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

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  james_woods

  It just seems to me that an attempt to pacify the R&F on something like this would be better served in the Kool-Aid Edition. I dunno. I can't make heads or tails of anything they do anymore. Their motivation, their reasoning, none of it is adding up. The only thing that would make a modicum of sense at this point is if there is indeed an "apostate" faction that's somehow getting to the Writing Committee and attempting subterfuge via articles like this one while those who are supposedly in control, i.e. the Governing Body, would be too clueless to notice...

  Could it possibly be that somebody on the writing department is slowly realizing that there is really no reason (and precious little pertinent material) for them to put out a "public" version at all?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I've just seen endnote 7 regarding the eclipse on VAT 4956, where Nisan 1, 588 BCE is said to begin on May 2/3 (i.e. sundown May 2).

  Here's a summary table (results from my own research) comparing the two scenarios - the 568/7 one and Furuli's 588/7 one. If anyone wants specifics, please ask. And if anyone spots a goof, I'd appreciate you letting me know :-)

  Please note that a margin of error of 3° has been used. If a measurement is over 3° it was labelled 'bad.'

  SUMMARY OF THE OBVERSE SIDE

  LINE	DETAILS	568 BCE (new year April 22)	RF's 588 BCE (new year May 2)
  1	New moon visible?	Yes	Improbable
  	Moon's position	Good	Good
  2	Saturn's position	Good	Bad
  3	Moon's position	Bad*	Good
  4	Jupiter's predicted appearance	Fair	Bad
  	Sunrise-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  8	New moon visible?	Yes	Yes
  	Moon's position	Good	Good
  	Likelihood of moon fitting other details on line	Good	Bad or unlikely
  9	Saturn's position	Good	Bad
  	Mercury details	Good	Good
  10	Mars' position	Good	Bad
  	Mercury's position	Probably good	Inaccurate
  11	Venus' position	Good	Bad
  	Moonrise-sunrise interval (calculation)	Good	Inaccurate
  12	New moon visible?	Yes	No
  	Moon's position	Good	Good
  	Likelihood of moon fitting other details on line	Good	Bad
  	Sunset-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  	Mars' and Mercury's positions	Probably good	Bad
  13	Mars' and Mercury's positions	Good	Bad
  	Jupiter's position	Good	Bad
  	Venus' position	Good	Bad
  14	Moon's position	Bad*	Inaccurate
  15	Moon's position	Good	Bad
  16	Solstice	Good	Bad
  	Moon's position	Good	Inaccurate
  	Mars' position	Probably good	Bad
  17	Sunrise-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  	'Omitted' lunar eclipse that month	Yes	Yes

  * Good if position relates to previous night.

  Taking lunar details only,

  568 BCE scores,

  15

  17

  RF's 588 BCE scores,

  6 (+ 3 approximately good)

  17

  Taking both lunar and planetary details,

  568 BCE scores,

  24 (+ 4 fair/probably good)

  30

  RF's 588 BCE scores,

  7 (+ 4 approximately good)

  30

  ----------------

  SUMMARY OF THE REVERSE SIDE

  LINE	DETAILS	567 BCE (Tebetu 19 = Feb. 1/2)	RF's 587 BCE (Tebetu 19 = Feb. 11/12)
  3'	Venus' position	Good	Bad
  5'	Moon visible?	Yes	Unlikely
  	Moon's position	Good	Good
  	Sunset-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  	Jupiter's position	Good	Bad
  6'	Venus' position	Probably good*	Bad
  	Moon's position	Good	Bad †
  7'	Moon's position	Probably good	Probably good
  8'	Sunrise-moonset interval	Undecided	Undecided
  12'	Moon visible?	Yes	Yes
  	Moon's position	Good	Good
  	Sunset-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  	Likelihood of moon fitting other details on line	Good	Good
  13'	Moon's position	Good	Bad
  14'	Moon's position	Good	Good
  15'	Moon's position	Probably good	Probably good
  16'	Sunrise-moonset interval	Good	Bad
  17'	Mercury's position	Good	Good
  	Venus' position	Good	Bad
  18'	Saturn's, Mercury's and Venus' positions	Probably good	Bad
  19'	Venus' and Mercury's positions	Probably good	Bad
  20'	Jupiter details	Probably good	Bad
  	Mercury's and Venus' positions	Probably good	Bad

  * accounting for the scribal error

  † The moon is 30° away from the Pleiades - if the standard halo comes in a 22° size, Furuli's moon is too far. In contrast, the established 567 BCE date shows the moon 20° from the Pleiades. This is the only occasion under Furuli's scheme, and where lunar halos are mentioned, that the objects on the tablet fall outside the 22° parameter.

  Taking lunar details only,

  567 BCE scores,

  11 (+ 2 probably good)

  14

  RF's 587 BCE scores,

  5 (+ 2 probably good)

  14

  Taking both lunar and planetary details,

  567 BCE scores,

  15 (+ 7 probably good)

  23

  RF's 587 BCE scores,

  5 (+ 2 probably good)

  23

  TOTALS FOR BOTH SIDES

  Taking lunar details only

  568/7 BCE scores,

  26 (+ 2 probably good)

  31

  RF's 588/7 BCE scores,

  11 (+ 3 approx. good + 2 probably good)

  31

  Taking both lunar and planetary details

  568/7 BCE scores,

  39 (+ 11 fair/probably good)

  53

  RF's 588/7 BCE scores,

  12 (+ 4 approx. good + 2 probably good)

  53

  The evidence speaks for itself. Taking the tablet as a whole, the positions clearly favor the year 568/7 BCE. Attempting to find wild and wonderful excuses to divorce the planetary positions from the lunar ones in order to add wiggle room for a possible 588/7 lunar fit doesn't give the result Furuli (or proponents of the 'Oslo' chronology) would like, when the data is properly handled.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  And anyway, who cares? 607 was the starting point for calculating 1914! and 1914 turned out to be a big hoax anyway.

  Many thanks for that! I will never understand why the watchtower keeps stubbornly insisting on this 607 date when the whole line of prophecy based on it turned out to be a total bust.

  They cling to 607 because it is fundamental to the WTs key doctrine of their EXCLUSIVE Divine Selection/Appointment as God's Sole Channel today. No one else gives a ratts ass about 607/587 because IT DOESN'T MATTER to them. WT hasn't admitted 1914 as a "Total Bust" either. Instead they keep modifying the "generation" definition to keep 1914 alive. They must surely be scratching their balls heads trying to figure out where to go with it all. It doesn't appear that there is anyone at WT who has picked up F. Franz' mantle as historian/prophet, and no wonder -- he may have backed them into a corner of which there is no way out. They must be offeirng prayers and incense (maybe sacrificing virgins?) in hopes that the whole world starts tumbling down in the next 3 years to "prove them right". Even if it's just enough for them to claim that it was the "start" of the Tribulation. (And thanks to our world leaders that may prove true enough!)

  DOC
• 

  agonus

  james_woods:

  So the "Public Edition" is a MacGuffin because they realize nobody on the outside actually reads the stuff, much less puts any stock into it? Then what's the purpose of publishing it in the first place? Just a song-and-dance to keep Dubs' hands full with Tha Busy Work (sorry, Tha Preaching Work)? Or more internal damage control, actually intended for Dub comsumption but with a "public" veneer to mindf--k them on a different level entirely?

  Qui bono?
• 

  PSacramento

  As much as 1914 is a big deal for JW's for the WT and the organixation the big deal is 1919, when they were "chosen" as the only organization doing Jehovah's work.
• 

  james_woods

  james_woods:

  So the "Public Edition" is a MacGuffin because they realize nobody on the outside actually reads the stuff, much less puts any stock into it? Then what's the purpose of publishing it in the first place? Just a song-and-dance to keep Dubs' hands full with Tha Busy Work (sorry, Tha Preaching Work)? Or more internal damage control, actually intended for Dub comsumption but with a "public" veneer to mindf--k them on a different level entirely?

  Very possibly - remember, they got along perfectly well for at least a hundred years without a "Public Edition".

  And now they are putting stuff in the public edition that could have no possible meaning to the true "public".
• 

  Witness My Fury

  The "Researchers" referenced smells of bethelite researchers huddled over a PC running freeware in the basement to me.
• 

  St George of England

  I think the reason this article is not in the study version of the WT is this copy is likely to be in every publishers hand in the KH for four or five weeks.

  The last thing the WTS wants is discussions of it between R&F members at the KH.

  The public edition gets picked up at the KH on Tuesday or Thursday night and never sees the light of day again.

  George
• 

  james_woods

  The "Researchers" referenced smells of bethelite researchers huddled over a PC running freeware in the basement to me.

  Or a pipe cooking freebase in the basement...
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I don't know - I think having it in the public edition is kinda saying, "Hey world, we're pretty confident of our position and we want, not just JWs to know this, but anyone who takes issue with it."