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

scholiar:

I have not ignored your comment on Anstey for he most certainly does agree with our history for the reign of Hoshea. There are of course minor difference but we are on the same page because Anstey presents an interregnum of 8 years for Hoshea. The fact of such a 'gap' eludes most scholars and Jeffro's pretty chart which is borrowed from others.

Anstey (incorrectly) 'supports' an 8-year interregnum, which is similar to the 8-year gap in the 1944 publication. (More accurately, the JW chronology had Antsey and similar works as source material. The 'requirement' for this 'gap' is actually a symptom of having failed to properly account for various co-regencies.) However, Anstey refers to that period as an actual interregnum, and not a period prior to some 'recognition' of 'vassalage', which is merely a Watch Tower invention. Anstey gives no support for the 10-year difference in the current JW chronology, or for the claim that Hoshea began to reign relative to Ahaz' alleged 'vassalage'.

At the moment I am gathering materials so that I can study in greater detail the period of the Northern Kingdom leading up to the Fall of Samaria. Scholars find this period most challenging and I freely admit that this is an area of chronology that I have paid little attention to .

It's no surprise that you find the subject 'challenging'.

Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy which was her life's work until her recent death. I am somewhat interested to read what Tetley has to say about the reign of Hoshea and apparently her Bibliograpphy is extremely valuable so wisdom dictates a more considered approach to this most vexing area of chronology.

It hardly matters how much 'name-dropping' you do, for you will simply ignore any sources that don't agree with WTS dogma. You're just a dishonest Watch Tower Society pawn.

Of course if you believe in Jeffro's nonsense then such research would be unnecessary because he has solve d all of the problems and is now a Master Chronologist. What a Joke!!

Idiot. I have indeed ably resolved the chronology for the entire period. And if that makes me a "Master Chronologist", well then, it is what it is. I've been honest enough to admit where my chart was wrong previously, researched the source material, and developed a chart that is even more superior to anything offered by the Watch Tower Society. You, on the other hand, can't let go of JW dogma, even when all the experts (whom you claim to respect) show that it's wrong.

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:

When one 'serves' as a slave or brought into swervitude into a foreign land, forced deportation or evacuation by a military force or conguering World Power, if that does not constitute an Exile then What does?

Have you even read Jeremiah chapter 27?! I already quoted it previously in this thread in case you're too lazy to look it up elsewhere. It explicitly states that exile was an alternative punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon. Is your problem rampant dishonesty, or plain old stupidity?!

You do not like the fact of the Exile because it disentangles your hypothesis, tearing it to shreds and you have the hide about being faithful to Scripoture. Please give me a break.

Idiot.

I have never said that the Bible says that there was a 'seventy year exile nor does the Bible say 'seventy years of Babylonian dominion' as you would suggest. These expressions are interpretations pure and simple in attempt to explain the biblical narrative.

Wrong. Jeremiah 25:12 says"these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Jeremiah 27:6-11 states that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile.

The focus from verse 16 of Jeremiah 29 is most certainly the King and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.You languish on about this chapter trying to make a point where there is none or making claims about this chapter that I have not stated. You forget that this chapter along with the rest of the book requires interpretation in order to construct the narrative for that piece of Jewish history. If you have a better narrative then go right a book for I amm perfectly happy with our understanding of matters

The Watch Tower Society interpretation cannot be reconciled with the context of the chapter. You're just wrong. I have already explained this very clearly.

Our rendering of verse 10 is contextually possible becaus ethe emphasis in the entire context is locative not purposive. In all 10 case where 'Babylon' is mentioned in this chapter has Babylon as a 'place'. End of story! Scholar has no issues with your summation at the end of that paragraph.

Babylon is mentioned eleven times in that chapter. At least four of those instances are not 'locative'. In any case, your 'reasoning' is specious because use of a word in a particular way doesn't preclude its use in another way elsewhere. And the Watch Tower Society's rendering isn't 'yours'—you're just a minion.

Arithmetic is important in doing chronology as long as you have 'sense' of the numbers.

I have resolved the entire period with respect to both scriptural and historical context.

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:

I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.

Yes you have. And you're wrong, as has already been thoroughly explained.

The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.

The Bible indicates that there were significantly more people taken into exile in 597BCE than in 587BCE.

What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.

Wrong. Continuing to ignore what is directly stated in Jeremiah 27 won't change the fact that serving Babylon didn't mean exile.

There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.

No, it's been shown thoroughly that you are wrong.

You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.

I have zero problems with the verse. You had to scramble for an explanation, deferring first to the abandoned Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971. Then, getting even more desperate, you appealed to The Kingdom of God is at Hand from 1944, which presents a quite different chronology to what the Watch Tower Society currently teaches. (In fact, the 1944 publication had Hoshea beginning to reign in Ahaz' actual 12th year and not the fictitious '12th year of vassalage' adoped later.)

It is interesting though that the 1944 publication had fewer discrepancies involving alignment of Judah and Israel than the JWs' current chronology. The current chronology has been adapted to have more discrepancies of a single year each, whereas the old chronology had a smaller number of more severe discrepancies.

Because it can be determined mathematically that Judah used Tishri-based years and Israel used Nisan-based years, differences in alignment by one year that are compatible with those dating systems are not shown.

Watch Tower chronology (1944)
Scripture	Discrepancy in alignment of numbered years for Judah and Israel
2 Kings 1:17	6 or 10*
2 Kings 15:8	10
2 Kings 15:13,17	10
2 Kings 15:23	10
2 Kings 15:27	10
2 Kings 18:9	1
2 Kings 18:10	1

Watch Tower chronology (current)
Scripture	Discrepancy in alignment of numbered years for Judah and Israel
1 Kings 15:25	1
1 Kings 15:28,33	1
1 Kings 16:8	1
1 Kings 16:15,21	1
1 Kings 16:22,23	1
1 Kings 16:29	1
1 Kings 22:51	1
2 Kings 1:17	2 or 5*
2 Kings 3:1	3
2 Kings 15:1	11
2 Kings 17:1	2 or 3 (if counting accession period)
2 Kings 18:9	1
2 Kings 18:10	1

*For both tables, asterisk indicates the discrepancy depends on whether alignment is compared to co-regency or sole reign.

The 1944 publication had a spurious interregnum prior to Uzziah's reign of about 11 years. Unsurprising, that chronology also extended the spurious period prior to Zechariah also incorporated that additional amount (plus that mentioned further below). In the newer chronology, the extra 10 years before Uzziah were redistributed between a number of kings, mostly with a difference of only 1 year each, making them less noticeable. This is disguised by inconsistently employing the accession-year system for only some kings. The manner in which this is done strongly suggests that the efforts to hide the flaws in Watch Tower Society chronology are deliberately deceptive. However, the newer chronology still has other more obvious unresolved alignment problems as shown above.

In the 1944 chronology, the spurious period prior to Hoshea was only 8 years instead of 10 years, which meant that the problem with Ahaz 14th year did not exist in the old chart. To maintain the difference of the Watch Tower Society's 20-year gap, the corresponding extra 2 years was added to the spurious period prior to Zechariah instead.

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 argument for the beginning and ending of the seventy years was and is always 'fuzzy' as I have repeatedly told you in the past.

You consider the date for the capture of Babylon in 539BCE to be 'fuzzy'?! You really don't know the subject very well, do you?!

That date is one of many well attested dates for the Neo-Babylonian period (though it's not as well attested as 587BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem). And it's a date your 'precious' Watch Tower Society agrees with. How the hell is that date 'fuzzy'?

Yet the end-point for 'your' 70 years is based entirely on speculation that has no basis in scripture, and actually contradicts scripture upon comparison of Ezra with Josephus.

There is also no doubt about the Babylonian defeat of Assyria in 609BCE. The final battle for Harran was in Elul (September) per BM 21901. Incidentally, Babylon also fell to Darius in September of 539BCE.

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:

Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation

'scholar' apparently imagines that it is technical that an event that starts earlier than another event is longer if both events end at the same time. No, 'scholar', that not technical. It's fundamentally obvious. No wonder he's scared of arithmetic.

but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty

Wrong. The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile. Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'. The Bible does not explicitly provide the total length of the exile (it is given implicitly as about 60 years, from February 597BCE until October 538BCE, including travel time). However, the Bible does indicate the length of the period of paying off the 'sabbaths' at Leviticus 25:8 (to which 2 Chronicles 36:21 alludes) which is synonymous with the '7 weeks' of Daniel 9:25. According to the Bible, that period—49 years—ran from October 587BCE (2 Kings 25:26-28) until October 538BCE (Ezra 1:1; 3:1).

because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon

Wrong. At the risk of repeating myself... Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'.

and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE.

Wrong. The 'desolation of the land' was when it 'rested', which was the period of 49 years already indicated above. The beginning of that period aligns with 587BCE—the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed, however the exile was counted from 597BCE (specifically, the exile is enumerated from the year that began Nisan 598, because the exile began prior to Nisan of 597).

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.

Many Jews remained in Babylon, with no special distinction of either group (though most people from both initial groups would have been already dead). The only meaningful period of return relevant to the context of Jeremiah 29 is when the Jews were first allowed to return to Jerusalem.

I hope this helps as you seem to be stuck on the figure '80'.

AnnOMaly is stuck in reality. This obviously makes 'scholar' uncomfortable. (Of course, AnnOMaly doesn't believe the exile lasted for 80 years, because she recognises that the year assigned by the Watch Tower Society for the main deportation to Babylon is wrong.)

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

cha ching:

Meanwhile, “these nations”, “all the nations”, “all these lands”, "many nations" let’s list the nations, (Jer 25:17-26) “will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”….. ALL of them…. Period….

Poor 'scholar' simply ignores the verses that are too problematic for the Watch Tower Society's dogma. Even when I quoted Jeremiah 27:6-11 and highlighted the part about how serving Babylon is an alternative to exile, he still sides with the lying Watch Tower Society against what the Bible actually says.

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'.