The appearance of the dreaded ellipsis [. . .]

by LDH 12 Replies latest jw friends

  • LDH
    LDH

    Two well known posters have made references to the WBTS use of the ellipse in the publications within the past week.

    What, you may ask, is an ElLiPsIS and why should I care?

    el·lip·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (
    n. pl. el·lip·ses (-s

      1. The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.
      2. An example of such omission.
    1. A mark or series of marks (... or * * *, for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.
    2. IS the definition from Dictionary.com

      So this is a writer's tool that is used to shorten quoted text, but not change the meaning of the original text.

      However, the WBTS uses the ellipsis to shorten quoted text and change meanings entirely.

      Scully and Jankyn are two that have noted this. Perhaps others can provide an example?

      Lisa

      Ibid Class

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost



    Lisa:


    You're being very deep today, huh?

    OK, here goes:

    In the NWT the WTS completely change the meaning of the txts by using the ellipsis, such as:

    Colossians 1:16,17 They use it here to make it appear as though God created Jesus first, then all other things were created through him. They have the word "other" in brackets. The fact is that Colossians 1:16 teaches that Christ created "all things". Therfore, Christ cannot be a created being.

  • LDH
    LDH


    Ozzie you're too cute. Holy moly, nah I just thought it was a co-inky-dink when I saw that word twice in less than one week.

    I figured there may be lots of newbies here who don't know what an ellipsis is.

    I'm on my way to bed. Surely you're just waking up?

  • Scully
    Scully

    Here is another example where the WTS was caught with its pants down: lifting small out-of-context snippets from a secular article, and then twisting the author's intent to suit WTS ideology: Re: Comments You Will Not Hear at the 3-27-05 WT Study (complete article)

    Watchtower article:

    "APATHEISM." A commentator on religious affairs recently used that word to describe the stance many people maintain toward their faith. He explained: "The greatest development in modern religion is not a religion at all, it's an attitude best described as 'apatheism.' " Elaborating, he defined apatheism as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion." Many people, he observed, "believe in God ...; they just don't care much about him."

    Here is the actual article:

    Let it be

    Jonathan Rauch. The Atlantic Monthly. Boston: May 2003.Vol. 291, Iss. 4; pg. 34, 1 pgs

    Full Text (983 words)

    Copyright Atlantic Monthly Company May 2003

    [Headnote]

    The greatest development in modern religion is not a religion at all-- it's an attitude best described as "apatheism"

    It came to me recently in a blinding vision that I am an apatheist. Well, "blinding vision" may be an overstatement. "Wine-induced haze" might be more strictly accurate. This was after a couple of glasses of Merlot, when someone asked me about my religion. "Atheist" I was about to say, but I stopped myself. "I used to call myself an atheist" I said, "and I still don't believe in God, but the larger truth is that it has been years since I really cared one way or another. I'm"-that was when it hit me-- "an ... apatheist!"

    That got a chuckle, but the point was serious. Apatheism-a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's-- may or may not be something new in the world, but its modern flowering, particularly in ostensibly pious America, is worth getting excited about.

    Apatheism concerns not what you believe but how. In that respect it differs from the standard concepts used to describe religious views and people. Atheism, for instance, is not at all like apatheism; the hot-blooded atheist cares as much about religion as does the evangelical Christian, but in the opposite direction. "Secularism" can refer to a simple absence of devoutness, but it more accurately refers to an ACLU-- style disapproval of any profession of religion in public life-a disapproval that seems puritanical and quaint to apatheists. Tolerance is a magnificent concept, John Locke's inestimable gift to all mankind; but it assumes, as Locke did that everyone brims with religious passions that everyone else must work hard to put up with.

    And agnostics? True, most of them are apatheists, but most apatheists are not agnostics. Because-and this is an essential point-many apatheists are believers.

    In America, as Thomas Byrne Edsall reported in these pages recently, the proportion of people who say they never go to church or synagogue has tripled since 1972, to 33 percent in 2000. Most of these people believe in God (professed atheists are very rare in the United States); they just don't care much about him. They do care a bit; but apatheism is an attitude, not a belief system and the overriding fact is that these people are relaxed about religion.

    Even regular churchgoers can, and often do, rank quite high on the apatheism scale. There are a lot of reasons to attend religious services: to connect with a culture or a community, to socialize, to expose children to religion, to find the warming comfort of familiar ritual. The softer denominations in America are packed with apatheists. The apatheism of Reform Jews is so well known as to be a staple of synagogue humor. (Orthodox rabbi to Reform rabbi: "One of my congregants says his son wants a Harley for his bar mitzvah. What's a Harley?" Reform rabbi to Orthodox rabbi: "A Harley is a motorcycle. What's a bar mitzvah?")

    Finally, and this may seem strangest of all, even true-believing godliness today often has an apatheistic flavor. I have Christian friends who organize their lives around an intense and personal relationship with God, but who betray no sign of caring that I am an unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual. They are exponents, at least, of the second, more important part of apatheism: the part that doesn't mind what other people think about God.

    I believe that the rise of apatheism is to be celebrated as nothing less than a major civilizational advance. Religion, as the events of September 11 and after have so brutally underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces. To be in the grip of religious zeal is the natural state of human beings, or at least of a great many human beings; that is how much of the species seems to be wired. Apatheism, therefore, should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency, like my collapse into a soft chair after a long day. Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement.

    "A world of pragmatic atheists," the philosopher Richard Rorty once wrote, "would be a better, happier world than our present one." Perhaps. But best of all would be a world generously leavened with apatheists: people who feel at ease with religion even if they are irreligious; people who may themselves be members of religious communities, but who are neither controlled by godly passions nor concerned about the (nonviolent, noncoercive) religious beliefs of others. In my lifetime America has taken great strides in this direction, and its example will be a source of strength, not weakness, in a world still beset by fanatical religiosity (al Qaeda) and tyrannical secularism (China).

    Ronald Reagan used to insist that he was religious even though, as President, he hardly ever entered a church. It turns out he was in good company. Those Americans who tell pollsters they worship faithfully? Many of them are lying. John G. Stackhouse Jr., a professor of theology and culture, wrote recently in American Outlook magazine, "Beginning in the 1990s, a series of sociological studies has shown that many more Americans tell pollsters that they attend church regularly than can be found in church when teams actually count" In fact, he says, actual churchgoing may be at little more than half the professed rate. A great many Americans, like their fortieth President, apparently care about religion enough to say they are religious, but not enough to go to church.

    You can snicker at Reagan and the millions of others like him; you can call them hypocrites if you like. I say, God bless them, every one.

    [Author Affiliation]

    Jonathan Rauch is an Atlantic correspndent.

    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

    Subjects:

    Religion, Atheism, Social conditions & trends

    Locations:

    United States, US

    Article types:

    Commentary

    ISSN/ISBN:

    10727825

    Text Word Count

    983
  • carla
    carla

    I believe there are web pages devoted to this subject. Try looking under 'is the NWT accurate'? or 'scholarly' or pick any word to denote possible falseness.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    They can also selectively quote without an ellipsis. Here is an example:

    ***w90 7/15 p. 23 ‘Against Knowledge—Falsely So Called’ ***

    The writings of Irenaeus are also an invaluable index of at least some of the Scriptural views still held by professed adherents to God’s Word at the end of the second century C.E. Irenaeus repeatedly reaffirms belief in "one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation." These facts the Gnostics denied!

    If Irenaeus is an indicator of "Scriptural views" still maintained by faithful Christians, as the Society makes him out to be, then it is instructive to note the entire creed that the Society has quoted a portion of:

    "[We believe] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and Savior and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.10.1).

    (1) What the Society has quoted is actually a portion of a triadic formula of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, (2) Jesus is described as ascending into heaven "in the flesh," a view that the Society denies, maintaining exactly the same docetic view that the Gnostics held which Irenaeus condemns. It is thus sweetly ironic that the Society quotes Irenaeus with approval and describes the Gnostics with such disapproval, (3) Jesus is also called "our Lord and God," a statement that accords deity to Christ, just as Irenaeus does elsewhere:

    "God became man, and it was the Lord himself who saved us." (Adversus Haereses, 3.21.1)

    "How can they be saved unless he was God who wrought their salvation on earth? And how shall man pass to God unless God has passed into man (ho theos ekhóréthé eis anthrópon)" (Adversus Haereses, 4.33.4)
    "Therefore the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for He who is born from God is God. And thus God is shown to be one according to the essence of His being and power; but at the same time, as the administrator of the economy of our redemption, he is both Father and Son: since the Father of all is invisible and inaccessible to creatures, it is through the Son that those who are to approach God must have access to the Father." (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 47)
    "No other name of the Lord has been given under heaven, whereby men are saved, but that of God who is Jesus Christ the Son of God, whom even the devils obey, and the evil spirits, and all rebel powers" (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 96).

    So if Irenaeus is an indicator of true "Scriptural views", why isn't the Society teaching that Jesus is God? Oh that's right, they don't mean the real Irenaeus, they just mean the half-quoted Irenaeus that they mold in their image.

  • atypical
    atypical

    LDH, thank you, I did not know the word until this thread. However, I have noticed for a long time the society's use of the "brackets" to insert whatever they want. I have been going back and reading WTS material with my new mindset, and I am amazed each time I see the ellipsis (sp?) at how much they can change the meaning.

    Paradigms, paradigms........

  • TD
    TD

    I’ve noticed that sometimes JW writers don’t even bother with ellipses. One quote that appears over and over in their literature goes like this:

    "Accordingly, in its March 1880 issue, Zion’s Watch Tower declared: "The Times of the Gentiles extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then." Thus the group today known as Jehovah’s Witnesses went on public record well over a hundred years ago in making known that the year 1914 would mark the beginning of God’s Kingdom." Awake! October 22, 1989 pp. 20,21

    JW literature uses this quote to substantiate the idea that they both foresaw and announced the establishment of God’s heavenly kingdom in 1914 and it has been reproduced in this context over and over in their literature.

    (Examples include Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy p.261; The Watchtower, April 1, 1984 p.6; April 15, 1984 pp.3-4; July 1, 1973 p.402; August 1, 1971 p. 468; From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained p. 170)

    However, the idea that the kingdom was established in heaven in 1914 was not taught until 1925. Prior to this, the Bible Students were waiting for the kingdom to be established on the earth. The complete sentence reads:

    "The "Times of the Gentiles" extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then, but as a "Stone" the kingdom of God is set up "in the days of these (ten gentile) kings," and by consuming them it becomes a universal kingdom—a "great mountain and fills the whole Earth." Zion’s Watch Tower March 1880 p.2

    As it was used in the source material, the term "full sway" was an explicit reference to the point in time after the "stone" crushes the dream image of Daniel and therefore meant complete control over the earth.

    By quoting this sentence only partially; punctuating it as if it were complete and failing to indicate this omission with ellipses, JW writers turn a failed prediction into a successful prediction

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Good point, TD. Also, they tell a direct lie when they indicate that Watchtower in 1980 believed the Kingdom would BEGIN in 1914. The "Herald of Christ's Presence" was heralding his enthronement in heaven in 1978.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • Jankyn
    Jankyn

    Thanks, Lisa, for bringing this up. There may be newbies or lurkers who are just beginning to look at the literature with a critical eye, and I think it's incredibly useful to have some tools to do that sort of necessary work.

    How can readrs know what to believe if they can't identify credible sources? The WTBS is like the WeSaySo Corporation from that 1990s TV show "Dinosaurs": "It's true because WE SAY SO." And of course we all know what happened to the dinosaurs.

    I love talking about this stuff. I taught freshman English at two universities when I was doing my graduate work, and I would have flunked any student who attributed sources and quoted material as poorly--and as deceptively!--as the WTBS does.

    The first thing I noticed as a youngster learning about writing was the use of ellipses to remove information from quotes. I was reprimanded by an English teacher for using ellipses in such a way that the meaning of the quote was altered, and it made me wonder about the excessive use of the ellipsis in the Society's publications--since that's where I'd learned it in the first place!

    To this day, I'm suspicious of an ellipsis. When I see one, I go running for the "Works Cited" page to check the original source. Really good authors will put the whole quote in a note for their readers if all they're doing is cutting for length. Even the merely competent will at least have a citation that allows the reader to locate the original item for purposes of comparison.

    The use of brackets in editing is generally to make references clear, and it usually needs to be done when the author has made a hash of indefinite articles and/or pronouns or to clarify the original subject of a long quote.

    The problem is that the WTBS rarely if ever sources material, and so readers never know for sure where the cuts were made or what the original subject might have been. When I read their literature now, I clench my jaw with frustration. That's the single most dishonest thing they do in their writing (well, other than the outright lies): Failing to provide adequate--or any--citations for source material.

    I stress when teaching that every quote must have a citation and every claim of fact must have a source. Then we spend a great deal of time on evaluating sources. Most reasonable adults know that an item's mere appearance in print or on a Web site does not guarantee its veracity--that is, unless the adult in question is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the item in question was printed in WTBS materials. Then of course it must be true!

    And I could write a linguistics paper on the sneaky way that WTBS writers use logical fallacies (wonderfully exposed in some earlier posts) and agentless passive construction to lead a naive reader blindly along a very shaky path of reasoning. (Example: "It is a well-known fact..." Well-known by whom? or "Throughout history..." Whose history? Reported by whom?)

    My mother always used to tell me, usually while lecturing me about reading too much "worldly" literature, "You can't believe everything you read, you know!" Unfortunately, she's never applied the same rules to her own reading material. Arrgh.

    Jankyn, sick of ellipses and brackets.

  • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit