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

scholiar:

At least I am being honest and transparaent with nothing to fear or hide, not afraid to read the works of others. Your view of chronology is far too narrow to be of any value.

Hilarious. I'm certainly not afraid to read other sources. As I have told you many times, my chart is based on the Bible for the analysis of JW doctrines that are supposedly based on the Bible, so it is neither suitable nor necessary to base the years for reigns of Judah or Israel in my chart on the work of other scholars. I have clearly stated in my article about JWs and 1914 that "Years for the Jewish reigns in the linked chart are strictly applied as stated in the Bible, and may differ from those assigned by modern historians." A few years ago, I was encouraged by AnnOMaly to perform a decision-table analysis. After I established definitely that Judah used Tishri-based dating for reigns, it was readily apparent that various alignments in old versions of my chart were not possible (humorously, those were the aspects that were most similar to Watch Tower Society chronology), and the result was that I greatly improved the accuracy of my chart, especially in regard to various co-regencies. Not only is my chart fully consistent with the Bible, but also with the history of contemporaneous nations. Unlike you, I don't have to be 'afraid' of or try to 'discredit' the dates that professional historians and scholars have assigned to individuals such as Hiram I of Tyre; Shoshenq I, Osorkon IV, Taharqa, Necho II, Hophra and Amasis II of Egypt; Shalmaneser III, Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmeser IV, Sargon II, Sennacherib and Esar-haddon of Assyria; Merodach-baladan of Babylon; all of the Neo-Babylonian kings; or Xerxes I and Xerxes II or Persia (I have charted but not published the Persian period after Darius I). Every single one of these figures notable for being contemporaneous with biblical accounts is consistent with my chart.

When I said that your work was based on Thiele I assumed that you would have had Thiele on hand but now I am not sure because you make a lot of claims as to your chronology being your own work having consulted other reference works but you have never listed your sources. So why don't you now list your sources for your scheme?

Once again pseudo-scholar shows himself to be the liar he is. I have indicated on this forum many times that my source material for the chart was the Bible for the kings of Judah and Israel, coupled with my own knowledge of the dating systems. (I've known of the dating systems for quite some time and consider that general knowledge, and I could not possible remember specifically when I learned about them.) Details for the reigns of other nations, as I have also previously indicated on this forum, were taken from various sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia, and Josephus. I also consulted various Bible translations and commentaries, as well as Strong's Bible Concordance.

Saying that your chronology is consistent with the Bible is meaningless because there are many Bible chronologies out there all making the same claim but all have different dates. Making a claim proves nothing for it is the substance that counts and so far you are not looking too good. JW chronology is also consistent with the Bible, secular history and archaeology an dit is the only scheme that works because it is the only scheme that factors in the 'seventy years'.

I do not merely assert that my chart is consistent with the Bible, but I have also clearly shown where the Watch Tower Society's chronology is not consistent with the Bible. The fact that my chart presents a chronology that is consistent with the Bible simply demonstrates that the Watch Tower Society's claims that 'Bible chronology' is not compatible with the 'traditional chronology' is a lie.

Reading extracts of Tetley on Google is hardly a proper reading of her research and if this reflects your research methodology then no wonder it is such a mess and does not harmonize with the Bible. If you have read Teteley then what precisely did she say about the reign of Hoshea. Did she endorse a interregnum between the death of Pekan -2Kings 15:30 and the offical start of Hoshea's reign- 2 Kings 17:1?

When you say "does not harmonize with the Bible", of course you mean 'does not harmonise with JW dogma'. My decision to show Hoshea's reign ending in Ahaz' 12th year (including a period of rivalry until Jotham's 20th year) is supported by the original text and also by various Bible commentaries (which I confirmed only afterwards). You are yet to provide any evidence of any external support for the Watch Tower Society's claim that both Hoshea's and Ahaz' reigns were enumerated based on a separate 'vassalage' (obviously 19th century Adventist sources would not constitute 'external support' because they are the source of the spurious JW chronology). Tetley suggests (incorrectly) an interregnum (but not a 'period of reign prior to vassalage') of 8 years between Pekah and Hoshea. She provides no support for the claim that Hoshea 'really' started in Ahaz' 14th year (15th including the accession year arbitrarily excluded by the Watch Tower Society's chronology for only a few kings of the divided monarchy*).
*The reason the Watch Tower Society inconsistently claims that some reigns 'evidently' were 'counted from the following year', making several separate differences of a single year, is actually to make less noticable the fact that they have to make up for discrepancies between reigns of Judah and Israel that would otherwise be too obvious. See the tables earlier in this thread about the much more obvious discrepancies of ten years that were indicated in the Watch Tower Society's chronology in 1944.

i have not made any comments about her book because I have not read it but you are the one that is so knowledgeable about it because you claim to have read it on Google so perhaps you can be honest and reveal what you know. All that I know is that Tetley views are significant and her contribution to the subject of the Divided Monarchy is invaluable and must be at least consulted by anyone who seeks to do chronology.

Though I've only done a cursory examination at this stage, I've already done more consulting of her work than you have. I'm certainly not going to buy a copy just to placate you. The full book isn't available on Google Books, but the content is searchable and the context of her comments about Hoshea can be easily verified. So if you want to make claims about what Tetley says, try to be honest, because it will be easy to verify your lies.

As I said what we have in common within scholarship is a controversial chronology that has got people talking and discussing and that is what we are doing right now. You are forced to confront our chronology and that is why you have produced a website and scheme in an attempt to debunk WT Bible chronology.

I wouldn't call it 'confronting'. I (and others) have demolished the Watch Tower Society's chronology. I've indicated not only that it is wrong, but how (many specific discrepancies) and why (to prop up superstitious numerology) it is wrong. I have produced a website for the benefit of others, because some people might otherwise be tempted to just 'go along with' Watch Tower Society lies because they may feel that the topic is 'just too complicated'. There's hardly even any sport in trouncing your drivel, and your continued use of 'we' and 'our' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's chronology is pathetic, because you are merely a parrot. The Watch Tower Society is a bit like the metaphorical 'deceptive serpent' (yes, it's a metaphor - the fairytale about the talking snake and magical fruit isn't real); it's more scared of me than I am of it.

You have shown nothing for the seventy years was indeed a Exile, The Exile of seventy years.

Once again, your assertion is not based on anything at all. 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), etc.

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:

There is no obvious error in our interpretation of this verse and the entire chapter and the entire book of Jeremiah. You have your interpretation of matters and we have ours so let us agree to disagree.

There are many obvious errors. I've pointed out just a few of them in this thread. As usual, you're unable to focus on specific texts.

When obvious questions are put to you then you run and hide only shaping when it suits you. It is simply a joke to argue that the first deportation was a greater Exile to that of the second deportation when the Monarchy had not yet been removed and Jerusalem was a going concern.

'What is the population of Jersualem at the time of the fall?' is not an 'obvious question'. It's a stupid and irrelevant question. Firstly, you don't know what the population of Jerusalem was in 587. Secondly, many of the people were killed, and the number deported is indicated in the Bible to be less than in the exile of 597.

Have you read Ephraim Stern's article? Do you have it to hand? Are you up to date with the latest findings of archaeology for Judah during the Neo-Babylonian Period? The WT article on this subject was correct in quoting Stern and if memory serves me coreetly there was another source quoted that you fail to mention.

Stern makes reference to the period from Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year until Cyrus's first regnal year in Babylon; however, the Watch Tower Society dishonestly quoted him out of context to imply that Stern 'actually' was referring to the '70 years' as used in JW dogma. Further, Stern actually states (but the Watch Tower Society omits), "I do not mean to imply that the country was uninhabited during the period between the Babylonian destruction and the Persian period." As I previously indicated elsewhere, Stern has stated that he was misquoted in the article.

The Bible says that Judah was emptied of its population 'without an inhabitant' so that is good enough for me so if you are so pedantic about Jeremiah then how about being faithful in connection with these many clear statements about the future state of the land of Judah.

Jeremiah also says that Babylon would be without an inhabitant. The use of the phrase is clearly hyperbole. Babylon remained populated not only after it was conquered in 539BCE, but it is still populated. Additionally, Jeremiah 44:14 indicates that there would be some inhabitants of Judah who would return their from Egypt.

If you agree that there was a Jewish Exile then please describe how many if more than one and the time period for such an Exile/s?

Sigh. Aren't you supposed to know this stuff already?? There were exilic deportations in 597BCE, 587BCE and 582BCE. (This does not include slaves given in tribute.) According to the Bible, by far the majority were taken in the first deportation. Many people were killed in 587BCE, but that has no bearing on exiles.

I have never said that the Bible says that there was a seventy year exile for it does not in using that statement. What I have and do say that the Bible when it describes the seventy years its description is of Exile along with servitude and desolation in keeping with the expanation of all the other 'seventy year texts and the historical circumstances. In short, the Bible implicitly means Exile.

The Bible explicitly indicates that serving Babylon was how nations could avoid exile. An interpretation that asserts that the Bible 'implies' something that it explicitly contradicts is obviously wrong.

You are being 'fast and loose' with Josephus for it galls you to admit that Josephus and WT are on the same page when it comes to the seventy years and you should be honest and leave it at that.

You continue to ignore what Josephus actually says. Ho hum. Still waiting for your explanation of the 182.5 years indicated by Josephus. The number is very specific, and I've shown it to be correct. The error in the Watch Tower Society's chronology also cannot explain it away by just 'adding 20' either, because the 2.5 years would remain a problem.

Don't you think that Jeremiah was able to source Leviticus in reference to land paying off its sabbaths if in fact Ezra did not directly quote Leviticus.

Jeremiah might have been 'able to source' any number of things. He probably knew the price of sheep and how to make good matzo too. The fact remains that he didn't mention them in his book. It is absolutely 100% certain that Ezra could not quote something from the book of Jeremiah that does not appear in the book of Jeremiah. It is extremely obvious that the phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (NWT) at 2 Chronicles 36:21 is in reference to Leviticus 26:34, which says, "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated". Jeremiah never says anything remotely similar.

What we do know that Ezra directly quoted Jeremiah who quoted Leviticus or Ezra quoted both of them . What does it matter?

Paying off sabbaths is not 'the word of Jeremiah'. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. There's nothing from Jeremiah for Ezra to quote that statement. It isn't there. But then again, honesty and context have never really mattered much to you.

The fact of the matter is that both Ezra and Jeremiah were concerned about the land paying offits sabbaths and it did over the period of seventy years.

Jeremiah never mentions 'the land paying off its sabbaths'. There is no basis for your claim that he was 'very concerned' about it. Jeremiah is extremely clear that the '70 years' were a period of all the nations serving Babylon, which they should do in order to avoid exile.

All that you seem able to do is start small brush fires everywhere which are simply minor distractions so that you can bash WT chronology and publicize your pretty charts and website.

What you call 'small brush fires' are actually many problems with the superstitious JW numerology, none of which have the likes of you or other Watch Tower cronies been able to 'extinguish'. It's certainly true that I've collected useful information to show some of the many errors in JW dogma, however my site is by far not the only source for completely disproving the Watch Tower Society's lies.

Its all huffing and puffing with you with smoke and mirrors.

It's funny how you regard direct quotations in their original context as 'smoke and mirrors'. As I've stated previously, you really are an interesting case-study into the mind of a thoroughly deluded victim of a religious sect.

Yes I agree that the seventy years was a period wherein the bible explicitly states that all of the nations would serve Babylon and that the Exile was a punishment that refused to serve Babylon. However, you miss the obvious and explicit fact that the Bible also in these very same verse states explicitly that Judah would be devastated also for seventy years.

The Bible actually indicates that Jerusalem would become devastated by the end of Babylon's 70 years. The Bible does not say that there would be 70 years of devastation. Even worse, the Watch Tower Society's claim that the 'repentance' offered in Daniel 9 is set before the end of the 70 years contradicts the order of events indicated at Jeremiah 29:10-14: 70 years ends, then the Jews repent, then they're allowed to go home.

Hence, one can easily note that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation. What the Bible does not say explicitly as how the nations apart from Judah were punished, there are no specific details nor specific timeframe for any other nation apart from Judah.

The Bible very explicitly states that all the nations were subject to Babylon for seventy years. The Bible also explicitly states that exile would only be a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon, which they could do in their own land. Jeremiah chapter 25 is quite clear that whilst the seventy years would have a definite end point, the calamity would go from nation to nation, which obviously affected different nations at different times. The calamity, which would include exile for nations that resisted, is therefore not the same as the seventy years.

Isaiah did make reference to Tyre in respect of a seventy year period but its actuality in history is not fully expalined in the context of a seventy year period.

The Watch Tower Society's very own Isaiah's Prophecy publication (page 253) states: "True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination" It's bleedingly obvious that the seventy years ended in 539BCE. The '70 years for Tyre' and the '40 years for Egypt' have been bones of contention for JW apologists (particularly the apparently silent individual calling himself 'thirdwitness' who ventures 'explanations' that contradict even the Watch Tower Society's own teachings) , but I've correctly indicated these periods in my chart along with the correct explanations in the associated article.

Constructing a chronology for Neo-Babylonian Period that is compatible with WT chronology is possible but according to Furuli's research it would be somewhat problematic so as the saying goes:'Houston, We have a problem'.

I have constructed a detailed chart (for my own use) of the Watch Tower Society's chronology based only on its claims. I have included the weasley 'explanations' they attempt for 'resolving' some of the conflict, though some still remain. The internal anomalies present in their chronology are bad enough, but once they're compared with the contemporaneous history of other nations, the Watch Tower Society's chronology is a sheer embarrassment. It's little wonder that the Watch Tower Society is not willing to assign definite years to Assyrian, Babylonian or Egyptian kings. As it is, they have to devote the great majority of Insight's section on Chronology to (poorly) raising 'doubt' about 'secular history' that shows Watch Tower dogma to be impossible. Furuli has been thoroughly debunked by his peers.

If you argue that from 605 BCE the seventy years had already commence which constituted by your definition 'serving Babylon' then what would be th point of Jeremiah as recorded in chapter 27 pleading the Jews to avoid punishment by serving Babylon when in fact they were already in servitude so their punishment had already begun? This does not make sense at all for it is obvious that a far greater punishment with far greater consequences such as exile, deportation awaited them.

Huh? It sounds like you still haven't read it?! Jeremiah chapter 27 doesn't plead with them to avoid serving Babylon. He tells them to serve Babylon specifically so they could avoid exile and remain in their own land. It's blatantly obvious that serving Babylon in their own land was presented as an alternative to exile. Interestingly, Jeremiah 27:1 introduces the context of serving Babylon by indicating that Babylon's 'yoke' was first imposed in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign. This is viewed by some as a copyist's error, but various commentaries suggest that the prophecy was indeed dated to the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but that it was sent out during Zedekiah's reign. Either way, the chapter lends no support for the Watch Tower Society's view. Jeremiah 28:12-14 further indicates that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under the 'yoke' of Babylon, but that it would get worse.

Your pleadings about your interpetations being this or that is simply gibberish because I can simply reply in kind.

I've replied with specifics. You continue with vague assertions and outright lies.

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:

Tetley as with Thiele have their own specific methodology in developing a chronology for the Divided Monarchy, We too have our own specific methodology which differs from Tetley and Thiele and that is why the chronologies differ. That is the point of agrrement: that her methodology is different-she has chosen to be different. What is wrong with you for you seem to struggle with the concept of methodology despite the fact that I have tried to bring it to the fore on many occasions.

You probably don't realise just how stupid your comments are. The chronology I have provided of the biblical kings is based on my own research of the original texts. So I too have 'dared to be different'. Even worse for you, I've independently arrived at a chronology that is compatible with both the Bible and the secular history of other contemporaneous nations, without even trying. In contrast, the Watch Tower Society has to pitifully claim that Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian sources all independently have the same 'errors' because they all disagree with JW numerology in the same places.

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:

If you are going to have any credibility for your work in chronology you should have a copy of Tetley or at least intend to get one.

It's amusing how pseudo-scholar includes intending to get a copy of the book in his made-up 'requirements' because he doesn't actually have a copy either.

By the way have you got and read Thiele for I assume that you have if not then the former statement applies. If you have neither books then you have no business with chronology for your opinions will remain foolish and amateurish.

Idiot. You've previously claimed my work is based on Thiele but you also claim I'm not familiar with it. Make up your mind. As it happens, I have always stated that the chronology I have provided is consistent with the Bible (the alleged basis for JW doctrines). For that purpose, it is not necessary to ensure correlation with other scholars who present details not consistent with the Bible. I do not claim that those scholars are wrong, but if they are right and do not agree with the Bible, then the Bible would be wrong, making JW chronology entirely irrelevant anyway.

If you have not read Tetley then you cannot say in what way or manner she does not support WT chronology. I would anticipate that she does not but I would not be surprised because of her respect for the Bible that we would be be on the same page in some areas such as the interregnum for the reign of Hoshea.
If you have not read Tetley then you cannot make any relevant comment on her book or as to whether she did or did not traet the subject of 'vassalage' respecting the reigns of the Divided Monarchy.

As I have already told you, I've read portions of the book relevant to Hoshea that are available on Google Books. Tetley most certainly does not support WT chronology, as I have already specified. Also, you're a hypocrite, because you were the one to start making comments about her book, which you have not read.

We simply have in in common the fact that our research is controversial amongst scholars. That is all.

Wrong. 'You' (actually, the Watch Tower Society, not 'you', its minion) assert a ridiculous chronology in order to attempt to prop up superstitious numerology. This is not at all the case with most scholars.

You say that she supports 587 BCE but no doubt it would be interesting to read how she discusses the 586/587 controversy along with the date for the Fall of Samaria and of course whether she discusses the biblical 'seventy years'.

I have already shown very clearly that the biblical 'seventy years' is not a period of 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:

Both renderings of Jeremiah 29:10 in the respective NWT editions are sound and in agreement, the 1984 edition's rendering of this verse is more accurate technically with the recent edition being more readable. Our interpretation of this verse an dthe entire chapter is also sound because this prophecy was addressed to all of the exiles in Babylon awaiting the expiration of the foreordained period of seventy years thus after the official decree of release, off they go home.

You haven't dealt with the obvious error in the JW interpretation that I already outlined. As usual, you can't actually quote parts and reason on what the text actually says. Instead, you make baseless claims about Watch Tower Society dogma. Pathetic.

So do you know the population of Jerusalem at the time of its Fall? Where was Zedekiah at that time?

Those are stupid rhetorical questions. The Bible presents the figures for the number of people deported in each exile. Either you believe those numbers or you don't. But if you don't, then there's little point relying on the Bible anyway. (Although JW dogma contradicts the Bible anyway, so that probably isn't much of a problem for you.)

Was he not in Jerusalem so how can you say then that the second deporatation was less than the first when the city was still there and the land was still populated.

We've already covered the fact that you're obviously not very good at arithmetic. And the land was still populated after Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, parts of Judea remained populated throughout the entire period, as indicated by Ephraim Stern (who the Watch Tower Society saw fit to misquote in the Awake! of June 2012).

Common sense and the Bible tells you that there was to a far greater Exile in the wings ten years after the first deporation which was a minor exile.

Nothing in Jeremiah's letter sent to exiles already in Babylon in 594BCE (614BCE in Watch Tower Society chronology) alludes to a period that would begin later. There is no reason at all to conclude that the recipients of that letter would assume that '70 years' referred to some future exile.

You have not proved that there was no exile at all with regards to the seventy years because the seventy years by any natural definition was an exile because it began with all of the constituents that make up a exile. The fact of punishment is the exile, the fact of servitude and deporation is an exile , the fact that the Jews were forced off the land is an exile . All of these things were a punishment for their making Nebuchadnezzer unhappy and their apostasy from true worship and for not observing the sabbaths. They were a very naughty nation.

Your arguments are getting even more tenuous. No one ever said that there wasn't a Jewish exile. That would be stupid. But the Bible does not say there was a 70 year exile. The Bible very clearly indicates that exile was a punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon. Jeremiah 27:6-11 isn't going to disappear, no matter how much you close your eyes and pretend it's not there. You might also like to note verse 17 of the same chapter: "Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place?" It explicitly states that serving Babylon was a way to avoid devastation.

The verse in Against Apion is problematic and can be explained. The other verses in the Antiquities clearly presents the seventy years as a period similar to the view that we have adopted so Josephus and I are on the same page. I have explained the fifty years on this forum on many occasions.

Once again, the facts show you to be a liar. Josephus indicates that Jerusalem was desolate during the period of 70 years, but that doesn't mean for the entire period. You continue to ignore the 182.5-year period Josephus indicates (in Antiquities) from the fall of Israel until the arrival of Cyrus. In JW dogma, that period is about 200 years. However, my chart readily shows that the period Josephus indicates is spot on.

Your explanation of the text in Leviticus as quoted in 2 Chronicles is plain 'gobblygook' or plain waffle. Ezra quotes Jeremiah and Jeremiah quotes Leviticus which sets out the laws concerning sabbaths and the land and the consequences of what would happen if the Laws were not observed. All of these passages are linked together to prove that the seventyh years was also about the land as well as the nation.

Your lies are getting even more blatant, and even delusional. Jeremiah uses the word "sabbath" seven times. They are all in Jeremiah chapter 17, none are in reference to years of sabbath rest, and none quote from Leviticus chapters 25-26. The parenthetical remark about sabbaths at 2 Chronicles 36:21 is a direct quote from Leviticus, as I have already indicated.

The land paying off its sabbaths is not the same thing as the nations serving Babylon but these events all fell within the same time frame running concurrently for the seventy years proved to be a period servitude-exile -desolation-punishment-foreign nations in servitude along with Judah.

Again, the Bible explicitly indicates that the 70 years was a period during which all the nations would serve Babylon, and that exile was a punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon.

If you choose to split everything up then please provide a detailed analysis of all of the circumstances for all of the nations where 70 years of whatever was fulfilled. This has never been done . Are you up for it?

I'll think about it after you provide a table of continuous reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings that is compatible with Watch Tower Society chronology.

True, submission to Babylon voluntarily could have avoided punishment and exile but that simply did not happen so they suffered the consequences for seventy years. They were very naughty.

Jeremiah 25 is set in 605BCE (625BCE in Watch Tower Society chronology), at which point the 70 years was already indicated to be unavoidable. (In fact, the seventy years of nations serving Babylon had already begun, but Jeremiah warned of the consequential calamity that would would go "from nation to nation" at different times for different nations). However, Jeremiah 27 indicates that during the reign of Zedekiah (after 597BCE [or 617BCE in JW-land]), it was still not too late for those in Jerusalem to avoid exile, which they could do by serving Babylon. You continue to simply ignore Jeremiah 27. I'm beginning to think you might have torn it out of your Bible.

I believe that our interpretation of the biblical text regarding the seventy years in Jeremiah 29:10 is sound and I am more than happy with the alternative 'for Babylon' as it also can be fully accommodated with our interpretation as I have explained in the past on this forum.

I've already shown that the Watch Tower Society's interpretation cannot be reconciled with the actual context of Jeremiah chapters 27-29, as well as the broader context of the rest of Jeremiah. It's quite amusing that you keep saying 'our chronology', even though if the Watch Tower Society changed it tomorrow, you would immediately switch to whatever your idol preaches.

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:

Therefore, Tetley's choice of a different methodology in using the LXX rather than the Masoretic text demonstrates a different methodology to that of other chronologists such as Thiele. We do agree with her on this but it would be interesting to see how she lays out her approach in handling the data. I have not told you many times that chronology is about methodology and interpretation whic is confirmed by Rodger Young and Christine Mary Tetley.

Is it 'Opposite Day' in the world of 'scholar' or something?? Or is lying just an automatic compulsion now? Watch Tower Society chronology does not agree with the differences found in LXX, and you have bleated about your 'methodology' many times.

And you're still misusing the word methodology, which actually includes yours methods of interpretation.

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 you actually have a copy of Tetley's book and have you actually read it? I have not but hope to purchase shortly for all I have at the moment are three scholarly reviews, one by Rodger Young (6 Pages) and the other two by Jennifer Singletary and Steven Mc Kenzie. If you a copy a hand perhaps you could a copy of any charts which discuss the period of Hoshea's reign.

No. I've only gleaned what is available from partial searches on Google Books, as well as other reviews.

I first sighted a copy as a newly arrived book at the Moore Theological Library back in 2005 or thereabouts and was intriqued by its contenst because it was a major overhaul of Thiele's chronology for the Divided Monarchy, At that time I did not expect her research to support WT chronology and I do not expect on a future reading to do so despite your suggestion that I have that expectation.

Her research does not support 'WT chronology'. Your 'expectations' are not relevant.

Your apparaisal of her work is basically sound and I am pleased that she supports the interregnum or gap prior to the offical beginning of Hoshea's reign which of course supports our understanding of matters and further that she applies a consistent methodology to the calendation for both kingdoms which again is what we have dome for our suggested chronology. I am interested in how how she treats 2 Kings 15 :30 and more particularly 2 Kings 17:1 because she had skill in Hebrew and Greek.

She does not run into the problem outlined in the initial post in this thread. As such, she does not support the Watch Tower Society's view. Additionally, she treats it as an actual interregnum. There is no mention of 'vassalage' (either for Hoshea or Ahaz) or ruling 'in some sense' prior to Hoshea's 'recognised' reign.

Tetley's work is indeed very controversial amongst scholars just as our chronology is bu

Comparing 'your' (i.e. Watch Tower Society) chronology with Tetley's work is an insult to Tetley.

the three reviewers althogh not necessarilly agreeing with her certainly commend her for her fresh, thought provoking approach, tha'that she may be proved right' and that the work is for the serious chronologist. She passed away recently and I was able to watch a video of her Memorial Service which also revealed that her work is found in all of the major university libraries around the world and that her new book on the Chronology of the Egyptian Kings will be published by Eisenbrauns after her death.

Tetley's work lends no support to the Watch Tower Society's chronology. She takes liberties with biblical accounts that invalidate JW dogma even if she's right. She also agrees that Jerusalem fell in 587BCE.

Interestingly Thiele, Tetley and scholar have something in common in that all of us served as missionaries, did post graduate after our assignments and had a liftime passion for chronology.

LOL. Stop comparing yourself to 'proper' scholars. You're a Watch Tower Society peon.

30

I regret my disassociation.

by Zoos in

jw
friends

if i knew then what i know now, i might never have disassociated myself.

i realize all i can do is speculate on what could have been.

however, when i consider the number of people i might have been able to help by dropping little thought-provoking seeds, i really regret having jumped to the decision to disassociate so quickly.. ive read the accounts of several people on this forum telling of how stressful it is to be in the position that i just described above.

Jeffro

Zoos:

If I knew then what I know now, I might never have disassociated myself. I realize all I can do is speculate on what could have been. However, when I consider the number of people I might have been able to help by dropping little thought-provoking seeds, I really regret having jumped to the decision to disassociate so quickly.

There's certainly no reason to 'play by their rules', including 'disassociating'. However, JW elders can also decide that a person has 'disassociated himself by his actions', which doesn't require any formal 'resignation' by the individual and also provides no right of appeal. That is what would happen if it ever became obvious that a JW were 'sowing seeds of doubt'. Because congregation members are not told any of the circumstances of why they're 'supposed' to shun any particular person, many JWs will presume that the person has 'committed immorality', which the Watch Tower Society claims is the most common reason for 'expulsion'.

Anyone planning to 'lay low' in a JW congregation in order to help others would be wise to foster relationships outside 'the organisation' at the same time, so they have a support group if/when JW elders decide to enforce shunning.

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.