Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

by VM44 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

AlanF

As usual, unscholar manages to get most everything in his post wrong, and as usual, demonstrates a nearly absolute lack of reading comprehension, largely brought on by his dishonesty.
Poor, dumb, unscholar. You wrote:
: Thiele's criticism of Watchtower chronology and the source of your posted quotation of Thiele is probably in an earlier article of Ministry which is a SDA journal sent to all pastors. I have several letters by Thiele written to prominent SDA pastors in Australia but I could source this particular quote.
Your lack of reading comprehension is ridiculous. Between two previous posts, I gave the source: the 1972 book Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation by Edmund C. Gruss, 2nd edition of 1975, 7th printing.
Next, you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what VM44 quoted from me, which again shows how blindly stupid you are:
: However, Thiele was quite wrong in his criticism of the Aid book quoting him in regard to his summation of Ptolemy's Canon. . . The quotation in the Aid book is not out of context . . . It is impossible to misquote Thiele on this point . . .
No one -- not me, not Thiele and not Gruss -- has said anything about the Aid book taking Thiele's words "out of context" or "misquoting" him. What Thiele said, with regard to the Society's use of his comment (which appeared on page 327 of Aid and page 90 of the Feb. 1, 1969 Watchtower), was that "it is misleading and unscrupulous." And I wrote: "So it is clear that The Watchtower and Aid misrepresented the views of a bible scholar to support the Society's chronology." There is a big difference between simple quoting out of context or simple misquoting, and actively misrepresenting an authority's views so as unscrupulously to mislead an audience. So, unscholar, you've once again given readers a simple choice of how to view you: as simply too stupid to engage in these discussions, or as thoroughly dishonest. I'm convinced it's the latter.
Now let's take a look at your other dishonest and stupid comments:
: However, Thiele was quite wrong in his criticism of the Aid book quoting him in regard to his summation of Ptolemy's Canon.
No, he was entirely correct, as my essay that VM44 quote proved, and which I will expand upon here. The Aid book (and the Feb. 1, 1969 Watchtower article) was discussing the viability of Ptolemy's Canon as a reliable source of historical information on the lengths of reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings. On page 327, the first paragraph under the subheading "Ptolemy's canon" falsely claimed that "modern historians base their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is known as the canon of Ptolemy." It then set up to give some arguments as to why Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable, and stated: "In addition to the evidence already presented on the weaknesses manifest in the non-Biblical records, the following may be noted:" So the whole point of the subheading was to present weaknesses in Ptolemy's Canon, by whatever means was available.
The next paragraph begins by giving Ptolemy himself a negative slant, so as to discredit him as a credible witness to the historical information on Babylonian kings given in his Canon: "Ptolemy was not a historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography." It then supports this negative slant with the quotation from Thiele: "As E. R. Thiele states: 'Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical date which were then available.' " The writer's use of "as" shows that the quotation was made in support of his overall thesis: that Ptolemy is not to be trusted.
The next paragraph continued the negative slant on Ptolemy with the following comment, which partly amounts to damning with faint praise: "Even though Ptolemy's geocentric theory (that is, that the earth is the center point around which the stars and planets revolve) was proved false by Copernicus' time, modern historians generally credit Ptolemy with accuracy in his astronomical computations relating to certain historical dates."
The rest of the Aid article continues trying to discredit parts of Ptolemy's Canon.
So, what Thiele and Gruss and I objected to was not the Society's misquoting Thiele in Mysterious Numbers, but misusing that quotation to support a claim that Thiele would never have supported. Such misuse is simply dishonest, because it misrepresents an authority so as to give credence to a view to which he would object.
And object to such misrepresentation is exactly what Thiele himself did. In the above-mentioned book, Edmond Gruss describes his correspondence with the Watchtower Society about chronology in several 1968 letters. The Society wrote him a letter, about which he writes:
The letter from the Watchtower Society made reference to some articles which would appear in Watchtower issues on the subject of chronology. The one dealing with Babylonian chronology was published for February 1, 1969, under the title, "Babylonian Chronology -- How Reliable?" Much of the article is a rehash of what has been published elsewhere by the Witnesses. On page 90 of the article the Witness writer began his attack on Ptolemy and in the process quoted from Thiele's, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. This writer felt that the treatment on Ptolemy and the quotation would be of interest to Dr. Thiele. A letter was sent along with the article asking for his reaction to the discussion of the Canon and the use of the quotation from his book. His answer, in part, dated January 21, 1971, follows:
In regard to your request for my comment on the use of my quotation in the WATCHTOWER concerning Ptolemy's Canon, I will say that it is misleading and unscrupulous. It is misleading in that it would give an entirely different impression concerning this important canon of Ptolemy htan I hold. It is unscrupulous, because a procedure of this type is not honest.
If the writer of this article had been honest -- or informed -- he would have known that I use Ptolemy's Canon in an entirely different way than he would have it used.
I have the utmost respect for the Canon, and find myself almost standing in awe of its detailed historical accuracy. The man who wrote it must have had at his finger tips an amazing amount of detail concerning early near Eastern history, and an astonishing amount of astronomical information fitting in at point after point with specific years of the kings. It is accurate and reliable all along the line. Astronomy is one thing upon which we can depend with complete confidence. And when the eclipses of the Canon are so fully in harmony with the years of the kings, we can be certain that the chronology involved is sound. The Canon is right and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong.
What would I say about the article in general? I would say that such a writer and reader has no business writing about such a subject. He does not know the facts, or if he does, he does not use them in an honest manner. It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
Let us be charitable with the man and say that in his reading he does not read as an informed scholar should. In other words, let us accuse him rather of ignorance than dishonesty.
The letter speaks for itself, and seriously questions the motives and qualifications of the writer of the Watchtower article.
Obviously, when an author feels that his words have been used to support a view opposite to his own, his words have been misused. And when such misuse is deliberate, as it is in these Watchtower writings, it is thoroughly dishonest.
Now back to unscholar's dishonest comments:
: The facts are quite clear in this matter
Indeed they are, as I have shown.
: and I am quite surprised that Alan F did not check this matter thoroughly before attacking the Society as shown in his treatment on WT chronology.
Oh, but I did, as the above material proves.
: Thiele made a isolated comment on Ptolemy's Canon BLAH BLAH BLAH
All of this is irrelevant.
: It is impossible to misquote Thiele on this point
The Society didn't misquote him -- it misrepresented him.
: and if he made such a stupid statement then more fool him because that statement coming from such an eminent chronologist, Christendom's finest has and will haunt his memory forever.
Actually, unscholar, your ridiculous and typically dishonest comments here add a little bit to the massive proof, consisting of the rest of your posts on this board, that you're a thoroughly dishonest defender of your disgusting cult.
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
You accuse WT scholars of misrepresentation in the use of a qoutation of Thiele's Note on Ptolemy's Canon. I have already presented the facts of the matter and any reader just needs to sight that Appendix to come to a conclusion. Thiele made a summation od Ptolemy's Canon by means of that notation and their was no immediate context for that opinion so any scholar is free to quote that opinion and use it accordingly. Obviously, Thiele was caught out on this matter and was highly embarrassed by that remark which has returned ro haunt him.
Why do you not post that page so that interested readers can judge for themselves whether misrepresentation has occurred? Your failure to do so would demonstrate the weakness of your criticism. The facts of the matter that what Thiele said about Ptolemy is demonstrably correct and those who blindly follow Ptolemy's Canon need the warning caveat emptor.
Interestingly, Edmund Gruss in revised Jehovah's Witnesses omits any reference to Thiele's whinings and I suspect that Thiele was not that upset about the proper use of his Note after all it is true and you know it
scholar emeritus
BA MA Studies in Religion
scholar

Alan FdeviceThiele must have recognized that his original notation needed clarification. In his new and revised work published in 1983 he states"
The canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable. It was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, or the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device that made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data that were then available. This wording is slightly different to his previous Note
The Society on the basis of these comments cannot be accused of misrepresentation of Thiele because in both the Aid and Insight books a similar comment was made.:
Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical data as noe interpreted and understood on the tesxts discovered is basically accurate this does not prove that the historical data accompanying it is accurate.. Even as Ptolemy used the history of ancient kings as he understood them simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data.
So the moral of the story is this my good fellow: accuracy in astronomy does not mean accuracy in history.
scholar emeritus
ozziepost

scholar emeritus
BA MA Studies in Religion

Now we know, eh? Goodness me, how far into the mire of pride will you descend?
My advice to learned posters is not to feed this oh-so-proud one!.
ozziepost

BTW scholar, did you know that a man in Sydney who is more correctly called "scholar", an eminenet theologian too, after having acquired many degrees returned them all! His reason: they only fed his pride. He realised that to be true to the truth of the christian faith, he needed to not only be humble but show such humility.
Interesting, eh?
He studied at the institution not too far from you but which has a record of far greater knowledge of "religious studies"!
AlanF

unscholar said:
: You accuse WT scholars of misrepresentation in the use of a qoutation of Thiele's Note on Ptolemy's Canon.
Exactly. I've given the facts that prove this, which any reader who isn't completely stupid can easily see.
In these two most recent posts, you've argued yourself right into a corner. In your 2nd post, you said:
: Thiele must have recognized that his original notation needed clarification. In his new and revised work published in 1983 he states "The canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable. . ."
You then argued that, because Thiele's original comment did not clearly state that he thought that Ptolemy's Canon was completely reliable, anyone was allowed to use it to prove the opposite, if they so desired:
: Thiele made a summation od Ptolemy's Canon by means of that notation and their was no immediate context for that opinion so any scholar is free to quote that opinion and use it accordingly.
Given this freedom to use it as they pleased, the Society could not possibly have misrepresented Thiele, you claim, because he failed to include the introductory phrase "the canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable."
However, simply reading the text of Thiele's book proves quite the opposite, because in that text Thiele did indeed state the equivalent of "the canon of Ptolemy is completely reliable." Even a cursory reading of Thiele indicates that he had full confidence in the reliability of the Canon. Thus, a competent and honest user of any of his quotations about the Canon cannot possibly use his quotation to indicate that the Canon is unreliable, or that Thiele allowed any room for that. Therefore, the Society's use of his words was dishonest and unscrupulous, and a misrepresentation.
Here is what Thiele stated, on pages 43-46 of the revised (1965) edition of his book:
In addition to these important documents which provide a check on the accuracy of the [Assyrian] eponym canon prior to the middle of the eighth century B.C., there is another document which provides a check on its accuracy for the period following the middle of the eighth century B.C., namely, the canon of Ptolemy. . . What makes the canon of such great importance to modern historians is the large amount of astronomical material recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest, making possible checks as to its accuracy at almost every step from beginning to end. . . The dates of the Nabonassar era have thus been fully established, and once the method of procedure involved in the reckoning of the years of the kings is understood, the canon of Ptolemy may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence. Since Ptolemy's canon gives precise and absolutely dependable data concerning the chronology of a period beginning with 747 B.C., and since the Assyrian eponym canon carries us down to 648 B.C., it will be seen that there is a century where these two important chronological guides overlap and where they may be used as a check upon each other. . . When the student has at his disposal chronological materials so dependable as the Assyrian eponym list and the Ptolemaic canon, he may have complete assurance that he has a solid foundation upon which to build.
Given the above, it is obvious that the Society knowingly quoted Thiele out of context by making him appear to support the claim that Ptolemy's Canon is unreliable. This is obvious because Thiele explicitly stated that the Canon can be used "with the fullest confidence" and "gives precise and absolutely dependable data". In his letter to Gruss, he simply repeated what he had already stated in his book.
Now let's continue the usual disembowelment of your stupid comments:
: I have already presented the facts of the matter
No, you presented your usual misrepresentations of the facts, as I have shown.
: and any reader just needs to sight that Appendix to come to a conclusion.
That would be fine, but is unnecessary for this discussion. You quoted its words precisely, and so did the Society. If either of you had not, I would have pointed it out.
: Thiele made a summation od Ptolemy's Canon by means of that notation and their was no immediate context for that opinion
But there was an overall context, which any competent and honest reader must have known. Overall context is critical to understanding an author's comments, and it is simply dishonest to quote an author to support a position he holds an opposite view about, merely because he doesn't provide a complete context of his views for every specific comment he makes.
An example would be if The Watchtower contained an article that moaned about the fact that "almost all scientists hold that evolution is true", and someone, knowing the Watchtower Society's actual view about evolution, deliberately misrepresented its views by saying, "Look now! The Watchtower now accepts evolution, because it said that 'almost all scientists hold that evolution is true.' " Even though the words might have been quoted precisely, the fact that the way the words were quoted gives a picture of the Society's views opposite to its real views, is a misrepresentation.
Such misrepresentation is part and parcel of longstanding Watchtower practices, which seems to be why most JWs have no problem with what everyone else understands is dishonesty.
: so any scholar is free to quote that opinion and use it accordingly. Obviously, Thiele was caught out on this matter and was highly embarrassed by that remark which has returned ro haunt him.
Actually, both you and the Society have been caught out on this matter, since Thiele made it quite clear in the text of his book as to how he viewed the reliability of the Canon.
: Why do you not post that page so that interested readers can judge for themselves whether misrepresentation has occurred?
It's unnecessary, since we all agree that the words themselves were reproduced accurately.
: Your failure to do so would demonstrate the weakness of your criticism.
Not at all. But your call for me to do so is a straw man.
: The facts of the matter that what Thiele said about Ptolemy is demonstrably correct
See above.
: and those who blindly follow Ptolemy's Canon need the warning caveat emptor.
No scholar worth his salt "blindly" follows Ptolemy's Canon. Indeed, a great many scholars have performed a huge amount of cross-checking with other historical sources, just as I've shown that Thiele stated above.
: Interestingly, Edmund Gruss in revised Jehovah's Witnesses omits any reference to Thiele's whinings and I suspect that Thiele was not that upset about the proper use of his Note after all it is true and you know it
LOL! You're a sad piece of work, when you have to resort to such stupid speculations.
: Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical data as noe interpreted and understood on the tesxts discovered is basically accurate this does not prove that the historical data accompanying it is accurate.. Even as Ptolemy used the history of ancient kings as he understood them simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data.
: So the moral of the story is this my good fellow: accuracy in astronomy does not mean accuracy in history.
These are virtually meaningless general statements. They're meaningless because you can't give any examples. Furthermore, Ptolemy's Canon doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the historical data that it contains has been proven accurate by cross-checking with much other ancient historical data. The fact that many independent sources yield the same dates for kings' reigns is extremely strong evidence that the material is reliable. And when the only dissenting voices are ones who have no data to back them up, and have a great deal to lose by admitting that the historical data is correct, it's obvious who has a preset agenda that is highly biased. That's why JW defenders simply will not admit that reliable sources like Ptolemy's Canon are reliable -- they stand to lose their worshipful view of "God's Organization".
AlanF
scholar

Alan F
Thiele stated that on page 44 that in regard to Ptolem's Canon may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence. This same expression is found in his new revised edition on page 71. So there can be no dispute that Thiele loved Ptolemy's Canon.
However, Thiele is inconsistent on this point as shown by his Note on page 216 in the Appendix in the earliest edition where he syates that Ptolemy's Canon was that Ptolemy's Canon was prepared for primarily for astronomical purposes, not historical purposes. So, Thiele foolishly contradicts himeself. In that same Note in his last revision he omits this expression. Why did he do this? Why was it necesary for him to alter his last Note from the previous Note?
He was forced to clarify his position because his very important Note could lead to an alleged misrepresentation of all that he had written in context and this happened when WT scholars simply used his isolated comment. It is Thiele not the Society that has created any alleged misprepresentation and that is all tthat it can be . Not a fact of misrepresentation but an allegation. So. THIELE MADE A BIG BOO-BOO!
This is proven by the fact that both the Aid book and Insight book provide a similar summation of Ptolemy's Canon and the history by the comment that the accurate astronomical information in Ptolemy does not prove accuracy of the historical information as shown in Aid p.331 and Insight p.456.
So, I will use Theile as a witness to the fact that Ptolemy's Canon needs extreme caution especially in connection with the history as Thiele clearly states in his original study: primarily not for historical purposes and is incomplete and is only a broad chronological scheme. Thiele was honest about the facts but was caught out by clever WT Scholars but whatever the case there remains a dark cloud over Ptolemy's Canon.
scholar emeritus
VM44

Hi ozziepost, you wrote:
an eminenet theologian too, after having acquired many degrees returned them all! His reason: they only fed his pride.
That is interesting. Who was this person?
--VM44
hillary_step

Scholar,
Thiele was honest about the facts but was caught out by clever WT Scholars but whatever the case there remains a dark cloud over Ptolemy's Canon.
Is that the sound of the back-stroke I hear, or of a Scholar advancing sideways to the rear?
HS
AlanF

Well, there, scholar pretendus, it's obvious that you have no real response to my proof that the Watchtower Society deliberately misrepresented Thiele's position. As usual, I'll dissect your statements line by line, but first I want to show that the Society's misrepresentation here is not unique, but rather, a common tactic. This will be from the 1985 Creation book.
The Society's 1985 book Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is a study in misrepresention of source references. I've documented more than a hundred misrepresentations in my essay "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution", which can be viewed here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce01.htm . I'll describe in detail one of the more blatant misrepresentations, where an eminent evolutionist is claimed to actually support creationist ideas.
In paragraph 5 on page 143 Creation cites an article in Scientific American ("Adaptation", Scientific American, p. 213, September 1978) by zoologist Richard Lewontin, a noted evolutionary theorist. He is supposed to have "said that organisms ?appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.? He views them as ?the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.? "
The question at the bottom of the page further emphasized Lewontin?s purported view: "What recognition does a zoologist give to design and to its originator?" Now, picture the answer a typical reader at a bookstudy would give to the question: "Well, as the paragraph shows, Richard Lewontin views the design of organisms as evidence for their being created."
A check of the Scientific American article shows that Lewontin said something very different from what Creation claims. In saying the above things he is alluding, not to his own viewpoint, but to the general viewpoint that scientists in the 19th century had about nature. After describing what had been the general view of how the great variety of life forms came about, and stating that Darwin had tried to account for both its "diversity and fitness," Lewontin said:
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.
Lewontin?s point was that organisms only appear or seem to have been carefully designed. Clearly referring to the 19th century view, he said:
It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. [italics added]
The rest of the article shows that Lewontin considers the viewpoint highlighted in the above quotation as erroneous, and that it has been corrected by the work of Darwin and his successors in the 20th century. In fact, the article is devoted entirely to demonstrating how the adaptation of an organism to its environment can be explained by natural, not supernatural, mechanisms. The abstract for the article is quite clear: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."
This complete misrepresentation is similar to what Creation did with a quotation from Popular Science magazine, which I have fully documented in the full text of my essay. Lewontin specifically complained about this practice (quoted from Laurie R. Godfrey in Scientists Confront Creationism, p. xxiv, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983):
Partly through honest confusion, but also partly through a conscious attempt to confuse others, creationists have muddled the disputes about evolutionary theory with the accepted fact of evolution to claim that even scientists call evolution into question. By melding our knowledge of what has happened in evolution with our doubts about how this has happened into a single "theory of evolution," creationists hope to challenge evolution with evolutionists? own words. Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology, and the transparent subterfuge of passing off the Old Testament myth of creation as if it were creation "science" rather than the belief of a particular religion, has convinced most evolutionists that creationism is nothing but an ill-willed attempt to suppress truth in the interest of propping up a failing institution. But such a view badly oversimplifies the situation and misses the deep social and political roots of creationism.
Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35:
Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists? antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists? descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists.
It is one thing to cite and describe opposing viewpoints. It is something else again to repeatedly attribute those opposing views to an author or to a publication that merely describes them, especially when it is evident that the description is for the purpose of criticizing it.
On a final note, it is likely that Creation got Lewontin?s statement wrong via a combination of poor scholarship and dishonesty. Lewontin?s statement was apparently lifted from paranormalist Francis Hitching?s book The Neck of the Giraffe, page 84 (page 65 paperback). Hitching?s quotation of Lewontin is identical to Creation?s, but his book was published in 1982, whereas Creation was published in 1985. Hitching apparently in turn lifted this from the creationist publication Impact, No. 88, October, 1980, from the article "Creation, Selection, and Variation" by Gary E. Parker, a well-known creationist. This is clearly the creationist publication that Lewontin complained about. On page 2 Parker wrote:
As Harvard?s Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms ". . . appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer."
See the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, pages 35-44 for more details.
I want the reader to note clearly what Richard Lewontin complained about in the above discussion: He said that "creationists hope to challenge evolution with evolutionists? own words. Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended." That kind of dishonest practice is precisely what I and Edwin Thiele and Edmond Gruss complained about with respect to the Society's misrepresentation of Thiele's informative statement about the purpose of Ptolemy's Canon.
Now back to a dissection of scholar pretendus' claims:
: Thiele stated that on page 44 that in regard to Ptolem's Canon may be used as a historical guide with the fullest confidence. This same expression is found in his new revised edition on page 71. So there can be no dispute that Thiele loved Ptolemy's Canon.
Correct. One of the few true things you've written on this board.
: However, Thiele is inconsistent on this point as shown by his Note on page 216 in the Appendix in the earliest edition where he syates that Ptolemy's Canon was that Ptolemy's Canon was prepared for primarily for astronomical purposes, not historical purposes. So, Thiele foolishly contradicts himeself.
There is no contradiction. You're inventing one because you and your object of worship have been caught with your pants down. As you yourself admit, Thiele said that the Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical purposes, and that as regards historical information, it was incomplete. That in no way precludes using the Canon for historical purposes. It merely means that some historical information is missing. Duh.
Your argument is like saying that because the University of Chicago's Astronomical Journal uses the Gregorian calendar to date astronomical phenomena and sometimes refers to current events by date, neither the Journal nor the Gregorian calendar could be reliably used by future historians to date the historical events it mentioned. How stupid!
: In that same Note in his last revision he omits this expression. Why did he do this? Why was it necesary for him to alter his last Note from the previous Note?
Because dishonest idiots like Watchtower authors misrepresented his statement in his first book, and he took a simple step to try to stop it in the revised book, I suspect.
: He was forced to clarify his position because his very important Note could lead
The word is "led". Your lack of scholarly credentials is showing, Neil.
: to an alleged misrepresentation
First, it wasn't just "alleged" -- I've proved it was a misrepresentation. Second, you phrase this as if most readers would be led inevitably to the erroneous claim that the Society made in order to misrepresent Thiele. But as I have shown, the slightest familiarity with the full text of Thiele's book prevents that. Hence, assuming that the Society's writer was not completely stupid and unfamiliar with that text, he was dishonest.
: of all that he had written in context
No way. The full context of a book determines what everything in the book means. Thiele was completely consistent in the full text, and his little note on page 216 was fully consistent with that text.
: and this happened when WT scholars simply used his isolated comment.
It is not possible that they used only his isolated comment without having read the full text. No one goes to the back of a book and pulls material out of context, unless they're dishonest or extremely stupid. Honest and competent people take pains to fully understand what an author says and means so as to preclude such a gross and stupid faux pas. But Watchtower writers are not known for honesty or competence.
Furthermore, a related article, "Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time" in the March 15, 1969 Watchtower, referenced "p. 53" of Thiele's book (apparently the original 1951 edition). So it's obvious that the Society's writer was familiar with everything in Thiele's book.
: It is Thiele not the Society that has created any alleged misprepresentation and that is all tthat it can be . Not a fact of misrepresentation but an allegation. So. THIELE MADE A BIG BOO-BOO!
LOL! You're grasping at straws bigtime here, Neil. Give it up. You're outgunned.
: This is proven by the fact that both the Aid book and Insight book provide a similar summation of Ptolemy's Canon
This is an outright lie. The summation in the Insight book takes up only two short paragraphs consisting of five sentences, and was only faintly critical of the Canon. This is very different from the treatment in the Aid book.
: and the history by the comment that the accurate astronomical information in Ptolemy does not prove accuracy of the historical information as shown in Aid p.331 and Insight p.456.
What utter nonsense! This has nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion. The fact that the Society has used this bad argument, which has no evidence at all to support it, for several decades, means nothing more than that they've used a lousy argument for decades.
: So, I will use Theile as a witness to the fact that Ptolemy's Canon needs extreme caution
Well, then, Neil, you're telling us that you're going to continue engaging in deliberate lying. You know perfectly well that Thiele never meant or said such a thing. He explicitly said quite the opposite.
But you're a very fine member of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult, and so you have no qualms about lying. How sad that you don't understand that this completely defeats your supposed goal of worshiping "the God of truth".
: especially in connection with the history as Thiele clearly states in his original study: primarily not for historical purposes and is incomplete and is only a broad chronological scheme. Thiele was honest about the facts but was caught out by clever WT Scholars
Clever is right! It's just as Thiele complained: "It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound." And this goes for you, too, Neil.
: but whatever the case there remains a dark cloud over Ptolemy's Canon.
Only in your own biased little bit of fat that passes for a brain.
AlanF

Quotes by Thiele concerning Watchtower Chronology

Share this