Has the generation of 1914 passed away?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
OK – there are a lot of different aspects going on in this thread now, so I will have to pick one, and so I am going to look at the ‘divinely inspired’ one.

English is blessed with one of the largest vocabularies of all languages. Even then, it cannot remotely cope with all the shades of meaning that the human mind wishes to convey, so it saves tim e Bible and other works such as Awake in terms of divine…..err…..influence shall we say?

Yes its rather excellent to be honest and if your ever in Barnet, pop into Watchtower
house for a free lunch, you'd be most welcome I am sure.

The Bible is consider as literally “God-breathed.” from the Greek, Theo pneustos;
Latin, Divinitus inspirata; Hebrew, beruach Elohim, 'by God’s spirit'.

(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for
reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,


The Bible writers are thought to have been directly influenced, through Holy spirit to
write their respective accounts,

(2 Peter 1:20-21) . . .For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs
from any private interpretation.  For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will,
but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

The Watchtower and Awake are merely commentaries, explanations of certain texts
and contain our perspective of what the Bible writers stated intent was. We have as
a precedent, the fact that in ancient times, while the law was recited (the Mosaic Law
was considered to have been received directly from God and inspired) meaning was
put into the Law and its application made clear for the people through the hands of a
duly appointed priesthood in accordance with the stipulations of the Law. This
meaning was not considered inspired, the same as the commentaries, explanation in
the Watchtower and Awake are not considered to be inspired.

Originally posted by FMF
You require "every aspect" to be being done in "precisely the same way" before you will accept that galveston75's claim is what I contend it clearly is? You have your tongue in cheek, surely.

No. I recognise that your analysis may be the correct one.

But when presented with someone who states simply that Awake is not 'divinely inspired', and then appears to suggest things which others argue contradict them, I do not immediately assume that they have been lying to me. They may have meant something else, they may not have expressed themselves well, they may even (heaven forbid) have made a mistake.

I try and see if there is an alternative explanation that fits the available facts. I have put one forward and asked robbie and galveston75 to comment.

The fact that you have not even waited until they respond to my post might suggest that you are less interested in allowing them to clarify what they actually believe, and more interested in insisting they admit that they 'suckered' me in the past.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This meaning was not considered inspired, the same as the commentaries, explanation in the Watchtower and Awake are not considered to be inspired.

galveston75 clearly believes that The Watchtower and Awake! are "inspired".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes its rather excellent to be honest and if your ever in Barnet, pop into Watchtower
house for a free lunch, you'd be most welcome I am sure.

The Bible is consider as literally “God-breathed.” from the Greek, Theo pneustos;
Latin, Divinitus inspirata; Hebrew, beruach Elohim, 'by God’s spirit'.

(2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspire ...[text shortened]... he commentaries, explanation in
the Watchtower and Awake are not considered to be inspired.

The Watchtower and Awake are merely commentaries, explanations of certain texts and contain our perspective of what the Bible writers stated intent was.

So you don't think that God is using Watchtower and Awake to guide you?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The fact that you have not even waited until they respond to my post might suggest that you are less interested in allowing them to clarify what they actually believe, and more interested in insisting they admit that they 'suckered' me in the past.

Well I was responding to your post. Whether they decide to make further statements that are consistent or self-contradictory at some point does not preclude me from responding to a post from you addressed to me. Do you really think it does?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]The Watchtower and Awake are merely commentaries, explanations of certain texts and contain our perspective of what the Bible writers stated intent was.

So you don't think that God is using Watchtower and Awake to guide you?[/b]

The Bible is our compass. We are guided by our consciences. The Watchtower and
Awake magazines simply put meaning into the Biblical texts, demonstrate how those
texts might be applied in practical situations. Do i think that God is guiding us through
the Watchtower and Awake magazines? Well these are the product of an organisation
and are not inspired nor infallible. Do they demonstrate Gods guidance, yes in a sense
, but its relative to the Bible and our own consciences. The Awake for example
contains recipes, crosswords, find the hidden item, articles on metalwork, on insects,
hard to state that this is divinely inspired, dont you think. Is God guiding us to make
home-made lemonade?

Originally posted by FMF
Well I was responding to your post. Whether they decide to make further statements that are consistent or self-contradictory at some point does not preclude me from responding to a post from you addressed to me. Do you really think it does?

That's interesting. I had never thought that quoting from a post meant I was addressing my response to the person in the quote.

No, I welcome your interventions at any time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if your ever in Barnet, pop into Watchtower
house for a free lunch, you'd be most welcome I am sure.

Robbie,

You really wouldn't want me at a Watchtower lunch, honest you wouldn't.

But thanks for the offer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible is our compass. We are guided by our consciences. The Watchtower and
Awake magazines simply put meaning into the Biblical texts, demonstrate how those
texts might be applied in practical situations. Do i think that God is guiding us through
the Watchtower and Awake magazines? Well these are the product of an organisation
and are ...[text shortened]... that this is divinely inspired, dont you think. Is God guiding us to make
home-made lemonade?

Is God guiding us to make home-made lemonade?

Maybe he's partial to a cool, zesty citrus drink on a balmy summers day.

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75 clearly believes that The Watchtower and Awake! are "inspired".

Well, galveston75 hasn't responded as yet to my analysis.

However, if he were to disagree in some way, what of it? You posted a while back that JWs were essentially all programmed to believe the same thing in the same way. If galveston75 and robbie had a slightly different perspective on this issue, then that would rather undermine that claim, wouldn't it?

JWs are human beings, not members of the Borg Collective. Though if Robbie tells me that one of their group in Barnet looks like Seven of Nine, I might change my mind about his offer of lunch.....

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If galveston75 and robbie had a slightly different perspective on this issue, then that would rather undermine that claim, wouldn't it?

"Slightly different perspective?" Ok, if that's how you see it, what is one to do. Maybe robbie is more inclined to state what the corporate stance is, while galveston75 occasionally gives us a glimpse of the reality on the ground, so to speak. We had exactly this last year (I think, or perhaps earlier this year) with the telling gap between their reactions to questions about how JWs handle sexual abuse cases, followed by a closing of ranks and galveston75 frantically back-peddling, and robbie deflecting by asking us whether or not we agreed with the wording of a JW corporate policy statement and insisting that galveston75 had not deviated from it, despite copy pastes galore from galveston75's posts.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
OK – there are a lot of different aspects going on in this thread now, so I will have to pick one, and so I am going to look at the ‘divinely inspired’ one.

English is blessed with one of the largest vocabularies of all languages. Even then, it cannot remotely cope with all the shades of meaning that the human mind wishes to convey, so it saves tim e Bible and other works such as Awake in terms of divine…..err…..influence shall we say?

Interesting analysis. If you want to however be unbiased as you claim, maybe you can focus on the main issue.

It is that the Watchtower claims divine guidance for their Biblical pronouncements. They are NOT claiming infallibility throughout their organisation or for their leaders. They are not infallible. The Apostles were guided by God to write and preach and all they said and wrote were absolutely correct, but they were fallible men and made mistakes... mistakes in their personal life. However no mistakes were made in their prophesies or in the interpretation of the scripture .. simply because this is the part that God wants to make sure is correct.

So the issue is not about infallibility. It is their claim that God is 'speaking' through them.

Which ever grade you want to place that into really does not matter.

How can God be guiding their Biblical pronouncements and be totally wrong?

Clearly there is no God behind what they say.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Interesting analysis. If you want to however be unbiased as you claim, maybe you can focus on the main issue.

It is that the Watchtower claims divine guidance for their Biblical pronouncements. They are NOT claiming infallibility throughout their organisation or for their leaders. They are not infallible. The Apostles were guided by God to write and preac ...[text shortened]... Biblical pronouncements and be totally wrong?

Clearly there is no God behind what they say.

Thanks Rajk999,

You make a valid point and I think you have managed to bring the debate back to the opening post.

If I were answering the question in the OP, then I would say:

1) Yes, they have indeed made mistakes. That is undeniable.

2) Yes, they should admit them freely. (And maybe they do)

3) Yes, I think they should reflect on what this means in terms of their confidence in other pronouncements that they make. (And maybe they do)

So, the example I mentioned to Robbie a while back was on their website which said something like "Why do real Christians not celebrate Easter?". I was really interested in this as a topic, but the title completely alienated me. Eventually I went back and read it, but I could never get the title out of my head and, now, I find I can't remember much about it.

They could have said the same thing with just the same strength of conviction without alienating me like "Why do JWs believe so strongly that you should not celebrate Easter?"

This may be a semantic point, but I sense that one thing that drives some people potty is the tone in which some JW pronouncements are made. I think their organisation would do better if it adopted a different approach at times. But that, of course, is their choice and I doubt they are interested in my quibbles over tone and wishy-washy desire to appear inclusive.

On the broader point you make, I don't believe currently that God is guiding anyone's pronouncements on the Bible, or that the Bible is divinely inspired (Grade 4, by the way) (see Robbie, I told you you wouldn't want me at lunch) or that there is any reliable way of telling if God is guiding anyone.

The JWs wouldn't be the first religious group to suggest they have an 'inside track' to eternal life and that they have this exclusively.

But I don't think the fact they have failed to predict the date when certain events will transpire provides categorical assurance that there is no God behind anything that they say or that everything they say is therefore false. But it would cause me to be more sceptical of their claims than other groups that did not seek to divide Christians into 'real' Christians and others.

I think I've blown my lunch with Seven of Nine.

🙁

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No. I recognise that your analysis may be the correct one.

But when presented with someone who states simply that Awake is not 'divinely inspired', and then appears to suggest things which others argue contradict them, I do not immediately assume that they have been lying to me. They may have meant something else, they may not have expressed thems ...[text shortened]... ly believe, and more interested in insisting they admit that they 'suckered' me in the past.

Good points and thanks for bringing these thoughts out. I can tell by how fast he usually responds that he is not reading my or Robbies post and not thinking on it for at least a minute or two. So that shows to me he really doesn't care about our answers or what we say.
He seems to be a smart guy but I can't figure this out unless he has some agenda and I would guess it's to discredit us no matter what and how we explain ourselves.
I've been caught up in this trap he trys to set a couple times and I guess I should learn and not waist my time with him.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Thanks Rajk999,

You make a valid point and I think you have managed to bring the debate back to the opening post.

If I were answering the question in the OP, then I would say:

1) Yes, they have indeed made mistakes. That is undeniable.

2) Yes, they should admit them freely. (And maybe they do)

3) Yes, I think they should reflect on wha ...[text shortened]... ' Christians and others.

I think I've blown my lunch with Seven of Nine.

🙁

I think your still ok with 7 of 9. She asked about you...Lol

Anyway I'll try to simplify this.
I have complete and total trust and faith in the Bible and in everything God says there. I know and believe it is absolute truth and was "Inspired" by God
But I am imperfect and very capable of misunderstanding anything in it.
The Brothers that take the lead in feeding the congregations as Jesus told them to do are also imperfect and can misunderstand anything in it. God is not standing right in front of them telling them what to say in the next Awake magazine.
Comminication between God and humans has always happened but it comes in an "inspired" way and most of that is from simply studing the Bible and by praying to God for answers and then the answers if not already known from past experiances, will be shown by scripture. This is by God "letting" ones see that answer where most do not see even if they are looking at the very same written line in the Bible. The Bible clearly states that.
But....we are still imperfect and that can easlity cause anyone to misunderstand an issue. Even when a teacher is in front of a classroom in person, the students can still misunderstand.
So the few here that can't get over this issue is beyond me. But instead they look at the glass being half empty and whinning about it, and they seem to be uncapable of looking at the glass being half full and seeing the good that we do everyday on this planet trying to teach ones about God and the wonderful future he holds out to all that want it.
They refuse to see that and would likely prefer we just go away and not knock on their doors when all we are doing there is trying to let them know God and the future dangers ahead and then the beautiful earth God has promissed us.
I guess that is somehow a terrible and irritating thing for us to do in their eyes.