Hey, ILoveTTATT, send me your father's mailing address in a private message, and I will mail him some information that will start him to thinking. It's not apostate litarature, either, but something which was printed in the Watchtower. Just an idea. In any event, I wish you well!
Misquote in the Creation Book
by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
skeeter1
marking
-
Smiles
@ILoveTTATT:
Where is the misquote?
I'm looking at a hardcopy of ce-E page 15/16, while comparing that with page 81 of the magazine film.
Both appear to match. -
steve2
I half-expect one religious organization to misquote - or quote out of context - another. It's the bread and butter of religious differences at work.
But what can shock me still is the blatant and persistent misquoting - and quoting out of context - by religious organizations of secular sources, in particular those espousing evolution.
Surely, religious organizations can adduce better arguments and evidence for their belief in (the Biblical) God than badly regurgitated views of scientists and evolutionists!
Richard Dawkins has stated on more than one occasion that he has to be extremely careful what he says when disagreeing with others in his field because creationists will selectively or mischievously take what they want from it to distort what he is saying to support their arguments. He did not attribute malicious motives but instead viewed them as not realizing they were engaging in shoddy and dishonest scholarship. I think he was too generous in his appraisal of their mentality and questionable ethics. When it comes to defending their beliefs, religions will often use whatever they can find to suit their purposes - the shock for me many years ago was the discovery that the Watchtower was as prepared to misquote secular sources as any other religious organisation. I suppose I should have realized that misquoting and using out of context sums up the caliber of the arguments.
Nowadays, the shock is somewhat different: That readers generally couldn't even be bothered to check sources, simply assuming they have been correctly sourced and represented. Pitiful.
-
jgnat
Smiles, this is about a quote being taken out of context where the author is made to sound that he has an opposite opinion. The scan on the first page is the source of the quote.
-
Vidiot
Once again, for the newbies...
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, they don't deserve to be defended.
-
sir82
This means they used the same creationist source. The WT was using creationist propoganda when they made the creation book.
So, rather than being overtly deceptive, they were merely lazy and sloppy.
Of course, they do then cross the line into "overtly deceptive" when such errors are pointed out to them and they not only fail to correct it and apologize, but also continue to peddle it as "truth".
-
steve2
Whichever explanation you go for - "innocently" taking something out of context or deliberately making an author say the opposite of what they have said - you'd expect a high standard of integrity from an organization that claims to be the sole dispenser of truth on earth. High claims demand high standards. In this case, we ain't aiminig for the moon - just some pretty routine carefulness in ensuring you accurately convey what people have said and not taking their comments out of context. Shesh! Anyone would think this is an unattainable standard! Besides, I'd bet that even if the quote were originally "innocently" sourced, by now the organization would know it has been misused in its publication - but no apology or attempt to put right. So much for claims of being "the truth".
-
Apognophos
Yes, it's true, their carelessness speaks volumes. There's never been a corrected edition of a WT pub that I'm aware of -- only in fixing things like references to "the 20th century" or updating the old light, but never removing misused quotes or printing an errata section in a subsequent issue of the WT/Awake.
-
ILoveTTATT
I am leaning more towards the "this was done on purpose"... there's just way too many of these quotes out of context.