Hell, they wouldn't want us to reason the New Testament historically...
Gayle - Flodin refers to a copy received by apostate source, of a WT copy about Russell's writings as "truth," and not needing the Bible. He says it was a manipulated copy done by apostates.
Do any of you have that reference that he says is a lie?
He seems to be referencing September 15, 1910, Watchtower. It says,
If the 6 volumes of 'Scripture Studies' are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes- 'The Bible' in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself. . . . Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' . . . after ha has read them for 10 years—if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone . . . our experience shows that within 2 years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he has merely read the 'S.S.' with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years.
I found that quote pretty easily. I literally just googled "1910 Watchtower," and that was one of the first results. Here is the website I found that addresses this: 1910 Watchtower. I am not sure whether it is an accurate quote because there are ellipses in it, so I do not know what is missing from the quote. Neither do I know, however, how to access Watchtowers from that long ago. Nevertheless, I'm guessing that if you googled enough you would find a photocopy of the original magazine.