Posts by Jeffro

27

Did the organization admit declining growth and stagnation in today's watchtower?

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

did anyone catch this quote?

"over seven and a half million witnesses of jehovah really have found him and they truly love him.".

why are they no longer touting "nearly 8 million" witnesses?

Jeffro

steve2:

Some good work Jeffro. Could you clarify which aspects are what actually happens in counting publishers and which aspects intelligent guesswork. Otherwise, it's hard to know how helpful the tables are.

The 'congregations' and hence the specific figures used are hypothetical. However, it is not difficult to verify that the mechanisms are thosed used by JWs to count 'members', none of which is guesswork.

JWs count 'publishers', based on monthly 'Field Service Reports'.

These things increase the number of 'publishers':

JW children becoming unbaptized publishers (baptism does not increase membership)
New recruits becoming unbaptized publishers
Inactive JWs starting to report preaching again

These things decrease the number of 'publishers':

Death
JWs failing to report preaching
Being disfellowshipped
Disassociating

Which element are you calling into question?

27

Did the organization admit declining growth and stagnation in today's watchtower?

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

did anyone catch this quote?

"over seven and a half million witnesses of jehovah really have found him and they truly love him.".

why are they no longer touting "nearly 8 million" witnesses?

Jeffro

Ocean1111:

In reality JWs are probably below 7 million if the real numbers were known, and the real contraction data was published.

The number of 'publishers' is probably accurate, more or less. The way JWs count membership is skewed towards artificially inflating their growth rather than their membership.

Consider the diagram below for a couple of hypothetical congregations. Entries in blue indicate situations that increase counted membership. Entries in red indication situations that reduce counted membership.

Both congregations start with 80 people attending their services. Even when not much happens in a congregation to affect membership - in this case each congregation has one child born, and one child becomes a 'publisher' (this has no direct equivalent in churches that count all attendees) - the JW congregation reports higher growth.

A couple of years later, one year has a few other things happen in the hypothetical congregations:

In this case, a JW child becomes a publisher, 3 new converts are made, 1 person dies, 1 is born, 1 becomes 'active' again (maybe handing out a few leaflets advertising the website), 1 becomes 'inactive', and 2 'disassociate'. The net gain in both cases is 1 member. Yet the JW congregation reports higher growth.

Even when there is a net loss, so long as some born-in JWs become 'publishers', the JW congregation generally reports higher growth (in this case, a smaller loss) than a church that reports all attendees.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Let's say the neighbors knew who the new boss was very quickly, by mid-July. They would have to meet up and confer with everyone concerned (Ezra 4:7-10), compose and translate a letter,

They had already sent complaints to the previous king. Why would further 'conference' be required? The scribe could just write substantially what they'd previously written to 'Ahasuerus'.

send the letter to (presumably) the Persian capital Susa, allow time for the Persians to dig around the archives for historical information on the Judean kingdom, allow time for the Persians to compose a reply, have it sent back to the local Samaritans' or neighboring peoples' officials and have it read out to them before rushing over to Jerusalem to implement the order.

Or Badiya already didn't like the Jews and lied about the research. Or the research had been done during Cambyses' reign. It's not really clear why the writer of Ezra (or 1 Esdras) would have in their possession a letter sent by their enemies to Persia's king and the Persian king's response to their enemies anyway, so it's possible that some or all of the content of either letter was simply made up. There's many instances in the Bible where conversations - even private conversations among enemies - are simply made up where the writer could not possibly have been party to the conversation.

Bardiya was dead by the end of September. Soon after Jerusalem got the reply, he'd be history. His order to stop building could hardly be enforced long-term, so why did the Jews wait to finish repairing the city and its walls until (the next) Artaxerxes' 20th year - 78 years - which made Nehemiah depressed - especially if you believe Darius gave the go-ahead to rebuild the city?

Maybe they were just lazy. Apparently they only did any rebuilding in ernest when there was an order to do so. I'm not sure that Nehemiah's depression would be a particularly great motivator to Jerusalem's populace.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

And yet Ezra does not say that. You (and the compiler of 1 Esdras) assume it.

It's not my assumption at all. It's a fairly well established view, and one that was considered correct much closer to the period it happened. (And it's not firmly established that 1 Esdras does not represent an earlier version of the text than Ezra.)

Sure, but Josephus understands from this that the temple (naos) was completed. Josephus apparently misunderstood 1 Esdras.

So? Josephus was wrong (and it's not the first time). The context of the same chapter indicates the ongoing construction of the temple, so Josephus' error is irrelevant.

Likewise, 1 Esdras didn't name Cambyses, but Josephus assumed that the first Artaxerxes it mentioned was Cambyses.

So Josephus can get the name wrong, but the author of Ezra and 1 Esdras (one of which is a copy of the other regardless of which came first) 'must' necessarily identify Artaxerxes correctly??

But it said "they were kept from building for two years, until the reign of Darius." 'We' have to reinterpret or correct it.

The word translated "until" literally means "allow", and can validly be interpreted as two years into the reign of Darius - the reign of Darius, allowing 2 years. Since it's basically a Greek rendering of Ezra 4:24, this isn't much of a leap.

Hm, look, you either have to believe that Cambyses and/or Bardiya were also known as Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus (circularly arguing on nothing more than speculation or assumption), or you have to believe that 1 Esdras wrote out of sequence or else confused the order of Persian kings (which undermines 1 Esdras' chronological usefulness in any argument about the timeframe of Ezra 4:6-23). What's your pleasure?

Neither. The author of Ezra/1 Esdras (whichever was first) could have used the wrong throne name (which doesn't identify a specific king) but known which individual and period they referred to.

Chapters 3, 4 & 5 of 1 Esdras employs a chiastic structure that associates events under Darius with events under Cyrus for literary purposes, however the rest of the book is in chronological order.

27

Did the organization admit declining growth and stagnation in today's watchtower?

by kneehighmiah in

jw
friends

did anyone catch this quote?

"over seven and a half million witnesses of jehovah really have found him and they truly love him.".

why are they no longer touting "nearly 8 million" witnesses?

Jeffro

OMJ:

Berrygerry, I'm an African. Even though i was succesfully recruited, i'm nowhere near starving. What you're saying is not only a false interpretation of statistics, but it is also in pretty bad taste.

The comment was obviously intended in reference to countries in Africa with a low Human Development Index, where there is the greatest rate of growth among JWs - countries like Angola (9%), Burundi (5%), D.R. of Congo (7%), Gambia (4%), Guinea-Bissau (6%), Ivory Coast (5%), Madagascar (7%), Rwanda (8%), Tanzania (5%), Togo (4%), Uganda (7%), and Zimbabwe (4%). (2013 stats.)

Your previous posts indicate you're from South Africa, which is both more affluent and has a lower rate of JW growth.

A statement about 'recruiting starving Africans' (though I probably wouldn't have put it that way) does not suggest that all Africans are starving or that only starving Africans are recruited.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur:

If the JW hisorty states that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 and 8 is Bardiya, then it follows that as chapters 2,3 and 4 are a continuation of each other that the first year of the returnees who come with Zerubbabel must have been 523 BCE at which time the foundation was laid and then halted. Evidently of the narrative we can asume that Sheshazzar had continued as governer throughout the reign of Cyrus, and Cambyses,however the work could not get started due to complaints,and was still governer at the time the foundation was laid in 522BCE, as this work was initially attributed to him at Ezra 5:16, although Zerubbabel organized the work. Zerubbabel became governer sometime before the sixth month 520BCE.

Your suggestion that the Jews arrived in Jerusalem in 523 BCE has no basis in anything. Work on the foundations began during the reign of Cyrus.

Sheshbazzar (a Babylonian designation) is likely a title for Zerubbabel in his capacity as governor. Compare Ezra 5:16, Zechariah 4:9.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Ezra makes no suggestion in 4:12 that the foundations relate to the temple. We can infer from Ezra that the foundations of the city or walls are meant.
In contrast with Ezra, 1 Esdras adds that Darius granted permission for the city to be rebuilt (4:47-57). Ezra indicates Darius only supported the construction of the temple.

An overt distinction between rebuilding the temple or the city is a false dichotomy. The focus of the narrative is on the temple because the temple is of religious significance to a writer of the priestly class. It is more realistic that Cyrus and Darius gave permission to rebuild Jerusalem in general, including but not limited to the temple.

1 Esdras comments that in the 2nd year after they returned, "the builders built the temple of the Lord" (5:56-58). Josephus apparently understood it thus:

Those verses only indicated that they were rebuilding the temple, not that it was completed at that time. The context of the rest of the chapter indicates quite clearly that construction of the temple was ongoing.

1 Esdras has the period between the end of Cyrus' reign and Darius' reign as 2 years (5:73). Josephus has it as 9 years (Ant. XI.2.2)

The 'two years' in 5:73 is correctly understood to mean Darius' second year of reign (i.e. two years after his accession), not that there were only two years between Cyrus and Darius.

Interestingly, 1 Esdras isn't in chronological order anyway.
Cyrus - 2:1-16
Artaxerxes - 2:16-30
Darius - 2:30-5:6
Cyrus - 5:7-73
Darius - 6:1-7:15
Artaxerxes - 8:1-end
So all-in-all, it doesn't make sense to me to use 1 Esdras (even via Josephus) to argue that Ezra 4 keeps strict chronological sequence and that v. 6-23 referred to the years between Cyrus and Darius.

The claim made in the list above that 1 Esdras chapter 2 isn't in chronological order is going back to the same circular argument as before. 1 Esdras chapter 2 specifically identifies the temple foundations, so without deferring to speculation that the name assigned to Persia's king must refer to a later king with the same (throne) name, the plain reading of 1 Esdras indicates two sections, both in chronological order:

Cyrus - 2:1-16
'Artaxerxes' (Bardiya) - 2:16-30
Darius - 2:30-5:6

Cyrus - 5:7-73
Darius - 6:1-7:15
Artaxerxes - 8:1-end

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

True, 1 Esd. 2:18 adds "of the temple" when talking about the foundations, but Ezra 4:12 is the earlier version upon which the later Greek Esdras was based. Josephus' beliefs may well have relied on those later traditions. As you said earlier:

It has not been conclusively established that Ezra is the older version. And even if 1 Esdras came after, it was obviously understood then that the 'foundations' at Ezra 4:12 referred to the foundations of the temple. It's never specified as the foundations of anything other than the temple.

So, while it's interesting that Josephus took Ezra's 'Ahasuerus' to be Cambyses, it doesn't mean Josephus was correct.
Antiquities is a mix of history he gets right (and approximately right) and history he gets jumbled. If what he says can be corroborated elsewhere - especially independently - then we're on to a winner. Otherwise I'm a little more cautious.

Actually, Josephus took Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, which is indeed probably in error, but still in the correct period, prior to Darius. Ezra's 'Artaxerxes' - the recipient of the letter - would more likely refer to Bardiya, after complaints were sent to Ezra's 'Ahasuerus', who would more logically refer to Cambyses.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the plain reading is that Ahasuerus/Xerxes and Artaxerxes were meant and that Ezra (or later redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah) wanted to summarize all the opposition to both temple- and city-building, from Cyrus, through Darius through to Artaxerxes in that one slot.

1 Esdras chapter 2 corresponds with much of Ezra chapter 4, and includes the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes'. 1 Esdras 2:18, which corresponds to Ezra 4:12, specificially says they were building the foundations of the temple.

Josephus believed this 'Artaxerxes' to be Cambyses, and Josephus' rendition of the letter sent to 'Artaxerxes' also includes reference to building the temple foundations.

100

Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?

by Bart Belteshassur in

i haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.

in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.

once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.

Jeffro

kepler:

Despite a number of references to Ezra, I don't think there was any mention of this Ez 6:15-18:
The Temple was completed on the 23rd day of the month of Adar in the sixth year of the reigh of King Darius. The Israelites - the priests, the Levites and the remainder of the exiles - joyfully celebrated the dedication of the Temple of God - for the dedication of this Temple of God they offered one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs... They installed the priests in their orders and the Livites in their positions for the ministry of the Temple of God in Jerusalem, as prescribed in the Book of Moses.
In other words, the Temple was not complete until it was dedicated on a specific date.
What was the date? That was about 1 April 515 BC according to a footnote in my Bible. Elsewhere I have seen it described as 516. E.g., Wikipedia.
Now what was going on 70 years earlier?
Elsewhere Jews have interpreted this 70 year desolation accordingly.

That may seem convenient, but completion of the temple hardly bares any resemblance to 'all the nations serving Babylon'. And the temple's completion in early 515 BCE (it was completed in their twelfth month,prior to Nisan, and so it was the year that started in our 516 BCE per some sources) is more than 70 years after mid 587 BCE anyway.

However, you may be alluding to the other 70 years - the 70 years of fasting mentioned in Zechariah. That period runs from 587 BCE until Darius' fourth year, 518 BCE (after the fasts had been held in that 70th year).

Strangely enough, if we take the present era dating and the second temple's destruction, we get another 70 year interval.

That's what we call a coincidence. Usage of AD wasn't introduced until the sixth century. (CE became widely used in the 20th century but has been used since at least the 19th century.) The start of the 'era' is based on a supposed date for the birth of Jesus that is wrong even if Jesus actually existed. The correlation you're making is therefore entirely arbitrary.