the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
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).
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
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.
what made you realize it was time to go?
i've been having health problems for the last few years and instead of any help, i'm listed as spiritually weak and of course associations is only my kids and husband.
all the good jw's have moved to other congregations and are doing well.
Welcome!
I've been off TMS for a while and they seem to keep giving me talks. Hubby has asked to be off and he still gets his little papers stuck in his face by the young autistic boy who wouldn't understand you telling him no.
Interesting. Next time you or hubby get a talk slip, smile and thank the young autistic boy, head straight for the School Overseer and say, "There's been a mistake. You know I am taking a break from the TMS at the moment. I thought I would give this slip back to you right away so you have time to assign somebody else [smile]."
If you get another slip in a few weeks, repeat. If you still get the slips after that, ignore them and just don't show up to the meeting that night. They'll soon stop giving them to you.
last night at my brother's house ( he's an elder ) i listened in on a conversation he was having with another elder about my old congregation ( which i haven't attended in 2 years and have been left alone).
our congregation had at one time 86 members.. they talked about:.
* how the congregation went from 86 members to 26.
I heard that nearly 50% hadn't reported last month in our old congo. Not sure whether that just meant late reporting or whether it was a regular thing or not. Wasn't going to jump in to ask and find out. Eyebrow-raising nonetheless. CO won't be impressed, that's for sure.
(Oh yeah, it IS possible for a sister to read the WT if there are no brothers. I used to fill in at the book study sometimes.)
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
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.
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
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?
the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
No doubt you first learnt of this from Ann O Maly who first learnt it from me on one of my earlier posts on this forum whereupon i first drew attention to Rodger Young's methodology.
... and you in turn first learned of Young's paper from whom, Neil? C'mon now, seeing as we're all giving credit where it is due, spit it out.
1959 jehovah's witnesses in the divine purpose pg.
252. for many years it had been the view of the watchtower that the faithful men of old who served god faithfully before jesus' time would be raised from the dead even before armageddon to join in organizing jehovah's modern-day people and to share in shouldering the remnant'sresponsibility of representing the lord jesus christ in the capacity of overseers of the flock of god on earth.
these men were variously referred to as "ancient worthies," "faithful men of old," and "the princes" in the light of psalm 45:16. .
And so, another long-standing WTS doctrine was ditched - a teaching that started over 60 years earlier with Russell and The Divine Plan of the Ages and where new life had been breathed into it by Rutherford in the 1920s. In 1950 (like 1935 when the 'great crowd' suddenly became the same as earth-bound 'Jonadabs'), the rug was pulled out from under the faithful: 'princes' are just the 'other sheep' with congregational responsibilities (elders)? We're not going to be ruled over by the resurrected patriarchs and other faithful OT characters? Like 1935, the 1950 'revelation' was greeted by initial silence.
Even members of my family, who were relatively new to the religion at the time, remembered it being a major doctrinal shift.
And just how would anyone recognize Abraham or Moses or David anyway, if they were resurrected and paraded at a convention LOL. Gullible audience, yes (as we once were too). So sad.
the wtbats like to state "we never stated when the end will come" when they blatantly have:.
1969 "if you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things.
because all the evidence in fulfillment of bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years.
It makes this quote from p. 338 of Vindication I (1931) all the more ironic:
"There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918 and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time. Later the faithful learned that these dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures; and they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date, but to rely (and they do rely) upon the Word of God as to the events that must come to pass. Jehovah has spoken his word and will perform it, and the Scriptures seem clearly to indicate that Jehovah will grant to his faithful witnesses the privilege of seeing his great 'act', thereby proving that his witnesses have spoken his word of truth according to his will; and that this he will do before his witnesses are 'changed' into the glorious organism like unto Christ Jesus'. This is not predicting dates, but is merely calling attention to events that must come to pass because clearly set forth in God's Word."
Freddy Franz must have forgotten all that when he came up with 1975.
1980 yearbook pp.
61-63 france 1925a critical year.
the year 1925 got off to a good enough start, with the french watch tower magazine being enlarged from 12 to 16 pages.
Some expected to go to heaven that year.
Like the word 'evidently' is a trigger, the word 'some' always puts me on alert because it's a 'spin' word to shift from the WTS's culpability in leading the membership down a wrong path and implies the r&f were to blame for it.
'Some' thought Russell was the FDS. Nope, the WTS leadership thought it and taught it.
'Some' expected Armageddon and their heavenly reward in 1914. Nope, the WTS leadership thought it and taught it.
At one time 'some' thought that certain prophecies may have applied to literal Palestine in this [20th] century. Nope, the WTS leadership thought it and taught it.
Too much emphasis was placed on 1975 by 'some' Bible teachers. Nope, you, the WTS leadership, placed too much emphasis on the date.
