by Terry 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
...hoakum, hooey and flummery...
Hoakum and hooey, yes. But flummery? Sir! You go too far!
You made me look one up. I would say this issue regarding 607 BC is the most damning thing the WTS has against them. However, it is difficult to tear apart unless the person is willing to do independent research.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
You made me look one up. I would say this issue regarding 607 BC is the most damning thing the WTS has against them. However, it is difficult to tear apart unless the person is willing to do independent research.
Actually, no.
You can narrow it down.
Just say to the JW standing in front of you:
"Okay, show me any...any source that is non-Jehovah's Witness which represents 607 b.c.e."
And when they can't, say: "Okay now explain to me why there are none."
Then make this statement:
"What possible reason would any honest person have to accept this date when every authority on planet Earth rejects it?"
To a Jehovah’s Witnesses - the only authority is the Watchtower Society. The whole world and it’s people, are a heaving mob of Devil inspired opponents to their cause.
Particularly educated scholars who have emerged from the cesspit of university. Along with all government, religion and commerce they are shortly to be destroyed for their false beliefs.
To them the worlds ignorance regarding the correct date of Jerusalem’s fall, is reason enough for their demise.
Rational thought is the privilege of a free mind.
Excellent line of reasoning, Terry! I will have to try that one out. Of course, if you had asked me that question even 2 years ago I would have said, "Almost all of them."
After all I had read articles quoting reknowned secular authorities as setting the dates by JW standards. I "knew" 607 BC was right, whatever else might be wrong. I reasoned this way: Surely they would NEVER misquote or misrepresent secular authorities against which their words could be referenced and found to be false.
Rockhound's thread shows up my problem: Nebuchadnezzar NOT KING in 607 B.C.
If I were to ask my father, "Okay, show me any...any source that is non-Jehovah's Witness which represents 607 BC as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem." He would print off a quote from a publication that cited Grayson and work the math from there...ending in 607 BC!
Then the argument becomes whether Grayson actually says what the WTS implies that Grayson says. I did the math working from those quotes myself, to "confirm" that even secular scholars agreed with the WTS dates. I used to tell Bible Students that I knew for sure these dates were secularly confirmed on that basis. I helped perpetuate a lie. I don't have a copy of Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975) laying around the house.
On this issue the WTS brazenly, outrightly lies and deceives JWs by contextually presenting scholars as agreeing with their dates. It fooled me, not because I was gullible but because they betrayed a trust they created, they betrayed an obligation they laid on themselves to tell the truth.
Without some degree of trust, everyone would be required to become in expert in every field. So I don't think trust was, in itself, a bad thing—although it was misplaced as it turns out. But it is this trust that makes overcoming the lies so difficult.
I mean, even if the average did dig as deeply as the Appendix in the back of Let your kingdom come they would come away believe the Ptolemy canon was the most vital piece of evidence in defense of 586/587 BC and would have no clue as to the strength of evidence regarding 597 BC as the date for Jehoiachin's exile (which automatically eliminates 607 as a possible date for the destruction of Jerusalem).
Because they will view WTS sources as superior and more honest, they may cite secular works but it will most likely be the doctored citations from the Publishing Company at whose feet they worship. That is what I ran into trying to discuss this with my parents before my dad initiated a JC proceeding. On one occasion I asked whether it matters that the secular sources cited show different dates than the dates that appear in the articles. He said he wasn't going to get into a pointless debate over words.
If they trust the Society's authority, how do you show that trust to be misplaced? I really think the fine minds that post here (such as yours) can come up with methods for systematically proving that trust misplaced. The trust was instilled systematically, it seems reasonable that deconstructing it would need to be systematic as well.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Where did this guy go?
Auld Soul, I think your analysis is a perfect match with my experience personally. When you trust somebody you give them the benefit of the doubt against naysayers.
I'm currently reading about some astonishing things in the Mormon Church. The evidence (physical) is overwhelming against them and they deliberately cover up, lie, change things and continue to print misinformation. The standard for the Watchtower is operative in them!
Sigh.
T.
