by Ultimate Reality 31 Replies latest watchtower bible
If anyone reading on here still believes the WT is to be trusted in anything, they must be deluded in the extreme. To quote mine in this obviuosly lying way leaves no wriggle room.
It means that the cynical writing department knows that it has no way to support 607 and all the stuff that hangs on it, like the legitamacy of the Governing Body, and so must resort to downright lies.
Pathetic.
im surprised you csnt be sued for making false quotations like the original post gives. in england the land of liable im surprised no one sues the wts there for liable, after all isnt this sort of representation completely wrong.
Thanks for pointing this out!
The quotation was referring to ALL the nations that Babylon was conquering, not just Judah:
The savage Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem is well documented both in the Bible (in the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations) and in the archaeological record. When Nebuchadnezzar first placed the city under siege in 597 B.C.E., the city quickly capitulated, thereby avoiding a general destruction. But in response to a revolt by Judah’s King Zedekiah, Nebuchadnezzar dispatched an army that, after an 18-month siege, captured and destroyed the city in 586 B.C.E. The evidence of this destruction is widely confirmed in Jerusalem excavations.a
On his first swing through Judah, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed much of Philistia—Ekron, Tel Batash, Tell Jemmeh, Ruqeish and Tel Sera‘. Particularly devastated was Ashkelon, which the Babylonians sacked in 604 B.C.E.b
Similar evidence of Babylonian destruction can be found throughout the Beersheba Valley, in the Aravah (the valley south of the Dead Sea) and in the Jordan River valley. From south to north, we can trace the effects of Babylonian might—at Tell el-Kheleifeh on the coast of the Red Sea, at Ein Gedi on the shore of the Dead Sea, and further north at Dan, the source of the Jordan River. The same is true in excavations at major northern sites—Hazor; Megiddo, overlooking the Jezreel Valley; and Dor, on the Mediterranean coast—and in central Judah, where, in addition to Jerusalem, we may look at Ramat Rahel and Lachish, among other sites.
But the strange thing is that above the remains left by these destructions, we find no evidence of occupation until the Persian period, which began in about 538 B.C.E. For roughly half a century—from 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation. In all that time, not a single town destroyed by the Babylonians was resettled.1 This is true even of the old Assyrian fortresses along the Way of the Sea (the Via Maris); they were reoccupied only in the Persian period, as shown by the recently excavated fort at Rishon le-Zion.2 The only indications of a Babylonian presence in Palestine are the massive destruction levels the Babylonians left behind. These are indeed impressive, but there is nothing above them that can be attributed to the Babylonian period.
Read what the last paragraph has to say:
It is interesting that in archaeological parlance there is no clearly defined period called “Babylonian.” Indeed, the Babylonian gap is implied by the time charts typically found in Bible handbooks: The destruction of Judah is followed by the Persian period, when, following the eclipse of the Babylonians by the comparatively benign Persians, the Jewish exiles were permitted to return to Palestine.
I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period. There were undoubtedly some settlements, but the population was very small. Many towns and villages were either completely or partly destroyed. The rest were barely functioning. International trade virtually ceased. Only two regions appear to have been spared this fate—the northern part of Judah (the region of Benjamin) and probably the land of Ammon, although the latter region awaits further investigation.13
In reviewing the discussion of the initial post, I have not seen much in defense of the application of Ephraim Stern's work in support of a period of 70 year desolation between 607 and 538 BC. In the context where I encountered it (spring 2011), students in the ministry school, if that is an apt description, were instructed to argue that Stern's Biblical Archeological Review article was evidence in behalf of Jerusalem's destruction in that year vs. 587/86. And subsequent to that, Watchtower articles were citing him as backup in overall chronology discussions.
The consensus was that this is dishonest. But there is still some disarray about how to characterize it and what can be done about it.
In the United States, for example, constitutional amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion make legal protest a slippery issue. I am NOT a lawyer, but I suspect that if a libel lawsuit saw the light of day, there are arguable defenses against it. Currently we are in the midst of political campaigns culminating in November and all manner of things spoken by public figures and written by writers are being taken out of context - and distorted.
I would be curious what a lawyer might say, but most likely it would be one tied already to the Watchtower...
On the other hand, it would be wise not to forget about the idea of "scholastic dishonesty". Does it matter? Consider two cases.
CASE A: The Watchtower certainly does not submit anything to journals with editors or peer review, but we can observe the effects of scholastic dishonesty in those journals when it occurs. In some cases the academic imperative to publish or perish has resulted in epic volumes of papers; in some cases re-examination of the material submitted has identified fraud. In a matter such as cancer research, where there has been some recent re-examination, the consequences can be very significant. Depending on how faked results transform treatment and prevention procedures of cancer, falsification willresult in the loss of lives when patients are veered off course in to pursue quack medicine. In such cases, where institutional researches are investigated and found to have produced fake results, they are dismissed by their institutions. They will also have an uphill battle of re-establishing their credentials. The institution's liability is not likely to cease either.
...But yet it is possible for an organization to petition you with faked evidence about spiritual matters right at your door. In instituting a government for the people and by the people in the country where I reside (which Lincoln addresses in his Gettysburg funeral oration) it was thought that the consequences of not allowing such activity would be worse. But when it should "perish from this Earth", near 98 years behind schedule, you can imagine who the beneficiaries might be.
CASE B: Whereas the above case involves conventional research which might find evidence for a medical cure, there are also investigations which are out on a limb in the first place. This is the case where institutions are devoted to researching a hypothesis which they have bought into a priori. It could be a modest proposition such as effects of vitamin C or it could be an institution devoted to creation science or UFOs. The point is NOT whether these things are true or not initially - because that is what investigation is for. But when an institution with the results spelled out in its middle name is caught with its thumb on the scales or falsifying the evidence, then there is no other conclusion than that the organization is simply the manifestation of a cult which sees itself with higher entitlement than merely attempting to seek any objective truths.
I would guess that more energy is being expended in research departments of CASE B organizations to get data to conform to a pre-conceived notion than to do any genuine research at all. If it were possible to compile ratios of such activity across the board, I am sure it would be fascinating reading with some interesting charts....
In an instance where the spokespersons deny responsibility for what they are saying and reading from a script; when questions cannot be directed to any identifiable authority; when all their publications are anonymous; when all their attributions are questionable; when any dissent is shut down with accusations of vanity and impudence, it make one wonder how any research can be engendered at all. I know of a number of organizations like this. If Jehovah has a theocracy here on Earth, how could he be pleased if it has placed itself in such company?
As it is typical in Watchtower articles, I also found a citation from the book The Bible and Archeology with no references whatsoever, no author, no publishing house, no year of publication, nor page number. I have googled the title, but I can't find anything. Was the Watchtower making up a title or giving the wrong name to avoid someone finding more scholastic dishonesty? Can anyone help me with a reference as what book the Watchtower writer is talking about.
I sent an email two weeks ago to one of the elders of the congregation asking for more details about the book, but no reply yet, as expected.
The book I am referring in my former post is also cited in the June 2012 Awake that is discussed in this thread
NaJ, could it be either of these?
What was that medical quote they did quite recently, which turned out to be a reference to a medical book from 100 years ago! (of course the fact it was 100 year old information was not mentioned).
Like there's been nothing since then which can back up their stance, just some ill informed, century year old reference.
Maybe they should use medical advice from that book when they next need medical attention for themselves!
Splash
Thanks Splash. Good research.
I agree, those books seem old books that can only be good for one reason, to keep as collectible items, not as archaeological reference in 2012.
JW are ludites who call higher education a waste of time, but want the most educated and best trained doctor, using the latest technology when they are hit by a serious disease.
What strikes me about this is that in all the public talks we hear and WTS books we read, the accuracy, the exactness and the detail of prophecy are emphasised. Yet here they are happy with 'corresponds closely'.
What was that medical quote they did quite recently, which turned out to be a reference to a medical book from 100 years ago! (of course the fact it was 100 year old information was not mentioned).
Splash, do you remember from what article The Watchtower quoted from a 100 year old book? What was the topic under discussion?
It would be very interesting to know the title of that book, and try to figure out why they were quoting from it.
