When DID scholar return?
When DID the Jews return?
by Doug Mason 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
writetoknow
If the facts were correct we would be living in a new world order or be dead by now! No honest hearted person can look at the facts of the Watch Tower Society and not see the many adjustments to explain away "that generation"
None not one of the Christian writers concerned themselve with the return of Jews 607 date they live each day as the end was upon them. They did not know when the Lord would come they knew it would be as a thief and at hour they would least expect him to come.
Christ clearly stated no on would know the day or hour of his return but the Father. Any honest hearted person associated with the Watch Tower over the last 40-years knows the truth of this subject. If you judge other groups for their failing prophecies and then let yourself off by calling it new light and at the same time disfellowingship brothers and sisters not going along with false teachings that now have changed over and over again.
Then you are condenm by your own actions. It is one thing to be mislead but to knowing deny the truth when the facts are clear and persecute Gods children for not going along with false doctrine is a sin that far worst then those you disfellowship for not going along with society every changing doctrine.
This point regarding this date is not a nice little conversation it has ruined the lives of many faithful servant of God and if that is not enough to make you honestly look at the subject then shame on you.
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 195
It appears that you have an obsession with the research of the 'celebrated' WT scholars showing that 537 BCE was the date of the Return of the Jewish Exiles for you have now posted two articles 'When Did The Jews Return To Jerusalem?' and 'By The Rivers of Babylon:The Jews Return Home' on your website. Both of the articles offer nothing new as to the precise yearof the Return wherein you admit that "no one really knows for certain which year the Jews returned home"; "It possibly happened in 536 BCE but it could have been as late as 535 BCE"; "Everyone else...does not know".
These are most intriquing statements because apostates do know or pretend to know that precise year because they are confident that 538 BCE is that very date. Carl Jonsson advocates 538 and so does a follower of Jonsson namely Alan F who both promote 538 the former with reservation and the latter with dogmatism. As I have inquired earlier I am somewhat perplexed why you have not bothered to consult Jonsson's research on WT chronology as he also like you offers information regarding calendation which you utilize in discussing when Cyrus' 'first year' should be placed. Further, Jonsson when advocating his nominated 538 BCE uses similar assumptive language as does the WT writers when advocating 537 BCE. For example, in that aforementioned footnote, Jonsson employs such expressions as "If Ezra", "Most likely","The context seems to imply","he may have reckoned", so if it was necessay for Jonsson to employ such terms in order for him to advocate 538 BCE then your criticism of WT writers is rather most unfair and dishonest.
Jonsson on page 303 ftn.44 makes the following: "Most commentators end the seventy years with the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, with Cyrus' decree in 538 BCE, with the return of the first Jewish remnant to Palestine in 538 or 537 BCE,(Ezra 3:1,2),or with the commencing of the reconstruction of the temple in 536 (Ezra 3:8-10). Next he cites a reference work by Professor Payne in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. This authority clearly attests to that 538 as to the year of the Decree and 537 as the year of the Return.
Now to return to your thesis.My problem with your approach is that you dwell on the omission of facts that are vital in completing a full account of the Return, The Bible gives us two basic facts; 1. The Decree was issued in the 'first year of Cyrus' -Ezra 1:1. This would be his first regnal year as attested by Josephus who refers to the 'first year of the reign of Cyrus'. - Antiquities Of The Jews, Book 11, Chapter 1:1. This 'first regnal year' according to Jack Finegan in his handbook Of Bible Chronology,1964, p.170 was 538/537 BCE which ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE. 2. The Jews had returnetd home and were resettled by the seventh month Tishri according to Ezra 3:1 but we are not told whether this occurred in Cyrus' first or second year.
Scholars including the celebrated ones need to complete a chronology for the Return and must factor in the following:
1. The proclamation and promulgation of the Decree throughout the kingdom
2. Temple contributions to be arranged
3.Preparations for the journey
4. Length of journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.
Whether the reign of Cyrus was commensurate with that of Darius or followed after his reign it is easily seen that the Jews would have returned by Tishri of 537 especially if the first full year of Cyrus ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar 536 BCE, or about March 12, 537 to March 29, 536 BCE, Julian calender or March 6, 537 to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian calender.
scholar JW
-
Bob Loblaw
Who celebrates these so-called "celebrated" WT scholars?
-This kind of speech reminds me of how every person in North Korea refers to Kim Jong Ill as 'our dear leader'.
-
Doug Mason
Dear JW Scholar,
I enjoy and appreciate our discussion. I find it stimulating and an opportunity for rigorous examination of my research. I have not produced anything new. I wrote such material over 40 years ago, during the 1960s. Our discussion helps me to identify whether anything new has arisen that the WTS has drawn on that supports its contention. The question should not be “is it new”, but rather “is it true”.
I am pleased that you understand “accession-year reckoning” and the Nisan and Tishri calendars.
I agree with you that there is an “omission of facts that are vital in completing a full account of the Return”. And that is my point too. The insufficiency of the information is confirmed with the two facts that you say the Bible provides. These facts are not enough to give us the actual year that the Jews returned:
You write: “The Decree was issued in the 'first year of Cyrus' -Ezra 1:1. … This 'first regnal year' according to Jack Finegan in his Handbook Of Bible Chronology,1964, p.170 was 538/537 BCE which ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE.”
Although Finegan says that Cyrus’ “first year” was 538/537, the WTS “scholars” are adamant that Darius had a sole rule that reached a “second year” before Cyrus came to the throne. They say the Decree was not issued during Darius’ “first year”. The statements made by these WTS “scholars” push Cyrus’ first year of rule over Babylon further into the future, diminishing and even eliminating the likelihood that the Jews returned in 537 BCE.
Are you now saying that Jack Finegan should be believed above the WTS’s “experts”? On his page 87, Finegan says that Nebuchadnezzar’s “first year” began on Nisan 1 604 BC. Or do we just select the bits that suit us?
As you wrote, Finegan says on page 170 of his book, “Accordingly, (Cyrus’) first year (over the Babylonians), in which he made his proclamation, was 538/537 BC”. But in that paragraph Finegan does not say, as you did, that it ran from Nisan. On his previous page, Finegan mentions that the year could run from Nisan or from Tishri.
Ezra recorded Cyrus’ Decree, and he used the Tishri (Sept/Oct) calendar (see Finegan, pages 90-91, remembering that the Jews treated Ezra and Nehemiah as one book). When the Tishri reckoning is followed, this pushes Cyrus’ first year even further into the future.
In which part of his “first year” did Cyrus issue his Decree? How do you know? If it was right at the end, the list of preparations required for the 50,000 people to take a 4-month trek could not be carried out in time for them to return in 537 BCE.
-------------------You write: “The Jews had returned home and were resettled by the seventh month Tishri according to Ezra 3:1 but we are not told whether this occurred in Cyrus' first or second year.”
I thought you were saying that we know that the Jews returned in 537 BCE. Now you agree with me that we do not know exactly when they returned.
-------------------Let us build on that list of facts you prepared.
0. Cyrus begins his “first year”. If we go by secular Babylonian reckoning, it started on Nisan (March) 1, 538 BCE. If we go by Ezra’s Biblical reckoning, it started on Tishri (Oct) 1 538 BCE. But if Darius had a sole year before Cyrus assumed kingship of Babylon (as the WTS says), Cyrus might have started his first year in either March 536 or October 536. The WTS is adamant that Darius had a first year and the Decree was not issued then.
1. The proclamation and promulgation of the Decree throughout the kingdom. We do not know in which part of the year Cyrus issued his Decree. It might have been at the very start or it might have been at the end, or some time in between. No solid ground here.
2. Temple contributions to be arranged. Time required for the audit, collection and securing of the sacred items.
3. Preparations for the journey. It is not known when they started their preparations. Conditions would be too difficult during the cold and wet Winter for much preparatory work to be done then.
4. Length of journey from Babylon to Jerusalem. A long, hot and arduous 4 month trek by 50,000 men, women, children, animals and belongings.
-------------------
Then you throw in a Furphy (Aussie expression for a tall story). I am bewildered when, after providing no evidence, no facts, no support, you write: “Whether the reign of Cyrus was commensurate [concurrent?] with that of Darius or followed after his reign it is easily seen that the Jews would have returned by Tishri of 537”
I did not ask for a “would have returned”, I am looking for a “definitely proven to have returned”. You are doing nothing more than looking for room that could hold a predetermined conclusion. That’s not genuine study. Despite the WTS-speak of “it is easily seen”, I contend that it is not.
-------------------You continue: “If the first full year of Cyrus ran from Nisan [March] 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar [March] 536 BCE.”
I did not ask for an “if”, I want definite proof. And then I want to know the date during year running from March 537 to March 536 that the Decree was made. And then I want to know that the Jews had time to fully prepare, even if the Decree were issued on Nisan 1, 537 BCE.
You can “hope” they were already prepared, but is that ground solid enough to build a foundation on? No, it is not, most definitely not.
-------------------Prove what is true. Prove there is compelling, independent evidence that the Jews returned during the year 537 BCE, and I will accept it. That is the nature of true and honest research. I have not seen such evidence. I for one, would like to see it. No doubt so might the WTS. Or maybe not?
Doug
-------------------
For anyone else reading this, the issue at stake is identifying the year that the Jews returned to Jerusalem, following Cyrus’ Decree during the “first year” of his rule over Babylon. The date of the Jews’ return is absolutely critical for the WTS, since they calculate their 607 BCE date for the Destruction of Jerusalem from the date that they say the Jews returned. I say it has not been proven by anyone that the Jews returned in 537 BCE. -
scholar
Doug Mason
History is not iperfect and even the Bible does contain all of the facts that we moderns demand of such a record. Chronology is not an exact scienc ebut must rely on documents or an imperfect record so as to provide a framework in which the reader cam understand that record. Regarding the history of the Return there are some details that we simply do not know and one must make certain assumptions in order to utilize what data or facts are available. In this case we have two basic facts namely that the Decree was made in the first year of the reign of Cyrus which most if not all authoriies agree ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE. The other fact is that the Jews returned home by the seventh month but it is not stated in what year.
I have consulted much information concerning this event of the Return and all of these authorities make assumptions as does the WT writers so that is the nature of the beast however our approach using all of the available evidence 'proves' that 537 BCE was the year of the Return. In your thesis you develop a number of scenarios to show that the WT model is unprovable and you too use assumptions but you prouce no result.
I believe that what the WT society has written on this subject over many decades and encompasssing all facts and assumptions have well and truly proven their case. Carl Jonsson who is a much more thorough critic of WT chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE has left 537 BCE more or less alone. If he felt for one moment that the WT was 'weak' in this specific matter then he would have exploited this grevious error to the full. At best he finds in favour of 538 BCE which differs from your 'probable' 536 or 535 BCE. You are the onlyperson that I am aware of who has spent so much research on this subject and I have been involve with chronology for nearly forty years.
I cannot add more to this matter than what has already been published by 'celebrated' WT scholars but I can vigourosly defend their position. In my opinion 537 BCE is provable and is the precise year for the Return which in turn leads to 607 BCE as the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem beginning the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.
Chronology is imperfect as I have stated but one works with what facts are availabel, adhering to the integrity of God's Word rather than profane secular souces and Holy Spirit which is our Helper, all work together in constructing a chronology that produces faith and inspires prophesying.
There is little value gained by simply 'throwing stones' at something unless you offer something better or thruthful. You say you seek truth then you should produce a result, a precise year for that epochal event is now demanded of you. If you cannot produce the goods then perhaps humbly acknowledge the work of others because truth is found in a community not from an isolated one. Criticism for the sake of criticism is not wisdom but amounts to foolishness even though it appeals to our vain intellect. Wisdom is present with that faithful slave who traditionally established that 537 BCE is the date of the Return despite the darkness that pervades Christendom and her scholars.
scholar JW
-
drew sagan
Looks like we just might have another Jedi battle on our hands!
-
besty
scholar I have read many of your posts and I think perhaps alcohol plays a major part in your life ;-) yes?
anyway http://www.amazon.com/Gentile-Times-Reconsidered-Chronology-Christs/dp/0914675060
let us all know when you have a book in print and we can take your views from there.
otherwise - just one more for the road....
take care
besty -
AlanF
Again we find moronic rantings from scholar pretendus, which go like this:
DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?
Scholar pretendus: There is proof!
DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?
Scholar pretendus: There is proof!
DougMason: Where's the proof that the Jews returned in 537?
Scholar pretendus: There is proof!
. . .
Such is the result of a lifetime of devotion to 'celebrated WT scholars'. LOL!
More like, spiritually inebriated WT fakes.
AlanF
-
JeffT
There is proof!
Of course, there is. Just go to a liquor store and look around. I think this was a major factor in a lot Judge Rutherford's calculations.
