly what must be done.

Someone played the ‘more loving than thou’ card on me recently. Yes, dads were like that back in the day, but he is more enlightened.* He will pull the car over and patiently answer all his children’s questions, no doubt as many times as it takes—taking for granted that the precious young things can’t possibly understand that it takes time to get from point A to point B, and that this is so because the world is big. And if—get this—despite all his loving explanations, they are still not reassured, he will turn the car around and head home, respecting their feelings. That annual visit to the relatives? Gone. That once-a-year vacation trip to a rented spot already paid for? Forget about it! Nothing is more important that he show love to his tiny children.

Look, the situation doesn’t come up anyone. People hand their kids a smart phone and they barely come up for air even when the destination is reached.

*****The bookstore

Then there was that bombshell statement of John 6 that drove the crowds away! The crowds had shown up for a free meal and were steadily disappointed because Jesus just wanted to talk about spiritual stuff—but then he finally reached this next corker, and it drove them all away:

“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (John 6:54)

Whoa! They didn’t see that coming! “When they heard this, many of his disciples said: ‘This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?’” (6:60)

Now, Jesus had been setting the stage for some time but they hadn’t been listening. It’s like when my wife suddenly drops a grenade on me that will set me back a half year’s salary and when I spit out my coffee in horror she says, ‘Well, I’ve been speaking for weeks about it! You might try paying attention on occasion!”

Jesus had been doing that too. It was another thing explored during that Watchtower Study of February 16, 2025: “You Can Have Everlasting Life—But How?” He had fed the crowds. The next day they showed up for more. He told them: “Most truly I say to you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate from the loaves and were satisfied. (6:26)

What did he advise them to do instead?

“Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you.” (6:27)

Then, he referred back to how God fed the ancestors with ‘bread from heaven.’ It was called manna. (6:31) The stuff was versatile and nourishing, but in time the grumblers grew sick of it. Then he said that he was the counterpart of that heavenly bread: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not get hungry at all, and whoever exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all. (6:35)

Okay? So, he gave plenty of notice where he was heading. Same thing with the “drink.” He had told the woman at the well that those “who drink from the water I give will never thirst again” and that woman ran off to tell the whole town. (4:14) It is enough for the crowds to have said, “Okay, he talks that way.” It’s on them if they’re going to choke afterward, which most of them did: “Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him.” (6:66)

***

Now, having said all this, it is a fact that among the slanderous things said about early Christians was that they practiced cannibalism. And don’t you think their enemies would have pointed to these words of Jesus to make their case? How could they not? The words can be so easily misconstrued. I know it’s the Lord and all, but it seems like a very impolitic thing to say.

Moreover, if Witness organization ever said something so seemingly provocative, their opponents would be blasting them for years over it! Such as with a Watchtower that called certain apostates “mentally diseased,” citing a scripture that says exactly that. That was 14 years ago and they are still howling about It!

Sometimes the Witness channel will say something true enough on the surface but easily misconstrued (like calls for “obedience”) and I will say, “Sheesh! You guys don’t know how easily that can be weaponized?!” But I don’t write in to tell them about it. I am afraid they might say, “Yeah. Well . . . Jesus did it. Why don’t you trying telling him off, Tom?”

Frankly, I’ll bet they use Jesus’ remarks as a template, same as they do Acts 15 for their own role. They probably go there and conclude, “Okay, you say what needs to be said. Never mind if the soreheads twist it around.” They probably don’t want to find themselves in the shoes of Lot, whose sons-in-law thought he was joking. If they think something needs saying, they say it. But it sure does make life . . . interesting.

*****The bookstore

You don’t use John chapter 6 to make the point that everyone partakes at the Memorial. Was that the overall point of the February 16, 2025 Watchtower Study? It was a continuation from last week, a thorough look at that Bible chapter. The study article was entitled: “Everlasting Life for You—But How?” The theme scripture was John 6:40.. “Everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him [will] have everlasting life.”​

Who was Jesus speaking to when he made the “new covenant”—the wine and bread ceremony? It was to those who had “stuck with him through all his trials.” They numbered twelve at the time. Read the whole chapter of Luke 22. He was speaking to the twelve:

“However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.” Luke 22:28

Who was he speaking to a year earlier at John 6? They were just people who showed up for free food! Kind of like the visitors who drop in at suppertime. You know what they are hoping for. To them, Jesus said: “you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate from the loaves and were satisfied.” (6:26)

He’s not going the make a covenant for a kingdom with those dullards! If he did, the heavenly kingdom would be just like the earthly governments today! It would be populated by those in it for themselves, populated by those obsessed with ‘power’ and if there was any beneficial spillover from them to the general populace, it would be just coincidence!

He didn’t even indulge those people! He told them to “work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for everlasting life.” (vs 27) There’s no reason he could not have added, “but as long as you’re here . . . Watch this!” and done a repeat of multiplying the bread and loaves. He didn’t do it! He was working to cultivate spirituality in them but they don’t have a clue about anything, and don’t care to obtain one. And he’s going to hand over the kingdom to these ones? I don’t think so.

They exercised no faith in him at all. The second group, his disciples, with whom he one year later instituted the new covenant, was nothing but faith.

Confusion reins today in the overall world of religion. Apparently, there are some among the Witnesses themselves who come to feel that everyone should partake at the Memorial, and whether they are to rule with Christ in the heavens or not is immaterial. Do they pick it up from the “air” of evangelicals for whom partaking of the body of Christ means something entirely different? Will they, in time, go the way of Catholics, who want to partake every day? Will they, in time, eclipse them and want to do it with every meal?

***

Upon some kickback from the gallery, I added:

As for me, I sort of like a snippet that long ago appeared in the Yearbook relating how in some tiny African country a Memorial celebration that many villagers attended, but the talk was extremely convoluted and the speaker not very polished. The villagers all knew each other and as one of them got all befuddled and hesitant when the emblems came his way, a voice from the back hollered, “You don’t drink the wine, dummy!”

People will do what their conscience dictates. I suppose it is not the worst thing in the world to partake based upon a different understanding than the group norm. It is not as though there is any practical significance to partaking or not partaking. But I don’t know why anyone would do it. To me, it smacks of spiritual one-upsmanship, as though saying to one’s neighbor, ‘My relationship with Jesus is so much tighter than yours.’ Many times in Witness literature it has been stated that those of the great crowd can be just as spiritual, just as zealous, just as studious, love Jehovah and Jesus just as much, as those of the anointed. I can roll with that and always have.

If it turns out that I, with the earthly hope, should have been partaking because the Lord expects all to do that, I am not worried about being forgiven. The group norm of the people of God who brought Bible understanding to me is that I do not. If I came to have the heavenly hope, with all that such hope entails in the JW context, I would partake, but only then. Meanwhile, I take refuge in the group norm. Were it not for those who brought Bible understanding to me, I would probably be hogtied by the trinity, which paints God as incomprehensible, someone you cannot know, or hellfire, which paints him as cruel, someone you would not want to know. Or, more likely in my case, I would have tossed the Bible in the trash, frustrated by trying to read doctrines into it that are not there.

The Study article was convincing to me. But it is only 16 paragraphs, enhanced by congregation discussion. It clearly is not going to be able to explore the ins and outs of everything.

*****The bookstore