Another LIE in December 8th Awake page 28

by Sherilynn 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Sherilynn

  Once again that mysterious 20 years pops up in JW Chronology forcing the 607 date for the 1914 date, blah, blah, blah

  http://www.jw.org/index.html?option=QrYQCsVrGZNT Partial Quote below from page 28:

  Those prophecies of destruction were fulfilled in 632 B.C.E. That is when Nineveh fell to the combined forces of the Babylonians

  and theMedes, bringing the Assyrian Empire to an inglorious end. A Babylonian chronicle of that event states that the conquerors “carried

  off the vast booty of the city and the temple” and turned Nineveh “into a ruin heap.”

  If your family members or friend hand you this Awake you may want to ask about this date and ask them to prove it, I am sure if you checked out the book referenced it will not have this date of 632. I just did quick search and found this site very interesting on dates:

  http://www.livius.org/ne-nn/nineveh/nineveh02.html

  History clearly shows that Nineveh fell in 612 not 632 and anyone just needs to do a search on internet as to what year Nineveh fell. Yet that average JW will not even think twice to question that date, just accept that they are being told "The Truth" but will only find 539 a truthful date and rest fixed to meet WTSB agenda for Christ's picking it as the only channel.

  So Sad that these men continue to follow a lie for the sake of a publishing corporation.

  Peace & Love,

  Sherilynn
• 

  undercover

  Nice catch, Sherilyn...

  On the same page it says that the 10 tribe kingdom was taken into exile in 740.. A quick Internet search showed various dates from 720 to 723.
• 

  Earnest

  Sherilynn, I would hardly describe this as a lie as they are not attributing these dates to some other author. Quite clearly a Babylonian chronicle wouldn't give any date in terms of B.C.E and the article is not claiming that.

  Whether or not Nineveh fell in 632 B.C.E. is a matter of chronology and the Society may well be wrong in their chronological calculations. But it is not a lie to express a conviction about when Nineveh fell.
• 

  drewcoul

  has the wbts ever even acknowledged that historical evidence points to 587 as the date for the destruction of jerusalem? as i understand it, the biblical account can be correct even if it were 587, but the 1914 and 1918 dates would be moot.
• 

  oldlightnewshite

  '...But it is not a lie to express a conviction...'

  My arse can play the banjo.

  Am I lying?

  It is my conviction. How dare you call me a liar?
• 

  undercover

  I would hardly describe this as a lie as they are not attributing these dates to some other author. Quite clearly a Babylonian chronicle wouldn't give any date in terms of B.C.E and the article is not claiming that.

  Whether or not Nineveh fell in 632 B.C.E. is a matter of chronology and the Society may well be wrong in their chronological calculations. But it is not a lie to express a conviction about when Nineveh fell.

  What?

  It's either right or it's not. If it's not right then one of two things happened: they made a mistake/typo when writing the article - or - they purposely presented false information as factual.

  If they did the latter, which from previous experience with their writings lends support to that scenerio, then it is by definition, a lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
• 

  Earnest

  It's either right or it's not. If it's not right then one of two things happened: they made a mistake/typo when writing the article - or - they purposely presented false information as factual.

  Sherilynn says "I am sure if you checked out the book referenced it will not have this date of 632". I think she is mistaken to suggest there is a reference to any book supporting the date of 632. I don't think she has made a typo nor do I think she purposely presented false information as factual. I am certainly not suggesting that she is lieing, only that she is mistaken.

  If, indeed, the article did claim a book supported the date of 632 when it did not that would be a lie. Simply because their chronological calculations have reached a different date to that commonly accepted may mean they are mistaken but nothing more.
• 

  funnyface

  Poor Earnest !!! He is still in the Watchtower
  In fAct he is in the same congregation as a woman who use to call me MUM
  Who ran off with the Elder of the Congregation. He left his wife & kids

  she left her very good husband. . Earnest when are you going to stop defending LIES!!!
  Of course both of the "sinners" repented & was reinstated.But they both shun me cos I couldnt believe
  in invisablity>>>>>>>>>> Give Rita & Alan a hug from Grace Gough please Ernest
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Wow, thanks Sherilynn! I'm gonna make a note of that one.

  Amazingly sad how they have to rewrite history in order to prop up Chuck Russel's numero-pyramidology to try to keep 1914 as somehow relevant.
• 

  Hairyhegoat

  It makes me sick how the jw's get away with this for so long. I am glad I have got my younger brother and his family out just last month, it's only a matter of time before the witchtower goes into administration, and then they have egg on there face..What a crock this religion is and if you read this take note, I hope you hide your ip address as I can trace anyone on this site, oh and have you guys tried a service of denial attack on jw.org ? This would bring there website down, what a shame the poor dubs carn't see tha lies anymore........