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

by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Cadellin

  I was speaking to a friend high up in the WTBTS who was talking to a Brooklyn Bethelite about the spurious experience in a Watchtower earlier this year (an Ethiopian schoolgirl who was allegedly offered a 2000 euro a month job but turned it down to serve Jehovah.) The Bethelite admitted that after it went to press they realised that the experience was a load of rubbish but once it was in the magazine they could do nothing about it & they couldn't amend it & to print any kind of correction in a subsequent magazine would "stumble the brothers".

  Dozy, have you posted about this before? How did they find out it was rubbish? Do you have any more info? (Sorry, I'm not trying to hijack the thread).,,
• 

  muzikman74

  I'd like to take the time to post my good buddy Bill the "TheSnarkyApologist" new video regarding these new Watchtower Articles and the names of the scholars in this thread. Just to let folks know also....I am "wakeupwitness" on youtube.

  Phil

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4uDBuwDVv8
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Why not simply keep ignoring it like they've been doing all these years? Was this a cull of sorts

  wannabefree said: I discovered the purpose of these articles.

  I received an email from an elder telling me there was more information on the subject and directed me to the latest 11/1 Watchtower.

  There we go, subject addressed, shepherding call done.

  Perhaps the reason in addressing it upfront in these articles, vs. leaving it on the backburner, is to settle the issue once and for all time.......at least as far as R&F JWs are concerned. Most JDubs don't think on this high of plain anyway. Reading this string of rebuttal points would cause most serious JDubs to drink. They are not used to having to think for themselves or to do any kind of serious research (beyond the WT CD).

  After these articles being published, if thinking JDubs continue to question it now and discuss it publicly with others, they can be seen as rejecting the position of the F&DS/GB. This could even be construed as having a "brazen" attitude if they fail to stop their divisive talk.

  The "powers that be" do not care what secular scholars may think of this material. They are not trying to influence their thinking. The goal here is to settle the occasional "debates" among the R&F. This is an issue that is critical to JW Doctrine, and has the possibility of undermining some of the loyal followers if they can be prodded into thinking or doing some independent research. Printing the "facts" settles the issue. Period. To consider it any other way would be divisive, disloyal "indenpendent thinking".....dare I say "apostate"?

  DOC
• 

  Alleymom

  I've been fiddling around with some graphics trying to emphasize two simple points --

  1) On page 24 of Part Two of the article, the WT actually admits that my old KISS method works. (They don't, of course, refer to it as the "KISS method!)

  2) They say the method only works if there are no gaps between the kings. So I pulled a WT article that gives the succession of the kings with no gaps.

  I started a new thread with the graphics. I did them with Paint and used Photobucket for image hosting. Unfortunately, the quality when posted here is not as good as I would like it to be.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215793/1/Watchtower-admits-the-KISS-method-works-Nov-1-2011-WT-p-24
• 

  VM44

  "They [The Watchtower] say the method only works if there are no gaps between the kings."

  Would The Watchtower have people believe that there is also a 20 year gap in the Babylonian banking records?
• 

  Mickey mouse

  Would The Watchtower have people believe that there is also a 20 year gap in the Babylonian banking records?

  Yeah, why not? Half the flock would swear the moon was made of cheese if they said so in the Watchtower.
• 

  outsmartthesystem

  I don't know if this has been discussed yet....but if it is agreed that VAT 4956 is from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (the argument being was year 37 in 568 or 588BC), and there is no argument that BM 38462 (LBAT 1420) shows 2 eclipse records for year 17.....then what is the JW response to the details of those eclipses? BM 38462 (LBAT 1420) describes in great detail an eclipse that happened on Tebetu 13 of the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The details say that it happened in the "morning watch". "1 beru, 5 degrees before sunrise. All of it was covered. It set eclipsed". It just happens to be that the 13th day of Tebetu would have fallen on January 8th of 587BC. With the Babylonians dividing the 24 hour day into 12 beru or 360 degrees (one beru = 2 hours and each degree = 4 minutes).......1 beru and 5 degrees would equal about 2 hours and 20 minutes. According to what was written on the tablet, this eclipse began about 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was a total eclipse (hence "all of it was covered"). And it set eclipsed (the eclipse ended after moonset). My my....there just happened to be an eclipse on January 8, 587BC that began at 4:51 am (in the morning watch) just like the text says. Sunrise occurred at 7:12 am that day. The difference between 4:51 am and 7:12 am is 2 hours and 21 minutes.....just like the text says. The moon was FULLY eclipsed from 5:53 am until 7:38 am. Moonset occurred at 7:17am. So this means taht the eclipse was still TOTAL at moonset (hence, it "set while eclipsed).

  This description in the text matches the eclipse that happened on January 8, 587BC perfectly. But if the 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 20 years prior...as the Watchtower claims....then this eclipse would have happened in December 608BC/January607BC. Does ANYONE know if there are any eclipse records from December 608BC/January 607BC? And if so....are they even close to matching the description given in the text?
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  Here below some reaction what i tried to translate form R.J. van der Spek about this topic.

  Although the quotation is correct, I have in all my work exactly the opposite view. historical information must always be prudent used (something that the authors of this Article provides not do so) and the fact that the authors of the diaries were private calls precisely for the reliability. Not that I believe in astrology, certainly not, but the babylonians does and they were very detailed reports of the starry sky and of events on earth. The accuracy of two types of information is also remarkable and also the Babylonian chronicles are a model (certainly to antique concepts) of non-partisan record. That is what my article say. It is precisely the historians like distort reality was once a benevolent story to get their (such as the authors of the watchtower article). The chronology of the new-Babylonian period is certain and there can be no doubt that the first deportation dealt in 597 (under Babylonian chronicles + tens of thousands clay tablets who support this chronology) and the second in 587 or 586 (under biblical chronology). Articles like this type is often written about our section. Writers are not specialists, accept a few dates from the material which appear to defend the argument and ignore the (often overwhelming) evidence that there are objections. Thgis is what was writen in the WT: "Even if an eclipse did occur on a certain date, does thismean that the historical information the writer of the tablet assigns to that date is accurate? Not necessarily. Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: “The compilers were astrologers, not historians.” He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as “more or less casual,” and he warns that such historical information must “be usedwith caution.”15" DS
• 

  Dutch-scientist

  Here below some reaction what i tried to translate form R.J. van der Spek about this topic.

  Although the quotation is correct, I have in all my work exactly the opposite view. historical information must always be prudent used (something that the authors of this Article provides not do so) and the fact that the authors of the diaries were private calls precisely for the reliability. Not that I believe in astrology, certainly not, but the babylonians does and they were very detailed reports of the starry sky and of events on earth. The accuracy of two types of information is also remarkable and also the Babylonian chronicles are a model (certainly to antique concepts) of non-partisan record. That is what my article say. It is precisely the historians like distort reality was once a benevolent story to get their (such as the authors of the watchtower article). The chronology of the new-Babylonian period is certain and there can be no doubt that the first deportation dealt in 597 (under Babylonian chronicles + tens of thousands clay tablets who support this chronology) and the second in 587 or 586 (under biblical chronology). Articles like this type is often written about our section. Writers are not specialists, accept a few dates from the material which appear to defend the argument and ignore the (often overwhelming) evidence that there are objections.

  This is what was writen in the WT:

  "Even if an eclipse did occur on a certain date, does thismean that the historical information the writer of the tablet assigns to that date is accurate? Not necessarily. Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: “The compilers were astrologers, not historians.” He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as “more or less casual,” and he warns that such historical information must “be usedwith caution.”15"

  DS ( better format )
• 

  Adelmo

  I do not know if anyone has done the same here , but I wrote to Dr. Ronald H. Sack , quoted in the Watchtower , and he answered me . See below:

  Hi Dr. Sack,

  The Watchtower magazine of November, 2011 published an article on Neo-Babylonian chronology. The magazine mentions that the sources that support the date 587 BC for destruction of Jerusalem are not reliable. To support this point of view, they quote you some times, among other experts. See a example below:

  “What have experts said? R. H. Sack, a leading authority on cuneiform documents, states that the chronicles provide an incomplete record of important events. He wrote that historians must probe ‘secondary sources . . . in the hope of determining what actually happened.’

  “What do the documents show? There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logically, then, the question arises, how reliable are deductions”.

  So I ask, do you agree somehow with Watchtower on this application? Is there really any chance of the year 587 BC be wrong?

  I am a Brazilian researcher who writes about ancient history and I would appreciate your response.

  Thank you,

  --
  Adelmo Medeiros www.adelmomedeiros.com

  (Soon also into English...)

  Dr. Sack said:

  I have already responded to many who have asked this question. The Watchtower misrepresents me entirely. The date for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 BC. The article in the Watchtower is unsigned and a complete misrepresentation of my work. Marjorie Alley of the Atchaeological Institute of America has correctly represented me on her webpage where she correctly quotes my book Neriglissar---King of Babylon, pp 25-26.

  If anyone here wants to tell me something, please send a message to my email address indicated on my website ("contato"). Thanks!