Here's a thought, Scholar. If you'd like to be taken seriously, why don't you try to sound less like a cult member than you currently do. I swear this "celebrated WT scholars" and "celebrated ones" stuff makes you sound like a member of the Manson Family, especially since these "celebrated scholars" are anonymous. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I sure as heck don't like to get my history from a cult member.
When DID the Jews return?
by Doug Mason 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 197
Your comments demand a reply. You are partially correct when you say that the WT's adoption of 537 BCE is traditional or owes itself merely to some 'tradition'. In fact, as 586 BCE rather than the 'apostate' date of 587 has become the traditional date for the Fall within current scholarship so it is the case with 537 BCE for the Return. This widespread endoresement of this date is due to the research methodology which the 'celebrated' Wt scholars first brought to the attention of the scholarly community in 1949. This nicely followed the publication of Babylonian Chronology 626 BC-AD 45 by Richard Parker and Waldo h. Dubberstein in 1942 and 1946 respectively anticpated by the 'celebrated' and fully utilzed by them in the 'fine tuning ' of Bible chronology.
It is your position that is 'feeble' because your research offers nothing new, no fresh insights offering no precise date for the Fall for all you achieve is simply a biased criticism of a widely held traditional date well crafted on the basis of history by the 'celebrated ones'.
You say that the date is inconsequential to you which is rather dishonest because you have spent much time on this subject having already posted major articles on your website relating to this very matter so who are you trying to fool?
scholar JW
-
Doug Mason
“JW Scholar”,
I wish you produced more light than heat in your presentations.
Please do not ask Alan to be my apologist, nor ask me to be an apologist for someone else, either. My name is “Doug”. It’s been my name for over 66 years; so please refer to me by that name. We might have different views but we can at least discuss them in a proper manner.
The date of the Jews’ return is of consequence to the WTS (and to them alone) and for that reason they must describe how they PROVE that the Jews returned in 537 BCE. The Jews might have returned then but I have not seen any evidence which proves whether they did or did not. If Alan’s arguments convince me, or if your arguments convince me, I am prepared to grow in knowledge and understanding.
The matter of the neo-Babylonian chronology is a test of the WTS in several ways, not the least being a test of the way they handle facts and factual information. The topic provides a flag. If the WTS behaves wantonly when they handle provable, objective, factual information, how do they behave with the interpretation of Scripture, or prophecy?
You write that the facts accommodate “all relevant factors namely the acknowledgement of the reign of Darius, [and] the first year of Cyrus counts from Nisan”. Therein lie a couple of the WTS’s problems. By inserting a reign for Darius before the first year of Cyrus, the WTS pushes the possible date of the return to 536 BCE or 535 BCE. It is not I who is doing this, but the WTS. Where do you get the idea that Ezra-Nehemiah used Nisan reckoning?
In 1943, the WTS altered its date for the Destruction of Babylon from 538 BCE to 539 BCE. This change followed the 1942 release of Parker and Dubberstein. The WTS incorrectly blamed CTR for not knowing about the “zero” year, but he did. When discussing that matter, CTR was prepared to move the end of the Gentile Times from 1914 to 1915, but was adamant about holding on to his dates of 606, 538 and 536 BCE.
It is not true to say that “Babylonian Chronology 626 BC-AD 45 by Richard Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein … [was] fully utilized by [the WTS] in the 'fine tuning ' of Bible chronology.” The WTS has never ever ever “fully utilized” PDBC. (Does the term “Bible chronology” mean “WTS chronology”?)
You dance around on the doorknob without ever telling me how the WTS arrives at its 537 date. You have seen the diagrammatic method I employ. Can you do the same for the WTS’s explanation?
While admitting that 537 BCE is only a “tradition”, you write that the date is “a widely held traditional date well crafted on the basis of history”. Show me. Where is the craft?
You write: “Those facts as presented in the WT publications over decades demonstrate that 537 BCE is the only possible date.”
GIVE ME THE REFERENCES.
SHOW ME THESE FACTS THAT THE WTS HAS PRESENTED.Regards,
Doug
-
AlanF
Scholar pretendus wrote:
: In matters of chronology any so called 'proof' is relative to methodology and interpretation of history
In principle, yes. In practice, the methodology may be valid or invalid.
The Watchtower's "methodology" with respect to the 537 date is demonstrably invalid. In arriving at that date, since the early 1940s the Society has done nothing more than set forth some speculations, and then declare that the date is right. There is no attempt anywhere in WTS publications to do more than this. You know this very well, since you cannot set forth any chain of evidence that is not firmly based on speculation.
Prior to the Society's switching from 536 to 537, the only "methodology" was again pure speculation. True, this speculation went back to Russell, Barbour and some earlier prophetic speculators, but it remains speculation. When Fred Franz adopted the 539 date for Babylon's fall in 1944, he was forced to switch the 536 date to 537 to retain the Society's claims about 1914 and the 70 years of Jeremiah. That is the only motivation for switching from 536 to 537, and you know it.
: so yes you have 'proved' that 538 BCE is the date for the Return
I have not merely 'proved' that date, I've proved it. The proof is not based on speculation. It is based on verifiable historical statements: (1) Ezra's statements; (2) Josephus' statements. Now, you're not about to claim that Ezra's statements are false, so to throw cold water on my proof, you must show that Josephus' statement that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' 2nd year is false. That's all there is to it.
: just as 'celebrated' WT scholars have also 'proved' that 537 BCE is tthat date.
'Proved' as opposed to proved is correct, since their claim is based on nothing more than speculation.
: Similarly, Mason has also proved that there is no 'proof' for any date whatsoever.
Wrong, but Doug can stick up for himself.
: Why not just stick to the basic facts and those assumptions that are made necessary in order to historize the Return.
I have certainly done so. You've had many opportunities for about a year and a half now to tackle the simple facts I've presented and attempt to disprove my claims. All you've managed is a lot of nonsensical whining that the speculations of inebriated WTS scholars somehow constitute proof.
: Those facts as presennted in the WT publications over decades
What facts? They've presented no facts.
: demonstarate that 537 BCE is the only p;ossible date that accommodates all relevant factors
Once again: The only motivation for WTS writers is to retain the 1914 date.
: namely the acknowledgement of the reign of Darius,
No one knows anything about that beyond the simple fact that the Bible mentions Darius the Mede several times. The best anyone can come up with is that "Darius" was a throne name for a viceroy of Cyrus. If that is correct, then Darius' and Cyrus' accession years (or first year, using Jewish dating methods) ran in parallel.
: the first year of Cyrus counts from Nisan,
Using Babylonian reckoning, yes. But using Jewish reckoning, the first year of Cyrus ran from Tishri 539 until Tishri 538, which overlaps Cyrus' accession year in Babylonian reckoning by one half a year. But these niceties are beyond your ken, I realize.
: journey home, and that the end of the seventy years was synchronistic with Cyrus' first year and not at Babylon's Fall.
This is not a fact -- it's the Society's claim, nothing more. Once again, 2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews were servants to Nebuchadnezzar and his dynasty until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Cyrus, "the royalty of Persia", began to reign over Babylon in 539 BCE when his army conquered Babylon and killed king Belshazzar. Furthermore, Jeremiah 25:12 clearly states that when the 70 years are over, God would punish the king of Babylon and the nation "for their error". That punishment clearly began in 539 BCE when the nation was conquered and its king killed. Of course, plenty of other scriptures are completely consistent with these simple facts.
: You have proved nothing but your fantasy that 538 BCE is the date for ignores relevant matters of history
Translation: the facts I've set forth contradict Watchtower tradition.
: for all that you have done is sketched a model or calendation.
Once again, put your money where your mouth is and point out specifically where you think I've gone wrong. Is Ezra wrong or is Josephus wrong?
: Mason proves that there are are no models that work according to his bias against the WT.
Nope. Doug simply did not realize that Jewish time reckoning uses the non-accession year method for stating the regnal years of kings -- at least, in Ezra.
: It is that same bias that prevents you from acknowledge those simple historicisms that are only acknowledged by the 'celebrated' ones.
Sure, sure. In Watchtower-speak, pointing out facts that disprove Watchtower tradition is "bias". Again, you silly pretender, put your money where your mouth is and set out some facts.
Now I'll point out your egregious errors and lies in your reply to Doug.
: You are partially correct when you say that the WT's adoption of 537 BCE is traditional or owes itself merely to some 'tradition'.
No, he's fully correct. It's a trivial matter to quote WTS publications and prove it. Even the vaunted Insight book can manage nothing more than speculation to support the 537 date. I've done this with you a number of times.
: In fact, as 586 BCE rather than the 'apostate' date of 587 has become the traditional date for the Fall within current scholarship
Nonsense. Some scholars, mostly following Thiele, accept this date. But scholars who don't follow Thiele accept the 587 date. We've been through all this before, so your claim is a blatant lie.
: so it is the case with 537 BCE for the Return.
Wrong again. I've set forth on this forum a number of quotations from scholars who accept the 538 date. But you know this, so here you're caught in a second blatant lie.
: This widespread endoresement of this date is due to the research methodology which the 'celebrated' Wt scholars first brought to the attention of the scholarly community in 1949.
LOL! The Encyclopedia Biblica of 1899 correctly lists 538 as the year of the return.
: This nicely followed the publication of Babylonian Chronology 626 BC-AD 45 by Richard Parker and Waldo h. Dubberstein in 1942 and 1946 respectively anticpated by the 'celebrated' and fully utilzed by them in the 'fine tuning ' of Bible chronology.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Society used 536 BCE as both the date of Cyrus' first year and the year of the Jews' return up through 1943. See, for example, the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free and the October 15, 1943 Watchtower, pp. 309-311. It was in the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand (which title violates the spirit of Luke 21:8) that Fred Franz declared, without discussion, that Cyrus' first year was 537 and the Jews returned in 537. So in this book, the Society clearly stated, in effect, that Cyrus' decree and the return of the Jews occurred in the same calendar year of 537 BCE. My argument, based on Ezra, Josephus, and modern dating, puts these events in 538 BCE. Moving forward, the December 1, 1946 Watchtower tentatively changed Cyrus' first year to begin in the autumn of 538 BCE and left the return of the Jews in 537, but this again leaves the beginning of Cyrus' first year and the return of the Jews as occurring within the same 12-month period, just as I claim and in contrast with the Society's present claims. It was not until 1955, in the February 1 Watcthower, that the Society became sure that Cyrus' first year began in 538 BCE. At this time, Watchtower chronology essentially reached its present form.
My detailed discussion of "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology" discusses all these issues and can be found here: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-606-to-607-bce-in.html
: It is your position that is 'feeble' because your research offers nothing new, no fresh insights offering no precise date for the Fall
Yet another misrepresentation. I and others have argued many times on this forum that the fall of Jerusalem occurred in 587 BCE. We've presented the reasons along with supporting scholarly references. The fact is, you simply ignore all this. Furthermore, Doug's essay is not concerned with the date of Jerusalem's fall, so your complaint is a non-sequitur.
Once again, scholar pretendus, your claims are shown to be nothing but hot air. You have no idea what you're talking about.
AlanF
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
There is little value gained by simply 'throwing stones' at something unless you offer something better or thruthful.
That statement is complete and utter nonsense and has no basis in either logic or common sense. It is however a statement that commonly falls from the lips of JW apologists when they are backed into a corner.
You are advocating a policy which advises, 'better believe the lie than a yet to be verified truth'. Not only is this absurd cultist thinking, but in this chronological scenario ignores the fact that the WTS is heavily invested enough historically to have to cling to the lie and ignore the weight of evidence accepted by ALL experts in the matter. This evidence undermines their doctrines.
Think of the Latter Day Saints and the struggle they are having with DNA evidence that undermines their nutty view of US anthropological history, then think of the weight of chronological evidence that undermines the WTS nutty view of Middle Eastern history and you have one duck with two tails.
HS
-
scholar
hilary_step
Let me assure you that scholar is not backed into any corner but is fully and willing to tackle those critics of our sacred biblical chronology and one laughs at those pitiful efforts of aspostates whose main aim purpose in life is to seek mischevious ways to discredit this chronology.
Jehovah's Witnesses are champions of truth and integrity which even the world recognizes even though it fails to discern the 'true religion'. Our chronology is simply based on God's true inspired Word and has nothing to do with cultish thinking for in fact it is our enemies and critics who enslave to the cult of personality by following blindly the teachings, falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations of apostates.
I have no interest in Mormons and such whacky theories but only in the whacky theory of Neo-Babylonian chronology which ignores the most important piece of biblical history namely Jeremiah's seventy years of exile-servitude and desolation.So there!!!!!!!
scholar JW
-
neverendingjourney
Now you're using the third person to refer to yourself. You sound even more cultish that way.
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Let me assure you that scholar is not backed into any corner..
Oh yes, you are quite right. Your normal modus operandi when backed into the corner, a frequent event as past threads prove, is to claim that athiests could never understand the horological ways of God. You then leave the room for six weeks and return expounding the same viewpoints that have already been shredded and dismantled - perhaps thinking that the posters meomories are as patchy as WTS chronology.
HS
-
neverendingjourney
I think Scholar is very methodical with what he’s doing. He understands that the historical/chronological arguments are way over most people’s heads and that very few of them do the research for themselves. Therefore, he tries to create the illusion that there is an actual debate to be had here. He hopes that stray JWs with lingering doubts who might run across 607/537 threads will find what appears to be a debate about the issue and conclude that the question of when Jerusalem was destroyed/repopulated remains unsettled. It will be easier for them to accept the society’s interpretation if they think that no one actually has a definitive answer. Scholar isn’t interested in truth, he’s interested in creating the illusion that the 607/537 dates might be accurate.
This technique is frequently used by creationists and intelligent-design proponents. They want to create the illusion that there is some kind of real debate to be had about the legitimacy of evolution. They’ll clothe their religious propaganda with what appears to be science in order to convince religious people that the foundation for evolutionary theory is not very solid. Most churchgoers do not research the matter for themselves, but instead are comforted by thinking that their scientists are disproving evolution. The recently-opened creationist museum is a perfect example of this type of nonsense. The people leaving that place go home with reinvigorated faith thinking that science has proven the Bible right. Of course, very few, if any of them, actually bother to conduct their own investigation. -
AlanF
You're quite right, neverendingjourney. The sad thing is that scholar pretendus here, and plenty of similarly braindead fundamentalists, go through the motions not so much to deceive others but to deceive themselves. Without their crutch, they think they have no purpose in life.
AlanF