Watchtower admits the KISS method works - Nov 1, 2011 WT, p. 24

by Alleymom 61 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Alleymom

    I hope everyone reading this will take a minute and click on the link to Doug's report.
    The graphics on page 1 totally rock and all the WT references you need for the names and regnal lengths of the kings are right there.

    I can't emphasize this enough --- if you accept the WT's pivotal date of 539 BCE (and all scholars do accept it!) and you count backwards using the WT's OWN references for the kings (summarized beautifully in Doug's report) you arrive at 587/586 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

    And the WT finally ADMITS it! (See the note on p. 24 of the 11/1/2011 WT article.)

  • Cadellin

    I have one comment and one question. First, my comment:

    Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.”—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

    The reference looked familiar--lo and behold, there's this very same book in my bookcase, not four feet away from me. The Bible and the Ancient Near East is really quite an awesome little collection of seminal essays in honor of W.Albright. Anyway, I flipped to p. 281 and read the comment by Campbell in context. Now, the comment itself is NOT taken out of context. However, the chart he introduces and about which he makes that comment begins in 3800 BC and ends in 400 BC, and encompasses not just the Neo-Bab chron., which is a mere 80 years or so, but Egyptian, Palestinian, Syrian, and Assyrian. In other words, it's incredibly broad in scope and the years in question, pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem, are a tiny, tiny part of it.

    Moreover, if the writer of the WT article had this book in his clutches, then surely he could have turned to the beginning page of the essay in which Campbell's words and chart appear (p. 265) which provides a contextual framework for understanding the import of the charts. Following is a quote from the opening paragraph:

    No modern reconstruction of Biblical chronology can ignore the fixed dates provided by extra-Biblical sources; and the Biblical dates must be modified in accordance with the pattern of Near Eastern chronology now firmly established for the second and first millenia B.C., within limits that decrease from a generation in the earlier periods to a few years in the central section to certainty in the latter part. (Emphasis mine.)

    So this explains how to interpret Campbell's disclaimer, which occurs several pages later and is selectively quoted by the WT. The degree of uncertainty to which Campbell refers applies primarily to the "earlier periods," and subsides to zero, "to certainty" in the "latter part," which is, of course, exactly where the NeoBabylonian period is located. What the WT is doing is taking his words, which, within the context of the whole essay, are clearly meant to apply to the earlier portions of the chart, and applying them to the latter portions so as to make it appear as if the degree of uncertainty he is expressing pertains to the period under consideration.

    Okay, I just wanted to add that. Now for my question: Why hasn't anyone mentioned Egibi? Isn't there any English sources for these important tablets?

    Just askin'.

  • Alleymom

    Cadellin --

    Thanks for the comment and the question!

    Re your question about the Egibi tablets, VM44 had a whole thread on the Egibi bank tablets a few years ago, and I believe he has mentioned them in at least one of the threads currently running about Parts One and Two of the Jerusalem article. He has been especially interested in them for years.

  • bats in the belfry
    bats in the belfry

    Alleymom > Did I copy three paragraphs to many?

  • heathen

    Yah well I'd freak if they did away with 1914 as the beginning of the end since 607 bc works just right with that one , they also calculated the arrival of christ at john the baptist using 607 . So now they are claiming there were periods of no ruling king in babylon ?

  • DesirousOfChange

    Y'all just don't get it!

    Most JDubs can't figure out his shit on their own!

    They leave the thinking for the WTS.

    If WTS says to plant turnips upside down -- they'll plant turnips upside down. (That's a quote.)

    If WTS says Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 -- then dammit, it was destroyed in 607.

    Look how many times they've been proved right on other things:

    Blood issue (all that HIV stuff and all)

    Aluminum (Alzheimer's and all that )

    Vaccinations (well, you know all that)

    Same reasoning says they'll be proved right on 607

    (Removing tongue from cheek and stepping off of soapbox)


  • JunkYardDog

    Alleymom; thanks for your work I spent about 10 hours this week argueing with my jw dad over 607. My main point was that the wt lies every time they quote some bible scholar. i used your work and the Snarky guy from youtube to prove the writers at bethel are bold face liars. there is so much to tell. but the bottom line is my jw dad admittes there are no wt books that do not contain lies. long story short i asked my dad " whats the point of the preaching work if every wt mag /book are full of LIES"... I told him give the wt pub. that has no Lies in it and I will go out and knock on every door in NYC peddling that book. I asked this question for hours. He could not answer me ..

  • Comatose

    Thanks so much for the thread. I just ordered The Bible and the Ancient Near East so that we have visual proof of the selective quote mine.

    quote mining was the single most disturbing thing I discovered in my flip.

  • EdenOne


  • Terry

    The GB don't so much backtrack as they pretend there never were any tracks and just start stomping.

    I like how, for example, they create the idea that "further study" has led to a particular teaching. Funny, the scriptures don't change--only

    their opinions.

    My new book has been released:

Share this