as a lot of you know, i am making a catalog of all the articles and quotes that the wt used to make the creation book.
i want to see all the quotes for myself, if possible.. i went to my university today, and i got some more books.. checkmate, wt!
i can now check every single quote, almost without regard to how obscure or rare the book is!.
As a lot of you know, I am making a catalog of all the articles and quotes that the WT used to make the Creation book. I want to see ALL the quotes for myself, if possible.
I went to my university today, and I got some more books.
Checkmate, WT! I can now check every single quote, almost without regard to how obscure or rare the book is!
I will add more quotes to my project soon!
hi,.
please review my article (so far) on the quotes in the creation book.... thanks!.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/trsrdw4ojs9fec7/quotes%20in%20the%20book%20-%20formal%20article.pdf.
Hi everyone,
I have progressed a lot in the gathering of the quotes.
The following sources are main sources for the book:
Cosmos
The Origin of Species (various versions and editions)
Discover
The Neck of The Giraffe
Science
Natural History
New Scientist
The Enchanted Loom
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin
The New Evolutionary Timetable
Science Digest
The New York Times
The Guardian
Aid to Bible Understanding
The Selfish Gene
Evolution from Space
Scientific American
Red Giants and White Dwarfs
Etc etc... many books and magazines.
I have been gathering a lot of them... even the hard-to-find ones like the Origin of the Species, Introduction by W.R. Thompson.
I think that I will keep on placing the quotes, one by one, for analysis.
I am shocked that they would put such an against-evolution foreword in The Origin of the Species.
major flip-flop on vat4956:.
in the 1970's it was demonized:.
*** g72 5/8 p. 28 when did babylon desolate jerusalem?
Major Flip-Flop on VAT4956:
In the 1970's it was demonized:
*** g72 5/8 p. 28 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
Nevertheless, someone may ask, Is there not an ancient astronomical tablet, “VAT 4956,” that places the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign exactly in the same year as does Ptolemy’s Canon?
It should not be overlooked that the source of corroborative evidence should bear the earmarks of dependability. Can this be said about “VAT 4956”? Not really. The text is not an original and it contains numerous gaps. Certain terms found therein cannot even be understood now. Twice in the text the notation hi-bi (meaning “broken off, obliterated”) appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that he was working from a defective copy.
Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents a true picture of the original, this would not establish the correctness of the historical data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place astronomical data, so the copyist of “VAT 4956” may, in line with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the ‘thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.’ As admitted by the German scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the translators of this text), the scribe evidently changed words to conform with the abbreviated terminology common in his day. But he was both inconsistent and inaccurate. So he could just as easily have inserted other information to suit his purposes. Hence both Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956” might even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share mutual errors.
Opposed to Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956” stands the unanimous testimony of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and the writer of 2 Chronicles, that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate for seventy years. Thousands of ancient manuscripts of these writings contain the identical testimony. So, because of the problems inherent in Ptolemy’s Canon and “VAT 4956,” it takes more faith to accept them than it does to accept the Bible’s testimony, which would place the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E.
*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid period.
Fast-forward to 2011: No mention of these "problems":
*** w11 11/1 pp. 25-27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
What do the documents show? Consider the example of VAT 4956. The opening line of this tablet reads: “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon.”16 Thereafter, it contains detailed descriptions of the position of the moon and planets in relation to different stars and constellations. Also included is one lunar eclipse. Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E. But do these astronomical references irrefutably point only to the year 568/567 B.C.E.?
The tablet mentions a lunar eclipse that was calculated as occurring on the 15th day of the third Babylonian month, Simanu. It is a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred on July 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during 568 B.C.E. However, there was also an eclipse 20 years earlier, on July 15, 588 B.C.E.17
If 588 B.C.E. marked the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, then his 18th year would be 607 B.C.E.—the very year indicated by the Bible’s chronology for the destruction of Jerusalem! (See the time line below.) But does VAT 4956 provide further corroborating evidence for the year 607 B.C.E.?
In addition to the aforementioned eclipse, there are 13 sets of lunar observations on the tablet and 15 planetary observations. These describe the position of the moon or planets in relation to certain stars or constellations.18 There are also eight time intervals between the risings and settings of the sun and the moon.18a
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies on a certain date in the past.19 What did their analysis reveal? While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.
One of the places where the lunar observations fit 588 B.C.E. even better than 568 B.C.E. is shown in the tablet reproduced on these pages. On line 3 of that tablet, we read that the moon was in a certain position on the “night of the 9th [of Nisanu].” However, the scholars who first dated the event to 568 B.C.E. (astronomical -567) acknowledged that in 568 B.C.E., the moon was in that position on “the 8th of Nisanu and not on the 9th.” To support dating the tablet to 568 B.C.E., they postulated that the scribe erroneously wrote “9” instead of “8.”20 But the lunar position in line 3 finds an exact match on Nisanu 9 of 588 B.C.E.21
Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.
letter from rutherford to "the annointed.
.
bangalore.
Focus, do you have the audio of the f-word!?!? I would looove to have it!!
this is one of the saddest articles in the wt library... just two years after the organ transplant ban... a jw decided to not donate a perfectly good kidney because of this doctrine... which was changed in 1980. .
*** w69 11/15 p. 701 appreciating jehovahs protection ***.
a difficult decision.
OEJ... Definitely correct!!
No guarantee that the person will live... But 100% guarantee they will die if they don't!!
this is one of the saddest articles in the wt library... just two years after the organ transplant ban... a jw decided to not donate a perfectly good kidney because of this doctrine... which was changed in 1980. .
*** w69 11/15 p. 701 appreciating jehovahs protection ***.
a difficult decision.
I used this article to REALLY open up the eyes of a girl in Ecuador... nothing had really convinced her that the JW's were wrong... but this nailed it!
this is one of the saddest articles in the wt library... just two years after the organ transplant ban... a jw decided to not donate a perfectly good kidney because of this doctrine... which was changed in 1980. .
*** w69 11/15 p. 701 appreciating jehovahs protection ***.
a difficult decision.
It's a recorded-in-writing death because of the policy. The young man whose kidneys (both) failed, unless he found another donor, most certainly died from this... You're talking 1969...
this is one of the saddest articles in the wt library... just two years after the organ transplant ban... a jw decided to not donate a perfectly good kidney because of this doctrine... which was changed in 1980. .
*** w69 11/15 p. 701 appreciating jehovahs protection ***.
a difficult decision.
This is one of the saddest articles in the WT library... just two years after the organ transplant ban... a JW decided to NOT donate a perfectly good kidney because of this doctrine... which was changed in 1980
*** w69 11/15 p. 701 Appreciating Jehovah’s Protection ***
A DIFFICULT DECISION
Surgery was indicated as the most promising means of relief. The chief resident urologist offered a choice: He could repair the artery and save half the kidney by help of blood transfusions, or remove the kidney entirely without recourse to blood transfusion. Repair of the artery would involve a high degree of postsurgical hemorrhage. On the other hand, I could survive and do well on one healthy kidney. Removal of the kidney was my choice.
The day before surgery was due the chairman of the kidney transplant team came in and asked if I would agree to making the kidney I was relinquishing available to a young patient whose kidneys had failed. It appears that though the artery leading to my kidney was not functioning, the kidney itself was in good shape. The doctor was keen to have my kidney, but I explained to him that as one of Jehovah’s witnesses I must abide by what God’s law indicates in such a matter. I told him he would get a frank and thorough answer to his inquiry after we had had a family discussion of God’s Word on the issue.
Later that day we informed him of our Biblical position with respect to human flesh and its use and quoted the relevant passages of God’s Word. He asked if I could retain a good conscience after denying my kidney to his young patient. In reply I pointed out that my kidney was not mine to give, and must be used in harmony with the will of the One who created it. And he was compelled to admit that even with the kidney he could not guarantee the survival of his patient. I pointed out that future life through the promised resurrection for myself and his young patient depended upon our obedience to God’s principles as set out in the Holy Scriptures.
had you going there for a minute ;).
now you're here... there are several problems with that illustration, as i see it.. ..... 1) god is the one who inflicted the life threatening ailment that requires an operation.
(he supposedly decided what sin would be defined as, then once adam 'sinned', he cursed all of adams descendants to sin, grow old and die.).
Marked. Excellent!!
Politics and money make it a HARD problem... People thinking that it was God who gave them the land makes it VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to solve.
