Thanks for the information. The course looks good and interesting so I have signed up to begin the course in October. The text book by the instructor looks worth while so will purchase this also.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
25
Short Online Course (Free) on the Fall and Rise of Jerusalem in 587BCE by Tel Aviv University
by digderidoo infor those interested in the fall and rise of jerusalem in 587bce tel aviv university are offering a short 6 week online course through coursera in october 2014.. i have done a couple of coursera courses, they are always of the highest quality put together by scholars of whatever the subject matter is about.
universities tend to offer these as tasters and short introductions into their specialities.. you can get the information on the following link the fall and rise of jerusalem | coursera.
emory university are also offering a course through coursera on the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future starting may 26th the bible's prehistory, purpose, and political future | coursera.
-
-
-
24
is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?
by jeremiah18:5-10 ini'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 ini'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
Jeremiah 18:5-10
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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
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 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 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