Posts by Doug Mason

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

My detailed analysis of the situation is at:

http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf

An interesting clue lies in the fact that Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra bears no semblance to the words on the Cyrus Cylinder.

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Phizzy and Vanderhoven7,

I reckon you guys are spot on.

When I looked at the WT Library CD, I gained the very clear impression that the idea of the 1919 inspection was highly likely introduced with the 1973 publication, "God' Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached". Look at pages 331-363 (and pages 349-356 in particular).

It took some 54 years (1919 to 1973) before they realised, "Hey, Jehovah God had appointed us!".

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Phizzy,

Thanks for that 1973 quote. The date ties in neatly with the list of quotations given in the post by Vanderhoven7, which appears immediately after yours.

Maybe the idea had its conception in 1972 and its birth in 1973?

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

Thanks for that list of sources, especially as you have given them chronologically. I will mull over them.

I have not done the research, but it would also be interesting to look at "appointment" (rather than "anointed"). When did the concept first arise in the WTS and what was the context?

I have made one failed attempt at turning the 1927 WT article into an OCR file; I will make another attempt.

If these guys were appointed by Jehovah God and his son, how come they knew nothing about it at the time and maybe not for decades later? Did Jehovah forget to mention it to them?

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

leaving_quietly,

I focused my Study from the viewpoint of Paul. I touch slightly on Acts but I deliberately did not feature the aspects you mention. Mostly, I wrote that Acts is suspect, and is treated with caution by scholars with some avoiding it altogether.

I have left myself room to work on a Study of Acts of the Apostles by Luke because it plays a central role in the Governing Body's claims and demands (such as on blood).

So I think the issue is far larger than focusing on a particular turn of phrase. Let me briefly explain: Luke wrote a created history with the objective of papering over the cracks between the gentile work of Paul and his opposite number, the Jewish sector under the control of Jesus' brother, James.

Luke's objectives remove his objectivity. For example, Paul - who was there, but of course biased - wrote that he had two private meetings with Cephas and James. Luke expanded this to a mighty convention. Another example: Paul indicates he was in Damascus persecuting (which could have been arguing or physical Jewish punishment) when he "saw the light"; he went to Arabia, and returned to Damascus. He says he saw no one for 3 years and only then did he got to Jerusalem. He stayed with Cephas for 15 days, had private meetings and he also saw James. Luke, on the other hand, contradicts Paul.

Only after looking at the big picture can we then understand any statements made by Luke. He was not a companion of Paul's; Acts was written decades after Paul's death. At the start of his Gospel, Luke says that his account was gained through gathering information. Who knows what stories people told him.

Doug

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

The crucial date for the WTS is the moment when the first Returnees assembled at the temple in Jerusalem. They rely on their date of Tishri 537 BCE to be able to arrive at 607 BCE for the entry of Jews into Egypt, following the murder of Gedaliah.

It is my contention that no one, whether the WTS, you, or I, is able to positively date that event. It could have taken place in any year from 538 BCE to 535 BCE, depending on the assumptions being made. A search of the www shows the range of dates that are proposed. This is the major problem for the WTS; the elephant in the room.

As you point out, no one knows the timing of Cyrus’ Decree; it could have been made at any time during his first year. Likewise, no one has any proof – only assumptions – about the time taken for the Jews to prepare, when they actually left, arrived in the villages, the length of time they took to settle down, or the time they took after that to get to Jerusalem. If these were important to Ezra, he would have made a point of writing the details. His sole concern was identifying who had legitimate rights to the priesthood.

Nehemiah used the Tishri calendar, even when writing about a foreign monarch (see Theile, discussing Neh 1:1 and 2:1, as well as the period in question). The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single document (scroll), and Ezra wrote the document named after him, as well as 2 Chronicles. So the likelihood of a Tishri calendar must not be ruled out.

The writer of Daniel ascribes to Darius a rule that reached its first year, which means it would have commenced on 24 March 538 BCE (P&D Julian dating). If, as you say, Darius and Cyrus were not coregents, that moves the start of Cyrus’ first year to 12 March 537.

To prove that the Jews assembled on Tishri 1 (5 October) in 537 BCE, the following needs to be known: In which part of his first year did Cyrus issue his decree (from 24 March 538 to 11 March 537, ignoring a rule by Darius). Then provide undeniable details, not assumptions, of how long it actually took people to prepare their families, and the date when they left. (They would have had to wait until people from various parts of the region had gathered.)

Prove how long it took them to move their families, possessions, and beasts, to reach Yehud. Prove how long it took before all of them had arrived at their respective towns and villages and had settled down. Prove how long it took before they all assembled at the temple site.

This is the exercise that the WTS has to address – but it cannot achieve its objective. In their system of reckoning, the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is a red herring. The WTS jumps from 537 to the exodus of Jews into Egypt. That is the date they have to be concerned about.

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

I was thinking about this - apologies for being a slow thinker, but that's life.

I don't know how recent this "appointment in 1919" idea actually is, but the context in my mind is the July 15, 2013 Watchtower magazine. I had just written a Study on that issue of the magazine but I had omitted discussion on one subject: the GB itself. That, I reasoned, required a separate Study, which is what I produced during the ensuing weeks.

So my statement regarding 1919 has to be seen in the context of this latest list of amended WTS ideas. I could have discussed the changes that have been made to the idea of the FDS, but that would have been an unprofitable distraction.

Maybe I could amend my text to say that this is their current teaching, but I wonder if that would that be of any benefit?

I looked at the 1963 "Babylon" book to see what it (I presume Fred F.) had to say about the date: it was the year when the prison doors were opened; the year when Babylon fell; and it was the year when the remnant of the 144,000 began to be freed. Nothing about any "Appointment"; nothing about any "Governing Body" that I could see.

As I wrote previously, that 1927 Watchtower magazine, in talking about the "Faithful and wise servant" provides no thoughts about 1919. I will try to create a text file of the relevant parts of that article - but no promises.

Doug

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

In which year did the Returnees first meet at the temple site?

1. 1. If the writer was using a Nisan calendar and accession-year reckoning, Cyrus’ first year began on 24 March 538 BCE.

2. 2. If the writer was using a Tishri calendar and accession-year reckoning, Cyrus’ first year began on 17 September 538 BCE.

3. 3. Did a first year of Darius precede the rule by Cyrus?

4. 4. What was the date when Cyrus made his decree?

5. 5. How long did it take for thousands of people to prepare their families and belongings?

6. 6. What was the date when they started their trek?

7. 7. Exactly how long did it take before each family arrived in its town or village?

8. 8. Exactly how long did it take for all the families to be settled in their towns and villages?

9. 9. How long did it take for the last one to walk from their home to Jerusalem?

10 10.Where does the Bible say that this event concluded the “Seventy Years”?

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

Doug Mason

Jeffro,

As your pictures clearly show, there is no evidential proof that the event took place in 538. There are several assumptions, without evidences. I am glad you indicated the looseness with the word "possible". Little wonder the event is dated variously from 538 to 535.

Did the writer assign Nisan reckoning or Tishri, accession or non-accession? At which part of his first year did Cyrus make his decee? How long did it take the people to prepare? How long were the people settled in their towns and villages before they ventured to Jerusalem? Where is Daniel's "Darius" and his first year in all of this? Were Cyrus and Darius co-regents?

It's only a problem for the WTS, since it is a pivotal crucial date in their system.

Nowhere does the Scripture say that the 70 years ended with that event. 2 Chr 36 says the 70 years of Babylonian dominance ended when the Persians defeated them. That is simple and obvious.

Thanks,

Doug

41

My Study: "Did a 'Governing Body' govern Paul?"

by Doug Mason in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-au</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* style definitions */ table.msonormaltable {mso-style-name:"table normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:6.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; text-align:justify; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"times new roman","serif"; mso-fareast-language:en-us;} </style> <![endif].

Doug Mason

Vanderhoven7,

Thanks for those links.

I have just been reading the article in the February 15, 1927 Watchtower. Most interesting; when you read it you will need to bypass the unnecessary verbage. Pages 55 to 57 in particular are interesting.

I think that Rutherford's shift from CTR being the individual "faithful and wise servant" to a "class" that was the feet of Christ was a major factor in his losing most of the followers. The other major factor of course related to Rutherford dropping the pyramid measurements.

The dates in this 1927 article focus on 1874 (parousia) and 1918 (erchomenon - coming).

Doug