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

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • agonus

    You know, James, in a really twisted way, I guess that does actually kind of make sense.

    Am I a sick bastard if I admit to having a little bit of fun trying to think like a cult leader?

  • PSacramento

    Basically the "Oslo Chronology" is saying this:

    IF the secular evidence is not 100% correct, this chronology MAY be somewhat correct.

  • No Room For George
    No Room For George

    The thing I don't 100% get though is, regardless if they put this in the public edition, or the Study edition, why do this article at all if its such a non-issue to them? From the Writing Department's perspective, what would motivate them to bring up an issue that's supposedly not an issue? Why not simply keep ignoring it like they've been doing all these years? Was this a cull of sorts, as if they're fishing with this article to see who bites,an attempt to root out undercover apostates?

  • MeanMrMustard

    I know it's been posted several times before, but I don't think on this thread:

    Carl Olof Jonsson's official website with hours (literally) of Rolf-Furuli-argument-dismantling: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/epage.htm

  • sd-7

    Well, the Public Edition is clearly watered down so as not to verbally abuse the reader. I mean, those articles about sex--there's a story about a young lady who was the daughter of JWs and was guilty of fornication. She described her parents and the elders as being very 'loving' about the whole situation. Unless she just never got baptized, that's highly unlikely.

    They needed to separate out the more vicious statements so the public, which is much more savvy than it used to be just a short time ago, is being taken by the hand, gently fed the information they need to commit to a 'Bible study'. It's basically like Awake! but with more Bible topics. I mean, the public edition is still a recruiting tool. It's just free of anything that might shock or confuse the average target audience--those able to read but not particularly well-informed about the Bible or history. Or propaganda techniques, mind control, etc.

    But yeah, that's a good point. Researchers using FREEWARE? Seriously? That just sounds suspicious, like they were doing something they probably hadn't had a habit of doing--the sign that these researchers were probably not experts or historians or scholars.

    And it is a good point that they completely gloss over the very important fact that the planetary observations are THE big reason why scholars concluded it was in 568 B.C. and not 588 B.C. that these observations were made (in VAT 4956).

    It really is sad. I thought the first part of the article was bad, but this is actually even worse.


  • agonus

    NRFG, your guess is as good as mine.

    But I think we all know, as do the Boys in Brooklyn, if they drop 1914 entirely, the whole thing completely falls apart. Take 1914 away from the Dubs, you might as well take away the name "Jehovah" and ask them to embrace the Trinity and hell. It's one of the very few things that give Dubs any sense of identity, culture, legitimacy, you name it.

  • VM44
  • dozy

    And, they LEFT OUT "many of the planetary positions" because these are "open to speculation and several interpretations"?

    Strange that the WTBTS are missing out the possibility of speculating & making several interpretations - I thought that was their stock-in-trade... (4 different ones on "the generation" in 15 years , for example).

    They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies

    I know a few elders who stand at the back of the KH noting the location of celestial bodies - no computer program (freeware or otherwise) required...

  • outsmartthesystem

    Zoiks - you said "

    Here is a very strange paragraph, attempting to establish the year of VAT 4956 as 588 rather than 568. Can you spot the very WT-esque sleight of hand?

    The tablet mentions a lunar eclipse that
    was calculated as occurring on the 15th day
    of the third Babylonian month, Simanu. It
    is a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred on
    July 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during
    568 B.C.E. However, there was also an eclipse
    20 years earlier, on July 15, 588 B.C.E.

    Is the sleight of hand you are referring to in regard to the fact that the 3rd Babylonian month (Simanu) matches up with May/June of the Julian Calendar.....not July? Therefore a lunar eclipse that occurred on July 15, 588BCE would be irrelevant?

  • simon17

    Is the sleight of hand you are referring to in regard to the fact that the 3rd Babylonian month (Simanu) matches up with May/June of the Julian Calendar.....not July? Therefore a lunar eclipse that occurred on July 15, 588BCE would be irrelevant?

    I'm no calender expert but the eclipse occurred on the 15th day of the Babylonian month. That most likely matches to July 4th (correctly I presume?). Then they say an eclipse occurred on the 15th day of the Julian month in the year they want (588). Most will carelessly read: "oh, the eclipse was supposed to occur on the 15th... in 568 it occurred on the 4th but in 588 it occurred on the 15th. Clearly 588 is correct"

    If that speculation is true that's really a dishonest way to write that paragraph.

Share this