Eduardo is just trying to leave the WTS with some honor still, because he still believes in (all of the? or some?) the doctrines, and really just wants the WTS to "change a bit". Eduardo, if your problem here lies in what Grayson really concludes with, when it comes to the destruction of Jerusalem, I can assure you that he is in perfect agreement with the rest of the secular historians, and the 587/586-date. Read any of his books on this subject, and see for yourself. The real problem here though, is that the WTS knows this very well! So they are not ignorant on this subject, they are dishonest! They LIE!! And that`s kind of low for "Jehovahs mouthpiece on earth in these last days blah blah blah".
O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!
by Lady Liberty 58 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
rebel8
I like this bracket thing [oh yes I do]. I think we should all start doing it all the time [frequently, often], like we do with the "of the class" and TM things. It is a perfect symbol of how the [alleged] FDS likes to [sneakily] mislead.
*[of the I love brackets class]*
-
SixofNine
The idea that "academia" approves of (or even tolerates) any sort of misleading, purposeful or otherwise, is absurd on it's face.
Absurd Oroborus, absurd.
-
brutusmaximus
Great stuff LL, this is not the first time this has been done I read a whole lot of mis quotes from the Creation Book some where else on the web which amazed me.
I wonder if Mr. Grayson knows about this misquote. Come to think of it I don't even know if he is alive, is he?
BM [Not a scholar by any means]
-
JW_Researcher
Thank you for posting this.
I placed the images in a PDF file (1.2MB).
PM me if you'd like a copy e-mailed to you.
-
Oroborus21
Six of Nine, I did not say that academia approves of a misleading insertion. I said that the use of brackets is what is acceptable. What one puts into them may or may not be misleading.In this case, the insertion of the 624 date, but not the months, is what is misleading since it leads one to conclude that Grayson supports the WT chronology.
Brutus: technically it is not a "misquotation" it is a mischaracterization of the data.
Hellrider: get off your high horse. I am not defending the Society on this matter. I know their Chronology to be incorrect. And incidently, I would not consider the changes which I would desire within the Organization to be "small" but rather revolutionary. And further, is it not so that we would all want such changes to be made? I believe we would all welcome the discontinuation of the disfellowshipping practice, the adoption of a Megan's Law type treatment of sexual criminals if not permanent expulsion for such ones (and other changes with regard to how to handle child molestation issues), the dropping of the Blood Doctrine, 1914 Second Coming doctrine, the FDS doctrine, etc., Why would anyone not want for those things to occur?
Lady Lib: If it is too much trouble do not worry about it. As I said before one can extrapolate by using Jeremiah to arrive at the 587 date, but it would just be nice to see where Grayson actually correlates the destruction to that date in this work.
This is because, the reason that the Society is citing Grayson in the first place is not to support the ascension year of Nebuchadrezzar (no JW really cares about that date), but rather they are citing Grayson and this book several times to imply that this scholar backs their chronologically and by further implication their 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Thus it would seem most effective to simply show where in this same work, Grayson states that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C. explicitly. In that way, we can avoid arguing with Witnesses over ascension years etc. and just show them simply that Grayson supports the 587 date and ask them the simple question: "Now did you get that from what the Society indicated in the Insight book also or did their citations lead you to conclude something else?" And in that way, they [Witnesses] can easily understand the deception.
-Eduardo
-
Hellrider
Hellrider: get off your high horse.
Yiiihaa!
The 587/586-date is all over Graysons book, even when not mentioned explicitly (because this obsession with the year of the destruction of J. is only related to JW-issues), it is there implicitly. In all of his work. And the WTS knows this, but see no problem in misrepresenting his work, or the work of any scholar, that they can twist and misrepresent to suit their needs. Sooner or later, they`re gonna get sued. I hope it`s sooner.
-
moomanchu
I want to hear from dozy. [not]
-
SixofNine
Six of Nine, I did not say that academia approves of a misleading insertion. I said that the use of brackets is what is acceptable. What one puts into them may or may not be misleading.
Actually, just so the forum can see, below are your words precisely. I understood them when I wrote my previous comment.
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.
It's well established, and rather obvious, that the WT society's "usage of brackets" "in the material in question", is in this case misleading.
You lost this argument, because you are on the side of your father, Satan T. Devil.
Signed,
-
SickofLies
Dozy is a Watchtower insider who only posts on threads that may influence newbies and lurkers with doubts to try and get them going back to the borg. He doesn't usually post on articles with actual facts in them.