Scholar, 607 and Evolutionary Change

by AlanF 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  The Society quotes exaxtly (sic) what these references or sources say and the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context. It is simply the fact that in writing about an idea, argument or concept it is quite appropriate to use another quote or source if that partiular quotaion (sic) cam (sic) be used in support of your idea or argument.

  Quite an admission. What a shame it does not appear as a disclaimer in all WT publications, most readers of which are quite unlikely to check anything in scholarly sources, especially when no bibliographical references are displayed.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  I agree with Nark, that comment was sic, sic, sic!
• 

  Satanus

  the use of such sources does not imply that those sources are in agreement with the context.

  I can only imagine how poor scholars brain must (dis)function. The disharmony between the various modules could make a hit horror movie.

  S
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Shear brilliance AlanF, shear brilliance
• 

  AlanF

  Wow! "Scholar" has finally come over to the dark side.

  I've consistently shown that the Watchtower Society often misrepresents source references, and "scholar" now agrees. He now states that "the Society misleads readers by its improper use of souces" and "the Society can only be accused of misrepresentation". With respect to its distortion of the views of scholar Edwin Thiele, he nows states that "the Society misrepresented Thiele's notaion". And now, he even admits that "the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence".

  Tell me, "scholar", just what caused this huge change in your view of the Watchtower Society?

  AlanF
• 

  mkr32208

  Quite an admission. What a shame it does not appear as a disclaimer in all WT publications, most readers of which are quite unlikely to check anything in scholarly sources, especially when no bibliographical references are displayed.

  Especially when they are ACTIVLY DISCOURAGED FROM DOING SO UNDER THREAT OF BEING DF'ED FOR APOSTACY!

  Good job Alan! This thread has some great material! Gotta love unscholar's determination though! It does take some serious balls to stand their and say; we know that we are lying and don't care... Don't let up though you have those big balls of his in a vice now squeeze for all their worth!!!!!
• 

  rocketman

  The reader alone is the final arbiter as to how that source is relative to a former context and a new context, all that he demands is that the quote be accurate and properly referenced. The reader can make his own mind whether any misrepresentaion is justified.

  Interesting statement. If the reader is the final arbiter, then he should be supplied with a balanced presentation of the facts pertaining to a given argument. For example, when reading a publication such as the Aid book, the reader should not only have Thiele's statement of reservation concerning Ptolemy's Cannon in front of him, but also at least some information concerning Thiel's support of the Canon, which, according to Scholar, Theile was "staunch advocate" of and "passionate" in his support of. Well, there had to be reasons why Thiele felt that way about the Canon. Was at least some of that presented in the Aid book?

  Part of the problem with religionists like the WTS writing on subjects in the realm of science, as they did in the Creation book, is that religionists already have a point of view - one that usually runs counter to evolution theory. So they'll present information in a way that persuades the reader to accept their point of view. Can anyone really expect them to sift through the evidence in an unbiased manner and then risk admitting that their notions were wrong? And how is a reader who is looking, not for support of his or her own preconceived notions but rather for an unbiased discussion of the facts, possibly be benefitted when such an approach is taken?
• 

  jst2laws

  Alan,

  Scholar,

  Please give this your best shot. Will you?

  Jst2laws
• 

  barry

  Being an SDA myself I took interest in the SDA Robert gentry being quoted in the creation book and Edwin Theile. Scholar says is perhaps the greatest chronologist of the 20th century in christendom.

  My dad an SDA elder and most prominent lay preachers in the region nor I have any knowledge of these two individuals. It may be their books are written for a small range of members or they havent promoted there books sufficiently. Even some seemingly best sellers in the SDA community are failures from a publishing point of view and cant be equated to the JW method of selling their books where everyone is a best seller eg book study books.

  I couldnt even find a quote from Robert Gentry in the Faith and Science conferences in Denver Colorado 2004 and Glacier View Colorado in 2003 where the SDA church is trying to come to terms with evolution v creation and people from both sides are presenting their papers and appealing for understanding on these issues.

  Theile and Gentry are certainly not household names in the SDA community nor in the wider christendom.
• 

  AlanF

  rocketman said:

  : If the reader is the final arbiter, then he should be supplied with a balanced presentation of the facts pertaining to a given argument.

  That's exactly right. And that's another area where the Society falls down flat. They don't want the reader to see a balanced presentation so as to make his own choice. They want the reader to see only their side and make their choice.

  : For example, when reading a publication such as the Aid book, the reader should not only have Thiele's statement of reservation concerning Ptolemy's Cannon in front of him,

  Your statement here shows how easy it is to fall for lies oft repeated. Thiele's statement was in no way one of reservation, but of clarification. The clarification was needed because the Royal Canon that was reproduced in Appenix G of Thiele's book leaves out the names of kings that were unimportant for the purpose of dating astronomical phenomena, such as those who reigned less than a year. Thiele simply explained why some kings were not listed. For a look at Thiele's actual statements, see the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/86231/1.ashx . Also see my latest thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/87780/1.ashx .

  : but also at least some information concerning Thiel's support of the Canon, which, according to Scholar, Theile was "staunch advocate" of and "passionate" in his support of. Well, there had to be reasons why Thiele felt that way about the Canon. Was at least some of that presented in the Aid book?

  Of course not.

  Good points in the rest of your post.

  Barry, interesting points about Gentry. I know little about SDA literature or culture. However, Gentry's book can often be found for sale at young-earth creationist gatherings.

  I'm quite surprised to learn that SDA's have become so open about discussing the evolution/creation question. One of their greatest writers of the early 20th century, George McCready Price, was prolific in his publishing against evolution. I'm sure that Gentry is familiar with Price's writings. Price, by the way, is the spiritual father of the modern YEC movement now championed by the likes of Henry Morris and his Institute for Creation Research. Price was also a very engaging writer. I've accumulated most of his books and some booklets.

  AlanF