Sidewiki exposes misquotation on Watchtower.org!

by slimboyfat 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  Could you check the following page and tell me if my Sidewiki entry is visible? (Sidewiki appears on the google toolbar if you have that on your page, otherwise I am not sure how you access it)

  http://watchtower.org/e/20090401a/article_01.htm

  My post is about the Watchtower misquotation of the Illustrated Bible Dictionary in the second paragraph of the page.

  If this takes off it could be a serious thorn in the side of the Watchtower, and provide hours of fun for apostates exposing misleading statements on the Watchtower site.

  Have there been threads on this aleady? I must have missed them. I'm sure I can't be the first one to notice this feature.
• 

  poppers

  I found this comment: "Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the NT, we can read back many implications of it in the OT."

  Tags:
• 

  leavingwt

  For the benefit of those not familiar with this particular misquote, will you please post the original text and the text that they've quoted, here on this thread? Thank you.
• 

  cantleave

  Do I need to install something to see sidewiki comments?
• 

  isaacaustin

  here is the WT quote: The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.

  Here is the true quote from the source:

  Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT and explicit in the NT. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the OT, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the NT, we can read back many implications of it in the OT."
• 

  isaacaustin

  so they delete the word "Though", leave off the rest of that sentence after the word Bible which explains what they are saying...as well as the following sentence. They then build on this false impression they are making it appear that the writer intended.
• 

  poppers

  You beat me to it isaac. Amazing how some incomplete quoting can alter the intended meaning.
• 

  poppers

  Here's a link that will allow you to see and make comments on sidewiki: http://www.google.com/sidewiki/intl/en/#tracking=1&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-bk&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=sidewiki&tbbrand=GZAZ
• 

  isaacaustin

  yeah poppers. Issue aside for the moment of trinity/nontrinity- the WT is dishonestly making sources appear to support their view when they clearly did not.
• 

  poppers

  That's right, isaac. How many people just swallow what they feed them without checking for themselves? Most, I would guess. I wonder how long they think they can get away with it, especially now with the internet to contend with.