Posts by Jeffro

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

Notice also that 'scholar' has simply ignored the fact that Anstey does not support JW dogma for the period involving Ahaz and Hoshea.

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

scholiar:

Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE. In fact we do not know how long that group lived in Babylon for nor do we have the demography of both groups in Babylon. Ezra of course does provide some demographics for the Returnees just prior to the Return in 537BCE. I hope this helps as you seem to be stuck on the figure '80'.

'scholar' likes to make broad sweeping claims about what the Bible supposedly says about the '70 years'. But I have already provided the specific scriptures (including Jeremiah 25:8-11 and 27:6-11) that clearly indicate that serving Babylon did not mean exile and that exile would be a consequence for nations that would not submit to Babylon. Of course, I have the advantage here, because the Bible never says there was a 70-year exile. It just doesn't. Never. Not once. There's nothing scriptural that 'scholar' can actually use to back up Watch Tower Society dogma.

However, the 'sting in the tail' is how the audience changes from verse 16 whereupon Jeremiah now turns his attention to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and gives similar warnings with consequences then in verse 20 it appears that he now addresses the entire nation as Exiles which of course would include both groups.

Once again, 'scholar' tries to claim the Bible says something it doesn't actually say. Verses 16-19 don't say anything about those still in Jerusalem being exiled to Babylon (which isn't the same as saying that wouldn't happen—it just isn't the context). The context of those verses about those still in Jerusalem is in response to the false claims by Hananiah (and the 'prophets in Babylon' at Jeremiah 29:15) about what would happen in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 28:2-4). It states that they would die or be dispersed among all the nations. It gives no indication at all that those exiled later would indicate a 'starting point' for the 70 years previously mentioned in verse 10. Verse 20 returns to addressing the people who are already exiled in Babylon, and says nothing about 'including both groups'.

'At Babylon' has equal status with 'For Babylon' sayin much the same thing with varying degree of emphasis. One rendering conveys location an dthe other conveys purpose. Both renderings are linguistically possible and both were realized historically and contextually.

It doesn't help your case that both renderings are 'linguistically possible' because the rendering you prefer is not contextually possible. 1) The alleged period from October 607 to October 537 in JW dogma includes travel time, so the Jews would be 'at Babylon' for less than 70 years. 2) Jeremiah 29:10-14 clearly indicates that the Jews would repent and then return only after the 70 years had already finished, so it would make no sense for attention to be turned to the Jews' return after that same period had already ended. The 70 years was a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon, and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah 29:10-14 quite straightforwardly indicates that 1) Babylon's 70 years would end (verse 10), 2) the Jews would repent (verse 13; compare Daniel 9:2-19), 3) the Jews would be allowed to return to Jerusalem (verse 14).

It's little wonder that 'scholar' doesn't regard arithmetic to be particularly important in regard to chronology.

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

scholiar:

The simple fact of the matter is that there was a body of exiled people in Babylon as a result of Nebuchadmezzer's incursions into Jerusalem and all of these had to await the fulfillment of the seventy years otherwise you have several Exiles which of course becomes ridiculous.

If it were really the case that Jeremiah chapter 29 referred to a period of 70 years that started only once "all of these" Jews were in exile, then the Watch Tower Society should say the 70 years began in 602 BCE. Just face it, 'scholar'... you're wrong.

According to the Bible, there were about the same number of people in the deportation in 582BCE as there were in 587BCE. But neither of those groups were the recipients of the letter contained in Jeremiah 29, which was received in 594BCE by Jews who had been in Babylon since 597BCE.

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:

Also I checked Martin Anstey's Romance of Bible Chronology and his outline of Hoshea's reign and the Interregnum agres with that of WT scholars.

I should also add that Anstey claimed (incorrectly) that there was an 'interregnum' of eight years (rather than the Watch Tower Society's incorrect ten years) prior to Hoshea. As a result, Anstey has Hoshea's reign beginning in Ahaz' 12th year, and not his 14th as dictated by the Watch Tower Society. Anstey, therefore, was not plagued by the problem outlined in the initial post in this thread, and didn't have to make up a claim about counting the reign of Ahaz from some 'vassalage' (as the Watch Tower Society claimed a few decades ago). Additionally, Anstey claimed it was an actual "interregnum" marked by "anarchy" during which "Hoshea did not himself begin to reign", and not the misuse of the word by 'scholar' to mean reigning 'in some sense'.

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:

the simple fact of the matter is that the concept of Exile is problematic for your hypothesis on this key portion of biblical history.

It's really not. As is clearly shown in the timeline I've already provided, I don't have any problems with the period whatsever.

Jeremiah 27 and 29 both were directly addressed to the exiled people of the first deportation and as subsequent events as described by Jeremiah later included a much larger group of detainees or exiles who were all part of the EXILE. There was then a composite group residing in Babylon from shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE right through until the Return to Judah in 537 BCE. Therefore this proves that the seventy years was indeed a period of Exile.

If you really believe that, you're an idiot. It simply isn't what the Bible says. Claiming that the 70 years at Jeremiah 29:10 refers to people not yet in Babylon makes no sense, and is even more stupid in view of the fact that there were two later deportations to Babylon (587 and 582BCE), both of which the Bible says were significantly smaller than the one in 597BCE (Jeremiah 52:28-30). The date you assert for the Jews' return is also wrong; based on the Bible, the correct year is 538BCE.

Insults do not trouble me at all but merely reflect your character and desperation in trying to enforce your interpretations onto gullible minds. LOL

If you say stupid things, I will say that they are stupid. If you don't want to be 'insulted', stop saying stupid things. I have provided detailed information for readers to discern that you are indeed wrong.

The very fact of Judah' serving' nebuchadnezzer is the very proof that in accord with both Jeremiah ch 27 and ch 29 of the Exile in Babylon for both go' hand to hand' together.

Your claim bears no resemblance at all to the context of nations serving Babylon as explitly provided in Jeremiah 25:8-11 and Jermiah 27:6-11.

All scholars have acertain bias and I did not say that Albertz or the Society of Biblical Literature supports WT chronology but what Albertz has written for he is a specialist on the subject of the Exile, bases his discussion on the Exile proper from the Fall not from the first golah.

Your habit of quoting any source that disagrees with the correct chronology even though it contradicts your own is an extremely poor technique. I have already clearly shown how the Bible indicates that nations serving Babylon does not mean exile, so Albertz is wrong. But even if he were right, you would still be wrong.

I leave it others to imagine about my motives, methodology or quality of argument for I simply care nought but what I do know that I keep you on your toes.

No one needs to imagine those things. Your motive is to cling to JW doctrines, your methodology is to report whatever seems consistent with what the Watch Tower Society says, and your quality of argument is very very poor. You don't 'keep me on my toes'. Your trite irrational posts are a mild annoyance, but they do help me demonstrate to people just how ridiculous your position is.

Also I checked Martin Anstey's Romance of Bible Chronology and his outline of Hoshea's reign and the Interregnum agres with that of WT scholars.

It's not surprising that the 'Reverend' Martin Anstey supported an old Protestant chronology (you clearly don't understand the historical development of your own religion), and 1913 is hardly modern scholarship. Anstey is wrong, but because he wasn't infected by the Watch Tower Society's spurious '20-year gap' during the Neo-Babylonian period, he wasn't as wrong as you. Because he doesn't properly account for the four years of rivalry between Jotham and Ahaz (hence Jotham's 20th year), Anstey instead makes silly claims about what the "Holy Ghost" 'chose' to record. Anstey also makes several other (incorrect) 'corrections' to the scriptures that are not consistent with Watch Tower Society chronology. I have resolved all the inconsistencies that Anstey failed to deal with.

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

The responses given by 'scholar' really are an interesting case study of the mind of someone brainwashed by a religious sect.

scholar:

Jeremiah 27 has absolutely nothing to with your hypothesis

If you really believe that (and apart from the grammatical problem), you lack the most basic comprehensions skill of the subject and are not qualified to discuss it. As usual, 'scholar' seems to think that simply mentioning the chapter somehow confirms his views; however, the fact remains that the content (already quoted above) quite definitely indicates the meaning of 'serving Babylon'.

it explicitly states that the nations and Judah would be brought into servitude to Nebuchadnezzer

Yes, it does state that all the nations would serve Babylon. And it explicitly states that they could do so in their own land.

concluding the chapter with restoration, an end to their exile in Babylon whereupon the utensils and the people would be brought back home.

The last verse (22) states that the treasures would be returned when God turns attention to them. Jeremiah 29:10-13 clearly indicates that such attention would be given only after the 70 years had already ended.

No one is denying that the surrounding nations were made to serve Babylon but the seventy years alone proved to be aperiod of servitude-exile and deolation of Judah.

The "seventy years" are explicitly stated as being a period during which all the nations would serve Babylon, which Jeremiah 27:11 says they would do in their own land if they did not resist.

Albertz does not waffle, he does not need to waffle in his 460 page analysis of the this most crucial period of Jewish history- The Exile. His book is published by the prestigious Society of Biblical Literature.

Albertz' religious bias is clear. However, neither he nor the Society of Biblical Literature supports the Watch Tower Society's chronology anyway.

Jeffro is infuriated and frustrated when scholar educates him into various areas of scholarship that he chooses to ignore when ranting and raving about the wondrous WT Bible Chronology.

pseudo-scholar's lack of basic comprehension skills is certainly frustrating, but I would say I'm more bemused than infuriated by his inconsistency and irrationality. He cherry-picks from religious sources for the smallest detail that he imagines is remotely similar to some aspect of the flawed chronology taught by his idol, even though those other sources don't support his position.

Given the extremely low quality of the 'arguments' presented by 'scholar', I'm left wondering whether he doesn't really believe JW dogma at all, and that he's just playing devil's advocate to show just how ridiculous the JW dogma really is.

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 portrayal of the Exile is completely wrong for the Exile major occurred not with the first deportation of Jewry but the bulk of the population with the second deportation at the Fall in 607 BCE.

Serving Babylon in the context of Bible Prophecy and the entire book of Jeremiah most certainly means Exile why in fact does the reference to a 'Exile occur in chapter 29 of the book of Jeremiah wherein it contains many refernces to 'exile' and 'exiled people'. Exile is the very theme of Jeremiah's prophecy and included many deporations during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer.

Jeremiah 25:11 is quite self explanatory for it simply describes 'servitude to Babylon' for seventy years not Babylon's domination. Servitude is a core element of the seventy year period which comprises Servitude-Exile-Desolation of Judah. No matter how you spin it it does not work for you.'Serving' can and in the case of this historical narrative it was in fact an Exile for it is described by the eyewitness to the events by the prophet Jeremiah who writes it all up in Jeremiah, Lamentations and of course Daniel and Ezekile both make reference to that catastrophe as an 'Exile'.

Notice how the lying pseudo-'scholar' completely ignores Jeremiah 27, which explicitly states that exile would be a punishment for nations that would not serve Babylon. The Bible says that serving Babylon does not mean exile, but scholiar doesn't really care what the Bible says. Instead he just pours out the same old Watch Tower Society rhetoric. How very tedious.

You should read Rainer Albertz' Israel In Exile, 2003 which is the most comprehensive study of the Jewish Exile in modern times. His view agrees with ours but not on chronology but on the historical perspective.

Albertz also waffles on about how the Jews' 'relationship with God' sustained them and that the survival of Jewish tradition is "one of the great miracles of human history". Albertz tries to shoehorn '70 years' as a period from 587 to 520. He's wrong, and would probably do well to read what I have written on the subject. It is amusing, though, that 'scholar' will desperately cling to anything that seems to agree with some element of Watch Tower Society dogma, even though his chosen source—complete with its religious bias—still doesn't support JW 'chronology'.

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':

Nor does the Bible speaks of 'seventy years of Babylonish domination' so this simply is your narrow view of the seventy years.

I was going to be kind and try not to embarrass poor 'scholar'. But oh well.

I wonder if he has read Jeremiah 25:11:

11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’

So... did 'serving Babylon' mean exile? I've already clearly shown that it didn't, but here's Jeremiah 27:6-11 (just to be thorough):

6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nez′zar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the ﬁeld I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’

8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Neb·uchad·nez′zar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have ﬁnished them off by his hand.’

9 “‘“‘Therefore, do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your magicians, and your sorcerers, who are saying to you: “You will not serve the king of Babylon.” 10 For they are prophesying lies to you, so that you will be taken far away from your land and I will disperse you and you will perish.

11 “‘“‘But the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to cultivate it and dwell in it.’”’”

Jeremiah explicitly states that all the nations were to serve Babylon, but that exile was a punishment for those who did not submit to Babylon.

It's little wonder that the Watch Tower Society has not quoted Jeremiah 27:11 in living memory, and that the only mention of it in the Watch Tower Publications Index is in reference to a Watchtower article from 1937 (in which the original context and the concept of exile is ignored and the "king of Babylon" is said to represent... Jesus).

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 note your advice about getting the computer checked out. As far as I know I was not infected by a Snap Do browser soft ware nut if I find i will delete it.Any other advice?

Beyond the general advice I've already given, there are too many variables, particularly since I have no direct way of knowing what the phone scammers might have installed or changed. It would be best if you have a professional look at it directly, letting them know you've been the victim of a scam.

If you don't want to do that, your other option would be to reinstall Windows (a clean install, not an upgrade). Make sure you have a backup of your data first. You would then need to reinstall your other software.

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:

Rodger Young's article has nothing to do with WT chronology

Smartest thing you've said all day.

There is nothing of merit in the rest of your latest reply. Your claims of the relative sizes of the deporations to Babylon are not supported by scripture (in fact, they contradict Jeremiah 52:28-30), and your comments bear no resemblance at all to the actual context Jeremiah 29. And since there was an additional deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year (not counting accession year; 582BCE), your claim that exile was counted for 'the whole nation' after the deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (not counting accession year; 587BCE) is immediately shown to be the lie it is. And it doesn't seem to have gotten through that thick skull of yours yet that serving Babylon doesn't mean exile; exile is explicitly stated by Jeremiah to be a punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon. Again, you've simply ignored the most obvious problems, and repeated yourself in regard to your beliefs that contradict what the Bible actually says. I think we're done here. Once again, you have dismally failed to convince anyone of Watch Tower numerology.