I believe they did admit they made a mistake once, but later they found that they were mistaken
Has the Watchtower ever admitted making a mistake?
When pointed out to her some of the contents, she laughs and says, "Oh, just ignore that."-restrangled
This is the kind of thing that REALLY bothers me that people know things are wrong but choose to stay anyway.Some even more consciously then this jw.A loy of people on this site are doing that very thing and i know theres a lot of reason to stay in family,job connections etc but theres an even bigger reason to leave- to be able to look at some-1 in the mirror who isnt living a lie.However it all goes down in some sort of end time if such a thing exsists i dont think anybodys going to be getting the best faker award so whats the point?
Hang on a second! If the lastest information on dates is always called the 'new light', and, 'new light' obviously overshadows 'old light'? ie; old, discard,no further use etc.
I find this to be really funny... they seem to have got it backwards.
There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.
So, what they are saying is that the earlier statements (OLD) were actually meant to be the right ones, that the latter statemnents (NEW) are the wrong ones... did they put the wrong wattage globes in?
maybe me is wrong but... that means latter statements cannot be trusted by their own admission.
Ummm... not quite.
There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility.
That's the "original" statement.
Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility.
This is the "latter" statement.
So, they are saying that the 'cautious' "wouldn't it be neat if" statements were simply speculative in nature, and then over-excited, over-enthusiastic statements were made that overshadowed the earlier statements and caused the gullible R&F to get carried away..
Weasel-words indeed.. but it doesn't quite imply that they're saying their own later statements can't be trusted.. of course, so far as I'm concerned, anything they say can't be trusted.
As an aside, are all those pre 1980 W & A issues available as scanned collections anywhere?
I don't know of any collection. but here is a handy one to have. January 1, 1989 Watchtower.
The apostle Paul
was spearheading the Christian missionary
activity. He was also laying a foundation
for a work that would be completed in our
Do you remember that one?
There is no actual admission of a mistake, but the wording was changed in the bound volumes and the WTCD.
Jafo, i just downloaded WT2008 library. not quite the same as hard paper copies but handy.
check it out if you like
I think that if I had any inkling that 6 million people were hanging on my every word, I would just shut up unless I was positive.
I did not have sex with that woman.