WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I wrote to Dr. John M. Steele whose work is cited in footnote 18a of the article. He gave me permission to share the following response:

  From: Steele, John [email address deleted]
  To: marjoriealley [email address deleted]
  Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2011 9:32 am

  Dear Ms Alley,

  Thank you for your email concerning the citation of my work in the

  recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is

  completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about

  the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility

  of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were

  restricted to a distinct and small group of texts which are different

  to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the

  Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the

  views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.

  I've looked at the date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no

  possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the

  conventional date.

  Regards,

  John Steele

  Folks, let me tell you what we are up against (in case there are some of you who don't know).

  I showed this material to my wife (who knows of my skepticism, esp on this subject). Her response was: "I don't want to look at that! I think it's all bullshit! You have nothing to prove that what is being said is true. There is nothing to prove that what you are reading isn't all fabricated bullshit!

  You can lead a Witness to water, but you can't make them think.

  DOC
• 

  agonus

  If the WT doesn't want the R&F to discuss it, why bother going to the trouble of writing and publishing it at all? Why not just ignore it and let the whole thing silently fade into obscurity like it has been for the past several years? Why not let it stay there under the rug instead of taking it out and dusting the damn thing off again?

  Again... qui bono?

  The Governing Body? Subversives at Bethel? Who?
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I have a feeling that the November issue was delayed by a few days

  St George: Afraid not Doug, it came out on Thursday 1st September at 1:30 pm (BST) exactly as scheduled.

  George

  Why was the Nov 15th issue available online before the Nov 1st issue??

  DOC

  AGONUS: If the WT doesn't want the R&F to discuss it, why bother going to the trouble of writing and publishing it at all? Why not just ignore it and let the whole thing silently fade into obscurity like it has been for the past several years? Why not let it stay there under the rug instead of taking it out and dusting the damn thing off again?

  Because this is the #1 subject used to discredit JW doctrine. This is the issue hitting them in the balls face day after day after day. It's very likely one of the issues that resulted in the new QFR saying "DO NOT ASK US THOSE HARD QUESTIONS ANYMORE -- WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS!!"

  These articles are evidently their best rebuttal. They will likely be more than sufficient for most brain-dead JDubs to accept as factual proof of 607 (after all it is a "brilliant scientific/historical article" AND there IS a bibliography -- a bibli-what? -- with all the backup scientific/historical support for the position!) It is a date that DOES NOT matter to anyone else, except Jehovah's Witnesses and the Organization's claim of being the Divine Channel specifically chosen as God's pipeline of communication by Christ Jesus. The collapse of 607 from their doctrine brings down 1914, 1918, 1919 and their claim to being Exclusive Property.

  DOC
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Thank you, Alleymom, for the scan of p. 61 (I see now that it was note 225, not 115). Very useful.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Her response was ....

  They are taught not to look at material that 'opposers' show them. Don't expect a different responce.

  Try asking questions instead.

  Chris
• 

  aqwsed12345

  I wrote an email to Carl Olof Jonsson about these two WT articles about 607. He replied:

  Thank you! I have already read both articles and started yesterday to write a refutation of them. This may take a week or two. Best wishes, Carl

  ---

  Hi again, The argumentation in the two Watchtower articles is entirely based on the two books published by the Watchtower apologist Rolf Furuli in Oslo, Norway. The two articles are undoubtely written in co-operation with him. Furuli's two books, however, have already been thoroughly refuted, in reviews and articles published on the web and elsewhere. Look at the material on chronology published on this site: http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm The research has already been done, so what I have to do in my review is to summarize the material that refutes the articles. Carl
• 

  breakfast of champions

  AGONUS - I believe the reason these articles were published is to head off any future questions into the subject as 2014 approaches. I see more and more questioning this doctrine as they wonder why it takes Christ over 100 years to do anything.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Rolf Furuli, a Jehovah's Witness and a lecturer in Semitic languages, presents a study of 607 BC in support of the Witnesses' conclusions in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews.

  Lester L. Grabbe, professor of theology at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."
  Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28:5 [2004], p. 42-43
• 

  Mad Sweeney
• 

  simon17

  Folks, let me tell you what we are up against (in case there are some of you who don't know).

  I showed this material to my wife (who knows of my skepticism, esp on this subject). Her response was: "I don't want to look at that! I think it's all bullshit! You have nothing to prove that what is being said is true. There is nothing to prove that what you are reading isn't all fabricated bullshit!

  Say you are doing exactly what the Watchower said to do at the conclusion of the article: WHY NOT EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF. Ask her why she isn't following the WT's very own direction