scholar JW -
Post 1556
Alas I cannot help you in your search for the identity of the 'celebrated WT scholars
Alas, if such a knowledgable personage as 'scholar JW' cannot produce the name of even one of these 'celebrated' WT scholars, it can only be the case that "'celebrated' JW scholars" do not exist. Except, perhaps, one may exist in a person's imagination, like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
So, your continued reference to such imaginary "'celebrated' WT scholars" is undeniable buffoonery.
Even apostates have been seen feeding on this food as they receive nothing from the evil-slave class.
Even 'scholar JW' has been so disappointed by the wormwood of Watchtower's teaching that this person is known to have been hungrily feeding at 'apostate websites', seeking meaty spiritual food from Leolaia. Indeed, 'scholar' is provoking arguments in order to dip deeper into the refreshing waters of spiritual truth that flow so abundantly on this website, but are sorely lacking at watchtower.org.
Clearly, even the inept WTBTS has admitted to signing an NGO agreement with the UN in order to obtain a 'library card' to gain vital knowledge... not from Jehovah, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. No indeed, for their 'faithful slave' seeks knowledge from the 'scarlet colored wild beast'.
Additionally, who needs to receive anything from a faithful and discreet slave CLASS? Who needs to receive anything from an evil slave CLASS? In Matt. 24:45-51, Jesus never spoke the word "class". Or, perhaps, the word 'class' been "invisibly present" since 33 CE?
Post 1536
I disagree that this current Watchtower is amateurish and un-scholarly for it it replete with references to other sources...
I examined the article in question again. By 'replete', I think you actually mean 'devoid'. As I had stated earlier:
the WT article has no evidence of wide reading or research, there is no use of Lexica, Commentaries or Journal articles to support their opinion. The only references they use are their own publications, of rather questionable reliability as their latest version of "present truth".
Regarding the section explaining their re-re-definition of "this generation", the WT article references Revelation-Its Grand Climax At Hand! published by WTBTS, themselves. And of the information used therefrom, it was hardly evidence of "wide reading or research". Would it really be appropriate to only quote oneself and call it "other sources"? The only other reference in the WT article under consideration was to the WT 1995. Do you recall that article? Yes, scholar, that was the old 'new light' that was briefly embraced, but is now refuted and discarded by the same writers.
So, "replete with references to other sources"? Hardly. Any thinking person can dismiss that statement as utter foolishness.
Nice and easy.
B the X