When DID the Jews return?
by Doug Mason 73 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Doug Mason
Scholar JW,
My recent Post on the source of CTR’s 536 date, courtesy of Max Hatton’s piece, is intended to indicate the origin of the WTS’s current date. CTR’s date was not based on research done by him, but was accepted by him despite his denying the method used to arrive at the date.
His action proved to be a foretaste of another of the WTS’s current dilemmas, in that it accepts from secular historians the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon, yet it rejects the method they use to arrive at that date.
All along, I have been asking you for the REASON that the WTS lands on 537 BCE for its crucial date. I want to see the METHOD they use to arrive at that date, not its conclusion.
I have looked for those pages you mentioned, but without success. So I wonder if you or someone could email me a scan of the pages you refer to, or point me to a location on the www where I can pick them up.
Scholar, do these pages provide the METHOD used to arrive at 537 BCE or do they only provide the conclusion?
---------------------
You say that when I wrote about CTR’s source for his date, that this muddied your waters. For me, it has made the water crystal clear.
I wondered how you could speak of Max Hatton with such conviction -- and then the penny dropped.
I went back to my recent past emails and located emails about you from Max and from Bruce, dated 12 February of this year. As you see, their emails are not related to our current discussion, which is the first that you and I have had.
Max specifically mentioned that you use the pseudonym “Scholar”. At the time, this meant nothing to me, it is only now that it does.
They told me a lot about you. They wrote to me because you had contacted them and had expressed a desire to make contact with me. You knew who I was on JWD, now the playing field is level.
Bruce wrote: “He is useful in as much as you can often get advanced information on books written for or against the JWs - and their latest thinking. … He also enjoys being in contact with those who write for the WTS within their ranks. For this he is interesting to get inside info.”
If Bruce is correct, several points come to mind:
1. You might be providing a direct link from JWD into the inner sanctum of the WTS.
2. The “experts” within the WTS have not been able to provide you with any proof that 537 BCE is correct.
3. Your Posts reflect current WTS thinking, and might even provide a means for the WTS writers to “test” their theories.
4. It will be interesting to see if an article or two come out in the near future on this critical topic.
If you do have influence with the WTS writers, or if you see yourself as one – I believe you have written a thesis -- tell those WTS writers that by knocking others, they do not prove they are correct. Also, tell them that by denying the accuracy of the accepted neo-Babylonian chronology, they are attacking the source that provides them with their dates, including 539 BCE.
Since this is a publicly available forum, I will be providing this JWD thread to Bruce and Max. They will be fascinated, I am sure.
Bruce wrote: “I would love to be a 'fly on the wall’ to hear a conversation between he and Doug on the subject of blood. That would be enormously interesting!!” Will we grant him his wish?
Doug -
Doug Mason
“JW Scholar”,
I really DO “enjoy” our discussion.
A researcher does not seek information to establish that a date is correct. “The chronologist must keep in mind that it is his task not to manufacture history but to recover history” Mysterious Numbers, Thiele, page 22.
Or as Max puts it in his Study:
Some read to prove a preadopted creed,
Thus understand little of what they read,
And every passage in the Book they bend,
To make it suit that all-important end.When you look at my amended study
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Jews_return_home_ver_2.pdf
you will see on page 15 that I modeled the scenario that locks the Jews being at the site of the Temple in Tishri with them laying the foundation in the following second month of the second year. As you rightly point out, Ezra used the Jewish civil Tishri calendar, so these months are in his same year.
The model works whether Josephus used the same Tishri reckoning as Ezra, and when Josephus used the Nisan/accession Babylonian system.
-------------------
You wrote: “This means that Josephus' second year of Cyrus is identical to that 'second year of 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”Sorry “Scholar”, but I do not follow how you arrived at that conclusion. Regardless of whether they used Tishri reckoning or Nisan reckoning, the second month is the same one. With Tishri reckoning, the second month came after the seventh month. “It was affirmed as certain that the numbering of the months always commences with Nisan” (Finegan, para 167, page 91)
Look at the diagram in my revised Study and replicate that style to describe your scenario.
---------------
You write that your own “model combines harmonizes all the facts beginning with the fundamental fact the 'first year of Cyrus' regnal year beginning from Nisan from 538 BCE to Nisan 537 BCE.”Why are you disagreeing with the WTS’s position that “Darius” ruled Babylon for at least a complete year?
Ezra wrote about Cyrus’ Decree, and we agree that Ezra used a Tishri calendar, so the term “first year” must be understood in Ezra’s terms, making Cyrus’ first year over Babylon run from Tishri 539 to Ululu 538 BCE.
-----------
Is the Tishri calendar the sacred one, or is it the civil calendar?
------------
Now that you accept what this NIV book says about dates during this period, let’s check what they say:
“Sheshbazzar’s journey … probably took place in 537 BC.” (commentary on Ezra 1:11). “The Jews probably returned to Judah in the spring of 537 BC.” (commentary on Ezra 3:8). Since 537 BC is given as only “probably”, this means the WTS has only a “probable” foundation.“The first deportation began in 605, the third year of Jehoiakim (Da 1:1); in 538, approximately 70 years later, the people began to return” (commentary on Ezra 1:1)
“Nebuchadnezzar overran Judah in 597 BC (Jer 13:19)” (commentary on Ezra 2:21-35.)
“Jehoiakim (609-598), Jehoiachin (598-597) and Zedekiah (597-586). …In 605 BC the Egyptians were crushed at Carchemish on the Euphrates by Nebuchadnezzar. … Jerusalem was captured in 586 (38:28).” (introduction to Jeremiah)
Tip toe through the daysies, picking one here and one there, whatever suits the predetermined outcome. That’s not scholarship, that’s prejudice.
-----------
I do not have paras 329-330 of Jack Finegan's Handbook Of Biblical Chronology - Revised Edition, 1998, pages179-180. Could you please provide me with a scan or a direct quote?Why do pick out just bits and pieces from Finegan that suit?
-----------
You wrote: “One moment you ask for proof for 537 BCE and now you move the goal posts as to the source for this date.”“Scholar”, when I ask for proof I want to know “HOW DOES THE WTS ARRIVE AT THAT DATE.” The proof is the source, the goal posts are not being shifted.
-----------
Now I want to say something on behalf of the honest-Joe, little guy, everyday Witness.Why does the WTS hierarchy permit you to seek out, visit and communicate at length with a notorious apostate in the form of Max Hatton, with apparent impunity and immunity?
As Max wrote to me: “When all is said and done he doesn't follow the Watch Tower in all things for he shouldn't even talk to me”.
Why does the WTS hierarchy permit you to read and research materials produced by opposers and apostates, such as Carl Olof Jonsson, again with apparent impunity and immunity?
The average Witness’s knees shake at the thought of the outcome should they be found talking with an apostate loved one, be it their own child or parent. Why do these families have to be ripped apart while others can swan around and read what they like and speak with whoever they wish, without fear of the consequences?
-----------I await your model, but I won’t hold my breath.
Doug
-
AlanF
Scholar pretendus wrote:
: 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 made no such conclusion. I simply gave dates according to standard reckoning such as is found in Parker & Dubberstein, i.e., the Babylonian style accession-year / Nisan dating method.
: I would argue that this is false and that such regnal year was counted form Tishi rather than Nisan.
As usual, you've shot yourself in the head by failing to note the simple fact that my argument works perfectly using either Babylonian reckoning or Jewish-style non-accession-year / Tishri dating. Doug has already incorporated this information in a revised essay.
Actually, you've simply fallen into a trap set by me well over a year ago, but aided immensely by your own incompetence. The trap was that I deliberately failed to mention that either dating method works perfectly well, knowing that if you ever got around to addressing the specifics of my argument, you'd fall into it. Let's see how the trap worked:
: 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.
Exactly!
: which Ezra as with Josephus counted from the Fall of the year, Tishri and not the spring, Nisan.
Very good!
: This means that Ezra and Josephus both used the sacred calender in reference to events such as the laying of the Temple foundation.
This is so vague that it's meaningless. The sacred calendar's function here is nothing more than to provide the numbering for the months. Thus, Nisan is month 1, Tishri is month 7, etc., and the New Year begins with Nisan. However, the regnal years of kings are dated using the secular calendar, whose New Year begins with Tishri.
: 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.
As usual, you're unable to do simple calendrical calculations. Since Cyrus ascended the throne of Babylon in 539 BCE (after all, even the Society admits this possibility when it allows that Cyrus' 1st regnal year, using accession-year / Nisan dating, began in Nisan, 538 BCE), then Ezra, using non-accession-year / Tishri dating, would put Cyrus' 1st year as running from Tishri 539 to Tishri 538 BCE. Thus, Cyrus' 2nd year, and the "second year of their coming to the house of the true God in Jerusalem, in the second month", runs from Tishri 538 to Tishri 537 BCE, and the 2nd month of this 2nd year is in Iyyar, i.e., about April/May 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.
Nonsense. You have no idea what you're doing.
: This model nicely agrees with Jack Finegan's Handbook Of Biblical Chronology - Revised Edition,1998,pp.179-180,para.329-330.
More nonsense. Finegan's arguments are completely at odds with your claims, and completely in line with mine. Note what Finegan actually writes:
329. The biblical references to the first year of Cyrus when he made the proclamation which allowed the Jewish exiles to return from Babylon to Jerusalem (2 Chron 36:22f.; Ezra 1:1ff.) are presumably stated in terms of his reign in Babylon since they deal with an event in that city. According to the cuneiform evidence and the Babylonian calendar, Babylon fell on Tashritu 16 = Oct 12, 539 B.C., and Cyrus entered the city two and one-half weeks later on Arahsamnu 3 = Oct 29. His Babylonian regnal years began, therefore, as shown in Table 88, and his first year, in which he made the proclamation, was 538/537 B.C.
Table 88. Babylonian Regnal Years of Cyrus at the Beginning of His Reign
Regnal Year____B.C.
Accession______539/538
Year 1_________538/537
Year 2_________537/536330. In the second year of the return of the exiles to Jerusalem, Zerubbabel began the rebuilding of the temple. (Ezra 3:8). . . The same dates are also given by Josephus. [137]
[137] Against Apion 1.154.
Finegan's Table 88 obviously uses accession-year / Nisan dating, and the 2nd month of "Year 2" is obviously Iyyar, or April/May of 537 BCE.
I hadn't noticed this before, but Finegan actually cites exactly the same reference to Josephus in support of his argument as I've done in support of mine, in footnote "[137]". The difference is that I cite Against Apion I,21 using William Whiston's numbering of passages, whereas Finegan uses Niese's numbering, namely, Against Apion 1.154.
: Obviously, there will be some criticism of this model which answers Alan F's problem
The criticism is simple: it's completely wrong as a criticism because, where it's not gibberish, it confirms my argument.
: and I have already anticpated some objections and will defend this position vigously.
Right. Much like you've done in your post here. LOL!
: 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
Ah. Kind of like the Society's abandoning 1874 as the date of Christ's invisible return was just a bit of 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.
You've made your usual complement of errors here, scholar pretendus: failing to carefully read posts, failing to understand posts, failure to quote references, failure to understand references, failure to argue correctly, etc. I look forward to further debunking your amusing attempts to support the Society's silly chronology.
For reference, below I'm including a table I've posted several times before, except that this time I've included the numbers for Cyrus' regnal years based on non-accession-year / Tishri dating. Comparing the table with the one in my post 4611 shows that no dates have changed, which proves that either dating method forces the same basic conclusion: the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
Table of Cyrus' Early Years As King of Babylon, With Important Events
Julian__Jewish____Julian___Cyrus' Year Using__Cyrus' Year Using
Year____Month_____Month____Accession-Year_____Non-Accession-Year
___________________________and Nisan-Nisan____and Tishri-Tishri
___________________________Dating_____________Dating539_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 7__Babylon falls, Cyrus' accession year
539_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 8
539_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 9
539/8___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 10
538_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 11
538_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 0th Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 12
538_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 1__Cyrus' 1st year; issues his famous decree
538_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 2
538_____Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 3
538_____Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 4
538_____Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 5
538_____Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 1st Year, Month 6__Jews arrive in Judah
538_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 7___Jews are settled in their cities
538_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 8
538_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 9
538/7___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 10
537_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 11
537_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 1st Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 12
537_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 1
537_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 2__Temple foundations are laid
537_____Sivan_____May/Jun___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 3
537_____Tammuz____Jun/Jul___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 4
537_____Ab________Jul/Aug___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 5
537_____Elul______Aug/Sep___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 2nd Year, Month 6
537_____Tishri____Sep/Oct___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 7
537_____Heshvan___Oct/Nov___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 8
537_____Chislev___Nov/Dec___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 9
537/6___Tebeth____Dec/Jan___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 10
536_____Shebat____Jan/Feb___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 11
536_____Adar______Feb/Mar___Cyrus' 2nd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 12
536_____Nisan_____Mar/Apr___Cyrus' 3rd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 1
536_____Iyyar_____Apr/May___Cyrus' 3rd Year___Cyrus' 3rd Year, Month 2
AlanF
-
writetoknow
These things teach, and exhort to these. If one teaches erratic notions and does not apply himself to sound words, those of our "Lord Jesus Christ", and to the teaching that is along the line of piety, he is conceit-ridden, not knowing anything, but infatuated about arguments and disputed technicalities, out of which come grudges, quarreling, vilification, base suspicions, frictions betwen men unsound in mind and bereft of the truth who suppose piety to be an economic resource.
For it is written "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discering I will discredit". What becomes of the philosopher? of the scholar? of a scientist? did not God make the world's wisdom foolish? For since in God's wisdom the world had not through wisdom known God, God was pleased to save believers throught the foolishness of the preaching message - since Jews ask for tokens and Greeks look to wisdom, but we preach a crucified Christ, to Jews a thing unmentionable, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to the called themselves, Jews and Greeks both, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God: Because what is foolish of God's is wiser then men, and what is weak of God's is stronger than men. For, brothers, look at your calling, that it is not a case of many who are wise in a mortal sense, many powerful, many arstocratic, but God chose the foolish parts of the world in order to shame the wise men, and God chose the weak parts of the world in order to shame the strong parts, and God chose the lowborn parts and the scorned parts, the nothings, in order to superpresence of God.
And from him you are something in Christ Jesus. and redemption, in order to have it as is written, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Remind people of these things, admonishing them before God not to wrangle over technicalities to no useful purpose, upsetting the listeners. Make a point of presenting ourself to God tried and true, a worker with nothing to be ashamed of , keeping the straight line of the word of truth; but stand away from outpourings of unsanctified nonsense.
If I speak the languages of men and angels but do not have love, I turn into a gong sounding or a cymbal clashing; and if I have prophecy and know all secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love I am nothing; and if I give all my possessions in charity, and if I give up my body in order to boast, but do not have love. I am none the better.
So keep watch, for you not know neither the day nor the hour (when the Son of Man will come).
But no one knows about the that day and hour; neither the angles in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father.
At that time the disciples came and ask Jesus, "Who really excels in the kingdom of the heaven?" Calling in a little child. He set it in the center and said, I assure you, unless you be converted and become as the little children, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of the heaven. Whoever, then humbles himself like this child, he excels in the kingdom of heaven, and whoever receives one such child in my name , receives Me. But whoever is an occasion for stumbling to one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea.
As I urged you to wait on at Ephesus when I took my trip to Macedonia in order that you might instruct some people not to teach erratic notions nor devote attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give anybody more to fields for research than of attention to God's affairs in faith- but the object of the injunction is love, out of a pure heart and good conscience and unfeigned faith, things which some have failed to hit upon and have run off into futile talk, wanting to be teachers of the law when they have no sense either of the things they say or what it is they are being so positive about.
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions thankgivings, be presented for all men; for emperors and all out superior, in order that we may lead a still and quiet life in all piety and propriety. This is good thing and a thing welcome to God our Savior, who wills that all men should be saved and come into awareness of truth. For there is one God, one mediator too between God and men, a man, Christ Jesu, he who gave himself as a ransom for everybody; the attestation when the right time came, for which I was appointed a herald and apostle, - I am telling the truth, not lying, - a teacher of the nations in faith an truth.
So I wish to have the men pray in every place, rasing godly hands without anger and argument.
Remind them to be submissive and obedient to governments and authorities, to be ready for every good work, to vilify nobody, to keep out of fights, to be reasonable and show gentleness towards all men. For we ourselves were once stupid, disobedient, drifters, in servitude to varied desires and pleasures, leading a life of viciousness and envy, odious, hating each other; but when kindness and goodwill came on form our savior God, not as the out come of deeds in righteousness that we did but in the way of mercy he saved us by the bath of rebirth and renovation by the Holy Spirit, which he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, in order that being justified by this grace we might become heirs with hope of eternal life.
The saying is a trustworthy one, and about these things I want you to be positive, in order that those who have believed God may take care to practice good works. These things are good and useful to men; but stand away for foolish arguments the tracings of genealogies and quarreling and fights over the law, for they are useless and futile. Have nothing more to do with a troublemaker after one and a second admoniton, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning when is self-condemned.
So if they say to you 'here he is, in the wilderness' do not go out; 'here he is, in the closets' do not believe it.
So keep awake, because you do not know on what day your Master is coming. But be sure of this, that if the man of the house had know at what time of the night the thief was coming he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. Accordingly be ready yourselves, because it will be at the moment when you are not thinking of it that the Son of Man comes.
These things I have written to you about those who are misleading you. And for your part, the anointment you received from him dwells in you, and you have no need that one should teach you; but as his anointment teaches you about everything, and is true and is not lie, and as he did teach you, dwell in him.
Step forward all of you that will stake enternal life on this teaching? Step forward all of you that will stake someone else life on this teaching?
This is more then a debate it is a teaching millions of people have judged nations and religions and people as being unworthy of everlasting life with God over. Thousands have been disfellowship for not believing this doctrine of men. Lives have been ruined and families destroyed over strong assertions.
-
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
-
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
-
barry
Scholar,
As Doug Mason asks you, why can you converse with apostates while other witnesses shake in their boots at the thought of being disfellowshiped and being separated from family and friends?. We would all like to know here on this forum. Also you might like to tell me why my exwife after studying with the witnesses shook with fear when she visited my church?
Such questions dont need to be answered in private and are not impertinent to normal people. My church doesnt tell me not to worship in another church or who not to talk to.
-
writetoknow
Double standards become the way of life among JW's. They are unable to accept they are not in a superior position on earth. To admit a misstake is to state our organization is not inspiried of God. Sadly with as much history there is to read of the bad results of such thinking caused the human race one would hope such blind faith would not exist today.
I once associated with a person that had been born into the witnesses his family had past generations of witnesses. He had a corporation he made all the discisions for that corporation. When misstakes where made he justified those misstake by using the name of the corporation that did such great works for God. He always spoke in a third party way, but was ruthless when making other take responsibility for their actions.
Most of Chirst teachings dealt with personal responsibility how we treat others and the least one. The start of training in the JW's ogranization is for the person within the org to take responsiblity for their actions. But the org. does not make misstakes and when they do it is called new light. Jehovah's Witnesses hold all other people on earth responsible for associating with religion that have false teachings. If they do not get out of them they will be destroyed.
Because witnesses associate with an organization that has modern day truth they are saved at the end. Thus, because their judgment is so unforgiving for other religious groups they have to be perfect no adjustments can be made if so then they would be considered like all man made organization having false teachings and some truth.
They have to be right in every argument it is a life and death issues. Sadly they spend their lives wrangling in their minds about every little issues. Many JW's have mental problems because of this. Their children become master liers and if one associates for very long they learn to live a lie because they cannot be honest with themselves or the brothers because they will be disfellowship.
If the heavy judgment they judge come upon them from within the org they will most often at least look at the facts. Once they see the fact most have the same hate and heavy judgment they have been trainned to have for the JW's org.
It is a life of double standards and one can stay with it if they keep the blinders on. Thus, the person arguing herein knows he shouldn't be on this site, but he can justify being here because he has taken a superior position over his brothers. Those brothers he would correct for being on this site. He must think his knowledge is superior to his brother or he believes he holds a superior position within the org.
The point is he believes everyone else on earth is lead by the devil an are wicked or mislead, it is not possible that someone else could have truth. Truth comes through one point on earth and that is Jehovah's Witnesses the faithful and discreet slave GB
Thus, more he argues his point the righter he is - it becomes and addiction that can't be stopped. If he stopped he would have nothing. If the witnesses found out he was on here he would be disfellowship and then possibly he would at least look at some fact.
Once again uses the tacts he has been trained to use from the JW's - live a lie because it not a lie I am superior and I alone can make these judgments. But disfellowship and hold others feet to the fire as wicked for the same actions.
-
AlanF
Scholar pretendus wrote:
: I do not have a model
Exactly. Yet you make pronouncements about what you have no model for.
: but I agree with the model presented by the celebrated WT scholars presented in numerous publications over the last five decades
They might present a "model" of sorts, but it's based on nothing but speculation. And as I've pointed out many times, this speculation is based on nothing more than the need to retain the 1914 date.
: and it is this model that I believe is correct.
Believing and proving are different things. You know perfectly well that the Society's claims are purely speculative, because you refuse to set for their reasoning in a post and try to justify it.
: Other models presented by yourself and others including Alan F, I reject because these omit the reign of Darius and defy 'common sense'.
Correction: you reject them because if you didn't, you'd have to give up on the JW world of unreality.
AlanF