Two lies more from the Society
I suggest when the Society quotes somebody, we should confirm that they are usin the quotation in its context because the Society is a master in deceiving and taking out of context everything. Here you are another three lies more.
Watchtower 15/5/1983 page 6.
*** w83 5/15 6 Earthquakes-A Sign of the End? *** Some seismologists believe that the earth is now in an active earthquake period. For example, Professor Keiiti Aki of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology speaks of the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years, though stating that the period from 1500 through 1700 was as active.
Well, I wrote to Mr. Aki asking for a copy of the letter which he sent to the Watchtower. He sent the following, First an introductory letter and second a copy.
Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to Watchtower Society. Although the first paragraph is somewhat incomplete (the main reason why I believe that the earthquake activity is constant is shortened to "The main reason"), it is clear that they quoted the part they wanted, eliminating my main message.
An the Akis answer to the Watchtower letter says:
This is in response to your inquiry about earthquakes [EC:ESH September 24, 1982]. The apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the 1ast one hundred years is, in a11 probabi1ity , due to the improved recording of earthquakes and the increased vulnerability of human society to earthquake damage. The main reason is the we11 estab1ished p1ate tectonics which indicates a very steady fau1t motion over the past many mi11ions of years . A measure of earthquake strength more objective than casua1ty is the Richter sca1e. It is in genera1 difficult to assign the Richter sca1e to earthquakes more than 100 years ago. An attempt , however, has been made in China , where historica1 records are kept in better shape than in other regions. Enclosed figure shows the Richter Sca1e (M) of earthquakes in China during the period of about 2000 years. The past 100 years are certainly active , but there have been periods as active as that, for exronp1e, from 1500 to 1700.
As you may notice, Aki does not agree with the Society and Furthermore his answer was for CHINA and not for world conditions as the watchtower wants us to believe.
Another quotation comes from the book, let your kingdom come:
*** kc 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzars 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
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.
Well, I wrote to Mr. Campbell and this was his answer:
As you have sensed, the J.W. misconstrued completely my intent. The dates are really so close to being exact that I did not use circa with the ones for the Neo-Babylonian era.
Circa was used when the deviation might be as much as a decade. None of the Neo-Babylonian dates can be possible be that far off. Im afraid that J.W. was searching for an ally where they do not have one! 587/6 BC for Jerusalems destruction is certainly within one year of being right.
The best sources for the dates of this period are the Babylonian chronicle, which confirms the 597 date for the first defeat of Jerusalem. (Italics theirs)
Campbells answer is obvious so I do have to add nothing. What I would like to say is that how people can believe that The Society is the truth when there are hundreds of evidences which say the opposite just we need to check a bit her quotations.
Would it be possible for you to post a scan of this letter?
Most Witnesses will not do research. When a Witness does research, they become apostates.
Thank you for your research. It certainly is an eye opener.
Welcome to the board and thank you for your excellent detective work!!!
Is it possible to provide us with scans of these letters replying to your requests?
Scanned copies would be very helpful for those of us collecting proof of the WTS's deceitful practices of mis-using "selective quotations" as false agreement with their teachings. It will also be of help to any JWs who are reading this information here, to see the true side of the WTS.
I'd like to 'second' Had Enough's request for scans. These are very important points and scanned copies will provide the corroboration.
Good work, ServetMiquel
I have been trying to put the scan copies here and It is impossible for me to do it. Would somebody explain to me how to do it or otherwise I will post them directly in your private mail
Great research! I'm going to unlock my email addy. If you can't post the scans, I would love to have them emailed to me. Thanks for your work.
: However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error.
Then why have none of them done that?
: It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes.
Yes, the Assyrians did that, but NOT the Babylonians. THAT is what the Watchtower won't mention. That absurd reasoning is like saying, "we know that the ancient Japanese ate frogs, so the Mayans must also have eaten frogs."
: Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
"even if", "might be", "or be," "could." Yeah, that makes an airtight argument, alright!