Another changed WT publication from when it was first published to now

by ILoveTTATT2 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • ILoveTTATT2

    This is as it was originally, or at least at the time that Paul Grundy saw it, because he has this picture on jwfacts:

    This is what it says on jwfacts right now:

    Watchtower articles on evolution contain a consistent pattern of poor research, such as quotes from both the January and August Awake! magazines in 2015. The following attributes a quotation to Dawkins.

    ““The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter,” wrote evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.” Awake! 2015 Aug p.5

    This is not a quote from Dawkins, but from Ridley. A little bit or research uncovers this statement appears on page 37 of Richard Dawkings book The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. However, Dawkins is quoting from page 13 of Matt Ridley's 1999 book Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

    This is the Awake as it stands right now:

    So... conclusion is: THEY CHANGED IT!

    Another possible conclusion is that they do visit this site and other exJW sites.

    We as a community HAVE to get copies of EVERY WT PUBLICATION as soon as it is printed, because I am guessing these changes are going to be extremely common from now on.

  • sparky1

    "God damned APOSTATES caught me again! Old "Tight Pants Tony" is really going to give me an ass chewing this time...............

  • slimboyfat

    Yes it's going to become important to keep physical copies of the material as long as they keep producing it, and keep track of electronic versions and revisions too.

    In this case it seems they fixed a factual error in attributing a statement to the wrong author, which is fair enough. On other occasions they cover their tracks in more revealing ways. Such as when they revised comments about 1975 in the truth book after the date passed.

  • cofty

    "Genome" by Matt Ridley is an outstandingly good read.

  • ILoveTTATT2
    In this case it seems they fixed a factual error in attributing a statement to the wrong author, which is fair enough.

    Yes, agreed SBF, but, if they made changes, it would be the honest thing to do to point them out.

    For example, a NYT article I recently read about Gary Johnson and his "what is Aleppo" gaffe, said:

    Correction: September 8, 2016

    An earlier version of this article misidentified the de facto capital of the Islamic State. It is Raqqa, in northern Syria, not Aleppo.

    Correction: September 8, 2016

    An earlier version of the above correction misidentified the Syrian capital as Aleppo. It is Damascus.

    People make mistakes, they should show that there was a previous version to maintain transparency.
  • sir82

    Yes, agreed SBF, but, if they made changes, it would be the honest thing to do to point them out.

    Problem (for them) with that is, if they print a retraction / correction, it is an admission of error.

    It opens the slipperiest of slopes (for them). They paint an image that their words are "instruction from Jehovah" - infallible.

    If they print something "wrong" - well, who was wrong? Jehovah? or themselves?

    If themselves - why did they print it? Didn't they hear Jehovah? Was there static on the line?

    Most importantly, if they got [X] wrong, well, what else is currently in print that is wrong? Maybe readers should start independently fact-checking their statements?

    Hoo-boy, what a mess they'd be in!

    Far better to just quietly slip in corrections and not say anything.

    99% of JWs won't notice the difference - heck, most don't even bother to read the "literature" anyway.

  • ILoveTTATT2
    It opens the slipperiest of slopes (for them).
    I disagree. There were lots of "from our readers" that pointed out mistakes, and sometimes, they would actually thank the reader for the correction. They stopped printing this section in 2012 apparently. Here was one of the last ones:

    *** g 6/12 p. 29 From Our Readers ***
    I was a little disappointed and dismayed to see “adult diapers” mentioned in the article. The term is very demeaning to anyone who is in the situation of having to wear protective underwear. Not one of the commercial packages containing “protective helps” uses the word diaper.
    Name withheld, United States
    “Awake!” responds: Thank you for bringing this point to our attention. Our heart goes out to anyone who is dealing with serious health problems, and we certainly do not want to add to a person’s suffering by using terms that some may consider to be demeaning. We apologize for any distress this may have caused our readers.

    They can afford to be honest and admit corrections in the publications.
  • sir82

    Yeah, I guess it depends on what the correction is for.

    Even the most brain-dead JW wouldn't think Jehovah is instructing his followers about "Depends".

  • slimboyfat

    Yeah the comments from readers section is what I used to read first. In fact it was probably the only part worth reading. Also the news section, sometimes.

  • steve2

    It is an admirable thing to admit errors and mistakes and correct them. Secular publications routinely do so.

    The Awake! had also begun admitting errors and printing corrections starting a few decades ago, but has since stopped doing it. Perhaps it made JW publications seem too subject to human error whereas JW org needs to create illusion Jehovah directs the organization?

Share this