problemaddict:
Any starting points suggested by Jeff[r]o or Scholar or Ann or all three?
Have you been here?
Posts by Jeffro
-
224Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
'scholar':
I do not that you developed your own chronology on your own hence independently but it is not original because it simply replicates most other current schemes. You have in some way been influenced by others either directly or indirectly as it is impossible for any person to simply construct a chronology out of thin air. Consistency does not mean accuracy.
I assume you missed the word "doubt"? That best fits the context - but I know context isn't really your specialty. 1) Your assumption that I 'must' have been 'influenced' is just stupid, and your claim that it's not original after you acknowledge that it was developed independently is bizarre. 2) It's incredibly hypocritical coming from someone who blindly follows Watch Tower corporation.
"thin air"?? You do realise the information is found in the Bible don't you?? As I have told you previously, I charted all the biblical information from the Bible, and then added secular information from encyclopedias. The information for the reigns of Israel and Judah was not visible when initially charting the secular information (and vice versa). Subsequent decision-table analysis was used for refining biblical reigns (which in several cases confirms mathematically that various co-regencies are required if the biblical data is to be trusted at all), again without considering the secular information during that process.
I do not cite an abandoned revision for all WTS publications have validity.
Even the ones that contradict each other? Idiot. I suppose you take all that 'valid' advice from back-issues of The Golden Age too. Not to mention the 'valid' WTS publications that said Armageddon would happen in 1914.
be p. 38 par. 2 How to Do Research: Realize, too, that some points in older publications of ours may have been updated, so consider what has most recently been published on the topic.
For the reigns of Judah alone, JW chronology prior to 1966 gave different years for the reigns of Asa*, Jehoshaphat*, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash, Amaziah, (abandoned 10-year interregnum before Uzziah), Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah*. (Difference for reigns with asterisk is within a year and can therefore be explained by rounding.)
There is no spurious period for the early reign of Hoshea but simply the clear statement of 2Kings15:30, which is also recognised by other chronologists.
Liar. 'Other chronologists' do not 'recognise' the spurious period (758-748BCE, or any corresponding period) in the reign of Hoshea prior to his actual reign at all.
Yes indeed secular chronologies prove a difference of twenty years but when the corrective is applied then all of the data is easily harmonised and this is what the celebrated ones have done. This means that our Bible chronology is consistent with other secular chronologies.
Now you're claiming that a fundamental difference means Watch Tower Society chronology is consistent. Is English your first language? I have already demonstrated in this and other threads that WTS is not consistent, even with itself. However, the biblical records for the period in question are indeed consistent with secular history.
Our chronology is truly Bible based as any person can see and this supported by the fact of a consistent rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 in both editions of the NWT.
Your interpretation of the ending of the seventy years is simply nonsense and conflicts with the clear statement of Jer.29:10 ,it's immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and all of the other seventy years text iyet the OT.I can only assume from this that either English is not your first language, or you have sustained a brain injury that has severely impacted your comprehension skills (I suppose Watch Tower propaganda can count as a brain injury). I have already clearly indicated how the NWT's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is entirely illogical, and that the context makes the WTS chronology entirely impossible.
-
32
Watchtower Study Science Class 101
by CaptainSchmideo inso, i am reading facebook today, and someone posts this little doozy on her page:.
just got done with watchtower study science class 101. so ya know how when u look at a rainbow it reminds u of jehovah's promise never to destroy the earth with a flood.
we should probably do the same thing when watching the beautiful displays of the northern lights .
-
-
Jeffro
Slidin Fast:
How did the wonders of creation help the 99% of species that are already extinct?
Jehovah is actually pretty useless at trying to save stuff. In reference to 'the flood', The Watchtower of 1 August 2013 says:
Jehovah had done everything to save as many as possible.
Apparently, his best effort managed to save... 8 people. Not a great success rate. Especially when you consider that (supposedly) he was the one that murdered everyone else.
Sadder still, JWs treat these primitive stories as though they actually happened. The dullard who posted on Facebook might as well be drawing 'science' lessons from the 'account' of Cinderella.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
Your pretty chart is a good overview of orthodox chronology as presented by many scholars but the' devil is in the detail' and that is where your scheme fails. If one was to compare your scheme with that offered by Mc Fall, Young and Thiele amongst many others then there would be many differences of opinion as to the dates and the events for to date the only scheme that has gained universal acceptance is that of Thiele. Scholar however in saying this, that in making such a comparison between your chronology and that of others there may well be a difference of only one year in some instances for your scheme simply mirrors the 'popular' chronology of today.
I produced my chart independently of other sources, so the fact that it is consistent with other sources is only testament to its accuracy.
You are entitled to view our chronology as a 'bad joke' and I am quite sure that most scholars would agree with you especially Thiele who had not time for our chronology. For my part I believe the 'joke' is on modern scholarship because we have a scheme that is simple, faithful to Scripture, harmonizes the 390 year period of Ezekiel, user-friendly and breathes life into Bible History, Theology and Prophecy.
Nothing but tedious rhetoric there.
I believe that the use of 'interregnum' to describe the earlier kingship of Hoshea based on 2Kings 15;30 is most appropriate even though it does not currency in our publications today. Of course our chronology for the Divided Kingdom differs to what was published in 1944 but so what for all scholarship is a work in progress and no doubt if you checked Thiele's work which was published in three editions there would have been changes and adjustments.
The specific problem here is not that revisions have been made (setting aside the fact that all Watch Tower revisions are futile attempts to defend their tenuous numerology), but that you desperately insist on citing an abandoned revision to defend their current chronology.
I am glad to see that you acknowledge the fact of my responses but you have simply not proved your case especially in regard to Hoshea's reign alleging that we have a problem. There is no problem for us but your problem is how to adequately deal with 2Kings 15:30. and this you have not done adequately. Further, you have not dealt adequately with the translation issues of 2Kings 17:1 proving that Hoshea's reign ended rather than began in that year as we interpret matters. You need to work much harder on this!!!! LOL
Not only have I explained the problem, but I have also specifically indicated why the Watch Tower Society inserts the spurious periods prior to the reigns of Hoshea and Zechariah. Specifically, to make up the difference of twenty years when aligning the reigns for the kingdom of Israel with their distorted expansion of the kingdon of Judah.
Your claim that our chronology is 'languishing with trite statements' is rather amusing for you assume that chronology for the Divided Monarchy is so ever easy and simple without any technical hurdles. Certainly our scheme proves that there is a twenty year difference or gap in certain points of contact between Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian history but so what? All that a competent chronologist needs to do is 'fine tune' or to quote Rodger C Young to use a Corrective in reconciling the biblical data with the secular data. Celebrated WT scholar over many decades have used Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as that Corrective.
What a joke! Independent Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records all indicate that the Watch Tower Society chronology is out by twenty years, and the Watch Tower Society even admits that fact. The records for the period in the Bible are completely consistent with the records of Assyria, Babylon and Egypt. It is only the Watch Tower Society's distorted interpretations that are in conflict.
In conclusion, Bible chronology differs between scholars particularly in the period of the Divided Monarchy for the biblical data in the form of numbers are mysterious providing a continuous challege for scholarship. Our scholars have triumphed and succeeded in providing a simple but workable scheme so I am duly proud of what we have accomplished as an organization.
The Bible on its own disproves the Watch Tower Society's superstitious chronology. With the revised translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in the NWT, this is now even more obvious. Even with the incorrect use of "at Babylon" (even though in the JW belief the Jews exiled in 607 were only "at Babylon" for, at most, 69¼ years), it is obvious from the context of verses 10-15 (even without considering the fact of the broader context that it's a letter to exiles already in Babylon about 7 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction) that "seventy years" refers to a period that ends before 'turning attention' to their return. Replacing the intentionally ambiguous "in accord with", the bumbling translators now clearly state that attention would be given to their return "When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled". In the delusional JW belief, the 70 years end when the Jews arrive in Jerusalem (supposedly in October 537 BCE), so there would hardly be any point in having attention turned to their return after they're already there. (The fact that many Jews remained in Babylon is also irrelevant, because that did not change in 537 either.) In reality, the passage indicates that 70 years would end (when Babylon's king was called to account in 539 BCE), and then the Jews would be allowed to return after that (in Cyrus' first regnal year, 538 BCE). And this is only one of many problems with the JW chronology directly from the Bible. Extra-biblical sources are in fact an unnecessary nail in the coffin of JW chronology, because the Bible already makes the coffin air-tight.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
It is you that is desperate hence the production of your pretty chart in comparison to simple and clear chart in the Appendix in the latest NWT.
Hardly. I consider the Watch Tower Society's efforts to be little more than a bad joke. It's very easy to debunk them, and I have kindly provided that information for the benefit of others. I have actually provided various charts with various levels of detail for different periods as necessary for the relevant information about the period. The main chart, logically, contains the most detail. Your comparison of my main chart with the NWT's appendix is stupid, because I've already shown you earlier in this thread that I've also provided a chart in that style.
The expression 'interregnum is not used as such in our recent publications but in the case of Hoshea his Kingship is accurately described with the use of this term.in IMHO.
Not only is the term not used, but the JW chronology of the entire period of the divided monarchy is quite different to what appeared in the publication you've desperately quoted from 1944. Worse still, both are wrong anyway.
At least I have responded to your nonsense and no doubt will do 'battle' st some future time.
You have responded, but your tenuous case is certainly no better for it. It's amusing to watch how the deluded JW apologist mind focuses on minutia of how an individual aspect 'might' be 'defended', always in isolation, and with terrible reasoning. I have in fact independently arrived at a chronological framework that harmonises all the relevant scriptures and is also consistent with modern scholarship.
In contrast, the Watch Tower Society is left languishing with trite statements about how all other sources—including independent Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records—just 'happen' to be 20 years different to their own figures by the end of the divided monarchy.
*** it-1 p. 1221 Isaiah, Book of ***
The Assyrian and Babylonian chronological records (though their reliability is questionable) seem to indicate that Sennacherib ruled some 20 years after [Watch Tower's dates for] his campaign against Jerusalem.*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time.*** it-2 p. 895 Sennacherib ***
Sennacherib’s death is considered to have come some 20 years after [Watch Tower's dates for] his campaign against Jerusalem.*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years?*** ad p. 326 Chronology *** (not in Insight)
their dates for the fall of Samaria and Sennacherib's attack on Judah in Hezekiah's fourteenth year differ from our dates by twenty to thirty yearsJW apologists such as yourself are left floundering, trying to come up with weak excuses for each separate problem (which you need to do, because your broader religious superstitions depend on it), whereas for me, everything just fits together.
-
38
Bible Has Problems, Yet Its One Verse Can Solve All Our Problems!
by abiather inscience shows that humans have been living on earth more than 6000 years (contrary to ot chronology).
again inconsistency is pointed out in nt too which says jesus who did countless good worksincluding control over forces of nature and even death itselfyet people killed him, just like killing the duck that lays golden egg!.
despite such inconsistencies, a single verse in the bible can solve all our problems: don't call anyone on earth 'father,' because you have only one father, the one in heaven.
-
-
Jeffro
What cofty said.
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
Jeffro
'scholar':
The source for the use of Interregnum for the reign of Hoshea is presented in the TABLE of CONTEMPORARY KINGS and PROPHETS and RELATED EVENTS, pp. 161 ff. in THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND, 1944 The chart or table also shows three other Interregnums for the Divided Monarchy.
LOL. 1944. Hilarious! You're getting even more desperate. Thanks for the laugh.
Despite your reference to "three other interregnums", Insight explicitly denies that there are any "interregnums" in the chronology of Judea (and also wrongly claims there is only one co-regency).
*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency.There is nothing new in your other recent responses. You've just repeated your previous claims. Refer to my previous response.
-
20
Why are people beholden to ancient superstitions?
by Doug Mason inhow is it that in a world that is so technological, scientific, fact-based, evidence-based, and so on, that many people are superstitious - even more so, the superstitions of ancient cultures?.
doug.
-
-
Jeffro
Cold Steel:
We Mormons were criticized back in the 1830s for believing in angels in a day of locomotives (as if locomotives defined the pinnacle of man’s ingenuity).
And rightly so. It's drivel.
-
90
Why do so many think JW Religion is a Cult? (NO APOSTATES PLEASE)
by Brother Mike inmy question is, why do so many think the watchtower bible tract society is a cult?
.
-
-
Jeffro
Blueeyes54:
An apostate hates Jehovah God and His son Jesus, and all that they represent.
Not only is that not the correct definition of apostate (see my previous post), but it's also plainly illogical. There would be very few people (and even fewer former JWs) who believe in (the Abrahamic) God & Jesus and hate 'all that they represent'. Most people who leave the JW religion either still believe in God and worship him in some way, or do not believe he exists at all, making 'hatred' redundant.
-
90
Why do so many think JW Religion is a Cult? (NO APOSTATES PLEASE)
by Brother Mike inmy question is, why do so many think the watchtower bible tract society is a cult?
.
-
-
Jeffro
Brother Mike:
An apostate is one who leaves the JW religion and purposely tries to go out of there way to stop others from learning the truth.
Wrong. An apostate is any person who leaves any group due to a disagreement with that group's teachings, ideals, etc. As such, any person who leaves any religion (or other belief system) to become a JW is an apostate.
JWs use the term apostate in a special way as a propaganda technique. (Using special terms for outsiders or defectors is itself one of the hallmarks of a cult.)
*** g00 6/22 p. 6 The Manipulation of Information ***
Name-Calling
Some people [Jehovah's Witnesses] insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label [such as "apostate"] onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.Your use of "the truth" is also an improper semantical reference to what you really mean: 'whatever happens to be taught by JWs at any particular time'. Obviously a person who doesn't believe JW teachings to be true cannot at the same time want to "stop others from learning the truth".