Instead of giving them a lengthy treatise on why they are wrong, I'm just going to show them my copy of the works of Josephus and ask them to explain why the lengths of the reigns their magazine attribute Josephus as supporting, don't agree with the numbers given in my copy of Against Apion. (see my pic of the page)
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows
by wannabefree 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
InterestedOne
Here is a quote with 18 and 40 I found from Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" which says:
When Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar, his son, took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life . . .
I see what you mean about the 40 though. Their chart looks stupid if the 40 is a known transcription error for what should have been 4.
-
Black Sheep
Now get them to read the passage in Against Apion, and ask which was written first and last, and which book more accurately represents Josephus' opinion and why.
Make it a discussion about honesty ......... not lengths of reigns.
-
Witness My Fury
Doug, I'd address the WT presentation of the material. Red herrings, misquotes, context, etc rather than doing an inevitably lengthy proving that 587 is correct.
Short sweet and pointed only. The target audience are JWs who will find the WTS article itself too long and merely skim read it nodding approvingly. Anything equally or more complex will be dismissed outright by the vast majority.
Personally I'd just do screen captures of the relevant parts of the WT article and just add a caption or small paragraph over it or next to it instead of converting the nice colourful WT (yes they KNOW how to make it readable) article into plain boring text (not you, but in the JW mindset).
The WTs MAIN points are in the illustrations and charts, USE THEM, but say what they really show or else are trying to hide.
My 2p
-
breakfast of champions
BLACKSHEEP/INTERESTED1 - looked up 'Against Apion' and 'Antiquities' online and found the same as you both: 'Apion' is in accord with the other numbers in the chart while 'Antiquities' is not. So again, the whole purpose of the article is to cast doubt, not scholarship. Throw in a little sneaky snake Satan et voilá! All rational thought right out the window.
DOUG MASON - looking good so far, but take your time! The avg JW won't even see this mag for another 3 months. You always do a great job.
-
Black Sheep
Pages 857 & 858
-
Mad Dawg
From the article:
But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.?
For the past two years now, JW apologists have uniformly stated that the Bible "clearly" points to 607, and I have been asking them, "where?" They either: A - dodge the question, or B - give a long, convoluted explanation that clearly is not "clear".
Remember two things:
1 - There is not one single thing within the Bible that is pegged to some date B.C or A.D.
2 - As long as you hold their feet to the fire regarding where the Bible "clearly" gives a date (any date for that matter), you won't be dragged into discussing irrelevant kings lists or clay tablets.
-
AnnOMaly
OK. I'm late in the day, having been on vacation, totally chilled, and only just catching up. General take on it (others have made similar observations already) - the article will wow those unfamiliar with the subject - there are even footnote references so 'it has to be the real deal, yeah?' Usual red herrings, butt-clenchingly embarrassing statements*, and selective use of sources giving a partial picture so as to mislead the reader into forming the desired conclusion. Oh the stuff they've omitted! Yes, I'm sure Furuli and/or his work has been consulted (e.g. the 'argument' about Sinsharishkun ruling 7 years and the table comparing ancient historians' lists of regnal years). As for the next installment where "datable cuneiform documents" favoring 607 BCE are discussed - it's sure to be a blast. Are they going to mention how the lunar positions on VAT 4956 better fit 588/7 BCE? Ooooh I hope so.
*One e.g. "But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information - the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy." - p. 29.
-
Black Sheep
1st Paragraph of the article.
"One historian said that it led to “a catastrophe, indeed the ultimate catastrophe.”
Who was it? Rainer Albertz
Where did he say this? Israel in exile: the history and literature of the sixth century B.C.E.
What else did he say? See page 15
-
wannabefree
Nice research Black Sheep ... selective quoting ... Watchtower writing department sure could use somebody like you.
I wonder, do they just look for a quote that sounds good without ever considering the context, or do they actually read the entire source and knowingly take these things out of context.
