Posts by scholar

72

The "Seventy Years" explained

by Doug Mason in

here is a picture-based explanation of the "seventy years" prophesied by jeremiah.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/70_years_of_servitude.pdf.

please note that there are several pages and that you should set your pdf reader to full page.. as i said before, i have a red-green color vision deficiency, but this time i have taken the plunge and used color.

please tell me where i need to make corrections with the colors.. as always, i appreciate your suggestions for improvements, corrections and additions.. doug.

scholar

Hellrider

Post 2100

Mason's 'seventy years' now by his own admission corrected to a full 66 years is very much relevant in the pursuit of integrity and honesty to the Bible record. The Bible plainly states that the numeral is 70 and not some other or any such 'round number' hypothesis. Your specious pleading for a 'rounded' seventy years is forced upon you because you have no definitive beginning for this period. All that you propose is a mamby-pamby beginning of uncertain events surrounding 605 or 609 BCE, events that proceeded Jeremiah's prophesying the seventy years. Jeremiah spoke of those seventy years l after the end of Assyria and at the time of Nebuchadnezzer's assumption to the throne. This means that the seventy years had not then commenced even though there was at the latter time Jewish exiles were in Babylon and serving for Babylon. The seventy years could only commence whence the whole land was desolated and depopulated causing a complete exile in Babylon and servitude to or for Babylon.

Thus we have scholar's seventy year formula, to wit: DESOLATION + EXILE +SERVITUDE = 70 years from the FALL in 607 BCE until the RETURN in 537 BCE. Don't you like my formula? Boy, I do!

Jeremiah's seventy years has a partial or elemental reference to the domination of Babylon, it is not wholly Babylon's domination because Jeremiah addresses Jehovah's judgement against Judah by means of a forced period of seventy years of punishment. Babylon along with the other Nations were also to have judgement against them. So, the seventy years are for Judah and Judah alone, the surrounding nations during that period would also along with Judah be brought under servitude to Babylon.

Your argument or model which is the Jonsson hypothesis or apostate model is based upon a preposition in Jeremiah 29 :10 which semantically has many meanings such as 'at'. 'to' 'for' etc. It is sheer stupidity to base an entire argument on a speculative 'for Babylon'. Celebrated WT scholars are not troubled by the rendering of this phrase 'for Babylon' or 'at Babylon' because either meaning shows on the one hand 'servitude' to Babylon or on the other hand, an 'exile' in Babylon. I am more than happy to work with 'for' or 'at' because both meanings fal within the above formula.

Your explanation of matters is meaningless and rather repetitious for it violates 'common sense' which is typical of apostate propaganda

scholar JW

72

The "Seventy Years" explained

by Doug Mason in

here is a picture-based explanation of the "seventy years" prophesied by jeremiah.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/70_years_of_servitude.pdf.

please note that there are several pages and that you should set your pdf reader to full page.. as i said before, i have a red-green color vision deficiency, but this time i have taken the plunge and used color.

please tell me where i need to make corrections with the colors.. as always, i appreciate your suggestions for improvements, corrections and additions.. doug.

scholar

Augustin

Your comment is nonsense and demonstrates you know nothing about this subject. Celebrated WT scholars have always appled the seventy years to the Fall in 606/607 BCE until the Return in 536/537 BCE. I have read all of what scholars have said on this subject in the Journals and Bible commentaries published in English, soon my scope will extend to published articles in German. Have you read thus broadly? I think not because you are a Newbie to this forum. I t is correct to say that few scholars end the seventy years at the Return in 537 BCE, most scholars favour it ending in 539 BCE. However, the 'tricky bit' is the beginning of the period and therein lies the confusion because many scholars prefer 605 BCE rather than 609 BCE which does not give the allotted 'seventy' years.

The comment by Grabbe on Furuli's scholarship says more about Grabbe's stature than Furuli's. He does admit to Furuli's academic qualifications who by the way is not a amateur scholar but is a paid professional employed by a University. Furuli's in his Introduction alerts the reader of his book to his range of expertise a fact that Grabbe overlooks/

scholar JW

72

The "Seventy Years" explained

by Doug Mason in

here is a picture-based explanation of the "seventy years" prophesied by jeremiah.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/70_years_of_servitude.pdf.

please note that there are several pages and that you should set your pdf reader to full page.. as i said before, i have a red-green color vision deficiency, but this time i have taken the plunge and used color.

please tell me where i need to make corrections with the colors.. as always, i appreciate your suggestions for improvements, corrections and additions.. doug.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 236

I have printed out a hard copy of your seven page charts and I commend you for this presentation. However, your model is simply the 'apostate model' as it supports the hypothesis of Carl Jonsson who devotes an entire chapter defending his absurd interpretation of the biblical 'seventy years'. I have much to be critical of your theory which frankly is false to the Bible.

For starters, you make two important claims:

1. That the seventy years was a period of servitude only.

2. That the seventy years began in 605 BCE ending in 539 BCE. When I was at school I learnt arithmetic and when I subtract 539 from 605 I get result of 66 and not 70 so you have a huge exegetical problem here.

Celebrated WT scholars have proved that the seventy years was a period of servitude, desolation and exile which all ran concurrently from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which is in fact a precise historic period of 70 years. Voila! This understanding of matters is exactly how Josephus viewed the matter and is based upon the the testimony of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah.

So your petty theory is bankrupt and needs a a shakeup which is what scholar will do and he will tear your theory to shreds.

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

Alan F

Post 5114

No the application of Ezekiel's '390 years' is not based on Jewish tradition at all but is in agreement with that tradition, The interpretation of that prophecy has always been explained in WT literature solely within a biblical context.

Thiele's presentation of the Divided Monarchy is not uniformly agreed within scholarship and I have presented the facts of the matter some years ago on this forum by means of comparing different chronologies by leading chronologists including Thiele which present different conclusions. For example, these scholars cannot agree as to which year the Monarchy ceased whether it was 586 BCE or 587 BCE. Apostates of course have no chronology for the period of the Divided monarchy so perhaps you shoul d 'put up' or 'shut up'.

Thiele deals with certain problems but others he cannot solve because he uses a 'regnal-based' methodologyand hence he falls into a 'pit of confusion'. Wisely, the 'celebrated WT cholars have chosen a different methodology- an event- based methodology which eliminates all of such perceived problems. Smart aren't they!

Yes, you would like the references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and I am able to prov ide this but this surely shows that you do not do enoughg research on matters before you criticize WT scholars. You should know these things if you are that smart and cocky. Has scholar once again, has to hold your hand and guide you and teach you?

You miss the point, I refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls in reference to support the traditional Jewish and current biblical interpretation that Ezekiel's'390 years' applies to the period of the Divided Monarchy.

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

Alan F

Post 5093

Celebrated WT scholars do not need to pretend that they have produced a chronology of the Hebrew Kings because they have in fact published such a regnal tabulation for many decades which is something that I have challeged you and other 'wiley poztates' to produce. Thus far you have come empty handed. The most recent list is published in the Insight Volume and rather than speculation it is in fact based upon the biblical data. I have long taught you that chronology is made up of methodology and interpretation so any regnal list based upon certain data must also contain some interpretation. That is simply the 'way of it' and such interpretation is a major part of most if not all discipines of knowledge.

The 607 BCE date for the Fall is based solidly upon the fact of the Return and the interpretation of these facts proves that the only possible date is 537 BCE as agreed by most authorities.

The date of 997 BCE is based upon the acknowledgement and interpretation of Ezekiel's '390 years' culminating in the end of the Monarchy in 607 BCE which also is attested by Jewish tradition. By ignoring this prophecy, Christendom's scholars such as Thiele have failed to harmonize the regnal data of the Divided Monarchy producing variable dates, confusion thus abounds. Further, the Dead Sea Scrolls nicley confirm this exegesis produced by the 'celebrated ones'.

It is also interesting to see the futility of apostates and higher critics as they try to find the truth in these matters only to be further confused and deluded as they fail to acknowledge the FDS and its scholars. Such ones have nothing to show, no theology, mission or brotherhood.

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 227

You ask concerning the structure of my graduate and post graduate studies in Religion. My undergraduate study consisted of a double major in Religious Studies and Philosophy at Deakin University, Faculty of Arts. The postgraduate program in Studies in Religion was at the University of Sydney.

Such qualifications would qualify one academically to work as a minister in a church but most churches have their own 'in house' theological training so such qualifications would certainly be a major step forward if one was so inclined. You ask for a scan or copy of my certificates which are in called 'tesatamurs' in academic parlance but as these are framed such copies of which are not practically made.

I enjoyed very much my university education which fulfilled a childhood ambition of having a university education. My wife and daughter also have gone to university graduating in nursing. My studies were spiritually upbuilding and I was able to critically examine everything including my Witness-Bible based beliefs and found that upon such critical examination that we alone possess the True Religion.

I frankly am not a 'spin doctor' but rather I am a WT apologist using my faith,experience and intellect to defend our Bible-based beliefs and the ministry of preaching the 'good news of the kingdom'. My apologia is in the best tradition of Irenaeus.

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

hilary_step

I firmly believe in the Gentile Times Doctrine as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and far from being full of holes such a teaching rests upon solid exegesis, traditional Bible Student theology, accurate Bible chronology and historiography. So there!

WT chronology produced by 'celebrated WT scholars is far from doomed. Rather, it is the demonic and absurd secular chronologies that support 586/587 BCE that are doomed because these chronologies misrepresent God's Word and are full of deceit. What is more important unlike wiley poztates is that loyalty and integrity are important qualiies of the True Religion which completely escapes those who love the lie rather than the truth.

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 218

Your research into WT literature is somewhat narrow as I have to hand published information which most certainly figures the reign of Darius into the chronology of the Return this was well presented in my earlier post where I quoted the WT source as referring to the full year of Cyrus 'reign. Ezra on this occasion in relation to the 'first year of Cyrus' most certainly would have used the Nisan calender rather than Tishri.

No one knows except Alan F which month of that first year of Cyrus, his Decree was proclaimed and it is not necessary to know for certain which month it was because Ezra reveals that the Jews returned home by Tishri which could only have been in the following year using Nisanic calendation. In which case this allows for sufficient time for the Return of the Jews by Tishri, 537 BCE.

When it comes to history and chronology, confidence based upon reason is quite sufficient for thereupon faith is thus well secured. The account of Ezra provides all the necessary facts for establishing the date for the Return and that is why 537 BCE has earned for itself the traditional date for that event.

I used the passage in Romans to illustrate the importance of allowing God's Word rather than the theories of men to be the guiding force in one's Christian life.

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 219

Simple! Celebrated WT scholars have wisely chosen an event based chronology rather than contentious regnal based approach.In the case of choosing a pivotal date for the OT it was wisely thought that such a date should correspond with an event that is well described in the Bible and ancient history and could be dated with astronomical sources.

There is considerable divergence bewteen biblical and secular sources in many key areas so where such difference is found, scholars must then choose which sources are to be preferred. The Bible must always take precedence over the secular sources especially where an omission or difference of fact is found. Do not you agree?

I have been studying chronology, theology and philosophy for too long to be deceived by anyone and for starters I have graduated with a Master of Arts in Studies of Religion so I have thought and researched 'outside the square'. I am in awe of the 'celebrated WT scholars' and their precious gift of a simple Bible chronology rooted in prophecy and alone in being faithful to God's inspired Word.

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 221

I disagree with your comment about the use of the Babylonian rulers and their reigns as these are featured in WT publications. We have always viewed this period with caution as authorities differ as to the specific reigns of these kings and the traditionall list is by no means complete. That is why that Absolute Date for the Fall of Babylon is not derived from Neo- Babylonian chronology. At times the traditional chronology is quoted in our publications but is not used for any purposes for chronology but for historical reasons only following the precedent set forth by Edwin Thiele.

A Absolute Date by definition can only be a derived or calcuable date and it is preferable that such a date should relate to a specific Bible event. There are many so called Absolute Dates that are based on eclipses but have not connection with an historical event thus are unsuitable for purposes of a Bible chronology.

The use of the secular data for the reign of Cambyses is not hypocrisy as you allege but simply boils down to methodology and this is consistent with honest and best practice of scholarship. You may not like that methodology but that is our business and it is simply too bad for you.

It is not some superstitious fear of the seventy years but a matter of intellectual honesty and not succumbing to the special pleadings of the 'higher critic'. The seventy years is a fixed historical period which is ignored by scholars resulting in confused and conflicting chronologies.

We disagree as to the definition of an Absolute Date but the celebrated WT scholars in their wisdom have abandoned that term preferring the more precise Pivotal Date which narrows our methodology somewhat avoiding debate over which so-called absolute Dates should be used.

scholar JW