Putting some wick in Wikipedia

by Simon Morley 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Simon Morley

  I just want to posit to all why many on JWN don't take advantage of the Wikipedia to establish counter arguments? Today many researching the net will first gravitate to Wikipedia because it simply provides a reasonable unbiased viewpoint and when it is in contention, moderators will simply encourage more evidence to be submitted to support arguments. As I support and add to many Wikipedia sites - as long as there is evidenced based quotations (which is encouraged by wikipedia moderators) there are no questions. log in can be ananoymous - it is just the statements have to be accurate.

  Given the wealth of reserach into subjects such as 1914, 1975 annointed, etc - statements could be made and supporting documentation provided as quotations. This is particularly important as many of you have WT's that are no longer available on the CD. i really enjoyed all the "1975" run up articles for example.

  For example I read with interest the following when discussing the GB: "In practice it (GB) seeks neither advice nor approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at Brooklyn Bethel when formulating policy and doctrines or when producing material for publications and conventions" This is powerful, but imagine it backed up by a reference to their own WT?

  Just a thought, Simon Morley
• 

  moshe

  Some of us got burned out trying to stay one step ahead of JW's who kept re-editing out unflattering history/dogma about the WT.
• 

  Simon Morley

  I figured that would be a reason - everyone on JWN is extremely passionate.
• 

  Larsinger58

  Wikipedia is great but when it comes to controversial topics, the same arguments are just transferred there. I suppose that's good too, but the fact is, some things simply are not definitive. Some people add their scholarly opinions as facts.

  Still it is a very quick reference and does give alternative views. One of my favorite, though not that accurate quotes from wiki is this one about the all-important 763 BCE Assyrian eponym eclipse...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC

  "June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"

  This is only "generally" true. Sometimes the Babylonians did date the year early based on the available records, but this was are, and apparently not in practice during the Assyrian Period at the time of this eclipse or the original eclipse in 709 BCE.

  What is interesting is that comparing the original eclipse of 709 BCE and that of 763 BCE, the 709 BCE is more consistent with the customary practice of dating the year beginning with the first New Moon after the equinox rather than the first Full Moon as the Jews sometimes did.

  709 BCE, of course, would be the correct eclipse, customarily dating the New Moon after the equinox when 455 BCE is dated to the 1st of Cyrus and 26 years are restored to the NB Period.

  LS