Monday, February 22, 2010

A review of the history book I co-wrote

Update:

Apparently this post generated interest from several people. One sent out a link to it in an email. Two of you have visited as a result of the link. Normally I love new visitors, but I suggest that the visitor from Brooklyn and the vistor from Hubertus, Wisconsin, have motives that make them less than welcome. I address the resons why in another post. Feel free to read it.

If you have a genuine interest in our research, then you can visit my co-writer's blog. If you're here for the 'usual' reasons, please do not return. If I have misjudged your motives, I am sorry. Feel free to tell me so in a blog post.

I am frankly tired of the harassment that has come from writing a well documented history that has disturbed your self and world view. You cannot change the facts. If you fault our research, point to a mistake. If you hate what we wrote because you find it disturbing, you should examine your beliefs and religious expectations.

From one of the topix religion boards:

… Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet (is) extremely well researched, contributing a significant amount to our understanding of the roots of Watchtower history. It contains material never before presented. It’s well documented and thorough. I recommend it to everyone.…

Mr. Schulz and Miss deVienne have done a remarkable job. They write with verve and a bit of tongue in cheek humour. Their book … is a … professional quality history with proper footnotes. You can follow their research trail.

It’s not a polemic. ... Because it is well researched history, the false speculations fall away. And they’re even handed in that. They brand bits of Watchtower research as unfounded. They expose false quotations on the part of anti-Watchtower writers. This is good.I think what appeals to me the most is that they do not hold up anyone as divinely inspired, saintly, or demonic. They present the facts and let them speak for themselves.

... It’s a straight forward presentation of the facts as revealed by original sources. …. I think it’s telling that criticism of it comes from both sides. A pro-watchtower writer hates it because it seems to show merely human origins to “the truth.” Anti-Watchtower people who’ve posted negative comments seem to hate it because it’s not an expose`. Good. This means the writers did something right.

No comments:

Post a Comment