Image all important to WT

by Outaservice 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Outaservice

  I found it interesting in the July 1st WATCHTOWER (the public's edition) that in their introduction to the article 'Coping With Grief' they feature a Scripture from Gen. 37:35 and under it the caption, 'The Holy Bible-New International Version'.

  Are they trying to show how reasonable they are to the public by refering to the NIV instead of their biased New World Translation? Got to keep up that 'image'!

  Also, in that same magazine in an article on 'Tel Arad', a place by the way, I have visited, it again mentions that......" The findings at Tel Arad cover a long period of Bible history, ranging from the days of the Judges of Israel down to the Babylonian invasion of Judah in 607 B.C.E." The still cling to that date 607 in view of OVERWHELMING evidence that they are 20 years off. (See the book, THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED by Carl Olaf Jonnson. Can't let the stack of cards fall!

  Outaservice
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Most Witnesses have no idea that 607 B.C. is the exclusive property of the WTBTS. Most take it for granted that the date is correct. After all, how many of us researched every date mentioned in the WT's publications to make sure they were historically accurate? Plus, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians lacks the historical significance to make it into the curriculum of most high school history courses. Hell, I had a bachelor's degree with a minor in history and I didn't know the date was incorrect until I allowed myself to view anti-JW websites and reading material.
• 

  insearchoftruth

  My wife is a history minor and I am trying to think of a way to fold the date issue into a discussion with her, but I need her to have a WT out, or maybe a looking through reasoning with the scriptures as a starting point. I think we have a few of her history books out and about that I could 'do some research from' to get this question going.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  Do you watch the History Channel? If so, you could say you saw a show on there that said the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed on a different date and you decided to look into it. I watch a lot of THC and I've heard the topic of Jerusalem's invasion come up in one of their shows recently with 586 listed as the official date for it.

  If I'm not mistaken, the Aid volume had some 607 material under "chronology," which was subsequently taken out in the Insight volumes. Maybe you can use that discrepency to get her attention. Just a thought.
• 

  Honesty

  Here is some information what the Watchtower has printed in regards to the Babylonian kings and how the lengths of their reigns can be calculated to arrive at the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Using ONLY comments by the Watchtower Society and one scripture we can rather easily see their chronology regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. There is really not much to learn here, either: No astronomy, no neo-Babylonian tablets, and no confusing Bible versus will be presented. Just the names of five people and several quotes from Watchtower publications will be used. Also, there is no need to quibble over things like regnal years, ascension years, cardinal and ordinal numbers, etc. Remember, 607 B.C. is a full 20 years earlier than the accepted date of 586/87 B.C. and all the tinkering with a few months here and few partial year reigns there cannot make up a difference of twenty years. Another tricky part to remember is that in order to calculate dates we have to count BACKWARD as you go forward when dealing with time before Christ came to earth. We have to start AFTER the date of Jerusalem's fall with a date and event that is agreed upon by both the WTS and secular historians. From this date we will count backward by counting forward. That date is 539 B.C., the date that Babylon fell to Cyrus the Mede. Keep in mind we are trying to find the date Jerusalem fell.

  Insight on the Scriptures published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in volume 1 on page 425 under "Chaldea" has a complete list of the Babylonian kings from Nabopolassar to
  Balshazzar:
  
  "Particularly was this domination manifest during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. when Nabopolassar, a native of Chaldea, and his successors, Nebuchadnezzar II, Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk), Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, Nabonidus, and Belshazzar, ruled the Third World Power, Babylon."
  _______________________________________________________
  
  Insight on the Scriptures published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in volume 2 on page 480 under "Nebuchadnezzar" tells us that he ruled as king for 43 years:
  
  Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years...
  _______________________________________________________
  
  An article entitled, "The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived" on page 29 in the January 1,1965 Watchtower magazine lists the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar II's successors from Evil-Merodach to Nabonidus who, in this article the Watchtower confirms was ruler of Babylon when Cyrus conquered it in 539 B.C.:
  
  Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
  _______________________________________________________
  
  Let's summarize (remember we have to go backwards starting in 539
  B.C. with Nabonidus):
  
  Nabonidus ruled Babylon until it fell in 539 B.C. to Cyrus.
  
  Labashi-Marduk ruled for 9 months.
  
  Neriglissar ruled for 4 years.
  
  Evil-Merodach ruled for 2 years.
  
  Nebuchadnezzer ruled for 43 years.
  
  17 years + 9 months + 4 years + 2 years + 43 years = 66 to 67 years.
  
  Starting at 539 B.C. and going back 66/67 years we arrive at 605/606 B.C. for the start of the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.
  
  2nd Kings 25:8-10 tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzer's reign, so if we go forward 19 years from 605/606 B.C. we will have the approximate years of the destruction of Jerusalem.
  
  Nineteen years after 605/606 B.C. brings us to 586/587 B.C. which agrees with all secular evidence.
• 

  james_woods

  One thing I have never understood was all the talk from the platform on wearing nice white shirts and the tie, using conservative business suits, having the elder's haircut, and the equivalent for the women. The reason given was to present a very respectable appearance to the world "so as not to bring scorn on the organization".

  Then, they proceed to teach and do things that make them as derisionable as a circus clown walking around in public on Christmas Day...talk about bringing scorn!

  The whole door-to-door act, the weird beliefs like blood transfusions, the false prophecies, the refusal to salute the flag, the ban on every holiday ever celebrated by any culture on earth, cutting off your "worldly" relatives as much as possible, the stupid name tags during the convention...the list is endless.

  Why not just wear saffron robes? - nobody is giving them much less of a razz than they would an airport monk.
• 

  WTWizard

  There are only two ways for an organization to get an image. The first is to earn it. The second is to force the members to fake it.

  As I see it, they could have earned a positive image had they made good on their promises to me at the outset, and helped me with the opposite sex. True, there would still have been problems. However, that is the one that they blatantly promised to fix for me, and then blew it. And I judge any organization or "secret" society based on what it costs to be with them versus the benefits. If the benefits outweigh the cost, then I view it as a good organization to belong to even if they have problems within themselves and are not absolutely correct.

  The flip side is, if they have no benefits, or if the costs consistently outweigh the benefits, then it is not a good organization. When they demand I fake allegience to an organization where the cost of belonging outweighs the benefits, they might temporarily gain the image they want. However, it will not last. And, eventually they will have a nasty balloon payment come due, and I will turn against them. Once it is clear that the cost of belonging to the organization outweighs the benefits, then they are not going to be able to use being put out to keep me supporting that false image.

  Perhaps if they used the same "You reap what you sow" scripture they put out for the members to follow, they might have fared better.
• 

  james_woods

  I guess you could say that the Quakers or the Mennonites have earned an image with clothes. The Catholics too, if you only count their Pope, Clergy, and the Nuns.

  Well, the Witnesses have certainly also earned an image. And it did not come from clothes. That image is false prophecy...bothering ordinary people at their door selling literature...and letting your kids die over a blood transfusion.

  This is what the general public really thinks of the witnesses, and so it will continue to be probably for all the years they exist.