page 14 of the awake!
of june 2012 cites ephraim stern.. .
his book, archaeology of the land of the bible: the assyrian, babylonian, and persian periods (732-332 b.c.e.
Firstly, I thank all of you for your kind support.
I want to thank Justitia Themis for pointing me to those most interesting words from the WTS' book, Live With Jehovah's Day in Mind .
And now a big "thank you" to Ann and to Atlantis for providing me the pages from that WTS book.
Because of your help, I have updated the file to include words from Live With Jehovah's Day in Mind .
Doug
page 14 of the awake!
of june 2012 cites ephraim stern.. .
his book, archaeology of the land of the bible: the assyrian, babylonian, and persian periods (732-332 b.c.e.
Justitia Themis,
Are you able to provide a scan of that para or page?
Thanks,
Doug
page 14 of the awake!
of june 2012 cites ephraim stern.. .
his book, archaeology of the land of the bible: the assyrian, babylonian, and persian periods (732-332 b.c.e.
I have updated the file to include additional information.
Doug
page 14 of the awake!
of june 2012 cites ephraim stern.. .
his book, archaeology of the land of the bible: the assyrian, babylonian, and persian periods (732-332 b.c.e.
Page 14 of the “Awake!” of June 2012 cites Ephraim Stern.
His book, “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.), Vol. II” shows that his position is totally at odds with the position held by “Awake!”.
http://www.jwstudies.com/The_June_2012_Awake_Citation_of_Ephraim_Stern.pdf
Doug
Firstly, there is the need to determine who wrote a each passage in question, when, and their reason for writing (religious politics, etc.)
There is little doubt that the Israelites were the hill-dwelling Canaanites, and it is likely they were always there, rather than as a result of being given a "promised land". The stories they wrote were intended to shore up their claim to authority and legitimacy, rather than being a literal record of exactly what happened. In other words, the stories were created histories, in which past events were written solely with the intent of influencing the times in which they were living. Propaganda, if you like.
For example, which of the writers was actually present to record what happened during "Creation"? And why does each Creation story (P account and the J account) contradict one another? Because each group of writers was using parables to push their point to their own community.
Writing as a form of communication did not come into vogue until several centuries after the Exodus/Moses event, and was rejected by many elements of the nation during the 8th to 5th centuries, when much of the Scriptures were written. Writing was confined to a sector of the elite class, scribes who were likely associated with the royal household.
I suppose the WT will point to Isaiah "predicting" Cyrus, conveniently ignoring the fact that a lot of Isaiah was written during and after the Neo-Babylonian period, some 200 years after Isaiah lived and died.
Analyse the Bible as you would any other piece of literature. Unless you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Doug
the june 2012 awake has another article on the exile of the jews by the babylonians.
once again the wt quotes dishonestly.. .
from page 14:.
A search of Stern’s book, “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.), Vol. 2” (which can be done online at Amazon) shows that his position is totally at odds with the position held by “Awake!”.
A comprehensive presentation of current scholarly views is provided in the freely available review of Oded Lipschitts’ book, “Rise and Fall of Jerusalem”. See, for example:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Review_of__The_Fall_and_Rise_of_Jerusalem_.pdf
Doug
so..who here has examples of where the society printed something in a book or magazine...and then when a newer version of the book or bound volume came out...they changed what they wrote to cover up a mistake or to further a doctrinal change?.
The masthead of the magazine originally said "Zion's Watchtower" since it was preparing the way for the setting up of Zionism with the introduction of peace in 1914.
The other part of the magazine's masthead announce "Herald of Christ's Presence" since CTR was announcing that the Parousia had already taken place in 1874.
Doug
so..who here has examples of where the society printed something in a book or magazine...and then when a newer version of the book or bound volume came out...they changed what they wrote to cover up a mistake or to further a doctrinal change?.
Hi Larry,
I think I am correct in saying they do not list the other 1963 book, "All Scripture Ispired ...". Didn't they released an "updated" version?
Weren't there two versions of "Let God be True"?
What about "Aid to Bible Understanding"? Is that listed?
Doug
so..who here has examples of where the society printed something in a book or magazine...and then when a newer version of the book or bound volume came out...they changed what they wrote to cover up a mistake or to further a doctrinal change?.
None of Russell’s predictions came to pass, so words in his books were altered and they continued to sell them.
Today, Witnesses are told that 1914 was a year “marked” by Russell, but they are not told that Russell expected an outbreak of enduring PEACE with 1914, under the auspices of Zionism. Hence the magazine was called "Zion's Watch Tower".
The followng file provides key alterations they made to Russell’s books “Millennial Dawn” [MD], subsequently renamed “Studies in the Scriptures” [SS]. The initial title reflected Russell’s teaching that the Millennium had already dawned.
http://www.jwstudies.com/Changed_MD_and_SS_words.pdf
None of of CTR's dates is accepted today.
Very little, if anything, of the teachings when the WTS was "appointed" in 1919 is acceptable today.
In the 1920s, Rutherford got rid of the pyramids for proving dates, and lost the majority of his followers as a result.
etc., etc.
Doug
so marriage is currently the topic du jour in the tms and this meme's got me thinking about the bible and marriage:.
but when i bring this up with dubs they say that 'jehovah tolerated this so that the israelites could shore up the numbers; it wasn't necessarily sanctioned by him'.
can i get some help with a rebuttal?
I know that I am somewhat off-topic, but I feel some relevance.
What right does one group -- Christians/Jews -- have to impose their views on to non-believers? If a Christian interprets marriage as only between a man and a woman, then that limitation relates to their own convictions. But that does not mean everyone else has to be obedient to a Christian's viewpoint.
Is there any proof that children of a man/woman relationship are always better cared for?
Why should the partners of a homosexual or lesbian relationship have less legal rights?
Likewise for the children of such a family. Why should they have lesser legal rights and protections?
Doug
