Posts by Doug Mason

28

Can you give specific examples of the WTBTS taking quotes out of context?

by Chemical Emotions in

not just from the bible, but from secular writers and others.

or other similar mistakes/lies regarding quotes and stories and things like that.. .

i have noticed a few, but i can't remember most of them... oops.

Can you give specific examples of the WTBTS taking quotes out of context?

by Chemical Emotions in

not just from the bible, but from secular writers and others.

or other similar mistakes/lies regarding quotes and stories and things like that.. .

i have noticed a few, but i can't remember most of them... oops.

Doug Mason

I remember the mischief in the "Chronology" article in the "Aid" book, such as half a sentence from Neugebauer (repeated in the "Insight" book), misrepresenting Pritchard's book, and so on.

Something I wrote about 1987 might be relevant to your question:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Handling_Medical_Evidence.pdf

I wonder if "Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower" is still around. It contains a letter from Mantey who wrote to the Watchtower demanding an apology for the way they were using his book.

I recall that they misquoted Hislop by using "the trinity" whereas he wrote "a trinity".

In the original NWT NT intro they showed a picture from Justus Lipsius of a man tied to a pole, without revealing that this was only one of many pictures in Lipsius' book (De Cruce Liber Primus) and that he concluded the conventional depiction was the correct one.

Page 134 of the 1963 book, "Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" says that page 306 of "Harper's Bible Dictionary" says Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim in 618 BC, but the Dictionary says that Jehoiakim was dethroned in 598 BC.

The WTS repeatedly cites the book "Babylonian Chronology" by Parker and Dubberstein as being the authoritative source, yet the WTS does not accept the dates provided by P&D.

Doug

14

What was the source of Ptolemy's Astronomical Data used in the Almagest?

by VM44 in

does anyone know the source of the astronomical data that ptolemy used in his book the alamagest?.

the astronomical observations would have been time indexed using the year and day of the currently ruling king of babylon.. this becomes important is when one computes time differences between observations, particularly if the observations spanned the reigns of two different kings!.

Doug Mason

The following is from Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, F. Richard Stephenson, pages 93-97

More celestial observations are preserved from Babylon than from any other contemporary civilisation. Yet until about a century ago, when large numbers of clay tablets devoted to astronomy began to be unearthed at the site of Babylon, little was known about the achievements of the skywatchers of this once great city. What could be established was mainly based on ancient Greek texts and the Old Testament. Both the Prophet Isaiah (e.g. 47:13) and the ancient Greek writer Strabo (Geography, XVI, 1.6) stress the Babylonian preoccupation with astrology. ... The ancient Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, II, 9) implies that the lofty ziggurat - built during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II (604-563 BC) was used as an observatory. ...

Among writers of the ancient Greek and Roman world whose works are still extant, only the great Alexandrian astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 150) hints at the true scale on which celestial observation was practised at Babylon. In his Mathematike Syntaxis (Mathematical Systematic Treatise) - which later became known as the Almagest - Ptolemy specifically mentions sets of Babylonian eclipse observations to which he had access. ...

It is regrettable that Ptolemy actually cites no more than ten Babylonian records of lunar eclipses from the apparently large number available to him. Furthermore, no observations of solar eclipses from Babylon are preserved in the Almagest, although there are a few references to other celestial phenomena reported from this site, such as conjunctions of planets with stars. These various observations range in date from 721 to 229 BC, lunar eclipses covering the period from 721 to 382 BC.

The discovery of vast numbers of astronomical cuneiform texts at the site of Babylon during the 1870s and 1880s was eventually to revolutionise knowledge of Babylonian astronomy. These texts, which are in the form of inscribed clay tablets, range in date from about 730 BC to AD 75. Many of the eclipse records which they contain have proved so important in studies of the Earth's past rotation. ... In particular, the earlier observations must have formed the ultimate source of the material used by Hipparchus and Ptolemy. Despite the existence of this huge archive, the ten Babylonian lunar eclipse records cited in the Almagest form an interesting set of data and deserve to be analysed in their own right. ... It should be stressed that [the Assyrian cuneiform tablets of the eighth and seventh centuries BC] are mainly in the form of astrological texts and - unlike the Babylonian material - contain little quantitative information. 4.2 The Babylonian lunar eclipse records in the Almagest The very earliest astronomical records quoted in the Almagest are exclusively of Babylonian origin. ... Ptolemy evidently did not have access to material much older than 721 BC - the earliest Babylonian eclipse record which he discusses. He states (III, 7) that beginning with the reign of King Nabonassar (correct name: Nabu-nasir) of Babylon (747-733 BC) 'the ancient observations are, on the whole, preserved down to our own time'. This is apparently why Ptolemy chose the era of Nabonassar (747 BC) for numbering years. ... It is a fact that Babylonian history and chronology are extremely weak in the two centuries immediately prior to Nabonassar's reign. Even the names of several kings who ruled during this interval are unknown (cf. Oates, 1979, p.201). However, beginning with Nabonassar, Babylonian chronology is securely established.

It seems very likely that Ptolemy did not compile the list of Babylonian observations himself. The evidence points instead to Ptolemy's great predecessor Hipparchus of Rhodes (c. 150 BC). As noted above, Ptolemy specifically mentions a series of eclipse observations which had been 'brought over from Babylon' and investigated by Hipparchus. Toomer (1988) is of the opinion that the entire Babylonian record available to Ptolemy was compiled by Hipparchus, further suggesting that Hipparchus 'arranged them in a form suitable for use by Greek astronomers'. It is clear from reading the accounts of individual eclipses quoted by Ptolemy that he did not receive them at first hand. Sadly, apart from the material preserved in the Almagest, all trace of Hipparchus' compilation has long been lost.

No ancient manuscripts of the Almagest now exist; the earliest copies date from the ninth century AD (Toomer, 1984, pp. 2-4). However, as Toomer points out, there is in general very close accord between the text of individual manuscripts.

For the very earliest eclipse observations (721 and 720 BC) which he cites, Ptolemy numbers the year from the accession of Mardokempad (Marduk-apla-iddin), who was ruler of Babylon at the time. However, all later years are counted from the era of Nabonassar. Although the eclipse dates would originally be expressed in terms of the Babylonian luni-solar calendar, Ptolemy invariably specifies the month in terms of the Egyptian calendar. Numbering days from a fixed epoch was considerably simplified on this latter system. Each Egyptian year contained 12 equal months of 30 days followed by 5 epagomenal ('additional') days. This fixed year of 365 days was not adjusted to the solar year by intercalation so that the first day of the year gradually retrograded through the seasons, making a complete circuit in 1460 years (the Sothic cycle). ...

In quoting days of the month for lunar eclipses, Ptolemy was in the habit of using double dates - e.g. Thoth 18/19. This is because although the civil day began at sunset in Babylon, according to Egyptian convention it commenced at the following sunrise (Toomer, 1984, p. 12). ...

Comparison with the many lunar records found on the astronomical tablets recovered from Babylon makes it clear that the eclipse times quoted by Ptolemy are not in original form (i.e. using time-degrees) but have been modified to correspond to the Greek method (equinoctial or seasonal hours). Presumably Hipparchus was responsible for these reductions. It is a pity that the original measurements are not preserved; it is likely that some loss of accuracy would occur when the times were reduced to the Greek system. However, no attempt at restoration is possible. Only in a single case (523 BC) is there a parallel inscription on an extant cuneiform tablet, and even this is problematical.

38

Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason in

the october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?

includes the following statement.. .

there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.

Doug Mason

When I saw the Watchtower article’s reference to Anatolian Studies, it stood out like a sore thumb. In the latter 1960s we were constantly visited by JWs.

Quite fortuitously, I obtained two studies at the time that exposed the Watchtower’s errors with 1914, and their neo-Babylonian chronology in particular.

When part A-E of “Aid to Bible Understanding” came out, I sought the material referenced by the “Chronology” article.

For example, at page 327 the author wrote:
“What is thought to be a memorial written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological information for this period, but many portions of the text are damaged. In the following translation of one section (taken from Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 311, 312), the words and figures in brackets represent the historian's attempts at restoring the damaged parts of the text. To appreciate how truly fragmentary the text is (etc., etc.)”

This was Pritchard's reference to the 1906 Adda-guppi stelae, which indeed were badly damaged, and years had been inserted by modern scholars.

However, on pages 560-561 of Pritchard's book I also read that identical but undamaged stelae had been discovered in 1956, and these confirmed the previously postulated dates. That meant that the author of Aid’s “Chronology” article did not reveal what Pritchard’s book actually said.

At the moment I cannot recall the reason, but in my searching I obtained the 1958 article in Anatolian Studies by Gadd that is referred to by the Watchtower article.

I recollect that issues raised by Gadd were addressed by Joan Oates; details are stuck somewhere in the cobwebs of the mind. Those were the days of BPC (before personal computers), where we had to write letters and visit libraries.

I notice a book on Babylon by Joan Oates is available online; I assume it could be helpful.

Doug

38

Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason in

the october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?

includes the following statement.. .

there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.

Doug Mason

b o c,

When I wrote that by writing this article the WTS have limited their options, I had in mind that they could have left open the option to drop their "Bible Chronology" reasoning. They could have let the matter continue to rest, particularly since they have waited for so long before bringing it to the fore. And it is so long since "1914". It is not impossible that they bowed to pressure from internal self-interested sources.

I thought it was not impossible for them to have dropped all reference to the chronology and to 1914. I am fully aware of their massive changes in the past, and would not have been surprised had they done it again. I have in mind 1874, the pyramids, unprecedented peace from 1914 onwards under Zionism, shift from 536 to 539 for Babylon's fall, etc., etc. Have you read Shadduck's "Seven Thunders of Millennial Dawn"? where he showed (in 1928!) the 180-degree changes the WTS made to CTR's books, and then continued selling them?

The WTS's reach is now hampered by the effectiveness of the www, which I imagine will influence their focus on those who still read only the WTS's publications.

Just a guess; time will tell.

Doug

38

Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason in

the october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?

includes the following statement.. .

there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.

Doug Mason

Thanks for your advice and corrections. As a result, I have made further amendments to my commentary on the Watchtower's article.

http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

I have maintained my very deliberate and conscious decision to limit the scope of my Commentary for now. I am waiting to see what their second article contains.

At several levels, the WTS appears to be shooting itself in the foot. Since the WTS provides its Watchtower articles online for only one month, all they will have left online will be critical articles.

Why have they waited for so long before making this defence?

Why now?

Why have they limited their options when it becomes even clearer that their prophetic expectations have failed?

Doug

38

Something the "Watchtower" left out

by Doug Mason in

the october 1, 2011 watchtower article when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?

includes the following statement.. .

there is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of nabopolassar (the first king of the neo-babylonian period), another king (ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in babylonia.

Doug Mason

The October 1, 2011 Watchtower article “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?” includes the following statement.

“There is also strong evidence from cuneiform documents that prior to the reign of Nabopolassar (the first king of the Neo-Babylonian period), another king (Ashuretel-ilani) ruled for four years in Babylonia. Also, for more than a year, there was no king in the land.[9] Yet, all of this is left out of Ptolemy’s canon.” (Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 31)

When the Watchtower paragraph indignantly complains “all of this is left out”, it refers to endnote number 9, which includes this statement: “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus, (H1B), I, line 30, has [Ashur-etelilani] listed just before Nabopolassar. (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, pages 35, 47)”

Pages 35 and 36 of Anatolian Studies list “four monuments of the reign of Nabonidus … found at (or near) Harran”.

Page 46 to 53 of Anatolian Studies provide a transliteration and an English translation of that Babylonian document. It is an undamaged record by “the lady Adda-guppi, mother of Nabium-na’id, king of Babylon” (lines 1 – 2, page 47).

The Watchtower refers to line 30 at page 47 of Anatolian Studies but it “leaves out” exactly what that line states, it “leaves out” undamaged line 29, and it “leaves out” undamaged lines 31 to 33. The following are the words from lines 29 to 33 that are “left out” by the Watchtower: “From the 20th year of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, that I was born (in) until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Assur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadrezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth.” (Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, 1958, page 47)

Column II, lines 26 to 28 state: “From the time of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year of Nabu-na’id king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb 104 years of happiness”. (Anatolian Studies, page 49)

Lines 40 to 43 state: “In the 21 years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, in the 43 years of Nebuchadrezzar, son of Nabopolassar, and 4 years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon (when they exercised the kingship, for 68 years.” (Anatolian Studies, page 51)

It is pure hypocrisy for the Watchtower article to complain about information being left out when it does the same thing, leaving out directly relevant information.

Doug

16

587 B.C.E vs 607 B.C.E

by fade_away in

the latest oct. watchtower has an article that seems to be controversial amongst us "apostates.

" it's a long complicated article with tons of confusing names and dates, but in the end it sums it up and says:.

"to sum up: the bible clearly states that there was an exile of 70 years.

Doug Mason

Over the years, I have presented much on the WTS's misquotations, misrepresentations, lies and deceits, and I did not want to repeat old territory.

My intention with the piece is to track the arguments put out in the Watchtower's article and to then provide counter arguments at those points. I visualised a JW pointing to a certain location in the article and I wanted to provide a tool that enabled a person quickly to locate the counter argument. Hence my constant references to page numbers.

I have now taken the next natural step with that piece by including headings. This should make it easier to use.

The article is available at the same URL:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

I am still very keen to hear good criticism, which, as you can see, I am prepared to take on board.

Doug

224

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree in

obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

Doug Mason

Over the years, I have presented much on the WTS's misquotations, misrepresentations, lies and deceits, and I did not want to repeat old territory.

My intention with the piece is to track the arguments put out in the Watchtower's article and to then provide counter arguments at those points. I visualised a JW pointing to a certain location in the article and I wanted to provide a tool that enabled a person quickly to locate the counter argument. Hence my constant references to page numbers.

I have now taken the next natural step with that piece by including headings. This should make it easier to use.

The article is available at the same URL:

http://www.jwstudies.com/Commentary_on_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf

I am still very keen to hear good criticism, which, as you can see, I am prepared to take on board.

Doug

224

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Why It Matters - What the Evidence Shows

by wannabefree in

obviously 607 is a problem, watchower coming out full forces on this one in the latest public edition.. http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111001.pdf.

Doug Mason

I had to correct a word in my brief Commentary.

I am sure others will find more. Please let me know.

Doug