Posts by Doug Mason

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Doug Mason

Apologies for misspelling "Jerusalem"

277

Did Jeruselm fall in 587 or 586 BCE?

by Doug Mason in

i came across this article written in 2004 by an evangelical.. “when did jerusalem fall?”, rodger young, journal of the evangelical society [jets], 47/1 (march 2004), 21-38.. http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf .

these are the conclusions of the 18-page analysis.

(1) jerusalem fell in the fourth month (tammuz) of 587 bc.

Doug Mason

I came across this article written in 2004 by an Evangelical.

“When did Jerusalem Fall?”, Rodger Young, Journal of the Evangelical Society [JETS], 47/1 (March 2004), 21-38.

http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf

These are the Conclusions of the 18-page analysis

(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 BC. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.

(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 BC. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.

(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.

(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the ﬁfty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions ﬁt the data.

(5) All three sources are internally consistent and consistent with each other. There are no texts which bear on the question of the chronology of the last years of the Judean monarchy and the fall of Jerusalem which do not ﬁt the methods described here regarding how the biblical authors treated the history of their times.

(6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conﬂicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conﬂict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conﬂict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conﬂicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation.

(7) The use of Decision Tables reveals that previous studies have overlooked many possibilities that were entirely consistent with the ideas of the author of the study, but which were not explored simply because they were never thought of. This failure to explore all the possibilities has been a major problem in the studies of OT chronology, and one that has led to signiﬁcant confusion in the chronologies produced. It is to be hoped that future studies will not declare that some new solution is to be preferred, or the text needs to be emended, until it is demonstrated that there are no other sets of hypotheses that better explain the data. Ignoring this practice will reduce the credibility of the study.

16

Bring to ruin those ruining the earth, but what if we change.

by pleaseresearch in

this has come up recently with two family members who are jws.

if they are talking about this you can bet that others are too.

they seem to be all excited that a lot of attention in the news right now is about climate change, greta, extinction rebellion etc... as you can image they are very smug saying see.

Doug Mason

I have witnessed Fundamentalist Evangelicals saying there is nothing to be concerned about because God created the Earth and he will not allow it to be ruined.

Planet Earth has seen at least 5 major extinctions and at least 90% of species that ever lived are now extinct. Mankind is not immune.

Perhaps the tag should be: Accelerated Climate Change. Variation is normal but the present rate of change is not permitting Nature to adapt.

Large swathes of Australia is in the grips of a great drought. The government is going to fix the problem by spending $1 billion on dams!

Doug

16

From ABC News - Australia

by no-zombie in

this morning, this article appeared on our national online news channel; the abc.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-10/jehovahs-witness-abuse-exposed/11561776.

no-zombie.

Doug Mason

I created a PDF of the ABC story:

https://jwstudies.com/Former_Jehovah_s_Witnesses_speak_out_about_childhood_abuse.pdf

Doug

17

The serpent in the Garden can’t be secretly Satan

by Doug Mason in

we know that the serpent in the garden can’t be secretly satan, because the first time satan is mentioned by name is in a story chronologically after this one, and in that, he is said to be walking.

remember that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly all the rest of his days, but in the book of job, satan is still walking around and chatting with god as if they’d never had a falling out.

this is when god had to ask satan where he’s been, because his infallible omniscience obviously didn’t know.. so if he had to ask that of satan, who is later described as the lord of lies, then why would god believe him?

Doug Mason

We know that the serpent in the Garden can’t be secretly Satan, because the first time Satan is mentioned by name is in a story chronologically after this one, and in that, he is said to be walking. Remember that the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly all the rest of his days, but in the book of Job, Satan is still walking around and chatting with God as if they’d never had a falling out. This is when God had to ask Satan where he’s been, because his infallible omniscience obviously didn’t know.

So if he had to ask that of Satan, who is later described as the Lord of Lies, then why would God believe him? Or didn’t God know any better by then?

So there is no literary link ever implied between Satan and serpents, other than the common insult of calling him a snake. Jesus referred to the Pharisees as snakes too, and he said they were descended from Satan, but that doesn’t mean they’re descended from snakes—even though John the Baptist said they were.

Nor does it mean that any of them were in the sacred garden at the alleged time of Adam and Eve. All of this is interpretation that is assumed on tradition but not at all supported in the text. – Aron Ra, Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, page 94

7

the martyr syndrome

by eyeuse2badub in

what is the gravest sin a jw can commit?

i’m not even going to consider the so called “unforgiveable sin” since no one knows what it is anyway!

is it lying, cheating, stealing, pride, envy, being gay?

Doug Mason

Zindagi ...

Another way of looking at these passages in Mark (as well as with any other parts of the gospels) is to be cognisant of the time when it was written and the contexts.

Mark was written about 70 CE and differences had started to emerge within those Jewish communities. It is quite rational to see the (anonymous) writers throwing barbs at their own contemporary opponents, namely the emerging Rabbinic Jews.

Mark was written about the time of the destruction of the temple, so the Sadducees were suddenly deprived of their power and authority, enabling the Pharisees to exert themselves.

All writers had their eyes firmly fixed on their contemporary situation. They wrote for the purpose of influencing their own immediate community. None of them wrote a documentary history.

Doug

11

The JW's Creationist mindset?

by Doug Mason in

i am mapping out part 3 of my critiques on the watchtower's (jws) brochure, "the origin of life".

i drafted a sketch to help me visualise the task and thus develop the structure and reasoning.

the sketch is available at:.

Doug Mason

My desire is to untangle the knots of circular thinking. Although I have a mind that is textually oriented, when I worked in a Japanese company I observed the value and importance of pictures. Hence the flow chart attempt.

The flow chart that I offered here reflects, I think, the rationale running through the brochure "The Origin of Life". (Not that it identified what it means by "life".) Although I do have to admit that I added religious imperatives that are not stated in the brochure -- hence I termed the diagram as my thoughts on the barriers to evolution in JW/Creationist thinking (e.g., soteriological barriers).

In his book, "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism", Aron Ra identifies examples of circular reasoning, which I hope to be able to show diagrammatically.

For a JW, the overarching barrier is the GB's claim that it was appointed in 1919, so that when it says "The Bible", it really means, "our explanation, which is authoritative". Once again another irrationality, since the Bible is provided to it by Christendom created at a time when supposedly the Kingdom had no earthly representative. Wheels within wheels within wheels of circular reasoning.

I am genuinely enjoying and appreciating your stimulating and considered thoughts.

Doug

11

The JW's Creationist mindset?

by Doug Mason in

i am mapping out part 3 of my critiques on the watchtower's (jws) brochure, "the origin of life".

i drafted a sketch to help me visualise the task and thus develop the structure and reasoning.

the sketch is available at:.

Doug Mason

Thank you Vidiot,

You have opened a veritable Pandora's Box, and more.

Suggested sources are most welcome.

Doug

11

The JW's Creationist mindset?

by Doug Mason in

i am mapping out part 3 of my critiques on the watchtower's (jws) brochure, "the origin of life".

i drafted a sketch to help me visualise the task and thus develop the structure and reasoning.

the sketch is available at:.

Doug Mason

Thank you all for your stimulating thoughts.

I think my diagram might need to reflect the overlay that "the earthly kingdom of God" ceased in 607 BCE and was reinstated in the appointment of the Watchtower Hierarchy in 1919 CE. To me, that could be a starting point, rather than the Bible. Any number of bodies accept the Bible, but what matters to a JW is the understanding through the eyes of the WT's explanations.

If the Bible were "perfect/inerrant" there would be no excuse for splattering the word "Jehovah" throughout their NT. What is "perfect" is the WTS, inasmuch as it is in direct contact with God's heavenly government.

Thus their explanation of Evolution must be correct. How then do I produce a diagram that correctly illustrates their "logic"? Is there one? When I read their brochure "The Origin of Life", it appears to me that the author is saying "look at the wonder of the complexity, this proves there has to have been a designing engineer". Hence the reason for my starting point. Am I reading the brochure's intent incorrectly?

My supposition comes from the following, as well as illustrating the WT's simplistic dichotomy (Evolution or Bible):

“If evolution is true, then it should seem at least reasonably possible that DNA could have come about by means of a series of chance events. If the Bible is true, then DNA should provide strong evidence that it is the product of an orderly, intelligent mind.” – The Origin of Life, page 13

Doug

11

The JW's Creationist mindset?

by Doug Mason in

i am mapping out part 3 of my critiques on the watchtower's (jws) brochure, "the origin of life".

i drafted a sketch to help me visualise the task and thus develop the structure and reasoning.

the sketch is available at:.

Doug Mason

I am mapping out Part 3 of my Critiques on the Watchtower's (JWs) brochure, "The Origin of Life". I drafted a sketch to help me visualise the task and thus develop the structure and reasoning. The sketch is available at:

https://jwstudies.com/Religious_Imperatives.pdf

I will appreciate any criticism, comment, advice, and/or suggestion that will help me. This is my honest, genuine attempt to understand their Creationist mindset. Does the diagram make sense?

Doug