Our resident pretend-JW-scholar who calls himself "scholar" enjoys justifying lying and misrepresentation by the Watchtower Society and himself. The Society, out of one side of its collective mouth, recommends not misrepresenting source references, yet out of the other side, goes ahead and does so without hesitation whenever it is convenient.
The Society Understands That Unfair Quoting Is Dishonest
The Watchtower Society acknowledges that authors can be misrepresented by quoting them in such a way as to give a wrong impression of the author's views, even when his words are quoted exactly. For example, the January 1, 2003 Watchtower contained the article "What Can Help Us to Handle the Word of the Truth Aright?" (pp. 27-28). It said:
A THEATER critic for a newspaper once went to see a certain play. He did not much like it and afterward wrote: "If triviality is what you happen to be wanting, by all means go and see this play." Later, the promoters of the play published an advertisement that featured a quote from the critic?s review. The quote was: "By all means go and see this play"! The advertisement accurately quoted the critic?s words, but it lifted them out of context and thus grossly misrepresented his view.
That example illustrates how important the context of a statement can be. Taking words out of context can distort their meaning, just as Satan distorted the meaning of Scripture when he tried to mislead Jesus. (Matthew 4:1-11) On the other hand, taking the context of a statement into account helps us to get a more accurate understanding of its meaning. For this reason, when we study a Bible verse, it is always wise to look at the context and see the verse in its setting in order to understand better what the writer was talking about.
Handle With Care
A dictionary defines context as "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." Context can also be "the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc." In this latter sense, a synonym for "context" would be "background." Considering the context of a scripture is particularly important in view of what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright." (2 Timothy 2:15) In order to handle God?s Word aright, we need to understand it properly and then explain it honestly and accurately to others. Respect for Jehovah, the Bible?s Author, will move us to try to do that, and considering the context will be an important help.
Obviously, this fine advice applies to all authors who want to handle quotations on all subjects truthfully and without misrepresenting source references.
The Society has pointed out a very important consideration for quoting. In addition to the immediate context of a set of words to be quoted (i.e., the words immediately preceding or succeeding the quoted words), "context can also be 'the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.' In this latter sense, a synonym for 'context' would be 'background.' " What is the context or background of an entire book? Obviously, everything that the author has written in the book. So someone who quotes an isolated bit of text from a book is required by good ethical standards to account for everything that the author says in the book -- not just grab some words out of context and claim that this accurately represents the author's views, as if the author said one thing in one part of his book and the opposite in another.
These simple notions of honest quoting are easy to illustrate. An author writing in defense of evolution could hardly honestly quote an ardent young-earth creationist to support a claim that the creationist supports evolution. Conversely, an author writing in defense of creation could hardly honestly quote an ardent evolutionist to support a claim that the evolutionist supports creation. Both would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
In its guidebooks for the "Theocratic Ministry School", the Watchtower Society also acknowledges that accurately representing author's views by proper quotation is important:
[ Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook, 1992, Study 21, p. 110, "Informative Material, Clearly Presented" ]
Accuracy of statement. Jehovah?s witnesses are an organization of truth. We should want to speak the truth and be absolutely accurate in every detail at all times. This should be so not only as regards doctrine but also in our quotations, what we say about others or how we represent them, also in matters involving scientific data or news events.[ Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education, 2002, Study 40, p. 225, "Accuracy of Statement" ]
Checking the Accuracy of Information. Current events, quotations, and experiences can be helpful when you are illustrating and applying certain points. How can you be sure that they are accurate? One way is by extracting such items from reliable sources. Remember to check that the information is up-to-date. . . In addition to checking the reliability of the sources, consider carefully how you plan to use the information. Make sure that your use of quotations and statistics harmonizes with the context from which they are taken. . . Overstating matters or exaggerating reports involving number, extent, or seriousness raises questions of credibility. . . When you are consistently accurate in what you say, you will come to be known as a person who respects truth. This reflects well on Jehovah?s Witnesses as a group. More important, it honors "Jehovah the God of truth." -- Ps. 31:5.
How To Misrepresent the Watchtower Society's Views By Unfair Quoting
It's almost trivial to give illustrations of how grossly an author's views can be misrepresented by quoting improperly.
Suppose I wanted to prove that the Watchtower Society admits that its "Bible based views" on blood transfusions really have no basis in the Bible at all. I could make the following quotations from Watchtower literature:
The Bible was not written primarily as a book of instruction on medical or other forms of treatment.
The Bible was not written primarily to instruct us about physical disease.
The Bible is not primarily a guidebook on health.
Suppose I wanted to prove that the Society doesn't use health considerations as a reason not to take a blood transfusion. I could make the following quotations:
Jehovah?s Witnesses have long refused blood transfusions, not primarily because of the health dangers. [Jehovah's] worshipers were to refuse to sustain their lives with blood, not primarily because doing so was unhealthy.
Suppose I wanted to prove that the Society admits that it is incompetent to argue about the health considerations and legal aspects of blood transfusions. I could quote as follows:
We are not primarily educators in medical practice or legal rights.
Suppose I wanted to prove that the Society prohibits Jehovah's Witnesses from giving the brochure "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" to doctors or lawyers. I could make the following quotation:
This new brochure is not primarily for doctors or lawyers.
Suppose I wanted to prove that the Watchtower Society no longer subscribes to the notion that the Bible is its primary source of religious instruction. I could make the following quotations:
The Bible book of Proverbs was primarily written to impart wisdom and discipline. The authors and compilers of the biblical books often had a variety of traditions, legends and writings before them, and they edited these for their purpose, which was not primarily to convey historical information . . . the "writing does not give an accurate account, according to modern historical perspective". DOES modern science make it impossible to believe the Bible? Some appear to think so, but we should remember that the Bible is not primarily a science textbook. Many are surprised when they first read the Bible. They find that it is not primarily a book about religious observances.
I could try to support this by claiming that the Society acknowledges that the Jews were a filthy people:
The [Jews] were not primarily concerned with hygiene.
I could try to prove that the Society now agrees that religious instruction is dangerous to one's mental health:
An apostle?s purpose was not primarily to stimulate thinking.
I could argue that the Society now says that the Bible has no relevance for our day:
The apostle Matthew?s account of Jesus? life was written primarily with the Jews in mind.
Or I could argue exactly the opposite, that the Bible had no relevance for the times in which it was written:
THERE is every reason to believe that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, the divinely inspired record telling us of the purpose and the personality of the true God, Jehovah. There is also every reason to believe that it was primarily written for our day. What proves that the Bible was written primarily for the "last days"? The ancient Hebrew Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi were written primarily for the instruction of the Christian congregation of God. All the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written directly to the Christian congregation and primarily for the Christian congregation.
I could easily multiply these examples tenfold. It's obvious that the only way to make the above quotations appear to be valid is to ignore the larger context of the Watchtower Society's overall views, and often, the surrounding text -- even though the words I quoted are exactly what is printed in the Society's publications.
Obviously, by selective quoting, a dishonest author can make source references appear to say anything he wants. This is precisely what the Watchtower Society so often does in its literature. The poster who calls himself "scholar" has also been caught many times doing the same thing.
Watchtower Misrepresentation of Bible Chronologist Edwin Thiele
A good example is "scholar's" defense of the Watchtower Society's misrepresentation of the views of noted Bible chronologist Edwin Thiele by making an unfair use of a clarifying note that he wrote in various editions of his book The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. In the book Aid to Bible Understanding, under the subject "Chronology", the Society attempted to discredit the reliability of the Royal Canon (a list of middle eastern kings from about 743 B.C. to about 160 A.D.) published by astronomer Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century A.D. as an aid to astronomical calculations. The Society wanted to discredit this because the king list conflicts with its own "Bible chronology" of Neo-Babylonian times, which in turn proves that the various "Gentile times" calculations leading to the all-important Watchtower date 1914 are completely wrong.
Now, early on in his books, Thiele made it extremely clear that he considered Ptolemy's Canon to be completely reliable as a historical guide. Here is what he stated, on pages 43-46 of the revised (1965) edition of his book:
In addition to these important documents which provide a check on the accuracy of the [Assyrian] eponym canon prior to the middle of the eighth century B.C., there is another document which provides a check on its accuracy for the period following the middle of the eighth century B.C., namely, the canon of Ptolemy. . . What makes the canon of such great importance to modern historians is the large amount of astronomical material recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest, making possible checks as to its accuracy at almost every step from beginning to end. . . The dates of the Nabonassar era have thus been fully established, and once the method of procedure involved in the reckoning of the years of the kings is understood, the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence. Since Ptolemy's canon gives precise and absolutely dependable data concerning the chronology of a period beginning with 747 B.C., and since the Assyrian eponym canon carries us down to 648 B.C., it will be seen that there is a century where these two important chronological guides overlap and where they may be used as a check upon each other. . . When the student has at his disposal chronological materials so dependable as the Assyrian eponym list and the Ptolemaic canon, he may have complete assurance that he has a solid foundation upon which to build.
To discredit Ptolemy's Canon, the Aid book's first paragraph on the topic gives some negative general comments about it and other ancient historical sources. The next paragraph begins by giving Ptolemy himself a negative slant, so as to discredit him as a credible witness to the historical information on Babylonian kings given in his Canon: "Ptolemy was not a historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography." It then supports this negative slant with a quotation from Thiele's book, appendix G: "As E. R. Thiele states: 'Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical date which were then available.' " The Society's use of "as" shows that the quotation was made in support of its overall thesis that Ptolemy's Canon is not to be trusted.
Now, any competent reader, knowing the overall context of Thiele's views, understands that Thiele's comment in the note that the Society quoted was in no way inconsistent with his overall view that the Canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable. Thiele did not say that Ptolemy was not a historian (Thiele had already stated that he was; p. 43, 1965 ed.; p. 46, 1951 ed.), nor did he say that the Canon is inaccurate in any way, but that Ptolemy compiled the Canon primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. Anyone with half a brain understands that historical material accurate enough to be used for astronomical purposes must be completely accurate, so it's obvious that Thiele's statement about the Canon not being primarily for historical purposes is not a statement about its accuracy, but about its purpose. Thus, Thiele's statements in his book are completely consistent with his view the Ptolemy's Canon is completely accurate (but incomplete) with respect to its historical data.
Given the above, it is obvious that the Society knowingly quoted Thiele out of context by making him appear to support the claim that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable. This is obvious because Thiele explicitly stated that the Canon can be used "with the fullest confidence" and "gives precise and absolutely dependable data".
In the book The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation, author Edmond Gruss describes his writing a letter to Edwin Thiele and asking for comments about the Society's misrepresenting his views. Thiele replied: "It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound."
For a full account of the above, see the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/86231/1.ashx
Thiele's statement that the Society's treatment of his words reminds him "of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound" well describes much of Watchtower literature. The authors are rarely interested in truth per se, but in supporting Watchtower traditions. In many threads on this board, and in many essays and books, I and other writers have thoroughly documented hundreds of instances of the Society's misrepresenting of source references.
The thing I truly don't understand about such grossly dishonest people as Watchtower writers and "scholar" is how they think they can get away with lying to defend their God Jehovah and their god the Watchtower Society. The Bible itself condemns trying to defend God by such practices:
Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God?s case for him? Be careful that he doesn?t find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. Doesn?t his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot. (Job 13:7-12; New Living Translation)
Do these imitation Christians really think that their omniscient God doesn't see what they're doing?
AlanF