AnnOMaly
Post 3798
Yes I am afraid 'the needle is stuck in the groove' for that is what happens when you have two immovable objects, Jeffro and scholar.
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 4246
I've not only very clearly shown that the Watch Tower Society's "interpretion" of Jeremiah 29:10 is not only wrong, but also that their 2013 revision of the verse is even more damaging to the interpretation, because it betrays their arrogance and ignorance regarding the actual order of events indicated in the BibleI've not only very clearly shown that the Watch Tower Society's "interpretion" of Jeremiah 29:10 is not only wrong, but also that their 2013 revision of the verse is even more damaging to the interpretation, because it betrays their arrogance and ignorance regarding the actual order of events indicated in
You have done nothing of the sort. You simply have a different interpretation of this verse. Further you have not demonstrated how the two editions have any significant difference between, the recent edition simply has fewer words.
It's no difficulty for me to discuss both topics at once, becaues my table is consistent with the Bible all the way through. In any case, the seventy years are pertinent to the broader topic because the manipulation of the spurious period prior to the reign of Hoshea is part of the Watch Tower Society's efforts to make up the difference of 20 years in the Neo-Babylonian period, because they shift Ezekiel's period of 390 years. Are you having trouble keeping up? As I have already explained elsewhere: "In total, their chart extends the length of the reigns for the divided monarchy of Israel and Judah (after Solomon) by 68 years. It is no co-incidence that this discrepancy corresponds to the period from the supposed beginning of Jewish exile in 607 BCE until the actual end of Babylon’s 70 years in 539 BCE. The figures in their chronology are manipulated in order to apply the period of 390 years at Ezekiel 4:5 to the division of Judah and Israel until their date assigned for the fall of Jerusalem. However, when correctly accounting for the various co-regencies, the 390-year period actually runs from 929 BCE up until the end of Babylon’s 70 years in 539 BCE. ... There were actually only 50 years from the destruction of Jersualem until the year they assign for the Jews’ return, and therefore only 48 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the actual end of Babylon’s 70 years. However, the Watch Tower Society extends the lengths of reign of Judean kings by 68 years. To make up the difference of the missing period of approximately 20 years when aligning the reigns of Judah with those of Israel, spurious periods are inserted prior to the reigns of Zechariah (10.5 years) and Hoshea (9.5 years)."editions for these express the same idea that the Jews had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years expired or ended.
Your table is simply a contrivance designed to mislead the gullible and further it is not scholarship because it is simply a copy of others chronology. Our computation of the Ezekiel's 390 years is simply taken from the year for the beginning of the Divided Monarchy in 997 BCE adding up all of the regnal years of the respective kings of Judah which ammounts to 390 years thus reaching the end at 607 BCE. No manufacturing or manipulation is required for the numbers simply fall into place.
The Watch Tower Society's selective quoting was entirely misleading. The fact that you don't understand that is further testiment to the damage done to you by your religious sect. Stern gives no support at all to 'WT chronology'. He indicated a period from the first regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar until the first regnal year of Cyrus (in Babylon), without any 'intention' of 'aligning' with the Watch Tower Society's foolish interpretation of the '70 years'. Stern states that much of Judea was uninhabited during the Neo-Babylonian period, but explicitly states that it was not entirely uninhabited. Once again, you're left claiming that a secular source 'must just be wrong'.
No selective quoting was necessary. Stern's article was straightforward and so was the specific reference chosen by the WT writers. Stern does not endorse WT chronology but certainly does agree that during the Babylonian period the land was desolated. The only difference apart from the dates is that Stern finds no evidence for the complete dehabitation but you would not expect any other result from archaeology.
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 4242
In other words your pretty chart is simply a contrivance designed to mislead and to deceive people base on unsound scholarship.
Your sources are based on Encyclopedias and not on serious reference works on Chronology so in other words it is amateurish.
Our scheme of chronology is most certainly based on the Bible because it presents the reign of Hoshea accurately which your scheme does not, you mention the two texts in 2 Kings which deal with his reign but you do not treat these texts properly as do many other chronologists. Further, your presentation of the seventy years is one-sided ignoring the Exile and period of desolation.
You say that you base your application of 2 Kings 17:1 on the original text and Bible commentaries. You are no Hebrew scholar so your comment is meaningless unless you can explain what the Hebrew means and please list those commentaries that you claim to have read. Sources please!!
There is indeed additional evidence for the vassalage of Hoshea and that is confirmed by Jewish chronology namely the Seder Olam my copy of which is in boxes. Dan Green in his Sacred Chronology Of The Hebrew Kings makes reference to this on a chart, p.25. The note therein states that Hoshea was a vassal king to Tilgath-Pileser for eight years ruling fro Gilead before becoming king of all Israel ruling from Samaria in Ahaz' 12th year.
So Dan Bruce nicely supports the fact of an interregnum for the reign of Hoshea but he does not support WT chronology nor Jeffro's pretty list.
As have said if you are going to quote Tetley then you should read it not simple use snippets from Google. If you choose access to it in a piecemeal way then perhaps you can try to locate her reference to Hoshea's reign and confirm whether there is a interregnum after the death of Pekah.
What the Bible clearly indicates that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude to Babylon for anything short of this simply deconstructs the seventy years making the period meaningless as Rainer Albertz in his study of the Exile notes. The fact of Exile means everything to this catastrophe in Jewish history.
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 3796
In respect to the correct transalation and interpretion of Jeremiah 29:10 ther is no problem for I can go either way. The immediate context proves the locative sense 'at' rather than 'for' and despite the fact that this verse has attracted much discussion it has remain unchanged in the new revised NWT. Game set and match!!
Scholar does not do babble, simply replies to the issues raised.
Jeffro is the one who is inconsistent, fails to stick to the initial theme which propmpted my intervention in the first place and in case you have not noticed because of your blind support of Jeffro, the theme was the Reign of Hoshea and the NWT's rendering of 2 Kings 17:1. Now for several days he has moved the subject to the my favourite- the seventy years.
I have read Stern's article but my copy is in some of the boxes but it has been posted and I see no problems with how it has been used. The article simply confirms the complete desolation of the land during the Babylonian period. Stern's dates for the period are different to ours and he finds no evidence for complete uninhabitation as Jeremiah foretold but thta is something that one one would not expect to be confirmed by the spade of the archaeologist. Overall, Stern's article was used correctly and is a positive contribution to WT chronology and interpretation.
scholar JW
t
-
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 4241
Every time you post some so-called obvious error, scholar refutes it nicely.
Your argument that somehow becaus eof numbers that the Exile only commenced with the first deportation is nonsense for the facts clearly show that in terms of consequences the Exile proper could only commence with the second deporatation at the Fall thus beginning the seventy years of Exile.
Stern has not been misquoted at all. What I would like to know is whether you have a copy of Stern's article and actually read it?
Yes! Babylon as with Judah did in fact become places of devastation 'without an inhabitant'. It is good to see that you are trying to be faithful to Jeemiah's prophecies.No it is not hyperbole for Jeremiah' language is quite specific and descriptive confirmed by the facts of history and archaeology. Next moment you will be arguing that the Exile was hyperbolic. LOL
The text in Jeremiah 44;14 does not say that at all for it simply states that some escapees would return but that does not mean that these would dwell in the land for Jeremiah excluded any possibility of dwelling or inhabiting the land.
I disagree there were at least two deportations to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzer, both of which involved an exile for those captives. The greater Exile was commensurate with the seventy years after the Fall in 607 BCE. For example Zedekiah was captured, blinded and taken to Babylon.
Yes! Serving Babylon as punishment meant Exile, the captives were in Babylon in servitude to Babylon and remained therein until the seventy years expired in 537 BCE. They could have avoided this punishment but they did not because gthey were a naughty people soff they went into punishment-exile-servitude alltogether. All of those elements and consequences which also involved other nations were all determined and fulfilled in the duration of that specified period of seventy years.
It is you that ignore Josephus and the seventy years by not focussing on the other seventy year texts. At this stage i am not bothered by his 182.5 years because my copy is in boxes so will give it attention later.
Jeremiah simply quoted the passage in Leviticus and Ezra simply quoted Jeremiah. End of story. The fact of the matter is that you do not like the thought that the land had to pay off its sabbaths for seventy years and this could only be done if it was left alone undisturbed by naughty people.
Our chronololgy has no 'brush fires' but yours does and so does the chronologies of Christendom's chronologists. The big bush fire for you is the seventy years.
Flattery and compliments will get you nowhere with me.
Jerusalem and Judah were a devastated place at the beginning of the seventy years in 607 and lasted as such for the duration as descibed by Daniel who of course quoted Jeremiah in Daniel 9:2. and such a miserable state of affairs is well attested in the prayer by Daniel as recorded in that same chapter for clearly he is referring to the past awaiting shortly for the expiration of the seventy years. Do you pray like Daniel? Are you a person of prayer?
The Bible also explicitly states that the Land of Judah would also lie desolate for seventy years and that the Jews exiled in Babylon would remain therein in servitude to Babylon as Exiles for seventy years. And during this period other nations too would also be in servitude to Babylon.
With respects to Tyre we cannot be dogmatic or certaing about the precise timeframe of seventy years for that city. The Bible and secular history does not give precise information for this event.
Why don't you make your chart public? i would love to compare your 'detailed chart' with that of the detailed charts in the book by Dan Bruce and see how the synchronisms are treated.
The Jews could not have served Babylon as exiles in their own land because the land had to become a devastated place so they had to be removed to Babylon to await the end of their exile. Judah came under the yoke of Babylon during the eight year of his reign in 620 BCE which was the beginning of his three year vassalship to Nebuchadnezzer ending in the first deportation in 617 BCE.
I as well reply with specifics and read and research widely.
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 3795
No need to babble because i suspect that in respect to the reign of Hoshea, Tetley, Thiele and scholar may well be on the same page and also because neither of us agree that the major exile occurred in 617 BCE.
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 4240
At long last you finally admit to chronologists including us has their own methodologies. All others describe the sources for their work and the principles of methods that they choose. You should do the same: Present a list of sources in a Bibliography and describe your method. This is what Dan Bruce has done in a recently published detailed books: Sacred Chronology of The Hebrew Kings and Synchronized Chronology Of Ancient Kingdoms, Oct, 2013. His work does not reflect any influence by Seventh Day Adventists, Watchtower or Rolf Furuli and others according to his website. It is his own personal research drawing upon the work of other chronologists such as Tetley, Thiele, Ussher, Albright, Orthodox Judaism, Hays and Hooker, Hughes, Gali, Rogerson, Young. Jones and Mc Fall.
His presentation of the reign of Hoshea nicely agrees with us showing a interregnum and the vassalship of Hoshea. The date sof course differ between his chronology and ours but they also differ to yours as well as many of the others listed above as shown in a Table of respected kingdom chronologists on page 12. Your name is not listed as a 'respected kingdom chronologist'. Why is that?
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 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 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 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 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 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