What are your favorite WT misquotes?

by ithinkisee 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee

    We hear a lot on this board how the Society likes to misquote scientists, encyclopedias, and so forth.

    What are your favorite and most offensive misquotes from the Society when you went to do some fact-checking?

  • carla
    carla

    The ever famous Mantey letters.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    When they quote Jesus:

    Luke 12: 32 “Have no fear, little flock, because YOUR Father has approved of giving YOU the kingdom.

    But apply the wrong sense to the words by never mentioning the context of verse:

    Luke 12: 1 In the meantime, when the crowd had gathered together in so many thousands that they were stepping upon one another, he started out by saying first to his disciples

    Same with the misquotation over the "other sheep".

    Slim

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    1 Thes 4:16

    the Lord* will desend with the call of the archangel.....

    the footnote says *Jehovah



  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    *** kc ("Let Your Kingdom Come") p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***

    Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

    Reply from Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr:

    I am dismayed at the use made of.... my chronological lists by the Watch Tower Society. I fear that some earnest folk will reach for any straw to support their already-arrived-at conclusions. This is most certainly a case of doing just that.... there was absolutely no intent to suggest that there was leeway of as much as twenty years for the dates relating to Babylonia and Judah.... the 587-6 date can be off by no more than one year, while the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire.

    Reply from Campbell’s co-author Dr. Freedman

    This is one of the best-known periods of the ancient world, and we can be very sure that the dates are correct to within a year or so, and many of the dates are accurate to the day and month. There is therefore absolutely no warrant for the comments or judgments made by the Watch Tower Society based on a statement about our uncertainty. What I had specifically in mind was the disagreement among scholars as to whether the fall of Jerusalem should be dated in 587 or 586. Eminent scholars disagree on this point, and unfortunately we do not have the Babylonian chronicle for this episode as we do for the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). But it is only a debate about one year at most (587 or 586), so it would have no bearing upon the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses who apparently want to rewrite the whole history of the time and change the dates rather dramatically. There is no warrant whatever for that.
  • greendawn
    greendawn

    The increasing light as applied to dogmas of the WTS, in fact it applies to the lifestyle of the righteous, it's a clumsy attempt to cover their dogmatic incompetence.

    There can be no wrong dogmas in a truly God chosen and directed organisation even with imperfect human leaders.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    Here's a whole bunch of 'em I collected in part from JWD posts..... http://jwinfo.8m.com/misquotes.htm

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    God said:

    Joh 1:1

    ??? a?????? ?? ?? ??´???, ?a?` ?? ??´??? ?? p??`? t?`? Te?´?, ?a?` Te?`? ?? ?? ??´???.

    (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

    WT:

    Joh 1:1

    In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

    D Dog

    PS Ilike carlas too!

  • Check_Your_Premises
    Check_Your_Premises

    Actually I always thought a Misquotes site would be a really good sister site to Quotes.

    The setup is key though, otherwise the dub will read the quote thinking it means what the wt is trying to say it means, then when they read the actual quote they will fool themselves into believing that the wt didn't actually say that.

    I thought a neat little interactive would be key. Show a quote, offer a multiple choice list of what you actually think the quote means... then show the actual quote and ask what it really means.

    There really are a ton of these. The trinity brochure, the blood brochure, the ante-nicene fathers....

    CYP

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    Thanks Rebel8 for that link. I remember this quote from the creation book:

    Watchtower says: According to Carl Sagan, fossils could prove there is a Creator.-- Creation Book: Ch5 p.70 Source says: The quote in context states fossils prove the unlikelihood of a competent Creator. (Note: Carl Sagan does not speak highly of the WTS; in Broca’s Brain, he discussed the false apocalyptic predictions it made and how it reinvented its past statements when its predictions didn’t come true. He refers to this as “shamelessly dishonest”.)

    I remember how we all marvelled that someone like Carl Sagan could point to the existence of a Creator. It simply wouldn't occur to any brainwashed jw to look at a quote like that in context. It's little wonder that he referred to the wts as "shamelessly dishonest".

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    The Creation book claims that the famous author and paleontologist Richard Lewontin supports the notion that the "design" of living things proves the existence of a Supreme Creator. However, in the Scientific American article they quote, Lewontin says the exact opposite. Apparently the Society's author uncritically borrowed the wrong idea from one Francis Hitching, a paranormalist and the author of The Neck of the Giraffe, from which the Society's author borrowed many other wrong ideas. Hitching in turn uncritically borrowed the wrong idea from the young-earth creationist Gary Parker writing in the creationist pamphlet Impact. When Lewontin found out about Parker's misrepresentation, he lambasted Parker in print. I once confronted Parker with this, and he simply shrugged it off with something like, "I didn't misquote him." I later confronted the Creation book's author, editor-in-chief of Awake! Harry Peloyan, about this, and he also claimed there was no misquote. Lying hounds, all of them.

    The Creation book claims that a "scientific journal" said that man might only have been around for a few thousand years. Turns out this was Popular Science magazine, which is hardly a scientific journal. But the magazine never said that. Rather, in an article about how good radiocarbon dating is for dating human artifacts from several tens of thousands of years ago, it quoted a young-earth creationist who was merely giving his religious views.

    In the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand, the Society displays a chronological chart in which the date of Jerusalem's destruction is shown as 607 B.C. There is a footnote which claims that the date was changed from 606 to 607 B.C. on a specific page in the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free. But that book says nothing of the kind. So the Society is here even misquoting its own literature.

    AlanF

  • toreador
    toreador
    Alan wrote:In the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand, the Society displays a chronological chart in which the date of Jerusalem's destruction is shown as 607 B.C. There is a footnote which claims that the date was changed from 606 to 607 B.C. on a specific page in the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free. But that book says nothing of the kind. So the Society is here even misquoting its own literature.

    Did they simply miss the page number or is it completely non existent?

    Tor

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    toreador said:

    : Did they simply miss the page number or is it completely non existent?

    Non-existent.

    AlanF

  • toreador
    toreador

    Hi Alan,

    Hmmmmm, one has to wonder if they did it on purpose.

    Toreador

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Of course they did it on purpose. Fred Franz wrote the book, and he was probably the best liar the Watchtower Society has ever spawned.

    See here for details: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html

    AlanF

Share with others