by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
I agree,... these articles may well backfire on the WTS.
For every one JW who is swayed by them to accept the party line on 607 because it is "too much effort", or "too complicated" to do otherwise, many many more who didn't even know there was an issue will now be exposed to its existence. Some of these may well go on and do the research and discover the short falls of the 607 timeline.
I hope so.
JWS don't question or critique the WTS information, they (WTS.) by their own self acknowledgment,
are god's specially chosen publishing house after all.
To question their expressed information with analytical scrutiny is forbidden.
Good religious brainwashing self posturing around and supported by literature proliferation.
Just read the WT article again...
Is this a NEW thought? They quote Jeremiah 44:1,2 in support of starting the 70 years after Jerusalems destruction (it being desolated and empty then)...
(Jeremiah 44:1-2) 44 The word that occurred to Jeremiah for all the Jews that were dwelling in the land of Egypt, the ones dwelling in Mig′dol and in Tah′pan?hes and in Noph and in the land of Path′ros, saying: 2 "This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘YOU yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant.
I've not seen this linked like this before.
The writer of this Watchtower article makes certain statements about Ptolemy's Alamagest. Specifically why Ptolemy omitted from his list the names of some of the ruling kings of Babyon. The writer uses the word "Evidently" when giving a reason for Ptolemy's omissions.
Do you think the writer of that article ever read The Alamagest, or did they just look up what other people wrote concerning it?
Ptolemy's Almagest
Ptolemy (Author), G. J. Toomer (Translator), Owen Gingerich (Foreword)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691002606/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
In the first paragraph of the article appeas the following:
"One historian said that it [the razing of the city of Jerusalem] led to 'a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.'"
Who is the historian, and where did he say that?
A search using Google Books found the answers.
By Rainer Albertz
On page 8 appears the source of the quote:
"Unlike the book of Jeremiah, the books of Kings assess the exile absolutely negatively. It is simply a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe-or, put theologically, the judgement of Yahweh upon his disobedient people."
Actually, it is not the historian saying that the destruction of Jerusalem led to the "ultimate catastrophe", but rather the historian saying that the books of Kings say that it did so.
This book also gives 587/586 B.C.E. as to when the destruction of Jerusalem and the final elimination of Judah as a state took place.
No wonder that the Watchtower writer did not give a reference to this book!
Interesting that the first article in the 10-1-11 WT asks the question, "Have You Been Lied To?", referencing the churches. Who's lying?
Their reference to Ptolemy's Almagest doesn't really add anything of value to their position.
I think they just threw that in to make it look like they have experts doing real research for the sheeple.
Would they really have gone to the trouble of finding out what Ptolemy meant by "apogee" and "mean epoch"?
MeanMrMustard asked:
"Does anyone have access to this book?"
Here is a download link for the book. File size is 37.24MB.
From the article:
Why did Ptolemy omit some rulers? Evidently, he did not consider them to be legitimate rulers of Babylon. For example, he excluded Labashi-Marduk, a Neo- Babylonian king. But according to cuneiform documents, the kings whom Ptolemy omitted actually ruled over Babylonia.
In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?
The use of the word "evidently" raises a red flag. It prefaces a conclusion that the writer considers is obvious and does not requires proof.
It would be interesting to know exactly how Ptolemy uses the kings list in his Almagest. That might give an indication of why certain kings are missing from his list.
I am not sure that I want to spend $70 for a copy of Ptolemy's Almagest.
Even if I did, the book is not going to be an easy read. Very likely it would require a year of concentrated study in order to understand it.
That is why I think the Watchtower writers have not bothered to read the book. They are only interested in one part of it, the kings list.
