by integ 63 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Craig - This thread is like 6 years old...but I think many who have been here for a while would say that yes they do, because many of the legitimate complaints and problems with the WT that are brought up here have neded up in a "QFR" on page 31. (Which will soon become page 15 lol)
Can any of your long-timers on here think of an example where JWnet has exposed or decried a WT dogma and then they responded with an article about it?
Perhaps the recent 607 BCE two-parter?
Well, the recent "607-is-correct-no-matter-what-'worldly'-archaeologists-say" buffonery could be an example of Watchtower response to "apostate" critiques, except that - if I recall correctly - the 607 question was raised long before this website came into existence...
Dear Ziddina, in the archive on here , but I cannot think quite how to search for it, there is a post about a Bro. who wrote to the WT about the 607/1914 problem way back in the 1960's !!!!!
So, they have been aware of it since then. I think they definately have someone watching all the Apostate sites, and the quality of research on here and others, especially over 1914, prompted the artucle (s) so that Elders can say to lazy Dubs:
"No need to go on the Internet, our brothers have done the research for us, and look at this marvellous quote right here from a scholar backing up the truth as we are taught it !"
Once an honest hearted and not too befuddled minded JW comes on here and reads the excellent stuff by Ann O'Malley and others, they cannot give any credence to the WT's ridiculous doctrine.
They were trying to bury 1914/607 by not spelling it out, just referring to it as fact, but sites such as this, I believe, have forced their hand.
Yup, Phizzy...
And don't forget Leolaia's excellent posts, too!!
