I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but if you wish to criticize JW's, or any religion for that matter, the subject of contention should be, in fact, contentious. Who cares if Jesus died strapped to a VW bug, he still died for our sins (or whatever wording you wish to insert at this point that has the same meaning), and the "dubs" agree in that respect.
I dealt with this at the end of the paper. Yes, indeed, it is an insignificant issue in the long run. It makes no difference in Christ's redemptive sacrifice. But you're missing the point. It is the Society that makes such a big deal about it. It is the Society that made false statements about the evidence. For someone who once believed the Society could be trusted for providing truthful information, I was quite disturbed by lack of honesty. This lack of honesty of course extends to other more pressing issues such as the "proof" that we are in "the last days" (i.e. the earthquake evidence) and the Trinity (another area where I was very disturbed by their complete lack of honesty). I am merely showing how they exaggerate and outright lie about the evidence for such a seemingly insignificant belief. Further, I provide a clear example of why it is fallacious to always insist on the most restricted, etymological, or basic meaning. This insistence is at the basis of so many central doctrines of the Witnesses, i.e. sheol and hades mean only "grave," parousia most basically means "presence," kolasin most basically means "cutting-off," etc. etc. I give a concrete example of why this approach is wrong-headed.
So indeed I don't feel the study was a waste of time.
Leolaia