Serious Omissions in New Watchtower Book

by metatron 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  The Society's latest book, "Bearing Thorough Witness About God's Kingdom" contains two serious omissions.

  First, on page 105, it offers an outright lie about the organization and the Bible. "They do not force the Scriptures to fit their views. Impartial observers have recognized this fact." The book then quotes from Jason David Beduhn and his book Truth in Translation, in praise of the organization.

  However, any person can look up Beduhn's work on Google and see that he takes issue with the New World Translation's forcing of "Jehovah" into the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. He sees this as "interpretation" not translation. His observation directly contradicts the notion that Jehovah's Witnesses do not force the Scriptures to fit their views.

  Did anyone at Watchtower Headquarters bother to read Beduhn's work? I fail to see how they could have missed his point: in other words, they lied.

  The second omission? This book is a thorough review of the Bible book of Acts, which includes Acts 15. Yet, it says nothing about blood transfusion and simply passes by James' remarks with little comment. We all can speculate as to why this sudden lack of emphasis came to be....

  and the book has two pictures of His Infernal Majesty Himself (Jaracz).

  metatron
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  We can all speculate about the blood issue.

  On the first thought, I was totally amazed how often they take people and published material out-of-context.
  They take a Trinitarian and quote some single sentence that seems to support them.
  I remember an entire article on what a waste of money a college education was- they took 4 major published articles from "secular sources" and twisted them totally out of context.

  Apparently, the Trinity brochure and the "Creation" book are likewise full of these twists.
  Awakened @ Gilead showed me an example in a book by Carl Olof Jonsson, SIGN OF THE LAST DAYS, WHEN.
  I might get the details wrong, but some serious publication quoted the WT or Awake then tore the comment apart.
  WT later quoted the serious publication, but actually only quoted the part that was a direct quote from the WT publication.
  In other words, WT said that some other publication said "XYZ" when all the other publication was doing was scoffing at "XYZ" and had to quote it in order to make their point.
• 

  metatron

  Some years ago, I caught what appeared to be the complete fabrication of a scholarly quote from Young's Cyclopedia, printed in the Watchtower. Not only was I unable to find their citation but the book said the direct opposite of what the Watchtower asserted. (about how the Hebrews did use flags and it was no big deal)

  metatron
• 

  Norcal_Sun

  This is probably why there are no bibliographies in the back of any WT publications, lol
• 

  bluecanary

  This book is a thorough review of the Bible book of Acts, which includes Acts 15. Yet, it says nothing about blood transfusion and simply passes by James' remarks with little comment.

  Very interesting. We know that when the WTS wants to phase out a doctrine, they start by omitting it from the current writings. I wonder if it's finally working on divesting itself of this teaching for good.
• 

  daniel-p

  THere's a reason why they don't cite their sources or have any kind of bibliography in their publications: because they like making shit up. The fat bastards just can't help themselves.
• 

  RR

  That's nothing new, the Society has been misquoting people for years. They even misquote their own publications. They quote Russell and Rutherfordsaying one thing, but when you look at the actual publication, it's saying something opposite.

  RR
• 

  Scully

  That is the kind of academic/scholarly dishonesty that can earn you a big fat F on a term paper (if not completely oust you from an academic program), if the prof takes the time to check your citations.
• 

  WTWizard

  "They do not force the Scriptures to fit their views. Impartial observers have recognized this fact."

  Suppose I were to present a term paper on chemistry with this as the reference to back up my work. Not "I would like to see more research on the subject", mind you--presenting this as fact. Chances are good that I will get a zero on that paper (and possibly in the class) for plagiarism. And this is just for a term paper, which is supposed to be training.

  What the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger does is even worse. They are not merely staking one's grade on a statement. They are requiring people to stake their lives on it. They intentionally do not tell which "impartial observers" have regognized this fact, because they do not want anyone to do a real term paper on the subject, finding the sources, and citing them. They are afraid that those "impartial observers" either do not exist at all, or were taken out of context by the Washtowel Slaveholdery, and anyone researching them from the real originals will see the blatant lies.

  Bad enough that they forced the Bible to fit their views by tampering with it. But, then they claim they do not--and try to back it up. With lives on the line, and the ban on cross-referencing any of their doctrines, I hold them to a much higher standard of proof than I would hold a poster that posts something questionable (it can be cross-referenced, people's lives are not on the line, and time will further correct the matter).
• 

  PSacramento

  Jason Debhune, if I recall correctly,believes that Jesus was NOT divine and that his divinity was a latter fabrication, so it makes sense that Jason is a "fan" of the WT's John 1;1 for example.

  It is quite correct that Jason argues against the injection of Jehovha in the NT.