Posts by Jeffro

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:

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 phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (or as the New International Version puts it, "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested") is a parenthetical remark quoting almost verbatim (changed only for past tense) from the statement at Leviticus 26:34, "At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths".

Those who are paying attention probably realise that I inadvertently pasted the wrong portion of Leviticus 26:34 that is quoted at 2 Chronicles 36:21. The correct portion of Leviticus 26:34, obviously, is: "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated." Sorry for any confusion.

Tetley relies more heavily on the Septuagint rather than Hebrew manuscripts

It's also worth noting that Tetley's reckoning of the divided kingdom doesn't fit in with the 390 years at Ezekiel 4:5. However, LXX gives 190 years at Ezekiel 4:5, which cannot be reconciled with the periods for Judah or Israel anyway.

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:

Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy

Tetley relies more heavily on the Septuagint rather than Hebrew manuscripts, however they are mostly consistent for the years of reign for the divided kingdom anyway. She assumes the same dating systems were used by Judah and Israel, however this causes problems with some alignments, as already previously indicated.

LXX omits relative years for a few synchronisms of reigns, but not enough to be problematic. In LXX, 2 Kings 14:20 omits the length of Jeroboam's reign (22 years) and makes reference to a '24th year' at 2 Kings 15:9-10 for the start of Asa's reign, and LXX also extends the reign of Abijam by 3 years, which are (implicitly) correspondingly added to Jeroboam's reign. LXX provides for a longer co-regency of Jehoshaphat with Asa, but still synchronises the start of Jehoshaphat's sole reign with the same point in Ahab's reign.

Tetley arrives at the same 8-year gap as the old 'JW chronology' (which was copied from Ussher) prior to Hoshea, but she decides that Hoshea should 'really' begin to reign in Ahaz' 13th year. She also places the fall of Israel a few years later than the traditional date (not at all helpful to JW chronology). Tetley takes various liberties with dates for Assyrian kings to make them 'fit' her alternative chronology. Tetley provides no support at all for the Watch Tower Society's ridiculous interpretations for the Neo-Babylonian period.

The chart I have provided indicates chronology of the period that is compatible with the Bible, which inherently incorporates any errors present in the biblical texts. If I get my hands on Tetley's tabulation of reigns, I'll lay them out to determine which scriptures cannot be harmonised with her views. Of course, if Tetley is right and the Bible is wrong, then the premise for JW chronology is invalid anyway.

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:

Do not worry I will dispose of Jeffro's arguments

LOL. Still waiting...

There is no problem with the context or contents of Jeremiah 29 for WT chronology or the rendering 'at Babylon' in preference to 'for Babylon'.

I have already clearly shown that to be false. Especially in view of the revised NWT's translation of 29:10, replacing the more ambiguous "in accord with the fulfilling of" with "when 70 years are fulfilled" (a more accurate translation, but wholly detrimental to the JW interpretation). It's a fairly minor Bible character ('Jehovah') who contradicts the JW view, so I'll quote here what he said: "‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulﬁlled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’"

In the flawed JW interpretation, once the 70 years "are fulfilled", the Jews are already in Jerusalem, invalidating the rest of the very same sentence about 'turning attention to bringing you back to this place' after they're already there. Back in reality, Babylon's 70 years ended, and then 'attention' could be given to the Jews' return (after they repented). See Jeremiah 29:10-14, Daniel 9:1-19.

You argue that the first deportation with the first group of exilees was greater but this may be true in some sense.

"but"? If you believe the Bible (as you claim), then it is definitely true that the first exile was greater. It is greater in the sense that there were more people exiled.

But did it constitute the beginning of the 'seventy years' is the issue at hand.

Of course not. The seventy years were not a period of exile at all. I have already very clearly shown that exile was a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.

Ezra did not think so when he wrote the history of the period in his second book of Chronicles he linked the passage of the seventy years with the land paying off its sabbaths and of course Jeremiah linked the passage of the seventy years with the land lying desolate without an inhabitant.

It's unfortunate that you don't properly understand the reference to Leviticus to which 2 Chronicles alludes. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. The phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (or as the New International Version puts it, "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested") is a parenthetical remark quoting almost verbatim (changed only for past tense) from the statement at Leviticus 26:34, "At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths". Leviticus 25:8 gives the period of 'paying sabbaths' as forty-nine years, which is also the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. However, Babylon's 70 years lasted, as Ezra says, until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the original context of the 70 years, which Jeremiah explicitly stated were of all the nations serving Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-11) which they should do to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:6-11, which you continue to ignore).

Clearly, those two factors could only commence with the Fall with e destruction of the Temple, the city and the forced evacuation of the population of Judah in 607 BE.

Since paying off sabbaths isn't the same thing as nations serving Babylon, you're just wrong.

Josephus when he reviewed the history of this period and referred to the passage of the seventy years expressed a similar view.

In his later work, Against Apion, Josephus correctly indicates the period was fifty years. Additionally, Josephus explicitly states that the period from the exile of Israel until the rule of Cyrus was 182.5 years (which you also continue to ignore), which is not at all compatible with flawed JW chronology.

WT Dogma as you put is reconciliable with the Bible.

I have already clearly shown that it is not.

We simply have a different interpretation of Jeremiah so why cannot you grant us the right and freedom to have a different point of view and labour so vigously to ram your point of view down the throats of others. We simply agree to disagree.

The Watch Tower Society doesn't 'agree to disagree'. The entire foundation of JW eschatology is based on their dishonest 'interpretation', which JWs are expected to not only accept themselves, but also to infect others with their teachings. Additionally, JWs are told to shun people who disagree.

"It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion."—The Watchtower, 15 November 1963, page 688

You and Jeffro do not have any more facts than I in respect to the rendering of this verse. Neither of us are Hebrew scholars therfore we need to rely on the scholarship of others. There are other Bibles that render this verse similar to us and despite the passage of time the current revised NWT has decided to continue with the orthodox rendering of this verse along the lines of the hallowed King James Bible.

Any interpretation that is not compatible with the original context of the 70 years is wrong regardless of how popular it may appear. Jeremiah very clearly indicated that submitting to Babylon was a way to avoid exile.

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:

I have not ignored your comment on Anstey for he most certainly does agree with our history for the reign of Hoshea. There are of course minor difference but we are on the same page because Anstey presents an interregnum of 8 years for Hoshea. The fact of such a 'gap' eludes most scholars and Jeffro's pretty chart which is borrowed from others.

Anstey (incorrectly) 'supports' an 8-year interregnum, which is similar to the 8-year gap in the 1944 publication. (More accurately, the JW chronology had Antsey and similar works as source material. The 'requirement' for this 'gap' is actually a symptom of having failed to properly account for various co-regencies.) However, Anstey refers to that period as an actual interregnum, and not a period prior to some 'recognition' of 'vassalage', which is merely a Watch Tower invention. Anstey gives no support for the 10-year difference in the current JW chronology, or for the claim that Hoshea began to reign relative to Ahaz' alleged 'vassalage'.

At the moment I am gathering materials so that I can study in greater detail the period of the Northern Kingdom leading up to the Fall of Samaria. Scholars find this period most challenging and I freely admit that this is an area of chronology that I have paid little attention to .

It's no surprise that you find the subject 'challenging'.

Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy which was her life's work until her recent death. I am somewhat interested to read what Tetley has to say about the reign of Hoshea and apparently her Bibliograpphy is extremely valuable so wisdom dictates a more considered approach to this most vexing area of chronology.

It hardly matters how much 'name-dropping' you do, for you will simply ignore any sources that don't agree with WTS dogma. You're just a dishonest Watch Tower Society pawn.

Of course if you believe in Jeffro's nonsense then such research would be unnecessary because he has solve d all of the problems and is now a Master Chronologist. What a Joke!!

Idiot. I have indeed ably resolved the chronology for the entire period. And if that makes me a "Master Chronologist", well then, it is what it is. I've been honest enough to admit where my chart was wrong previously, researched the source material, and developed a chart that is even more superior to anything offered by the Watch Tower Society. You, on the other hand, can't let go of JW dogma, even when all the experts (whom you claim to respect) show that it's 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

scholar:

When one 'serves' as a slave or brought into swervitude into a foreign land, forced deportation or evacuation by a military force or conguering World Power, if that does not constitute an Exile then What does?

Have you even read Jeremiah chapter 27?! I already quoted it previously in this thread in case you're too lazy to look it up elsewhere. It explicitly states that exile was an alternative punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon. Is your problem rampant dishonesty, or plain old stupidity?!

You do not like the fact of the Exile because it disentangles your hypothesis, tearing it to shreds and you have the hide about being faithful to Scripoture. Please give me a break.

Idiot.

I have never said that the Bible says that there was a 'seventy year exile nor does the Bible say 'seventy years of Babylonian dominion' as you would suggest. These expressions are interpretations pure and simple in attempt to explain the biblical narrative.

Wrong. Jeremiah 25:12 says"these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Jeremiah 27:6-11 states that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile.

The focus from verse 16 of Jeremiah 29 is most certainly the King and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.You languish on about this chapter trying to make a point where there is none or making claims about this chapter that I have not stated. You forget that this chapter along with the rest of the book requires interpretation in order to construct the narrative for that piece of Jewish history. If you have a better narrative then go right a book for I amm perfectly happy with our understanding of matters

The Watch Tower Society interpretation cannot be reconciled with the context of the chapter. You're just wrong. I have already explained this very clearly.

Our rendering of verse 10 is contextually possible becaus ethe emphasis in the entire context is locative not purposive. In all 10 case where 'Babylon' is mentioned in this chapter has Babylon as a 'place'. End of story! Scholar has no issues with your summation at the end of that paragraph.

Babylon is mentioned eleven times in that chapter. At least four of those instances are not 'locative'. In any case, your 'reasoning' is specious because use of a word in a particular way doesn't preclude its use in another way elsewhere. And the Watch Tower Society's rendering isn't 'yours'—you're just a minion.

Arithmetic is important in doing chronology as long as you have 'sense' of the numbers.

I have resolved the entire period with respect to both scriptural and historical context.

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:

I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.

Yes you have. And you're wrong, as has already been thoroughly explained.

The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.

The Bible indicates that there were significantly more people taken into exile in 597BCE than in 587BCE.

What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.

Wrong. Continuing to ignore what is directly stated in Jeremiah 27 won't change the fact that serving Babylon didn't mean exile.

There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.

No, it's been shown thoroughly that you are wrong.

You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.

I have zero problems with the verse. You had to scramble for an explanation, deferring first to the abandoned Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971. Then, getting even more desperate, you appealed to The Kingdom of God is at Hand from 1944, which presents a quite different chronology to what the Watch Tower Society currently teaches. (In fact, the 1944 publication had Hoshea beginning to reign in Ahaz' actual 12th year and not the fictitious '12th year of vassalage' adoped later.)

It is interesting though that the 1944 publication had fewer discrepancies involving alignment of Judah and Israel than the JWs' current chronology. The current chronology has been adapted to have more discrepancies of a single year each, whereas the old chronology had a smaller number of more severe discrepancies.

Because it can be determined mathematically that Judah used Tishri-based years and Israel used Nisan-based years, differences in alignment by one year that are compatible with those dating systems are not shown.

Watch Tower chronology (1944)
Scripture	Discrepancy in alignment of numbered years for Judah and Israel
2 Kings 1:17	6 or 10*
2 Kings 15:8	10
2 Kings 15:13,17	10
2 Kings 15:23	10
2 Kings 15:27	10
2 Kings 18:9	1
2 Kings 18:10	1

Watch Tower chronology (current)
Scripture	Discrepancy in alignment of numbered years for Judah and Israel
1 Kings 15:25	1
1 Kings 15:28,33	1
1 Kings 16:8	1
1 Kings 16:15,21	1
1 Kings 16:22,23	1
1 Kings 16:29	1
1 Kings 22:51	1
2 Kings 1:17	2 or 5*
2 Kings 3:1	3
2 Kings 15:1	11
2 Kings 17:1	2 or 3 (if counting accession period)
2 Kings 18:9	1
2 Kings 18:10	1

*For both tables, asterisk indicates the discrepancy depends on whether alignment is compared to co-regency or sole reign.

The 1944 publication had a spurious interregnum prior to Uzziah's reign of about 11 years. Unsurprising, that chronology also extended the spurious period prior to Zechariah also incorporated that additional amount (plus that mentioned further below). In the newer chronology, the extra 10 years before Uzziah were redistributed between a number of kings, mostly with a difference of only 1 year each, making them less noticeable. This is disguised by inconsistently employing the accession-year system for only some kings. The manner in which this is done strongly suggests that the efforts to hide the flaws in Watch Tower Society chronology are deliberately deceptive. However, the newer chronology still has other more obvious unresolved alignment problems as shown above.

In the 1944 chronology, the spurious period prior to Hoshea was only 8 years instead of 10 years, which meant that the problem with Ahaz 14th year did not exist in the old chart. To maintain the difference of the Watch Tower Society's 20-year gap, the corresponding extra 2 years was added to the spurious period prior to Zechariah instead.

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:

Your argument for the beginning and ending of the seventy years was and is always 'fuzzy' as I have repeatedly told you in the past.

You consider the date for the capture of Babylon in 539BCE to be 'fuzzy'?! You really don't know the subject very well, do you?!

That date is one of many well attested dates for the Neo-Babylonian period (though it's not as well attested as 587BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem). And it's a date your 'precious' Watch Tower Society agrees with. How the hell is that date 'fuzzy'?

Yet the end-point for 'your' 70 years is based entirely on speculation that has no basis in scripture, and actually contradicts scripture upon comparison of Ezra with Josephus.

There is also no doubt about the Babylonian defeat of Assyria in 609BCE. The final battle for Harran was in Elul (September) per BM 21901. Incidentally, Babylon also fell to Darius in September of 539BCE.

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:

Technically speaking the original deportees had a longer exile than the next deportation

'scholar' apparently imagines that it is technical that an event that starts earlier than another event is longer if both events end at the same time. No, 'scholar', that not technical. It's fundamentally obvious. No wonder he's scared of arithmetic.

but Jehovah had decreed that the Exile would be only seventy years not eighty

Wrong. The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile. Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'. The Bible does not explicitly provide the total length of the exile (it is given implicitly as about 60 years, from February 597BCE until October 538BCE, including travel time). However, the Bible does indicate the length of the period of paying off the 'sabbaths' at Leviticus 25:8 (to which 2 Chronicles 36:21 alludes) which is synonymous with the '7 weeks' of Daniel 9:25. According to the Bible, that period—49 years—ran from October 587BCE (2 Kings 25:26-28) until October 538BCE (Ezra 1:1; 3:1).

because the exile was commensurate with servitude to Babylon

Wrong. At the risk of repeating myself... Jeremiah 27:6-11 explicitly states that exile was a punishment for not 'serving Babylon'.

and desolation of the land so could only commence with the Fall in 607 BCE.

Wrong. The 'desolation of the land' was when it 'rested', which was the period of 49 years already indicated above. The beginning of that period aligns with 587BCE—the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed, however the exile was counted from 597BCE (specifically, the exile is enumerated from the year that began Nisan 598, because the exile began prior to Nisan of 597).

In fact we do not know how long that group lived in Babylon for nor do we have the demography of both groups in Babylon. Ezra of course does provide some demographics for the Returnees just prior to the Return in 537BCE.

Many Jews remained in Babylon, with no special distinction of either group (though most people from both initial groups would have been already dead). The only meaningful period of return relevant to the context of Jeremiah 29 is when the Jews were first allowed to return to Jerusalem.

I hope this helps as you seem to be stuck on the figure '80'.

AnnOMaly is stuck in reality. This obviously makes 'scholar' uncomfortable. (Of course, AnnOMaly doesn't believe the exile lasted for 80 years, because she recognises that the year assigned by the Watch Tower Society for the main deportation to Babylon is 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

cha ching:

Meanwhile, “these nations”, “all the nations”, “all these lands”, "many nations" let’s list the nations, (Jer 25:17-26) “will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”….. ALL of them…. Period….

Poor 'scholar' simply ignores the verses that are too problematic for the Watch Tower Society's dogma. Even when I quoted Jeremiah 27:6-11 and highlighted the part about how serving Babylon is an alternative to exile, he still sides with the lying Watch Tower Society against what the Bible actually says.