Deceptive WT Quotes

by Vanderhoven7 8 Replies latest jw friends

  • Vanderhoven7

    Are there other WTS quotes, such as the following, that clearly demonstrate deception (cover up) on the part of the organization.

    "Jehovah's Witnesses have consistently shown from the Scriptures that the year 1914 marked the beginning of this world's time of the end and that "the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men" has drawn near." Watchtower 1993 Aug 15 p.9

    "THE "Time of the End," a period of one hundred and fifteen (115) years, from A.D. 1799 to A.D. 1914, is particularly marked in the Scriptures. "The Day of His Preparation" is another name given to the same period " Studies in the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come p.23

  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    i was just digging around my old JWN accounts that i lost access to and found a few nice threads like this one:

    "'It was in B.C. 606, that God's kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles. 2520 years from B.C. 606, will end in A.D. 1914.' - The Three Worlds, published in 1877, page 83."

    footnote: "Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 BC, the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914." - See "The Truth Shall Make You Free," published by the Watch Tower Society in 1943, page 239."

  • jwfacts
  • Freedom4all
  • Vanderhoven7

    J.H. Thanks for digging around

    Paul: Thank you. Your site is one of the greatest sources of information I know.

    Freedom4all: Belgian Dutch ancestry only I'm afraid. Thanks for trying though.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Someone had a chart with the WT statements, supposedly summarizing a secular source, and the actual source. Once upon a time, I thought they just did not know how to research. The chart showed outright lies. Many a secular professor has demanded retraction or published clarification, concerned that the WT was deliberately misquoting their research.

    Anyone with a high school education should realize the above statements are theories, not facts. I see no references cited. Before I attended college, I was actually quite impressed with all the so-called secular citations. I view it as eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. After high school, I can just laugh so hard at the Witness assertions. Most of what they claim can never be verified. How do you explain to those with little knowledge what they are doing?

    The average educated reader does not even have to check the source to know you cannot use it to make the assertions. It is a looney bin. I don't believe that my family and I were fools or stupid. We did not have the resources to know better. The Witnesses were doomed by my ongoing education.

    I try so hard here to explain a basic knowledge of the First Amendment and what courts will allow. Many thank me for it. Others get angry b/c they don't know how it works. They want justice and their justice. I explain that law and justice don't have much to do with each other. Law serves property interests and almost always backs the status quo. Of course, one viewing of schlock shows such as Nancy Grace convinces many that I am simply wrong. The honest view is that this garbage impressed me. Were it not for other events in my life, it would continue to impress me.

    The only antidote I see is the teaching of critical thinking skills from elementary school. There is also incredible arrogance on the part of the Witnesses to delve into areas that can not be proven. Another reveal that is embarassing. When I was young, I thought that anything in printed book had legitimacy. My one problem with Witness literature was the vivid colors. My textbooks and books at the public library were never orange, purple, lurid green, etc. I wondered why they printed books in such odd colors. The books seemed tainted. I wanted stately green, brown, black, etc.

    I am interested if others had the same reactions I did as a young person. My exposure to the world was so limited. I heard of Handel, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Yet I only had access to polka music and Motown. Now I cry when I listen to classical pieces. If you never hear them, how do you know what you are missing? The same is true of fine art. Oh, I longed to see Rembrandt, DaVinci, all the famous names. Never seeing them growing up, how could I appreciate the difference?

  • BluesBrother

    The "Creation Book" 1985 said , page 39 par 5

    "At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique."

    Dawkins actually wrote

    "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction; it is science. Clich'e or not "stranger than fiction " expresses exactly how I feel about the truth.

  • BluesBrother

    Another one from that "Creation " book page 18

    Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”9 More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No.

    According to the edition of The Origin of Species published by Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952 (in the Great Books series), here is the entire quotation in context:

    "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

  • RayPublisher

Share this