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.
Fisherman:
Let me cut to the chase here. It is about trust.
If you don't trust textual analysis, then you must come back to basic logic. The Watch Tower Society insists on 607BCE to prop up an entirely ridiculous numerological superstition about 1914, and lies about what Charles Taze Russell said prior to 1914. Even if you ignore all the biblical evidence, there is no basis to trust an end-times sect that has lied about its own history.
Anyway, gotta go.
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.
scholiar:
Chronology is all about interpretation and of course so is the Bible.
Interpretation is certainly involved, but it is not the only thing. When an interpretion is internally contradictory, it can be dismissed as wrong. The Watch Tower Society's interpretation contradicts what the Bible actually says about the '70 years', and it contradicts what is known by all secular sources.
You ask what is the correct interpretation? The answer is fairly simple. Which system is the simplest, easy to understand?
The Watch Tower Society's twisted chronology is hardly the 'easiest to understand'. They make stupid claims about a king's 'first' year being when they paid tribute to a particular foreign king. Even worse, they pretend that Nebuchadnezzar's 'first year' is counted from when he conquer's Jerusalem, which has no basis in reality whatsoever. I don't have time to do into the all the elements of the Watch Tower Society's numerology that are downright stupid and hardly 'simple'.
Which system truly recognizes the historicity of the seventy years?
The 70 years were a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon. That period began when Babylon conquered the previous world power, Assyria. Assyria was destroyed in 609BCE. The Medo-Persian Empire became dominant when it conquered Babylon in 539BCE. All secular sources agree with this period. It is 70 years. The Bible says the nations could serve Babylon in their own land during the 70 years and that exile would be a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.
Which system provides a consistent or 'cable of chronology going right back to Adam and to Jesus Christ?
Seriously? There's any number of religious sources that suggest different years for the 'creation of Adam', and any of those 'interpretations' are just 'as valid' as that of the Watch Tower Society. 'Adam' never existed! 'Adam' is a story about a golem adapted from earlier Babylonian stories. If you really want to make 607 sound plausible, you really don't want to open the can of worms about 'Adam' being the 'first human' only 6000 years ago.
Which system is cognizant of Bible Prophecy and its fulifillment? Which system has practical value for our day explaining the 'times and the season' leading up to 1914, the birth of God's Kingdom and the 'Last Days'.
'End times' religions always claim that 'Bible prophecies' have 'practical value' for 'our day'. It's their entire basis for scaring people into joining. Charles Taze Russell predicted that Armageddon would begin in October of 1914. It didn't. It wasn't until years later that Rutherford moved the dates for 'God's kingdom' from 1874 to 1914.
The chronology of Jeffro is simply a copy of others combining his own personal spin being antagonistic to the Witnesses. In short, it is a contrivance designed to mislead and deceive the gullible. He has also a website which seeks further to present his nonsense and his own personal interpretations.
My material stands on its merits, and I'm more than happy to take comments or questions on its content. However, 'scholar' can only resort to vague childish insults.
So the decision as to which is correct is one that you must decide.
My chart is fully consistent with valid interpretations of the Bible, and also compatible with the chronology of contemporary nations. The Watch Tower Society's chronology cannot be reconciled with years assigned by scholars for the reigns of kings of Egypt, Babylon & Assyria, which are consistent with each other and consistent with the kings of Judea as shown in my chart. My chart represents how the bible can be seen as consistent with what actually happened. The Watch Tower Society's chronology regarding the '70 years' is not at all what the Bible actually says about 'serving Babylon' and is squarely based on numerological superstition. In short, if I am right, the Watch Tower Society is wrong; and if I am wrong, the Watch Tower Society is still wrong.
I have to be elsewhere now, so I will dispense with your latest pathetic response later.
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.
Good thing I've presented plenty of evidence.
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.
abiather:
You agreed in principle that Atheism is a means to theism.
You only want beach to be replaced with fairy-land.
No. Don't be dense.
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.
abiather:
It is like someone asking you the way to the beach.
It's more like someone asking you the way to fairyland.
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.
KateWild:
Yes, many atheist lurkers will draw that conclusion. Believing lurkers will not, they will see that when a person's religious beleifs are attacked they should not take it personally and defend the right to believe what they wish.
Religious affiliation (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with inane guessing games.
They will also learn by this thread, that a few atheists (just a small minority), make personal attacks and are very dogmatic, believers will get to know who this minority are and be able to cope with them once they start posting.
A Christian saying atheists are dogmatic. Hilarious.
Atheists are actually in the minority in the world, possibly on this forum, but on God vs Atheist threads, this is not always evident.
argumentum ad populum
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.
Fisherman:
de·bat·a·ble
cop·out
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.
Fisherman:
Jeff, listen to what you say. You are only stating your personal conclusion, what you believe you have done. Can you say "It is a fact that JW interpretation contradicts the Bible?" Even if you did say that, you would still be stating something that you believe. Your interpretaion and JW interpretaion are beliefs. Beliefs do not always turn out to be true.
Instead of making the same kind of vague rebuttals as 'scholar', feel free to comment on the specific scriptures I've already raised.
For a start, read Jeremiah chapter 27. Then say here what it says about exile and about serving Babylon.
My 'interpretation' is completely consistent with secular sources regarding the Neo-Babylonian period and the records of all the nations contemporaneous with ancient Judah and is not hinged on magical thinking or 'end times' beliefs.
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.
Fisherman:
Interesting debate expressing opposing views. WTS chronology is produced with interpretaion (yes or no?); but so what? so is the opposing view (yes or no?). Which view is the correct one? As far as I view it, interpretation is a conclusion, and therefore we dont know for a fact at this time until there are more real facts to consider. I do know that now a WTS creative yom is no longer 1000 years in length. -Not, that it has anything to do with chronology, but 1914 is never going to go away until it validates or invalidates WTS chronology. I think that you are beating a dead horse and that is the botton line.
I've shown quite definitely that the JW interpretation contradicts the Bible, which is supposed to be their source material. There's no point 'interpreting' the text so far from what it actually says to be unrecognisable. As shown in detail by myself and others, the WTS chronology is entirely dishonest.
But you are right in that because there are many gullible JWs who are too afraid to honestly consider their own beliefs for fear of being shunned that the group will probably be around for some time to come. The doggedness of victims like 'scholar' to claim the Bible says exactly the opposite of what it actually says demonstrates well the power of sectarian brainwashing.
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.
notsurewheretogo:
It's like saying OFF is a TV Channel
I'd be willing to go a step further and say it's probably the best TV channel.
