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

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Alleymom

    Cadellin, Muzikman, VM44 --

    Re Prof. Sack, I own three of his books (one of them thanks to VM44 last year!) and have copies of some of his articles. Footnote 9 in conjunction with footnote 10 totally distort what he has written about the transition between kings. Cadellin, since you are especially interested in the Watchtower's continued misuse of other people's words and research, you would probably like to see the details on what is really going on with footnotes 9 and 10. I've been tied up with other things, but will try to post the quotes and scans soon.

    AnnOMaly -- sorry it took me awhile, but I did scan page 61 of Dougherty and post it a few days ago.

    VM44 and AnnOMaly -- I have been in touch with Prof. Willis, the scientist who, together with F. Richard Stephenson, published the article(s) on the Lunar Three measurements in VAT 4956. When I told Prof. Willis that the inside cover of the WT says that 42+ million copies of the issue will be distributed worldwide in 188 languages, he got on the phone with Prof. Stephenson. Prof. Stephenson will be sending me a written response in a week or so. Prof. Willis will be travelling outside the country.

  • AnnOMaly

    Alleymom - you totally rock! Really looking forward to Prof. Stephenson's response.

    VM44 - The Julian calendar was implemented in 45 BCE, so it has been projected (proleptically) further into the past.

  • muzikman74

    I will post the email regarding Mr. Sacks' opinion regarding 607 just as soon as I get a response back from Mr. Sack for his permission to post his response on here....I think that's the proper thing to do. Too bad the Watchtower doesn't follow this procedure...hahaha.

  • AnnOMaly

    muzikman74 too. Can't wait to see it.

    And a big

  • muzikman74

    Here's my conversations with R.H. Stack reagarding the New November 1, 2001 Watchtower (emails have been blocked out for privacy). Mr.Stack wanted me to personally post this. It first starts at the bottom. The first one is his response for me to post his response...

    R.H. Stated:

    Please post my response. People should know how much falsehood is associated with the watchtower article. Thanks. Ron Sack

    From: "[email protected]*****" <[email protected]******>
    To:[email protected]*******
    Sent: Fri, September 9, 2011 9:49:25 AM
    Subject: Re: Destruction of Jerusalem
    Ron, Do you mind if I can use your reponse to my email on jehovahs-witness.net website? There is a topic going on right now about how the Watchtower Society has misrepresented certain researchers, historians, and scholars. Dr. John Steele was also another one who was misrepresented and someone contacted him personally and posted his response. I would like to post your response (your email address will be blocked out), how you believe the article to be a lie and that you support the 587 date. Many Thanks, Phil

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ronald Sack <[email protected]********>
    To: guitarphil04 <[email protected]********>
    Sent: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 3:22 pm
    Subject: Re: Destruction of Jerusalem

    The watchtower article is a lie. The correct date is 587. I have NEVER been interviewed of this subject. Ron Sack
    From: "[email protected]******" <[email protected]*******>
    To:[email protected]*******
    Sent: Thu, September 8, 2011 10:49:33 AM
    Subject: Destruction of Jerusalem
    Hi Ronald, I was reading the latest Watchtower magazine (November 1, 2011) produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses and it mentioned your name. I would like to know if you support the 587 or 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem? The article tries to refute that researchers, historians, scholars, and archaeologists support the date 587. I would like to know if you concur. Thanks, Phil
  • muzikman74

    I spelled his name Stack...it is spelled "Sack"...my mistake.

  • VM44

    The Watchtower really does not want to answer questions about 607 anymore.

    That is why they published this two part article with the title "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?"

    In the future, when a person writes The Watchtower inquiring about 607 vs 587, The Watchtower will simply respond by referring the person to this two part article.

    The whole point of publishing it is to make things easier for The Watchtower.

    I am going to guess that The Watchtower will also never identify who the unnamed researchers are who analyzed the lunar data contained in VAT 4956.

    The Watchtower does not understand that it cannot present the results or findings of research without providing a reference to the research itself.

    Results are empty statements without details to back them up!

  • sir82
    In the future, when a person writes The Watchtower inquiring about 607 vs 587, The Watchtower will simply respond by referring the person to this two part article.
    The whole point of publishing it is to make things easier for The Watchtower.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

    We have a winner.

    Whenver anything new or unusual happens in WT-world, it can virtually always be traced to one of 2 things:

    -- It protects WTS assets

    -- It makes life easier for headquarters staff

  • diamondiiz

    Welcome muzikman74: WT doesn't say Sach believed in 607BC (you can see a footnote on p.23 stating that non of the historians quoted believe in 607BC) but what they do is use some of his quotes to put doubt in the mind of the reader that the record is incomplete and that the Neo-Babylonian record cannot be trusted because there are new items that come up and historians come to new understanding of the past. Problem is the new knowledge it may be, but this new understanding doesn't change the facts about the dates that are already established.

    I scanned through these articles quickly so I might have missed it but nowhere does wts mention historians that support 607BC. What wts does is they use specific words and phrases to put the doubt in the reader's mind. When they say that majority of historians support 587BC this puts some doubt in the reader's mind that there must be some who don't agree. Then wts building on this created doubt that some historians were "completely upset" as if something was discovered that totally changed their understanding of the 587BC or length of kings so that the bogus 607 date is really a possibility if only....

    They similarly mention that the planets along side lunar calculations are mentioned BUT the planetary data is less reliable thus they ignore them and only use lunar data which helps their cause. WTS is dishonest in presenting the facts so that the majority of wt readership will simply be ignorant of the reality. In reader's mind they will think that not all historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587BC, new artifacts present upsetting evidence in archeological community about Neo-Babylonian reigns and that the basis for the dates are few classical historians and Ptolemy canon.

    For JWs, wts doesn't need to show proof but to create enough doubt in their mind that the reader will accept the material presented by wts as honest truth from God's directed organization.

  • Alleymom

    Welcome to Muzikman74!

Share this