Posts by Doug Mason

Victims of Rutherford and of Hitler

by Doug Mason in

in a sense, the german witnesses of the 1930s and 1940s were victims twice over firstly of rutherford and then of hitler.

i hope people have read jim pentons expose on that period in wt history.. some people might not know that the nazis recorded the names of their victims and significant dates, such as when and where that person was collected, the transport details, date of murder, and so on.

in the last days of ww2, the nazis took steps to destroy those records, but much remains, as i know in regards to my own jewish grandparents.. i recently contacted museums associated with major camps auschwitch, dachau, and buchenwald, asking if their records identified those victims who were jehovahs witnesses.. the reply from dachau reads:.

Doug Mason

In a sense, the German Witnesses of the 1930s and 1940s were victims twice over – firstly of Rutherford and then of Hitler. I hope people have read Jim Penton’s expose on that period in WT history.

Some people might not know that the Nazis recorded the names of their victims and significant dates, such as when and where that person was collected, the transport details, date of murder, and so on. In the last days of WW2, the Nazis took steps to destroy those records, but much remains, as I know in regards to my own Jewish grandparents.

I recently contacted museums associated with major camps – Auschwitch, Dachau, and Buchenwald, asking if their records identified those victims who were Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The reply from Dachau reads:
“In the prisoners-database of the Memorial Site we collect the dates of all the prisoners. The database is not for the public. If you are looking for a certain prisoner who was imprisoned as a Jehovas Witness, please write us his name.”

If anyone wishes to discover the fate of a specific person, they need to send those details to the Museum at Dachau.

The reply the Auschwitz Museum reads:
“In reply to your e-mail the State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau would like to inform you that the best source of information about Jehovah’s Witnesses – prisoners of KL Auschwitz is the publication by Teresa Wontor-Cichy, “Imprisoned for their Faith. Jehovah’s Witnesses in KL Auschwitz”, Oswiecim 2006.

The book mentioned above you can buy by mail order from:
ARGONA-JARDEN sp.z o.o. ul. Miodowa 41, 31-052 Kraków, tel. 0 12/4217166,

e-mail:[email protected] , http:// jarden.pl

and

LEXICON, ul. Kielecka 16 m 4, 02 – 550 Warszawa, tel./fax: 022/6494123,

e-mail : [email protected] .”

For obvious reasons, I will not provide the email addresses of the kind people in Poland who operate these museums.

I would like to know if anyone has read the book mentioned in the email from Auschwitz and is able to give me an idea of its contents and message.

I have no time for the WTS and its methods. I am always concerned for the individuals who are caught in the mental trapdoor set by the WTS.

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

JW Scholar,

I know I promised to provide an updated Version of my “Jews Return” Study. It is quite a rewrite, and I want to be sure about it before I make it available. Sorry about the delay.

It now seems to me that the point of difference lies with “Darius” and the stories that the WTS writes about him.

Let me assume for a moment that Cyrus ascended the Babylonian throne as soon as he had defeated Babylon. When the Tishri/nonaccession-year is employed, such as by Daniel and Ezra, Cyrus’ “first regnal year” runs from his taking the throne until the last day before Tishri 1, 538 BCE. When the Nisan/accession-year system is employed, such as by the Babylonians and the Persians, Cyrus’ first regnal year runs from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the last day before Nisan, 537 BCE. The overlap is from Nisan 1, 538 BCE to the last day before Tishri 1, 538 BCE.

Since the journey took from two to four months, the very keen Jews could have sufficient time to return home and be settled by Tishri 538 BCE -- provided Cyrus issued his Decree early during that period.

This is basically the same argument as used by the WTS, except that they insert a “first year” for a Darius. This allows them to move the date of Cyrus first year on by a year – starting at 537 BCE. IF Cyrus issued his Decree early during that period, the Jews could have returned during 537 BCE.

If Ezra is assumed to have used Tishri/accession-year reckoning, the above dates for the return of the Jews in each example could have to be moved on by a year (537 BCE without Darius and 536 BCE when Darius is accounted for, using the WTS’s rationale).

As you can see, these are at best hypothetical situations. None of the outcomes is of concern to me, as they are inconsequential for my belief system. They are, however, crucial to the WTS’s claim to authority and power. At the moment, I only see a hypothetical foundation for the WTS – not even thin ice. I say that the WTS is not able to PROVE its position.

Are there any tablets from Babylon that mention this Darius, or any that provide the length of his reign, or any that Cyrus co-ruled with him, and if so, from when. Where does the WTS get its information about such matters?

In my rewrite, I am casting my thoughts in these directions.

One other thought going through my mind is that although the Bible writers call it Cyrus’ “first year”, he had already been a king for some years. Was it normal for a conquering king to take on such a double-dating of his reign? If Cyrus defeated another nation and became its ruler, would he again ascend to their throne and again have another “accession year” and “year one”? Are there examples from the histories? (Maybe AlanF can help me here.)

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

JW Scholar,

First of all I want to reiterate my appreciation of the benefit of our discussion. It is rare for me to have an active discussion on a Study, and this has helped me hone my presentation.

For example, I now realise that when I wrote, “no one has proven when the Jews returned”, that I provided the opportunity for a distraction from my theme, that the WTS has not been able to provide any proof. I have thus removed that statement, not as a reflection of its validity or otherwise, but because it could trigger a discussion away from my intention – that the date is crucial for the WTS and it can provide no evidence that proves the date.

There is no value in pointing to some sources who say “537”, since there are just as many who say otherwise. There is no value in pointing to anyone else’s conclusion unless they provide the positive and clear evidence that their methodology is forensically valid. I have yet to see the WTS provide such incontrovertible evidence.

I wrote to Alan: “If the link between Josephus and Ezra is valid, and with Ezra using, as you say, nonaccession/Tishri reckoning, the only year that fits is 538 BCE.” If you reread this very carefully, you will see that I wrote “IF”. At the moment, I am yet to be convinced, but as a true researcher I am prepared to amend my views when there is pure and clear proof. That is something I hope you espouse to also. You would have noted that in my Study, I made statements such as, “provided the understanding given to Josephus’ writing is correct”.

When you next look at Version 3 of my Study (which I hope to complete by tomorrow morning), you will see that I have removed the section that discusses the possible link between Josephus and Ezra. I had only called it a “likely” solution. I removed it because it is not relevant to my theme, which is “the WTS cannot prove which year the Jews returned”. I also removed it because it provided an unwarranted distraction.

I shall let you know when I have uploaded the Version 3 file.

I find it most significant that the Bible writers did not provide sufficient information that would enable us to determine the year that the Jews returned. If this was such a crucial turning point in God’s kingdom government arrangement, why is the year not positively identified? Why did Ezra not tell us in which part of the year that the Decree was issued? Why is so little information provided that people now have to make so many assumptions and guesses?

I am contemplating a Study that deals with the event that ended the “70 years”. In it, I plan to say that the WTS has failed to prove that the period ended on the day that the Jews assembled at the site of the Temple in Jerusalem. Maybe you can correct me now?

Probably I need to amend my “model” at

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/authority_model.pdf

What do you think?

Regards,

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

“JW Scholar”,

I really DO “enjoy” our discussion.

A researcher does not seek information to establish that a date is correct. “The chronologist must keep in mind that it is his task not to manufacture history but to recover history” Mysterious Numbers, Thiele, page 22.

Or as Max puts it in his Study:
Some read to prove a preadopted creed,
Thus understand little of what they read,
And every passage in the Book they bend,
To make it suit that all-important end.

When you look at my amended study

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_2.pdf

you will see on page 15 that I modeled the scenario that locks the Jews being at the site of the Temple in Tishri with them laying the foundation in the following second month of the second year. As you rightly point out, Ezra used the Jewish civil Tishri calendar, so these months are in his same year.

The model works whether Josephus used the same Tishri reckoning as Ezra, and when Josephus used the Nisan/accession Babylonian system.
-------------------
You wrote: “This means that Josephus' second year of Cyrus is identical to that 'second year of their coming to the house of the true God in Jerusalem, in the second month' - Ezra 3:8 NWT. which Ezra as with Josephus counted from the Fall of the year, Tishri and not the spring, Nisan. This means that Ezra and Josephus both used the sacred calender in reference to events such as the laying of the Temple foundation. Therefore, the year in which the second month fell was 536 BCE”

Sorry “Scholar”, but I do not follow how you arrived at that conclusion. Regardless of whether they used Tishri reckoning or Nisan reckoning, the second month is the same one. With Tishri reckoning, the second month came after the seventh month. “It was affirmed as certain that the numbering of the months always commences with Nisan” (Finegan, para 167, page 91)

Look at the diagram in my revised Study and replicate that style to describe your scenario.
---------------
You write that your own “model combines harmonizes all the facts beginning with the fundamental fact the 'first year of Cyrus' regnal year beginning from Nisan from 538 BCE to Nisan 537 BCE.”

Why are you disagreeing with the WTS’s position that “Darius” ruled Babylon for at least a complete year?

Ezra wrote about Cyrus’ Decree, and we agree that Ezra used a Tishri calendar, so the term “first year” must be understood in Ezra’s terms, making Cyrus’ first year over Babylon run from Tishri 539 to Ululu 538 BCE.
-----------
Is the Tishri calendar the sacred one, or is it the civil calendar?
------------
Now that you accept what this NIV book says about dates during this period, let’s check what they say:
“Sheshbazzar’s journey … probably took place in 537 BC.” (commentary on Ezra 1:11). “The Jews probably returned to Judah in the spring of 537 BC.” (commentary on Ezra 3:8). Since 537 BC is given as only “probably”, this means the WTS has only a “probable” foundation.

“The first deportation began in 605, the third year of Jehoiakim (Da 1:1); in 538, approximately 70 years later, the people began to return” (commentary on Ezra 1:1)

“Nebuchadnezzar overran Judah in 597 BC (Jer 13:19)” (commentary on Ezra 2:21-35.)

“Jehoiakim (609-598), Jehoiachin (598-597) and Zedekiah (597-586). …In 605 BC the Egyptians were crushed at Carchemish on the Euphrates by Nebuchadnezzar. … Jerusalem was captured in 586 (38:28).” (introduction to Jeremiah)

Tip toe through the daysies, picking one here and one there, whatever suits the predetermined outcome. That’s not scholarship, that’s prejudice.
-----------
I do not have paras 329-330 of Jack Finegan's Handbook Of Biblical Chronology - Revised Edition, 1998, pages179-180. Could you please provide me with a scan or a direct quote?

Why do pick out just bits and pieces from Finegan that suit?
-----------
You wrote: “One moment you ask for proof for 537 BCE and now you move the goal posts as to the source for this date.”

“Scholar”, when I ask for proof I want to know “HOW DOES THE WTS ARRIVE AT THAT DATE.” The proof is the source, the goal posts are not being shifted.
-----------
Now I want to say something on behalf of the honest-Joe, little guy, everyday Witness.

Why does the WTS hierarchy permit you to seek out, visit and communicate at length with a notorious apostate in the form of Max Hatton, with apparent impunity and immunity?

As Max wrote to me: “When all is said and done he doesn't follow the Watch Tower in all things for he shouldn't even talk to me”.

Why does the WTS hierarchy permit you to read and research materials produced by opposers and apostates, such as Carl Olof Jonsson, again with apparent impunity and immunity?

The average Witness’s knees shake at the thought of the outcome should they be found talking with an apostate loved one, be it their own child or parent. Why do these families have to be ripped apart while others can swan around and read what they like and speak with whoever they wish, without fear of the consequences?
-----------

I await your model, but I won’t hold my breath.

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

Scholar JW,

My recent Post on the source of CTR’s 536 date, courtesy of Max Hatton’s piece, is intended to indicate the origin of the WTS’s current date. CTR’s date was not based on research done by him, but was accepted by him despite his denying the method used to arrive at the date.

His action proved to be a foretaste of another of the WTS’s current dilemmas, in that it accepts from secular historians the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon, yet it rejects the method they use to arrive at that date.

All along, I have been asking you for the REASON that the WTS lands on 537 BCE for its crucial date. I want to see the METHOD they use to arrive at that date, not its conclusion.

I have looked for those pages you mentioned, but without success. So I wonder if you or someone could email me a scan of the pages you refer to, or point me to a location on the www where I can pick them up.

Scholar, do these pages provide the METHOD used to arrive at 537 BCE or do they only provide the conclusion?
---------------------

You say that when I wrote about CTR’s source for his date, that this muddied your waters. For me, it has made the water crystal clear.

I wondered how you could speak of Max Hatton with such conviction -- and then the penny dropped.

I went back to my recent past emails and located emails about you from Max and from Bruce, dated 12 February of this year. As you see, their emails are not related to our current discussion, which is the first that you and I have had.

Max specifically mentioned that you use the pseudonym “Scholar”. At the time, this meant nothing to me, it is only now that it does.

They told me a lot about you. They wrote to me because you had contacted them and had expressed a desire to make contact with me. You knew who I was on JWD, now the playing field is level.

Bruce wrote: “He is useful in as much as you can often get advanced information on books written for or against the JWs - and their latest thinking. … He also enjoys being in contact with those who write for the WTS within their ranks. For this he is interesting to get inside info.”

If Bruce is correct, several points come to mind:

1. You might be providing a direct link from JWD into the inner sanctum of the WTS.

2. The “experts” within the WTS have not been able to provide you with any proof that 537 BCE is correct.

3. Your Posts reflect current WTS thinking, and might even provide a means for the WTS writers to “test” their theories.

4. It will be interesting to see if an article or two come out in the near future on this critical topic.

If you do have influence with the WTS writers, or if you see yourself as one – I believe you have written a thesis -- tell those WTS writers that by knocking others, they do not prove they are correct. Also, tell them that by denying the accuracy of the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology, they are attacking the source that provides them with their dates, including 539 BCE.

Since this is a publicly available forum, I will be providing this JWD thread to Bruce and Max. They will be fascinated, I am sure.

Bruce wrote: “I would love to be a 'fly on the wall’ to hear a conversation between he and Doug on the subject of blood. That would be enormously interesting!!” Will we grant him his wish?

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

Alan,

If the link between Josephus and Ezra is valid, and with Ezra using, as you say, nonaccession/Tishri reckoning, the only year that fits is 538 BCE. I will adjust my Study accordingly.

Many thanks for your information.

JW Scholar,

Sometimes I wonder if you are a double-agent.

In other words, are you an "opposer" who is deliberately trying to make the WTS look bad by offering such inane contributions, while making it appear you support the WTS.

Regards,

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

JW Scholar,

I think we have waited long enough for you to reveal where the WTS got its 537 BCE for the year of the Jews’ return. So it is up to me to make the revelation. As you did tell everyone – it’s all about tradition, not scholarship.

When the WTS discarded so many dates that CTR had provided, they amended by one year his significant dates of 606, 538 and 536 BCE. But where did CTR get his date of 536 BCE for the “end of the 70 years”?

As I told you earlier, I obtained my information in the 1960s from Geoff Rogerson and Max Hatton. There must have been something in the waters in Western Australia at the time. The following piece is from Max’s notes.

Enjoy.

Doug
------------
Russell demonstrated his dependence upon Ptolemy’s Canon on page, 51 of Vol 2, Studies in the Scriptures. "The period from the time of the restoration of the Jews from Babylon at the close of the seventy years desolation of their land in the first year of Cyrus, down to the date known as AD1 is not covered by Bible history. But, as before stated; it is well established by secular history as a period of 536 years. Ptolemy, a learned Greek-Egyptian, a geometer and astronomer, has well established these figures. They are generally accepted by scholars, and known as Ptolemy's Canon."

The unfortunate part about all this is that Ptolemy's Canon does NOT give 536 BC as the first year of Cyrus. Now if Russell had commenced his 2520 years from 538 BC, he obviously would not have arrived at 1914 AD Why did Russell say that the year was 536 BC?

On page 67 of the same Volume of Russell's writings, he mentions "Dr. Hales work on chronology." Dr. Hales’ work is entitled A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy. The second edition of four volumes was published in 1830.

Hales gives considerable information on the Canon of Ptolemy, and on page 168 he comments, “the Canon dates the accession of Cyrus … 538 BC”.

On pages 166 and 167 Hales discussed an adjustment made by historians to Ptolemy's Canon to make Cyrus’ first year 536 BC. This was performed out of respect for the Scriptures. Hales explains this on his page 166. "It must, however, be acknowledged, that accurate as authentic copies of the Canon unquestionably are every where else, in this single period a small correction is necessary to accommodate it to Scripture; for, according to the Canon, from the first of Nabokolassar or Nebuchadnezzar, BC 604, to the first of Cyrus, BC 538, is an interval of only 66 years; and therefore, if the Captivity began in the end of the third, or commencement of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, BC 605, Dan,l:l; 2 KingsXXIV:1; Jer XXV:1; from thence, to the accession of Cyrus, was only 67 years complete, or 68 current."

On page 167 Hales says, “chronologers Scalinger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, Jackson &c have adopted this interpolation as indispensably necessary to reconcile the Canon to Holy Writ, which is effectually done thereby; for from the commencement of .the Captivity, BC 605, to the corrected first of Cyrus, BC 536, is 69 years complete, or 70 years current.”

The interesting point here is that Cyrus' 1st year was changed to 536 BC to make it 70 years current from 605 BC, which was regarded as the beginning of the 70 years. A perusal of Dan. 1:1, 2 Kings 24:1 and Jer. 25:1 as cited by Hales makes it obvious that the 70 years were regarded by these Chronologists as commencing at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and not in his 19th year, as insisted on by Russell and the Society today.

The ironical part is that Russell utilized the date 536 BC, which was calculated from the date 605 BC, which Russell positively would not accept.

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

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

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

Alan,

Thank you for your thoughts and support.

I will have a good look through the outcomes of your research and if I find solid evidence, I will amend my material. I have not stopped learning, nor lost the desire to learn.

I will do the same if Scholar is able to furnish proof.

Regards,

Doug

73

When DID the Jews return?

by Doug Mason in

the wts says that the key date in the jews return from babylon is tishri 1 537 bce.. the wts uses that date to arrive at its incorrect date of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.

in turn, its 607 bce date is used to provide the date of october 1914 ce for christs parousia and the setting up of gods kingdom government.

the wts claims to be the sole representative upon earth of gods kingdom.. the date of the jews return is thus crucial to the watchtower societys (wts) existence and authority.

Doug Mason

Dear JW Scholar,

Thank you for the discussion. It has been most revealing.

I am certain others will gain from seeing the significance of the issue. They will see that, as you say, the date is "traditionally established" by the WTS.

I am not interested in a Popish "tradition", but others might be. When they next see 607 BCE trotted out, people will know that the date depends on a "tradition" of 537 BCE for the return of the Jews.

You have done a great service, and shown the feebleness of the WTS's position.

There is no need for me to replace the date, since it is inconsequential. It is a non-issue for me. These dates are only of concern to the WTS, even for its very existence. For others like me, they provide a means for showing how the WTS behaves, and to illustrate the WTS for what it is.

You have confirmed for me the dictum that "Witnesses believe the WTS because of who it claims to be, not because of what it says".

Next time.

Regards,

Doug