Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3791

    I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.

    The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.

    What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.

    There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.

    You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4223

    When one 'serves' as a slave or brought into swervitude into a foreign land, forced deportation or evacuation by a military force or conguering World Power, if that does not constitute an Exile then What does?

    You do not like the fact of the Exile because it disentangles your hypothesis, tearing it to shreds and you have the hide about being faithful to Scripoture. Please give me a break.

    I have never said that the Bible says that there was a 'seventy year exile nor does the Bible say 'seventy years of Babylonian dominion' as you would suggest. These expressions are interpretations pure and simple in attempt to explain the biblical narrative.

    The focus from verse 16 of Jeremiah 29 is most certainly the King and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.You languish on about this chapter trying to make a point where there is none or making claims about this chapter that I have not stated. You forget that this chapter along with the rest of the book requires interpretation in order to construct the narrative for that piece of Jewish history. If you have a better narrative then go right a book for I amm perfectly happy with our understanding of matters

    Our rendering of verse 10 is contextually possible becaus ethe emphasis in the entire context is locative not purposive. In all 10 case where 'Babylon' is mentioned in this chapter has Babylon as a 'place'. End of story! Scholar has no issues with your summation at the end of that paragraph.

    Arithmetic is important in doing chronology as long as you have 'sense' of the numbers.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4224

    I have not ignored your comment on Anstey for he most certainly does agree with our history for the reign of Hoshea. There are of course minor difference but we are on the same page because Anstey presents an interregnum of 8 years for Hoshea. The fact of such a 'gap' eludes most scholars and Jeffro's pretty chart which is borrowed from others.

    At the moment I am gathering materials so that I can study in greater detail the period of the Northern Kingdom leading up to the Fall of Samaria. Scholars find this period most challenging and I freely admit that this is an area of chronology that I have paid little attention to . Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy which was her life's work until her recent death. I am somewhat interested to read what Tetley has to say about the reign of Hoshea and apparently her Bibliograpphy is extremely valuable so wisdom dictates a more considered approach to this most vexing area of chronology. Of course if you believe in Jeffro's nonsense then such research would be unnecessary because he has solve d all of the problems and is now a Master Chronologist. What a Joke!!

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.

    Yes you have. And you're wrong, as has already been thoroughly explained.

    The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.

    The Bible indicates that there were significantly more people taken into exile in 597BCE than in 587BCE.

    What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.

    Wrong. Continuing to ignore what is directly stated in Jeremiah 27 won't change the fact that serving Babylon didn't mean exile.

    There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.

    No, it's been shown thoroughly that you are wrong.

    You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.

    I have zero problems with the verse. You had to scramble for an explanation, deferring first to the abandoned Aid to Bible Understanding from 1971. Then, getting even more desperate, you appealed to The Kingdom of God is at Hand from 1944, which presents a quite different chronology to what the Watch Tower Society currently teaches. (In fact, the 1944 publication had Hoshea beginning to reign in Ahaz' actual 12th year and not the fictitious '12th year of vassalage' adoped later.)

    It is interesting though that the 1944 publication had fewer discrepancies involving alignment of Judah and Israel than the JWs' current chronology. The current chronology has been adapted to have more discrepancies of a single year each, whereas the old chronology had a smaller number of more severe discrepancies.

    Because it can be determined mathematically that Judah used Tishri-based years and Israel used Nisan-based years, differences in alignment by one year that are compatible with those dating systems are not shown.

    Watch Tower chronology (1944)
    Scripture

    Discrepancy in alignment of
    numbered years for Judah and Israel

    2 Kings 1:17 6 or 10*
    2 Kings 15:8 10
    2 Kings 15:13,17 10
    2 Kings 15:23 10
    2 Kings 15:27 10
    2 Kings 18:9 1
    2 Kings 18:10 1

    Watch Tower chronology (current)
    Scripture Discrepancy in alignment of
    numbered years for Judah and Israel
    1 Kings 15:25 1
    1 Kings 15:28,33 1
    1 Kings 16:8 1
    1 Kings 16:15,21 1
    1 Kings 16:22,23 1
    1 Kings 16:29 1
    1 Kings 22:51 1
    2 Kings 1:17 2 or 5*
    2 Kings 3:1 3
    2 Kings 15:1 11
    2 Kings 17:1 2 or 3 (if counting accession period)
    2 Kings 18:9 1
    2 Kings 18:10 1

    *For both tables, asterisk indicates the discrepancy depends on whether alignment is compared to co-regency or sole reign.

    The 1944 publication had a spurious interregnum prior to Uzziah's reign of about 11 years. Unsurprising, that chronology also extended the spurious period prior to Zechariah also incorporated that additional amount (plus that mentioned further below). In the newer chronology, the extra 10 years before Uzziah were redistributed between a number of kings, mostly with a difference of only 1 year each, making them less noticeable. This is disguised by inconsistently employing the accession-year system for only some kings. The manner in which this is done strongly suggests that the efforts to hide the flaws in Watch Tower Society chronology are deliberately deceptive. However, the newer chronology still has other more obvious unresolved alignment problems as shown above.

    In the 1944 chronology, the spurious period prior to Hoshea was only 8 years instead of 10 years, which meant that the problem with Ahaz 14th year did not exist in the old chart. To maintain the difference of the Watch Tower Society's 20-year gap, the corresponding extra 2 years was added to the spurious period prior to Zechariah instead.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    When one 'serves' as a slave or brought into swervitude into a foreign land, forced deportation or evacuation by a military force or conguering World Power, if that does not constitute an Exile then What does?

    Have you even read Jeremiah chapter 27?! I already quoted it previously in this thread in case you're too lazy to look it up elsewhere. It explicitly states that exile was an alternative punishment for nations that refused to serve Babylon. Is your problem rampant dishonesty, or plain old stupidity?!

    You do not like the fact of the Exile because it disentangles your hypothesis, tearing it to shreds and you have the hide about being faithful to Scripoture. Please give me a break.

    Idiot.

    I have never said that the Bible says that there was a 'seventy year exile nor does the Bible say 'seventy years of Babylonian dominion' as you would suggest. These expressions are interpretations pure and simple in attempt to explain the biblical narrative.

    Wrong. Jeremiah 25:12 says"these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Jeremiah 27:6-11 states that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile.

    The focus from verse 16 of Jeremiah 29 is most certainly the King and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.You languish on about this chapter trying to make a point where there is none or making claims about this chapter that I have not stated. You forget that this chapter along with the rest of the book requires interpretation in order to construct the narrative for that piece of Jewish history. If you have a better narrative then go right a book for I amm perfectly happy with our understanding of matters

    The Watch Tower Society interpretation cannot be reconciled with the context of the chapter. You're just wrong. I have already explained this very clearly.

    Our rendering of verse 10 is contextually possible becaus ethe emphasis in the entire context is locative not purposive. In all 10 case where 'Babylon' is mentioned in this chapter has Babylon as a 'place'. End of story! Scholar has no issues with your summation at the end of that paragraph.

    Babylon is mentioned eleven times in that chapter. At least four of those instances are not 'locative'. In any case, your 'reasoning' is specious because use of a word in a particular way doesn't preclude its use in another way elsewhere. And the Watch Tower Society's rendering isn't 'yours'—you're just a minion.

    Arithmetic is important in doing chronology as long as you have 'sense' of the numbers.

    I have resolved the entire period with respect to both scriptural and historical context.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    I have not ignored your comment on Anstey for he most certainly does agree with our history for the reign of Hoshea. There are of course minor difference but we are on the same page because Anstey presents an interregnum of 8 years for Hoshea. The fact of such a 'gap' eludes most scholars and Jeffro's pretty chart which is borrowed from others.

    Anstey (incorrectly) 'supports' an 8-year interregnum, which is similar to the 8-year gap in the 1944 publication. (More accurately, the JW chronology had Antsey and similar works as source material. The 'requirement' for this 'gap' is actually a symptom of having failed to properly account for various co-regencies.) However, Anstey refers to that period as an actual interregnum, and not a period prior to some 'recognition' of 'vassalage', which is merely a Watch Tower invention. Anstey gives no support for the 10-year difference in the current JW chronology, or for the claim that Hoshea began to reign relative to Ahaz' alleged 'vassalage'.

    At the moment I am gathering materials so that I can study in greater detail the period of the Northern Kingdom leading up to the Fall of Samaria. Scholars find this period most challenging and I freely admit that this is an area of chronology that I have paid little attention to .

    It's no surprise that you find the subject 'challenging'.

    Before beginning any attempt to understand this period it is required reading that one has access to Christine Tetley's scholarship on th eDivided Monarchy which was her life's work until her recent death. I am somewhat interested to read what Tetley has to say about the reign of Hoshea and apparently her Bibliograpphy is extremely valuable so wisdom dictates a more considered approach to this most vexing area of chronology.

    It hardly matters how much 'name-dropping' you do, for you will simply ignore any sources that don't agree with WTS dogma. You're just a dishonest Watch Tower Society pawn.

    Of course if you believe in Jeffro's nonsense then such research would be unnecessary because he has solve d all of the problems and is now a Master Chronologist. What a Joke!!

    Idiot. I have indeed ably resolved the chronology for the entire period. And if that makes me a "Master Chronologist", well then, it is what it is. I've been honest enough to admit where my chart was wrong previously, researched the source material, and developed a chart that is even more superior to anything offered by the Watch Tower Society. You, on the other hand, can't let go of JW dogma, even when all the experts (whom you claim to respect) show that it's wrong.

  • Bart Belteshassur
    Bart Belteshassur

    SCHOLAR- 2002

    "You and Jeffro can "huff and puff" about the correct translation of Jeremiah 29:10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is "ZILCH"".

    Have you got some qualifications that make you a Hebrew scholar or any Biblical translation credits in any version? If not evidently your OPINION IS ZILCH as well.

    Personnally my qualifications I would defer to Dr. Driver and his rendering of the verse, as it would seam senseble that with his exstensive research and scholarship regarding the preposition "LE" in hebrew his qualifications can not be questioned:-

    "For thus saith Yahweh, As soon as seventy years be accomplished FOR BABYLON,".

    BB

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Jeffro has thoroughly refuted your arguments, Neil, so I'll keep this short.

    I have clearly stated my position in regard to the audience of Jeremiah 29.

    Thus the problem with WT chronology and its rendering of v. 10 remains. It is such a shame the RNWT didn't follow the two Scandanavian NWTs' example here with 'for.'

    The Exile of the first deporation in 617 BCE was certainly a real exile for those exilees but a much greater Exile would take place much later which involved the entire nation and land of Judah thus beginning those 'seventy years' of Jeremiah. Such a distinction is agreed upon by Josephus and Albertz Rainer.

    The Bible makes it crystal clear that the '617' (597) one was greater. Why you keep insisting that black is white is beyond me. Or are you struggling with numeracy again?

    What we do know for certainty that the Jewish captives remained in Babylon for seventy years as Jeremiah foretold would be the case.

    And so you repeat your (untenable) default position.

    There is no need to 'wriggle like a fish' because I have Jeremiah on my side who after all was a eyewitness to those events.

    There is no need ... and yet here you are, doing just that, because you are trying in vain to reconcile two incompatible positions: the Bible's own testimony and WT dogma.

    You and Jeffro can 'huff and puff' about the correct translation ofJeremiah 29;10 but both of you are not Hebrew scholars or Bible translators so your opinion is 'zilch' and besides Jeffro has enough problems with 2Kings 17:1.

    Actually, Jeffro and I have been bludgeoning you with facts, but you refuse to stop wriggling. With you it was ever thus.

    (Are you sure you're not on our side really, that you've long been pretending to be insanely pro-WT just to make JWs look bad?)

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3792

    Do not worry I will dispose of Jeffro's arguments

    There is no problem with the context or contents of Jeremiah 29 for WT chronology or the rendering 'at Babylon' in preference to 'for Babylon'. You argue that the first deportation with the first group of exilees was greater but this may be true in some sense. But did it constitute the beginning of the 'seventy years' is the issue at hand. Ezra did not think so when he wrote the history of the period in his second book of Chronicles he linked the passage of the seventy years with the land paying off its sabbaths and of course Jeremiah linked the passage of the seventy years with the land lying desolate without an inhabitant. Clearly, those two factors could only commence with the Fall with e destruction of the Temple, the city and the forced evacuation of the population of Judah in 607 BE. Josephus when he reviewed the history of this period and referred to the passage of the seventy years expressed a similar view.

    WT Dogma as you put is reconciliable with the Bible. We simply have a different interpretation of Jeremiah so why cannot you grant us the right and freedom to have a different point of view and labour so vigously to ram your point of view down the throats of others. We simply agree to disagree.

    You and Jeffro do not have any more facts than I in respect to the rendering of this verse. Neither of us are Hebrew scholars therfore we need to rely on the scholarship of others. There are other Bibles that render this verse similar to us and despite the passage of time the current revised NWT has decided to continue with the orthodox rendering of this verse along the lines of the hallowed King James Bible.

    scholar JW

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    hallowed king James? may be according to those who don't know better, but not that respectable according to scholars who have found many problems with it. It was written at a time when we didn't have at our disposal as many ancient manuscripts and the sophisticated textual criticism that we have today.

    j

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit