Posts by Jeffro

28

Governing Body member Sam Heard at our Assembly

by problemaddict in

nice enough gentleman.

the parts were pretty watered down.

mom asks him if he is ready.....did he clean off all the dirt?

Jeffro

problemaddict:

But Jehovah sees we aren't ready and he just says "I don't want to kill all those people" (bro Heard and the entire place laugh while he says this).

That gets a laugh?!

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

Jeffro

Missed 'doubt' as I had to post from my ipad whilst my computer was undergoing online maintenance with Microsoft Support.

If the 'online maintenance' was a result of a phone call you didn't initiate from a company claiming to be Microsoft that 'detected' a problem on your system, you have likely become the victim of a scam. (The modus operandi is to convince the 'customer' that there is a virus on the computer by looking up mundane errors in the event log, and then gaining remote control of the system to 'remove' the 'virus', or getting credit card details to purchase the 'fix'.)

Anyway back to business. Nothing bizarre at all but simply I affirm that the scheme that you have developed is your own and your did it on your own but that does not mean that it is original because it basically is just the same as most other chronologies.

If I add 2 and 2 and arrive at 4, I suppose that isn't 'original' in the same manner either, because others have also arrived at the correct answer.

The difference is that it is colourful, pretty and more user-friendly therefor it is not from 'air' and I acknowledge that you use biblical data. However, your methodology or method and interpretion differs from our biblical chronology. I have cautioned you about the use of 'Decision Table Analysis' as it can get you into all sorts of trouble.

Yes, my method certainly differs from that of your idol—I am honest, and I don't have any preconceived numerology to prop up. You keep saying "our", but you are merely a pawn asserting (quite poorly) the chronology arrived at by the Watch Tower Society, in support of their superstitious numerology. Your 'caution' has no merit whatsoever, as you lack credibility.

The WT publications that I have used are not contradictory but simply revise and clarify preceeding views thus serve as valuable aids in doing Bible chronology. I am comfortable with such sources and really it is my business not yours.

It's all well and good to 'revise and clarify', but if you cite an old revision that is different to their new revision and assert that it is compatible, then you are just wrong (irrespective of whether the old or new information is correct, though both are in fact wrong).

Some chronologists do recognize the interregnum or earlier kingship of Hoshea the only differenc ethat their dates are not identical with ours. James Ussher in his The Annals of the World was the first to do so.

Circular argument. You haven't provided any source that agrees with the Watch Tower Society's view on that aspect other than Ussher, which is the source of the JW's modified (traditional) Protestant chronology. Provide evidence of any modern chronology (or indeed any secular chronology) that supports the spurious period for Hoshea.

Yes our WT chronology is consistent or in in agreement with secular chronology if a corrective is applied thus a harmonization of both chronologies is achieved.

No. That's not true, no matter how times you say it. What you are calling a 'corrective' is merely really saying 'we agree with secular chronology apart from the parts where we are wrong' (and the '20-year gap' is far from the only problem anyway). I have already shown how and why the JW chronology differs from the correct chronology. (And it's nothing to do with 'biblical accuracy'.)

Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 you have simply given your interpretation of this text, we have an entirely different interpretation of this verse which I endlessly propounded on this forum.

Feel free to 'explain' how you twist the verse in such a way that attention is given to the return of the Jews following a period that is supposedly ended once the Jews have already returned. Your convoluted 'logic' amuses me.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

Jeffro

problemaddict:

whatever happened to third witness?

'thirdwitness' is purportedly the author of the JW apologist site refuted at the link above. His site does not appear to have been modified for some time.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

Jeffro

problemaddict:

I have not. Would it be beneficial in your perceptions to study the current WT understanding in parallel or before looking further into the above links.

I have analysed a JW apologist site in detail here. There are links to the original article so you can compare side-by-side.

Where the apologist site occasionally deviates from official WT teaching is also included in my review.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

Jeffro

In post 4200, I said:

As I have told you previously, I charted all the biblical information from the Bible, and then added secular information from encyclopedias.

Just to clarify, the secular information added separately to the biblical data was for the reigns of Tyre, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. The reigns of Israel and Judah were taken from the Bible only, subject to decision-table analysis.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

Jeffro

problemaddict:

Any starting points suggested by Jeff[r]o or Scholar or Ann or all three?

Have you been here?

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

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.

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 in

jw
friends

so, 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 in

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.

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 in

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.

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 years

JW 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.