Prepare to admit more and more "we were wrong" as time passes.
Not too long ago they also published in a small article about how they were wrong about dates of the end and such. Does anybody remember? It was a small apologetic piece.
SL
May’s ‘study WT’ admits having taught “far-fetched” ideas
by wheelwithinwheel 48 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Finkelstein
In the end of it all the WTS's executive editorial writers/ leaders (GB) have been self endeavored to write attention creating articles in the literature the organization published. They may have been false or inaccurate interpretations of the bible but they had a underlining intent and perhaps that is their given responsibility as heads of this religious publishing house.
In an effort to draw as much support as they can out of people they instituted a mandate that all JWS are to be supportive to those writings and publicly distribute them themselves without critical questioning to their accuracy or integrity.
-
wifibandit
Splash, THAT is a great run down. I'm going to share that with others. Thank you! -
Iown Mylife
Didn't CoC mention how those questions from readers articles were not ever really questions from any readers. That was just a lying title to go above the lying brainwashing.
Marina
-
neverendingjourney
Didn't CoC mention how those questions from readers articles were not ever really questions from any readers. That was just a lying title to go above the lying brainwashing.
I mean, it's not like they provide an address to mail questions to. Pretty obvious ruse.
-
FayeDunaway
Well 'evidently' they read their own articles, and then have questions about them. Lol! -
Vidiot
freemindfade - "That book (that we studied 3 times) has got to now be one of their biggest abortions."
Looking back, I think the events in Fred Franz' End-Times script were kind of plausible in the post-WW2/Cold War era, particularly if you were already primed to view Revelation as "prophetic".
Nowadays, though? Definitely a harder sell.
(Hell; nowadays, Left Behind has as much validity.)
-
Finkelstein
Keep in mind folks that it was Fred Franz who re pulled out an old previously used doctrine created by C T Russel in one his old books 60 before (6000 years of mankind's existence), when he created the pretentiously false date of 1975. Not a very scholarly thing to do, but a bit crooked and devious in reality. This guy was a blatantly under handed liar.
-
BluesBrother
The article (QFR ) does not exactly say that " We taught far fetched interpretations". That description is given to the types and antitypes seen by [St] Augustine in the 4th Century. However, the WTS is responsible for being liberal with their viewing of Antitypes , as they freely admit : now.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150315/
What does this mean for their credibility? Was the Holy Spirit not guiding the Society in the twentieth century when all this was being spoken of? Since it cannot tell a lie, I conclude that it was not doing so.
Therefore the teachings are exposed as merely human, as we have always said
-
Vidiot
BluesBrother - "What does this mean for their credibility? Was the Holy Spirit not guiding the Society in the twentieth century when all this was being spoken of? Since it cannot tell a lie, I conclude that it was not doing so. Therefore the teachings are exposed as merely human, as we have always said."
When I was a kid, my (otherwise loyal JW) dad was actually very candid about the failed predictions the WTS had made in the past, to his credit.
His explanation was that even though it had been in error, it was what JWs needed at the time to stay unified and faithful in a world that wanted to snuff them out. Credit where credit's due... I found it a pretty compelling explanation; it motivated me to stay in for a long time.
Pretty sure he came up with it himself, though; I never saw it in any publication.
