Posts by Doug Mason

10

How 539 BCE is calculated

by Doug Mason in

the wts accepts the date 539 bce for the fall of babylon.

but they do not accept the absolute date that is used to calculate the date of the fall.. here is a picture that illustrates the wtss problem.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/why_historians_know_babylon_fell_in_539_bce.pdf.

if you have difficulties with the colours i use in my drawings and my colour combinations, i apologise.

Doug Mason

Danny,

I had hoped the picture would show that the 539 BCE date for the Fall of Babylon is derived from the Absolute Date of 568 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, followed by the lengths of the reigns of the Kings down to the end of Nabonidus' reign.

The WTS does not accept the Absolute Date but it does accept the list of kings and the conclusion (539 BCE).

This is a big big problem for the WTS, not for the historians, and the WTS relies on them.

Maybe you can describe in detail what you meant. Have I misunderstood you?

Doug

10

How 539 BCE is calculated

by Doug Mason in

the wts accepts the date 539 bce for the fall of babylon.

but they do not accept the absolute date that is used to calculate the date of the fall.. here is a picture that illustrates the wtss problem.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/why_historians_know_babylon_fell_in_539_bce.pdf.

if you have difficulties with the colours i use in my drawings and my colour combinations, i apologise.

Doug Mason

The WTS accepts the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon. But they do not accept the Absolute Date that is used to calculate the date of the Fall.

Here is a picture that illustrates the WTS’s problem.

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Why_historians_know_Babylon_fell_in_539_BCE.pdf

If you have difficulties with the colours I use in my drawings and my colour combinations, I apologise. I have a red-green colour vision deficiency and I am hopeless at knowing what all the fuss is about colours that "go" and those that "don't".

Doug

116

The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

by Doug Mason in

if you are looking for the simplest picture that shows how the wts calculates that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, and if you want to understand basic problems with their method, this might be what you want.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/wts_false_reasoning_for_607_bce.pdf.

(make sure that your pdf reader displays the whole page.).

doug.

Doug Mason

Scholar,

I will change the diagram when I am shown it is wrong.

Regarding the date of the Jews' return, you will note that I have now provided my updated Study at

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf

Regarding you explanation why the WTS accepts the conclusion of 539 BCE but rejects the method for arriving at that date does not make sense to me. Could you please clarify your statement for me?

I should produce a picture explaining how 539 BCE is derived. Can you?

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

I have reworked my Study on the date of the "Return of the Jews".

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_3.pdf

I wanted to know whether the WTS is able to prove which year the Jews returned. This is my summary and conclusions:

The WTS’s existence, authority and meaning rely on the date that the Jews returned to their homeland. For the WTS, it is imperative this took place in 537 BCE.
Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians during Tishri (October) 539 BCE.
During his “first year” as king of Babylon, Cyrus issued his decree that freed the captives held by Babylon, allowing them to return to their homes.
The Jewish calendars and the Babylonian calendar considered Cyrus’ first year differently.
The WTS dismisses out of hand that Jews such as Daniel and Ezra used the Jewish system of reckoning.
The Babylonian system reckons that Cyrus’ “first year” ran from Nisan 1 (March) 538 BCE to the last day before Nisan 1 (March) 537 BCE.
Although the WTS presents the Darius mentioned in the book of Daniel, the WTS removes any impact of Darius on the date of Cyrus’ first year. (Darius is thus a diversionary smokescreen in the shape of a red herring.) The WTS eliminates Darius by declaring that the first year of Cyrus began on Nisan 1 538 BCE. This is not disputed, when the Nisan/accession-year system is applied.
Cyrus issued his Decree some time during his first year (Nisan 1 538 BCE to the last day before Nisan 1 537 BCE).

If Cyrus issued his Decree at the start of his first year, the Jews returned during 538 BCE.
If Cyrus issued his Decree towards Winter or late during his first year, the Jews returned during 537 BCE. For this reason, the WTS hopes this is what happened. This shows the weakness of this lynch pin in its foundation.

The WTS does not know the timing of Cyrus’ decree.
All that the WTS can call on is “if”, “maybe” and “likely”. They rely on hope and guesses. They do not have the facts that they need. This is devastating.

Jehovah God has not found it necessary to reveal the information that the WTS so desperately needs. Perhaps he knows that the date when the Jews returned is not important.

This event is a crucial piece in the WTS’s foundation, but it is not part of any foundation for Jehovah God. – see Matthew 22: 36 - 40; Galatians 5: 14

Doug

11

New Aust Census - other Christians growing, JWs falling

by jwfacts in

the following figures are from the australian census 2006 as found at http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/census (30th june 2007).

very interesting to see that the number of people admitting to being jehovah's witnesses has fallen over the last 10 years by 3%, whilst baptists have grown by 7% and mormons by 18%.

looks like jws are not the only ones preaching afterall.. .

Doug Mason

JWfacts,

The first part of the religious program on ABC radio last night (Sunday 2 July 2007, about 10:10 pm) started with a discussion on the figures in the census. I do not know whether a transcript is available or even a podcast.

In essence, the "expert" said these figures do not relate to attendance or to what is happening in the churches, rather they are an indication of "identity". They show how person identifies themself, not what their practice is.

Thus, if the census figures are higher than the actual returns, this might indicate people who still think of themselves as JWs (or whatever) and that is as far as it goes.

In his look at the figures, rather than considering the raw numbers, he expressed each in terms of the percentage of the total population, thus giving a comparison between the growth or decline against the relative growth in the total population (21 million on the weekend).

He also addressed age-related issues.

Doug

10

Jer 29:10

by rosa in

dears, .

olof jonson wrote in his book "gentil times", page 211, footnote 26: .

"(interistingly, the danish nwt of 1985 has "for babylon", and the new revised swedish nwt of 2003, too, has now changed its earlier "in" to "for babylon"!

Doug Mason

It is an issue of minor semantics.

The WTS says that the captives had to be "at" Babylon for 70 years, whereas the renderings Carl has located (correctly) say "for" Babylon, meaning the 70 years could be fulfilled "for" Babylon while the people remained in their own homes in Judah.

That is what I understand Rosa is looking for.

Doug

10

Jer 29:10

by rosa in

dears, .

olof jonson wrote in his book "gentil times", page 211, footnote 26: .

"(interistingly, the danish nwt of 1985 has "for babylon", and the new revised swedish nwt of 2003, too, has now changed its earlier "in" to "for babylon"!

Doug Mason

Rosa,

I hope to get you the copies of these pages, but you will need patience, since it could take me 2 or 3 weeks.

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,

I think we should wait until you have had time to do further research, and then we can continue our discussion. I think it would be best if we decided to start a new thread when we have got to that point.

In the meantime I think it is only proper and correct that I should provide my updated Study on this Thread, since that was the initiator of our discussion.

As a friendly thought, I think your arguments are not helped when you use terms such as "celebrated WT scholars", "nonsense", and so on. Repeated use of such terms does your cause no favours, and some might see this displaying the thoughts coming from a closed prejudiced mind.

Please do not prejudge others. I am not a scholar. I am only a retired soldering trainer, writer of teaching material in basic electronics, business procedures, and such. I am graduate of the University of Hard Knocks, from the Faculty of Life. And I do not see myself as perplexed.

In the end, my argument is not with you Scholar, but with the WTS, and what it demands its followers must believe.

So, as I said, I shall complete the update of my Study that started his thread. We can then move on to a discussion on the outcomes of your ongoing research into the matter we have been discussing for the past little while, and another on identifying the event that marked the end of the "Seventy Years".

Are you satisfied with that?

BTW, could you have another look at your last Post, which reads: "Common sense would surely indicate that Return was impossible in year of the Return but would be only in the following Tishri."

Doug

116

The simplest explanation of 607 BCE

by Doug Mason in

if you are looking for the simplest picture that shows how the wts calculates that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, and if you want to understand basic problems with their method, this might be what you want.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/wts_false_reasoning_for_607_bce.pdf.

(make sure that your pdf reader displays the whole page.).

doug.

Doug Mason

If you are looking for the simplest picture that shows how the WTS calculates that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, and if you want to understand basic problems with their method, this might be what you want.

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/WTS_false_reasoning_for_607_BCE.pdf

(Make sure that your PDF reader displays the whole page.)

Doug

11

New Aust Census - other Christians growing, JWs falling

by jwfacts in

the following figures are from the australian census 2006 as found at http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/census (30th june 2007).

very interesting to see that the number of people admitting to being jehovah's witnesses has fallen over the last 10 years by 3%, whilst baptists have grown by 7% and mormons by 18%.

looks like jws are not the only ones preaching afterall.. .

Doug Mason

JWfacts,

How do the JW figures in the Census compare with the figures provided by the WTS?

Doug