Oroborus21,
I think proplog2's point still stands although it more likely reveals a case of being somewhat disengenous rather than dumb. I don't have the given publication at hand and don't know how the WT authors developed their thought in subsequent paragraphs; perhaps their overall point was more reasonable or at least defensible from their point of view. However, that's not the case with these introductory paragraphs and that does not give me much hope for the balance for their presentation.
The first paragraph paints an intimate, warm and fuzzy scene -- just you and God shootin' the breeze. God's like, "Hey, relax; don't be shy. Ask me anything you want, any question at all."
The second paragraph then states that Moses was once in that position. Hardly! As the story goes, Moses sees a burning bush that's not being consumed so he goes to check it out and then a voice comes out of it, tells Moses it's God, orders Moses to take off his sandals because he's on holy ground, and then proceeds to tell him he's got to go back to Egypt -- where they had tried to kill him (Ex. 2:15) and, as far as Moses knew, still wanted to -- and deliver his people (with whom he'd already had a bad experience trying to help them -- Ex. 2:14, "Who made you a prince or a judge over us? Are you intending to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?"). There is no open-ended questioning being invited here; God has definitely established the subject of their conversation.
The WT writers then imply that while most people (including some JW readers in need of attitude adjustment?) in Moses's position would be focused on themselves or maybe even human suffering, Moses had his priorities straight and focused on God himself, showing this by asking a question about his name that was fraught with "deeper meaning". That hardly seems a reasonable take on this conversation. Clearly, Moses -- showing a very human and understandable reaction -- is focused on himself and his future in the context of what he is being asked to do. His part in the conversation consists of raising objections as to why he's not the man for the job, which he obviously is trying to get out of. The fact that he subsequently did as he was told without coercion could be taken as a testament to his moral fibre. (In an interesting comparison from another Bible book, Jonah, in a similar situation, just took off running and hopped the first ship out of town that was going as far away as he could get. God had to give him a timeout in the belly of a fish before he came around.)
You're literally right in stating that "the Society does not say that Moses asked this question FIRST" but proplog2 is also right in observing that "you would think from reading these paragraphs that the very first question Moses asked God was concerning God?s name". That's how the writer's have set this up. It could be argued that the first question Moses asked was rhetorical (though it certainly invited an answer) but even so it would show that Moses is firstly concerned with his personal role in something he doesn't want to be a part of.
As for castigating proplog2 for "taking the Society's statement literally that 'Moses did not ask about himself'", isn't it reasonable to expect that usually one should be able to take exposition literally? Isn't that one reason that exposition is needed, to provide literal explanations for that which cannot be taken literally or may otherwise be unclear? Isn't this especially important when writing for "the vast majority of the population" who are "below the 8th grade literacy level"? (My question here, BTW, is largely rhetorical but if we were having an actual conversation it also would be an actual question to which I would expect an answer unless I were being rude.) You stated that the Society has "purposely written its materials at an extremely low literacy level" because this "allows good communication of the ideas to large proportions of the population". If that is true, I don't think that is unreasonable of them and I wouldn't fault them for it if they wrote some of their literature at that level. However, I think that given that target audience, they should take especial care to write so as to be taken literally and to not filter or warp things to fit or buttress some point they're trying to make. If they think their viewpoint is truthful and well supported, they shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.
(BTW, I don't think they always write to that level; at least they didn't in the past. I recall having to explain things to a book study-conducting elder who didn't understand the book being studied. You sound intelligent and literate: have you ever had that experience? Also, one more non-rhetorical question if I may: does your forum username have anything to do with Eddison?s The Worm Ouroboros? Different spelling, I know, but close.)
