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

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  wannabefree

  I discovered the purpose of these articles.

  I received an email from an elder telling me there was more information on the subject and directed me to the latest 11/1 Watchtower.

  There we go, subject addressed, shepherding call done.
• 

  james_woods

  It might be worth mentioning that this 606/607 contraversy was one of the first things that Ray Franz and Ed Dunlap began to question way back when they were doing research for the Aid to Bible Understanding book.

  It might also be worth mentioning that Russell did not change the 1914 date when they realized there was no zero year between BC and CE - they just adjusted 606 to 607.

  That to me shows that the Russelites had 1914 fixed in their heads and do not really care if 607 is correct - just that it adds up to 1914 by the weird numerology.
• 

  simon17

  I discovered the purpose of these articles.

  I received an email from an elder telling me there was more information on the subject and directed me to the latest 11/1 Watchtower.

  There we go, subject addressed, shepherding call done.

  I think this is GREAT actually. I'm expecting the same from an elder I've discussed this with and will simply say "oh yes I've read those already. They are among the most intellectually dishonest pieces I've seen yet. I'd be happy to sit down with you and point out the academic flaws, incorrect logic and false presumptions line by line with you."

  Its very easy actually if you have even done the slightest bit of research. Some of the paragraphs in thre are just downright twisted and anyone (should) be able to clearly see the deviousness of it. Not quoting researchers. Switching between calender systems to fool people. Saying on thing, pretending to prove another. That article is a TRAINWRECK for anyone who is willing to sit down and look at the evidence and dishonest techniques of writing, researching, and presenting information
• 

  Alleymom

  I wrote to Dr. John M. Steele whose work is cited in footnote 18a of the article. He gave me permission to share the following response:

  From: Steele, John [email address deleted]
  To: marjoriealley [email address deleted]
  Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2011 9:32 am

  Dear Ms Alley,

  Thank you for your email concerning the citation of my work in the

  recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is

  completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about

  the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility

  of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were

  restricted to a distinct and small group of texts which are different

  to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the

  Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the

  views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.

  I've looked at the date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no

  possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the

  conventional date.

  Regards,

  John Steele
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Alleymom, that is fantastic! Thanks for posting this.
• 

  LostGeneration

  That is pure gold Alleymom, thanks for that response.
• 

  PSacramento

  I wrote to Dr. John M. Steele whose work is cited in footnote 18a of the article. He gave me permission to share the following response:

  From: Steele, John [email address deleted]
  To: marjoriealley [email address deleted]
  Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2011 9:32 am

  Dear Ms Alley,

  Thank you for your email concerning the citation of my work in the

  recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is

  completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about

  the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility

  of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were

  restricted to a distinct and small group of texts which are different

  to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the

  Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the

  views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.

  I've looked at the date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no

  possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the

  conventional date.

  Regards,

  John Steele

  What? the WT misrepresenting the writings of accepted researchers and scholars?

  They never do that !

  *dies from sarcasam overdose*
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Alleymom,

  Awesome. That's what you they have to do... after all, they are trying to defend the indefensible.
• 

  No Room For George

  Wow.
• 

  wannabefree

  alleymom ... AWESOME! That is priceless!

  (I don't suppose you could ask him for a printed and signed copy, would hold more weight in JW land.)