The very foundation of the GB's authority relies on their interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream at Daniel 4. If their story is wrong, their excuse for existing evaporates.
Nebuchadnezzar's dream was fulfilled in him going mad for 7 years. The WTS multiples these 7 years by 360 days to get 2520 days. This is then said to symbolise 2520 years. They then use this number in its "proof" that the Gentile Times ended in 1914 CE. Their story, not mine. If they are wrong, they are history.
The Babylonians never had a year that was 360 days long, so if the story is a reflection of Nabunaid's 7-year stay in Tema, he did not stay there for 2520 days.
I provided this account in the section set out for research.
Hope that helps. If not, please let me know.
Doug
Doug Mason
JoinedPosts by Doug Mason
-
4
Nabunaid stayed in Tema
by Doug Mason innabunaid (nabonidus) ruled (555-539) as the last king of new babylonia.
in practice, however, nabunaid shared the kingship with his own eldest son belshazzar.
before nabunaid started on an expedition to tema he divided the rule of the empire between himself and his son and entrusted actual kingship to belshazzar.
-
-
Doug Mason
-
28
Just finished The God Delusion
by Qcmbr in..and found myself agreeing with 95% of what he said.
well who would have thought.
i would recommend everyone should read this.
-
-
Doug Mason
In addition to "Unearthing the Bible" some might be interested in "It Ain't Necessarily So: Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past" by Matthew Sturgis ISBN 0 7472 4510 X.
Some might find the works of Bishop John Shelby Spong to their liking.
Doug -
4
Nabunaid stayed in Tema
by Doug Mason innabunaid (nabonidus) ruled (555-539) as the last king of new babylonia.
in practice, however, nabunaid shared the kingship with his own eldest son belshazzar.
before nabunaid started on an expedition to tema he divided the rule of the empire between himself and his son and entrusted actual kingship to belshazzar.
-
-
Doug Mason
Nabunaid (Nabonidus) … ruled (555-539) as the last king of New Babylonia. In practice, however, Nabunaid shared the kingship with his own eldest son Belshazzar. …
Before Nabunaid started on an expedition to Tema he divided the rule of the empire between himself and his son and entrusted actual kingship to Belshazzar. Then (Nabunaid) undertook the distant campaign which was probably in Arabia, conquered Tema, established his residence there, and built that city with the glory of Babylon. Likewise the Nabunaid chronicle contains the following statements concerning King Nabunaid:
"Seventh year: The king stayed in Tema, the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. . .
"Ninth year: Nabunaid, the king, stayed in Tema; the crown prince, the officials and the army were in Akkad. . . .
"Tenth year: The 'king stayed in Tema; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. . .
"Eleventh year: The king stayed in Tema; the crown prince, the officials and his army were in Akkad.”
Each of these initial statements for the seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh years of the king is supplemented by this comment: "The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month Nisanu, Nabu did not come to Babylon, Bel did not go out from Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted." This means that during the years mentioned Nabunaid was in Tema and Belshazzar was in Babylon and that owing to the absence of Nabunaid the usual New Year's festival was not observed. Since, therefore, Belshazzar actually exercised the co-regency at Babylon and may well have continued to do so unto the end, the book of Daniel (5:30) is not wrong in representing him as the last king of Babylon.
(Footnote: Julius Lewy thinks that the stay of Nabunaid began in the fourth year of his reign and lasted at least until the eleventh year. He suggests that Nabunaid transferred his residence to this place because it was an ancient center of worship of the moon-god, Sin, to whom he was devoted above Marduk and all other gods. In Daniel 5: 18 Nebuchadnezzar is named as the father of Belshazzar, instead of Nabunaid. It has been surmised that Belshazzar was a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, who might then be referred to, after Semitic usage, as his father. It is also possible that, in Jewish tradition, Babylonian legends were transferred to Nebuchadnezzar which originally had to do with Nabunaid. This would be understandable inasmuch as it was Nebuchadnezzar rather than Nabunaid who figured prominently in Jewish history and was a great enemy of the Jewish people. Thus the story of how Nebuchadnezzar went mad and was driven forth from men to dwell for seven years with the beasts of the field (Daniel 4) might reflect the stay of Nabunaid in the wilderness at Tema for about that same length of time, as it was viewed by the priests of Marduk at Babylon.) (“Light from the Ancient Past” by Jack Finegan, pages 227 – 228) -
19
Isn't it amazing ... how many Christians chose to ignore the OT...?
by needproof ini read this funny article about the god of the old testament, and i thought how amazing it was that some christians seemingly chose to ignore this brutal god of war, yahweh, as though in the nt, he suddenly had a change of heart.
the deity is clearly a maniac with a bloodthirst.
here is the article: .
-
-
Doug Mason
Should Christians dump the OT?
(a) Christians must look at the OT through the eyes of the NT.
(b) The descriptions of God in the OT and NT reflect the views and understandings of the person at the time. The Scriptures were not penned by God but by men of different backgrounds, cultures and times. Their views do not show a change in God but a change in people’s conceptions about God. Conceptions of men in the Stone Age cannot be likened to those living when Rome ruled the world. The Bible is not a flat board and its documents reflect a range of times.
(c) Jesus showed the demarcation point – it concerned John the Baptist. Before John’s message, “Law” reigned. But from John’s time, God’s kingship, his authority to rule, known as the “Kingdom of God/Heaven” by the synoptic gospel writers and as “Eternal Life” by the apostle John, came to the fore.
(d) Through his life and his teachings, Jesus demonstrated God. Jesus displayed God in a way not fully comprehended by the OT writers. This personal demonstration by Jesus changed people’s understanding of God.
(e) During his sermon about the Kingdom, Jesus explicitly said that this teaching did not do away with the OT (“law and the prophets”): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them.” (Matt 5:17 NIV)
(f) The apostle Paul wrote that the free gift of salvation (which God provides on the basis of faith) did not remove the OT (“the law”): “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” (Rom 3:31, NIV). To prove his point, Paul cites from “the law”, firstly in regards to Abraham (What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Rom 4:3, NIV) and secondly regarding David: (“David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” Rom 4:6, NIV)
Doug -
5
Creation And Science
by Marcel inokay, here we go (king james version): .
genesis chapter 1: .
1 in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.
-
-
Doug Mason
This is where we try to impose our current way of thinking onto the thinking of a very different culture.
You need to discover who wrote this, when and why. It is possible the writer was trying to say to those who worship the sun, "Hey! My God made that sun". Each creation account was a vehicle for teaching lessons to contemporaries of the person writing it.
It does help if you determine which part of which account of creation comes from which source. For example, the Elohim writers were from a different part of the nation than those from the Yahwist source.
It was only at the time of say Josiah and the Babylonian Captivity that these threads were amalgamated, to be reedited again shortly afterwards. Have you ever wondered why such nice things are said about that king?
Understand the politics of the times (religious and secular) and you start to understand what these guys were getting at. They certainly were not writing to someone living 2500 years later!
Doug -
34
Mental condition of Jehovah's Witnesses, healthy or not ?
by Handsome Dan ini thought i'd open a discussion on the mental health condition of most practicing jws.
and get viewpoints on what kinds of mental health effects the wts.
may have for most of the people that are practicing witnesses.
-
-
Doug Mason
In 1975, Dr D. J. Spencer a psychiatrist working at the Heathcote Hospital near Perth, Western Australia, issued a study declaring that statistically, Jehovah’s Witnesses were three times more likely to be admitted to the Psychiatric Hospital for schizophrenia than any other member of the community, picked at random.
His study did not prove if the movement attracted people who had a propensity for the illness or if the environment created the problem.
In May 1975, I wrote to the doctor, just before his paper was published. In his reply to me, he wrote (in part):
"I am afraid I am unable to answer as to whether or not Witnesses respond as readily to treatment as other patients and this could be a subject of future study.
"Schizophrenia is regarded by most authorities as an illness which carries a considerable degree of inheritance, but the exact nature of this is still not clear.
"The expression 'three times' indicates that according to our statistics Jehovah’s Witnesses are three times more likely to be admitted to Psychiatric Hospital for schizophrenia than any other member of the community picked at random. As this was mainly a statistical survey it was impossible to know how long the individuals had been suffering from their illness." (personal letter dated May 26, 1975.)
I have other studies from earlier times that also describe an unusually high representation of JWs displaying mental instabilities.
1975 was a time of high expectation. People sold their homes, gave the money to the WTS and moved to places where they could give the final message. Later, it was a time of great disappointment. I saw 200 members leave one congregation. What terrible emotional and mental stresses!
Doug -
2
Jack Finegan on the date of Jerusalem's Destruction
by Doug Mason ini am not fussed whether jerusalem was destroyed in 587 bce or a year later in 586 bce.
some are interested and as promised i have scanned some pages from a book by jack finegan which some might find interesting and useful.
but please do not raise issues with me -- i am the messenger, not the creator of the message.
-
-
Doug Mason
I am not fussed whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE or a year later in 586 BCE. Some are interested and as promised I have scanned some pages from a book by Jack Finegan which some might find interesting and useful. But please do not raise issues with me -- I am the messenger, not the creator of the message. Enjoy!
I have placed a PDF version of this scan on my web site http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940 and follow the links to my page on "Babylonian Captivity".
WAS JERUSALEM DESTROYED IN 587 BCE OR IN 586 BBCE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT PAST:
The Archeological Background of Judaism and Christianity, pages 588 – 596
by Jack Finegan, 1959 (Princeton University Press; London: Oxford University Press)
PROBLEMS OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY
[page 588] The application of the calendrical principles worked out above to the solution of problems in biblical chronology is not always easy. It is at once evident that one question that arises in the interpretation of biblical dates is when the year was considered as beginning. In the early Israelite calendar, as we have seen, the year began in the autumn, while in the Babylonian calendar it began in the spring. From the tractate Rosh Hashana we learn that a year beginning in the fall and specifically on the first of Tishri, the seventh month, continued in use for a long time, and also a year beginning in the spring and specifically on the first of Nisan, the first month. "On the first of Tishri is New Year for years, for release and jubilee years, for plantation and for vegetables," it is stated; and, "On the first of Nisan is New Year for kings and for festivals."
But in Bible dates it is not always easy to determine which manner of reckoning is used. Thus from I Kings 6:1, 37, 38 Edwin R. Thiele deduces that the regnal year in the time of Solomon was counted from the first of Tishri in the fall, although the year beginning the first of Nisan was used for reckoning ordinary and ecclesiastical dates; but Julian Morgenstern finds that the same passages indicate a regnal year beginning with Nisan. Again, when Nehemiah 1: 1 and 2: 1 refer to the month Kislev and the following Nisan, both in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Morgenstern thinks Nehemiah was using a year beginning in Tishri, but Hayim Tadmor suggests that Nehemiah simply carried over "the twentieth year" by mistake when the month of Nisan was actually the beginning of the twentyfirst year or, alternatively, that the text should read "the twenty-fifth year" as in Josephus, although the latter mistakenly changes the ruler to Xerxes. Thiele thinks that the regnal year was counted from Tishri in Judah but from Nisan in Northern Israel; moreover that while the books of Kings and Jeremiah use a regnal year beginning in Tishri for the kings of Judah, in references to Babylonian or Persian kings the writers of Kings, Jeremiah, Haggai, and Zechariah use a year reckoned from Nisan, as Ezekiel also does in giving the years of the captivity of Jehoiachin; but W. F. Albright finds this [page 589] system too elaborate. At all events, whether the year was reckoned from fall or spring, in referring to the months by number the Old Testament always counts from Nisan as the first month.
Another question which arises is as to when the regnal year of a king was considered to begin. The system which prevailed in Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia was that the balance of the calendar year in which a king came to the throne was counted as his accession year, and the first full year of his reign was reckoned as beginning with the next New Year's day. Thus, for example, Shalmaneser V died in the tenth month, Tebetu, of his fifth year of reign, and on the twelfth day of the same month, about the last of December, 722 B.C., his successor, Sargon II, ascended the throne. This calendar year was accordingly both the last year of Shalmaneser and the accession year of Sargon. Only with the following Nisan 1 did the first full regnal year of the new king begin. An event dated in the first year of Sargon II would fall, therefore, in 721 B.C. Since the year began in the spring rather than on our January 1, this date would be more precisely indicated as Nisan 721 to Nisan 720, or as 721/720 B.C.
In the alternative non accession-year system the year in which the king comes to the throne is counted as his first year of reign. If the reign of Sargon II were referred to according to this system, his first year of reign would be 722/721.
Again in the interpretation of biblical dates it is important to determine if possible which system is followed. Thiele thinks that the kings of Judah followed the accession-year system from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat, the nonaccession-year system from Jehoram to Joash, and the accession-year system again from Amaziah to Zedekiah; and that the kings of Israel followed the non accession-year system from Jeroboam I to Jehoahaz, and the accession-year system from Jehoash to Hoshea. If this is correct, then in the later period of the two monarchies both were using the accession-year system, and at the same time the biblical writers would presumably have used the accession-year system in their references to Babylonian or Persian kings.
Now for concrete illustration of the attempt to apply these principles to the establishment of Old Testament dates we may turn to the closing period in the history of the kingdom of Judah, the relevant [page 590] archeological materials for which have already been presented in the chapter on Egypt and the section on New Babylonia. There it was established from the Babylonian chronicle that the crucial battle of Carchemish took place approximately in Simanu (May /June ), 605 B.C. The contemporary prophet Jeremiah equates the date of the battle of Carchemish with the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (Jeremiah 46:2).(Footnote here: cf. Josephus, Ant. x, vi, 1. In Jeremiah 25: 1, according to the usual translation, the fourth year of Jehoiakim is equated with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Hebrew phrase used here is unique in the Old Testament and may perhaps be held to designate or at least include the accession year.) We dated the death of Josiah at Megiddo shortly before Duzu (June /July) , 609 B.C. The three months of reign of his successor, Jehoahaz (II Kings 23:31), were therefore Tammuz (Babylonimi Duzu), Ab (July/August), and Elul (August/September). The accession of the next king, Jehoiakim, was then in Tishri (September/October), 609 B.C. Assuming the accession-year system and a regnal year beginning with Nisan, the first full year of Jehoiakim's reign began on Nisan 1, 608, and his fourth year began on Nisan 1,.605. Since the battle of Carchemish took place in the following summer, this is in agreement with the correlation attested by Jeremiah.
According to II Kings 23:36 and II Chronicles 36:5 Jehoiakim reigned eleven years. If his fourth regnal year was 605/604 B.C., his eleventh year was 598/597.
From the Babylonian chronicle we have learned that it was in his seventh year (598/597 B.C.) and in the month Kislimu that Nebuchadnezzar marched to the Ratti-Iand and besieged Jerusalem, and that it was on the second day of Addaru, March 16, 597 RC., that he seized the city.
The reign of Jehoiachin was three months in length (II Kings 24:8) or, more exactly, three months and ten days (II Chronicles 36:9). If it was counted as extending to the day of the fall of the city, Addaru 2, 597 B.C., three months and ten days before that was the twenty-second day of Arahsamnu, December 9, 598 B.C. It will be noted below that Jehoiachin may not actually have been carried away from Jerusalem into exile until a few weeks after the capture of the city, perhaps on the tenth day of the following Nisan, April 22, 597. If his reign was counted as extending to that point, three [page 591] months and ten days before would have been the first day of Tebeth, January 16, 597 B.C. It was in the immediately preceding month, Kislimu, that Nebuchadnezzar marched to the Hatti-Iand and besieged Jerusalem, hence the change in rulers must have come very close to the time of the inauguration of the siege. II Kings 24:8, 10 may even give the impression that Jehoiachin had already come to the throne at the time the siege was started, and Jeremiah 22: 18f.; 36:30 may be interpreted as suggesting that Jehoiakim was killed in a court uprising which might have had the purpose of replacing him with the presumably more pro-Babylonian Jehoiachin in a last-minute effort to avert the attack of Nebuchadnezzar; but II Chronicles 36:6 says that Nebuchadnezzar put Jehoiakim in fetters, and Josephus states that it was the Babylonian king who killed him and ordered him cast out unburied before the walls.
Jeremiah 52:28-30 gives the number of people carried away captive by Nebuchadrezzar on three different occasions. The first item is: "in the seventh year, three thousand and twenty-three Jews." Josephus doubtless follows this source when he says that Nebuchadnezzar carried three thousand captives to Babylon. Since Jeremiah here specifies the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this seems to be in agreement with the Babylonian chronicle which says that Nebuchadnezzar marched to the Hatti-land and took Jerusalem in his seventh year.
In II Kings 24:12-16, however, it is stated that it was in the eighth year of the king of Babylon that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and he and "all Jerusalem" carried away to Babylon. Also the total number of those deported is given as ten thousand. The apparent discrepancy may doubtless be explained most simply by supposing that Jeremiah 52:28 is using the Babylonian system in counting the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, hence states the date exactly as the Babylonian chronicle does; but that II Kings 24: 12 uses the nonaccession-year system, hence calls this Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year; or that II Kings 24:12 uses a year beginning with the preceding Tishri, hence by such reckoning this was already the eighth year. The fact that Jeremiah 52:28-30 is omitted in the LXX might be explained in line with this interpretation as due to the fact that the Babylonian system of dating was not understood in the West.
[page 592] It must be noted on the other hand that the date of the capture of Jerusalem on the second day of Addaru in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar means that the city was taken within the very last month of that regnal year of the Babylonian king, and that with the first day of the ensuing month Nisan his eighth year began. If II Kings 24:14 is correct that the total number of persons selected for deportation was ten thousand, and if much booty was taken and prepared for transport, even to the cutting in pieces of the vessels of gold in the temple as II Kings 24:13 states, then it may readily be supposed that the assembling of the captives and goods took several weeks and that the final caravan did not depart until Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year had begun. If some three thousand captives were taken off before the end of Addaru and the balance only after the beginning of Nisan, then both the seventh and the eighth years of Nebuchadnezzar were involved and both Jeremiah and II Kings could be using the accession-year system of reckoning.
That the final deportation took place as a new year was beginning is probably confirmed by II Chronicles 36:10 which gives the time as "in the spring of the year" according to the translation of the Revised Standard Version, but more literally "at the return of the year" (ASV) or "at the turn of the year," which must signify the month Nisan. Likewise Ezekiel 40:1 speaks of what seems to be an exact anniversary ("that very day") of the inauguration of the exile and dates it "at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month." This must mean the tenth day of Nisan, and would date the final deportation on April 22, 597 B.C., a little more than a month, after the fall of the city on March 16.
Upon the capture and deportation of Jehoiachin, Zedekiah was put on the throne at Jerusalem (II Kings 24:17; II Chronicles 36:10), and was king there when the city was taken for the second and last time by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 52:29 states that "in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred and thirty-two persons." II Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 specify the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar for the final destruction of Jerusalem.
[page 593] As previously we had given the seventh and the eighth years, so here we have the eighteenth and the nineteenth. Again the simplest explanation is probably that Jeremiah 52:29 uses the Babylonian system, but II Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 use either a nonaccession-year system or a year beginning in Tishri, hence designate as the nineteenth year what in the Babylonian system is the eighteenth. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587/586 RC., and the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month were August 26 and August 29, 587 B.C.
There is, however, once more another possibility to be considered. The number of 832 persons taken captive from Jerusalem seems very small to represent the final fall of that city, particularly when it is remembered, for example, that Sargon claims 27,290 captives in the capture of Samaria, hence Jeremiah 52:29 may simply record a preliminary deportation of a group of captives apprehended while the siege of Jerusalem was still in progress. II Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 might then also use the Babylonian system of reckoning, and in this case the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of Nehuchadnezzar would mean August 15 and 18, 586 B.C.
The fall of Jerusalem is also dated in terms of the reign of Zedekiah. In the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, the siege began (II Kings 25: 1). In the tenth year of Zedekiah which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, the siege was in progress and Jeremiah was in custody (Jeremiah 32: 1). In the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, on the ninth day, the walls of the city were breached (II Kings 25:2-4; Jeremiah 39:2). In the fifth month, on the seventh or the tenth day, which was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan came and destroyed the city (II Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:12).
[page 594] If the dates in the reign of Zedekiah are stated in terms of the Babylonian system, and his eleventh year coincided with the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (586/585 B.C.), then his first year would have been the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar (596/595), and his accession year the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (597/596). According to a possible reckoning worked out above, it was in this year on the tenth day of Nisan, April 22, 597 B.C., that Jehoiachin was carried away into exile. Therefore it is quite possible that it was at this time that Zedekiah was installed and that this year, 597/596 B.C., was considered his accession year. On the supposition that 597/596 was the accession year of Zedekiah then his ninth year was 588/587 and the tenth day of the tenth month when the siege began was January 4, 587; his tenth year when Jeremiah was in prison was 587/586; and in his eleventh year (586/585) the ninth day of the fourth month when the walls were breached was July 19, 586, while the seventh and tenth days of the fifth month when the city was finally destroyed were August 15 and 18, 586.
If the second fall of Jerusalem was in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar rather than the nineteenth, that is in 587 instead of 586, then the accession of Zedekiah could be presumed to have been counted as taking place in 598/597, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, when at almost the end of the year the city and Jehoiachin fell into the hands of the Babylonian king. In this case Zedekiah's ninth year was 589/588 and the siege began on January 15, 588; his tenth year was 588/587; and his eleventh year was 587/586, the walls being breached on July 29, 587, and the destruction coming on August 26 and 29, 587. In this case, however, the tenth and eleventh years of Zedekiah would not correspond with the eighteenth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadnezzar, hence this system seems less likely.
According to II Kings 25:27 Jehoiachin was brought up out of his prison in Babylon in the thirty-seventh year of his exile, the twelfth month, and the twenty-seventh day, which was in the year that Evil-merodach began to reign. Jeremiah 52:31 gives the same date except that the twenty-fifth day of the month is specified, and also says that this was the year that Evil-merodach became king. Evil-merodach is the Babylonian king Amel-Marduk who acceded to the throne in succession to Nebuchadnezzar in 562/561 B.C. If the accession year of Amel-Marduk was the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s [page 595]
exile, the first year of that exile was 598/597, the year in which on the second day of Addaru, March 16, 597 B.C., Jerusalem was captured. It is possible and even probable, however, that the words in II Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 concerning Evil-merodach should be translated "in the first year of his reign" (Moffatt Translation). Amel-Marduk's first full year of reign was 561/560, and counting back thirty-seven years from this Jehoiachin's first year of exile would have been 597/596. This would correspond with his going into captivity on the tenth day of Nisan, April 22, 597 B.C., as we have seen reason to believe was the case.
Ezekiel 1:2 refers to the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin, and there follows in the same book a series of dates (8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:21; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1) which are evidently stated likewise in terms of the years of Jehoiachin's exile. It must have been a number of months before Jehoiachin actually arrived in Babylon on the long journey from Jerusalem, even as later it took Ezra a full four months to make the reverse trip from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:9). Writing from the point of view of Babylon, therefore, it may well be that Ezekiel considered the balance of 597/596 as what we might call the "inception year" of the exile, just as the same year was the accession year of Zedekiah in Jerusalem, and if this was the basis of reckoning then the first full year of Jehoiachin's exile was 596/595, even as it was the first full regnal year of Zedekiah. Such a basis of reckoning seems required by Ezekiel 24:1 where the beginning of the final siege of Jerusalem is dated, presumably with reference to the years of the exile, in the ninth year, tenth month; and tenth day, exactly as in II Kings 25:1 (cf. Jeremiah 39:1) the same event is dated in the ninth year, tenth month, and tenth day of the reign of Zedekiah (January 4, 587 B.C.). If Ezekiel had also given the date of the fall of the city it would then presumably have been the same as that in II Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12, the seventh-tenth day of the fifth month of the eleventh year, probably August 15-18, 586 B.C. What Ezekiel does give is the date (33: 21) when a fugitive from Jerusalem reached Babylon with the first news that the city had fallen. This was on the fifth day of the tenth month in what is given as the twelfth year in the usual text, but as the eleventh year in a number of Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac manuscripts [page 596] accepting the latter reading, this date in the eleventh year was January 8, 585, which allows the fugitive slightly less than five months to come from Jerusalem to Babylon, a reasonable length of time compared with the journey of Ezra noted above.
Ezekiel 40:1 speaks of an exact anniversary ("that very day") of the inauguration of the exile on the tenth day of the month at the beginning of the year, that is Nisan 10. This anniversary was in the twenty-fifth year of the exile, that is 572/571. This was also, it is stated, the fourteenth year after the city was conquered. If the city was conquered in the year 586/585, the fourteenth year after that was 572/571. -
15
Is the GB "Christ"?
by Doug Mason inwhere in scripture does the gb get the idea of being anointed?
jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the deceivers (matt 24: 4) who would falsely point to wars, famines, and earthquakes (verses 6 and 7) as the sign of the end of the age (verse 3).
at the same time, jesus told his disciples that these deceivers would claim to be christ (verse 5), which means anointed one.
-
-
Doug Mason
People, again I must thank you for your thoughtful contributions.
I was very concerned about making this "post", worrying about the responses I might receive.
But you have excelled yourselves and helped me greatly. I now know a LOT more.
Thank you,
Doug
Melbourne -
4
When DID the Jews return?
by Doug Mason inthe date of the jews return to jerusalem following their captivity in babylon, is absolutely crucial to the gb.
importance of the date .
this date (537 for the return of the jews to their homeland) plays a very important role for all bible students (jws), for by it we can fix the time of the beginning of the desolation of the land of judah and the beginning of the times of the gentiles, or, the appointed times of the nations.
-
-
Doug Mason
The date of the Jews’ return to Jerusalem following their captivity in Babylon, is absolutely crucial to the GB.
IMPORTANCE OF THE DATE
According to the GB:
“This date (537 for the return of the Jews to their homeland) plays a very important role for all Bible students (JWs), for by it we can fix the time of the beginning of the desolation of the land of Judah and the beginning of the ‘times of the Gentiles,’ or, ‘the appointed times of the nations.’” (The Watchtower, September 15 1965, page 567, “A Pivotal Date in History”)
The GB says that the first Jews returned to their homeland and were settled by Tishri 1, 537 BCE (October 5). The GB then counts back 70 full years to provide them with their (incorrect) date of 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction. The GB then employs the year 607 BCE to arrive at 1914 CE for Christ’s Parousia.
If the first group of Jews did not return to their homeland in 537, then the GB dating structure and the source of its authority (1914 CE) have been extinguished. This would spell deep trouble for them.
GB HOPES CYRUS ISSUED HIS DECREE IN TIME
The GB does not know if Cyrus made his Decree in sufficient time for the Jews to return by that October 537. Consider the following statements, where the GB can offer nothing stronger than “probable”, “if”, and similar:
“The decree of Cyrus MUST HAVE BEEN MADE toward the close of winter and the beginning of spring of 537 B.C.E.” (The Watchtower, September 15 1965, page 567, “A Pivotal Date in History”.)
“LIKELY (the decree) was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E.” (Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1, page 800, “Ezra, Book of”.)
“This decree was EVIDENTLY issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 B.C.E.” (All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial [1990], page 85, “Bible Book Number 15—Ezra”.)
“It is very PROBABLE that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E.” (Insight on the Scriptures, vol. page 458, “Chronology”.)
“IF Cyrus’ decree came late in his first regnal year.” (Let Your Kingdom Come, page 189, Appendix to Chapter 14.)
GB INSISTS DARIUS RULED ALONE AT THE START
Babylon was defeated in October 539 BCE. The balance of the final year of the reign of the last king of Babylon, until March 538 BCE, was completed by the incoming king. The first year of the new king therefore commenced in March 538 BCE.
The GB INSISTS (based on its ability to interpret Scripture) that immediately following the Fall of Babylon, Darius the Mede ruled Babylon solely by himself, and that he had a “first year”. The GB says that Cyrus came to the throne after Darius reached his first year. This would mean that, at the earliest, by the GB’s reckoning, Cyrus “first year” commenced at the earliest in March 537.
“Daniel, at Babylon, speaks of the “first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes … The liberation decree was not made in this year. (The Watchtower, September 15 1965, page 567, “A Pivotal Date in History”.)
The GB then tries its two-card trick: “So with at least one year and possibly a part of a second year for Darius the Mede, the first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun until the year 538 B.C.E., to extend into the following year, 537 B.C.E.” (The Watchtower, September 15 1965, page 567, “A Pivotal Date in History”.)
But if Darius started his first year in 538, then Cyrus’ first year would have started in March 537. And if Darius had “possibly a part of a second year”, Cyrus did not commence his “first year” until 536 BCE.
The GB continues:
“The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to ‘the first year of Darius,’ and this MAY HAVE INTERVENED between the fall of Babylon and ‘the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. IF it did, this would mean that the writer was PERHAPS viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, IF Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, page 568, Cyrus.)
They can always live in hope, but this is a shaky foundation for the GB’s authority.
Again from the GB:
“The reign of Darius I was brief; mention of ‘the first year’ of his reign infers he was king FOR AT LEAST A FULL YEAR. (Dan. 9:1; 11:1) Cyrus followed him on the throne by late 538.” (The Watchtower August 15, 1968, page 493 “The Book of Truthful Historical Dates”.)
ENDING OF SERVITUDE TO BABYLON
Why should the return of the Jews to Jerusalem mark the end of the “70 years” of servitude? Did not the servitude to Babylon, and it had to be served by several nations, finish as soon as the Babylonians were defeated in 539 BCE? (Jer 25:12 says: “When the seventy years are fulfilled, I will PUNISH the king of Babylon”.) Does this not indicate that the 70-year servitude finished as soon as Babylon was no longer the master?
A LONG JOURNEY UNDERTAKEN BY THOUSANDS
The four month journey was undertaken by many thousands. The GB lives in hope that the Jews were sufficiently prepared to start the long journey immediately Cyrus issued his decree. In hope, the GB says:
“The Jews, of course, left Babylon as quickly as possible after Cyrus’ decree, for, by reason of their knowledge of Jehovah’s prophecies by Jeremiah and Isaiah, they had prepared in advance for departure.” (The Watchtower, September 15 1965, page 567, A Pivotal Date in History.)
The reason for the GB’s hope is clear. Thousands of Jewish families journeyed for four months, arriving in sufficient time for them to be settled by the seventh month (Tishri). By the GB method, Cyrus first year commenced in Nisan 1 (March 12) of 537. The date of Tishri 1, 537 is October 5. There is nothing to say that Cyrus made his decree early enough in his first year to suit the GB’s requirements. He might have. But it is very thin ice to build a foundation on.
So, unfortunately for the GB, it cannot prove the actual year that the first group of Jews returned.
CTR’s DATES
CTR was aware of difficulties with his dates. He was not prepared to move his Babylonian dates of 536 and 606, but he was quite prepared to move the 1914 terminus by a full year to 1915. With its fixation at maintaining 1914, the GB shifted CTR’s Babylonian dates back by one year, to 537 and 607 respectively.
Russell was not so concerned with the accuracy of 1914 and was quite prepared to move the terminus to 1915. CTR wrote the following in 1912:
“Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 535 full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
“As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, ‘Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on.’
“Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years’ cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.
“Since this question is agitating the minds of a considerable number of the friends, we have presented it here in some detail. We remind the readers, however, that nothing in the Scriptures says definitely that the trouble upon the Gentiles will be accomplished before the close of the Times of the Gentiles, whether that be October, 1914, or October, 1915” (Watch Tower, December 1, 1912, page 377. “The Ending of the Gentile Times”.) -
15
Is the GB "Christ"?
by Doug Mason inwhere in scripture does the gb get the idea of being anointed?
jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the deceivers (matt 24: 4) who would falsely point to wars, famines, and earthquakes (verses 6 and 7) as the sign of the end of the age (verse 3).
at the same time, jesus told his disciples that these deceivers would claim to be christ (verse 5), which means anointed one.
-
-
Doug Mason
Where in Scripture does the GB get the idea of being “Anointed”?
Jesus warned his Disciples to watch out for the deceivers (Matt 24: 4) who would falsely point to wars, famines, and earthquakes (verses 6 and 7) as the sign of the “end of the age” (verse 3).
At the same time, Jesus told his Disciples that these Deceivers would claim to be “Christ” (verse 5), which means “Anointed One”.
(Both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed”. The term “cristov/cristos” was originally an adjective (“anointed”). In the LXX it developed into a substantive (“an anointed one”), then developed still further into a technical generic term (“the anointed one”).
During the intertestamental period it developed further into a technical term referring to the hoped-for anointed one, that is, a specific individual. In the NT the development starts as technical-specific in the gospels, and then develops in Paul to virtually mean Jesus’ last name.)