Posts by Jeffro

4

Yes, it's... ANOTHER problem with JW chronology...

by Jeffro in

according to the watch tower society, ahaziah (of judah) reigned for a single year, in 906bce.

the watch tower society also claims that judah and israel both used nisan-based dating for the start of reigns.. according to 2 kings 9:29, ahaziah's reign began in the 11th year of jehoram (of israel).

of course, if judah and israel were both using nisan-based dating, ahaziah's single year of reign couldn't have started in both years.

Jeffro

I should clarify that JW literature does claim that Jehoram's 12th (final) year was 905BCE rather than 906BCE. It is therefore implied (but not stated) that his 'first' year in 917BCE was an uncounted 'accession year'. However, that 'excuse' does not work because any such accession period transitioning from Ahaziah (of Israel) to Jehoram would have been during the final year of Ahaziah (of Israel), which JWs place in 918BCE (plus, JWs claim that Ahaziah's reign was 'credited' to Jehoram as of 919BCE, further negating the likelihood of a separate accession period). Without calling 917BCE an 'accession year', that gives Jehoram a sole reign of 13 years if 905BCE is taken as his final year. That would mean that 'reconciling' the reign of Jehu in this manner would simply move the extra year back into the reign of Jehoram instead.

I should also add that in addition to the way the reigns are given in my chart, there is another scenario that is compatible with the reigns of Ahaziah (of Judah), Athaliah, Jehoram (of Israel), Ahaziah (of Israel) & Jehu. That is that Ahaziah (of Judah) may have started his reign near the end of Jehoram's 11th year, such that it could be given as that year or rounded off to beginning in his 12th year. In this scenario, Athaliah and Jehu would still both begin to reign prior to Tishri of 840BCE.

If Jehoram (of Israel) began his reign between Tishri & Adar (approx. October to March), it would then be possible that Ahaziah (of Judah) began his reign between Nisan & Elul (approx. April to September) of 840BCE (instead of late 841 to early 840BCE). In such a scenario, Athaliah's reign would still begin prior to Tishri of 840BCE. However, comparison of the transition from Ahaziah (of Israel) to Jehoram with the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram (of Judah) does not suggest that to be the case.

27

JWDEFENSE youtube channel

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

wondering what to make of this youtube channel.

looks like it could be put out by wachtower.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/ucn6uoc8oxbgrhqqazu6unsq/videos.

Jeffro

The "About" page for the channel states:

This is NOT an official channel for Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
This channel presents a defense against any false or misleading claims about Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition, it answers frequently asked questions about the Jehovah's Witnesses' organization as well as answering Bible questions.
I am currently a baptized Jehovah's Witness in good standing, and I attend a congregation in the United States of America. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has NOT asked me to make this channel. I do this of my own choosing.
For more information on Jehovah's organization and accurate Bible teachings, visit JW.org

But even if that wasn't there, the banner and channel logo are very poor quality.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

Thanks Bart. I also noticed another article that references Herzog in reference to the relevant Iron IIB period. The article is about pottery at a different site during the earlier Iron I and Iron IA periods, so it doesn't have a lot of detail specific to Herzog. However, it does confirm that these strata were determined based on carbon dating and not expected regnal years. The article associates the Iron IIA period with the period up to the end of the 9th century, placing Iron IIB well into the 8th century BCE. Also, Fantalkin & Finkelstein quite definitely disocciate the earthquake from the Iron IIA period. The Finkelstein article notes, "Finally, from the ceramic point of view, it is impossible to equate Iron IIA Lachish IV and Arad XI with Iron IIB Hazor VI."

See also this article by Finkelstein. It includes a diagram that very definitely indicates that carbon dating confirms that the transition to the Iron IIB period was after 800BCE.

4

Yes, it's... ANOTHER problem with JW chronology...

by Jeffro in

according to the watch tower society, ahaziah (of judah) reigned for a single year, in 906bce.

the watch tower society also claims that judah and israel both used nisan-based dating for the start of reigns.. according to 2 kings 9:29, ahaziah's reign began in the 11th year of jehoram (of israel).

of course, if judah and israel were both using nisan-based dating, ahaziah's single year of reign couldn't have started in both years.

Jeffro

According to the Watch Tower Society, Ahaziah (of Judah) reigned for a single year, in 906BCE. The Watch Tower Society also claims that Judah and Israel both used Nisan-based dating for the start of reigns.

According to 2 Kings 9:29, Ahaziah's reign began in the 11th year of Jehoram (of Israel). But according to 2 Kings 8:25-26, Ahaziah's reign began in Jehoram's 12th year. Of course, if Judah and Israel were both using Nisan-based dating, Ahaziah's single year of reign couldn't have started in both years. To skirt around this problem Insight weakly claims that Ahaziah was "perhaps anointed to kingsip in c. 907 B.C.E."

But that is not the only problem with the Watch Tower Society's chronology for this period. They claim that Jehu began to reign in 905 BCE, but that his reign is counted from the year after that (904 BCE). The problem (for them) here is that they have Ahaziah's single year and the final year of Jehoram (of Israel) in 906BCE. 2 Kings 8:25; 9:12-13 indicates that Jehu was anointed in Jehoram's 12th year (his final year), while Jehoram and Ahaziah (of Judah) are still alive. Whilst there is some latitude for claiming an accession period for Jehu during Jehoram's final year, there's no reason at all why the following year (905 BCE) would also not be counted as a regnal year.

2 Kings 11:3 also indicate that Athaliah reigned for 6 years. However, JW chronology has her reign lasting 7 years.

Hence the Watch Tower Society adds a spurious year for both Athaliah and Jehu, which is just one of several additions to the divided monarchy to pad out their false chronology.

In reality, Judah used Tishri-based dating and Israel used Nisan-based dating for kings' regnal years, and the author of 2 Kings always counts the accession period as part of the reign. With that in mind, 2 Kings 8:25-26 and 2 Kings 9:29 indicate that Ahaziah's reign began some time after the start of Tishri (late 841BCE) but before the following Nisan (early 840BCE). Jehu was anointed in the same year, and murdered Jehoram and Ahaziah (2 Kings 9:22-29) prior to Tishri (840BCE). Athaliah then began to reign in Judah, still prior to Tishri of 840BCE.

16

The watchtower quoting itself as if it were scripture about weddings...

by EndofMysteries in

the 1997 wt, 4/15 page 26 is about weddings and more rules the wt tries to enforce to take the fun out of even weddings.

"while a disfellowshipped person could be allowed to attend the talk at the kingdom hall, the watchtower of april 15, 1984, said: it would be unfitting to have in the wedding party people who are disfellowshipped or whose scandalous life-style grossly conflicts with bible principles.

- isn't that funny?

Jeffro

EndofMysteries (quoting The Watchtower):

If a couple invite unbelieving relatives or acquaintances, these will no doubt be limited in number

Don't you just love the way it's phrased. Of course they don't want to say, "Don't invite unbelieving relatives!" But apparently there's no doubt that there wouldn't be many.

31

They made me throw away a windchime!!!

by quellycatface in

i had a lovely mirrored windchime in my house.

my study conductor told me it attracted deemunz and i threw it in the trash.

i've since bought another.. what's the reasoning behind that idiocy??

Jeffro

quellycatface:

My study conductor told me

Well there's the source of the problem. Stop 'studying' with those superstitious people. They do not have 'truth'. It's just another Adventist sect.

And why do you have a 'study conductor' when you said a month ago on this forum that you were about to write your "DA letter"??

43

My Experiments with TRUTH, a CO opens his heart!

by abiather in

this is the first message from the co:.

"william claire menninger, a co-founder of the menninger foundation in topeka, kansas, wrote 13 symptoms of mental illness.

one of them is: the attitude that i am always right and others always wrong.

Jeffro

abiather:

Now when you said: “All of them were coming from the same ISP,” now understand what may have happened. I was transferred to my Head-Office last month. And nature of my work also somewhat changed. To avoid virus problem, I put a requisition for a second computer exclusively for net-related work. Office gave me an old computer. I am posting from this computer as I have somewhat relaxed schedule. I don’t know who was using this computer before me in this company of over 3000 people!

You, sir, are a liar. (And not a very good one.)

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur:

Geology can determine how,why, and what happened and suggest approximent time frames (by that I mean within X million years) and archeology then places that information into a historical context using the evidence specific to the strata.

Indeed. There must have been other factors in determining the period. Because the timing and margins for error indicated don't exactly align with the traditional dating for the 'expected' kings, it's evident that they made a determination beyond only saying it 'must have been when we think Jeroboam reigned'. Yadin also refers to styles of pottery at different sites as well. The margins for error given seem consistent with carbon dating error rates for the approximate age, but it doesn't say.

27

Yet another problem for Watch Tower Society apologists

by Jeffro in

amos 1:1 is set during the reigns of both uzziah and jeroboam (ii), "two years before the earthquake".. geologists* have dated this earthquake to around 760bce, with an error margin of plus or minus 25 years.. *steven a. austin, gordon w. franz, and eric g. frost, "amos's earthquake: an extraordinary middle east seismic event of 750 b.c.

" international geology review 42 (2000) 657-671. y. yadin, hazor, the rediscovery of a great citadel of the bible (new york: random house, 1975).

i. finkelstein, "hazor and the north in the iron age: a low chronology perspective," bulletin of the american schools of oriental research 314 (1999) 55-70. d. ussishkin, "lachish" in e. stern, ed., the new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the holy land (new york: simon & schuster, 1993) vol.

Jeffro

Bart Belteshassur:

Do the geologists make reference to any source of dating data apart from the date arrived at from Yadin's determination of the archeology that he unearthed?

Nothing clear, except that it was "stratigraphically" determined, which means it's based on layers.

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

Finkelstein:

why didn't the WTS. include those extra days in their final calculation of 70 x 360 to reach to 1914 ?

(Presumably, you mean 7 x 360). It was already generally understood by people using the Babylonian calendar (from which the Hebrew calendar was derived) that years didn't actually have exactly 360 days, which was a convenient rounded figure. (But also note the slightly different Essene calendation indicated by Bart.) The ancient and modern calendars both incorporate methods of correcting for the additional days to compensate for seasonal 'drift', so that in both systems, spring always begins in March/April. As a result, in both systems, a year is a year is a year.

That said, there is no actual basis for applying the 'day for a year' 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 4:16 anyway, and the Watch Tower Society does not apply the same 'rule' to the 'times' at Daniel 7:25 or Daniel 12:7.