Has the generation of 1914 passed away?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i have not said he should retract anything, he has been a witness for far longer than me and is well a faithful brother, Jehovah will look after him.

Well yesterday you said "...even if the Gman has made the mistake of claiming inspiration for the watchtower, he will retract it..."

Originally posted by FMF
Well yesterday you said "...even if the Gman has made the mistake of claiming inspiration for the watchtower, he will retract it..."

indeed, but then again i noticed afterwards that the Gman himself was wondering
where he had made the statement and as yet, nothing has been produced so there is
nothing to retract, anyway, its a petty squabble as far as i am concerned.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
indeed, but then again i noticed afterwards that the Gman himself was wondering
where he had made the statement and as yet, nothing has been produced so there is
nothing to retract, anyway, its a petty squabble as far as i am concerned.

The discussion is going on here: Thread 146778, robbie. If an ordinary JW like galveston75 believes that the JW organisation's "printed materials" are a case of "God [causing] a human to write on paper what he wants other humans to read" and therefore "God inspired", something you have contradicted him on, and which you appear to claim the JW organisation would not endorse, then I hardly think this can be described as a 'petty squabble". Not at all.

Originally posted by FMF
The discussion is going on here: Thread 146778, robbie. If an ordinary JW like galveston75 believes that the JW organisation's "printed materials" are a case of "God [causing] a human to write on paper what he wants other humans to read" and therefore "God inspired", something you have contradicted him on, and which you appear to claim the JW organ ...[text shortened]... t endorse, then I hardly think this can be described as a 'petty squabble". Not at all.

They seem to be saying that since the Watchtower Society does not claim to be inspired and infallible and they do not have the gift of prophey, that they can make all the false prophecies they want and it is okay. Is that the way you see it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]They seem to be saying that since the Watchtower Society does not claim to be inspired and infallible and they do not have the gift of prophey, that they can make all the false prophecies they want and it is okay. Is that the way you see it?[/b]

I make the prophesy that your are as void as an empty well when it comes to knowning anything about spiritual matters.
Let me check on that! Yep my prophesy is true...... Ha!

Originally posted by divegeester
I have not seen robbie carrobie or galveston state that "there are (or have been) mistakes in the Awake publication".

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 ...[text shortened]... e point of my question is therefore specifically aimed at that claim.

Hope this helps.

Divegeester (and FMF),

Sorry about the delay in replying. Lack of access to a computer, and trying to copy and paste and edit text on an Iphone is beyond my limited skills.

Firstly, the argument about "inspired" was only introduced quite late into this thread. As it is being debated elsewhere, I will not comment further on this here.

The OP, and the latter question I was responding to, raised by you, was simply about whether JWs accepted that there were, or have been, mistakes in Awake.

In my post on page 5 (highlights added) I said:

So, if I understand you correctly, the original quote from Awake was an imperfect understanding of the Bible. The subsequent correction was an attempt to make it less imperfect. However, all understanding of the Bible is, to some extent, imperfect and becomes (hopefully) less so over time. Which I suppose is why the JWs are so keen to encourage Bible study.

As I said, I can't see anything in the analysis you provided that suggested that there was any precise time limit on when prophesy would be fulfilled. So it is not that the prophesy was flawed, but the interpretation of it was inaccurate.

Is that a fair reflection?

In other words, I made it clear that I was referring to the text of Awake and that I had reached the conclusion that JWs realised that the interpretation stated in Awake of the Biblical prophesy was a mistake by adding a specific time reference.

Robbie responded (highlights added again):

yes this is a fair reflection, many of our beliefs and doctrines have undergone revision and amendments when something came to light which we previously understood but has been proven upon further inspection to have been inaccurate.

This seems to me to be an explicit acknowledgement that Awake contained a mistake which was subsequently corrected.

galvestion75 was less explicit in the post that immediately followed (and admittedly he was not responding directly to mine) but he said (highlights added and heavily edited):

No man or organization is perfect....We have never claimed to be perfect on any level....[God] is not looking for opinions but only ones who are patient and willing to learn and to be corrected when they are wrong.

The point is we have never "prophecied" anything but only have suggested thru trial and error and learning what the Bible says about the time period we all live in.

galverston75 also did not challenge the basic contention in my post and he presumably saw and read Robbie's explicit acceptance of it.

Therefore I cannot see how you can read these posts and not see it is as acceptance that there have been mistakes in Awake, which is what you asked and what I was responding to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is something that you should point out in the beginning when you go door to door with your message.

Good point!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it doesn't say we are not the sole holders of Gods truth on earth, obviously we are
but that's beside the point, it simply states that our publications are not inspired and
we are not infallible, nor have we ever claimed that our publications are inspired or our
members infallible. We do claim that Christ is the head of our church and that we are
pure awesomeness though.

If the JW organisation is the sole holder of God's truth on earth (which you have just confirmed again), but you admit that the Governing Body who write your doctrines and publish 'Awake' are not god inspired and make mistakes, how is anyone including you to be sure that anything the organisation publishes actually' truth' at all?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so your engaged in some in some kind of witch-hunt, I hope you get what you came for.

Grow up robbie.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Therefore I cannot see how you can read these posts and not see it is as acceptance that there have been mistakes in Awake, which is what you asked and what I was responding to.

But Rank Outsider, both galveston75 and robbie are trying to have it boths ways, over and over again.

They won't admit the prophecy in the OP is an error, and yet they respond to the OP by saying they sometimes make mistakes.

galveston75 has clearly suggested that he thinks the magazines are the direct teaching of God and therefore presumably can't be mistaken, while robbie is both supporting galveston75 AND suggesting he will retract what he has said.

First it was deny that Awake made the prohesy: "we did not originate the prophecy" then seek the cover of a higher power "Jesus originated the prophecy".

Then it was a question of has the prophecy come true? Answer: "Parts have but not all yet." Where is the concession that it was 'mistaken' there?

Then they deny that there WAS any prophecy with "This thread claims we made some prophesy about a generation. I want to see where that was said?"

Then there is more suggestion that it wasn't mistaken but was right with "we did not add or invent the year 1914 it has as its basis a Biblical prophecy based on chronology".

And more: "Again I keep asking and no one yet has shown in print that we have prophesied about anything?" So much for admitting the prophecy was 'mistaken'!

Indeed, what about this: "We have never prophesied one thing in our history."

And for good having-it-both-ways measure: "We've known almost from the beginning of our existance what the year 1914 meant. I would say we've done very good on figuring out what the bibles descriptions were on this date and what it means."

So much for your apparent contention that galveston75 and robbie have "admitted" something in a clear and unequivocal way. I'd describe their performance on this thread as wriggling. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to cut them as much slack as you want.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Divegeester (and FMF),

Sorry about the delay in replying. Lack of access to a computer, and trying to copy and paste and edit text on an Iphone is beyond my limited skills.

Firstly, the argument about "inspired" was only introduced quite late into this thread. As it is being debated elsewhere, I will not comment further on this here.

The O t there have been mistakes in Awake, which is what you asked and what I was responding to.

You are gong to great lengths to demonstrate something? If you spent more time in this forum you would see that debates with the JWs are usually extended to hundreds of posts with the topic often meandering through various aspects of their beliefs and doctrines and usually centering around one or two points of obfuscation by them.

Why don't you ask one/both of them for a straight answer to "Are there mistakes which have been made by the JW Governing Body and which where published in "Awake" - yes or no"?

Good luck.

Originally posted by FMF
But Rank Outsider, both galveston75 and robbie are trying to have it boths ways, over and over again.

They won't admit the prophecy in the OP is an error, and yet they respond to the OP by saying they sometimes make mistakes.

galveston75 has clearly suggested that he thinks the magazines are the direct teaching of God and therefore presumably can't be mi e, you are perfectly entitled to cut them as much slack as you want.

Sorry FMF, but I think you need to distinguish the Biblical prophecy from the stated interpretation of that prophesy.

The JWs believe there is a prophecy in the Bible. Their religion demands that they accept the truth of that prophecy. That prophecy, however, requires interpretation as it is far from clear.

If you accept the distinction between the stated Biblical prophecy (which is solely contained in the Bible and therefore is the perfect word of God) and its flawed interpretation by humans, then many of seeming contradictions you have mentioned disappear.

You may argue that there is no meaningful difference between a formal prophecy and a firmly stated belief in the interpretation of that prophecy, but I think there is a distinction. Even if you don't agree, I hope my thoughts might explain how someone might see it differently, leadung ti confusion. Why, for example, JWs do not see the quotes in the OP as a prophecy.





If you simply ask JWs to state that 'the prophesy' us untrue, you could be misconstrued as asking 'do you agree that the Bible is wrong'.

Originally posted by divegeester
You are gong to great lengths to demonstrate something? If you spent more time in this forum you would see that debates with the JWs are usually extended to hundreds of posts with the topic often meandering through various aspects of their beliefs and doctrines and usually centering around one or two points of obfuscation by them.

Why don't you ask o ...[text shortened]... e by the JW Governing Body and which where published in "Awake" - yes or no"?

Good luck.

Ok - I still think the acknowledgement by Robbie is clear. I thought my post was a helpful explanation of why I thought the question you had raised had been answered.

Everything else you said I agree with.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Ok - I still think the acknowledgement by Robbie is clear. I thought my post was a helpful explanation of why I thought the question you had raised had been answered.

Everything else you said I agree with.

indeed it was rather helpful, after all, their failure to distinguish the inspiration of
scripture and its interpretation has led them to make all kinds of ludicrous claims.

Originally posted by divegeester
If the JW organisation is the [b]sole holder of God's truth on earth (which you have just confirmed again), but you admit that the Governing Body who write your doctrines and publish 'Awake' are not god inspired and make mistakes, how is anyone including you to be sure that anything the organisation publishes actually' truth' at all?[/b]

so lets get this, if I read an article in a newspaper of an event that has transpired will I
call the publishers to ascertain whether their reporters are inspired in order to validate
the truthfulness of the content of the report? what if they have printed a retraction in
the past, will it invalidate the truthfulness of the content of this new report which may
have nothing to do with the retraction? will i conclude that everything they print is
unsound? If that were the case i may never read another editorial ever again. Do you
ever think about what you are saying, i mean, really think, prior to posting these
ludicrous questions and assertions?