usualusername:
They are Christians
'Christians' and 'naughty humour' are not mutually exclusive.
Posts by Jeffro
-
25Naughtiness in my bathroom
by usualusername ini have some guests coming over to spend xmas with me for a couple of days.
they are my friends family and i have a larger place than them and am playing host.. dilemma.
they are christians and i have some postcards in my bathroom that are slightly naughty.
-
-
Jeffro
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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:
The knowledge I have in my personal experience increases the probability of a intelligent Creator
I guess Ultimate Axiom beat me to it, but it deserves mentioning again...
You clearly do not understand probability.
Asserting that the structure of carbon 'makes something more likely' has no actual effect on the probability of anything at all. I could just as easily assert that the structure of carbon makes UFOs or fairies or bunyips 'more likely'.
It's my understanding that if you have more evidence of one thing than another then one thing is more proabable than the other.
The only facts you've shown are some properties of carbon; you haven't provided any evidence of anything else.
-
6
Divine Name display at Watchtower
by mindnumbed inthis is being shared on facebook.
the beginning says "bible showcase" brooklyn, ny.. http://secure.smilebox.com/ecom/openthebox?sendevent=4d7a67794f4455784d7a493d0d0a&blogview=true&campaign=blog_playback_link&partner=msn.
-
-
Jeffro
Are we seriously expected to believe that the Watch Tower Society has the Moabite Stone? It, and probably everything else on display there, is a copy. The original is in the Louvre.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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:
Because I am more religious than an atheist.
And I'm taller than a midget.
It is however, more probable to conclude there is a Creator. In as far as the laws of probabilities are concerned, there is compeling evidence just in the structure of carbon to promote a high probability of an intelligent Creator.
Except that it's not. The structure of carbon has no bearing at all on the probability of the existence of an 'intelligent creator'. It's just a rhetorical assertion.
-
112
Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?
by KateWild inso 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 inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
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 inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
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 inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
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 inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
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 inthe 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.
in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.
in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.
-
-
Jeffro
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.
