The research of Doug Mason, AnnOMaly, and others have been eye opening in regards to the Society's recent articles on 607 BC. What I find most disturbing is the misrepresentations of scholars, who are quoted in such a way to say one thing, when they meant something completely different. It is one thing to teach a doctrine, and quite another to play fast and loose with the truth. The validity of any one doctrine has no bearing on the matter, the Great Issue here is that of honest and credibility.
A few weeks ago, I remember reading an experience of a young man who had a college assignment, and he chose the topic of Blood as his subject. Using the Blood brochure as a frame of reference, he began to read the cited quotes from experts in context, and found that time and time again, the experts were misrepresented. He was shocked by what he found.
It would be interesting to see examples of misrepresentations in a consolidated thread. Have any found other misquotes in your research? Perhaps, if it is not too much trouble, these can be shared: the misquote versus what the source material meant in context. I would be most grateful and I think it would be helpful for others who are finally awakening to these matters.
