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

Ann O Maly

Post 3755

I am fully aware of the position that Parker, Young and Mc Fall take on chronology but the point that I was making that in connection with the translation of 2 Kings 17:1 there remains difference of opinion about how this verse should be rendered because the Hebrew syntax is neutral on this point. Consistency of usage would favour the common or normal 'became king' rather than 'had reigned'. Both renderings have chronological implications as to the reign of Hoshea and whether there was a interregnum after the death of Pekah. Jeffro's dogmatism as to transaltion is most unwarranted in this case.

I simply raised the matter of Parker because he was the first to raise the subject and in the spirit of my impartiality and fairness in respects to scholarship and in regard to Mc Fall he shows that this verse can be rendered either way which neutralizes Jeffro' argument. The fact of the matter is that this passage remains contentious.

Blessings

scholar JW

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

Jeffro

Post 4168

You have alleged that the NWT 2013 edition provides a better rendering than the previous edition whereas in fact there is no significant difference between both editions with the exception that the former omits the clause 'he ruled' thereby now providing an 'improved rendering' for this verse.LOL.

Celebrated WT scholars have dutifully assigned two dates for the beginning of the reign of Hoshea according to the history of the period as outlined in Chronicles and Kings and on several Bible passages such as 2 Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1. Both of these passages are the subject of much scholarly discussion in the scholarly literature Hoshea began a reign in c.758 BCE according to 2Kings 15;30 which is properly referred to as a interregnum then later in c.748 BCE his reign of nine years was established ending with the Fall of Samaria in 740 BCE. Obviously, a measure of interpretation is involved but that is the nature of doing chronology, it is the way in which all chronologists have to makes sense of the data. Your claim that 'They're just wrong' does not mean that they are wrong for that is simply your opinion, nothing else.LOL

In fact the chart on Chronology presented in Aid to Bible Understanding was not the first chart presenting a schema for the Divided Monarchyin WT publications for the first such chart was published in The Kingdom Is At Hand, 1944,pp.161 ff. The chart in the Aid book has not been discredited but has since been simplified, its presentation of the data is most useful in explaining this most technical subject -Chronology. Even yourself have produced a chart on Chronology subject as with all such charts to revision and correction. The fact of the matter that the Kings of the Divided Monarchy were subject from time to time to various World Powers and the Kings of both Judah and Israel became a vassal to a foreign power thus when computing the reigns of such kings such as Hoshea then this historical fact must be considered by any modern-day competent chronologist. This is done in the case of Hoshea for he was a vassal to Tilgathe -pileser. Perhaps you are unaware of this basic fact. The reference to a possible 14th year for Ahaz is indeed convenient for it is an attempt to explain the data and that is what scholars do, they seek to explain the data and make sense of it and yes it is a 'fabrication' but that is what all Chronology is - a Fabrication. That is chronology at its basic level. James Ussher was the first chronologist to explain the earlier phase of Hoshea' reign as an interregnum and others have followed this methodology and our scholars have made a similar decision of matters.

You raise the matter that we do not assign any specifics for the reign of Tilgath -pileser but that is because there is no data that would make this possible for example the length of his reign is subject to some dispute even though it is the opinion that his reign was 18 years but this is too short. His reign covered the reigns of Menahem-Pekahiah-Pekah-Hoshea which covered a span of far more than 18 years. Yes your chart(fabrication) attempts a harmonization but so does the chart(fabrication) in the Aid book.

There is no inconsistency between the two texts in 2 Kings for our interpretation correctly observes an interregnum following the assassination of Pekah by Hoshea which exact length remains unknown. Even in your chart (fabrication) you show this period as 'Hoshea's disputed reign'.

There are good reasons for suggesting that the list of reigns for the Kings of Judah are more certain than the reigns for the Kings of Israel and that very fact is shown by the use of the symbol 'c' in setting out the reigns for Israel. It is simply being honest about the matter and I would have thought to be self-explanatory or self-evident. The 390 year period was applicable to the line of Judean kings for it was through those kings that the Promised Seed, Jesus Christ would come so the integrity of the Monarchy was essential until the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

You raised the matter of the translation of 2Kings 17:1 as a point of issue and you are correct in doing so for that is what it is - a point of issue. Your dogmatic claim that this verse describes not the beginning but the end of Hoshea's reign based on syntax is most unwise and foolish because the matter cannot be decided by grammar but by context and that is what WT scholars have done.

In my experience with chronology over many decades has taught me at least one sobre lesson and that is that Simple is Best and that is based upon a sound principle in Philosophy- Ockham's Razor. I need say no more on this point. Your claim that 2 Kings 18:1,9,10 proves Judea and Israel were not both using Nisan-based dating systems because of the impossibility of Hezekiah's and Hosheas's reigns to have a difference of 2 years. Your assertion proves nothing for the chart (fabrication) in the Aid book reconciles the data nicely and not on the basis of different calendation but more on a sole calendation namely counting from Nisan. To prove otherwise you would need to consult with scholarship on this matter.

It is not stupid to limit the requisite of a definite chronology for the Northern Kingdom in order to construct a definite chronology for the Southern kingdom for the chronology of the Northern Kingdom is adduced from the Southern Kingdom for they are not independent chronologies. However, because of the simple fact that the Northern Kingdom was much shorter than the Southern it is simply a fact that the longer chronology would and must take precedence in establishing the 390 year period. The Bible does as you say say provide synchronisms between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and that is what makes a chronology for both kingdoms possible. There remains a clear superiority of the Southern Kingdom over the Northern Kingdom for both historical and the theological reasons.

Regardless of any coincidence your chart and that of the WT Society are in agreement over the length of the Judean Monarchy which amounts to approx. 390 years which is not the case with most other published tabulations by leading chronologists.

My use of the Aid book is my business for it is a legitimate published work of the WTS and IMHO remains a fine piece of scholarship serving as the basis for the later published Insight On The Scriptures, 1984. Chronology is as I have previously told you on many occasions is about Methodology and Interpretation and these two principles govern any and all schemes of chronology including those proposed by celebrated WT scholars over many decades. You correctly point out the many difficulties with the beginning of the reigns of certain kings but that only confirms what caused Edwin Thiele way back in the forties to seek to harmonize and make sense of those Mysterious Numbers of the Divided Monarchy.

scholar JW

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