Posts by scholar

24

is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

i'm intrigued by the whole "bible chronology" topic, but have never really dug into it because to put any of it together you need a historically reliable starting point.

this wasn't a problem as a practicing jw because you just assumed their dates were right.

i would like for someone to give me one event described in the bible that is universally established and accepted historically that i can use as a reliable starting point.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 3904

Thanks. I have not forgotten.

scholar JW

24

is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

i'm intrigued by the whole "bible chronology" topic, but have never really dug into it because to put any of it together you need a historically reliable starting point.

this wasn't a problem as a practicing jw because you just assumed their dates were right.

i would like for someone to give me one event described in the bible that is universally established and accepted historically that i can use as a reliable starting point.

The only suitable candidate in answer to your question is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This date is well cinfirmed by secular chronology and is well documented in the Bible. For these reasons it was chosen by the celebrated WT scholars to be a Absolute or Pivotal Date for dating events for the OT.

Other scholars have and do propose other secular dates as absolute dates but none of these are as solidly based as the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for it alone ticks all the boxes for the purpose of constructing a Bible Chronology.

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 4285

Bully for you for you need to update not but that but also the seventy years, I have my daughter and grandkids over Xmas but will respond to those posts that I have missed when they leave mid this week.

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

Fisherman

Post 574

I did read your post. I would not sell the average person short because the Bible was not written for the intellectuals or the wise but rather for the average Joe who is also humble at heart. Interpretations abound but the true interpretaion is simple and harmonious and is consistent with the basic theme of the Bible which of course is God's Kingdom. True interpretation is a journey, a lifelong journey always mindful of qualities such as integrity, faith, sacrifice and service. It is not just academic pursuit confined to books, scholars and libraries but rather an experience of sacrifice and service.

It is true that whatever happens or does not happen in 1914 could validate our chronology one way or the other because we live in a time of fulfillment of Bible prophecy so we expects things to change, events to happen.

Unfortunately I cannot help you any further but to simply add: Keep looking! Keep searching!

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 4262

It is your own work for it is a 'cut and paste job' based on others. Therefore, it is consistent but it is plain dumb and wrong because it does not factor in the biblical 'seventy years'. However, in saying this I will admit that it is the 'prettiest' chart that I have seen.

All chronologies are manipulated and manufactured because the Bible does not contain a outline of chronology or a list so the chronologist has to interpret and harmonize the regnal data and other historical information and this where methodology is so important. In view of these circumstances, the KISS principle is most useful and this where WT chronology is superior.

Your listing of these manipulations is bogus:

There is an interregnum prior to the official reign of Hoshea- 2Kings 15:30
Co-regencies were present during the Divided Monarchy
The chronologies of the ANE should be adjusted to harmonize with Bible chronology.
The chronoilogy of Uzziah's reign is compatible with other scholars.
WT chronology applies a consistent methodology.
Some of the Kings were in fact vassals so this must be incorporated in the chronology if required by a regnal datum.
Your contrived 'one-year difference is irrelevant because our chronology for the period is purely suggestive not absolute.
WT chronology for the period of Daniel is based on history and close attention to the regnal data.
WT chronology is faithful to the history and regnal data in the Bible adjusted with the Biblical corrective-seventy years.
WT chronology adheres very closely to the entire book of Jeremiah.

Boy I hoped you would post more so that I could dispense with these as well.

We never claimed that Stern accepted WT chronology because that is not why he was quoted. What Stern said fundamentally agrees with our take on the state of Judah during the period of Babylonian domination.

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

Fisherman

Post 566

Chronology is all about interpretation and of course so is the Bible. You ask what is the correct interpretation? The answer is fairly simple. Which system is the simplest, easy to understand? Which system truly recognizes the historicity of the seventy years? Which system provides a consistent or 'cable of chronology going right back to Adam and to Jesus Christ? Which system is cognizant of Bible Prophecy and its fulifillment? Which system has practical value for our day explaining the 'times and the season' leading up to 1914, the birth of God's Kingdom and the 'Last Days'.

The chronology of Jeffro is simply a copy of others combining his own personal spin being antagonistic to the Witnesses. In short, it is a contrivance designed to mislead and deceive the gullible. He has also a website which seeks further to present his nonsense and his own personal interpretations.

So the decision as to which is correct is one that you must decide.

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

Berte Belteshassur

Post 74

Stern's article on the state of Judah during the Babylonian period which gives a slightly different chronology agrees with the WT interpretation of the biblical seventy year period. Namely that during that period of rulership that the land, the territory of Judah would be desolate and that is exactly what archaeology has found. The desolation was not uniform throughout the whole region as noted in areas such as Benjamin but overall this new evidence certainly vindicates our position.

Archaeologists are not experts in chronology so they simply adopt what ever scheme is popular amongst scholars so it is not surprising that the dating of the period does not exactly agree with ours but in broad terms i have no problem with the date for the period he has chosen. What is more imporatnt is that the period from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Fall of Babylon falls well within the framework of chronology that Stern has chosen to adopt.

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

Bart Belteshassur

Post 71

No for the desolation of Judah only commenced with the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE but it was certainly during the period of Babylonian rule as Stern writes. His chronology differs from that of WT scholars but he finds agreement by mean of archaeology that the land of Judah specifically was desolate. However, findings for other areas such as the territory of Benjamin did attest to habitation but of course the the territory of Benjamin was north to the Judah.

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 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

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 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