O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!

by Lady Liberty 58 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  O.K. Dozy,
  

  Yes, I know the scans are too small, don't think for a second that it will not be fixed so YOU can indeed read it for yourself! Then, maybe you will understand why I and everyone else are angry at the deception!! I am not a grammer teacher, but what the Society is doing is WRONG!!!!!

  
  

  
  I sincerely doubt Dozy will ever understand why there is deception involved in the Societys tactics on this issue. He will always use that one little technical detail to justify everything they are doing. In my language, this is called "not seeing the forrest for the trees". Hey Dozy, here`s a valid comparison. The next quote is from a holocaust historian, and I added some brackets, guess where:

  The reknown holocaust historian, Gordon Mcfee, writes in his essay "Are the jews central to the Holocaust": "Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust continued (the vast majority were non-jews). By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been killed (mostly non-jews)". So even this reknown historian acknowledges that the jews were far from being the only people persecuted by some of the overly-eagerly nazi-leader...

  If a neo-nazi website/book/newspaper had written this, they would have been completely deceitful and misrepresenting the text. Everything in a text can be changed by quoting out of context and adding some brackets. Everything! The quote actually reads:

  Modern research has begun to deal more extensively with the suffering of other victims of the Nazi genocide. For example, homosexuals, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Russians, Poles, Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were more or less systematically murdered as the Holocaust continued. By the end of the war, as many as 6 million of these people had been killed, along with between 5 and 6 million Jews.

  Read the "tampered with" quote one more time. You will see that nothing in that quote is actually a lie. More non-jews were killed than jews, but by using such an expression as "the vast majority", I made the reader believe that perhaps something like...90% ? ...of the murdered were non-jews. And that deeply undermines the concept of a jewish holocaust (which is what I would be aiming for here, if I was a neo-nazi). But per definition,technically I am not actually lying in the quote that I tampered with. I just added some brackets, and I cut the text short. And by doing that, I changed the entire meaning of the text to mean the completely opposite of what the author intended. And there you have it, this is the key to all serious academic research: What the author intended! This is to be the leading principle in all academic work, when quoting an author. Only deceitful and lying people are violating this leading principle.

  It`s not difficult to change the meaning of a text, anyone can do it. And the WTS does it all the time. Wake up, Dozy!
• 

  Lady Liberty

  THANK YOU HELLRIDER!!!!!!

  What a excellent example! The INTENT was to MISLEAD! Otherwise, they would have quoted the date that the person making the quote ACTUALLY said, in the preface on page 19! Most all active JWs TRUST the Society and what they print. You could ask 100 people to read that paragraph from the Insight book, and I gaurentee you the vast majority of the readers would stand firm on the date of 624 B.C.E. as what was put in brackets. That is exactly why the Society did it!! For NO OTHER REASON!

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  Oroborus21

  If one looks at the rest of the page from the Insight book (and throughout) you can see that the Society is consistent in inserting "explanatory info" in brackets.

  Many JWs are familiar with bracket/parenthetical usage and its meaning, not only from regular schooling, but also from the "Introduction" of the NWT Reference Bible (which many if not most JWs have a copy of in their personal libraries). The paragraph on "brackets" sets forth the Society's usage which is that Single Brackets [ ] enclose words "inserted to complete the sense" and Double Brackets [[ ]] "suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text."

  This usage is common and accepted in academia and it is evidently what the Society is doing. Note for example, the bottom bracketed insertions on the same Insight publication page (as can be seen from the scan), also citing Grayson, where the Society inserts Johoiachin and Zedekiah to explain whom Grayson refers to as "kings."

  I am stating the above only to indicate that the Society is not inaccurate or outside the bounds of what is accepted in academia in the material in question as far as the usage of brackets.

  However, as someone said while the usage may be technically accurate, it is probably deceptive in that it conveys the idea that Grayson supports the Society's chronology.

  That seems doubtful, however, what was not provided in this thread were the scan's of where Grayson actually does indicate the 587 B.C.E. Fall of Jerusalem date that is commonly known and accepted. Thus, not having the book in hand, it is only my assumption that Grayson (and his book) support the accurate date, but for all I know maybe he doesn't? So would you please post a scan of just where in the book he does support the 587 date so that it will be more clear that using Grayson as a source of any kind is deceptive. thanks.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Oroborus21

  Lady Lib:

  just to follow-up, could you scan the page where (if) Grayson indicates the Fall of Jerusalem year as 587 B.C.E.

  i understand from the preface scanned that Grayson's giving of the 10th year for Nebuchadrezzar puts his ascension year to about 605 B.C.E. while the Society is using the 624 date (erroneously of course) and that one could extrapolate from there to arrive at when Jerusalem was razed (587 B.C.), but it would be better and simpler to indicate where Grayson supports the 587 date explicitly.

  thanks,

  Eduardo
• 

  Lady Liberty

  That seems doubtful, however, what was not provided in this thread were the scan's of where Grayson actually does indicate the 587 B.C.E. Fall of Jerusalem date that is commonly known and accepted. Thus, not having the book in hand, it is only my assumption that Grayson (and his book) support the accurate date, but for all I know maybe he doesn't? So would you please post a scan of just where in the book he does support the 587 date so that it will be more clear that using Grayson as a source of any kind is deceptive. thanks.

  -Eduardo

  Eduardo,

  I posted the scanned copy of page 19. Under Chronicle 5 notice what A. K. Grayson states is Nabopolassars 21st year. It says 605! Now look in Jeremiah 52:12, it says the destuction of Jerusalem took place in Nebuchadnezzars 19th reignal year. The Society teaches 607 was the year for Jerusalems destruction, and they teach it was Nebuchadnezzars 19th reignal year. O.K.....How is A.K. Grayson supporting 607 if he states that Nabopolassars 21st year was in 605?? Please now tell me A.K. Grayson is NOT in agreement with 586/587??

  You can request the book for your library to see for yourself! I will get more scans from the office for you like you requested.

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  SickofLies

  Great Work LL!
• 

  rebel8

  This is obviously a case of evil conspirators [authors of the source material who are probably apostates or demonized] tricking the [so-called] FDS [who should not be trickable, since they are friends with the Holy Spirit] into quoting them to make fools out of them [which is not hard to do since they already are fools]. This is proven by the obvious Mason symbol appearing in the last scans Lady posted [and we all know this Mason thing has conspirators inside the borg itself].

  (laughs hysterically and runs away)
• 

  Oroborus21

  Lady L:

  that is the extrapolation that I was talking about. but one problem with it though, is that now you (one) jumps to the bible (Jeremiah) for the explanation of when Jerusalem was destroyed. It would be better to keep the argument either entirely scriptural or entirely scholastic.

  I have little doubt that Grayson would support the 587 BC date but I was just wondering whether the book you borrowed specifically listed it. It would be remarkable if it didn't.

  Also, when you were reading the book and in comparing it to the Society's chronologically, did you note the first point of deviation in the timeline? I would like to know if when the Society lists the 624/Nebuchadrezzar ascension date, if that is the first point in both narratives (in comparison to Grayson's timeline) were the timelines deviate or if it begins earlier? If so, if you could pinpoint that first discrepancy, it would be great.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Lady Liberty

  that is the extrapolation that I was talking about. but one problem with it though, is that now you (one) jumps to the bible (Jeremiah) for the explanation of when Jerusalem was destroyed. It would be better to keep the argument either entirely scriptural or entirely scholastic.

  OK.. Lets just go with that for a second. You cannot have ANY dates what so ever without secular data. NOT 607, NOT 1914, etc. You MUST accept secular data in order to establish any date! The problem is NOT wether the Bible and the secular data is in harmony because it IS! The issue is WHY is it that the Society dismisses secular data for one date but uses it to establish another. Example: 539??? If you were to do the research, you would see that ALL scripture is in complete harmony with the secular chronology(supported by A.K. Grayson, and other experts) astronomical data (which Babylonian records are so accurate that Scientists TODAY correct computer programs by them)and ALL archeological findings.

  Sincerely,

  Lady Liberty
• 

  Lady Liberty

  P.S. Eduardo,

  I have no problem going back through the book to help find what you are looking for. I cannot promise it will be today, as I have been in and out with work, and I don't have a scanner here at my home office.

  Thanks

  Lady Liberty