Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Do not worry I will dispose of Jeffro's arguments

    LOL. Still waiting...

    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'.

    I have already clearly shown that to be false. Especially in view of the revised NWT's translation of 29:10, replacing the more ambiguous "in accord with the fulfilling of" with "when 70 years are fulfilled" (a more accurate translation, but wholly detrimental to the JW interpretation). It's a fairly minor Bible character ('Jehovah') who contradicts the JW view, so I'll quote here what he said: "‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’"

    In the flawed JW interpretation, once the 70 years "are fulfilled", the Jews are already in Jerusalem, invalidating the rest of the very same sentence about 'turning attention to bringing you back to this place' after they're already there. Back in reality, Babylon's 70 years ended, and then 'attention' could be given to the Jews' return (after they repented). See Jeremiah 29:10-14, Daniel 9:1-19.

    You argue that the first deportation with the first group of exilees was greater but this may be true in some sense.

    "but"? If you believe the Bible (as you claim), then it is definitely true that the first exile was greater. It is greater in the sense that there were more people exiled.

    But did it constitute the beginning of the 'seventy years' is the issue at hand.

    Of course not. The seventy years were not a period of exile at all. I have already very clearly shown that exile was a punishment for refusing to serve Babylon.

    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.

    It's unfortunate that you don't properly understand the reference to Leviticus to which 2 Chronicles alludes. Jeremiah never mentioned paying off sabbaths. The phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (or as the New International Version puts it, "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested") is a parenthetical remark quoting almost verbatim (changed only for past tense) from the statement at Leviticus 26:34, "At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths". Leviticus 25:8 gives the period of 'paying sabbaths' as forty-nine years, which is also the period from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BCE until the return of the Jews in 538BCE. However, Babylon's 70 years lasted, as Ezra says, until the royalty of Persia began to reign. Any other interpretation would be inconsistent with the original context of the 70 years, which Jeremiah explicitly stated were of all the nations serving Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-11) which they should do to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:6-11, which you continue to ignore).

    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.

    Since paying off sabbaths isn't the same thing as nations serving Babylon, you're just wrong.

    Josephus when he reviewed the history of this period and referred to the passage of the seventy years expressed a similar view.

    In his later work, Against Apion, Josephus correctly indicates the period was fifty years. Additionally, Josephus explicitly states that the period from the exile of Israel until the rule of Cyrus was 182.5 years (which you also continue to ignore), which is not at all compatible with flawed JW chronology.

    WT Dogma as you put is reconciliable with the Bible.

    I have already clearly shown that it is not.

    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.

    The Watch Tower Society doesn't 'agree to disagree'. The entire foundation of JW eschatology is based on their dishonest 'interpretation', which JWs are expected to not only accept themselves, but also to infect others with their teachings. Additionally, JWs are told to shun people who disagree.

    "It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion."—The Watchtower, 15 November 1963, page 688

    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.

    Any interpretation that is not compatible with the original context of the 70 years is wrong regardless of how popular it may appear. Jeremiah very clearly indicated that submitting to Babylon was a way to avoid exile.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    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

    Tetley relies more heavily on the Septuagint rather than Hebrew manuscripts, however they are mostly consistent for the years of reign for the divided kingdom anyway. She assumes the same dating systems were used by Judah and Israel, however this causes problems with some alignments, as already previously indicated.

    LXX omits relative years for a few synchronisms of reigns, but not enough to be problematic. In LXX, 2 Kings 14:20 omits the length of Jeroboam's reign (22 years) and makes reference to a '24th year' at 2 Kings 15:9-10 for the start of Asa's reign, and LXX also extends the reign of Abijam by 3 years, which are (implicitly) correspondingly added to Jeroboam's reign. LXX provides for a longer co-regency of Jehoshaphat with Asa, but still synchronises the start of Jehoshaphat's sole reign with the same point in Ahab's reign.

    Tetley arrives at the same 8-year gap as the old 'JW chronology' (which was copied from Ussher) prior to Hoshea, but she decides that Hoshea should 'really' begin to reign in Ahaz' 13th year. She also places the fall of Israel a few years later than the traditional date (not at all helpful to JW chronology). Tetley takes various liberties with dates for Assyrian kings to make them 'fit' her alternative chronology. Tetley provides no support at all for the Watch Tower Society's ridiculous interpretations for the Neo-Babylonian period.

    The chart I have provided indicates chronology of the period that is compatible with the Bible, which inherently incorporates any errors present in the biblical texts. If I get my hands on Tetley's tabulation of reigns, I'll lay them out to determine which scriptures cannot be harmonised with her views. Of course, if Tetley is right and the Bible is wrong, then the premise for JW chronology is invalid anyway.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Earlier I said:

    The phrase, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath" (or as the New International Version puts it, "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested") is a parenthetical remark quoting almost verbatim (changed only for past tense) from the statement at Leviticus 26:34, "At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths".

    Those who are paying attention probably realise that I inadvertently pasted the wrong portion of Leviticus 26:34 that is quoted at 2 Chronicles 36:21. The correct portion of Leviticus 26:34, obviously, is: "the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated." Sorry for any confusion.

    Tetley relies more heavily on the Septuagint rather than Hebrew manuscripts

    It's also worth noting that Tetley's reckoning of the divided kingdom doesn't fit in with the 390 years at Ezekiel 4:5. However, LXX gives 190 years at Ezekiel 4:5, which cannot be reconciled with the periods for Judah or Israel anyway.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    
"I’m not listening."
  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Neil:

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4232

    Do you actually have a copy of Tetley's book and have you actually read it? I have not but hope to purchase shortly for all I have at the moment are three scholarly reviews, one by Rodger Young (6 Pages) and the other two by Jennifer Singletary and Steven Mc Kenzie. If you a copy a hand perhaps you could a copy of any charts which discuss the period of Hoshea's reign.

    I first sighted a copy as a newly arrived book at the Moore Theological Library back in 2005 or thereabouts and was intriqued by its contenst because it was a major overhaul of Thiele's chronology for the Divided Monarchy, At that time I did not expect her research to support WT chronology and I do not expect on a future reading to do so despite your suggestion that I have that expectation.

    Your apparaisal of her work is basically sound and I am pleased that she supports the interregnum or gap prior to the offical beginning of Hoshea's reign which of course supports our understanding of matters and further that she applies a consistent methodology to the calendation for both kingdoms which again is what we have dome for our suggested chronology. I am interested in how how she treats 2 Kings 15 :30 and more particularly 2 Kings 17:1 because she had skill in Hebrew and Greek.

    Tetley's work is indeed very controversial amongst scholars just as our chronology is bu the three reviewers althogh not necessarilly agreeing with her certainly commend her for her fresh, thought provoking approach, tha'that she may be proved right' and that the work is for the serious chronologist. She passed away recently and I was able to watch a video of her Memorial Service which also revealed that her work is found in all of the major university libraries around the world and that her new book on the Chronology of the Egyptian Kings will be published by Eisenbrauns after her death.

    Interestingly Thiele, Tetley and scholar have something in common in that all of us served as missionaries, did post graduate after our assignments and had a liftime passion for chronology.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3793

    You forgot to post the other two fish which makes up three: Thiele-Tetley-Scholar

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4233

    Therefore, Tetley's choice of a different methodology in using the LXX rather than the Masoretic text demonstrates a different methodology to that of other chronologists such as Thiele. We do agree with her on this but it would be interesting to see how she lays out her approach in handling the data. I have not told you many times that chronology is about methodology and interpretation whic is confirmed by Rodger Young and Christine Mary Tetley.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4231

    Both renderings of Jeremiah 29:10 in the respective NWT editions are sound and in agreement, the 1984 edition's rendering of this verse is more accurate technically with the recent edition being more readable. Our interpretation of this verse an dthe entire chapter is also sound because this prophecy was addressed to all of the exiles in Babylon awaiting the expiration of the foreordained period of seventy years thus after the official decree of release, off they go home.

    So do you know the population of Jerusalem at the time of its Fall? Where was Zedekiah at that time? Was he not in Jerusalem so how can you say then that the second deporatation was less than the first when the city was still there and the land was still populated. Common sense and the Bible tells you that there was to a far greater Exile in the wings ten years after the first deporation which was a minor exile.

    You have not proved that there was no exile at all with regards to the seventy years because the seventy years by any natural definition was an exile because it began with all of the constituents that make up a exile. The fact of punishment is the exile, the fact of servitude and deporation is an exile , the fact that the Jews were forced off the land is an exile . All of these things were a punishment for their making Nebuchadnezzer unhappy and their apostasy from true worship and for not observing the sabbaths. They were a very naughty nation.

    The verse in Against Apion is problematic and can be explained. The other verses in the Antiquities clearly presents the seventy years as a period similar to the view that we have adopted so Josephus and I are on the same page. I have explained the fifty years on this forum on many occasions.

    Your explanation of the text in Leviticus as quoted in 2 Chronicles is plain 'gobblygook' or plain waffle. Ezra quotes Jeremiah and Jeremiah quotes Leviticus which sets out the laws concerning sabbaths and the land and the consequences of what would happen if the Laws were not observed. All of these passages are linked together to prove that the seventyh years was also about the land as well as the nation.

    The land paying off its sabbaths is not the same thing as the nations serving Babylon but these events all fell within the same time frame running concurrently for the seventy years proved to be a period servitude-exile -desolation-punishment-foreign nations in servitude along with Judah. If you choose to split everything up then please provide a detailed analysis of all of the circumstances for all of the nations where 70 years of whatever was fulfilled. This has never been done . Are you up for it?

    True, submission to Babylon voluntarily could have avoided punishment and exile but that simply did not happen so they suffered the consequences for seventy years. They were very naughty.

    I believe that our interpretation of the biblical text regarding the seventy years in Jeremiah 29:10 is sound and I am more than happy with the alternative 'for Babylon' as it also can be fully accommodated with our interpretation as I have explained in the past on this forum.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Do you actually have a copy of Tetley's book and have you actually read it? I have not but hope to purchase shortly for all I have at the moment are three scholarly reviews, one by Rodger Young (6 Pages) and the other two by Jennifer Singletary and Steven Mc Kenzie. If you a copy a hand perhaps you could a copy of any charts which discuss the period of Hoshea's reign.

    No. I've only gleaned what is available from partial searches on Google Books, as well as other reviews.

    I first sighted a copy as a newly arrived book at the Moore Theological Library back in 2005 or thereabouts and was intriqued by its contenst because it was a major overhaul of Thiele's chronology for the Divided Monarchy, At that time I did not expect her research to support WT chronology and I do not expect on a future reading to do so despite your suggestion that I have that expectation.

    Her research does not support 'WT chronology'. Your 'expectations' are not relevant.

    Your apparaisal of her work is basically sound and I am pleased that she supports the interregnum or gap prior to the offical beginning of Hoshea's reign which of course supports our understanding of matters and further that she applies a consistent methodology to the calendation for both kingdoms which again is what we have dome for our suggested chronology. I am interested in how how she treats 2 Kings 15 :30 and more particularly 2 Kings 17:1 because she had skill in Hebrew and Greek.

    She does not run into the problem outlined in the initial post in this thread. As such, she does not support the Watch Tower Society's view. Additionally, she treats it as an actual interregnum. There is no mention of 'vassalage' (either for Hoshea or Ahaz) or ruling 'in some sense' prior to Hoshea's 'recognised' reign.

    Tetley's work is indeed very controversial amongst scholars just as our chronology is bu

    Comparing 'your' (i.e. Watch Tower Society) chronology with Tetley's work is an insult to Tetley.

    the three reviewers althogh not necessarilly agreeing with her certainly commend her for her fresh, thought provoking approach, tha'that she may be proved right' and that the work is for the serious chronologist. She passed away recently and I was able to watch a video of her Memorial Service which also revealed that her work is found in all of the major university libraries around the world and that her new book on the Chronology of the Egyptian Kings will be published by Eisenbrauns after her death.

    Tetley's work lends no support to the Watch Tower Society's chronology. She takes liberties with biblical accounts that invalidate JW dogma even if she's right. She also agrees that Jerusalem fell in 587BCE.

    Interestingly Thiele, Tetley and scholar have something in common in that all of us served as missionaries, did post graduate after our assignments and had a liftime passion for chronology.

    LOL. Stop comparing yourself to 'proper' scholars. You're a Watch Tower Society peon.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit