When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • undercover
    This article contains important information regarding a fundamental belief of the JWs.
    That being so, then why didn't The Watchtower make it a study article?

    This article is just long enough to skim over while attending to some personal business while sitting down at the toilet. You can read this article and think you know a thing or two about 607 in about the same time it takes to read the Sunday comics... and you'll retain about as much of it as you do the Peanuts or Snuffy Smith.

    The advantage of this is that for the average JW, who doesn't really think or study, this will leave just enough of an impression that the dub will flush away any doubts about 587 along with the soiled Charmin as they prepare to leave the room. [insert WT no different than shit joke here]

    The WT date is reinforced and no dub that readily accepts "food at the proper time" are the wiser. The article is just slick enough to appear factual and well researched but when you really start to root around in it, the lipstick gets smeared off the pig.

    But then again, dubs are so slack about studying, they probably could have this as a WT study and most would sleep through it.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    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.

    It isn't a king list. It isn't even about kings.

    It is a mathematical and astronomical treatise on the complex motions of the stars and planetary paths.

    If Ptolemy didn't use a particular king for dating his works because they didn't have a wide enough sphere of influence, or overlapped with another king, or any other reason, he was entitled not to do that. It doesn't make him inaccurate.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep
    I am not sure that I want to spend $70 for a copy of Ptolemy's Almagest.

    You can get some idea of what it's about for free


  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    So I was working near a local university today and decided to duck into one of their extensive libraries for my lunch hour. That is where I found some interesting 'evidence' that seems to have been 'left out' of our fine 'history' lesson from WTB&TS. The book was entitled:

    Berossos and Manetho, introduced and translated : native traditions in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt / Gerald P. Verbrugghe John M. Wickersham. University of Michigan Press, c1996.

    What I found in this book was a king list chart, not unlike the fine king list chart so lovingly provided to us on pg 29 of the Oct WT. But instead it compared the king lists of Berossus, Ptolemy and the URUK KING LIST.

    Funny thing, the Uruk King list CORROBORATES the number of years the kings reigned of both Ptolemy and Berossus!

    But hey, wait! Didn't the article also mention the Uruk King list?

    It most certainly did, in the chart on pg 30. I found it ironic that the 'box' asks the question:"Ptolemy omits some kings in his list. Why?"

    The more appropriate question is "The WTB&TS omits the YEARS THE KINGS REIGNED as recorded by the Uruk King list. Why?"

    Want to see the Uruk king list?:


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    The Writing Department needs a lesson in honesty


  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    "Ptolemy omits some kings in his list. Why?"

    This should make it very clear.

    Ptolemy's Almagest was a mathematical and astronomical treatise on the complex motions of the stars and planetary paths.

    The kings that he chose not to use to date his work, were not relevent. They had short reigns, some of them overlapping.

    What does that tell you about the quality of the research going on at Crooklyn?

  • Dutch-scientist

    I fully agree with you Black sheep!

    The writer totally mislead the reader or doenst know where he or she is talking about.

    When astronomical event occur or been calculated you can link this event to an existing king during this event.

    This is the Almagest for and not the other way arround.


  • wobble

    I can't wait for the second article on this, I am sure it will prove 607 as the date for Jerusalem's destruction by a king who was not yet enthroned, no small feat of intellectual chicanery !

    I wonder how the writing boys sleep at night?

  • Dutch-scientist

    i hope they will come with the nonsens work from Furuli. When they publish the second publication?

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    It will be November 1st edition, about 4 weeks from now...

Share this