by Sanchy 59 Replies latest jw friends
He has a go at apostates, accusing them of altering Watchtower publications and sites a 1910 magazine. He was at HQ and was able to look up an original copy. With the internet and their resources, have they even bothered to publish these on their website?
If he really believed this was a problem, he would get something done about it. As a poster earlier pointed out, he was simply trying to promote mistrust in outside sources.
Typical Bait and Switch reasoning!
Typical Strawman arguments!
He has presented a "supposed" argument of apostates, and masterfully shot it down!
Yet, he has misdirected attention away from the REAL issues that "apostates" would present!
Therefore, he has attempted to convince average witnesses that ALL issues opposer raise are false or irrelevant!
Twisted indeed! Didn't Satan supposedly use that type of distorted reasoning on Eve??
maninthemiddle
From the same source you quoted:
"If the six 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 "
Now, it's absolutely true that on the same article the author says that "Studies in the Scriptures" are not a substitute to the Bible or as the author wrote, they are not meant to "supplant the Bible". But the point isn't about Russell ever saying that. The point is that the Bible Students elevated Russell's books to a similar status than of the Bible. Because the Studies were interpretative works based upon the Bible (albeit not the Bible itself), raising its status to that of the Bible also raised those interpretations to the level of inspired work. Actually, the same author said:
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot
see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but
we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years
--if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes
to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for
ten years, our experience shows that within two years he
goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had
merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES 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, because he
would have the light of the Scriptures.
and this too:
We repeat, then, that STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES are either of the Lord's providence or else they
are one of the greatest miracles.
Kenneth Floodin's video is an exercise in strawman argument and red herring. He is the one that's exercising deceit upon his audience. He is the liar in this story.
Eden
It is encouraging that here, in this place - what they would consider a viper's nest of evil apostates - we have gone to the trouble of finding the original 1910 Watchtower because we wanted to see what it really said.
What do we find? In my view a meandering ramble of disjointed and repetitious thoughts that can be taken either way . Yes, Russell says that his books are the Bible in an arranged way and that you gain more from them than simply reading Scripture. He also says that they are not a substitute. The implication is that he is revealing truth and quoting scripture as the source in the way that the New Testament writers did.. But that would be hard to pin down to a specific quote
Both the "apostate" reference and Flodin's can be taken from the article. As we say in previous posts , the deviousness is in using this example to tell the faithful that all outside criticism is lies . That is manipulation of the truth that such as is found in the politics on both sides of the Atlantic pond!
Ken Flodin's an arsehole.
The 1910 article reminds me of doublespeak and doublethink.
Flodin claims apostates are afraid to reason with them from the scriptures because the witnesses would see through their twisted interpretation. The facts show It was Jeffery Jackson who was afraid to engage in a scriptural discussion on the two witness rule with the Royal Commission. When forced to turn up to defend their interpretation, it was his scriptural reasoning which was found to be flawed.
So why study the bible when you can study the WT and other publications....It's
not for the ordinary person to read and understand the Bible by itself.
God's spirit don't work for everyone when reading his word, some folks are dummies.
The WT talk out of both sides of their ass...
"He would have the light of the Scriptures" ??
If that were true, wouldn't JW's still be using Studies in the Scriptures? After two years or ten years of studying those volumes wouldn't I still be an apostate according to current JW teaching?
