Falsehood
Egentlig er det vel meget forståeligt, at Jehovas Vidner ikke kan svare på spørgsmål, der vedrører Vagttårns-Selskabets kronologi, for den er jo i den grad så indviklet og uforståligt. Netop fordi den er falsk !
I VT for 01.11.2011 findes fortsættelsen på artiklen fra 01.10.2011 om Jerusalems ødelæggelse.
I denne sidstnævnte artikel søger Selskabet støtte hos et par videnskabsmænd og forskere.
Den ene hedder R.H.Sack den anden John Steele.
Efter at disse to videnskabsmænd havde læst artiklen har de hver især fremsat nogle betragtninger, som jeg synes bør komme til flere interesseredes kendskab.
Jeg citerer fra John Steele:
Dear ms. Alley.
Thank yoy for your email concerning the citation of my work in the recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were restricted
to a distinct and small group of texts which are different to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.
I´ve looked of this date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the conventional date.
Regards,
John Steele.
Ronald Sack skriver følgende:
The Watchtower article is a lie.
The correct date is 587.
I have NEVER been interviwed of this subject.
Ron Sack.
Og videre:
Please post my responce.
People shoulkd know how much falsehood associated with the Watchtower article.
Thanks
Ron Sack.
Jeg håber ikke, jeg har citeret forkert i ovennævnte udtalelser, men ellers fremkommer de
igen i nedenfor anførte link fra "you tube":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4uDBuwDVv8
I VT for 01.11.2011 findes fortsættelsen på artiklen fra 01.10.2011 om Jerusalems ødelæggelse.
I denne sidstnævnte artikel søger Selskabet støtte hos et par videnskabsmænd og forskere.
Den ene hedder R.H.Sack den anden John Steele.
Efter at disse to videnskabsmænd havde læst artiklen har de hver især fremsat nogle betragtninger, som jeg synes bør komme til flere interesseredes kendskab.
Jeg citerer fra John Steele:
Dear ms. Alley.
Thank yoy for your email concerning the citation of my work in the recent Watchtower article. As you suggest the author of this piece is completely misrepresenting what I wrote, both in what they say about the lunar three measurement, and in what I say about the possibility of retrocalculation of eclipses (my comments on the latter were restricted
to a distinct and small group of texts which are different to the Diary they are discussing). Just glancing through the Watchtower article I can see that they have also misrepresented the views of other scholars by selective quotation out of context.
I´ve looked of this date of VAT 4956 on several occasions and see no possibility that it can be dated to anything other than the conventional date.
Regards,
John Steele.
Ronald Sack skriver følgende:
The Watchtower article is a lie.
The correct date is 587.
I have NEVER been interviwed of this subject.
Ron Sack.
Og videre:
Please post my responce.
People shoulkd know how much falsehood associated with the Watchtower article.
Thanks
Ron Sack.
Jeg håber ikke, jeg har citeret forkert i ovennævnte udtalelser, men ellers fremkommer de
igen i nedenfor anførte link fra "you tube":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4uDBuwDVv8