I know you said you’re not comfortable discussing this with me, but seeing you don’t mind getting personal, I have freedom of speech to say my say. This is JWN, and I think we are allowed to do that:
Firstly, I thought your illustration of the convention was amusing. Do use it in a talk. The R&F will love it. Pity a convention is three to five days long, not exactly what we are discussing here, is it? But you love to obfuscate and convolute the issues with inane arguments (nice word “obfuscate”, thanks 00Dad).
Secondly, please do not associate God’s spirit with your hit and miss theology. It is disgusting and it dishonours God. God’s spirit doesn’t go “enie, menie, minie, mou….” Please, you are giving God and his spirit a bad name, i.e., blasphemy. You don’t want to do that, do you?
Thirdly, you candidly avoid the subject of selective quoting and dishonest scholarship, because you know it to be true. The writers of the Society don’t like quoting sources. How often have you seen, “According to a Greek scholar…” No quote, no source. Whether you like it or not, that’s dishonest. They don’t want you to look it up, because you will see it is a partial or misquote. I gave you a few examples, but you ignored them, because the truth hurts. Sorry about that.
Fourthly, I gave you a dictionary definition of the word “contemporary.” The plural of this word occurs in both quotes of the Society (from the Dictionary as well as the Lexicon). Whether you define the word or interpret it, it can only mean: “happening, living, existing, or coming into being at the same period of time, one that is contemporary with another, or one of the same or nearly the same age as another.”
Fifth point is a question, Where do you think the Society got the information from, contained in the Aid and Insight books? Did a lot of the information not come from Christendom’s commentaries? But how can that be? Christendom resorts under the harlot, Babylon the Great. Unfortunately the R&F doesn’t know that, because most of the time they don’t quote or give their sources, because they are dishonest.
Sixth, and final point, I never questioned the scholarship of the NWT. You inferred it. I did ask YOU whether there was a problem with the translation of the word “generation”, because the latest explanation does not fit the original translation of the word. But I think you are either thick or you love to obfuscate, as stated previously.
PS The Beasts of Revelation, let’s not go there. If you don’t know the beasts or their history in the Society's literature, rather avoid the subject altogether, otherwise you might just throw your name away.
