WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • dozy

    Excellent work , Alleymom & others.

    I also wonder about the integrity of the Watchtower writers. There must be a shred of consciousness in some of them that makes them think "come on , this isn't right." It is clear that they have started off with the conviction that 607 = destruction of Jerusalem & then fudged everything to try to make this date tie in with archeological & historical evidence which all points to 586/7.

  • Copernic

    Alleymom: great rebutal !

    But would it be possible to have a copy of the pages of Nabonidus and Belshazzar proving your argument ? (a picture proof)

    The page 10 and the charts ?

    Thank you.

  • simon17

    I summerized my own thoughts, paragraph by paragraph, along with some of the throughts of everyone here in a google document:


    I may have made some errors or omissions, so I left it open to editing publicly. If you want to add anything, feel free. Unfortunately, the formatting got messed up as it converted to a google doc but oh well.

    I also did not really get into the whole "70 years of serving vs 70 years of desolation" thing. Its a pretty minor point and although I agree with those here, thats not a very convincing line of argument either way.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    I hope you do not object, but I plan to include your excellent diagram (your post Sept 3 "A Quick Rebuttal"), suitably credited to you, in my Critique of the article in the October Watchtower.

    If all goes according to plan, I will make my Critique available in a day or two. I will start a new thread when I do.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    This is my uninformed guess at the reason these chronology articles appeared. Just a guess, nothing more.

    Mr Furuli has developed a following among many Witnesses, almost a personality cult. As the saying goes, if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, it becomes truth (that's how the WTS system works, anyway).

    Over time, some of these fully convinced Furuli adherents have made it into areas where they were able to wield their influence on the Writers. At some stage, Furuli would have become involved.

    I have a feeling that the November issue was delayed by a few days. If that is correct, this suggests difficulties over certain details. It will be interesting to be able to know the internal discussions, who the dissenters are and what they had to say. I would not be surprised if some of the questions raised in this Forum were also raised internally, such as "Why bring up the subject?"

    Just wild guesses. Nothing more.


  • St George of England
    St George of England
    I have a feeling that the November issue was delayed by a few days

    Afraid not Doug, it came out on Thursday 1st September at 1:30 pm (BST) exactly as scheduled.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    St G,

    Thanks for the correction.


  • Alleymom

    Copernic: I will scan the pages from Nabonidus and Belshazzar after dinner and upload them this evening. I was trying to keep things short, but I agree that the graphic would have more oomph with scans of at least some of the charts and maybe the cover of the book.

    Doug: Sure, feel free to repost anything I put up here, but please keep my name attached. I did ask Dr. Steele if it was ok to share with others, and he said yes, but not to pass along his email address. I did not specifically ask him about posting to a bulletin board, but I think that would come under sharing with others.

    AnnOMaly, VM44, others, so very nice to hear from you! Ann, thanks for link.


  • Alleymom

    I've been wondering about footnote 18a (the one with the information about articles by John Steele, F. Richard Stephenson, and David Wilson.
    It seems likely that the author(s) of the WT article must have added this footnote after the others since it is numbered 18a. I'm thinking they probably inserted it between 18 and 19 because they did not want to have to go back and renumber everything.

    The Lunar Three intervals on VAT 4956 rule out 588/587 BCE, so perhaps the WT researchers were looking until the last minute for something they could use to cast doubt on the measurements. The reference to Dr. Steele's work was the best they could come up with, but he has made it clear that they misconstrued what he wrote.

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    Thank you for your permission.


Share this