Gumby,
you are so full of soft gooey stuff --and it's not petroleum or gelatin based!
here's what you said:
Poor Ororubus, his head has been in the books so much, he can't see the obvious.
The last article I quoted plainly tells it's readers that gods organisation moves straight ahead with no wavering and always has the correct destiny.
Gumalwaysright
Well i looked at the last article cited, the 92 Watchtower and it NO WHERE "plainly tells its readers" that "god's organization moves straight ahead with no wavering and always the correct destiny." (go ahead and provide the quoted text from the article where this is "plain" if you can.)
In fact, as was the point of my post in this thread, the 92 Watchtower article is talking about an individual's life course and the Organization is not the subject at all.
This is clearly in contrast to the Questions from Readers article involving the infamous "tacking" excuse for flip-flops and reversals of the Society which analogy is meant to describe the changing of policies/beliefs over time.
And therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges and so of course there is going to be an "apparent' contradiction because two conflicting analogies are being used.
But even this is not quite as conflicting as it would seem now that I have seen what you have done with your little elipses that excluded an important point of the original excerpt.
this is the text in context with the part YOU excluded in red for our friends' benefit:
Run
"NotUncertainly" 16
Seeing the strenuous efforts needed to succeed in the race for life, Paul went on to say: "Therefore, the way I am running is not uncertainly; the way I am directing my blows is so as not to be striking the air." (1 Corinthians 9:26)
The word "uncertainly" literally means "unevidently" (KingdomInterlinear), "unobserved, unmarked" (Lange’sCommentary). Hence, to run "not uncertainly" means that to every observer it should be very evident where the runner is heading.
TheAnchorBible renders it "not on a zigzag course." If you saw a set of footprints that meanders up and down the beach, circles around now and then, and even goes backward at times, you would hardly think the person was running at all, let alone that he had any idea where he was heading. But if you saw a set of footprints that form a long, straight line, each footprint ahead of the previous one and all evenly spaced, you would conclude that the footprints belong to one who knows exactly where he is going.
17
Paul’s life shows clearly that he was running "not uncertainly." He had ample evidence to prove that he was a Christian minister and an apostle. He had but one objective, and he exerted himself vigorously all his life to gain it. He was never sidetracked by fame, power, riches, or comfort, even though he could perhaps have attained any of these. (Acts 20:24; 1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 3:2, 3; Philippians 3:8, 13, 14) As you look back at your life course, what kind of track do you see? A straight line with a clear direction or one that wanders aimlessly? Is there evidence that you are contending in the race for life? Remember, we are in this race, not just to go through the motions, as it were, but to get to the finish line.The reference explaining "uncertainly" and meaning "unobserved" or "unnoticed" brings the whole illustration into a different light and makes it less contrasting with the "tacking" illustration than the superficial take would have it. This is because the meaning of the illustration is not focused on the specific line of the path at all but rather on the APPARENCY of the direction and the INTENT of the runner. Your deliberate or arbitrary exclusion of this nuance in your original post is rather self-serving.
Further, para 17 which you completely omitted, reinforces that what the article is discussing in this subheading, namely that a Christian would give evidence, certain to others, of their life course and pursue the ultimate goal without distraction.
Again the point of the article is COMPLETELY distinct from the point of the tacking (zig-zag) excuse Questions from Readers article.
And contrary to Nic's post, one can't logically or fairly link two distinct topical discussions which use two different analogies simply because at some level the Society states that its followers will follow-along the same course as itself. First that premise is untrue. But more importantly, it doesn't work because the article in question (the 92 WT) is not addressing either "new light" progression or loyalty to the Organization or any other related topic where it would be fair to expect "consistency" of illustations/analogy.
