Posts by scholar

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 214

Regarding the calculation of 539 BCE from the arbitary choice of secular sources comes down to that essential element in chronology namely methodology which consists of the actual method used and the philosophy behind the method. Celebrated WT scholars have used an event- based system rather than the commonly regnal-based approach for constructing a biblical chronology of the OT. Their philosophy behind this chronology is that the Bible is the main or primary source of data and where there are difference between the secular evidence and the biblical then priority is ascribed to the Bible.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 215

Your chart distorts the use of 539 BCE as a pivotal date used by 'celebrated WT scholars as presented in WT publications. For starters, they do not use the Babylonian list of reigns to compute 539 BCE as traditionally used. Rather, the year is calculated from data establishing the seventh year of the reign of Cambyses II. The reigns of the Babylonian kings as you present in your diagram are not uniformly agreed upon as some ancient historians present different figure for this period./

The WTS does accept the fact of the list as currently understood for general historical purposes but it is unreliable for establishing a accurate biblical chronology because it cannot accommodate the biblical 'seventy years'. This means that the so-called Absolute Date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzer is useless for the above reason so it is far wiser to use a date such as 539 BCE as it it marks an event well established biblically.

This hre is no dilemna for the WTS because they have selectively chosen a date that fits all of the facts and is the onlt pivotal date for dating events in the OT.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 209

I agree that this topic should be held over until all of us go off and do more research and that includes yourself and Alan F. Regardless of others I will be researching the best commentaries and the journal literature in order to fully test the matter.

The expression 'celebrated' WT scholars aptly describes the traditional existence of faithful and consecrated men devotied to the Lord's workand the pursuit of accurate Bible scholarship and have such research published by the WTS. Therefore, it woud be amiss of me not to pay recognition to such a group from which I have learnt much in company with our faithful and discreet slave.- Matt. 24: 45-47 NWT.

You and I are graduates of the University of Hard Knocks with its Faculty of Life so we have this in common. You possess a good education as shown by your writing and reasoning skills. I commend you!

I made a typo error in my last post which should have read "in the year of the Decree". Thanks for pointing this out as I am skilled in editing my posts nor completely computer savvy. This form has a editing function but I need to improve these skills in making my replies.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 208

Nice chart as it simply and clearly presents the only accurate Bible chronology for this crucial period of biblical history. Our 'celebrated' WT scholars have done an excellent job in exposing the falsehood of secular chronologies. However, your chart requires the following adjustments:

1. The WTS has most definitely proved that 537 BCE was the date of the Return of the Jews.

2. WTS accepts 539 BCE from secular sources which calculate 539 BCE from an Absolute Date from secular chronology which the WTS rejects because of a well chosen, specific methodology also takes into account the fixed historic period of'seventy years' of Exile, Servitude and Desolation ignored by those secular souces and chronologies.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 204

I am well pleased with our on-going dialoque concerning the date 537 BCE for the Return. You have for the first time caused me to investigate this matter thoroughly for over the last six years I have spent considerable research for this forum on the seventy years, I have done that subject 'to death' so it is time for a new project. There are still some loose ends in conncection with this topic and as soon as I get time off work I will consult all of the commentaries on Ezra and relevant scholarly journals, this is my usual practice and this is what I did with the 'seventy years '.

I do concur that the date 537 BCE is essential for our chronology, theology including that of prophecy but it is not a mere date by itself that is significant but the history of the event behind that date that is truly significant and this factor is our strongest defence for that calcuable, traditional date for the Return. My research thus far and I repeat that it is a 'work in progress' convinces me that 'celebrated 'WT scholars have proved beyond any reasonable doubt the validity of 537 BCE and it is this position that I seek to defend to the best of my ability.

I do not believe that there is any link between Josephus and Ezra 3:8 with the exception that both statements deal with the time of laying ogf the Temple foundations and it will be interesting to test this with current scholarship. Both writers may have used different dating systems so this needs to be further explored and I will keep you informed about any such possible synchronism.

I do believe that Ezra has posiively identified the year of the Return by the simple fact that he omits any other year excepting the calender month of the Return. Common sense would surely indicate that Return was impossible in year of the Return but would be only in the following Tishri. This would allow sufficient time for the Decree to be proclaimed, Journey preparations, a four month trek and resettlement in Jerusalem. Yes, I agree with you that there are many "If only Ezra..." but Jehovah God inspired Ezra what to write down and record for that generation and the future generations details essential for history, fulfillment of prophecy and faith.

I welcome any study that deals with the termination of the seventy years and as you scholars are perplexed about this matter. Wiley poztates under the tutelage of Carl Jonsson believe that the seventy years ended with Babylon's Fall but this is errant nonsense as Josephus, Ezra and Daniel all together show that the seventy years ended at the Return in 537 BCE. Our critics go to laughable lengths to prove their case but they do violence to the Biblical Record. Such views often result in multiple 'seventy year' periods rather than a single historic period of Exile in Babylon- Servitude to Babylon and the Desolation of Judah. I will respond to your next post tomorrow and I have to attend also to Alan F's nonsense as well.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Alan F

Post 5077

I am entitled to defend and advocate whatever model I choose and I have chosen the model traditionally adopted by the celebrated WT scholars concerning the validity of 537 BCE as the only possible date for the Return.

You say that their model is based on nothing but speculation. This is sheer nonsense, it is based upon facts attested by scholars and relevant scriptures. Certainly a degree of uncertainty is involved but this is the nature of the historical record and we have to work with what we have. Your model also indicates speculation in which you carefully disguise.

I believe our model because it is well proven and is far superior to any others that I have examined including yours. Your model fails for the following reasons:

1. Fails to account for the reign of Darius

2. Compresses the time necessary from your speculative time for the Decree until the Return allowing for a mere six months which is does not give sufficient time for the proclamation of that Decree.

3. You speculate that the Decree was issued in the first month of the first year but there is no evidence for this as Ezra does not give the month in which the Decree was proclaimed.

4. You speculate that the Jews arrive in Judah by the sixth month namely Elul which Ezra does not specify.

Your model is simply one of many and if you truly believe it then you should get Jonsson to referee it and then submit it for publication in a scholarly journal so that the international community of scholars and benefit from Alan F's new found wisdom.

I reject all other models because these do not work, are false to history and do not account for the termination of the seventy years celebrated at the Return in the seventh month.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 203

If you truly enjoy our discussion then behave yourself or I will terminate my conversation with you and converse only with Alan F.and Jeffro when he is on board.

You ask a question about Ezra 3:8 which my research at the present simply indicates that the second month of the second yearof their coming to the house of the true God which is locate in the following year in the spring of 536 with the laying of the temple foundation. My research shows no reason to change this opinion for in fact the NIV Bible in the footnote indicates that year could have commenced with Nisan rather than Tishri in the year 537 BCE. I plan to examine thorughly what scholarship has to say on the meaning of this verse before advancing a solid opinion on the matter. Have you made such a thorough examination of the exegesis of this most important verse? If not then you should and so shoud Alan F.

I do not have a model but I agree with the model presented by the celebrated WT scholars presented in numerous publications over the last five decades and it is this model that I believe is correct. Other models presented by yourself and others including Alan F, I reject because these omit the reign of Darius and defy 'common sense'.

I reject your assertion that the first year of Cyrus was of Tishri reckoning rather scholarship is unaminous that the first year of Cyrus used by Ezra was counted from the spring and ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE and there are good reasons why Ezra must have used the Nisan reckoning in this instance. I also reject your assertion concerning my misuse of Darius for I fully concur with our stated concerning Darius as an important in the determination of the precise year for the Return in 537 BCE.

Tishri was the seventh lunar month of the sacred calender but the first of the secular calender used by the Israelites.

I am not troubled by the fact that scholars and those who presented the information in the NIV Bible used the word 'probably' in determing which month the Jews left Babylon. The Bible simply does not give us all of the data so we have use those facts that are available and construct an intelligible history of those events and when this is done it is plainly proved that the Jews returned home by the seventh month of the year 537 BCE which the NiV agrees by means of that chart. and that in the second month of 536 BCE the foundations of the temple were laid. This is exactly what the celebrated WT scholars have told you.

This does not mean that we accept everything that this NIV Bible says on chronology because other matters that you have raised are subject of much dispute and we have an alternative view. If this is a 'pick and choose' then so be it for we are not concerned. Christendom's scholars including SDA's get some things right but many wrong and those correct matters we embrace and utilize which is the nature of scholarship.

At the end of your post you ask impertinent questions which I will not respond publicly. Leave me your telephone number for I will ring you and answer you privately. That is the fair and decent thing to do. Are you up for it?

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 202

Whatever the origin of the 536 BCE may be it must be remembered that Russell would have consulted numerous sources for the chronology adopted by him and presented in the Society's publcations. This does not mean that he accepted everything but being daithful to the Scriptures he was able to present a true Bible chronology that in broad terms has well served Bible Students right up to the present day.

Hatton's research is not new and really is rather trivial and I would be happy to respond to his analysis at some other time as it is a different subject to what we are discussing.

Celebrated WT scholars have plainly stated the reasons and method for the 537 BCE and I can add little to what they have already published. This does not mean that there is no need for further research and Alan F has raised the matter of Josephus and along with Ezra 3:8 would require further work on my part which I plan to do. For example, I have only consulted a few commentaries in my personal library on Ezra 3:8 and it is my plan to go to Moore Theological Library and consult every commentary on tis verse as well as the Josephus text when I have a day off work. I have no plans to abandon this matter and let me assure you that my research thus far has consolidated my view that 537 BCE is the only possible date for the Return. My reading thus far has alerted me to some journal articles that I need to consult and this also will be executed.

You speak of a so-called dilemna that WT writer's acceptance of 539 BCE and the non-acceptance of other dates established by that same secular chronology. This is a 'furfy' and simply rehashes Jonssson's winging and whining over a similar protestation. It is simply a matter of methodology and if a chronologist seeks to discriminate between different dates and explains his reason then that is simply scholarship at bits very best. WT scholars have the right to exercise their own preferred methodology and too bad if it offends the 'simple' ones.

I referred you to Finegan's work on chronology and if it is the truly the case that you have spent forty years on chronology then Why have you not got a copy of Finegan in your library? Get a copy from Avondale College at Cooranbong, NSW.

I stronglly object to the misrepresentations made by Hatton and my friend Bruce Price and I object to such comments being made public on this form as I believe this invades my privacy and I request that you observe the guidelines for posting on this forum. If you have questions regarding Hatton, Price and myself then this can be discussed privately. I believe that such conduct is unChristian and is simply a ruse to change the subject which is typical of apostaes and our critics.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 201

You seem concerned about my 'bona fide' let me assure that my credentials are genuine. I am no double agent or opposer and you examine this matter by reading my posting history for the last six years and contacting Bruce Price.

You seem to be duped by Alan F's nonsense in trying to establish that 538 BCE is the precise date for the Return of which your research has yielded no such fruit. Alan's nonsense is based on some assumptions as you read carefully his argument in his post 4611. He concludes without any evidence that the 'second year of the reign of Cyrus' according to Josephus was a regnal year counting from Nisan. I would argue that this is false and that such regnal year was counted form Tishi rather than Nisan.

This means that Josephus' second year of Cyrus is identical to that "second yearof 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 following some six months after their return home by the seventh month of 537 BCE. This model combines harmonizes all the facts beginning with the fundamental fact the the 'first year of Cyrus' a regnal year begiining from Nisan from 538 BCE to Nisan 537 BCE.

This model nicely agrees with Jack Finegan's Handbook Of Biblical Chronology - Revised Edition,1998,pp.179-180,para.329-330.

Obviously, there will be some criticism of this model which answers Alan F's problem and I have already anticpated some objections and will defend this position vigously. My model is a 'rough draft' and is a work in progress but as the debate continues on this subject then I will do some fine tuning but in short, Alan's mistake is that he assumes that Josephus used the Nisan calendation rather than the Tishri calendation in his Against Apion 1.21.

Enjoy!!!

scholar JW

Enjoy!

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.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 200

One moment you ask for proof for 537 BCE and now you move the goal posts as to the source for this date.The date of the Return has a long tradition and one can ro right back to James Ussher whose chronology appeared in the margin of the Authorized Version. During the time of Russelll 536 BCE was the traditional date and this was presented by many expositors whose research was used by those early Bible Students. Ptolemy's Canon was a source of chronology and its benefits/weaknesses were known to those early Bible writers.

Many dates were revised and discarded and this was because of 'fine tuning' as understanding of prophecy and the fundamentals of chronology such as the zero year became known and this is the way of things.

I am very familiar with Hatton's nonsense on chronology and like you offers no coherent answers to the seventy years nor to a precise date of the Return, Hatton's comments on the matter as to the source of 536 used by Russell is interesting but that is all. This matter is a separate issue which I will leave for another time.

Let us not not 'muddy the waters' which is typical apostate strategy by changing the topic when the going gets tough for your posted heading is not about the historical sources but when did the Jews return home?

scholar JW