Is is true that the Watchtower misquotes people to support their claims?

Question

If so can you provide examples

Answer 1

Absolutely. A misquote is also a quote taken out of context, or a partial quote. This is a classic example. It's subtle, but your patience will be rewarded.

In the year 1876 the 24 year old Russell (founder of the organisation) contributed to an article in the magazine 'Bible Examiner'. This is what he wrote, from the JW book, 'Bible Examiner', Vol XXI, Number 1, October 1876, page 27, article written by JW founder Pastor Russell, called "Gentile Times: When Do They End?":

"At the commencement of our Christian era, 606 years of this time had passed, which deducted from 2520, would show that the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, "Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us." When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to peices; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nations, and they acknowledge him King of Kings and Lord of Lords."

Then, in the JW book, 'God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached', page 186 they quote the above article. 'In that article (page 27) Russell said: "The seven times will end in A.D. 1914." ' FULL STOP. END OF QUOTE.

Now, ask yourself, why did they fail to use ALL of Russell's quote? Could it be due to his prediction that Armageddon would come in 1914, with the deliverance of the city of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel, and victory over earth's kings? THAT WAS A FALSE PROPHESY. Russell did not believe (as JW's do now) that 1914 merely marked a 'legal' point before God. JW's long stopped beleiving God would deal with literal Jerusalem and the physical nation of Israel. Now JW's think 1914 was the INVISIBLE second coming of Christ and that he is to come a THIRD time, visibly, some time during the future great tribulation, and Armageddon won't happen till after then.

If they are capable of manipulating the quotations of their founder, in order to vindicate their ever-changing prophesies, then let the reader beware.

Answer 2

Watchtower Misquotes

Answer 3

It's very important to know the difference between misquoting and quoting out of context. The Watchtower Society is VERY careful never to actually misquote. But they quote out of context to try to claim support for unbiblical teachings / translations. Suzanne's examples are actually ones of quoting out of context. Let me give you another one:

The 1st July "Watchtower" 1979 PARTIALLY quoted German Doctor of Theology, J. Schneider, on the subject of God and Christ to 'prove' that "...when theologians confine themselves to what the Bible, rather than later Church doctrines says, often the result is what this magazine has long been championing." I obtained the book and soonm realised the danger of accepting, without verification, the Society's partial quotes. In complete opposition to what the "Watchtower" has long been championing, Dr Schneider supports the RSV translation of John 1:1 which contradicts the Society's translation. Dr Schneider said:

"The fact that there is no definite article before theos here has been taken to imply that the Word may be understood as being some kind of divine being but not in the fullest sense of the term. Such views have been mput forward from Origen whose views were taken up by the Arians in the fourth century, to the Jehovah's Witnesses today." He concluded his article by saying:

"E. Stauffer is doubtless correct when he writes, 'The Christology of the N.T. is carried to its logical conclusion with the thorough-going designation of Christ as theos." - God.

A few pages later Dr Schneider wrote another article under the heading "8. The Trinity". He made the point that the N.T. does not contain the DEVELOPED doctrine of the Trinity, but showed, briefly, the basis for the doctrine. As the article was only of three paragraph's duration, many other theological books were referred to for further information on the subject. To understand the full import of Schneider's statements, read from p79 (English translation) to p84.

After reading Dr Schneider's articles, I came to the conclusion that because he referred to the Witnesses as supporters of Arius, the Society had decided to refer to him as a supporter of the "Watchtower"! Nothing could be further from the truth. So, beware partial quotes (look out for the dots....) and always get hold of the original material quoted from and read the entire context to get the missing bits!

Answer 4

Despite what the first respondant has said, it is absolutely true. The Watchtower is a master at misquoting people and making them say in the Watchtower publications the opposite of what they REALLY said.
If you want a classic example, then get Exposing should you believe in the Trinity by Angel Arellano. He has gone and had a look at the quotes that are in that book and hasn't found one quoted correctly or in context.
Another documented case is Dr. Mantey (one of the best known NT Greek scholars) said that they quoted him out of context when they said he supported the translation of John 1:1. In his book that they quoted, HE SAID THE OPPOSITE. He said that it is a HORRIBLE translation.
These are 2 examples, but if you see Robertson's Word Pictures or Vine's being referenced, statistically speaking that reference will be not in context.

Answer 5

No.

Everyone on yahoo would be guilty of misquoting the bible if that was true. How many times have you or others have taken only one verse out of a chapter and posted on yahoo?

Are you misquoting Jesus by taking only a few words instead of a entire verse or chapter?

JWs simply quoted the works that showed that there is no pagan Egyptian God labeled Jesus in the bible Scriptures.

Answer 6

No!

I have studied the publications over many years, and i have checked many, many quotations and found them all to be precisely accurate. In fact I have scores of books in my own personal library that have been quoted by JW's.

I have also researched quotations that opposers to JW's have objected to. These opposers of JW's are out to deceive.

The publications of JW's often quote grammarians when discussing issues of biblical translation. Opposers may sometimes object that the publication 'failed to state' that the grammarians personal beliefs are different to JW's. (sometimes they even object that it was not stated the the author's personal belief was similar to JW's). But what does a persons personal belief have to do with technical issues of grammar?

The fact is that quotes are carefully presented in harmony with the authors intent. I believe that on a rare occasion an author, seeing that JW's used their arguments to support JW doctrine, then back tracked and claimed they did not mean what they had quite clearly stated previously.

An above answer gives examples of claimed misquotes with pdf documents to illustrate, at first they may apear to be misquotes but they are not.

For example a quotation of the Catholic Encyclopedia is presented as a misrepresentation, an editor has underlined portions to try to make this evident. The quoted words themselves though are accurate! The editor also underlines two statements by JW's about what the Catholic Enyclopedia admits (they are not actually quotes), those statements seem contradicted by the page of the enyclopedia shown (the one the short direct quotation was taken from). However a few pages earlier the encyclopedia makes this statement which certainly justifies the comments made in the JW book.

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Then there is an objection to the quote of Bishop Westcott from his commentary on the gospel of John. For many years following the publication of Colwells rule in 1933, Trinitarian scholars argued on the basis of it the the the theos of John 1:1c must be definite there by making an identification, today it is more common for Trinitarian scholars to understand it as qualitative. JW's understand it as indefinite and effectively qualitative. Westcott was quoted by JW's because he expresses the qualitative view. Yes, he is a Trinitarian, and maybe he would not choose to translate as does the NWT does, but JW's did not claim he wasn't a Trinitarian or that he would translate as does the NWT, just that he agrees on a point of grammar. Daniel B. Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics also quotes this same phrase of Westcott in his discussion of John 1:1 and the question of whether the theos of the third copulative clause is definite or indefinite. Actually whether it is indefinite or definite, both ways Trinitarian scholars are left with serious problems so that they look for a third option. Still it is not a misquote!!!

Next, the answer says:
The WBTS claims 16th Century writer Justus Lipsius supports their notion that Jesus was crucified on a "torture stake":

This is not true, no such claim is made!!!!!
This old book is simply used for it's illustration of crux simplex. The book also contains other pictures two of which are included in the essay "Impaled on a Stake"- a Result of Sectarian Bias? in the book Your Word is Truth.

Stephen D, has been far to hasty to be swayed by Suzannes post. It is sad when people are easily swayed by only half the evidence and unfounded claims and do not do their own careful research.

Answer 7

I've never seen them misquote someone. However, they tend to offer their own conjectures/judgments and state them as fact.

Note: You won't see me do this much, but in light of Suzanne's comment, I must recant. The Watchtower has misquoted someone on more than one occassion. Suzanne has done an excellent job and should be commended.

Answer 8

No, it's not true at all and it is not something that Jehovah's Witnesses have to do. Our beliefs are not based on people, but on the Bible.

What has happened is that some scholars, seeing that their published words about Greek grammatical matters could be used to support certain renderings of the NWT, have suddenly lost the courage of their convictions and have backtracked, lest they lose standing among their Trinitarian peers.

The WT publications have been careful to quote scholars accurately on grammatical issues. They do not, and need not, agree with every interpretation such scholars make on the basis of those grammatical issues if those interpretations are colored by Trinitarian dogma.

Those "examples" given by another poster are only examples of severe theological prejudice, and of the cowardice of some scholars who attempted to undermine their own scholarship when it was used by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Shame on such scholars!

Answer 9

Yes, the WBTS has done this many times. Here are a few examples from actual Watchtower publications:

1) They said noted scholar J. Mantey supported their mistranslation of John 1:1

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose43.pdf

When Mantey found out about it, he wrote this to the WBTS:

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose44.pdf

2) The WBTS also misquoted scholar Westcott to give the false impression he also supported the JW translation of the Bible:

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose45.pdf

But this is what Westcott REALLY wrote:

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose46.pdf

3) The WBTS misrepresented what the New Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose47.pdf

This is what the Encyclopedia REALLY said:

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose48.pdf

4) The WBTS claims 16th Century writer Justus Lipsius supports their notion that Jesus was crucified on a "torture stake":

http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose60.pdf

This is what Justus Lipsius REALLY wrote, together with illustrations:

Page 1: http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose61.pdf

Page 2: http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose62.pdf

Here's a complete translation without illustrations: http://blueletterbible.org/study/cults/exposejw/expose63.pdf

Sadly, there are more examples.

Answer 10

Not true at all Will.