Posts by 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.

scholar

There is no fundamental difference between the NWT 2013 edition and the NWT, 1984 edition except that the latter edition states that Hoshea "he ruled" for nine years. Both editions translate the Hebrew as indicating that Hoshea began in the 12th year of Ahaz rather than ending in that year as you mistakenly allege.

The fact of the matter is that the Chart on page 1747 of the NWT, 2013 edn shows that Hoshea became king in c.758 BCE according to 2Kings 15:30 and this in the opinion of chronologists was an Interregnum up to the establishment of his reign in c.748 BCE which was the Ahaz' 12th year of vassalage under Tilgath-Pileser or the 14th year of Ahaz' actual reign.-2Kings 17:1. cf Aid to Bible Understanding,1971,p.344-5,ftn.m

Thus there is no inconsistency between the data of 2Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1. The nine year reign of Hoshea as the last King of Israel ended with the Fall of Samaria in 740 BCE

The chronology for the Northern Kingdom is fraught with difficulties which has created much scholarship since the time of Thiele and that is why celebrated WT scholars have properly made a' suggested' chronology for this period. That is why ii is stated that such a scheme or outline shold not be" viewed as an absolute chronology but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. In examining the chart you will see that nearly all of the reigns for the Northern Kingdom are prefixed with the Latin letter 'c' which means circa-about.

There is much divided opinion as to how the Hebrew of 2Kings 17:1 shoukd be rendered ito English. The first paper which dealt with this problem was that of Edmund Parker in his article 'A Note On The Chronology Of 2Kings 17:1' wherein he claims that Hoshea 'had reigned' rather than the' reign beginning' as NWT and most other translations adopt.

Leslie Mc Fall in his lengthy paper 'A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles' discusses the problem in greater detail and states that "The syntax of the Hebrew is more flexible than the English versions allow for it permits either a terminus a quo or a terminus ad quem". So your criticism on this verse fails.

Further, we calculate the reigns of the Judean on the Nisan to Nisan basis applying the same methodology to that of the reigns of the Kings of Israel rather than your claim and that of other scholars that Judah used the Fall system and Israel used the Spring system. Matters of such calendation are contentious. Simple is always best.

The length of the reigns for the Northern Kingdom have little to do with the 390 year period of Ezekiel because that period is applicable to Judah and provides auseful yardstick in constructing a chronology for the OT. If memory serves me correctly I believe that in your published Chronology Charts- 2004-2009 Jeffro agreed with the WTS position on this matter with a figure for the whole period approximating our position.

Your claim that JW Chronology cannot be reconciled with itself for the following passages in 2 Kings is simply bogus for our publications explain these anomalies for that is what chronologists seek to do to make sense out of the data. That is why for instance Thiele titled his research 'The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'.

scholar JW

There

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Ann OMaly

I choose what specific areas I wish to research not you just as you choose no to divulge your qualifications, if any and choose not to engage with directly my post or email.

You can what the areas are of conflict and agreement by reading ahat such scholars have written for it is called comparison. I do not need to make a comparison bewteen your so-called research and others because I have no confidence in what you say or your interpretation of this most contentious matter, It is best left to the experts. When you post your credentials of you both as Jonsson has referred you as scholars then you both can be taken seriously.

Yes, we call it the traditional chronology or Absolute chronology or Ne0-Babylonian chronology and Albertz simply uses the accepted date with some criticism and review at various points because there are considerable points of disagreement amongst scholars on this chronology.

Furuli is a real scholar with real degrees fully competent in the areas he is dealing with, those areas he not an expert he readily acknowledges. I am aware ofGrabb's criticism and that's fine for it is up to the reader to make a final judgement.

I do not mind being called a fool because I am in good company. If this is the case then why do you respond to my posts?

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Mr Freeze

I am only aware of one Nabonidus but if you ask Jeffro he will make up one for you as he is in the habit of making things up and living in self delusion.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

I have done the research. I have been reearching since the seventies an dyour chropnology on its own unless it is adjusted or fine tuned is collapses. I don need any bullying from you for if you are convinced in your own mind about your research and are happy and content then bully for you. The mere fact is that all those scholars with PHD 's agree on certain points with you would in their same research would disagree with you on some point. The research of Rainer Albertz who wrote a most detailed study on the Exile, published in 2003 by the Society of Biblical Literature a Society made up of the world's prominent scholars who agrees with your chronology mostly but has views on chronology, history and theology similar to JW's.

You evidently have no qualifications hence a amateur at best.

By the way Furuli has a PHD do you?

scholar JW

fd

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Doug Mason

Just some further clarifications as Jeffro has put his two cents in. Albertz begins the first deportation in 597 BCE but the Exile began with the Fall of Jerusalem 587 BCE. The seventy years in Chronicles begins with the the first year of Jehoiakim's reign in 609BCE until Cyrus which would be 539 BCE. His beginning of the Exile is the Fall of Jerusalem which agrees with WT chronology.

Further, he does not discuss the seventy years of fasting as of Zechariah that I could find by means of the Index. The seventy years of Jeremiah he dates from 587-517 BCE.

This illustrates the differences between historians regardin chronology but what is significant that he begins the Exile with the Fall of Jerusalem and not 609 or 605 BCE.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Doug Mason

Hi Doug! Hope you are well.

You raise the matter of Gedaliah and the length of his rulership. You will be pleased to know that I finally printed out Rainer Albertz's Israel In Exile some 450 pages of excellent information. This was the first reference quoted in the Oct 15 Wt 2011 on Chronology a refernce that as always correctly used. His chronology does not agree with JW's but his Theology certainly does and that is more important. Regarding Gedaliah he states on page 94, "Unfortunately,we do not know precisely how long Gedaliah's regime lasted...then Gedaliah had only two monthsfor his social experiment...If we accept this date, then Gedaliah had some four or five years to carry out his social reform.' This confusion seems to represent the state of current scholarship for one side accepys a couple of months whereas others give a number of years.

Albertz' history of the Exile uses different chronologies for the exile but begins the Exile only with the Fall of Jerusalem and not some earlier date proposed by Jonsson and others. Further, he treats the matter of the seventy years from 587-517 BCE rather differently as well.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

As I have said you need to tone down the vitriol becaus eall it does is reflect on your credibility.

If you claim to be a scholar or are prepared to accept that label then if you are genuine then why don't you state your qualifications? Is that not hard to do? I have stated my qualifications on this forum many years ago.

I simply do not believe that you are competent in matters of ancient chronology and neither you nor Jonsson are competent in that area.

Your exasperation is born from your inability to deal with the issues at hand and the very fact that I have argued the matters over and over proves that I know what I am talking. Whenever I state a problem or difference of opinion between scholars you dismiss it. You only like what appeals to you and if you don't like my posts then go way. Why do you read them and seek to engage with me. If I am an idiot as you seem to be saying then why do you respond.? This is a public forum dealing with matters that to pertain to my faith so I seek to defend our wondrous chronology. I do not seek to convert others but simply to provide an alternative viewpoint.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Mr Freeze

You are confusing yourself and getting bogged down in nonsense. Keeping it simple is the way to go. Our timeline is based on principal events with principal dates and scripture texts. The NB period is well known and well represented in the literature. You can identify the rulers at Babylon, add up their respective reigns ending in 539 BCE. You then simply add up the biblical period taking note of the the kings of Judah and the principal events right up to 539 or until 537. You add upo the numbers and you will find a twenty year difference.

If you wish harmonize the two chronologies then you will need to factor in the seventy year period into the Babylonian period and it all comes together.

I could draw a chart for you but my computer skills are limited. Have a go and I will help you .

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

AnnOMaly

The first rule of posting on this forum is not to use insulting and provoking language and I find your tone and direct remarks insulting and unbecoming to someone who has been referred to as a scholar. If you are in fact a true scholar then mind your language, Please!

1. I am aware of the identity of the celebrated WT scholars as a group. They are publicly recognized. Information as to their identity has been discussed in two part scholarly article published in a Leading academic journal some decades ago. I was priviliged to be present when the author of the foresaid article was awarded the title Professor Emeritus. These are the only clues I will give . Somepne wrote to the Society about this matter and they received a reply indicating a lack of knowledge about such a group. This is a waste of time because the mail clerk who reads such a letter would not know anything about the matter. Let us be content with mystery for it is somewhat like the group of researchers who checked the asto-programs and the NWT Committee. We all have our secrets.

2. I do not know the identity of those researchers but what I do know is that they were a group independent of Furuli who by the way could be classified as celebrated WT scholar so there is one name for you. Don't you think he would qualify for such an elite group?

3.iI have spent decades researching chronology at least from the early seventies so don't tell me that I do not do research. But I cannot research everything for example I am no expert in ancient calendation,ancient astronomy nor in the ancient languages. Anyone of these subjects would be useful to a chronologist but one needs to draw the limit. I am happy to defer to those who have expertise such as Furuli, Hunger and others. Your motive in bullying me to pursue a study of astroprograms is simply a bait so that you can beat your own drum. Scholar will choose his own agenda at his good time. Thankyou!

4. Again you praise your own scholarly examinations. Bully for you! Yet when asked you do not state your academic qualifications so why should I take any notice of your so-called research. There is a credibility gap just akin to the Babylonian gap of twenty years.Yes your work does stand on its own merits along with the work of Jonsson and others but your statue was toppled by the two articles on Chronology published in the Watchtower. Further, the two part critique by Jonsson cannot be trusted. My experience with Jonsson is that he is incompetent in using scholarly sources. I have caught him out before and in his opening comments on the very quote on the historical source referred in the frist paragraph of the first WT article did it for me. When a person becomes so churlish about a significant piece of history then that shows that his motives are not fair and scholarly.

5. You have not dealt with Furuli by mail or email but only through the medium of a website. That may be direct to you and would qualify as a casual form of communication for nothing beats a direct letter. Besides I have asked you to do it this way because of your continuous bully tactics so that is the way it must be. If not, then move on.

scholar JW

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

MrFreeze
I'll have to look up my research... don't have time right now as I am off to work. Will check back and post later unless someone else has the WT timeline of Babylonian kings handy.

Thats Ok.

scholar JW