Posts by scholar

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.

History is not iperfect and even the Bible does contain all of the facts that we moderns demand of such a record. Chronology is not an exact scienc ebut must rely on documents or an imperfect record so as to provide a framework in which the reader cam understand that record. Regarding the history of the Return there are some details that we simply do not know and one must make certain assumptions in order to utilize what data or facts are available. In this case we have two basic facts namely that the Decree was made in the first year of the reign of Cyrus which most if not all authoriies agree ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE. The other fact is that the Jews returned home by the seventh month but it is not stated in what year.

I have consulted much information concerning this event of the Return and all of these authorities make assumptions as does the WT writers so that is the nature of the beast however our approach using all of the available evidence 'proves' that 537 BCE was the year of the Return. In your thesis you develop a number of scenarios to show that the WT model is unprovable and you too use assumptions but you prouce no result.

I believe that what the WT society has written on this subject over many decades and encompasssing all facts and assumptions have well and truly proven their case. Carl Jonsson who is a much more thorough critic of WT chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE has left 537 BCE more or less alone. If he felt for one moment that the WT was 'weak' in this specific matter then he would have exploited this grevious error to the full. At best he finds in favour of 538 BCE which differs from your 'probable' 536 or 535 BCE. You are the onlyperson that I am aware of who has spent so much research on this subject and I have been involve with chronology for nearly forty years.

I cannot add more to this matter than what has already been published by 'celebrated' WT scholars but I can vigourosly defend their position. In my opinion 537 BCE is provable and is the precise year for the Return which in turn leads to 607 BCE as the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem beginning the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE.

Chronology is imperfect as I have stated but one works with what facts are availabel, adhering to the integrity of God's Word rather than profane secular souces and Holy Spirit which is our Helper, all work together in constructing a chronology that produces faith and inspires prophesying.

There is little value gained by simply 'throwing stones' at something unless you offer something better or thruthful. You say you seek truth then you should produce a result, a precise year for that epochal event is now demanded of you. If you cannot produce the goods then perhaps humbly acknowledge the work of others because truth is found in a community not from an isolated one. Criticism for the sake of criticism is not wisdom but amounts to foolishness even though it appeals to our vain intellect. Wisdom is present with that faithful slave who traditionally established that 537 BCE is the date of the Return despite the darkness that pervades Christendom and her scholars.

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 195

It appears that you have an obsession with the research of the 'celebrated' WT scholars showing that 537 BCE was the date of the Return of the Jewish Exiles for you have now posted two articles 'When Did The Jews Return To Jerusalem?' and 'By The Rivers of Babylon:The Jews Return Home' on your website. Both of the articles offer nothing new as to the precise yearof the Return wherein you admit that "no one really knows for certain which year the Jews returned home"; "It possibly happened in 536 BCE but it could have been as late as 535 BCE"; "Everyone else...does not know".

These are most intriquing statements because apostates do know or pretend to know that precise year because they are confident that 538 BCE is that very date. Carl Jonsson advocates 538 and so does a follower of Jonsson namely Alan F who both promote 538 the former with reservation and the latter with dogmatism. As I have inquired earlier I am somewhat perplexed why you have not bothered to consult Jonsson's research on WT chronology as he also like you offers information regarding calendation which you utilize in discussing when Cyrus' 'first year' should be placed. Further, Jonsson when advocating his nominated 538 BCE uses similar assumptive language as does the WT writers when advocating 537 BCE. For example, in that aforementioned footnote, Jonsson employs such expressions as "If Ezra", "Most likely","The context seems to imply","he may have reckoned", so if it was necessay for Jonsson to employ such terms in order for him to advocate 538 BCE then your criticism of WT writers is rather most unfair and dishonest.

Jonsson on page 303 ftn.44 makes the following: "Most commentators end the seventy years with the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, with Cyrus' decree in 538 BCE, with the return of the first Jewish remnant to Palestine in 538 or 537 BCE,(Ezra 3:1,2),or with the commencing of the reconstruction of the temple in 536 (Ezra 3:8-10). Next he cites a reference work by Professor Payne in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. This authority clearly attests to that 538 as to the year of the Decree and 537 as the year of the Return.

Now to return to your thesis.My problem with your approach is that you dwell on the omission of facts that are vital in completing a full account of the Return, The Bible gives us two basic facts; 1. The Decree was issued in the 'first year of Cyrus' -Ezra 1:1. This would be his first regnal year as attested by Josephus who refers to the 'first year of the reign of Cyrus'. - Antiquities Of The Jews, Book 11, Chapter 1:1. This 'first regnal year' according to Jack Finegan in his handbook Of Bible Chronology,1964, p.170 was 538/537 BCE which ran from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537 BCE. 2. The Jews had returnetd home and were resettled by the seventh month Tishri according to Ezra 3:1 but we are not told whether this occurred in Cyrus' first or second year.

Scholars including the celebrated ones need to complete a chronology for the Return and must factor in the following:

1. The proclamation and promulgation of the Decree throughout the kingdom

2. Temple contributions to be arranged

3.Preparations for the journey

4. Length of journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.

Whether the reign of Cyrus was commensurate with that of Darius or followed after his reign it is easily seen that the Jews would have returned by Tishri of 537 especially if the first full year of Cyrus ran from Nisan 1, 537 BCE to the end of Adar 536 BCE, or about March 12, 537 to March 29, 536 BCE, Julian calender or March 6, 537 to March 23, 536 BCE, Gregorian calender.

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

As I said previously your article offers nothing new on this subject by way of your research as to the precise date for the Return so what you have written is simply WT bashing. You base your criticism on certain assumptions that the celebrated WT scholars find necessary in order to compute the date for the Return. These assumptions are used and recognized by all scholars and historians who have written on this subject and this is proven by the fact that there are different dates for this event proposed by such authorities.

I am amazed that you have not consulted Jonsson's research for he has published such relevant material over the last twenty years and his footnote on this subject has been published since 1998. This footnote uses similar assumptions as the 'celebrated ones' and in fact he uses an authority that supports 537 rather than 538 BCE which is the 'apostate date' favoured by him.

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 186

You request an opinioin regarding your research on the subject of the Society's research establishing 537 BCE for the date of the Return of the Jewish Exiles which fact is essential for an accurate Bible chronology. Your article titled 'When Did The Jews Return To Jerusalem' is just a piece of WT 'bashing' offering no alternative date for the Return but simply hones in on certain assumptions made by celebrated WT scholars that the Decree was made by the spring of 537 BCE.

You admit no reference to Jonsson's pitiful research on this subject expressed by means of a mere footnote* which he also is forced to make similar expressions as does the WT writers as to the first year of Cyrus and the timing of the Decree wherein he uses similar assumptive expressions. The simple facts are that scholars cannot be dogmatic as to the precise date of Cyrus' first year and when the edict or decree was made. Scholars such as the 'celebrated ones' and other historians simply have to use what evidence is available both secular and biblical and make certain assumptions or interpretations in order to make a history or chronology. In short, JW'S are confident that both the secular evidence and Ezra clearly establish that 537 BCE and not 538 BCE is the date of the Return.

* C arl O. Jonsson in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 2004, 4th edn.,p.90, ftn.2.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Post 177

Correct, Furuli is not a scholar in ancient history but he is a scholar of Semitic Studies and is thus well qualified to deal with the primary sources of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson is not a scholar of anything and I am unaware of so called 'experienced ones' as scholars without the academic qualifications behind them in the field of chronology.

He does deal with those documents in his book and will further explore the issues raised by you in more depth in his next volume so if you read his current book you will have your questions answered.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Post 175

It is good that you admit that Jonsson is a mere researcher and not a scholar whereas Furuli is a scholar and his book would be right at home in your library.

That is sufficient that scholas are plagued by the controversy over 586 or 587 and is a folly of their making for they have not factored in the biblical 'seventy years' thus making a mockery of their chronologies. There is a debate about Neo-Babylonian chronology which has been spearheaded by the celebrated WT scholars and recently further explored by Rolf Furuli.

If you say that WT discards 90% of ancient history then how is it the case that modern scholarship ignores the historical period of the seventy years which was a momentous period of Jewish and biblical history and how is it the case that the ancient Babylonian scribes incompetently ignored that seventy years and the Egypt's forty year desolation?

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

Post 172

You have some excellent reference books in your library and Furuli's volumes would be quite at home as these would add an extra dimension because another viewpoint on evaluating the secular evidence would be presented. So, buy the book.

You cannot make a judgement on Furuli's research just by reading a few comments on the net but you need to read his research on chronology in its entirety and then you can make an informed evaluation. That is why I have closely studied Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered in fact I have his 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and so I am able to make an informed evaluation of his hypothesis so you should likewise do with Furuli as I have done with Jonsson. I am somewhat puzzled that you have not listed Jonsson's book on your list. Have you read it or are you playing possum with me.

You cannot make an opinion about Furuli until you have read Furuli and you cannot make any comment about his methodology until you know what his approach is and this is set forth in the Introduction in his first volume. Furuli is more than qualified to write on this topic as he is a Semitic scholar and can assess primary sources. I have studied Jonsson because I have read Jonsson and he is unskilled in the Semitic languages so his approach is unscholarly and shows a biased approach against Bible chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE.

I disagree with your comment that scholars are uninterested in the dates for Jerusalem's Fall as the calendrical issues surrounding this event continuously plague scholarship as recent studies show. The very fact that there is such controversy shows that their methodology is hopeless and that is why Furuli's examination of current scholarship is most welcome. Furuli is ln fact looking at those very same tablets and showing that there are significant problems with the traditional chronology.

I am afraid that when it comes to a toss-up between the Bible and ancient history I will adhere to the superiority of the Bible rather than profane secular history every time and I am sure that Furuli as a honest scholar would agree.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

stllajwexelder

No doubt you are referring to 'Questions From Readers' pp.30-1 in the Watchtower, May 1, 2007 issue which refers to 1935 as the time when the heavenly hope ceased for Christians who from that time onward would have the earthly hope as opposed to the heavenly hope. This is not 'new light' as the wiley poztates propose but simply a re-articulation of previous held understanding of the Scriptures. Celebrated WT scholars have never held to a so-called 'flawless chronology because this subject is built on two premises namely methodology and interpretation, both of which are subject to 'fine tuning'. What we do say is that our chronology is wholly biblical and is consistent with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.In short, our chronology is the most accurate as all of the evidence both secular and biblical clearly proves.

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

jeanV

post 170

Post a list of books that you have read on chronology and you should purchase or borrow Furuli's first and his forthcoming second volume;

scholar JW

89

Is WTS chronology flawed?

by cultswatter in

historians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.

the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.

the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).

scholar

Jeffro

post 1551

When the going gets tough and you run out of argument then true to form you rely on insults which reflects poorly on your integrity and character. It is insulting to call biblical interpretation 'drivel' and only proves that your interpretation is baseless. Anyway I wish you a happy and safe trip and look forward to our regular jousts;

scholar JW