by Jeffro 224 Replies latest watchtower bible
Perhaps you can enlighten me as it was some years ago and I do not have a perfect memory.
More like a 'selective memory.' Carl Jonsson referenced the Young article during a discussion you and he were having on ChannelC eight or so years ago. That is how you came to know of it. Is it all coming back to you now?
Neil said:
There is no spurious period for the early reign of Hoshea ...
Why does Furuli have a series of question marks for Hoshea between the years 758 and 749 BCE in both tables for his two (WT-friendly) chronological schemes?
problemaddict:
Any starting points suggested by Jeffo or Scholar or Ann or all three?
As well as Jeffro's link and Londo's videos, Carl Jonsson's book (now online) lays it all out in digestable form too.
AnnOMaly
Post 3771
Thank you for that reminder for I had simply forgotten that fact. I must see if I can find that post by COJ for I did have some dialoque with Jonsson on that site many years ago. I must check the context for Carl's citation because I cannot recall him sourcing Young at all on anything.
scholar JW
AnnOMaly
Post 3772
All of my chronology reference books including that of Furuli, Jonsson and others including other reference works and commentatries are still in boxes so remain in unpacked for all I have to hand are my chronology files and journal articles. Therefore unless I can sight Furuli's discussion of that period I cannot comment on this matter. In any event the early period of Hoshea's kingship is clearly indentified in 2Kings 15:30 and his official reign is marked in 2Kings 17:1 but as the chronology for the Israelite Monarchy is problematic for the entire period it is most prudent to date the reigns with circa. Furuli must have also come to a similar conclusion as with many other chronologists.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Post 4205
You were right. I have become a victime of a scam. I checked my on-line bank and the credit card transaction for the support services had not yet gone through, my bank has frozen my account until I can go into the bank and reset my account. I will ring Microsoft to see what they can do as as to any technical issues with the computer. It certainly does run much better as I did have some issues with it so will see what happens. Thanks for your alert.
As I have said before chronology is more than arithmetic for the numbers are 'mysterious' and problematic.
I do not believe that we have a preconceived numerology to prop up unless of course you are referring to the Gentile Times or to the Seventy Weeks of Years in Daniel but if you omit these prophecies then you put a cloud over the entire Bible making just a book of stories with no modern day relevance.
I will when I have proper access to my library should be able to provide additional sources for our understanding of Hoshea' reign and I will notify you of this but in the meantime from the materials I have at hand sufficiently address the issue that you have raised and I see no evidence that our understanding of Hoshea's reign is incorrect.
Chronology requires a 'corrective' at some point and this is acknowledged by chronologists so we have simply used a corrective to overcome the twenty year difference thus our chronology can be harmonized with the secular. No surprises here.
The reading of Jeremiah 29:10 as 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' makes the meaning much clearer so it simply refers to the place of occupation or exile which the Jews would remain in until the seventy years for their captivity would expire soon after the Fall of Babylon, their captor. It really is quite easy.
scholar JW
All of my chronology reference books including that of Furuli, Jonsson and others including other reference works and commentatries are still in boxes so remain in unpacked ...
Heck, Neil, you used that excuse last July. If I was in your shoes (brr, perish the thought), I'd be turning those boxes upside-down to find out.
The reading of Jeremiah 29:10 as 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' makes the meaning much clearer so it simply refers to the place of occupation or exile which the Jews would remain in until the seventy years for their captivity would expire soon after the Fall of Babylon, their captor. It really is quite easy.
So you would agree that the Jews who were being told this would have been captive "at Babylon" 80 years rather than 70 (under WT chronology).
You were right. I have become a victime of a scam.
Don't worry Neil, we're all victims here.
scholar:
You were right. I have become a victime of a scam. I checked my on-line bank and the credit card transaction for the support services had not yet gone through, my bank has frozen my account until I can go into the bank and reset my account. I will ring Microsoft to see what they can do as as to any technical issues with the computer. It certainly does run much better as I did have some issues with it so will see what happens. Thanks for your alert.
It is important that you remove any software that was installed or any additional user accounts that were created by the 'tech', as they may leave a 'backdoor' giving them future access to the computer without any visible sign. It would be best to hire a local IT professional to check the system for malware. Specifically tell them you've been the victim of a phone support scam. You should also change your computer and banking passwords.
Still trying to help you with the other scam you've fallen victim to...
As I have said before chronology is more than arithmetic for the numbers are 'mysterious' and problematic.
Some intelligence and insight are required, but the numbers are not 'mysterious'. Just because something is 'more than arithmetic', it doesn't mean arithmetic is not relevant or that obvious arithmetical problems should be ignored.
I do not believe that we have a preconceived numerology to prop up unless of course you are referring to the Gentile Times
LOL. You don't have any preconceived numerology apart for your preconceived numerology.
or to the Seventy Weeks of Years in Daniel
The 'seventy weeks' has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. It really really doesn't. The fact that the Watch Tower Society additionally distorts the reigns of Persian kings should be a clue.
but if you omit these prophecies then you put a cloud over the entire Bible making just a book of stories with no modern day relevance.
How very poetic. Reality is what it is. Along with myths (mostly borrowed and adapted from other cultures), the Bible contains some historical accounts, often framed as 'prophecy'. It's not magical. And Santa's not real either. (Oh, you already know that one.)
I will when I have proper access to my library should be able to provide additional sources for our understanding of Hoshea' reign and I will notify you of this but in the meantime from the materials I have at hand sufficiently address the issue that you have raised and I see no evidence that our understanding of Hoshea's reign is incorrect.
You mean, you see no evidence that it is correct. I have already indicated specifically why the Watch Tower Society inserts these periods prior to the reigns of Hoshea and Zechariah. But if you can find support in any modern scholarship, go ahead.
Chronology requires a 'corrective' at some point and this is acknowledged by chronologists so we have simply used a corrective to overcome the twenty year difference thus our chronology can be harmonized with the secular. No surprises here.
Even without the 'twenty-year gap', the Watch Tower Society's chronology has many other problems. For example, the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is badly distorted in relative terms. Your claim about a 'corrective' is just an attempt to make an incredibly weak excuse sound 'technical'. There is no need for this 'corrective' when correctly interpreting the Bible's reference to 70 years of all the nations serving Babylon. The biblical account of the Neo-Babylonian period is already consistent with secular history.
The reading of Jeremiah 29:10 as 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' makes the meaning much clearer so it simply refers to the place of occupation or exile which the Jews would remain in until the seventy years for their captivity would expire soon after the Fall of Babylon, their captor. It really is quite easy.
Misdirection! Go back and read what I actually said about the context of verses 10-15 apart from the parenthetical remark about the error of "at Babylon". Your 'explanation' does not address the problem of the context at all. For a start, in the Watch Tower Society's chronology, the Jews exiled in 607 weren't even "at Babylon" for a whole 70 years. The letter in Jeremiah chapter 29 was sent to Jews already in Babylon 7 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction, so it makes no sense at all to tell them that they would be 'at' Babylon for 70 years. (Jeremiah 25:11-12 clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon (under its 'yoke') and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah 27:8-11 further indicates that exile was only a punishment for nations that would not submit to Babylon.) But apart from all that, Jeremiah 29:10-15 directly states that attention would be given to the Jews' return after that 70 years had ended, so the 70 years cannot logically refer to a period that ends only once the Jews had already returned.
Ann O Maly
Well I moved into my own home in March this year but had to construct a new shed for all of my tools of trade and now that is finished I have to fix a bookcase in my study so that I can move the library into my study. Soon all will be fixed then I will be a very happy chappy with all of my books to hand. It is very tempting to get at them but will hold off for a little while.
scholar JW
