Post 3795
Each of us has different views of methodology and interpretation as is common to all chronologists. In short, we are all in the same boat trying to catch the same fish!!!! LOL
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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.
-
-
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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 4231
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.
So do you know the population of Jerusalem at the time of its Fall? Where was Zedekiah at that time? 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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?
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.
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.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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 4233
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.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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
AnnOMaly
Post 3793
You forgot to post the other two fish which makes up three: Thiele-Tetley-Scholar
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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 4232
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.
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.
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.
Tetley's work is indeed very controversial amongst scholars just as our chronology is bu 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.
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.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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
AnnOMaly
Post 3792
Do not worry I will dispose of Jeffro's arguments
There is no problem with the context or contents of Jeremiah 29 for WT chronology or the rendering 'at Babylon' in preference to 'for Babylon'. You argue that the first deportation with the first group of exilees was greater but this may be true in some sense. But did it constitute the beginning of the 'seventy years' is the issue at hand. Ezra did not think so when he wrote the history of the period in his second book of Chronicles he linked the passage of the seventy years with the land paying off its sabbaths and of course Jeremiah linked the passage of the seventy years with the land lying desolate without an inhabitant. Clearly, those two factors could only commence with the Fall with e destruction of the Temple, the city and the forced evacuation of the population of Judah in 607 BE. Josephus when he reviewed the history of this period and referred to the passage of the seventy years expressed a similar view.
WT Dogma as you put is reconciliable with the Bible. We simply have a different interpretation of Jeremiah so why cannot you grant us the right and freedom to have a different point of view and labour so vigously to ram your point of view down the throats of others. We simply agree to disagree.
You and Jeffro do not have any more facts than I in respect to the rendering of this verse. Neither of us are Hebrew scholars therfore we need to rely on the scholarship of others. There are other Bibles that render this verse similar to us and despite the passage of time the current revised NWT has decided to continue with the orthodox rendering of this verse along the lines of the hallowed King James Bible.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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 4224
I have not ignored your comment on Anstey for he most certainly does agree with our history for the reign of Hoshea. There are of course minor difference but we are on the same page because Anstey presents an interregnum of 8 years for Hoshea. The fact of such a 'gap' eludes most scholars and Jeffro's pretty chart which is borrowed from others.
At the moment I am gathering materials so that I can study in greater detail the period of the Northern Kingdom leading up to the Fall of Samaria. Scholars find this period most challenging and I freely admit that this is an area of chronology that I have paid little attention to . Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy which was her life's work until her recent death. I am somewhat interested to read what Tetley has to say about the reign of Hoshea and apparently her Bibliograpphy is extremely valuable so wisdom dictates a more considered approach to this most vexing area of chronology. Of course if you believe in Jeffro's nonsense then such research would be unnecessary because he has solve d all of the problems and is now a Master Chronologist. What a Joke!!
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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 4223
When one 'serves' as a slave or brought into swervitude into a foreign land, forced deportation or evacuation by a military force or conguering World Power, if that does not constitute an Exile then What does?
You do not like the fact of the Exile because it disentangles your hypothesis, tearing it to shreds and you have the hide about being faithful to Scripoture. Please give me a break.
I have never said that the Bible says that there was a 'seventy year exile nor does the Bible say 'seventy years of Babylonian dominion' as you would suggest. These expressions are interpretations pure and simple in attempt to explain the biblical narrative.
The focus from verse 16 of Jeremiah 29 is most certainly the King and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.You languish on about this chapter trying to make a point where there is none or making claims about this chapter that I have not stated. You forget that this chapter along with the rest of the book requires interpretation in order to construct the narrative for that piece of Jewish history. If you have a better narrative then go right a book for I amm perfectly happy with our understanding of matters
Our rendering of verse 10 is contextually possible becaus ethe emphasis in the entire context is locative not purposive. In all 10 case where 'Babylon' is mentioned in this chapter has Babylon as a 'place'. End of story! Scholar has no issues with your summation at the end of that paragraph.
Arithmetic is important in doing chronology as long as you have 'sense' of the numbers.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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
AnnOMaly
Post 3791
I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.
The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.
What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.
There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.
You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.
scholar JW
-
224
Another problem for JW apologists
by Jeffro inthe 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
AnnOMaly
Post 3786
1. Jehovah God is the Great Timekeeper
2. Jehovah God spoke the truth by means of Jeremiah when addressing the first exiles in Babylon for an accurate time frame was given in 25:11,12 and 29:10.
3. 'At Babylon' has equal status with 'For Babylon' sayin much the same thing with varying degree of emphasis. One rendering conveys location an dthe other conveys purpose. Both renderings are linguistically possible and both were realized historically and contextually.
scholar is going for thes three options.
scholar JW