Posts by Jeffro

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

Jeffro

billythekid46:

However your assertion that your research is better than mine would be absurd.

Actually, it's not absurd at all. Firstly, you seem to 'try' to 'make' the '70 years' 'fit' a particular purpose. Straight away, that's a big red flag. Secondly, that 'purpose' doesn't even agree with what is actually stated in the Bible. Thirdly, your timeline disagrees in relative terms with BM 21946 and ignores the evident difference in dating systems identified by the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30. My research requires no appeals to magical thinking and is consistent with mainstream scholarship on the matter, even though I arrived at it independently.

I researched not just the works you speak of but others in connection with biblical events.

As indicated by my use of "etc" in my previous response, I did not provide an exhaustive list of the sources I researched.

I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation

It's blatantly obvious that you relied on Ussher's interpretation.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

Jeffro

billythekid46:

Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG,

You could. However the timeline you offered is not supported by the actual source material, and is based on fundamental errors relating to dating systems. Whilst anyone can suggest any old absolute years, your timeline does not correctly represent the relative time periods either.

which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who?

I have considered the material from scratch, relying on the source materials (the Bible, the works of Josephus, Babylonian chronicles, etc) rather than interpretations of later historians. (However, I have also considered later sources and found them to agree.)

If the information in the Bible is reliable, the timeline I have provided is correct. If the information in the Bible is not reliable, it doesn't matter anyway.

So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC

This is merely an attempt to 'make' '70 years' 'fit' from '607' until '537'. Except 537 is wrong anyway, because comparison of Ezra and Josephus indicates 538 to be the year in which Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Additionally, it's a misrepresentation of what the '70 years' were about, which was a period of Babylonian dominance over all the nations, and not a period of exile or dominance over Jews. (Also, comparison of LXX and later manuscripts indicates that the specific period of '70 years' was written in later rather than being 'prophetic'.)

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

Jeffro

billythekid46:

First of all the exact date is 607 BC according to Bishop Ussher , not 606 BC. This was indeed the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar if we just count as the Bible counts.

Your claim (and Ussher's claim) about 607 here is wrong. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the accession-year system and the differing calendations of Judah and Babylon. As a result most of the rest of your post is also wrong, including all of the years suggested (except for the year in which Nabopolassar died). The correct years for the period you've indicated are as follows:

609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering Assyria’s final capital, Harran. Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin.
609 (late) Jehoahaz reigns for 3 months, then imprisoned
608 King Jehoiakim begins his 11-year rule in Jerusalem.
605 (summer) Battle of Carchemish
605 (August/September) Jeremiah warns that Babylon will come up against Jerusalem.
605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule.
605 (December) Fast proclaimed in Jerusalem
604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes tributary to Babylon. Daniel* and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.
603 Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his 2nd regnal year. Daniel not known by Nebuchadnezzar prior to interpreting dream.
601 3 years of training ends for Daniel and others. Daniel known as “ten times wiser” than all others.
601 (December) Nebuchadnezzar attacks Egypt.
600 (early) Jehoiakim rebels after learning of Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt.
599 Bands of marauders sent by Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem
598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem.
597 (March) Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.
594 Jeremiah writes to exiles in Babylon, telling them Babylon would be dominant for 70 years.
590 (December) Zedekiah rebels, siege begins.
587 (August) Jerusalem destroyed, temple burned. The first seven of the seventy ‘weeks’ begins. This is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (18th when not counting his accession year; compare 2 Kings 25:8 & Jeremiah 52:29), the 11th year of Zedekiah.
587 (October) Jews flee to Egypt.

*The historicity of Daniel is disputed, but the story can be correctly contextualised.

This timeline can be confirmed by comparing 2 Kings, Daniel, Jeremiah, Josephus and the Babylonian chronicle BM 21946.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

Jeffro

Skeptical78:

I recently became aware of the new light. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

Both the old and current understandings of JWs regarding 1914 are and always have been wrong. Their fundamental beliefs about 1914 are based on an entirely false premise. See here for more information.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

scholar (22 December 2013):

I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.

That must have been some Christmas party. Still waiting.

40

2014 Yearbook Stats - 7 Countries account for > 50% growth

by Westenddave in

i thought i'd share the 2014 yearbook stats.

i converted the file to excel format & sorted the increase in publisher's column from largest to smallest.

as i suspected, the growth is limited to a very few # of "lands.

Jeffro

I think it would be clearer seeing the full chart. As presented, it seems like bad math. But this could be due to lack of data.

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

Jeffro

scholar (22 December 2013):

I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.

Still waiting...

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

jamclark:

Most reigns start in the civil year (fall, as in 6 months after the scriptural year). The months before generally don't count and is called the ascension period.

I have already determined mathematically that reigns in Judah were based on the civil calendar (i.e. Tishri-based) and that reigns in Israel were based on the the sacred (not 'scriptural') calendar (Nisan-based). (Claiming that both used Tishri-based years would result in anomalies similar to those introduced by the Watch Tower Society's claim that both used Nisan-based years.) Additionally, comparison of various verses indicates that the Jews counted the accession (not 'ascension') period as part of the reign prior to Babylonian influence. (It should also be noted that the Jews had different names for the months prior to Babylonian influence.)

31

next week's bible reading (Gen. 1-5) stumpers.for your "in" family conversations & sly comments.

by prologos in

you may add many, but here are two:.

1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.

in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.

Jeffro

prologos:

I am putting you on

I'd never have guessed.

31

next week's bible reading (Gen. 1-5) stumpers.for your "in" family conversations & sly comments.

by prologos in

you may add many, but here are two:.

1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.

in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.

Jeffro

prologos:

actually the sun was made earlier, but the free-floating earth was captured by the sun's gravity and went into its permanent I AU orbit, and THUS the sun became the eart's day star.

yuhhuh... sure it was.

That must be 'true', because that's the best way of 'reconciling' the obvious mythology in the Bible with reality.