by jwleaks 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Simon said: The fact is they obviously put a lot of effort into misquoting people - finding the snippet of something that someone said and taking it out of context in a way to give a completely wrong impression of what they were saying.
They do this a lot with Scripture. (i.e. Peter asking,"Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life.").
"Take, for example, the following statement in the brochure Was Life Created? about spider silk being one of the strongest materials on earth: “If enlarged to the size of a football field, a web of dragline silk 0.4 inch thick with strands 1.6 inches apart could stop a jumbo jet in flight!” Although the source for this statement was a reputable science magazine, it was not the original source, and the original source was ambiguous. Therefore, it became necessary to contact the researcher who made the original statement and check how hereached this conclusion. Our researchers also had to find the formula and the information needed to calculate for themselves what impact a jumbo jet might have on a spiderweb the size of a football field. Many hours of research and meticulous calculations eventually confirmed the accuracy of this astounding piece of information."
I don't believe this for a second. I don't remember my engineering textbooks having any formula for calculating the strength of football field sized spider-webs. Presumably they have a couple of chartered engineers hanging around for just such a question?!
Once again for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
Or you may have read about the incident involving Sir Isaac Newton and a model of the solar system. Reportedly, a visiting atheist asked: “Who made it?” When Newton answered, “Nobody!” the atheist replied, “You must think I am a fool!” Newton is then said to have told the atheist that his puny imitation of the much grander solar system proves that there has to be a designer or maker. As appealing as this account may be, historical sources, as well as Newton scholars and biographers, cannot provide evidence that this conversation really occurred. Interestingly, the earliest references to this incident appeared in the early 1800’s using, not Newton’s name, but the name of German scholar Athanasius Kircher. Consequently, our Writing Department no longer uses this account in our publications.
Wait, did they just admit that they don't actually bother to check things out before they print it? They just said that they "no longer" use the account, not that they never did. I've heard the story used in meetings quite a lot, so I'm sure that it came from them at some point. So while the article is supposed to inspire confidence in their accuracy, it really is an admission that they print things that are inaccurate and don't stop using it until their caught (if at all).
Is the Bible Really the Word of God?
The story about Newton and the atheist might have been related there, as I recall.
This is propaganda.
It is preparing plausible deniability.
I like the part about all the libraries used for deep research, but
I must have missed the part about the UNITED NATIONS library!
The story about Newton and the atheist was in the old 192 page creation book. I think it was teal or turquoise. It was definitely in there. I used it many times in one of my talks. Of course, I believed at the time it was an accurate account because I had faith in the WTBTS.
Not any more, no siree bob, No more, no more!
Did everyone notice the WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia?
Me thinks that the WT have heard of a lot of brothers quoting Wikipedia as an authority on religion and other material, and some of this material is not always WT friendly.
I am sure Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is an amazing site. Even doctors and professors use it quietly. There is a reason for that. The fact is that no reference work is perfect, no matter how reputable it is. There are errors everywhere.
It seems that the WT wants to undermine the authority from the highly visible Wikipedia site in the interest of further safeguarding their reputation. What do you think?
