I'd like to take the time to post my good buddy Bill the "TheSnarkyApologist" new video regarding these new Watchtower Articles and the names of the scholars in this thread. Just to let folks know also....I am "wakeupwitness" on youtube.
Phil
muzikman74
JoinedPosts by muzikman74
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
-
14
WBTS and 9/11
by african GB Member ini was'nt that well informed at the time of the event, what i'd like to know is how the org responded to the tragedy.they must have had a filled day.
it would also be interesting to see the statistics in the 2002 yearbook.
perhaps some people believed jw's at the time due to fear and frustration, or maybe even some disillusioned jw/apostates, df'd, da'd,...went to kh immidiately afterwards..
-
-
muzikman74
One thing that bothered me for the longest time was an announcement made at the Kingdom Hall right after 9/11...the announcement was....."Just to let everyone know, NO BROTHERS OR SISTERS WERE KILLED on 9/11". This angered me for the longest time and I thought to myself.."How selfish.....what about all the other innocent people." You see, this is one of the top reasons I no longer want to be a JW anymore. They only think and help ONLY other witnesses and they could give a darn about all the other people out there when tragedy strikes. I guess their mindset is...."oh well, they're gonna die at armagedon anyway."
The week it happened I called a friend of mine in Brooklyn bethel and he said that things didn't stop there.....work continued as usual. He said bethelites were looking at the windows and I believe he said all meetings were cancelled....but work stayed the same. He also said all kinds of papers from the twin towers were blowing all the way over to Brooklyn Heights.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
muzikman74
Just remember also that Michael Jursa's name was used in the May 2009 Awake! article. If you go to the British Museum website it talks about this same clay tablet with one difference..........the British museum states 587 and not 607. Oh my....when will the Watchtower ever learn. Don't they know people will investigate these things. Another person who's name was also used was Eliat Mazar. I personally contacted her regarding her name used in the new Jeremiah book to see if she agreed with the Watchtower's 607BCE date. She agree's with the 586/587 date. Now, not that the Watchtower Society is quoting these people, it's decieving on their part to use these scholars, historians, archeaologists names in a way that make it seem like they do support the 607 date. I guess that is why they had to add the little footnote that none of them do in the November 1st article.
It's almost like if you smoke that every doctor, scientist, or any other medical expert says that smoking causes cancer....and if the Watchtower was the ONLY ONE that says it doesn't......who would you believe? The same thing should be applied to the 587/607 debacle.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about in this article. Michael Jursas' name is used. Once you read further it seems that he supports it... right? Wrong...he doesn't. Ladies and Gentlemen what we have here is the Watchtower's magician's trick.....slight of hand!
A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record
A two-inch-wide [5.5 cm] clay tablet was unearthed in the 1870’s near modern-day Baghdad, Iraq. In 2007, Michael Jursa, a professor at the University of Vienna, in Austria, came across the tablet while doing research at the British Museum. Jursa recognized the name Nebo-sarsechim (Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, in its Babylonian form), a Babylonian official mentioned in the Bible at Jeremiah 39:3.
Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., and according to the tablet, he is called “the chief eunuch.” Moreover, the title chief eunuch was held by only one man at any given time, providing strong evidence that the Sarsechim in question is the same man mentioned in the Bible.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
muzikman74
I spelled his name Stack...it is spelled "Sack"...my mistake.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
muzikman74
Here's my conversations with R.H. Stack reagarding the New November 1, 2001 Watchtower (emails have been blocked out for privacy). Mr.Stack wanted me to personally post this. It first starts at the bottom. The first one is his response for me to post his response...
R.H. Stated:
Please post my response. People should know how much falsehood is associated with the watchtower article. Thanks. Ron Sack
From: "guitarphil04@*****" <guitarphil04@******>
To:ronaldsa@*******
Sent: Fri, September 9, 2011 9:49:25 AM
Subject: Re: Destruction of Jerusalem
Ron, Do you mind if I can use your reponse to my email on jehovahs-witness.net website? There is a topic going on right now about how the Watchtower Society has misrepresented certain researchers, historians, and scholars. Dr. John Steele was also another one who was misrepresented and someone contacted him personally and posted his response. I would like to post your response (your email address will be blocked out), how you believe the article to be a lie and that you support the 587 date. Many Thanks, Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Sack <ronaldsa@********>
To: guitarphil04 <guitarphil04@********>
Sent: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: Destruction of Jerusalem
The watchtower article is a lie. The correct date is 587. I have NEVER been interviewed of this subject. Ron Sack
From: "guitarphil04@******" <guitarphil04@*******>
To:ronaldsa@*******
Sent: Thu, September 8, 2011 10:49:33 AM
Subject: Destruction of Jerusalem
Hi Ronald, I was reading the latest Watchtower magazine (November 1, 2011) produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses and it mentioned your name. I would like to know if you support the 587 or 607 date for the destruction of Jerusalem? The article tries to refute that researchers, historians, scholars, and archaeologists support the date 587. I would like to know if you concur. Thanks, Phil -
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
muzikman74
I will post the email regarding Mr. Sacks' opinion regarding 607 just as soon as I get a response back from Mr. Sack for his permission to post his response on here....I think that's the proper thing to do. Too bad the Watchtower doesn't follow this procedure...hahaha.
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
muzikman74
I saw how someone contacted John Steele and so I decided to try and do the same thing with Ronald Sack (R.H. Sack as mentioned on pg. 23 of the November 1,2011 article). I basically asked told him that his name was mentioned in the Watchtower article and asked him if he supported the 587BCE date. He responded to my email but I will contact him again and ask his permission to post his response on here. In short, he basically says the Watchtower article is a lie and he supports 587BCE.