by AuldSoul 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
I am looking good repository of instances where the Watchtower or Awake! have quoted secular sources in such a way to make it appear the source supports their argument when it is blatantly obvious that the secular source disagreed with them. Does anyone know of one?
If it doesn't exist, I am about to make one. If no one already knows of one, please start posting them here when you find them.
Thanks!
AuldSoul
A good start would be to take a run through Blondie's weekly studies. Also interesting is who they quote. And when. Like quoting an article from the 1970's or 80's about world decline.
Sorry my 'favorites' is so full and unorganized I can't find it at the moment. Try googling or typing in 'misquotes of the (or in) the WT' one of the sites has quite a few. Will you post your results? that would be nice. If you manage to finish it! I think it will be more extensive a study than we think!
http://catholicapologetics.net/Watchtower_Quotes.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Barclay.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/misquote.htm
http://www.watchman.org/jw/believeinwatchtower.htm
http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=638
I did not read all of these, but I hope they help!
Thanks all! I am hoping to eventually develop a central repository for their improper citations/out of context quotes similar to Quotes Web site. The obvious exception being I will only cite the reference to their pub where the unsourced or deceitful out-of-context application appears and print the portion they quoted, then print the context (properly sourced).
I am hoping to have it ready in time to be a useful resource for Quotes' lawsuit. The WT accusation against him is absurd in light of their history with unsourced out of context quotes. At least Quotes gives the complete source for the reader to verify context if they so desire.
AuldSoul
Thanks for the addition, blondie. It looks like my suspicion is proving correct. I thought if this had been done it would be specifically to address doctrinal points (boring to most people). I want to catch them with their pants down in more casual instances like this: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100209/1.ashx
This one is so plain a child could see they lied, outrightly, to try to support their point. The Encyclopedia article call their work propaganda but they use one snippet from it to indicate that the encyclopedia supported that they are not propagandizers. This is done so innocuously in this case that I cannot help but imagine it is customary. That means I will be able to find MANY more of these. Lie when the truth will do, but the Internet hasn't been around to force them to be careful about citing/quoting sources in good faith.
Now, they will face the light of the world, the Intenet! It will shine on them and reveal their cowering dark soul. It will prove they lie even to those who they say deserve to know the truth, a lie by any standard (even their own).
If anyone runs across more of these simple lies (if they'll lie in small things...) because I believe these are much more telling about the nature of this "food" the Governing Body has been spewing from their collective rectum.
AuldSoul
YES!!! Alan Feuerbacher has written a great article, "Disagreements about Evolution":
http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce01.htm
...in which he exposes how the WTS ripped quotes by many scientists out of context, twisted and turned their statements, etc, in their "Creation"-book. It`s a great article, everyone should read it.
to me, this is the one thing that is provable (if that is a word).
all the rest of it ... the bad behaviour, ridiculous doctrines, their new light flip flops, false prophecies can be subjective, circular, twisted, etc.
But dishonesty, plain and simple is dishonest. Misrepresentation & Fraud.
There is NO mistake about it - it is done on purpose.
Its people and orgs like this that give God a bad name!!!
and what is that name?
Strong's Concordance word 1943 (look it up)
hovah - mischief (as in god of)
Will power
this probably won't post grrr
I'm not near any WT index, so you'll have to look this one up.
The last time they defended the flag salute issue in the WT magazine, they claimed that McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia
defends their silly notion that the Israelites did not use flags to identify themselves. Not only was I unable to find any such quote
in that work but the Cyclopedia is very favorable to the notion of Israel using flags ( see under "Flag"!)
metatron
