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.
Ann O Maly
Post 3776
No the Jewish population as a whole captive in Babylon were advised that their period of Exile would be 70 years notwithstanding that for some captives who were deported 10 years earlier then their period would in fact be longer if they lived that long. There is no mention anywhere in Scripture of a 80 year Exile so your comment is superflous.
scholar JW
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.
Ann O Maly
Well I moved into my own home in March this year but had to construct a new shed for all of my tools of trade and now that is finished I have to fix a bookcase in my study so that I can move the library into my study. Soon all will be fixed then I will be a very happy chappy with all of my books to hand. It is very tempting to get at them but will hold off for a little while.
scholar JW
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
Post 4205
You were right. I have become a victime of a scam. I checked my on-line bank and the credit card transaction for the support services had not yet gone through, my bank has frozen my account until I can go into the bank and reset my account. I will ring Microsoft to see what they can do as as to any technical issues with the computer. It certainly does run much better as I did have some issues with it so will see what happens. Thanks for your alert.
As I have said before chronology is more than arithmetic for the numbers are 'mysterious' and problematic.
I do not believe that we have a preconceived numerology to prop up unless of course you are referring to the Gentile Times or to the Seventy Weeks of Years in Daniel but if you omit these prophecies then you put a cloud over the entire Bible making just a book of stories with no modern day relevance.
I will when I have proper access to my library should be able to provide additional sources for our understanding of Hoshea' reign and I will notify you of this but in the meantime from the materials I have at hand sufficiently address the issue that you have raised and I see no evidence that our understanding of Hoshea's reign is incorrect.
Chronology requires a 'corrective' at some point and this is acknowledged by chronologists so we have simply used a corrective to overcome the twenty year difference thus our chronology can be harmonized with the secular. No surprises here.
The reading of Jeremiah 29:10 as 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' makes the meaning much clearer so it simply refers to the place of occupation or exile which the Jews would remain in until the seventy years for their captivity would expire soon after the Fall of Babylon, their captor. It really is quite easy.
scholar JW
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.
AnnOMaly
Post 3772
All of my chronology reference books including that of Furuli, Jonsson and others including other reference works and commentatries are still in boxes so remain in unpacked for all I have to hand are my chronology files and journal articles. Therefore unless I can sight Furuli's discussion of that period I cannot comment on this matter. In any event the early period of Hoshea's kingship is clearly indentified in 2Kings 15:30 and his official reign is marked in 2Kings 17:1 but as the chronology for the Israelite Monarchy is problematic for the entire period it is most prudent to date the reigns with circa. Furuli must have also come to a similar conclusion as with many other chronologists.
scholar JW
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.
AnnOMaly
Post 3771
Thank you for that reminder for I had simply forgotten that fact. I must see if I can find that post by COJ for I did have some dialoque with Jonsson on that site many years ago. I must check the context for Carl's citation because I cannot recall him sourcing Young at all on anything.
scholar JW
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
