" You don't have to 'win'. You only have to make them think."
you said a mouth full Blacksheep
Is the information on JWfacts.com accurate?
by Nobleheart 34 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
diamondiiz
Here are some links to old publication:
http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/archive.htm#magazines
http://www.archive.org/details/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0
Barbara Anderson's link also contains court documents on child abuse case in US and some other scans of interesting books.
http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com/downloads/
I recommend reading Carl Olof Jonsson's book Gentile Times Reconsidered, you can find this book on the web if you search for it, Amazon has it and it quite cheap and is priceless for anyone believing in wts 1914 dogma. Very detailed research on 607BC vs 586/7BC.
Another book is a great read that I recommend is Charles Russell's Studies in the Scriptures vol 3 or Thy Kingdom Come book which you will be able to find in any of the above links. It is an eye opened what Russell taught and how what calculations he used to teach Christ's return in 1874.
And Crisis Of Conscience is a good autobiography of Ray Franz who was a GB member until he was pushed out and he goes through the history of WTS and the internal struggle between GB members and the doctrine.
Most JWs can't handle the fact that they have been conned and thus they refuse to examine the facts or they just claim it's old light and it doesn't matter but people who have awoken can realize that the past is very important to their belief system. Good luck on you research.
Oh ya, here are interesting newspaper scans published about Russell by Brooklyn Eagle News which Russell suied and lost. I've scanned these and tried to make them as readable as possible. Any of these scans can be had for free from The Brooklyn library who were kind enough to scan them for me and send my physical copies. The contain some info from the court hearings where it was revealed that WTS was Russell and couldn't be said that others had a voice in it as Russell owned 95 or so percent of the company as well as it's revealed that Russell owned vased intered in other companies including a trust company and interest in the cemetary where he was later buried. (I think that was the cemetary he was buried in)
http://www.archive.org/details/1909-1916BrooklynEagleNewsOnRussell
-
Nathan Natas
Your English is very good, so I'm assuming you wouldn't mind English-language publications?
Send me a PM; let's talk.
-
Nobleheart
diamondiiz thanks for your links and scans.
-
TheListener
Welcome Nobleheart. 607/587 was one of my first topics to research as well. For someone who wasn't really trained how to do biblical research it was a real chore and eye opener. I am so glad I went through it.
Sounds to me like you are doing the right stuff. Good for you.
If you have the WT CDRom check out this quote from the Isaiah Prophechy book I:
Chapter 19, Page 253, paragraph 21:
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It
must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What will then happen to Tyre?.I changed a portion of the text red. When I first read this it just jumped out at me. I have found this information/admission/theory in no other WT publication (if anyone has please post the location).
-
sd-7
I've found the data on jwfacts.com to be pretty awesome. Good direct quotes from the Watchtower itself, and sound logic used. It's one of my favorite sites on the basic issues.
As for 607 vs. 587 BC, well...I just decided to pick up an encyclopedia. The fact is, there are no encyclopedias I have ever encountered that state Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. Think about it. If archaeologists and historians found any evidence at all to support 607 B.C. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, they would have no moral problem revising their conclusions. Their lives don't really depend on this date, their religious beliefs don't depend on it. They gain nothing and lose nothing if the date is 607 or 587. Yet unanimously, secular research supports 587 B.C. The British Museum's website states 587 B.C., as well. I figure they're smart blokes, the whole lot of them.
The Bible itself, I think, presents some chronological problems for 607 B.C. The Bible says that Daniel was taken captive in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible also says that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was the fourth year of Jehoiakim. (Dan. 1:1, 2; Jer. 25:1) Combine that with the list of captives taken in Jeremiah 52, and you realize that captives were taken on four different occasions by Nebuchadnezzar--in his first year (apparently not recorded by Jeremiah for some reason, but clearly recorded by Daniel), his seventh year, his eighteenth year (when he destroyed Jerusalem's walls but left some of the poor people still in the land), and in his twenty-third year. The Nabonidus Chronicle shows that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was 605 B.C., if I recall correctly, and I may be mistaken on that, and in his first year he conquered the region of Hattu--which included Jerusalem. He probably wasn't on hand at the time, because his father died and he had to go secure the kingship, but he apparently left his military to take captives and bring them (including Daniel) to Babylon. This event--Daniel's being brought to Babylon--is a critical point in showing a harmony between secular history and the Bible's record. By all secular accounts, Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even king yet in 607 B.C.
If Daniel was brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's first year as per Watchtower chronology, he would've been in Babylon around...what, 625 B.C.? Then, in an apparent display of considerable longevity, Daniel at close to the age of 100 was able to record events at the end of the Neo-Babylonian era? We would have to assume miraculous longevity that the scriptures do not attribute to Daniel, per se, but okay. I can go with that. But it'd be more plausible if Daniel is around 80 or so and able to record stuff in 539 B.C. Okay, so all that may be speculation on my part, but, research for yourself: does the Society say that Daniel was brought to Babylon around 625 B.C.? Or do they say 607? (If I recall correctly, I don't think the Society teaches that Daniel was actually in Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year, even though Daniel himself clearly says he's there at that time). Can anyone verify? If I get to research it, I'll be sure to post on it.) The Bible says Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th year; Daniel records that he was taken in Nebuchadnezzar's first year. See what the Society says about that issue. I still need to research it myself, frankly, and I've read most of 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered'.
There's a lot of monkey business involved in figuring it out, a lot of back and forth in terms of data and scriptures and so on. But I'm pretty sure the Society has at least mentioned things that might prove they're wrong about the date. Much of the argument for 607 B.C. tends to use propaganda techniques anyway--concealing information, pontificating that those who disagree with the 607 B.C. date are challenging the Bible itself, when they are not.
There are other scriptural reasons not to buy into 1914, so there's not even a need to back it out to the 607 vs. 587 issue. Considering that the Society taught, well after 1914, that Jesus' invisible presence started in 1874, it casts a lot of doubt on 1914 anyway. How many of the Society's statements about any of the dates they've used have been even remotely correct? They distort data on post-1914 earthquake numbers to suggest that earthquakes have been increasing when only our ability to detect them has increased (see the U.S. Geological Survey's website on that). Why would there be a need to distort the facts if indeed 1914 was so pivotal? Why would God have led them to believe 1874 was a meaningful date when it never had any meaning at all, ever? Why select the Society as His channel of communication and let them go on for years believing 1874 was vitally important and an undeniable date for the presence of Christ?
Hmm. You've encouraged me to do more homework on the 607 issue, but I want to go at it using just the Bible and WT publications, if possible. Might be a fun study project. I hope those thoughts weren't too confusing.
-sd-7
-
garyneal
marking as I am looking for information where Russell and/or Rutherford believed that angels or spirits communicated with them
-
cantleave
JWfacts- Is the best on-line source of information available.
-
Nobleheart
Thank you everyone! Your support is truly much appreciated.
@ TheListener - That paragraph from Isaiah's book is relevant and to the point. And it's a WT publication.
@ sd-7 - yepp it makes sense, I agree with the archeology stand, as well as the society's failed prediction of 1874, thus 1914 as well. I'll also do a study project on this using WT publications and the Bible only, just because I want to prove to my family these dates are wrong.
@ garyneal - that quote would also be helpful. Thanks in advance
-
factfinder
Welcome Nobleheart!