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

Jeffro

Post 4200

Missed 'doubt' as I had to post from my ipad whilst my computer was undergoing online maintenance with Microsoft Support. Anyway back to business. Nothing bizarre at all but simply I affirm that the scheme that you have developed is your own and your did it on your own but that does not mean that it is original because it basically is just the same as most other chronologies. The difference is that it is colourful, pretty and more user-friendly therefor it is not from 'air' and I acknowledge that you use biblical data. However, your methodology or method and interpretion differs from our biblical chronology. I have cautioned you about the use of 'Decision Table Analysis' as it can get you into all sorts of trouble.

The WT publications that I have used are not contradictory but simply revise and clarify preceeding views thus serve as valuable aids in doing Bible chronology. I am comfortable with such sources and really it is my business not yours.

Some chronologists do recognize the interregnum or earlier kingship of Hoshea the only differenc ethat their dates are not identical with ours. James Ussher in his The Annals of the World was the first to do so.

Yes our WT chronology is consistent or in in agreement with secular chronology if a corrective is applied thus a harmonization of both chronologies is achieved.

Regarding Jeremiah 29:10 you have simply given your interpretation of this text, we have an entirely different interpretation of this verse which I endlessly propounded on this forum.

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 4196

I do not that you developed your own chronology on your own hence independently but it is not original because it simply replicates most other current schemes. You have in some way been influenced by others either directly or indirectly as it is impossible for any person to simply construct a chronology out of thin air. Consistency does not mean accuracy.

I do not cite an abandoned revision for all WTS publications have validity.

There is no spurious period for the early reign of Hoshea but simply the clear statement of 2Kings15:30, which is also recognised by other chronologists.

Yes indeed secular chronologies prove a difference of twenty years but when the corrective is applied then all of the data is easily harmonised and this is what the celebrated ones have done. This means that our Bible chronology is consistent with other secular chronologies.

Our chronology is truly Bible based as any person can see and this supported by the fact of a consistent rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 in both editions of the NWT.

Your interpretation of the ending of the seventy years is simply nonsense and conflicts with the clear statement of Jer.29:10 ,it's immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and all of the other seventy years text iyet the OT.

scholarJW

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 3770

Perhaps you can enlighten me as it was some years ago and I do not have a perfect memory.

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 4193

Your pretty chart is a good overview of orthodox chronology as presented by many scholars but the' devil is in the detail' and that is where your scheme fails. If one was to compare your scheme with that offered by Mc Fall, Young and Thiele amongst many others then there would be many differences of opinion as to the dates and the events for to date the only scheme that has gained universal acceptance is that of Thiele. Scholar however in saying this, that in making such a comparison between your chronology and that of others there may well be a difference of only one year in some instances for your scheme simply mirrors the 'popular' chronology of today.

You are entitled to view our chronology as a 'bad joke' and I am quite sure that most scholars would agree with you especially Thiele who had not time for our chronology. For my part I believe the 'joke' is on modern scholarship because we have a scheme that is simple, faithful to Scripture, harmonizes the 390 year period of Ezekiel, user-friendly and breathes life into Bible History, Theology and Prophecy.

I believe that the use of 'interregnum' to describe the earlier kingship of Hoshea based on 2Kings 15;30 is most appropriate even though it does not currency in our publications today. Of course our chronology for the Divided Kingdom differs to what was published in 1944 but so what for all scholarship is a work in progress and no doubt if you checked Thiele's work which was published in three editions there would have been changes and adjustments.

I am glad to see that you acknowledge the fact of my responses but you have simply not proved your case especially in regard to Hoshea's reign alleging that we have a problem. There is no problem for us but your problem is how to adequately deal with 2Kings 15:30. and this you have not done adequately. Further, you have not dealt adequately with the translation issues of 2Kings 17:1 proving that Hoshea's reign ended rather than began in that year as we interpret matters. You need to work much harder on this!!!! LOL

Your claim that our chronology is 'languishing with trite statements' is rather amusing for you assume that chronology for the Divided Monarchy is so ever easy and simple without any technical hurdles. Certainly our scheme proves that there is a twenty year difference or gap in certain points of contact between Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian history but so what? All that a competent chronologist needs to do is 'fine tune' or to quote Rodger C Young to use a Corrective in reconciling the biblical data with the secular data. Celebrated WT scholar over many decades have used Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as that Corrective.

In conclusion, Bible chronology differs between scholars particularly in the period of the Divided Monarchy for the biblical data in the form of numbers are mysterious providing a continuous challege for scholarship. Our scholars have triumphed and succeeded in providing a simple but workable scheme so I am duly proud of what we have accomplished as an organization.

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 4191

It is you that is desperate hence the production of your pretty chart in comparison to simple and clear chart in the Appendix in the latest NWT.

The expression 'interregnum is not used as such in our recent publications but in the case of Hoshea his Kingship is accurately described with the use of this term.in IMHO.

At least I have responded to your nonsense and no doubt will do 'battle' st some future time.

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 4178

Issue of calendation are issues of methodology because it is on the basic of a specific calendation employed by the chronologist that enables him/her to construct such chronology. There are no good scholarly reasons to prohibit the dating of the reigns for the Kings of Judah by using the Nisan to Nisan system and it makes far better sense to use a consistent dating system for both Judah and Israel. Simple is best.

It is not a matter of some disclaimer about the accuracy of the chart for chronology is not about absolute for there are very few dates that can can be truly viewed as absolute or pivotal. The statement explaining the methodology is simply a straightforward explanation of the method used in tabulating the scheme.

Be careful of Decision Table Analysis as a method forit is simply a "a method of considering all the parameters that affect an outcome or series of outcomes, and of making sure that no combination of conditions is overlooked". Thus such an analysis depends upon a set of pre-suppositions that bedevil all previous attempts to reconcile the data for the Hebrew Kings. Rodger Young as a systems analyst was the first scholar to use use a method and published his research in a paper published in 2003. No doubt you first learnt of this from Ann O Maly who first learnt it from me on one of my earlier posts on this forum whereupon i first drew attention to Rodger Young's methodology.

You should check your chronology with that of Rodger Young an dnot any points of difference.

Yes I do pay lip service to the scholarly literature but at least I note it, have the latest research at my fingertips and become aware of recent trends in scholarly research. Forewarned is forearmed.

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 4177

The source for the use of Interregnum for the reign of Hoshea is presented in the TABLE of CONTEMPORARY KINGS and PROPHETS and RELATED EVENTS, pp. 161 ff. in THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND, 1944 The chart or table also shows three other Interregnums for 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

Jeffro

Post 4175

There is no significance between the two editions, both indicate that Hoshea's reign began in Ahaz' 12th and not ended as your chronology claims. The NWT editions are in agreement with most modern Bibles translations.

Our example is one of history and public record and imparting public information goes without saying. What's your record?

As I said, 'there is no place for dogmatism in chronology', we have simply provided a 'suggested chronology' for the Divided Monarchy.

Your chronology is simply an interpretation of the biblical data, it matters nought as to well it supposedly harmonizes because in the end according to computer jargon: Garbage In =Garbage Out and that is so true with chronology. Pretty charts does not accuracy make. Your translation of 2Kings 17:1 falsifies your chronology based on the reign of Hoshea and if you are wrong here then the rest of your chronology is imperiled. We have no problem with harmonizing the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah as shown by our published lists for the period.

Your original chart id read offline on a printed page could require some magnification, your updated chart is much more user-friendly for I choose to print out rather than reading on screen.

Beware of vassalages as they compromise your chronology for one must be faithful to the historical record. Your scheme is simply contrived to fit your agenda in attempting to debunk WT chronology. Your chart is not historically sound because it does not account for 2Kings 15:30 and is also based on misunderstanding of 2Kings 17:1. You clearly are not smart enough to deal adequately with the history behind these two texts and not demonstrated adequate research for these two texts.

The suggestion about reconciling the Ahaz' 12th and 14 th year is simply doing chronology for even in your chart you list many suppositions in order to reconcile your chronology for all chronologists do this or in other words' 'fiddle the books'. Where we have 'fiddled the books' we are transparent about this by alerting the reader by means of the Latin circa.

WT chronology simply agrees with Ussher on some points of methodology, it is independent of Ussher's scheme.

I was pleased that you 'looked' at the reign of Tilgath Pileser and so have we.

If you argue that interregnums are bogus then you are out of step with Ussher and many other fine chronologists since his day for I can say similarly that your 'co-regencies' are also bogus.

Arithmetic is basic to chronology but those numbers do not just have numerical value for those numbers represent more than a numerical value as shown by how these are used and interpreted in the biblical record. Numbers must be used with caution and do not have have any mystical value unless used in terms of prophecy.

Offering a simplicsic scheme is being smart, honest and prudent but more important it is user=friendly which unfortunately is not the case with most modern-day schemes.

Regarding the data in 2Kings 18:1-10 we do not have any problems with reconciling that data as nicely shown in Aid to Bible Understanding, there is no direct statement in the Bible that supports your interpretation of this matter so it remains your invention and your problem, not ours.

Prophecies are paramount ot chronology for they breathe life into what would simply be 'dead' history, such builds faith in God's purposes. You interpret the 390 year period as 'Israel's years of guilt' running from the beginning of the Divided Monarchy until Fall of Babylon. Our understanding differs on this, because it is more accurate to end the period with the end of the Monarchywith Zedekiah The book of Daniel does not discuss the Ezekiel's prophecy but focussed on the duration of the seventy years beginning in 607 BCE which was the also the ending of Ezekiel's 'years of guilt.

'Making something up' is what all chronologists do in order to make their respective chronologies work because the Bible as far as I know does not have scheme written up in our modern caledation unless on eturns up in some yet to be discovered ancient manuscript. Here is hoping! LOL.

There are no contradictions with the Aid or Insight volumes except in your own imagination but I cannot help you with this problem.

Methodologies are personal, we have ours, you have yours and other scholars such Thiele , Mc Fall, Young have their own an dthat is how chronology is done. I cannot help you here for it is your problem not mine.

Whether or not Interpretation is separate to Methodology or part of it as you prefer the end result is the same for Chronology proper contains both elements and that is all that that I am trying to teach you.

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

Please be advised that Ihave just accessed your website and noted your updated and revised timeline which now is much more user friendly. I notice many points of difference and I will focus on your tabulation for the reign of Hoshea after next week as I am away for that period'

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 4173

Your attempt to refute the methodology in calculating the reigns of the Divided Monarchy according to the principle of the Nisan-based calendation is simply bogus and misleading. Such tabulations of the data misrepresents what the Aid book outlines before the presentation of the Chart for the Divided Monarchy. I suggest you' read the preceding paragraphs most carefully in order not to continue in making a complete fool of yourself. That chart was the basis for my claim 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'.

Further, the reader is advised in the introductory paragraphs before the chart that it is not intended to be viewed as an 'absolute chronology, but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms'.

What I suggest is that you use the lsted tabulations of the texts in 2 Kings and see how these are discussed in the scholarly literature as to how these texts can be harmonized with proposed calendations and see if there is some consistency. In short, you prove whether there is any consistency of the texts and what calendation was used for both Kingdoms. the I will check your conclusions with the scholarly literature.

scholar JW