It looks like we are going to have to write The Watchtower to inquire as to who are these "researchers" mentioned in the article, and where one may obtain a copy of their analysis of VAT 4956.
Who wants to do that?
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly 322 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AnnOMaly
VM44
The article's conclusion concerning VAT 4956 depends entirely on the results of these reseachers!
However, the researchers are NOT identified! We do not know who they are!
The reader is supposed to simply accept the conclusions made by unknown persons!
I was just about to flag that up myself! All those endnotes, yet the researcher(s) and analyst(s) who has - let's face it - made a significant discovery regarding a cuneiform tablet that has been mis-dated for a century - IS NOT IDENTIFIED or his academic work referenced!!!
-
agonus
"There is no way that this article is intended for the public."
Normally I'd agree with you, the "607 vs. 587" non-debate means nothing to anyone who is not a Jehovah's Witness... but then why feature it in the Public Edition of the WT? What's the reasoning behind that?
Any thoughts?
-
agonus
And if this issue is so crucial, why not make it the cover article rather than... "SEX!"
-
james_woods
As long as we are on this, it should also (always) be mentioned along with 607 that the whole 2520 years prophecy thing is totally made up from dope fumes.
In that sense, the starting point of 607 - and the argument over it, is pretty much a straw man in front of a prophecy that was a delusion.
-
wannabefree
why feature it in the Public Edition of the WT? What's the reasoning behind that?
It is established as present truth put forth by The Faithful and Discreet Slave to be referenced by The Organization and its representatives to quell any unrest of rank & file, while for the most part slipped under the radar to most because it wasn't featured in the Cult version of the Watchtower. I suspect that most publishers skim through the public edition Watchtower, reading articles that they feel comfortable presenting in the ministry.
I believe someone alluded to this on the post of the first article last month as well.
-
agonus
And another thing (steps on soapbox one final time)... since the whole thrust of the date's significance is supposedly tied to 1914's "prophetic" repercussions (and let's face it, even the WT acknowledges in their lit. that that IS in fact the ENTIRE reason the "correctness" of the date is even an issue in the first place)... WHY in Yahweh's glorious name do they even bring this up in a public venue with nary a mention of 1914... hell, not even a WHIFF of the hint of a thought that the date has any kind of prophetic significance?
Somebody help me out here. What are they hoping to accomplish with this article??? I'm seriously stumped...
-
theboywonder
http://history.ncsu.edu/faculty/faculty_lname/asc/C20
i'd say we ought to give him a call, no?
-
simon17
They could have saved 10 pages of ridiculousness by the ONE sentence they had in Part I:
"So why do Jehovah’s
Witnesses hold to a date that differs
from widely accepted chronology by 20
years? In short, because of evidence within
the Bible itself."End of story. The answers is: there is NO evidence for 607. But they believe 537 + 70 = 607 and the Bible prophetically said it would be 70.
Why try to twist all the evidence when you've already stated your intetion in paragraph 1 of the whole thing!?!?!
-
agonus
It just seems to me that an attempt to pacify the R&F on something like this would be better served in the Kool-Aid Edition. I dunno. I can't make heads or tails of anything they do anymore. Their motivation, their reasoning, none of it is adding up. The only thing that would make a modicum of sense at this point is if there is indeed an "apostate" faction that's somehow getting to the Writing Committee and attempting subterfuge via articles like this one while those who are supposedly in control, i.e. the Governing Body, would be too clueless to notice...
It makes me think of something my sharp-as-a-bowling-ball D.O. said back in, I think, 2006... "Very soon things are going to happen in The Organization that are going to make you wonder, What's going on? Have the apostates taken over?"