Posts by Doug Mason

18

Updates to my WT Organization Chart

by Doug Mason in

following recent communications, i have updated my wt organization chart.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/org_chart.pdf.

apart from making minor changes to the layout, i have amended the section dealing with the local congregation.. i will appreciate any help and advice, but when you make them please remember that i do have space limitations.. doug.

Doug Mason

Blondie,

Thank you.

All of this comes from sources such as you. Are you able to provide me with formal documents? I really want to be correct. I will carefully consider your help and amend the diagram appropriately.

Another question I had related to the reporting system of the Hospital Liaison Committee. Do they have a direct link into HQ that bypasses parts of the system?

I think a serious issue is the line of legal responsibility for actions such as enforcing the "blood" doctrine and their manner of handling disfellowshipping and shunning. Who in the organization carries the responsibility? Are all down the chain personally responsible, like the managers of any corporation?

Doug

18

Updates to my WT Organization Chart

by Doug Mason in

following recent communications, i have updated my wt organization chart.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/org_chart.pdf.

apart from making minor changes to the layout, i have amended the section dealing with the local congregation.. i will appreciate any help and advice, but when you make them please remember that i do have space limitations.. doug.

Doug Mason

Following recent communications, I have updated my WT Organization Chart.

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

Apart from making minor changes to the layout, I have amended the section dealing with the Local Congregation.

I will appreciate any help and advice, but when you make them please remember that I do have space limitations.

Doug

8

Jer 29:10 in the Swedish 2003 NWT

by Doug Mason in

in a previous thread, rosa asked for scans of jer 29:10 from the 2003 swedish nwt and from the dutch nwt.. i have provided a scan of the page from swedish nwt at:.

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/jer_29-10_swedish_2003_nwt.pdf.

please note that the file has two pages -- the title page and the page with jer 29:10.. i give you my word that this is the page referred to by coj.. i will provide a scan of the page from the dutch nwt when i receive it.. doug.

Doug Mason

Augustin,

Yes, you are correct. I should have written "Danish".

Please excuse my brain fade.

Doug

8

Jer 29:10 in the Swedish 2003 NWT

by Doug Mason in

in a previous thread, rosa asked for scans of jer 29:10 from the 2003 swedish nwt and from the dutch nwt.. i have provided a scan of the page from swedish nwt at:.

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/jer_29-10_swedish_2003_nwt.pdf.

please note that the file has two pages -- the title page and the page with jer 29:10.. i give you my word that this is the page referred to by coj.. i will provide a scan of the page from the dutch nwt when i receive it.. doug.

Doug Mason

In a previous thread, Rosa asked for scans of Jer 29:10 from the 2003 Swedish NWT and from the Dutch NWT.

I have provided a scan of the page from Swedish NWT at:

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Jer_29-10_Swedish_2003_NWT.pdf

Please note that the file has two pages -- the Title page and the page with Jer 29:10.

I give you my word that this is the page referred to by COJ.

I will provide a scan of the page from the Dutch NWT when I receive it.

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,

You asked for scans of Jer 29:10 from the 2003 Swedish NWT and from the Dutch NWT.

I have provided a scan of the page from Swedish NWT at:

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/Jer_29-10_Swedish_2003_NWT.pdf

Please note that the file has two pages -- the Title page and the page with Jer 29:10.

I give you my word that this is the page referred to by COJ.

I will provide a scan of the page from the Dutch NWT when I receive it.

I hope this helps 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

Scholar,

If you look at my chart again, you will see that I was not showing how the WTS arrives at 539. I was showing that these WTS writers accept the date from secular sources and also that they replicate the accepted list of Babylonian kings, yet they do not accept the date at the start of this list. They have the agreed end date and the agreed length of the Babylonian chronology yet they don’t want to accept the start date – that takes some mental gymnastics.

This what the wise WTS writers state authoritatively regarding the Babylonian chronology:
“Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 BCE.” (The Watchtower, January 1 1965, page 29 “The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived”)

We agree that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years and Nabonidus reigned for 17 years. We know that Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. And we know that this information is fully supported by sources such as the Egibi family’s business records. So where is the 20-year gap that the WTS needs?

--------------------------

I am glad we agree that the year 539 BCE is a calculated date – well done, Scholar! So it is not Absolute, but derived.

The WTS says it is derived from Cambyses’ 7th year. How do they get from that year to 539 BCE? By using the very sources they denounce. I call that hypocricy.

To get from Cambyses’ 7th year to 539 BCE, the highly acclaimed WTS writers accept an astronomical tablet, lunar eclipses, business documents, and Ptolemy’s Canon – the very same type of evidences that these gifted WTS writers denounce when the outcome does not fit their prejudice of the “70 years”. The WTS cites Parker and Dubberstein for support but they do not accept that authority whenever they feel like it. That’s not scholarship.

These outstanding WTS writers accept this astronomical tablet yet do not accept the similar tablet for Nebuchadnezzar. They accept the lunar eclipse for Cambyses but not the eclipse for Nabopolassar. They accept the business tablets to get them to 539 BCE yet they denounce business tablets when the outcome condemns them. They denounce the Babylonian king list yet accept the Persian king list, yet both come from the same sources.

This is all explained when you wrote the following sentence, when you touched on the KEY ISSUE: “The [Babylonian king] list as currently understood for general historical purposes … is unreliable for establishing an accurate biblical chronology because IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THE BIBLICAL 'SEVENTY YEARS'. (“Biblical” here means “the WTS’s 70 years”.)

The WTS is transfixed by its understanding of and the significance it gives to the “70 Years”. When their prejudice cannot be accommodated, they denounce the evidence, ignore the facts, and close their eyes to truth. But when the very same type of evidence fits their predetermined conclusion, the biased WTS writers accept the facts.

When things cannot be made to force fit into a preconception about the ‘70 years’, rather than determine if their eisegesis is correct, these superb WTS writers just get rid of the facts.

Scholar, a date is considered “Absolute” whether the year or the event is recorded in Scripture or not. There is no mention in Scripture of Cambyses’ 7th year, yet it is treated by the WTS as Absolute.

Scholar! Scholar! Show me their scholarship!

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

Danny,

You ask me: “if the WTS does not have the True where is that?”

The answer is so simple – “Jesus”. Who else can we go to, for he has the words of eternal life? It is he who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When we see him, we see God.

Salvation is an absolutely free gift, yours for the asking. You cannot work for it, or earn it. Simply ask and it shall be given to you, to whoever believes. When it is yours, you are at peace with God’s requirements.

There is no test of doctrinal purity, eschatological correctness, or organizational membership.

I have to first attack the WTS so that those who have been blinded by it can remove the mental stranglehold. Then that person can better accept the news of the Gospel, which is a truth that is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

That’s where Truth is. With God. Make it personal, not euphoric, but deeply meaningful and satisfying. Trust him.

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,

At least we are going forwards. You agree that 539 BCE is a “calculated date”. Not only that, but that it is calculated from secular sources. Thank you.

You speak about an “event-based” chronology as against a “regnal-based” chronology. I am bemused. Tell me how these famous WTS writers get 539 BCE from “event-based chronology”.

In the context we are considering, there is no difference between secular evidence and the Biblical record, so a question of priority of one over another does not arise. The issue relates to the ability to understand the Bible. These faceless WT writers have been shown to misquote, selectively cite, and misrepresent secular sources (half of a sentence quoted, etc.), and their misbehavior can be easily verified by going to the source being cited. Do these irresponsible unaccountable WT writers behave any better when they use God’s Word to suit their prejudiced, predetermined outcomes?

There must be a measure of trust in any relationship. But it must not be a trust that is blind, one that accepts anything that the other party says, especially when the outcomes are so long-lasting. Do these anonymous writers deserve the childlike trust they demand?

Scholar, these people are taking you for a ride. Do not believe them. I write to you to try and help you. My argument is with them, not with you. If I did not care, I would leave you to their devices. Together, we must be interested in what is true, not in who is right or wrong.

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,

The length of Darius’ reign “most certainly” does not figure in the WTS’s chronology of the Jews’ Return. These anonymous faceless WT writers ignore everything they write about Darius (probably because none of their outcomes fits their predetermined conclusion) by making the bald statement that whatever happened, they agree with everyone else, saying that if Nisan/accession-year reckoning is applied, Cyrus’ first regnal year started on Nisan 1, 538 BCE. (Do you still agree that Ezra used Tishri reckoning?)

Did Cyrus issue his Decree on the first day of his first year? Neither you nor I knows the answer. The biased WT writers heap hope upon hope that he did not. Since the issuing of the Decree is pivotal for the WT’s foundation, they must prove it, one way or the other.

If Cyrus issued his Decreee on the final day of his first regnal year does your argument of insufficient time still hold, meaning they returned in 536 BCE?

It is not the historian’s right to “make history”, but to reconstruct it.

So these speculative WT writers are “confident that 537 BCE is the right date for the Return.” They might be “confident” but that’s not good enough. Why don’t they share their reasons? All we get from that mob is “likely”, “perhaps” and “maybe”. That’s not confidence, that’s a sham. I am confident that they do not know, they just hope.

If as you say there are ‘gaps’, ‘imperfections’ and ‘speculations’, then the foundation is broken, incorrect and speculative.

If the year of the Jews’ return is so vitally important, as these unqualified WT writers would have us believe, why did Jehovah God fail to ensure the record has been preserved, either in his own Word or in the secular records?

You referred me to Romans 3 and I wonder why. Here is the passage as rendered by the NIV:

“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

“What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’ [Ps 51:4]

“But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?

“Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’ Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—‘Let us do evil that good may result’? Their condemnation is deserved.”

I have carefully considered this passage and wonder why you raise it.

My grandparents were Jews, to whom were entrusted God’s very words. One grandfather was a faithful man, the other was an atheist. Although one “did not have faith”, that never nullified the faithfulness of God. God is always true, otherwise he is not God and could not judge the world.

Some, such as the WTS writers, might argue that their falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness, so they should not be considered sinners, but Paul says “their condemnation is deserved”.

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

Danny,

As the creator of that picture, I know what it shows:

The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is accepted by the WTS from historians.
The list of Babylonian kings and the lengths of their reigns is accepted by the WTS from historians.
The Absolute Date that provides the other dates, including 539 BCE, is not accepted by the WTS.

Hence the picture shows a critical problem for the WTS. They accept the end-date and the lengths of the reigns, but not the start-date. Bizarre.

Since I am the creator of that picture, I wondered how anyone could think it depicts historians’ errors. If the historians are wrong, then the WTS has no right to accept 539 BCE from them. If the Absolute Date is wrong, then so are the other dates, including 539 BCE.

These historical sources include:

tens of thousands of dated Babylonian clay tablets, including comprehensive tablets from the House of Egibi
contemporary chronology of the mother of Nabonidus
astronomical tablets
Josephus
Claudius Ptolemy

On my picture I provide two examples where the WTS AGREES with the accepted Babylonian chronology.

---------------------

If the WTS says the historians’ information is wrong, then the WTS has no right to accept the information that the historians provide. But the WTS does accept the historians’ information on the list of Babylonian kings, the lengths of their reigns, and the date 539 BCE. But they do not accept the vital Absolute Date.

The historians include (at least): Neugebauer and Weidner, Parker & Dubberstein (cited so often by the WTS), Thiele (I can provide personal correspondence from him), R R Newton (I can provide personal correspondence from him also), Gadd, Oates, Pritchard, Finegan, etc., etc.

My picture is about the WTS’s gross error. But there is more to the story, for the WTS is also deliberately deceptive. Let me give you two examples.

-----------------------------

First example:

In “Insight on the Scriptures”, Vol 1, page 456, “Chronology”, the WTS writes (as it did in previous publications): “Professor O. Neugebauer states that Ptolemy complained about ‘the lack of reliable planetary observations [from ancient Babylon]’.” – The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957, page 98.”

The WTS repeatedly trots out this statement from Otto Neugebauer to try and show that Ptolemy said the readings at were not reliable. But the WTS only quotes the second half of Neugebauer’s sentence. He actually wrote: “Ptolemy states that practically complete lists of eclipses are available since the reign of Nabonassar (747 BC) while he complains about the lack of reliable planetary observations.”

So Neugebauer is saying that Ptolemy contrasted the eclipse records (which were “practically complete” since 747 BCE) but complained about observations of the planets. I wonder why the WTS only quoted half of the sentence?

--------------------------------

Second example:

In its book “Aid to Bible Understanding” and in The Watchtower, February 1 1969, page 89, the WTS writes:

“What is thought to be a memorial tablet written either for the mother or the grandmother of Nabonidus, gives some chronological data for this period, but many portions of the text have been damaged.” Describing it as a damaged and hence a very incomplete inscription, the WTS says its reference is “Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.”

Notice that the articles in the Aid book and in The Watchtower are from the late 1960s.

Pritchard’s book also includes the translation from an identical tablet, but this one is not damaged. This undamaged tablet confirms the accepted Babylonian chronology. This tablet was discovered in 1956 and had been widely available to the WTS long before it provided its (mis)information.

The WTS failed to tell its followers that there was an undamaged tablet, and that it is in the same book as the damaged tablet.

-------------------------

These are two examples of the way that the WTS operates, in order to keep its followers unaware of the truth.

If the WTS behaves like this with facts that are easily verified, how does it behave when it interprets Scripture?

------------------------

Doug