Posts by Jeffro

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

Jeffro

KateWild:

it is compelling evidence that it is more probable an intelligent Creator is responsible than not.

It's really not. Intrinsic behaviour of a substance doesn't necessitate an 'intelligent creator'. And it certainly has no bearing on the existence of a deity. And it's so far from the concept of a deity that 'requires' worship that it scarcely warrants mentioning at all.

Physicists can predict not only the behaviour of known elements but also the existence and behaviour of unknown ones. The behaviour of materials at the atomic level don't require any kind of 'direction' from an outside source.

It's fairly safe to say that more than 99.99% of the known universe is not suitable for life as we know it, and even much of our own planet is inhospitable, so there's very little reason to believe that the physical universe lends greater probability to the belief that humans are 'special' to an 'intelligent creator'.

Carbon doesn't behave in a 'more special' way than any other substance, and if the behaviour of carbon were to be seen as making an 'intelligent creator' 'more probable', then the same would be true of any element. Just because carbon has properties that are interesting or convenient (see anthropic principle), that lends no more 'support' to an 'intelligent creator' than do the properties of any other substance.

Saying that the properties of a physical substance is 'evidence' of 'God' (which you haven't gone as far as saying) would be like saying that someone doing a good deed is 'evidence' that they're a Christian.

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

Earlier I said:

The Watch Tower Society is entirely alone in its claim that Hoshea ruled 'in some sense' for 10 years before counting his reign as a 'vassal' to Tiglath Pileser III (whose reign hadn't actually even begun).

It should be obvious to anyone familiar with this subject, but in case there's any confusion for other readers, I mean that Tiglath-pileser III had not begun to reign when the Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea's 'recognised' reign began (748BCE). As seen in my chart, and consistent with secular sources for Assryian and Judean history, Tiglath-pileser III began his 18-year reign in 745BCE, about 15 years prior to the beginning of Hoshea's reign in late 731BCE.

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:

In respect to the correct transalation and interpretion of Jeremiah 29:10 ther is no problem for I can go either way. The immediate context proves the locative sense 'at' rather than 'for' and despite the fact that this verse has attracted much discussion it has remain unchanged in the new revised NWT. Game set and match!!

I've not only very clearly shown that the Watch Tower Society's "interpretion" of Jeremiah 29:10 is not only wrong, but also that their 2013 revision of the verse is even more damaging to the interpretation, because it betrays their arrogance and ignorance regarding the actual order of events indicated in the Bible.

Scholar does not do babble, simply replies to the issues raised.

Talking about yourself in the third person isn't doing much for your case.

Jeffro is the one who is inconsistent, fails to stick to the initial theme which propmpted my intervention in the first place and in case you have not noticed because of your blind support of Jeffro, the theme was the Reign of Hoshea and the NWT's rendering of 2 Kings 17:1. Now for several days he has moved the subject to the my favourite- the seventy years.

It's no difficulty for me to discuss both topics at once, becaues my table is consistent with the Bible all the way through. In any case, the seventy years are pertinent to the broader topic because the manipulation of the spurious period prior to the reign of Hoshea is part of the Watch Tower Society's efforts to make up the difference of 20 years in the Neo-Babylonian period, because they shift Ezekiel's period of 390 years. Are you having trouble keeping up? As I have already explained elsewhere: "In total, their chart extends the length of the reigns for the divided monarchy of Israel and Judah (after Solomon) by 68 years. It is no co-incidence that this discrepancy corresponds to the period from the supposed beginning of Jewish exile in 607 BCE until the actual end of Babylon’s 70 years in 539 BCE. The figures in their chronology are manipulated in order to apply the period of 390 years at Ezekiel 4:5 to the division of Judah and Israel until their date assigned for the fall of Jerusalem. However, when correctly accounting for the various co-regencies, the 390-year period actually runs from 929 BCE up until the end of Babylon’s 70 years in 539 BCE. ... There were actually only 50 years from the destruction of Jersualem until the year they assign for the Jews’ return, and therefore only 48 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the actual end of Babylon’s 70 years. However, the Watch Tower Society extends the lengths of reign of Judean kings by 68 years. To make up the difference of the missing period of approximately 20 years when aligning the reigns of Judah with those of Israel, spurious periods are inserted prior to the reigns of Zechariah (10.5 years) and Hoshea (9.5 years)."

I have read Stern's article but my copy is in some of the boxes but it has been posted and I see no problems with how it has been used.

We all know it's available online (as are the works of Josephus), so it's not clear why you keep resorting to the 'excuse' that 'your copy' is 'still in boxes'.

The article simply confirms the complete desolation of the land during the Babylonian period. Stern's dates for the period are different to ours and he finds no evidence for complete uninhabitation as Jeremiah foretold but thta is something that one one would not expect to be confirmed by the spade of the archaeologist. Overall, Stern's article was used correctly and is a positive contribution to WT chronology and interpretation.

The Watch Tower Society's selective quoting was entirely misleading. The fact that you don't understand that is further testiment to the damage done to you by your religious sect. Stern gives no support at all to 'WT chronology'. He indicated a period from the first regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar until the first regnal year of Cyrus (in Babylon), without any 'intention' of 'aligning' with the Watch Tower Society's foolish interpretation of the '70 years'. Stern states that much of Judea was uninhabited during the Neo-Babylonian period, but explicitly states that it was not entirely uninhabited. Once again, you're left claiming that a secular source 'must just be 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

scholiar:

In other words your pretty chart is simply a contrivance designed to mislead and to deceive people base on unsound scholarship.

Having completely ignored much of the substance of my previous replies, 'scholar' resorts to petty insults. Though the Watch Tower Society's chronology is entirely unsupported by scholarship, he claims that my chart is "unsound". He is yet to point out anything in my chart that contradicts scripture. He is therefore only left with being able to make claims about interpretations, but he is not on solid ground to do so.

Your sources are based on Encyclopedias and not on serious reference works on Chronology so in other words it is amateurish.

Another trite attack. My sole source for the reigns of Judah and Israel is the Bible, which is entirely apt for compiling a chart of biblical reigns. Indeed, what would be the point of demonstrating that the Bible on its own is consistent with secular history if I were to merely copy the biblical reigns from other sources?? Encyclopedias were used for providing the years assigned by scholars for the reigns of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Tyre.

Our scheme of chronology is most certainly based on the Bible because it presents the reign of Hoshea accurately which your scheme does not, you mention the two texts in 2 Kings which deal with his reign but you do not treat these texts properly as do many other chronologists.

Various sources come up with an 8-year interregnum prior to Hoshea actually reigining over Israel. However, my reckoning for the reign of Hoshea is not only supported by the actual original text but also has support from scholarly sources. (However, my decision was based on analysis of the dating systems and not in deference to external sources.) The Watch Tower Society is entirely alone in its claim that Hoshea ruled 'in some sense' for 10 years before counting his reign as a 'vassal' to Tiglath Pileser III (whose reign hadn't actually even begun).

Further, your presentation of the seventy years is one-sided ignoring the Exile and period of desolation.

My chart is entirely compatible with the Bible, including its very clear statements that the 70 years was a a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon, and that nations could remain in their own land by serving Babylon. The period of exile I have indicated is also fully compatible with secular sources.

You say that you base your application of 2 Kings 17:1 on the original text and Bible commentaries. You are no Hebrew scholar so your comment is meaningless unless you can explain what the Hebrew means and please list those commentaries that you claim to have read. Sources please!!

I can read a concordance and an interlinear. It is not necessary to be a 'Hebrew scholar' to do this. The original text does not say 'began to reign'. My decision to render Hoshea's reign was based solely on the Bible, in view of the context of the passage and compatibility with other verses that refer to Hoshea. However, my reckoning for the reign of Hoshea is not in any way novel or unique. I have support for my reckoning from the broadly accepted history of Hoshea's reign by historians, as well as the Pulpit Commentary, Gill's Exposition, and the Assyrian Eponym Canon; this is not an exhaustive list. The Watch Tower Society has no secular support for its claim about Hoshea's reign starting when he 'became a vassal' after 10 years of 'ruling in some sense'.

There is indeed additional evidence for the vassalage of Hoshea and that is confirmed by Jewish chronology namely the Seder Olam my copy of which is in boxes. Dan Green in his Sacred Chronology Of The Hebrew Kings makes reference to this on a chart, p.25. The note therein states that Hoshea was a vassal king to Tilgath-Pileser for eight years ruling fro Gilead before becoming king of all Israel ruling from Samaria in Ahaz' 12th year.

You're really not paying attention are you?! So I'll say it again: "Dan Bruce actually claims the exact opposite to what is claimed in the Watch Tower Society version. The Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea ruled in Israel during what you call the 'interregnum', and that his reign was 'recognised' only when he was appointed as a 'vassal' later. Bruce suggests that Hoshea was a vassal in Gilead prior to officially becoming king of Israel in Samaria." And why have you changed Dan Bruce's surname to Green?!

So Dan Bruce nicely supports the fact of an interregnum for the reign of Hoshea but he does not support WT chronology nor Jeffro's pretty list.

Bruce suggests an 8-year interregnum, but gives no support for starting Hoshea's reign relative to a later period of 'vassalage'.

As have said if you are going to quote Tetley then you should read it not simple use snippets from Google. If you choose access to it in a piecemeal way then perhaps you can try to locate her reference to Hoshea's reign and confirm whether there is a interregnum after the death of Pekah.

The 'snippets from Google' were actually portions of her book available on Google Books, not merely references to her name on Google. I certainly don't have to get a book just because you think I should, and you don't decide what sources set the 'benchmark' for 'serious study'; plus, none of the sources you've suggests support JW chronology anyway. In early versions of my chart I considered the possibility of an interregnum prior to the reign of Hoshea; further analysis of the relative dating systems confirmed that the possibility can be dismissed.

What the Bible clearly indicates that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude to Babylon for anything short of this simply deconstructs the seventy years making the period meaningless as Rainer Albertz in his study of the Exile notes. The fact of Exile means everything to this catastrophe in Jewish history.

You continue to simply avoid what the Bible actually says, and instead parrot Watch Tower Society dogma. I have already very clearly indicated that the Bible does not indicate 70 years of exile, but that it in fact explicitly indicates that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile. The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

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:

Every time you post some so-called obvious error, scholar refutes it nicely.

Really? When? Are you posting on a forum I'm not aware of?

Also, I haven't heard from you here or here or here or here or here or here.

Your argument that somehow becaus eof numbers that the Exile only commenced with the first deportation is nonsense for the facts clearly show that in terms of consequences the Exile proper could only commence with the second deporatation at the Fall thus beginning the seventy years of Exile.

Your waffling run-on sentence has no basis in scripture or history.

Stern has not been misquoted at all.

More accurately, he was quoted out of context.

What I would like to know is whether you have a copy of Stern's article and actually read it?

If I say yes, what is your response? If I say no, what is your response? Does it really make any difference? Hence, I see no reason to respond to such tedious requests from you. However, the fact that I have quoted his article beyond what the Watch Tower Society provided might give you a clue.

Yes! Babylon as with Judah did in fact become places of devastation 'without an inhabitant'. It is good to see that you are trying to be faithful to Jeemiah's prophecies.No it is not hyperbole for Jeremiah' language is quite specific and descriptive confirmed by the facts of history and archaeology. Next moment you will be arguing that the Exile was hyperbolic. LOL

Idiot. Babylon is still inhabited. The protected 'uninhabited' World Heritage area is only a few hundred metres across. Or do you allege that 'Babylon' is only that small area? If so, I guess the exile (and Babylon itself) must have been hyperbolic. I wonder if the 1.5 million people living in Babylon province or the 370,000 people in its capital (Hillah, a few kilometres from the old ruins) know that it's uninhabited?

The text in Jeremiah 44;14 does not say that at all for it simply states that some escapees would return but that does not mean that these would dwell in the land for Jeremiah excluded any possibility of dwelling or inhabiting the land.

Such a liar. "even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; for they will not return, except some escaped ones.’”"

I disagree there were at least two deportations to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzer, both of which involved an exile for those captives.

It's not clear with what you're disagreeing. I correctly stated that the Bible indicates three deportations, and you say there were "at least two". You do know that 3 is more than 2, don't you?!

The greater Exile was commensurate with the seventy years after the Fall in 607 BCE. For example Zedekiah was captured, blinded and taken to Babylon.

The destruction of Jerusalem's temple in 587BCE was considered a great event. But the greater exile occurred in 597BCE, at which time Jerusalem's king, Jehoiachin, was also taken into exile and imprisoned. Being blinded has no bearing on the 'greatness' of an exile. The greater exile is described at 2 Kings 24:12-14: "At length Je·hoi′a·chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king. 13 Then he brought out from there all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house, and went on to cut to pieces all the gold utensils that Sol′o·mon the king of Israel had made in the temple of Jehovah, just as Jehovah had spoken. 14 And he took into exile all Jerusalem and all the princes and all the valiant, mighty men—ten thousand he was taking into exile—and also every craftsman and builder of bulwarks. No one had been left behind except the lowly class of the people of the land."

Yes! Serving Babylon as punishment meant Exile, the captives were in Babylon in servitude to Babylon and remained therein until the seventy years expired in 537 BCE. They could have avoided this punishment but they did not because gthey were a naughty people soff they went into punishment-exile-servitude alltogether. All of those elements and consequences which also involved other nations were all determined and fulfilled in the duration of that specified period of seventy years.

Your claim bears no resemblance to what the Bible actually says. Again: The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

It is you that ignore Josephus and the seventy years by not focussing on the other seventy year texts. At this stage i am not bothered by his 182.5 years because my copy is in boxes so will give it attention later.

I have previously expressly commented on every reference Josephus makes to the 70 years. It could hardly be said that I've 'ignored' it. How many years have you had to 'give attention' to the 182.5 years mentioned by Josephus?! The works of Josephus are available in full online.

Jeremiah simply quoted the passage in Leviticus and Ezra simply quoted Jeremiah. End of story.

No. He didn't. He just didn't. But you're welcome to show where Jeremiah supposedly quoted the passage.

The fact of the matter is that you do not like the thought that the land had to pay off its sabbaths for seventy years and this could only be done if it was left alone undisturbed by naughty people.

Such an interpretation is simply not consistent with the other scriptures that mention the 70 years. I've previously provided more detail about the passage here.

Our chronololgy has no 'brush fires' but yours does and so does the chronologies of Christendom's chronologists. The big bush fire for you is the seventy years.

If you're still going with the 'fire' analogy, I suppose the situation for the Watch Tower Society's burnt out chronology is the result of an epic firestorm rather than 'brush fires'. I've started varous threads on this forum inviting apologists to explain various problems with their chronology, and some of them the apologists haven't even been willing to touch. I have dealt with the subject of the 70 years in detail, and have no problems with it whatsoever. The superstitious numerology presented by the Watch Tower Society is simply wrong, and I've ably shown that to many readers.

Flattery and compliments will get you nowhere with me.

O... K...

Jerusalem and Judah were a devastated place at the beginning of the seventy years in 607 and lasted as such for the duration as descibed by Daniel who of course quoted Jeremiah in Daniel 9:2. and such a miserable state of affairs is well attested in the prayer by Daniel as recorded in that same chapter for clearly he is referring to the past awaiting shortly for the expiration of the seventy years.

There is no basis at all for the claim that Daniel was "awaiting shortly the expiration" of the period. Jeremiah 29:10-14 clearly indicates the order of events, and that order of events is only consistent with Daniel indicating repentence after the 70 years had already ended.

Do you pray like Daniel? Are you a person of prayer?

Are you hoping to write the next My Book of Bible Stories or something?

The Bible also explicitly states that the Land of Judah would also lie desolate for seventy years

Actually, it doesn't. Despite the poor punctuation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 provided in the NWT (and various other translations), the quote from Leviticus is not part of the word of Jeremiah. The context of the 70 years of all the nations serving Babylon, which they could do in their own land, is simply not compatible with 70 years of exile. Especially since most of the Jews "except the lowly class of the people of the land" were already exiled prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

and that the Jews exiled in Babylon would remain therein in servitude to Babylon as Exiles for seventy years. And during this period other nations too would also be in servitude to Babylon.

There's nothing remarkable about Jews going into exile that would commence servitude of other nations to Babylon. The Watch Tower Society's silly belief that conquering Jerusalem—a minor kingdom—somehow made Nebuchadnezzar 'above all the nations' is not only plainly ridiculous, but also contradicts the story of Nebuchadnezzar's '7 years of madness'.

With respects to Tyre we cannot be dogmatic or certaing about the precise timeframe of seventy years for that city. The Bible and secular history does not give precise information for this event.

And yet you can be dogmatic about the return of the Jews in (supposedly) 537? I see you've ignored the 'problem' of Egypt's '40 years' altogether, as well as the attempts by other JW apologists to 'defend' it with 'reasoning' that contradicts even the Watch Tower Society.

Why don't you make your chart public? i would love to compare your 'detailed chart' with that of the detailed charts in the book by Dan Bruce and see how the synchronisms are treated.

Huh? My chart is already available online. And you already have it. I have already clearly stated the purpose of my chart, which is to indicate that the biblical history is not incompatible with secular history. However, I do not guarantee that there are no errors in the biblical accounts.

The Jews could not have served Babylon as exiles in their own land because the land had to become a devastated place so they had to be removed to Babylon to await the end of their exile.

The Bible does not say that the land was devastated for seventy years.

Judah came under the yoke of Babylon during the eight year of his reign in 620 BCE which was the beginning of his three year vassalship to Nebuchadnezzer ending in the first deportation in 617 BCE.

Despite the NWT's ambiguous/misleading rendering of 2 Kings 24:12, the first exile was in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Aside from the fact that counting reigns from some separate 'vassalage' is entirely fictitious, comparison of the scriptural account with BM 21946 very readily shows that Watch Tower Society interpretation to be absolutely impossible. For a start, the Watch Tower Society's chronology makes Jehoiakim's 'three years' of 'vassalage' too short. Consistent with the Bible (and my chart), BM 21946 indicates that Jehoiakim paid tribute for three years (starting 604BCE), then Nebuchadnezzar went to war with Egypt (601BCE), then Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute (early 600BCE). After Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute, the chronicles goes on to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar remained in Babylon for a year to muster his troops (600BCE [starting Nisan]), then Nebuchadnezzar sent the 'marauder bands' of 2 Kings 24:2 (599BCE), and then the siege began (598BCE); the Watch Tower Society ineptly tries to cram all of the events after Jehoiakim's refusal to pay tribute into late 598BCE. This animation shows how the Watch Tower Society's chronology is inconsistent with BM 21946 (beyond the '20-year gap').

I as well reply with specifics and read and research widely.

Cherry-picking the bits you like from secular sources that in fact give no support at all to flawed Watch Tower Society chronology while still claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE is not honest 'research'. You scarcely quote scriptures to back your claims, and when you do, you're readily shown to be wrong. I continue to show from actual scriptures as well as other sources the problems with the Watch Tower Society's flawed chronology, and you continue to spout uncited assertions that contradict scripture.

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:

At long last you finally admit to chronologists including us has their own methodologies.

Idiot. I have often pointed out that you usually use the word methodology incorrectly. I have never claimed that various sources do not have their own methodologies.

All others describe the sources for their work and the principles of methods that they choose. You should do the same: Present a list of sources in a Bibliography and describe your method. This is what Dan Bruce has done in a recently published detailed books: Sacred Chronology of The Hebrew Kings and Synchronized Chronology Of Ancient Kingdoms, Oct, 2013. His work does not reflect any influence by Seventh Day Adventists, Watchtower or Rolf Furuli and others according to his website. It is his own personal research drawing upon the work of other chronologists such as Tetley, Thiele, Ussher, Albright, Orthodox Judaism, Hays and Hooker, Hughes, Gali, Rogerson, Young. Jones and Mc Fall.

My work on this subject is independent, I receive no payment for my work, and I am under no obligation to anyone or any belief system. However, I am happy to respond to sincere questions and suggestions about any 'editorial' decision I've made in my charts or articles.

His presentation of the reign of Hoshea nicely agrees with us showing a interregnum and the vassalship of Hoshea. The date sof course differ between his chronology and ours but they also differ to yours as well as many of the others listed above as shown in a Table of respected kingdom chronologists on page 12.

Dan Bruce actually claims the exact opposite to what is claimed in the Watch Tower Society version. The Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea ruled in Israel during what you call the 'interregnum', and that his reign was 'recognised' only when he was appointed as a 'vassal' later. Bruce suggests that Hoshea was a vassal in Gilead prior to officially becoming king of Israel in Samaria. So the fact remains that no external source gives support to the Watch Tower Society's claim that 'official' reign starts from a period of 'vassalage'. It's extraordinarily sloppy of you to get all excited just because an external source happened to use the word 'vassal'.

Bruce gives no support at all to the Watch Tower Society's superstitious beliefs about 607BCE.

Your name is not listed as a 'respected kingdom chronologist'. Why is that?

I have made no attempt to be 'recognised' as a 'respected kingdom chronologist'. I show Watch Tower Society chronology to be the fraudulent rubbish that it is in my spare 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

scholiar:

At least I am being honest and transparaent with nothing to fear or hide, not afraid to read the works of others. Your view of chronology is far too narrow to be of any value.

Hilarious. I'm certainly not afraid to read other sources. As I have told you many times, my chart is based on the Bible for the analysis of JW doctrines that are supposedly based on the Bible, so it is neither suitable nor necessary to base the years for reigns of Judah or Israel in my chart on the work of other scholars. I have clearly stated in my article about JWs and 1914 that "Years for the Jewish reigns in the linked chart are strictly applied as stated in the Bible, and may differ from those assigned by modern historians." A few years ago, I was encouraged by AnnOMaly to perform a decision-table analysis. After I established definitely that Judah used Tishri-based dating for reigns, it was readily apparent that various alignments in old versions of my chart were not possible (humorously, those were the aspects that were most similar to Watch Tower Society chronology), and the result was that I greatly improved the accuracy of my chart, especially in regard to various co-regencies. Not only is my chart fully consistent with the Bible, but also with the history of contemporaneous nations. Unlike you, I don't have to be 'afraid' of or try to 'discredit' the dates that professional historians and scholars have assigned to individuals such as Hiram I of Tyre; Shoshenq I, Osorkon IV, Taharqa, Necho II, Hophra and Amasis II of Egypt; Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmeser IV, Sargon II, Sennacherib and Esar-haddon of Assyria; Merodach-baladan of Babylon; all of the Neo-Babylonian kings; or Xerxes I and Xerxes II or Persia (I have charted but not published the Persian period after Darius I). Every single one of these figures notable for being contemporaneous with biblical accounts is consistent with my chart.

When I said that your work was based on Thiele I assumed that you would have had Thiele on hand but now I am not sure because you make a lot of claims as to your chronology being your own work having consulted other reference works but you have never listed your sources. So why don't you now list your sources for your scheme?

Once again pseudo-scholar shows himself to be the liar he is. I have indicated on this forum many times that my source material for the chart was the Bible for the kings of Judah and Israel, coupled with my own knowledge of the dating systems. (I've known of the dating systems for quite some time and consider that general knowledge, and I could not possible remember specifically when I learned about them.) Details for the reigns of other nations, as I have also previously indicated on this forum, were taken from various sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, and Josephus. I also consulted various Bible translations and commentaries, as well as Strong's Bible Concordance.

Saying that your chronology is consistent with the Bible is meaningless because there are many Bible chronologies out there all making the same claim but all have different dates. Making a claim proves nothing for it is the substance that counts and so far you are not looking too good. JW chronology is also consistent with the Bible, secular history and archaeology an dit is the only scheme that works because it is the only scheme that factors in the 'seventy years'.

I do not merely assert that my chart is consistent with the Bible, but I have also clearly shown where the Watch Tower Society's chronology is not consistent with the Bible. The fact that my chart presents a chronology that is consistent with the Bible simply demonstrates that the Watch Tower Society's claims that 'Bible chronology' is not compatible with the 'traditional chronology' is a lie.

Reading extracts of Tetley on Google is hardly a proper reading of her research and if this reflects your research methodology then no wonder it is such a mess and does not harmonize with the Bible. If you have read Teteley then what precisely did she say about the reign of Hoshea. Did she endorse a interregnum between the death of Pekan -2Kings 15:30 and the offical start of Hoshea's reign- 2 Kings 17:1?

When you say "does not harmonize with the Bible", of course you mean 'does not harmonise with JW dogma'. My decision to show Hoshea's reign ending in Ahaz' 12th year (including a period of rivalry until Jotham's 20th year) is supported by the original text and also by various Bible commentaries (which I confirmed only afterwards). You are yet to provide any evidence of any external support for the Watch Tower Society's claim that both Hoshea's and Ahaz' reigns were enumerated based on a separate 'vassalage' (obviously 19th century Adventist sources would not constitute 'external support' because they are the source of the spurious JW chronology). Tetley suggests (incorrectly) an interregnum (but not a 'period of reign prior to vassalage') of 8 years between Pekah and Hoshea. She provides no support for the claim that Hoshea 'really' started in Ahaz' 14th year (15th including the accession year arbitrarily excluded by the Watch Tower Society's chronology for only a few kings of the divided monarchy*).
*The reason the Watch Tower Society inconsistently claims that some reigns 'evidently' were 'counted from the following year', making several separate differences of a single year, is actually to make less noticable the fact that they have to make up for discrepancies between reigns of Judah and Israel that would otherwise be too obvious. See the tables earlier in this thread about the much more obvious discrepancies of ten years that were indicated in the Watch Tower Society's chronology in 1944.

i have not made any comments about her book because I have not read it but you are the one that is so knowledgeable about it because you claim to have read it on Google so perhaps you can be honest and reveal what you know. All that I know is that Tetley views are significant and her contribution to the subject of the Divided Monarchy is invaluable and must be at least consulted by anyone who seeks to do chronology.

Though I've only done a cursory examination at this stage, I've already done more consulting of her work than you have. I'm certainly not going to buy a copy just to placate you. The full book isn't available on Google Books, but the content is searchable and the context of her comments about Hoshea can be easily verified. So if you want to make claims about what Tetley says, try to be honest, because it will be easy to verify your lies.

As I said what we have in common within scholarship is a controversial chronology that has got people talking and discussing and that is what we are doing right now. You are forced to confront our chronology and that is why you have produced a website and scheme in an attempt to debunk WT Bible chronology.

I wouldn't call it 'confronting'. I (and others) have demolished the Watch Tower Society's chronology. I've indicated not only that it is wrong, but how (many specific discrepancies) and why (to prop up superstitious numerology) it is wrong. I have produced a website for the benefit of others, because some people might otherwise be tempted to just 'go along with' Watch Tower Society lies because they may feel that the topic is 'just too complicated'. There's hardly even any sport in trouncing your drivel, and your continued use of 'we' and 'our' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's chronology is pathetic, because you are merely a parrot. The Watch Tower Society is a bit like the metaphorical 'deceptive serpent' (yes, it's a metaphor - the fairytale about the talking snake and magical fruit isn't real); it's more scared of me than I am of it.

You have shown nothing for the seventy years was indeed a Exile, The Exile of seventy years.

Once again, your assertion is not based on anything at all. The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14), etc.

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:

There is no obvious error in our interpretation of this verse and the entire chapter and the entire book of Jeremiah. You have your interpretation of matters and we have ours so let us agree to disagree.

There are many obvious errors. I've pointed out just a few of them in this thread. As usual, you're unable to focus on specific texts.

When obvious questions are put to you then you run and hide only shaping when it suits you. It is simply a joke to argue that the first deportation was a greater Exile to that of the second deportation when the Monarchy had not yet been removed and Jerusalem was a going concern.

'What is the population of Jersualem at the time of the fall?' is not an 'obvious question'. It's a stupid and irrelevant question. Firstly, you don't know what the population of Jerusalem was in 587. Secondly, many of the people were killed, and the number deported is indicated in the Bible to be less than in the exile of 597.

Have you read Ephraim Stern's article? Do you have it to hand? Are you up to date with the latest findings of archaeology for Judah during the Neo-Babylonian Period? The WT article on this subject was correct in quoting Stern and if memory serves me coreetly there was another source quoted that you fail to mention.

Stern makes reference to the period from Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year until Cyrus's first regnal year in Babylon; however, the Watch Tower Society dishonestly quoted him out of context to imply that Stern 'actually' was referring to the '70 years' as used in JW dogma. Further, Stern actually states (but the Watch Tower Society omits), "I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period." As I previously indicated elsewhere, Stern has stated that he was misquoted in the article.

The Bible says that Judah was emptied of its population 'without an inhabitant' so that is good enough for me so if you are so pedantic about Jeremiah then how about being faithful in connection with these many clear statements about the future state of the land of Judah.

Jeremiah also says that Babylon would be without an inhabitant. The use of the phrase is clearly hyperbole. Babylon remained populated not only after it was conquered in 539BCE, but it is still populated. Additionally, Jeremiah 44:14 indicates that there would be some inhabitants of Judah who would return their from Egypt.

If you agree that there was a Jewish Exile then please describe how many if more than one and the time period for such an Exile/s?

Sigh. Aren't you supposed to know this stuff already?? There were exilic deportations in 597BCE, 587BCE and 582BCE. (This does not include slaves given in tribute.) According to the Bible, by far the majority were taken in the first deportation. Many people were killed in 587BCE, but that has no bearing on exiles.

I have never said that the Bible says that there was a seventy year exile for it does not in using that statement. What I have and do say that the Bible when it describes the seventy years its description is of Exile along with servitude and desolation in keeping with the expanation of all the other 'seventy year texts and the historical circumstances. In short, the Bible implicitly means Exile.

The Bible explicitly indicates that serving Babylon was how nations could avoid exile. An interpretation that asserts that the Bible 'implies' something that it explicitly contradicts is obviously wrong.

You are being 'fast and loose' with Josephus for it galls you to admit that Josephus and WT are on the same page when it comes to the seventy years and you should be honest and leave it at that.

You continue to ignore what Josephus actually says. Ho hum. Still waiting for your explanation of the 182.5 years indicated by Josephus. The number is very specific, and I've shown it to be correct. The error in the Watch Tower Society's chronology also cannot explain it away by just 'adding 20' either, because the 2.5 years would remain a problem.

Don't you think that Jeremiah was able to source Leviticus in reference to land paying off its sabbaths if in fact Ezra did not directly quote Leviticus.

Jeremiah might have been 'able to source' any number of things. He probably knew the price of sheep and how to make good matzo too. The fact remains that he didn't mention them in his book. It is absolutely 100% certain that Ezra could not quote something from the book of Jeremiah that does not appear in the book of Jeremiah. It is extremely obvious that the phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (NWT) at 2 Chronicles 36:21 is in reference to Leviticus 26:34, which says, "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated". Jeremiah never says anything remotely similar.

What we do know that Ezra directly quoted Jeremiah who quoted Leviticus or Ezra quoted both of them . What does it matter?

Paying off sabbaths is not 'the word of Jeremiah'. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. There's nothing from Jeremiah for Ezra to quote that statement. It isn't there. But then again, honesty and context have never really mattered much to you.

The fact of the matter is that both Ezra and Jeremiah were concerned about the land paying offits sabbaths and it did over the period of seventy years.

Jeremiah never mentions 'the land paying off its sabbaths'. There is no basis for your claim that he was 'very concerned' about it. Jeremiah is extremely clear that the '70 years' were a period of all the nations serving Babylon, which they should do in order to avoid exile.

All that you seem able to do is start small brush fires everywhere which are simply minor distractions so that you can bash WT chronology and publicize your pretty charts and website.

What you call 'small brush fires' are actually many problems with the superstitious JW numerology, none of which have the likes of you or other Watch Tower cronies been able to 'extinguish'. It's certainly true that I've collected useful information to show some of the many errors in JW dogma, however my site is by far not the only source for completely disproving the Watch Tower Society's lies.

Its all huffing and puffing with you with smoke and mirrors.

It's funny how you regard direct quotations in their original context as 'smoke and mirrors'. As I've stated previously, you really are an interesting case-study into the mind of a thoroughly deluded victim of a religious sect.

Yes I agree that the seventy years was a period wherein the bible explicitly states that all of the nations would serve Babylon and that the Exile was a punishment that refused to serve Babylon. However, you miss the obvious and explicit fact that the Bible also in these very same verse states explicitly that Judah would be devastated also for seventy years.

The Bible actually indicates that Jerusalem would become devastated by the end of Babylon's 70 years. The Bible does not say that there would be 70 years of devastation. Even worse, the Watch Tower Society's claim that the 'repentance' offered in Daniel 9 is set before the end of the 70 years contradicts the order of events indicated at Jeremiah 29:10-14: 70 years ends, then the Jews repent, then they're allowed to go home.

Hence, one can easily note that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation. What the Bible does not say explicitly as how the nations apart from Judah were punished, there are no specific details nor specific timeframe for any other nation apart from Judah.

The Bible very explicitly states that all the nations were subject to Babylon for seventy years. The Bible also explicitly states that exile would only be a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon, which they could do in their own land. Jeremiah chapter 25 is quite clear that whilst the seventy years would have a definite end point, the calamity would go from nation to nation, which obviously affected different nations at different times. The calamity, which would include exile for nations that resisted, is therefore not the same as the seventy years.

Isaiah did make reference to Tyre in respect of a seventy year period but its actuality in history is not fully expalined in the context of a seventy year period.

The Watch Tower Society's very own Isaiah's Prophecy publication (page 253) states: "True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination" It's bleedingly obvious that the seventy years ended in 539BCE. The '70 years for Tyre' and the '40 years for Egypt' have been bones of contention for JW apologists (particularly the apparently silent individual calling himself 'thirdwitness' who ventures 'explanations' that contradict even the Watch Tower Society's own teachings) , but I've correctly indicated these periods in my chart along with the correct explanations in the associated article.

Constructing a chronology for Neo-Babylonian Period that is compatible with WT chronology is possible but according to Furuli's research it would be somewhat problematic so as the saying goes:'Houston, We have a problem'.

I have constructed a detailed chart (for my own use) of the Watch Tower Society's chronology based only on its claims. I have included the weasley 'explanations' they attempt for 'resolving' some of the conflict, though some still remain. The internal anomalies present in their chronology are bad enough, but once they're compared with the contemporaneous history of other nations, the Watch Tower Society's chronology is a sheer embarrassment. It's little wonder that the Watch Tower Society is not willing to assign definite years to Assyrian, Babylonian or Egyptian kings. As it is, they have to devote the great majority of Insight's section on Chronology to (poorly) raising 'doubt' about 'secular history' that shows Watch Tower dogma to be impossible. Furuli has been thoroughly debunked by his peers.

If you argue that from 605 BCE the seventy years had already commence which constituted by your definition 'serving Babylon' then what would be th point of Jeremiah as recorded in chapter 27 pleading the Jews to avoid punishment by serving Babylon when in fact they were already in servitude so their punishment had already begun? This does not make sense at all for it is obvious that a far greater punishment with far greater consequences such as exile, deportation awaited them.

Huh? It sounds like you still haven't read it?! Jeremiah chapter 27 doesn't plead with them to avoid serving Babylon. He tells them to serve Babylon specifically so they could avoid exile and remain in their own land. It's blatantly obvious that serving Babylon in their own land was presented as an alternative to exile. Interestingly, Jeremiah 27:1 introduces the context of serving Babylon by indicating that Babylon's 'yoke' was first imposed in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign. This is viewed by some as a copyist's error, but various commentaries suggest that the prophecy was indeed dated to the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but that it was sent out during Zedekiah's reign. Either way, the chapter lends no support for the Watch Tower Society's view. Jeremiah 28:12-14 further indicates that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under the 'yoke' of Babylon, but that it would get worse.

Your pleadings about your interpetations being this or that is simply gibberish because I can simply reply in kind.

I've replied with specifics. You continue with vague assertions and outright lies.

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:

Tetley as with Thiele have their own specific methodology in developing a chronology for the Divided Monarchy, We too have our own specific methodology which differs from Tetley and Thiele and that is why the chronologies differ. That is the point of agrrement: that her methodology is different-she has chosen to be different. What is wrong with you for you seem to struggle with the concept of methodology despite the fact that I have tried to bring it to the fore on many occasions.

You probably don't realise just how stupid your comments are. The chronology I have provided of the biblical kings is based on my own research of the original texts. So I too have 'dared to be different'. Even worse for you, I've independently arrived at a chronology that is compatible with both the Bible and the secular history of other contemporaneous nations, without even trying. In contrast, the Watch Tower Society has to pitifully claim that Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian sources all independently have the same 'errors' because they all disagree with JW numerology in the same places.

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:

If you are going to have any credibility for your work in chronology you should have a copy of Tetley or at least intend to get one.

It's amusing how pseudo-scholar includes intending to get a copy of the book in his made-up 'requirements' because he doesn't actually have a copy either.

By the way have you got and read Thiele for I assume that you have if not then the former statement applies. If you have neither books then you have no business with chronology for your opinions will remain foolish and amateurish.

Idiot. You've previously claimed my work is based on Thiele but you also claim I'm not familiar with it. Make up your mind. As it happens, I have always stated that the chronology I have provided is consistent with the Bible (the alleged basis for JW doctrines). For that purpose, it is not necessary to ensure correlation with other scholars who present details not consistent with the Bible. I do not claim that those scholars are wrong, but if they are right and do not agree with the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong, making JW chronology entirely irrelevant anyway.

If you have not read Tetley then you cannot say in what way or manner she does not support WT chronology. I would anticipate that she does not but I would not be surprised because of her respect for the Bible that we would be be on the same page in some areas such as the interregnum for the reign of Hoshea.
If you have not read Tetley then you cannot make any relevant comment on her book or as to whether she did or did not traet the subject of 'vassalage' respecting the reigns of the Divided Monarchy.

As I have already told you, I've read portions of the book relevant to Hoshea that are available on Google Books. Tetley most certainly does not support WT chronology, as I have already specified. Also, you're a hypocrite, because you were the one to start making comments about her book, which you have not read.

We simply have in in common the fact that our research is controversial amongst scholars. That is all.

Wrong. 'You' (actually, the Watch Tower Society, not 'you', its minion) assert a ridiculous chronology in order to attempt to prop up superstitious numerology. This is not at all the case with most scholars.

You say that she supports 587 BCE but no doubt it would be interesting to read how she discusses the 586/587 controversy along with the date for the Fall of Samaria and of course whether she discusses the biblical 'seventy years'.

I have already shown very clearly that the biblical 'seventy years' is not a period of exile.