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 4239

At least I am being honest and transparaent with nothing to fear or hide, not afraid to read the works of others. Your view of chronology is far too narrow to be of any value.

When I said that your work was based on Thiele I assumed that you would have had Thiele on hand but now I am not sure because you make a lot of claims as to your chronology being your own work having consulted other reference works but you have never listed your sources. So why don't you now list your sources for your scheme?

Saying that your chronology is consistent with the Bible is meaningless because there are many Bible chronologies out there all making the same claim but all have different dates. Making a claim proves nothing for it is the substance that counts and so far you are not looking too good. JW chronology is also consistent with the Bible, secular history and archaeology an dit is the only scheme that works because it is the only scheme that factors in the 'seventy years'.

Reading extracts of Tetley on Google is hardly a proper reading of her research and if this reflects your research methodology then no wonder it is such a mess and does not harmonize with the Bible. If you have read Teteley then what precisely did she say about the reign of Hoshea. Did she endorse a interregnum between the death of Pekan -2Kings 15:30 and the offical start of Hoshea's reign- 2 Kings 17:1?

i have not made any comments about her book because I have not read it but you are the one that is so knowledgeable about it because you claim to have read it on Google so perhaps you can be honest and reveal what you know. All that I know is that Tetley views are significant and her contribution to the subject of the Divided Monarchy is invaluable and must be at least consulted by anyone who seeks to do chronology.

As I said what we have in common within scholarship is a controversial chronology that has got people talking and discussing and that is what we are doing right now. You are forced to confront our chronology and that is why you have produced a website and scheme in an attempt to debunk WT Bible chronology.

You have shown nothing for the seventy years was indeed a Exile, The Exile of seventy years.

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 4236

If you are going to have any credibility for your work in chronology you should have a copy of Tetley or at least intend to get one. By the way have you got and read Thiele for I assume that you have if not then the former statement applies. If you have neither books then you have no business with chronology for your opinions will remain foolish and amateurish.

If you have not read Tetley then you cannot say in what way or manner she does not support WT chronology. I would anticipate that she does not but I would not be surprised because of her respect for the Bible that we would be be on the same page in some areas such as the interregnum for the reign of Hoshea.

If you have not read Tetley then you cannot make any relevant comment on her book or as to whether she did or did not traet the subject of 'vassalage' respecting the reigns of the Divided Monarchy.

We simply have in in common the fact that our research is controversial amongst scholars. That is all.

You say that she supports 587 BCE but no doubt it would be interesting to read how she discusses the 586/587 controversy along with the date for the Fall of Samaria and of course whether she discusses the biblical 'seventy years'.

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

AnnOMaly

Post 3795

It is you and Jeffro that are on the hook, well and truly caught because you cannot expalin away the fact that there was an interregnum or gap of some years prior to Hoshea's official reign as agreed by several chronologists including Christine Tetley.

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 4238

There is no obvious error in our interpretation of this verse and the entire chapter and the entire book of Jeremiah. You have your interpretation of matters and we have ours so let us agree to disagree.

When obvious questions are put to you then you run and hide only shaping when it suits you. It is simply a joke to argue that the first deportation was a greater Exile to that of the second deportation when the Monarchy had not yet been removed and Jerusalem was a going concern.

Have you read Ephraim Stern's article? Do you have it to hand? Are you up to date with the latest findings of archaeology for Judah during the Neo-Babylonian Period? The WT article on this subject was correct in quoting Stern and if memory serves me coreetly there was another source quoted that you fail to mention. The Bible says that Judah was emptied of its population 'without an inhabitant' so that is good enough for me so if you are so pedantic about Jeremiah then how about being faithful in connection with these many clear statements about the future state of the land of Judah.

If you agree that there was a Jewish Exile then please describe how many if more than one and the time period for such an Exile/s? I have never said that the Bible says that there was a seventy year exile for it does not in using that statement. What I have and do say that the Bible when it describes the seventy years its description is of Exile along with servitude and desolation in keeping with the expanation of all the other 'seventy year texts and the historical circumstances. In short, the Bible implicitly means Exile.

You are being 'fast and loose' with Josephus for it galls you to admit that Josephus and WT are on the same page when it comes to the seventy years and you should be honest and leave it at that.

Don't you think that Jeremiah was able to source Leviticus in reference to land paying off its sabbaths if in fact Ezra did not directly quote Leviticus. What we do know that Ezra directly quoted Jeremiah who quoted Leviticus or Ezra quoted both of them . What does it matter? The fact of the matter is that both Ezra and Jeremiah were concerned about the land paying offits sabbaths and it did over the period of seventy years. All that you seem able to do is start small brush fires everywhere which are simply minor distractions so that you can bash WT chronology and publicize your pretty charts and website.

Its all huffing and puffing with you with smoke and mirrors.

Yes I agree that the seventy years was a period wherein the bible explicitly states that all of the nations would serve Babylon and that the Exile was a punishment that refused to serve Babylon. However, you miss the obvious and explicit fact that the Bible also in these very same verse states explicitly that Judah would be devastated also for seventy years. Hence, one can easily note that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Servitude-Desolation. What the Bible does not say explicitly as how the nations apart from Judah were punished, there are no specific details nor specific timeframe for any other nation apart from Judah. Isaiah did make reference to Tyre in respect of a seventy year period but its actuality in history is not fully expalined in the context of a seventy year period.

Constructing a chronology for Neo-Babylonian Period that is compatible with WT chronology is possible but according to Furuli's research it would be somewhat problematic so as the saying goes:'Houston, We have a problem'.

If you argue that from 605 BCE the seventy years had already commence which constituted by your definition 'serving Babylon' then what would be th point of Jeremiah as recorded in chapter 27 pleading the Jews to avoid punishment by serving Babylon when in fact they were already in servitude so their punishment had already begun? This does not make sense at all for it is obvious that a far greater punishment with far greater consequences such as exile, deportation awaited them.

Your pleadings about your interpetations being this or that is simply gibberish because I can simply reply in kind.

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 4237

Tetley as with Thiele have their own specific methodology in developing a chronology for the Divided Monarchy, We too have our own specific methodology which differs from Tetley and Thiele and that is why the chronologies differ. That is the point of agrrement: that her methodology is different-she has chosen to be different. What is wrong with you for you seem to struggle with the concept of methodology despite the fact that I have tried to bring it to the fore on many occasions.

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

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

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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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