26 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterShould this not be "Have there been some mistakes in the Awake publication"?
Are there any mistkaes in the Awake publication?
And did not Robbie accept this was the case to me on page 5? And galveston75 appeared to concur by accepting that no man or organisation was infallible.
Given this, I am not sure what the point of your question is? Have I misunderstood?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121461
26 May 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI have not seen robbie carrobie or galveston state that "there are (or have been) mistakes in the Awake publication".
Should this not be "Have there been some mistakes in the Awake publication"?
And did not Robbie accept this was the case to me on page 5? And galveston75 appeared to concur by accepting that no man or organisation was infallible.
Given this, I am not sure what the point of your question is? Have I misunderstood?
What they have said is that "Awake is not inspired by God" (although I think galveston75 contradicts himself here), and that "JWs are not infallible".
Awake is publshed by the JW Governing Body which is the authorititve head of what they claim is god's chosen church and voice of truth on earth. The point of my question is therefore specifically aimed at that claim.
Hope this helps.
26 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSo do you interpret robbie and galveston75's comments on this thread to be saying the prophecy about 'the generation of 1914 passing away' to be true or mistaken? Is it clear to you?
And did not Robbie accept this was the case to me on page 5?
And galveston75 appeared to concur by accepting that no man or organisation was infallible.
galveston75 recently claimed that the JW organisation's writers are inspired in the same way as the bible's writers were inspired.
26 May 12
Originally posted by FMFwhere is the claim?
So do you interpret robbie and galveston75's comments on this thread to be saying the prophecy about 'the generation of 1914 passing away' to be true or mistaken? Is it clear to you?
[b]And galveston75 appeared to concur by accepting that no man or organisation was infallible.
galveston75 recently claimed that the JW organisation's writers are inspired in the same way as the bible's writers were inspired.[/b]
26 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn a thread back in April to which you contributed, so you will be aware of galveston75's claim. I presume you ignored it at the time, and since, because you clearly disagree with it.
where is the claim?
edit: on the other thread you've said that he will retract the claim if he made it, so I suppose it's moot, although it seems a rather strangely fundamental "mistake" to make about the status of JW printed materials.
26 May 12
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFwhere is the statement, so far you have produced zilch! centre of a doughnut, etc etc
On a thread back in April to which you contributed, so you will be aware of galveston75's claim. I presume you ignored it at the time, and since, because you clearly disagree with it.
edit: on the other thread you've said that he will retract the claim if he made it, so I suppose it's moot, although it seems a rather strangely fundamental "mistake" to make about the status of JW printed materials.
No I am ware of nothing but an insinuation you have made, without substantiation,
although having been asked approximately five times to produce the reddies! and even
if the statement exists its proves what exactly? that the Gman can make a mistake,
well lordy lordy, whoi would have thought such a thing! more petty squabbling FMF of
which you seem rather adept!
26 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe thread was called "interpretation", if I recall correctly, and it was started by stellspalfie. But if, having made his point over a sustained sequence of posts, galveston75 is now just going to retract it, as you suggest, then I'm not sure what the point is.
where is the statement, so far you have produced zilch! centre of a doughnut, etc etc
26 May 12
Originally posted by FMFyou have made a claim and as yet have produced nothing, when you do produce
The thread was called "interpretation", if I recall correctly, and it was started by stellspalfie. But if, having made his point over a sustained sequence of posts, galveston75 is now just going to retract it, as you suggest, then I'm not sure what the point is.
something, let us know. Indeed what does it prove other than the Gman is human as
opposed to those superfine apostles, Raj and divejester!
26 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQuestioning galveston75's view that the writers The Watchtower and Awake! are divinely inspired in the same way he believes the bible's writers were [especially when you have contradicted galveston75's viewpoint point blank] cannot be described as "squabbling". It is in fact a completely fundamental issue.
...even if the statement exists its proves what exactly? that the Gman can make a mistake, well lordy lordy, whoi would have thought such a thing! more petty squabbling FMF of which you seem rather adept!
26 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThread 146196
you have made a claim and as yet have produced nothing, when you do produce
something, let us know. Indeed what does it prove other than the Gman is human as
opposed to those superfine apostles, Raj and divejester!
26 May 12
Originally posted by FMFyou have still produced nothing, where is the quotation where Gman claims inspiration,
Thread 146196
sixth or seventh time asking.
26 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs you very well know, robbie, it is being discussed here Thread 146778, entitled "No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower", right 'now', as it were, where galveston75 has been responding and you have been posting too. It's very odd that you should pretend otherwise.
you have still produced nothing, where is the quotation where Gman claims inspiration,
sixth or seventh time asking.
26 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFwhy dont you simply produce the quotation where the Gman claimed that the
As you very well know, robbie, it is being discussed here Thread 146778, entitled "No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower", right 'now', as it were, where galveston75 has been responding and you have been posting too. It's very odd that you should pretend otherwise.
watchtower was inspired, you said he did, you have claimed that he did, so where is
the quotation FMF, where is it FMF, either produce it or suffer the indignation of being
publicly exposed as a charlatan. This is what happens FMF when you make claims that you
cannot substantiate.
26 May 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said, robbie, it is already being discussed here on the overlapping Thread 146778. Neither I nor galveston75 [or anyone else who has posted there] should be expected to have to retype our discussion here on this thread simply because you are, rather oddly, pretending that that discussion isn't taking place and that galveston75 hasn't already responded.
why dont you simply produce the quotation where the Gman claimed that the
watchtower was inspired, you said he did, you have claimed that he did, so where is
the quotation FMF, where is it FMF, either produce it or suffer the indignation of being
publicly exposed as a charlatan. This is what happens FMF when you make claims that you
cannot substantiate.