Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Black Sheep

  What I think we need is a short, easily verified, easily remembered, list of the most blatantly dishonest statements in these two Watchtowers.

  JWs who trot these mags out and claim, "The answers are all in here!", and hope that is the end of the matter, need a swift reply that puts them in deeper poo than they were in before their publication.

  My copy of The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition is cheap as chips and does a good job of demonstrating WT dishonesty regarding their chart showing differences between Josepus and ancient scholars. (In reality, there aren't any).

  We also need a short list of questions to ask that lead them to doing real research to support their position. Remember that these are people that have been spoon fed for their whole time in the cult. They have to be questions that they think are easy or they won't bother.

  We should all be able to drag our Dubs into the local library, or grab a book from our bookshelf or glovebox and get them to read to us information that demonstrates that they have been lied to by the Watchtower and explain themselves to us.

  There is no point in explaining to them that the WT is full of it, because they are not listening. They are the teachers .... not you ...... so ask them questions that lead them to telling you that they are full of it.
• 

  sizemik

  I agree with everything you say Black Sheep and would add the total irony of what a CO told me once . . .

  "You must get the householder to draw their own conclusions . . . people never reject their own conclusions . . . after all, they own them."

  What he said was one of the few things a JW told me that is a universal truth . . . and it does work.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Shadduck? Not heard of him before! Check it out - http://bhshadduck.tripod.com/index/id8.html - he was certainly an entertaining writer.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Don't uck with Shadduck

  
• 

  breakfast of champions

  DOUG - thanks for the "Seven Thunders" recommendation. It looks very interesting.

  It is quite odd how this chronology doctrine which was once the centerpiece of the 'Truth' book and 'Paradise Earth' book has been relegated to the appendix of the current study book. Then out of the blue this article and the one to come.

  BLACK SHEEP - I fear that most people are not intellectually curious enough to even consider the most simply presented historical evidence. It's even more difficult to get someone look at evidence which will undermine the very core of their belief system.
• 

  VM44

  Seven_Thunders_of_Millennial_Dawn.pdf ( 3.02MB )

  Download from here:

  http://www.sendspace.com/file/n954ta
• 

  Black Sheep

  I fear that most people are not intellectually curious enough to even consider the most simply presented historical evidence.

  Exactly.

  You have to taylor your approach to the person, but most JWs are not interested in what you have to say or what you have to show them.

  Lengthy explanations give them too much time to get distracted, and to distract you. You need something short, that 'gets in' and then stand back and shut up and wait for them to explain their problem.

  A first trick could be to get them to offer you the mag, without you asking for it.

  My target will be honesty.

  Ask them why Josephus is so different to the others.

  Ask if they have read the Works of Josephus.

  Whip out my copy and turn to Against Apion, Book 1.20 and ask them to read it.

  Give them plenty of time to answer each question and only open my mouth to point out any crazy logic, diversions etc..

  With the rag open at page 29, ask how many years he said each of these kings reigned for?

  Which book he wrote last?

  What numbers is he most likely to have believed himself in his old age?

  Why would the WT use a list that Josephus himself had made obsolete when he wrote Against Apion?

  How do they feel about that?

  Ask them to read out the page in my copy that states that the 40 years given in the first list was a transcription error. Ask, what does that say about the quality of their research?

  Do they think it is acceptable to portray Josephus as believing that Neriglissar reigned for 40 years when he never said that himself? If the Catholics, the Mormons, or a politician pulled a stunt like that, what would they have to say about it?

  Now that they know that the king list panel is in error, will they point that out to anyone they give the magazine to? Stop placing them? Would you like to borrow my felt tip, we can correct them all now?

  The thing is ....... it doesn't matter at what point that line of questioning breaks down and they make their excuses and bugger off. The first thing they had read was Josephus himself contradicting what the WT had printed in their rag...... and they'll think about that at night and every time they try to place one or see the number 607.

  Now I need them to knock on the door of someone who can show them the WT's dishonesty about Ptolemy.

  If we each just target one issue with each Dub we contact instead of going with our instinct to throw the whole can over them ..................
• 

  3Mozzies

  [marking]
• 

  aristeas

  A general, rather than a technical question:

  I thought the GB was sitting on the 607-1914 chronology, sort of ignoring it in the hopes that if they didn't talk about it much, critcism and discussion of it would eventually die. This is one of their established policies they sometimes employ. Some observers here even said that Rolf Furuli was irritating to them b/c he was so vocal taking on this lost cause.

  If all this is true, THEN WHAT IN THE WORLD HAS CAUSED THEM TO DRAG THIS MATTER UP AGAIN???

  Excuse me for my ignorance, but if I'm missing s.t. here, please enlighten me!
• 

  aristeas

  Doubly posted --- sorry!