How does the WTS mine quotes for their "scholarly inspired" articles ?

by mP 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  outsmartthesystem

  Search hard enough and long enough and you'll find SOMEONE that agrees with you.......or at least APPEARS to. Then you tout that person as though they are the leading expert in that field and voila! You have 7 million JWs that believe you! The JWs won't check on the credentials of that person nor will they check to see if that was his WHOLE quote.

  Here is a good example I wanted my disfellowshipping committee to address. They refused:

  Oct 1, 2011 WT "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed" - "Thus Christopher Walker of the British Museum says that Ptolemy's canon was "an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology" and was "not to provide historians with a precise record of the accession and death of kings".

  As you can see, the intent of the writer was to use Mr. Walker as a reference to back up the idea that Ptolemy's canon is unreliable since it's purpose was not to provide a precise record of kings. What they left out was what Mr. Walker said next.

  " "Nevertheless it has served as the backbone of the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods, and served reliably. There is no difficulty in correlating Ptolemy's chronology with the vast accumulation of data now available from Cuneiform sources."

  If they put the whole quote in their article......it would only serve to show that Ptolemy's canon is accurate. But they need to show it as INaccurate. How do we do that? Only quote the parts that suits our need! If you really think about it......the GB launches forth Theocratic Warfare against its own followers on a continual basis. I mean......they continually leave out parts of quotes that don't suit their need.....so ultimately......aren't they "withholding" the truth from those they have determined don't deserve to see it?
• 

  sir82

  They have apparently learned their lesson from the debacles regarding their out of context and misleading quotes in the Creation book, the Trinity brochure, various articles on blood, higher education, etc.

  It is becoming increasingly rare for them to specify where exactly a quote comes from. If they do, it is usually something that has been cited and quoted in earlier versions of their own "literature".

  For example, that "Those About to Die" quote is from a late-50's book, and has been quoted in various WT articles & books for over 40 years.

  Many other quotes are from early 20th or even 19th century works (of course they don't tell you that).

  Most often, all they do is give vague references like "a Bible scholar stated" or "one historian noted".
• 

  Ding

  I seem to remember that in CoC Ray said that Fred Franz used to consult all sorts of books and commentaries of Christendom (which ordinary JWs are forbidden to read).

  If you go through enough books, it's not hard to cherry pick sentences or parts of sentences that support your position.

  It's one thing to point out that your critics/opponents have conceded some point; it's quite another to make it seem as if they agree with you on a major issue when, in reality, they disagree with you completely.

  An example would be the Trinity.

  It's acceptable scholarship to point out that Jones is a trinitarian who admits that the Trinity is difficult to explain and understand.

  It's not acceptable scholarship to cherry pick Jones' writings in such a way as to make it seem that he doesn't believe in the Trinity any more than you do.
• 

  notjustyet

  WTBTS. " If the rank and file only knew what lengths we go to, to obtain library access"

  we do, we do,...

  ( I know that was not the real reason)

  NJY
• 

  leaving_quietly

  It is becoming increasingly rare for them to specify where exactly a quote comes from. If they do, it is usually something that has been cited and quoted in earlier versions of their own "literature".

  Ah, but the beauty of Google is that you can enter in a phrase in quotes and one can find the source rather quickly. Within minutes, if not seconds. Many older books are available through online archives, too. I do this very often because I cannot trust that any source is quoted properly, in its entirety, or within context. If I see elipses, I get very, very suspicious. If I don't see a source, I get very, very suspicous. If I DO see a source, I flag it to look up.

  And, now, to throw in one more, as we have recently seen, they reuse quotes from older publications. So, using the Watchtower Library, it's easy enough to search for a phrase, just like in Google, and find out where they've used it before.
• 

  Phizzy

  If I see the WT using a quote, I get very very suspicious.

  As I said above, I cannot believe that the Writing boys believe in any of it, to resort to the tactics that they do means they BLOODY WELL KNOW that they are lying.
• 

  Dazeds Better Half

  Blondie - I looked up mannix on wikipedia and it said that his book "those about to die" is non-fiction... So I guess that comment was not confirmed.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I once thought the writing department wax composed of quite unsophisticated men . such men proved the value of a liberal arts education. After reading several threads here, now I know how cunning they are. They know the Truth is not factual.. The quotes out of context revealed much

  .