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 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

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 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

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 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

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