How are we to understand the GB/Slave interpreting scripture, as the sole chanel, and at the same time accept that they can err?

[Evacuated]

22 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

try using unapproved words and extra-magazine phrases and concepts to make a comment at the Watchtower Study, and it will be like someone threw a brick through a plate glass window.

Where on earth are you? Cahulawassee?

[Evacuated]

1 minute ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and will disfellowship us if we admit we do not believe them.

How can you disagree with "soon"?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

22 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Where on earth are you? Cahulawassee?

No, unfortunately I have no musical talent, ESPECIALLY with banjos.

[Bubba Johnson Jr]

Simple...You just DO IT!!!!!!!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

44 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

How can you disagree with "soon"?

It's a matter of general credibility .... someone that is ALWAYS wrong about such things gets the credibility they deserve from rational people, and faith in their PRESUMABLY good intentions by others.

[Jesus.defender]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It's a matter of general credibility .... someone that is ALWAYS wrong about such things gets the credibility they deserve from rational people, and faith in their PRESUMABLY good intentions by others.

Yes. And the watchtower has a history on being wrong on MANY topics.

ie: Will the men of Sodom be resurrected?

Yes....Watchtower 7/1879 page 8
No.....Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338
Yes....Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479
No.....Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31
Yes...Live Forever (old Ed.) page 179
No....Live Forever (new Ed.) page 179
Yes...Insight, vol. 2., page 985
No...Revelation book, page 273.
 

6,000 years from Adam ended in A.D. 1872. (Daily Heavenly Manna, inside cover page)

6,000 years of human history ended in 1873.(The Time is at Hand, p.33)

6,000 years of human history ended in 1972.(The Truth Shall Make You Free, p.152, 1943 edition)

6,000 years of human history ended in 1975. (Awake!, October 8th, 1968, page 15).
 

[Jesus.defender]

On 7/2/2019 at 7:09 AM, Anna said:

The good thing is, by the time one gets baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses one should have all those "own opinions on scripture" cleared up, otherwise one wouldn't get baptized as one of JW since one of the requirements is to agree with all 100 questions asked in the "organized book". 

What name does the WT use for their baptisms?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

What name does the WT use for their baptisms?

Baptisms?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

Yes. And the watchtower has a history on being wrong on MANY topics. ie: Will the men of Sodom be resurrected?

Yes....Watchtower 7/1879 page 8
No.....Watchtower 6/1/52 page 338
Yes....Watchtower 8/1/65, page 479
No.....Watchtower 6/1/88, page 31
Yes...Live Forever (old Ed.) page 179
No....Live Forever (new Ed.) page 179
Yes...Insight, vol. 2., page 985
No...Revelation book, page 273.
 

Is this a burning concern for you?

[Anna]

7 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

At no point do we act on our own understanding.

I suppose there is no need to, unless this understanding of ours became so important to us that we couldn't keep ourselves from acting.

Which brings me to this quote of yours:

7 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

 I am sure they would say it's direction has never truly conflicted with God. But there aren't variations of the truth -- there is only right and wrong. If a change is made, then that means there was something false with the previous direction.

I would think that it's an important thing, that direction never truly conflicts with God.  I agree with you about absolute truth, something is either black or white, however, what about this: (one of JTR's favorite images)

 

Perspective has a profound effect in how we see things. When there is a change, I prefer to see it as an "update" brought on by new perspective. I am sure you will agree there is nothing wrong with updates? After all, without "updates" we would still be using a cell phone the size of a brick.

So in summary, I think the most important thing is not the "change" but making sure the "change" is not in conflict with any core principles and "truths" (the cylinder) about God.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I agree with you, Anna, but what is REALLY being discussed now is CREDIBILITY.    

Those that put themselves in the position as God's spokesmen ... delivering "food at the proper time" have a responsibility to deliver good wholesome food at the proper time.

Uncontaminated wholesome food.

Not rocks painted to look like real food.

I have told the story before about years ago when I lived near Lake Jackson Texas, and I saw a Mexican family, obviously starving ... eating grass on the side of the road. I stopped and entreated them to come to my home, and they piled into the back of the pickup truck and drove about 20 miles. When we got to my home, I opened the chain link fence gate, and showed them my luxuriant green lawn, that needed mowing.

That story is not credible ... but I hope it makes the point about good, wholesome food at the proper time.

Had it been a true story, the people I supposedly rescued would have been exploited, and betrayed .... not saved ..... and the "food at the proper time" would have served MY agenda ... only!

 

[Anna]

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but what is REALLY being discussed now is CREDIBILITY. 

Yes, but also whether the subject is a burning concern (to borrow True Tom's expression) or not. In your story, if your idea of rescuing the Mexican family entailed them eating your grass, then that would be a burning concern.