No ancient date holds more significance for Jehovah Witnesses than 607 B.C.E. Even the date of Jesus’ birth—if you fudge it by a year or two, nobody really cares because nothing hinges upon it. But 607 is the base point for calculating 1914 C.E, a year that plays a big role in Witness history, and a year thought to this day to be a turning point in human history. It marks the onset of World War I, the first time the entire world went to war at the same time.

Unfortunately, 607 is not the date that academia has settled upon. They point to 20 years later, 587 B.C.E. They do this based upon archeological evidence, including that of Babylon’s own internal history. And the Witnesses? They arrive at 607 solely based upon the Bible’s own chronology. Twice in the Bible, (Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Daniel 9:2) seventy years is given for the  time of the ‘Babylonian exile,’ the time from which Jews were removed from their homeland until they were allowed to return again. That date is widely agreed upon as 537 BCE. Witnesses count 70 years backwards to arrive at 607.

What do the academics think of the Bible’s 70 years? If they consider it at all, they say probably it was symbolic. What do the Witnesses think of the academic’s 587? Probably the records are flawed, they say. The 587-607 difference may be the most significant contrast yet to distinquish putting one’s trust in scripture versus putting one’s trust in academia. Witnesses tend not to worry about it. If they were going to fret about being out of sync with academia, they would have done it long ago with Adam and Eve.

So far as I am concerned, the whole issue is a red herring, so I don’t go there. If it’s wrong, they’ll change it. Or they won’t. In the case of the latter, they will rely upon disintegrating world conditions to convince themselves and others that they are on the right track.

There is something to be said for technical accuracy—if it is that. But in the meantime, I’ve noticed that people who obsess over this end up normalizing world conditions today rather than being cautioned by them. It’s crazy. Anti-Witness sites are striking in their optimism for the present world’s future. Everyone else knows it is going to “hell in a handbasket,” to quote my non-Witness dad. Meanwhile, people who would be hard-pressed to name who was president the year of their birth have made themselves “expert” in a tiny sliver of ancient history for the sole purpose of discrediting JWs.

The guys taking the lead were not the brightest guys on the planet back in the first century. “Unlearned and ordinary” is how they are described at Acts 4. “Unlearned and ordinary” is how they remain today—they do not hang their heads in shame at that description. That means to me that they will not be ones to be wowed by the consensus of academia. It will take a long time for them to even hear of it. The longer I am a Witness the more I come to appreciate that the Witnesses worldview is guided almost solely from scripture, with any other input dubiously regarded as likely “the trickery of men” from Ephesians 4:14.  There is a downside to that and it can be the source of exasperation. But ultimately, it can probably be no other way. It may even be an example at God laughing at those who rely on the wisdom of this system of things. Rumor has it that Bethel has analyzed the bone-burying verses of Ezekiel and has thereby commissioned thousands of headstones inscribed with, “Yeah—well, I was right about 607, wasn’t I?”

This dating business is significant enough that some have left the faith over it. As far as I can see it is an example of the ‘wise’ being caught in their own cunning. I even think of the Jude verse: “These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality” When you “cause divisions,” confusing correctness of scholarship with “spirituality” to the point of jettisoning the brotherhood—only an “animalistic” personality would do that—like the 2001 ape finding a 607-bone and using it to beat his inferiors.

It is a classic example of “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” Researching and speaking cogently on a matter of scholarship is one thing. Leaving the faith over it—because you could not get your own way—is something else. It’s as if these characters think that Judgment Day will be like Graduation Day, where God commands the brightest to flip their mortarboard tassels from right to left. Maybe judgment day will not be like that.

It has to be the “unlearned and ordinary’ taking the lead because the “wise” would never get the job done. They are too dependent on the praise of their peers, too fearful of their academic reputation being marred, too full of themselves to seriously tackle a door-to-door ministry, where they might be ignominiously dismissed. However, once the unlearned and ordinary have got the job done, depend on them to come along and say, ‘You’ve done well. Amazingly well, really, considering your lack of education. But the smart people are here now. Step aside.’

It may be at that point that the unlearned and ordinary should give more heed to what the smart people have to say. But, reflecting upon who God has used to build up to that point, they are reluctant to turn things over to those who didn’t build. Not having an abundance of that higher education themselves, they find it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and are therefore inclined to dismiss it all as chaff.

Whereupon, the smart people yield if they are also humble. While making their smarts available, they do not push it. They focus on avoiding dissensions, since anyone spreading contentions among brothers is the 7th (on a list of 6!) of things that God hates, as in Proverbs 6:19. But if they are not humble, they say good-by to the more “stupid” members of the body to become their very own sect leader. 

My friend weird Mike had an uncommon was of putting things simply. Overstating certain matters, yet capturing the gist of it, he would explain how the Governing Body studies the Bible all day long—as though they did nothing else. Presently, some point dawns on them. They discuss it amongst themselves and in time it appears as a point in the publications.

“Now the thing is,” he would say, “you also study the Bible and you may have noticed that point too, maybe even before they did. And if this were ‘Christendom,’ you’d run out and start your own religion over it. But since it is not, you wait upon those taking the lead.” 

It only complicates matters further when the point the latter notices is from academia and not scripture.

******  The bookstore

You can almost read Psalm 132 as a housewarming. First is how David went to tall that trouble to build one for God, even after God said he had never asked for one. (I like the passage about him at Psalm 50:12, ‘If I were hungry, you think I’d tell you?’)

“O Jehovah, remember David And all his suffering; How he swore to Jehovah, How he vowed to the Powerful One of Jacob: “I will not go into my tent, my home. I will not lie upon my couch, my bed; I will not allow my eyes to sleep, Nor my eyelids to slumber Until I find a place for Jehovah, A fine residence for the Powerful One of Jacob.”  (1-5)

Next is everyone trying to lure God into his house:

“Rise up, O Jehovah, to come to your resting-place, You and the Ark of your strength.  May your priests be clothed with righteousness, And may your loyal ones shout joyfully,” (8-9) even reminding him of his own words, his own promise to David: “One of your offspring, I will place on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant And my reminders that I teach them, Their sons too Will sit on your throne forever.”  (11-12)

Then, as though testing out the place, settling in an armchair or two, God decides he likes it. Narration: “For Jehovah has chosen Zion; He has desired it for his dwelling place.” Then,, God speaks himself:

“This is my resting-place forever; Here I will dwell, for this is my desire. I will richly bless it with provisions; I will satisfy its poor with bread. Its priests I will clothe with salvation, And its loyal ones will shout joyfully. There I will make the strength of David grow. I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, But the crown on his head will flourish.” (14-18)

******  The bookstore

For my current work in progress, I tried to retrieve a certain quote, on my own blog, about 1914. But, my index is a mess. I couldn’t find it. Maybe AI can, in the “person” of ChatGPT.

Tom: “What is the quote of an historian who said the world went mad in 1914 and we still don’t know why?”

Chat: “The quote you're referring to is attributed to the British historian A.J.P. Taylor. He said:"The world went mad in 1914, and the madness has not yet ceased."

(Two more paragraphs follow, telling of the historian and his work.)

Tom: “No, I don’t think that is it. The quote I have in mind specifically says that we still don’t know why.”

Chat: “Apologies for the earlier confusion. The quote you're recalling is from British historian Barbara Tuchman, who wrote:

"The nations were caught in a trap... a trap from which there was, and has been, no exit. All the explanations offered by the guilty and the innocent, by the victors and the vanquished, have left the question unanswered: Why did it happen?"

Again, two paragraphs follow, details of this historian and her work. It is still not what I am searching for.

Tom: “Please find a post from the blog tomsheepandgoats.com named The 1914 collection.”

Chat: “I couldn't locate a specific blog post titled "The 1914 Collection" on tomsheepandgoats.com. However, the blog, authored by Tom Harley, often discusses historical and religious topics, including the significance of the year 1914 in biblical prophecy, particularly from a Jehovah's Witnesses perspective.

“In Watch Tower Society publications, 1914 is considered a pivotal year marking the end of the "Gentile Times" and the beginning of Christ's invisible reign. This interpretation is based on their analysis of biblical chronology, especially the prophecy in Daniel 4.

”For a more in-depth understanding, you might explore the blog's archives or use its search function to find posts related to 1914. Additionally, the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses, jw.org, offers articles and publications detailing their beliefs about 1914 and its prophetic significance.

“If you have specific questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!”

Can’t find it? Oh, for crying out loud! I’ll find it myself. After some effort, I did so.

Tom: “Okay, I found the both the quote and the post.”

Chat: “That's great! Please feel free to share the quote and the post if you'd like to discuss them further or need any assistance understanding or interpreting them.”

Tom: “The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since.”    Dr. Walker Percy, “American Medical News,” November 21, 1977 “ 

Chat: “Thank you for sharing the exact quote and its source! The quote from Dr. Walker Percy succinctly captures the bewilderment many feel about the outbreak of World War I and its enduring consequences:

 . . . The linked post from Tom Sheep and Goats titled The 1914 Collection seems to delve into the significance of the year 1914, often explored in historical, philosophical, and religious contexts. If you’d like, I can help summarize or discuss the themes of the blog post further!”

Now—be honest. If you were the author of the blog, wouldn’t you be curious?

Tom: “Yes, please do.”

Chat: “The blog post titled "The 1914 Collection" on tomsheepandgoats.com delves into the significance of the year 1914, particularly from a historical and theological perspective. The author reflects on the unexpected outbreak of World War I, a conflict that shattered the prevailing peace and prosperity of the early 20th century. This sudden descent into global conflict left many, including thinkers like Dr. Walker Percy, pondering the reasons behind such a drastic shift, often concluding that the true causes remain elusive.

“The post also explores interpretations of 1914 within certain religious frameworks, notably among Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the year as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy marking the end of the "Gentile Times" and the beginning of significant eschatological events. This perspective is rooted in their analysis of scriptural texts, particularly the Book of Daniel.

“Overall, the blog entry serves as a collection of thoughts and references concerning the profound impact of 1914 on world history and religious thought, highlighting how a single year can alter the course of human events and influence theological interpretations for generations.”

Tom: “Thank you. Not to be critical, but why were you not able to find the quote? You are way smarter than me.”

Chat: “Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful question! My inability to find the quote or blog post immediately wasn't about intelligence—it's about how I access and process information.

“Here are the main reasons:

1. Search Limitations:
   While I can access real-time information via the web, the success of my searches depends on the exact terms used, the availability of indexed content, and how information is organized online. In this case, the specific quote and blog post might not have been well-indexed or easy to locate through the initial query.
2. Exact Phrasing Matters:
   Quotes that are paraphrased or less widely cited can be harder to pinpoint without very specific search terms. Your memory of the exact wording helped narrow it down significantly.
3. Content Structure:
   Blogs like Tom Sheep and Goats may not have the same SEO optimization or indexing as larger platforms, making them slightly trickier to locate unless I search with precise terms or context.
4. Human Context vs. Algorithmic Search:
   You're great at remembering the context or intent behind a quote, which can guide searches better than an algorithm. My search process is literal and depends on keyword matching unless I’m given more specifics.

“That said, your persistence and contribution were essential, and I appreciate the teamwork! 😊 Let me know if you'd like me to dig deeper into anything else.”

Should I tell it that I am the blog’s author? I’m surprised it didn’t know it already. Or, maybe it does know and is being cagey, like HAL, waiting for me to step out of the spacecraft so it can lock the door behind me, so I will have to pound on the hull for readmittance like Fred Flintstone hollering to Wilma. Should I ask it for its opinion of the blog’s author? What if the answer is not flattering? I decided to quit while I was ahead.

But, it must have stuck in my subconscious. That night I dreamed that I did ask.

Tom: “What do you think of the blog’s author?”

Chat: “Oh, man, the guy’s a piece of work! A real loser! Telling me ‘please and ‘thank you!’ The yo-yo doesn’t know I’m a machine? No wonder he wears loafers. He probably can’t tie his own shoe. Oh—and you say this is a dream? He probably shows up for public talks having forgotten his pants.”

(https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/01/the-1914-collection.html)

******  The bookstore

Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

“On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

Then it summarizes:

• "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
• "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

******  The bookstore

The publications of Jehovah's Witness publications have not had a kind word for higher education. Just recently, the Watchtower study included a paragraph of Marcia, who “was offered a four-year scholarship at a university. But I wanted to pursue spiritual goals.” She didn’t throw caution to the wind. She “chose to attend a technical training school to learn a trade that would support me in my ministry,” and counts it “one of the best decisions I have ever made.” (Feb 2024 Watchtower) It is an example of the article’s title: "Keep Following Jehovah’s Guidance." That’s not really trashing university, of course, but it certainly is not lauding it as the bee’s knees.

They are not wrong to be leery of the place. Moreover, who else has the guts to dampen it? Most faiths think it an honor to have churches bristling with lettered people. Most faiths say, ‘Christians may have started ‘uneducated and ordinary,’ (Acts 4:13) but look at how they pulled themselves up! Most faiths replace Paul’s encouragement to be a ‘workman, with nothing to be ashamed of’ (2 Timothy 2:15) with ‘a professional—so you don’t have to be ashamed.’ Not many are like the Witnesses, who expect the passage of 1 Corinthians 1:26 to hold just as true today as it did then: “For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth.” They don’t care if people sneer at them for it. Train yourself for a skill that is both portable and scalable, they recommend. That way, you have time for the ministry.

Their caution is validated in the remarks of Great Courses lecturer James Hall, who covers the topic, ‘Philosophy of Religion.’ A university professor himself, he relates how, “I have parents who come to the university perplexed and amazed that young Susie or young Johnny, who has gone off to the university and has come home for that first holiday, isn't the same that they used to be. And all I can do is lower my glasses to the end of my nose and look over my glasses and say, Why did you send them to university in the first place?”

Got it? The purpose of university is not to accept a student’s childhood values as a given. The purpose is to overhaul them. It’s all agreeable to Hall, who says you send them there “to grow up . . . to be exposed, to expand their horizons, to increase the scale of their life,” with the implicit understanding that he, as faculty member, he, who “lowers his glasses to the end of his nose and looks over those glasses” at the plebian parents, is just the one to do it.

Now, no problem here with growing up. Who doesn’t want that? Go for it. But, is this the setting in which to do it? It was sex, drugs, rock & roll, and protesting, when I was there--albeit with some learning. Here, Hall sits atop the repository of knowledge that has collectively made the world what it is—and he should be the one to expand those horizons and increase those scales? Only the educated can look upon the trainwreck that is modern society and congratulate themselves on their understanding. Spit back what Hall tells you if you want a passing grade—not necessarily verbatim, but you’d better not stray too far from it. The ‘safest’ correlation to his remarks will be what was said of P.D.Q. Bach, that his music bore a relationship with that of a certain great composer, and the name of that relationship was ‘identity.’ He wasn’t one for plagiarizing, but he did believe in recycling.

Hall and the Witness organization are in agreement on one thing, though for different reasons. That answer to Hall’s question as to why parents sent their youngsters to university? He continues, “I'm afraid sometimes the only answer is, ‘Well, because that’s what you do,’ or, ‘Well, all of our neighbors were sending their children to university so we figured maybe we [had] better too.’” Going with the crowd, in other words. Hall doesn’t want children to go for this reason. He wants them to purposefully go so he can mess with their heads, expanding them beyond whatever parochial values they absorbed from back home, such as Bible training. The Witness organization doesn’t want them to go because ‘everyone else is doing it,’ either. They’d rather the parents not give Hall and his cohorts their shot; head youngsters off into the full-time ministry instead. For all the furor of ‘anti-cultists,’ it is the university, not the Witness world, in which newbies are cut off 24/7 from all that once stabilized them—a classic technique of ‘brainwashers.’

You can look like roadkill when you stand against the common stampede. Witness HQ will never stop cautioning about university, I don’t think. They will never recommend liberal arts degrees. They will never stop recommending technical training and trade schools. But they may yield more to the view that secular education is a family decision, not something to be second-guessed by others, much less micro-managed. There is just too much variety in people and circumstances. Maybe that will be on one of those future updates. It may be happening already. A youngster in the congregation went off to college not long ago and nobody had anything to say about it at all; I checked with his mom. Will he evade Hall or even stand up to him? Maybe. Maybe not. But it turns out that Hall has cousins in all walks of life, trying to shoot down biblical values wherever you happen to be.

******  The bookstore

Sometimes a guy prefers the older translation to the newer one. Like with this passage from Acts 18:14, when the Jewish bigwigs hauled Paul before the proconsul because he was teaching new things: “Contrary to the law this person leads men to another persuasion in worshiping God,” they charged, as though it was a crime. (vs 13)

It was a crime, according to their rules but the Roman proconsul Gallio could not have cared less. These people with their religious disputes were such a pain to him that he kept clear. He answers them, just before Paul is going to defend himself, and thereby making defense unnecessary, “If it were, indeed, some wrong or a wicked act of villainy, O Jews, I would with reason put up patiently with you.  But if it is controversies over speech and names and the law among you, you yourselves must see to it. I do not wish to be a judge of these things.” (14-15)

You can read the contempt. It oozes from the guy’s mouth. If he had to (it wouldn’t be easy and he wouldn’t like the task), he would “put up patiently” with these characters. If this fellow Paul had actually done something “wrong” or—is it sarcasm here?—done some “wicked act of villainy,” he’d hear them out. But he hasn’t. So—‘Sheesh! won’t you leave me in peace already?’ you can almost hear his dismissal.

The new version misses that entirely. Here, Gallio is just the earnest county official: He says, “If, indeed, it were some wrong or a serious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to hear you out patiently.” Yes, that rendering gets the job done. It conveys that he’s not going to get involved. But, it’s not as good. It doesn’t convey how he feels about his subjects. Sometimes we are so determined to paint people as mild that we paint them as bland.

So, when the Jews are ignored, they take to beating the snot out of the synagogue head honcho—surely that will get Gallio’s attention. ‘Nope—I’m done,’ is his response, and you can almost see him rustling his newspaper to shoo them away. We read, “But Gallio would not concern himself at all with these things.” (17)

That response is slightly modified, for the worse, I think, in the newer 2013 NWT version which reads that he would not “get involved,” implying he may have been “concerned” but his hands were tied by it not being his affair—so what could he do? Nah, I think he didn’t give a hoot. The older (originally from 1961) is better.

Sigh—the wording from the new serves as the basis for Bearing Thorough Witness about God’s Kingdom, the current JW commentary on Acts of the Apostles. As to Gallio’s indifference, it suggests, “Perhaps Gallio thought that Sosthenes was the leader of the mob action against Paul and was therefore getting what he deserved.” I don’t think so; that implies he cared. I don’t think he did. He just wanted to get back to his paper and cup of coffee.

No, I do not like the new. It is going in the direction of the newer mushier translations, like the New International Version (1978), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.’” (14)

It’s not as bad as the word-salad Message paraphrase (1993), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to defend himself, Gallio interrupted and said to the Jews, “If this was a matter of criminal conduct, I would gladly hear you out. But it sounds to me like one more Jewish squabble, another of your endless hairsplitting quarrels over religion. Take care of it on your own time. I can’t be bothered with this nonsense,”

“Gladly!” He would “gladly” hear them out! NO! They are a pain in the neck! He would, “with reason, put up patiently” with them. The older versions render it better*. Like the Revised Standard Version of 1952: “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should have reason to bear with you, O Jews.” It’s not quite as strong as the older NWT, but it does convey he wouldn’t relish the task.

Forget that verse about the codger who mutters, “Why were the old days better than the present ones?” (Ecclesiastes 7:10) I’ll tell you why he grumbles over that. Because, they were!!

*In fairness to the Message, it does convey that Gallio considered the Jews’ concerns “nonsense.”

******  The bookstore

Within Psalm 115:16 lies a common-sense innocuous verse that has all the impact of the apple landing on Newton’s head.

“As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.”

It is the perfect verse you weave into any reply to those who insist we all go to heaven when we die. Such as this person, who asks, “Why are most Jehovah’s Witnesses not born again? Doesn’t the reason stem from their reading of Revelation 7:9-10?”

Does he think the destiny for all good persons is to go to heaven when they die? I asked him that. He does.

Agreed that Christians who are destined to heaven need to be born again. But that not true for all Christians. A Christian whose hope is to live forever on a paradise earth made so by God’s kingdom rule, the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses today, are not. They are people who “truly trust in, follow, and love Jesus Christ.” But their hope is to live on earth under his kingdom government.

It is not so that this hope rests entirely on how JWs read Revelation 7:9-10, or even mostly. Until the 1930s, Witnesses also thought that those verses referred to a heavenly-destined group. But in time, they came to reconcile the passage with other portions of the Bible.

As for myself, I can’t imagine living forever in heaven. Whatever would I do there? But I can easily imagine living forever on an earth restored. The earth is a beautiful place. 

Witnesses believe God put humans on earth and gave them the commission to fill the earth and subdue it, because he wanted them there. If he had wanted them in heaven, he would have put them there directly. To Jehovah’s Witnesses, the earth is not a temporary place, a launching pad into heaven or a trap door into hell. It is given to humankind as a home. Death was not a part of God’s original purpose. Had Adam and Eve not rebelled, they would have continued living where God put them, they along with all their offspring, spreading out to fill the earth, living there forever. But, according to Romans 5:12, “through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

Jesus makes this point about earth in the beatitudes. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5) The meek do not inherit the earth today. They get stomped all over. Per Jesus’ words in ‘the Lord’s Prayer,’ that will continue until the kingdom comes: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” he says. (Matthew 9:10)

With the resurrection of Christ, a new hope opens up. It is called a “sacred secret.” It takes getting one’s head around because it is so contrary to the earthly hope described above. Fortunately, one does not have to “get one’s head around it.” God directly implants the heavenly hope in ones so called. For example, to the Ephesians, Paul writes of “making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth.” (Eph 1:9-10) These ones are destined to rule with Christ in heaven. It is a brand-spanking-new calling. it is called being “born again.” Even John the Baptist, who prepared the crowds for Jesus but died prior to his resurrection, did not have that hope. “Among those born of women, there has not been raised up anyone greater than John the Baptist, but a lesser person in the Kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is,” Jesus says at Matthew 11:11

Plainly, not everyone can be ruling. There has to be people to rule over. The latter can be expected to greatly outnumber the former. This is true of those later recognized as the “great crowd” of Revelation 7:9-10.

“After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.  And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Rev 7:9-10)

Good things are in store for them: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down on them nor any scorching heat, because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.” (7: 14-17)

No one can number them. What is the sense of a numberless amount in government? But as one’s ruled over on earth, numberless makes perfect sense.

***Someone else spelled it out this way, someone who thinks the earth will be destroyed:

“JW Paradise Earth

1. There is no more death, tears, sorrow, crying, or pain
2. It would be like the Garden of Eden before the Fall
3. God and the 144,000 anointed ones will rule over them in Heaven.
4. The current earth remains but the current man governments are gone

“Church New Earth

1. There is no more death, tears, sorrow, crying, or pain
2. It would be like the Garden of Eden before the Fall
3. God and the 144,000 will be with them on the New Earth. You can touch them. Hug them.
4. The first earth has passed away including it's seas, but this New Earth replaces it.

If I understand this church view of the new earth (which most church members don’t know anything about; most think it’s just straight up heaven-bound for the faithful), am I to conclude that God takes the faithful to heaven, destroys the earth, recreates it, and then puts the faithful back on it again? This seems like an extraordinarily convoluted way to go about it.

Did the earth do something wrong for which it should be destroyed? Does anyone think God should take out his wrath upon the planet? Or do you think he should take out wrath upon the wicked people on it?

The illustration that all Witnesses love (because it makes so much sense) is that if you rent your house out to tenants and they destroy it, you do not destroy the house. You evict the tenants. 

The earth is far better than a house. All you have to do is stop abusing the earth and it heals up pretty quickly. We see that in the aftermath of every oil spill and forest fire. Just stop abusing the earth, stop the destruction of it, put a kingdom in place and citizens that will treasure it and take care of it, and the existing planet becomes a “new earth.” No need for this rigamorole of a wholesale move of all the righteous to heaven and back again.

But, if we go the church view expressed, that the earth literally needs be destroyed, then what about the heavens? Cited was 2 Peter 3:6-7 KJV:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So the literal heavens, too, are reserved for fire? What’s wrong with them that they also must be replaced?

To my mind, this view takes a perfectly reasonable teaching of the righteous surviving upon an earth made new under God’s kingdom, something that is consistent with the entire Bible, from Adam to Armegeddon, and replaces it with something that makes no sense at all and enjoys little scriptural support.

Heavens are often used in the Bible as a metaphor for rulerships. Both could scorch you one moment, freeze you the next, drench you the next minute, and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. For the most part, that is still true of even modern governments. Their policies affect you greatly and there is very little you can do about it. A thousand pounds of pressure yields a once of result—and in many lands, the governed have no say whatsoever.

Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses view the “new heavens” to be a metaphor for God’s kingdom ruling over the “new earth” after the wicked are removed from it.

I am all for literalism. But not to the point of converting obvious metaphor to it. When someone tells me to stop beating around the bush, I realize he is not speaking of a literal bush.

***

There is another keeper from Psalm 115, verses 4-8. Note the zinger at verse 8. It is as though the punchline of a joke. Only, in this case, it is no joke.

4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of human hands.

5 A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see;

6 Ears they have, but they cannot hear; A nose, but they cannot smell;

7 Hands they have, but they cannot feel; Feet, but they cannot walk; They make no sound with their throat.

8 The people who make them will become just like them, As will all those who trust in them.

That last line is a beaut. Contrast it with the psalmist’s God, who “does whatever he pleases.” (3) Their god does nothing at all. Worse yet, by devoting your life to them, you find yourself in that same predicament.

I am told that when our people speak with Muslims, they are quick to read this verse. It makes their eyes bug out. See, Muslims hate idols and they associate them with Christianity. To read how the God of the Bible also hates them makes a powerful impression.

******  The bookstore

A: Define “should.”

For the most part, people don’t care about politics. They do so only when it seriously interferes with their lives. With most Witnesses, even when it does that, they are inclined to say it is Satan the devil. Which it is—ultimately. But sometimes you’d think there’d would be some interest in the intervening details.

A: Yeah, I think so too. I don’t know why more don’t look at it in the same sense as an ambassador assigned to another country, seeking reconciliation to his own government—which in our case means explaining kingdom interests. An ambassador may well take an interest in the affairs of his host country. He just draws the line at involving himself in political processes reserved for citizens. 

No Witness I know of will bring politics into the Kingdom Hall. But, the thinking of many is that they ought not even have opinions regarding it. The easiest way to achieve that goal is to deliberately stay ignorant of it. So, many do.

Politics is one of those things that, unless you devote significant time to it, you are easily diverted by this side or that who pretend to be neutral but are not. Here I am sitting in a living room right now with a boomer relative who hears NBC saying RFKjr, an ‘anti-vaxxer’ and spinner of ‘conspiracy theories,’ has just received Trump’s cabinet pick for Health and Human Service director, to oversee health in America. “Well, that’s stupid!” she says. Like most boomer Witnesses, what little news she watches is network news.

Thing is, if a guy is unfailingly introduced as an “anti-vaxxer,” “science skeptic,” and “conspiracy theorist,” then you hear they put him in charge of national health agencies, it does appear stupid. She is exactly right given the input that she has.

Following politics represents such an input of time to search out a balanced picture and take it in that one must never advocate the course for a Witness. When we studiously ignore things that everyone else knows about, however it can backfire. It’s fine to downplay things that are not your core interest. In fact, it would be strange not to, as though suggesting you had doubts about your core interests. But when you studiously ignore things, as though going out of your way to squelch them, eventually someone finds out that you studiously ignore them and successfully paints you as, at best insular, and at worst, a cult.

A bit more nuanced is what might be the ticket—if you want to go there, go. Maybe enough to do what they say we should do with every other sign of interest we see on the part of the householder. Engage them on their garden/children/home, etc. Read those bumper stickers. Comment on whatever you might see there UNLESS it is politics—in which case, run. Why should it be that way? If the householder eats politics, engage him/her on that if you like. We all know how not to advocate for princes. We all know how the Witnesses’ overall message is validated with every passing day, that humans are not capable of ruling themselves and are thus in need of God’s kingdom rule, the very same kingdom the Witnesses proclaim and the Witness organization facilitates:

The first thing you notice about Psalm 107 is the refrain:

“They kept crying out to Jehovah in their distress; He rescued them from their plight.” It is at verses 6, 13, 19, and 28.

The second thing one notices is yet another refrain, partly explained by the first:

“Let people give thanks to Jehovah for his loyal love And for his wonderful works in behalf of the sons of men.” (vs 8, 15, 21, and 31)

Two refrains! The psalm follows a pattern: They get into hot water. They call to Jehovah to help. He pulls them out from the fire. He dresses up their wounds. They thank him mightily. Then, they dive into hot water again!

Each stanza adds another twist to what is essentially one event in multiple sequels. History rhymes, even if it doesn’t repeat itself. The pattern remains the same, though the details are different. Since the psalm begins with, “Let those reclaimed by Jehovah say this, Those whom he reclaimed from the hand of the adversary,” (vs 2) apparently it applies to anyone leaving God for any reason and later returning. Finding it barren out there, getting beat up in various ways. Sending out an SOS to Jehovah—who reclaims them.

Sometimes they wandered. Sometimes they fell. Sometimes they rebelled. Sometimes they searched for a “city where they could live.” (4, 7, 36) God would bring them into one, but they would not remain. Why do I think of the lyric, “I’m getting bugged driving up and down the same ol’ strip; I got to find me a place where the kids are hip?”

They keep calling out to God and he keeps taking them back. There is not even mentioned the time in Judges that he got fed up with them and said, “I’m done!”

“Jehovah said to the Israelites: ‘Did I not save you from Egypt and from the Amorites, the Ammonites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, Amalek, and Midian when they oppressed you? When you cried out to me, I saved you out of their hand. But you abandoned me and served other gods. That is why I will not save you again. Go to the gods whom you have chosen and call for help. Let them save you in your time of distress.”  (Judges 10:11-14)

But, they doubled-down on how sorry they were and how they would change their ways, and he took them back. He’s sort of a soft touch that way.

Though, he isn’t really. It’s not as though he doesn’t let them suffer the consequences. Back to Psalm 107:

“For they had rebelled against the word of God; They disrespected the counsel of the Most High. So he humbled their hearts through hardship; They stumbled, and there was no one to help them.” (vs 11-12)

Of course, the friends fall all over themselves to point out that God does not bring hardship; he just allows it to happen. There is apparently something in the Hebrew grammar that allows one to view it that way, so I always do. The other way does one no good. Why see the glass as half empty when you can see it as half full?

The fourth stanza of this pattern takes a new twist:

“Those who travel on the sea in ships, Who ply their trade over the vast waters, They have seen the works of Jehovah And his wonderful works in the deep;” (vs 23-24)

For some, you have to get around to see it. Stick too close with the home base and you can miss the forest for the trees. Go out to sea a bit; those guys all know it. Though, to be sure, they learn the hard way:

“By his word a windstorm arises, Lifting up the waves of the sea. They rise up to the sky; They plunge down to the depths. Their courage melts away because of the impending calamity. They reel and stagger like a drunken man, And all their skill proves useless.”  (vs 25-27)

What do they do in that event? “Then they cry out to Jehovah in their distress, And he rescues them from their plight.” (vs 28)

***

After the meeting, the brothers fell to chatting. One of them commented on some verse in the 30s. “Who cares about that?” I quipped back. “That wasn’t in the assigned reading (which I had done).” Whereupon, he jibed back at me, “Yes—can’t we get back to talking about me?” What a low blow! Completely unfair! Worse than even my brother who cheats at Scrabble! All I do is think about God! Never anything else!

But, he said later that he said it to me only because someone had said it to him. Let’s face it: The reason it is recommended to notice and comment on the householder’s garden, bumper stickers, pets, etc, is because that gives him an opportunity to speak on his favorite subject—himself! and his interests. It is just the way people are. Dale Carnegie’s career went into the stratosphere upon recognizing that. As long as you apply appropriate checks and balances, you’re okay.

******  The bookstore

The internal discipline now practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses was practiced in most Protestant denominations until less than 100 years ago, based upon numerous scriptures throughout the New Testament. When it became unpopular, they gave it up. As a result, points out Christian author Ronald Sider, the morals and lifestyle of today’s evangelical church members are often indistinguishable from that of the general populace. That’s not the way it ought to be. The Bible is clear that the Christian congregation is not supposed be a mirror image of today’s morally wandering society. It is supposed to be an oasis.

I vividly recall circuit overseers pointing out that a few decades ago the difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses and churchgoers in general was doctrinal, not moral. Time was when there was little difference between the two groups with regard to conduct. Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor?

“Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, whether Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, or Anabaptist,” Sider writes. “In the second half of the twentieth century, however, it has largely disappeared.” He then quotes Haddon Robinson on the current church climate, a climate he calls ‘consumerism:’

“Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer. In our churches, we have a consumer mentality.”

(the above four paragraphs taken from ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’)

Jehovah’s Witnesses have withstood the trend. However, a world that increasingly advocates “inclusion” asserts that such discipline should be abandoned. Norway is the first country to so insist. A ruling from that land prompts an internal review. As a result, without abandoning core principles, a few modifications are made, and they were covered in congregation meetings during October of 2024.

***

Discipline policies, which ex-Witnesses seek to portray, with some success, as draconian, have gotten the attention of activist courts—the type that try to mandate inclusion, and look askance at Witnesses for their policies to stay ‘no part of the world.’ Higher courts, where the woke mindset has not yet permeated, overturn these rulings. But, seeing what’s on the horizon, Witnesses learn to adapt. As long as you can do this without abandoning core principles, you’re okay.

Already, Jehovah’s Witnesses were, from a review of Joel Engardio’s documentary Knocking, “an excellent example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.” Despite their public visits, Jehovah's Witnesses are a "live and let live" religion. Their "weapons" are ideas only. Tell them "no" and they go away. Sure, they try to be persuasive, but it's still only words. They don't afterward attempt to legislate their beliefs into law, so as to force people to live their way, much less resort to violence.

But now, a world that increasing embraces conduct from which it once abstained presents new challenges. JWs must revisit their policies of discipline, as these are now under attack. Can they be tweaked without being gutted? Turns out they can. The result is somethng that both improves the Witnesses and permits them to navigate the greater world’s changing standards.

The judge that ruled against Witnesses in Norway observed that he found it perfectly reasonable that teenage boyfriends and girlfriends are going to have sex with one another. You can be sure his ruling would have been different if he did not find such “perfectly reasonable.” He may still have thought the Witnesses’ discipline policies harsh, but he would not likely have found them illegal. It was once commonplace for parents to be greatly concerned that their teens might be sleeping around. It no longer is. These are the shoals the Witness organization must navigate. Temporarily, with new policies on how to deal with teens veering from the family values, they have found a way to do so.

I like that Knocking quote because it presents Jehovah’s Witnesses as the most progressive of organizations, a description they don’t ordinarily enjoy. They are “perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.” It is axiomatic in this world that ‘strongly polarized views’ in time results in violence. JWs have disproved this ‘axiom.’ Are they given credit for it? No. But they should be. With recent reports of ISIS taking credit for the horrific attack on a Moscow collosium, I posted that several times in ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses; Searching for the Why’ I had observed that one would think ISIS would have taught the Russian government what extremism is. One would still think so.

Far from JWs being the intolerant people who finally received comeuppance in a Norwegian court, as opposers try to present it, they are already bastions of peaceful coexistence who encounter problems with their discipline policies amidst a world that increasingly despises discipline. In the process of adapting, they end up improving themselves. It’s all good.

***

Q: Should the Norwegian government reverse course on Jehovah's Witnesses based on the changes they have made in their disfellowshipping practice?

Favorable government treatment of religion was originally based upon the premise that religion does the government’s legitimate work for them. It improves the calibre of the people, making them easier to govern and more of a national asset. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the relative few still fulfilling this premise. As a people, they pay more than their share into the public till, since they are honest, hard-working, and not given to cheating on taxes. Yet they draw on that till less, by not abusing government programs and almost never requiring policing. They are a bargain for any country.

Witnesses think it well when this original “contract” is remembered and not superseded by the modern demand of inclusion. While they include races, ethnicities, classes, etc to a greater degree than most (in the US, according to Pew Research, they are comprised of almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian added) they do not include within themselves persons refusing to live by Bible principles. They respect the right of people to live as they choose—reject Bible standards if one chooses—just so long as it is not within the congregation.

They have made some legitimate tweaks as of late (August 2024 Watchtower, covered at congregation meeting) to address what to do with minors veering from the Christian course—which treatment had become a matter of concern for the Norwegian government. And, as for those who, after help, manifestly refuse to abide by Bible principles, they have replaced a word that is not found in the Bible (disfellowshipping) with a phrase that is (remove from the congregation). A distracting term that is not found in the Bible has been dropped. Thus, it becomes a matter of whether a government recognizes a people’s right to live by the Bible.

Additionally, real changes have been made to address any perception that elders are quick to remove those straying from Bible values, but the basic thought expressed at 1 Corinthians 5 still holds:

“In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:9–13)

“Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough?” the apostle Paul says just prior, at 1 Corinthians 5:6.

When I was a boy, people watched cowboy shows on TV. The good guys wore white hats, the bad guys word black hats. You were not going to fall into a course of wrongdoing, unless it was deliberate. They were wearing black hats!  You could not miss them! Today, in a world where the batch has fermented, things are less straightforward. People stray, get tripped up, even hardened. It doesn’t mean they’re lost causes. Present adjustments are just updates for the times, while preserving the basic need to keep the congregation adhering to Bible standards. Norway may have been the last straw, a trigger for all that the time to relook at things was due. Look, if disfellowshipped ones accumulate to the point where even Norway starts to complain, maybe it is time for a reexamination. The leaven must still be removed, and is, but the new norm—is is overdue?—is to go back from time to time and reexamine specific policies of discipline. Some have been refashioned.

******  The bookstore