No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower

Originally posted by JS357
I see. Rutherford does in fact incriminate himself as giving an opinion (if it was Rutherford) but does not incriminate himself for passing it off as inspired, at least, he does not do so with these words.

The meaning of "contains no man's opinion" does not logically imply "has only inspired content" and does not even imply "has some inspired content." It l ...[text shortened]... his organization on earth. (World Recovery l934, 54)

unquote

Hilarious post. Eveything comes to them from God, Christ and the angels. Yet they cannot produce one single solitary correct prediction. They have tried hundreds of times and all have failed. God is clearly guiding them .. down the road to damnation.

Cant wait for responses from the resident JWs - Robbie, Galveston, WT defense attorney Rank Outsider, and other sympathizers.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Hilarious post. Eveything comes to them from God, Christ and the angels. Yet they cannot produce one single solitary correct prediction. They have tried hundreds of times and all have failed. God is clearly guiding them .. down the road to damnation.

Cant wait for responses from the resident JWs - Robbie, Galveston, WT defense attorney Rank Outsider, and other sympathizers.

And God is guiding you down the road of intolerance, mockery, impatience, stubbornness, personal abuse and silliness.

When I reach the NT I will look out for the passages where Jesus Christ advocates and practices this approach.

(For anyone else who wants my services as a defence lawyer, my rates are very reasonable by the way 🙂)

Originally posted by JS357
I see. Rutherford does in fact incriminate himself as giving an opinion (if it was Rutherford) but does not incriminate himself for passing it off as inspired, at least, he does not do so with these words.

The meaning of "contains no man's opinion" does not logically imply "has only inspired content" and does not even imply "has some inspired content." It l his organization on earth. (World Recovery l934, 54)

unquote

claiming that the Lord is using the watchtower is not a claim of inspiration, a rather fatal
and fundamental flaw in your attempt to state otherwise, if you have any evidence of
claims of inspiration, then let it be known, so far you have produced nothing. Claiming
that it contains no man's opinion is also not a claim of inspiration, if you have evidence
to the contrary then produce it, so far you have produced nothing, and btw you had
better be certain that you are talking of the watchtower magazine or the watchtower
bible and tract society which is a legal corporation, I assume you know the difference.

Indeed perhaps you can comment upon this, printed in Awake, 22nd march 1993,
published by the Watchtower Bible and tract society, taken from the article, Why so
many false alarms, p.4

Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their eagerness for Jesus’ second coming, have suggested
dates that turned out to be incorrect. Because of this, some have called them false
prophets. Never in these instances, however, did they presume to originate
predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of
Jehovah.’ The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said:
“We have not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425) “Nor would we have
our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December 15, 1896, page 306)
The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does not
mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean that
the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and without
mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157) “The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired
in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.” (August 15, 1950, page 263) “The brothers
preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not inspired as are
those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at times, it has been
necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18)”
—February 15, 1981, page 19.


your comments on the highlighted text, if you please.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Hilarious post. Eveything comes to them from God, Christ and the angels. Yet they cannot produce one single solitary correct prediction. They have tried hundreds of times and all have failed. God is clearly guiding them .. down the road to damnation.

Cant wait for responses from the resident JWs - Robbie, Galveston, WT defense attorney Rank Outsider, and other sympathizers.

seeing that you like the watchtower magazine so much, perhaps you would like to
comment upon these quotations,

1. The Watchtower, the official journal of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has said: “We have
not the gift of prophecy.” (January 1883, page 425)

2. “Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible.” (December
15, 1896, page 306)

3.The Watchtower has also said that the fact that some have Jehovah’s spirit “does
not mean those now serving as Jehovah’s witnesses are inspired. It does not mean
that the writings in this magazine The Watchtower are inspired and infallible and
without mistakes.” (May 15, 1947, page 157)

4.“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic.”
(August 15, 1950, page 263)

5.“The brothers preparing these publications are not infallible. Their writings are not
inspired as are those of Paul and the other Bible writers. (2 Tim. 3:16) And so, at
times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views.
(Prov. 4:18)”—February 15, 1981, page 19.

Hear that Raj, its the sound of the wheels falling from your wagon as it hits the
forum floor. Its a pity you didnt take the time to find out what the brothers have
actually stated in regard to inspiration, fallibility and having Gods spirit prior to
posting your diatribe, then again, one would need to be objective, not prejudiced.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
claiming that the Lord is using the watchtower is not a claim of inspiration, a rather fatal
and fundamental flaw in your attempt to state otherwise, if you have any evidence of
claims of inspiration, then let it be known, so far you have produced nothing. Claiming
that it contains no man's opinion is also not a claim of inspiration, if you ha ...[text shortened]... )”
—February 15, 1981, page 19.


your comments on the highlighted text, if you please.[/b]

When you say: "claiming that the Lord is using the watchtower is not a claim of inspiration, a rather fatal and fundamental flaw in your attempt to state otherwise, if you have any evidence of claims of inspiration, then let it be known, so far you have produced nothing."

You miss the mark, because I am not making an "attempt to state otherwise" although I can understand your attitude being that if I am not for you I am against you. But I do not believe that I personally have said or agreed with the accusation that the watchtower makes claims of inspiration. I have presented information that I have found, asking for your comments.

As to the text you bolded, I believe you when you say that your religion's "official" documents include admissions that those humans who speak and write for your church, are fallible, and include admissions that they have erred from time to time in what they have said. And I expect that such admissions allow as that they may err again in the future.

However, those writings appeal to the authority of the Bible and then make statements that are later found to be in error. Psychology tells it that the average faithful person will tend to accept the statements of people they trust, as true, and people who are in a position of authority will sometimes let that go to their heads and say things that they do not have the authority to say. That seems to have happened, at times, in your church. Do you agree?

Originally posted by JS357
When you say: "claiming that the Lord is using the watchtower is not a claim of inspiration, a rather fatal and fundamental flaw in your attempt to state otherwise, if you have any evidence of claims of inspiration, then let it be known, so far you have produced nothing."

You miss the mark, because I am not making an "attempt to state otherwise" although I ...[text shortened]... he authority to say. That seems to have happened, at times, in your church. Do you agree?

My concern is dealing with facts and empirical evidence. It has been asserted that we
claim inspiration, to date there has not been a single citation which has substantiated
that claim. I have produced numerous references, printed from the very beginning of
Jehovahs witnesses throughout its modern history in the pages of the watchtower
proving that we have never claimed inspiration, proving that we have never spoken in
the name of God, proving that we are not infallible and have never claimed to be
infallible, proving that we have never claimed the gift of prophecy, proving that even if
someone claims they have Gods spirit, doesn't mean that their writings as printed in
the watchtower are inspired. If you have any comments to make on the text then let
them be known otherwise my work is done hear, game over.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My concern is dealing with facts and empirical evidence. It has been asserted that we
claim inspiration, to date there has not been a single citation which has substantiated
that claim. I have produced numerous references, printed from the very beginning of
Jehovahs witnesses throughout its modern history in the pages of the watchtower
provi ...[text shortened]... omments to make on the text then let
them be known otherwise my work is done hear, game over.

There are two parts to the issue, IMO.

Part 1 is, do you (plural 'you'😉 claim inspiration in your publications?

Part 2 is, do you (plural 'you) make erroneous statements in your publications?

So we have you saying "no" to part 1 and "yes" to part 2. Is that correct?

Originally posted by JS357
There are two parts to the issue, IMO.

Part 1 is, do you (plural 'you'😉 claim inspiration in your publications?

Part 2 is, do you (plural 'you) make erroneous statements in your publications?

So we have you saying "no" to part 1 and "yes" to part 2. Is that correct?

I think that's what, we are not infallible and we are not inspired mean, don't you think,
how many times do i need to repeat it with references JS357?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think that's what, we are not infallible and we are not inspired mean, don't you think,
how many times do i need to repeat it with references JS357?

That's enough for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think that's what, we are not infallible and we are not inspired mean, don't you think,
how many times do i need to repeat it with references JS357?

(((((( In addition to the letters included in the Bible canon, there were doubtless many other letters written by the apostles and older men to the numerous congregations during the course of the years. While the writers were spirit-guided men, still God did not place his seal of guarantee distinguishing any such additional writings as part of the inerrant Word of God. The Hebrew noncanonical writings may have contained some error, and even the noncanonical writings of the apostles may have reflected to some degree the incomplete understanding that existed in the early years of the Christian congregation. Compare Ac 15:1-32; Ga 2:11-14; Eph 4:11-16.))))))))

So it seems it is ok for the apostles and other men of God to write letters and such that may have had mistakes in them, but it seems the modern day Witnesses are not allowed that option. Humm!!!!! I wonder why? If they think we are supposed to be perfect I guess that's actually a compliment as they are holding us in high reguard. Awesome!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
(((((( In addition to the letters included in the Bible canon, there were doubtless many other letters written by the apostles and older men to the numerous congregations during the course of the years. While the writers were spirit-guided men, still God did not place his seal of guarantee distinguishing any such additional writings as part of the inerra ...[text shortened]... rfect I guess that's actually a compliment as they are holding us in high reguard. Awesome!!!!!

That isn't quite fair, because you do consider yourself free of error in something, don't you? Don't you consider yourself free of error on the subject of which writings are free of error? Is this opinion of yours inspired? If not, is it not possibly in error? If you think it is not possibly in error, you too, hold yourself in high regard in this respect, in one way or another, don't you?

Originally posted by galveston75
(((((( In addition to the letters included in the Bible canon, there were doubtless many other letters written by the apostles and older men to the numerous congregations during the course of the years. While the writers were spirit-guided men, still God did not place his seal of guarantee distinguishing any such additional writings as part of the inerra ...[text shortened]... rfect I guess that's actually a compliment as they are holding us in high reguard. Awesome!!!!!

"No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower"

[Watchtower 1931 Nov 1 p.327 ]

I think we can all conclude that the Watchtower made a false statement and that there are many of man's opinions stated in the Watchtower magazine.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"No Man's Opinion is Expressed in The Watchtower"

[Watchtower 1931 Nov 1 p.327 ]

[b]I think we can all conclude that the Watchtower made a false statement and that there are many of man's opinions stated in the Watchtower magazine.[/b]

Totally clueless on all levels aren't you?

Originally posted by JS357
That isn't quite fair, because you do consider yourself free of error in something, don't you? Don't you consider yourself free of error on the subject of which writings are free of error? Is this opinion of yours inspired? If not, is it not possibly in error? If you think it is not possibly in error, you too, hold yourself in high regard in this respect, in one way or another, don't you?

What? Are you serious? Where in the world have I ever claimed to be "perfect'? I guess you don't read many of my postings here to make that statement.

Originally posted by galveston75
I will absolutley not retract the "meaning". God guides humans and always has. But as I clearly said no human is perfect and will not always understand what is being shown to them by God. Get the point here................our liturature is not the Bible and does not replace the bible. They are Bible aids written by humans that are guided by God. I'm sorry you can't understand that but I have no idea how else to explain it to you.

BUMP for galveston75

Actually, I think your problem here is not that I "can't understand" but that I in fact understand you all too well.

At one point in our discussion about the comparison between the bible and the JW materials you talked about "God [being able to]cause a human to write on paper what he wants other humans to read," which cannot be explained away by you saying the word "guides" should have been used instead of "inspires".

Indeed, you also said "you don't seem to understand that the printed page can be used as one of God's avenues to teach. It's been done since the ten commandments."

The clear meaning of this also cannot be explained away by claiming the word "guides" would have been better than "inspires".