Djeggnog, attempting to defend the indefensible, as usual. Many have tried, but they have failed. Here specifically Rolf Furuli comes to mind. With interest I always followed his threads in b-Hebrew and b-Greek, always to see him running into a brick wall of scholarly dissent, trying to defend the indefensible, i.e., the Society.
Face the facts, writer of the Awake!-mag. article told a Whopper (of a lie). They did not call it a hypothetical statement, they called it a "fact". "all the evidence ... indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years." That's Whopper, no. 2, in other words, another lie. How do I know it's a lie? The system did not end in a few years. But then, there is a question as to the meaning of the word "few"? It could mean a 100 years or it could mean 1 or 2. Perhaps it is also an overlapping "few". Then it could mean two hundred years.
Google has a translation service. You should think seriously of starting your own translation service. You can translate to us mere mortals what the literature is trying to say. Obviously the rest of us have it wrong. This remind me of the mother watching her son in a marching band. She says proudly: "Look my son is in step, all the others are out of step."
You're right. The conjunction "if" is conditional, in connection with being a young person (you might be an old person, then the sentence does not apply to you - then you might be dead soon). But according to your analysis, the force of this conjunction is such that it turns the rest of the sentence into a hypothetical sentence. This "if" is incredible. It sounds like the Hebrew Waw, having the force to turn the tense around. Where did you say you studied?
PS Follow the trend. Shrinking WT, shrinking printing organization, shrinking resources. I think you should economize and use less words to state your case. It'll save time, and your readership will be eternally grateful.
