In a previous thread, someone referred to a JW who thought the WT teaches that Paul expected to go to heaven immediately at death. This is quite surprising, but perhaps someone read something from the New Testament, took it at face value, and thought the Society did also.
This brings to mind a text - Philippians 1:21-24 - which I here quote from the American Standard Version (1901) as representative of what we would find in just about any translation:
"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh, - if this shall bring fruit from my work, then what I shall choose I know not. But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake." (emphasis mine)
Paul's dilemma is that of being caught between two possibilities - (1) continuing to live on in the flesh in service to the Lord and the brethren, or (2) departing and being with Christ, which would involve his death. This presents no problem to the orthodox.
The New World Translation, however, attempts to introduce a very subtle change. I quote:
"For in my case to live is Christ, and to die, gain. Now if it be to live on in the flesh, this is a fruitage of my work - and yet which thing to select I do not make known. I am under pressure from these two things; but what I do desire is the releasing and the being with Christ, for this, to be sure, is far better. However, for me to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account." (emphasis mine)
Instead of depart, we have the releasing. An attempt is being made to introduce the thought that there are, not two possibilities (living or dieing), but three, although the third possibility is merely a hypothetical one. The hypothetical possibility is that of living into the period of Christ's presence and thus experiencing the instantaneous change of an anointed one at the moment of death (the "releasing") rather than having to sleep in death awaiting the resurrection. (This supposedly is what now happens from 1918 onward.) This distinction is so subtle that the uninitiated, even when reading the NWT, would not grasp it.
I believe the original New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950) contained an appendix explaining the reasoning behind this translation of Philippians 1:23, but I do not have it available. Perhaps someone can fill us in. I do have the Scripture Studies in which Russell relied on the Emphatic Diaglott translation to state that the Greek verb analusai (lexical form: analuo) was translated "return" at Luke 12:36, referring to Jesus' return, and so should also be translated "return" at Philippians 1:23 (rather than either "depart" or "releasing") to refer to the same event. Russell admits (with the lexicographers) that the word can mean either "return" or "depart." My own thought is that the related noun (the cognate) - analusis - is definitely used at 2 Timothy 4:6 to refer to Paul's death: "the due time for my releasing is imminent." (NWT, emphasis mine) There is no reason why the verb should not refer to the same event at Philippians 1:23 (i.e., to Paul's death now, during this age, prior to the parousia).
I think, then, that there are only two possibilities presented at Philippians 1:23 - either Paul would continue living or he would die and be with Christ. But considering that Paul did not think of Christ's return or parousia as being necessarily far off in the indefinite future, that he could include himself in "we the living who are surviving" at the time of the parousia (1Thes. 4:16, NWT), is it possible that he did have in mind a third possibility - not the possibility of being included in "the remnant" since 1918, but the possibility of at least being raptured? I personally do not think so, because then the alternative would not be that of remaining with the brothers and sisters, for they would all be raptured together. What do you think?