Maryland congregation gave me false info

by Alleymom 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Alleymom

  Qwerty ---

  Thanks, it's a site I bookmarked awhile ago. I've been hoping to have a chance to reopen this discussion with one of the Bowie JW's. This time I copied some pages from Parker & Dubberstein's Babylonian Chronology and some of the other references they cite, to show that the same sources they cite for 539 also say 586/7 rather than 607 BCE.

  I poked around a bit with the WT Library CD I got on eBay, and I noticed that the WT literature has the correct regnal lengths for each of the neo-Babylonian kings. It's just spread around a bit and you never see a total. But if you sort through the various WT sources and list the kings and the lengths of each reign, this actually adds up to the traditional chronology as found in P&D, etc., meaning their chronology is disproved by their own literature.

  Marjorie
• 

  rocketman

  Hi Marjorie,

  You are to be commended for checking things out. You and your hubby sound like people who are well educated - the type that jws have trouble dealing with because you are knowledgeable with regard to history, etc. Hard to pull the 'ol wool over your eyes.
• 

  qwerty

  Marjorie

  I noticed that the WT literature has the correct regnal lengths for each of the neo-Babylonian kings. It's just spread around a bit and you never see a total. But if you sort through the various WT sources and list the kings and the lengths of each reign, this actually adds up to the traditional chronology as found in P&D, etc., meaning their chronology is disproved by their own literature.

  Interesting stuff, just wish you could have been around when I had a visit from one my local Elders. He's sticking to the WT societies view! I was not prepared to defend myself properly. I asked him - how could all secular history books be wrong, all he could say was that the society stick to biblical chronology!

  By the way, how much did you pay for the WT CDROM? I am thinking of putting a 1993 addition up for auction on Ebay.

  Qwerty
• 

  Alleymom

  Qwerty --

  Interesting stuff, just wish you could have been around when I had a visit from one my local Elders. He's sticking to the WT societies view! I was not prepared to defend myself properly. I asked him - how could all secular history books be wrong, all he could say was that the society stick to biblical chronology!

  Yeah, the Society against the whole world and all of evil Christendom <s>. But your elder probably didn't realize there are PLENTY of Bible scholars in Christendom who ALSO stick to Biblical chronology. They just calculate the 70 years FOR Babylon (not IN or AT Babylon) as running from 609 to 539 BCE, which meshes with what the secular historians say about the neo-Babylonian empire. I know the society tries to say they are the only ones who really believe the Bible and accept the Bible chronology of 70 years, but that's nonsense.

  I printed out a chart from a non-apostate site showing the timeline of the Babylonian empire, with the 70 year period marked very clearly. I hope I get a chance to give this to Eve and her husband. Even if they aren't ready to believe the society could possibly be wrong, it does show that there ARE other Bible scholars who believe in "70 years". Small steps.

  BTW, some scholars count an additional 70 year period (in addition to the one FOR Babylon), running from 586 (destruction of Jerusalem) to the rebuilding of the temple under Darius, completed in 516. I tried to bring this up with someone at my door about 8 years ago, but I don't believe the person had ever actually read Zechariah all the way through, and I made the mistake of giving too much info too fast.

  I have never met a JW at the door who is well-acquainted with the relevant passages in Jeremiah or Zechariah. So I have learned to dumb it way down and just start off with a few questions and go from there. A lot of times I just have to settle with asking them to find me even ONE source that supports their idea that Jerusalem was detroyed in 607 BCE, and I promise them I will read it if they can find it.

  By the way, how much did you pay for the WT CDROM? I am thinking of putting a 1993 addition up for auction on Ebay.

  I probably paid too much for the CD. I got into a bidding war with someone, but since these are hard to come by I went up to $61. This was for the 2001 CD. Check with a guy called mbsurfer. He's the one who bid the price up on me, and I checked his history. He's bought other WT CD's, maybe he'll buy yours.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Rocketman --

  You and your hubby sound like people who are well educated

  Jim was associate editor at Biblical Archaeology Review for seven years in the 80's, and he got me interested in chronology. I have a degree in religion, but before Jim worked for BAR I was mostly interested in theology.

  We're both bookworms, so we have a pretty good home library. A lot of times I actually own the book or article that the WT is quoting, and when I look it up, it's apparent that they are quoting selectively.

  That's true of the latest WT I was given, the May 15 issue. In the first article there's a very selective quote from Keil and Delitzch, and the page number is wrong, to boot.

  I hope I get a chance to pull a few books off the shelf and SHOW Eve and her husband that the books which are quoted in the WT articles they gave me ALL support 586/7, not 607 BCE.

  Marjorie
• 

  benext

  Alleymom, it's important to note when dealing with JW's they will always accept what the Society tells them. You can show them the original source but they will somehow reason their publication is completely correct and your book has something wrong with it.
• 

  A Paduan

  "The Book of Truthful Historical Dates". I find it extraordinary that the wt publishes something called that - it's like there's no end to the gall that comes out of that place.

  As for the Britanica thing - inform the nearest elders (more than one) that you may feel bound to send it to the Britanica people should they persist in their deceitful religious activities.
• 

  Alleymom

  As for the Britanica thing - inform the nearest elders (more than one) that you may feel bound to send it to the Britanica people should they persist in their deceitful religious activities.

  I was thinking about that. If I call the Kingdom Hall, will they give me the names of the elders and the head guy (is that the presiding overseer) so I can send a letter? I also thought about writing to WT headquarters.

  Of course if I do that, I'll probably never see anyone from the Bowie congregation again.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Alleymom, it's important to note when dealing with JW's they will always accept what the Society tells them. You can show them the original source but they will somehow reason their publication is completely correct and your book has something wrong with it.

  Benext, I hear you. I don't have unrealistic expectations regarding their reaction, but I still think it's important for them to be confronted with this if they come back. Even if they successfully rationalize away the society's use of sources in "The Book of Truthful Histgorical Dates," they may be convinced their local elder did something wrong (plagiarizing from the religioustolerance site and making it look like the Britannica). Maybe not, but I figure it's worth a shot. I think Eve believes I am a sincere person. When she was here a year ago, her partner was an incredibly rude and angry young man. He started yelling at me when I brought out an old WT book. He said it was a fake. He became so mad and verbally abusive that to my horror I started crying. Eve and the other female JW's who were walking down the street came over and shooed Tom away and started patting me <s>. It was quite a scene. I was embarrassed, but actually it gave me some credibility with Eve. My tears probably convinced her I'm not an evil opposer, just a deceived member of Christendom with a good heart <wry grin>. Marjorie