Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    AnnOMaly

    Post 3796

    In respect to the correct transalation and interpretion of Jeremiah 29:10 ther is no problem for I can go either way. The immediate context proves the locative sense 'at' rather than 'for' and despite the fact that this verse has attracted much discussion it has remain unchanged in the new revised NWT. Game set and match!!

    Scholar does not do babble, simply replies to the issues raised.

    Jeffro is the one who is inconsistent, fails to stick to the initial theme which propmpted my intervention in the first place and in case you have not noticed because of your blind support of Jeffro, the theme was the Reign of Hoshea and the NWT's rendering of 2 Kings 17:1. Now for several days he has moved the subject to the my favourite- the seventy years.

    I have read Stern's article but my copy is in some of the boxes but it has been posted and I see no problems with how it has been used. The article simply confirms the complete desolation of the land during the Babylonian period. Stern's dates for the period are different to ours and he finds no evidence for complete uninhabitation as Jeremiah foretold but thta is something that one one would not expect to be confirmed by the spade of the archaeologist. Overall, Stern's article was used correctly and is a positive contribution to WT chronology and interpretation.

    scholar JW

    t

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4242

    In other words your pretty chart is simply a contrivance designed to mislead and to deceive people base on unsound scholarship.

    Your sources are based on Encyclopedias and not on serious reference works on Chronology so in other words it is amateurish.

    Our scheme of chronology is most certainly based on the Bible because it presents the reign of Hoshea accurately which your scheme does not, you mention the two texts in 2 Kings which deal with his reign but you do not treat these texts properly as do many other chronologists. Further, your presentation of the seventy years is one-sided ignoring the Exile and period of desolation.

    You say that you base your application of 2 Kings 17:1 on the original text and Bible commentaries. You are no Hebrew scholar so your comment is meaningless unless you can explain what the Hebrew means and please list those commentaries that you claim to have read. Sources please!!

    There is indeed additional evidence for the vassalage of Hoshea and that is confirmed by Jewish chronology namely the Seder Olam my copy of which is in boxes. Dan Green in his Sacred Chronology Of The Hebrew Kings makes reference to this on a chart, p.25. The note therein states that Hoshea was a vassal king to Tilgath-Pileser for eight years ruling fro Gilead before becoming king of all Israel ruling from Samaria in Ahaz' 12th year.

    So Dan Bruce nicely supports the fact of an interregnum for the reign of Hoshea but he does not support WT chronology nor Jeffro's pretty list.

    As have said if you are going to quote Tetley then you should read it not simple use snippets from Google. If you choose access to it in a piecemeal way then perhaps you can try to locate her reference to Hoshea's reign and confirm whether there is a interregnum after the death of Pekah.

    What the Bible clearly indicates that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude to Babylon for anything short of this simply deconstructs the seventy years making the period meaningless as Rainer Albertz in his study of the Exile notes. The fact of Exile means everything to this catastrophe in Jewish history.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    In other words your pretty chart is simply a contrivance designed to mislead and to deceive people base on unsound scholarship.

    Having completely ignored much of the substance of my previous replies, 'scholar' resorts to petty insults. Though the Watch Tower Society's chronology is entirely unsupported by scholarship, he claims that my chart is "unsound". He is yet to point out anything in my chart that contradicts scripture. He is therefore only left with being able to make claims about interpretations, but he is not on solid ground to do so.

    Your sources are based on Encyclopedias and not on serious reference works on Chronology so in other words it is amateurish.

    Another trite attack. My sole source for the reigns of Judah and Israel is the Bible, which is entirely apt for compiling a chart of biblical reigns. Indeed, what would be the point of demonstrating that the Bible on its own is consistent with secular history if I were to merely copy the biblical reigns from other sources?? Encyclopedias were used for providing the years assigned by scholars for the reigns of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Tyre.

    Our scheme of chronology is most certainly based on the Bible because it presents the reign of Hoshea accurately which your scheme does not, you mention the two texts in 2 Kings which deal with his reign but you do not treat these texts properly as do many other chronologists.

    Various sources come up with an 8-year interregnum prior to Hoshea actually reigining over Israel. However, my reckoning for the reign of Hoshea is not only supported by the actual original text but also has support from scholarly sources. (However, my decision was based on analysis of the dating systems and not in deference to external sources.) The Watch Tower Society is entirely alone in its claim that Hoshea ruled 'in some sense' for 10 years before counting his reign as a 'vassal' to Tiglath Pileser III (whose reign hadn't actually even begun).

    Further, your presentation of the seventy years is one-sided ignoring the Exile and period of desolation.

    My chart is entirely compatible with the Bible, including its very clear statements that the 70 years was a a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon, and that nations could remain in their own land by serving Babylon. The period of exile I have indicated is also fully compatible with secular sources.

    You say that you base your application of 2 Kings 17:1 on the original text and Bible commentaries. You are no Hebrew scholar so your comment is meaningless unless you can explain what the Hebrew means and please list those commentaries that you claim to have read. Sources please!!

    I can read a concordance and an interlinear. It is not necessary to be a 'Hebrew scholar' to do this. The original text does not say 'began to reign'. My decision to render Hoshea's reign was based solely on the Bible, in view of the context of the passage and compatibility with other verses that refer to Hoshea. However, my reckoning for the reign of Hoshea is not in any way novel or unique. I have support for my reckoning from the broadly accepted history of Hoshea's reign by historians, as well as the Pulpit Commentary, Gill's Exposition, and the Assyrian Eponym Canon; this is not an exhaustive list. The Watch Tower Society has no secular support for its claim about Hoshea's reign starting when he 'became a vassal' after 10 years of 'ruling in some sense'.

    There is indeed additional evidence for the vassalage of Hoshea and that is confirmed by Jewish chronology namely the Seder Olam my copy of which is in boxes. Dan Green in his Sacred Chronology Of The Hebrew Kings makes reference to this on a chart, p.25. The note therein states that Hoshea was a vassal king to Tilgath-Pileser for eight years ruling fro Gilead before becoming king of all Israel ruling from Samaria in Ahaz' 12th year.

    You're really not paying attention are you?! So I'll say it again: "Dan Bruce actually claims the exact opposite to what is claimed in the Watch Tower Society version. The Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea ruled in Israel during what you call the 'interregnum', and that his reign was 'recognised' only when he was appointed as a 'vassal' later. Bruce suggests that Hoshea was a vassal in Gilead prior to officially becoming king of Israel in Samaria." And why have you changed Dan Bruce's surname to Green?!

    So Dan Bruce nicely supports the fact of an interregnum for the reign of Hoshea but he does not support WT chronology nor Jeffro's pretty list.

    Bruce suggests an 8-year interregnum, but gives no support for starting Hoshea's reign relative to a later period of 'vassalage'.

    As have said if you are going to quote Tetley then you should read it not simple use snippets from Google. If you choose access to it in a piecemeal way then perhaps you can try to locate her reference to Hoshea's reign and confirm whether there is a interregnum after the death of Pekah.

    The 'snippets from Google' were actually portions of her book available on Google Books, not merely references to her name on Google. I certainly don't have to get a book just because you think I should, and you don't decide what sources set the 'benchmark' for 'serious study'; plus, none of the sources you've suggests support JW chronology anyway. In early versions of my chart I considered the possibility of an interregnum prior to the reign of Hoshea; further analysis of the relative dating systems confirmed that the possibility can be dismissed.

    What the Bible clearly indicates that the seventy years was a period of Exile-Desolation-Servitude to Babylon for anything short of this simply deconstructs the seventy years making the period meaningless as Rainer Albertz in his study of the Exile notes. The fact of Exile means everything to this catastrophe in Jewish history.

    You continue to simply avoid what the Bible actually says, and instead parrot Watch Tower Society dogma. I have already very clearly indicated that the Bible does not indicate 70 years of exile, but that it in fact explicitly indicates that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile. The Bible very clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:8-12), that the Jews in Jerusalem were already under Babylon's 'yoke' (Jeremiah 27:1-2), that serving Babylon was a way to avoid exile (Jeremiah 27:8-17), that seventy years ended before the Jews returned to Jerusalem (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholiar:

    In respect to the correct transalation and interpretion of Jeremiah 29:10 ther is no problem for I can go either way. The immediate context proves the locative sense 'at' rather than 'for' and despite the fact that this verse has attracted much discussion it has remain unchanged in the new revised NWT. Game set and match!!

    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 Bible.

    Scholar does not do babble, simply replies to the issues raised.

    Talking about yourself in the third person isn't doing much for your case.

    Jeffro is the one who is inconsistent, fails to stick to the initial theme which propmpted my intervention in the first place and in case you have not noticed because of your blind support of Jeffro, the theme was the Reign of Hoshea and the NWT's rendering of 2 Kings 17:1. Now for several days he has moved the subject to the my favourite- the seventy years.

    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)."

    I have read Stern's article but my copy is in some of the boxes but it has been posted and I see no problems with how it has been used.

    We all know it's available online (as are the works of Josephus), so it's not clear why you keep resorting to the 'excuse' that 'your copy' is 'still in boxes'.

    The article simply confirms the complete desolation of the land during the Babylonian period. Stern's dates for the period are different to ours and he finds no evidence for complete uninhabitation as Jeremiah foretold but thta is something that one one would not expect to be confirmed by the spade of the archaeologist. Overall, Stern's article was used correctly and is a positive contribution to WT chronology and interpretation.

    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'.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    Earlier I said:

    The Watch Tower Society is entirely alone in its claim that Hoshea ruled 'in some sense' for 10 years before counting his reign as a 'vassal' to Tiglath Pileser III (whose reign hadn't actually even begun).

    It should be obvious to anyone familiar with this subject, but in case there's any confusion for other readers, I mean that Tiglath-pileser III had not begun to reign when the Watch Tower Society claims that Hoshea's 'recognised' reign began (748BCE). As seen in my chart, and consistent with secular sources for Assryian and Judean history, Tiglath-pileser III began his 18-year reign in 745BCE, about 15 years prior to the beginning of Hoshea's reign in late 731BCE.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    I want to get back to this post.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    Oh dear. I see we're stuck at this 'yes it is, no it isn't' stage.

    Ann or Jeffro: As demonstrated, the NWT rendering of Jer. 29:10 is incompatible with the biblical context and WT chronology.

    Neil: No it's not. It's correct.

    Ann or Jeffro: You're babbling nonsensically and ignoring the compelling arguments put to you.

    Neil: No I'm not, and I'll transfer the criticisms leveled toward my behaviors in this discussion onto those who made the criticisms.

    Ann or Jeffro: Stern's article was disgracefully misused by the WT to support something Stern does not support for the many reasons explained to you.

    Neil: I refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the WT's part and insist that the article was used appropriately to support the WT's chronological position ... even though I have read Stern's article yet cannot readily access it because it's packed away in boxes, and despite earlier admitting I have a terrible memory [like also forgetting the article's readily accessible on the internet].

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    scholar, do you acknowledge that you are an individual, not a collective?

  • scholar
    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


  • scholar
    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

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit