Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4170

    All that you have done is made a comparison of the two editions, one has fewer words with the same meaning. Nothing significant here.

    Did not Jesus say that his disciples would be 'celebrated' something about 'letting their light shine' or am I missing something.

    You are wrong and we are right and dutiful for I remember that Jesus said something about being 'faithful' and discreet'

    The scholarly literature certainly supports the concept of interregnum and its applicability during the reign of Hoshea and the WT literature certainly uses that term in reference to Hoshea's reign. You need to research more. There is no room for dogmatism in chronology so one must make assumptions and interpret the data accordingly. This is what scholars do all the time. Chronology is about 'making things fit' perhaps we are more honest in admitting to this fact so we are condemned by you for a little modesty and humility.

    The beginning of Hoshea's reign is problematic for scholars but we have explained this nicely in accord with 2 Kings 17:1 and our scheme sets out the matter simply and fully in accordanc ewith all of the evidence. Be careful about basic arithmetic for it can let you down when doing chronololgy.

    Yes you have made a pretty chart but it is simply one amongst hundreds that have been produced over decades and decades but our charts are simple, accurate, and legible, your chart requires a magnifying glass to read it, it is inaccessible.

    You ignore vassalage at your own peril thus your chronology is compromised. Remmeber that accurate chronolgy must be historicall sound so when computing reigns then it is smart to know that those reigns could count from different starting points as competent scholars show in their charts.

    The '14th 'year of Ahaz is the fact of his vassalge and nicely harmonizes 2Kings 17;1 for after all Ahaz' reign lasted 16 years so his 14th year was no fiction. It simply boils down to methodology, you have yours and we have our own methodology.

    Semantics- Yes for now you include 'manufacturing' but to claim that our chronology is 'falsely manipulated to fit preconceived beliefs' is true of all others for was not Thiele a SDA minister?

    It could be argued that all modern chronologies begin with Ussher but to for you to make that association pays us the ultimate compliment for this means that the pedigree is sound and there is nothing like being well bred. Methinks a touch of snobbery is present.

    You worry me when you confess to not looking at Tilgath pileser for I believe that one must consider all of the history when doing chronology so our chronology harmonizes accurately with the surrounding historical events.

    The word interregnum can mean a period between kings where such is unknown and can also mean a period without a king but whatever the case such a period was certainly present after the death of Pekah and which you acknowledge in your chart.

    If you cannot work out why the dates for the Judean kings should be more certain than those of Israel then perhaps you should leave chronology alone for a short while and get back to basic Bible study.

    To say that the WT chronology is mathematically impossible is an absurdity because any sound chronology is not based on arithmetic but on a careful appraisal of the data, interpreting it in accordance with a methodology. It is not arithmetic.

    In chronology simplicity is everything, complexity leads to confusion and muddled thinking and error.

    The difference of 'two years' is simply your invention, your interpretation of those texts in 1 Kings ch.18 for theses texts are easily explained on the basis of a sole calendation seen fro differnt viewpoints as set out in the Aid book. No you do need to consult scholarship to understand basic arithmetic but you need to consult scholarship in order to understand what you are doing. Ignorance has no place in chronology and no place for would be amateurs.

    We have a different opinion about the relevance or otherwise of the 390 year prophecy of Ezekiel and I cannot help you with that for we must simply agree to disagree on this point.If your chart does not harmonize now with that prophecy then it is baseless and useless. You need to start again.

    How do you know that the Ahaz' 14th year is not supported by any secular sources. Have you researched the matter so thoroughly that you can make such a claim? Whatever the case it is a valid argument and interpretation of the matter and consistent with our methodology.

    Insight is no embarrassment and that is why you are compelled to use it, to read it, to quote from it

    Methodology is personal, you cannot say that because one's methodology differs from another then that methodology is wrong. The chronologist decides the methods, tools, procedures, philosophy that he/she wishes to employ. For example, Rodger Young in discussing the importance of Methodology in chronology has decided to Decision Table analysis in order to make sense of the data. That is his choice.

    Semantics aside: Chronology equals Methodology and Interpretation

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4173

    Your attempt to refute the methodology in calculating the reigns of the Divided Monarchy according to the principle of the Nisan-based calendation is simply bogus and misleading. Such tabulations of the data misrepresents what the Aid book outlines before the presentation of the Chart for the Divided Monarchy. I suggest you' read the preceding paragraphs most carefully in order not to continue in making a complete fool of yourself. That chart was the basis for my claim we calculate the reigns of the Judean on the Nisan to Nisan basis applying the same methodology to that of the reigns of the Kings of Israel'.

    Further, the reader is advised in the introductory paragraphs before the chart that it is not intended to be viewed as an 'absolute chronology, but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms'.

    What I suggest is that you use the lsted tabulations of the texts in 2 Kings and see how these are discussed in the scholarly literature as to how these texts can be harmonized with proposed calendations and see if there is some consistency. In short, you prove whether there is any consistency of the texts and what calendation was used for both Kingdoms. the I will check your conclusions with the scholarly literature.

    scholar JW

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    I will check your conclusions with the scholarly literature.....scholar JW

    ..................

    ...........................................................................................  photo mutley-ani1.gif...OUTLAW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Please be advised that Ihave just accessed your website and noted your updated and revised timeline which now is much more user friendly. I notice many points of difference and I will focus on your tabulation for the reign of Hoshea after next week as I am away for that period'

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Please be advised that Ihave just accessed your website and noted your updated and revised timeline which now is much more user friendly. I notice many points of difference and I will focus on your tabulation for the reign of Hoshea after next week as I am away for that period'

    "Please be advised"? How very formal. And more than just a little bit odd.

    Seeing as I provided a link and told you to use it, it's hardly surprising.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    pseudo-'scholar'

    All that you have done is made a comparison of the two editions, one has fewer words with the same meaning. Nothing significant here.

    Wrong. I have already indicated the significance.

    Did not Jesus say that his disciples would be 'celebrated' something about 'letting their light shine' or am I missing something.

    You're definitely missing something. 'Letting their light shine' is about setting a good example and imparting information, not about receiving or being worthy of adoration. And when the 'information' is wrong, there's no cause for celebration.

    You are wrong and we are right and dutiful for I remember that Jesus said something about being 'faithful' and discreet'

    LOL. I've shown here and elsewhere in detail that your position is wrong. There is no evidence that Jesus said anything attributed to him in the Bible.

    The scholarly literature certainly supports the concept of interregnum and its applicability during the reign of Hoshea and the WT literature certainly uses that term in reference to Hoshea's reign. You need to research more. There is no room for dogmatism in chronology so one must make assumptions and interpret the data accordingly. This is what scholars do all the time. Chronology is about 'making things fit' perhaps we are more honest in admitting to this fact so we are condemned by you for a little modesty and humility.

    "No room for dogmatism". Coming from a JW apologist trying to defend an indefensible chronology in support of his religion's magical thinking! Hilarious! You should have saved the joke about humility for a little further down though. Two jokes so close together reduces their impact.

    The beginning of Hoshea's reign is problematic for scholars but we have explained this nicely in accord with 2 Kings 17:1 and our scheme sets out the matter simply and fully in accordanc ewith all of the evidence. Be careful about basic arithmetic for it can let you down when doing chronololgy.

    Upon analysis of the calendation, I've resolved any 'problems' with assigning years to Hoshea's reign. Unsurprisingly, I independently arrived at the same result as other secular sources. I have already shown that your chronology regarding Hoshea is dishonest and relies on speculation about Ahaz' reign that isn't even taught any longer by your idol. And the problem remains that in the chronology offered by your idol, there's no explanation for why the difference between the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah increases over time from 2 years to 3.

    Yes you have made a pretty chart but it is simply one amongst hundreds that have been produced over decades and decades but our charts are simple, accurate, and legible, your chart requires a magnifying glass to read it, it is inaccessible.

    You need a magnifying glass? You know there's one of those built into the software don't you? It's called the zoom tool. I have indeed provided an appealing chart that is very detailed, in order to show that the biblical chronology regarding this period (which is in reality just historical records of the Jews that is not really any better or worse than that of other nations) can be harmonised both internally and with other records. However, it is not the only chart I have produced. For example, see here for an accurate chart in a similar style to the JW effort.

    You ignore vassalage at your own peril thus your chronology is compromised. Remmeber that accurate chronolgy must be historicall sound so when computing reigns then it is smart to know that those reigns could count from different starting points as competent scholars show in their charts.

    "at your own peril". Keep those laughs coming. My chart is indeed historically sound, in regard to both internal consistency and consistency with contemporaneous nations. The thing is I am smart enough to know from where reigns could count, whereas you insist on claiming to use dating systems for the 2 kingdoms that actually make alignment impossible, hence the Watch Tower Society's supposedly 'humble' use of circa, which in fact must be used because otherwise their chronology is even more obviously shown to be false.

    The '14th 'year of Ahaz is the fact of his vassalge and nicely harmonizes 2Kings 17;1 for after all Ahaz' reign lasted 16 years so his 14th year was no fiction. It simply boils down to methodology, you have yours and we have our own methodology.

    No one is disputing the fact that Ahaz had a 14th year, which is just stupid misdirection. You have provided no evidence whatsoever for the Watch Tower Society's (abandoned!) claim that Ahaz' 12th year 'really' refers to his 14th.

    Semantics- Yes for now you include 'manufacturing' but to claim that our chronology is 'falsely manipulated to fit preconceived beliefs' is true of all others for was not Thiele a SDA minister?

    Thiele's religious affiliation is not relevant to my chart.

    It could be argued that all modern chronologies begin with Ussher but to for you to make that association pays us the ultimate compliment for this means that the pedigree is sound and there is nothing like being well bred. Methinks a touch of snobbery is present.

    Even if it were a 'compliment' to be based on Ussher, the Watch Tower Society then corrupts the chronology Ussher provided, so the Watch Tower Society's attempt is an affront to Ussher's work anyway.

    You worry me when you confess to not looking at Tilgath pileser for I believe that one must consider all of the history when doing chronology so our chronology harmonizes accurately with the surrounding historical events.

    Huh? I did not consider the reign of Tiglath-Pileser when I determined the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. It is self-evident from my chart that I subsequently 'looked at Tiglath-Pileser'.

    The word interregnum can mean a period between kings where such is unknown and can also mean a period without a king but whatever the case such a period was certainly present after the death of Pekah and which you acknowledge in your chart.

    Your broader interpretation of the word interregnum not withstanding, the period is erroneous, regardless of what you want to call it.

    If you cannot work out why the dates for the Judean kings should be more certain than those of Israel then perhaps you should leave chronology alone for a short while and get back to basic Bible study.

    Idiot.

    To say that the WT chronology is mathematically impossible is an absurdity because any sound chronology is not based on arithmetic but on a careful appraisal of the data, interpreting it in accordance with a methodology. It is not arithmetic.

    Much of the data is numerical. It is sheer idiocy to suggest that arithmetic is not relevant.

    In chronology simplicity is everything, complexity leads to confusion and muddled thinking and error.

    Trying to be too 'simplistic' is a naive and clumsy approach. This is demonstrated by the Watch Tower Society's claims of co-regencies and of reigns based on 'vassalage' only when such distortions are required to resolve problems in their chronology.

    The difference of 'two years' is simply your invention, your interpretation of those texts in 1 Kings ch.18 for theses texts are easily explained on the basis of a sole calendation seen fro differnt viewpoints as set out in the Aid book. No you do need to consult scholarship to understand basic arithmetic but you need to consult scholarship in order to understand what you are doing. Ignorance has no place in chronology and no place for would be amateurs.

    You seem to be getting confused about which 'two years' you're talking about. The two years at this point of the discussion was the difference between the starting points of the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1), which later (2 Kings 18:9-10) is a difference of three years. That problem in your chronology relates to your claim that both kingdoms used Nisan-based dating. That '2 years' is from a direct statement in the Bible, so it's hardly 'my invention'. But you seem to be shifting the context of the two years to the discrepancy between Ahaz' 12th year and the (supposedly) 'first' year of Hoshea. Maybe you need a rest.

    We have a different opinion about the relevance or otherwise of the 390 year prophecy of Ezekiel and I cannot help you with that for we must simply agree to disagree on this point.If your chart does not harmonize now with that prophecy then it is baseless and useless. You need to start again.

    Hilarious. Supposed 'prophecies' are not of paramount importance. However, Ezekiel's 'prophecy' (which most scholars recognise was actually written later) of 390 years does correspond nicely with the period from after the reign of Solomon until 539. It was in 539 when Babylon's 70 years ended. The book of Daniel states that Daniel then discerned the end of that period, he then repented on behalf of the people, and it was after that that the Jews' judgement had ended, and after that, 'attention was turned' to their return to Jerusalem, where they later arrived in October of 538BCE. Embarrassingly, the new NWT royally stuffs up with their new even worse translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in the context of verses 10-15 (as well as the broader context), because the given order of events is that 1) 70 years would end, 2) the Jews would repent, 3) attention would be given to them returning, 4) they return to Jerusalem. However, in the JW interpretation, by the time the 70 years have ended, the Jews had already returned (not to mention the fact that in the JW interpretation, the Jews' time in Babylon following the supposed deportation in '607' was only slightly over 69 years, due to travel time in both directions).

    How do you know that the Ahaz' 14th year is not supported by any secular sources. Have you researched the matter so thoroughly that you can make such a claim? Whatever the case it is a valid argument and interpretation of the matter and consistent with our methodology.

    You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary. You are right about something though: it is consistent with 'your' (the Watch Tower Society's) methodology to make something up if the 'facts' are inconvenient.

    Insight is no embarrassment and that is why you are compelled to use it, to read it, to quote from it

    I quote from it to show where it is contradictory (either with itself or with genuine history). I'm not sure how that helps your claim that it's not an embarrassment.

    Methodology is personal, you cannot say that because one's methodology differs from another then that methodology is wrong. The chronologist decides the methods, tools, procedures, philosophy that he/she wishes to employ. For example, Rodger Young in discussing the importance of Methodology in chronology has decided to Decision Table analysis in order to make sense of the data. That is his choice.

    A methodology that relies on preconceived beliefs, such as that of the Watch Tower Society, is indeed fraught with problems. This doesn't necessarily mean that other aspects of their methodology aren't valid, however their methodology is unpublished so it's impossible to say. However, because of the basic flaw in their premise, the result is a chronology that is most certainly (and verifiably) wrong.

    Semantics aside: Chronology equals Methodology and Interpretation

    No. It doesn't. Interpretation is one aspect of a methodology. Your incorrect use of methodology is just pretentious, and that's all.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Please be advised that Ihave just accessed your website

    If you were the user who recently accessed my site via a link referred from the 'SnapDo' search page, it is highly recommended that you remove the SnapDo malware from your computer.

    See http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-snapdo-virus/ if you require assistance.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    The scholarly literature certainly supports the concept of interregnum and its applicability during the reign of Hoshea and the WT literature certainly uses that term in reference to Hoshea's reign. You need to research more.

    I was too busy laughing at your comment about dogmatism that I didn't fully address your claim here.

    Please provide a source for your claim that Watch Tower Society literature uses the term "interregnum" in reference to the alleged period of 'unrecognised reign'.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Your attempt to refute the methodology in calculating the reigns of the Divided Monarchy according to the principle of the Nisan-based calendation is simply bogus and misleading. Such tabulations of the data misrepresents what the Aid book outlines before the presentation of the Chart for the Divided Monarchy. I suggest you' read the preceding paragraphs most carefully in order not to continue in making a complete fool of yourself. That chart was the basis for my claim we calculate the reigns of the Judean on the Nisan to Nisan basis applying the same methodology to that of the reigns of the Kings of Israel'.

    Incorrect use of methodology.

    What is "bogus and misleading" is the manner in which accession years (using statements such as "counting his reign officially from the following Nisan") are inconsistently treated in Aid (and Insight) when their chronology doesn't fit. The Watch Tower Society's intermittent need to 'shift' reigns by a year in this manner is further evidence that Judah was actually using Tishri-based dating. You have previously claimed that the Watch Tower Society's 'methodology' is simple, however their approach is inconsistent and seems arbitrary (that is, it would only really be arbitrary if it had been an honest but unskilled attempt, however their underlying motive of trying to force certain events into specific years is actually deceptive.)

    Further, the reader is advised in the introductory paragraphs before the chart that it is not intended to be viewed as an 'absolute chronology, but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms'.

    As previously stated, it's little wonder that they provide such a disclaimer about accuracy of their chart, because upon closer examination, their chronology is actually impossible and the use of more absolute years would make it too obvious that their chronology is fraudulent.

    What I suggest is that you use the lsted tabulations of the texts in 2 Kings and see how these are discussed in the scholarly literature as to how these texts can be harmonized with proposed calendations and see if there is some consistency. In short, you prove whether there is any consistency of the texts and what calendation was used for both Kingdoms. the I will check your conclusions with the scholarly literature.

    I hardly need my work to be 'checked' by you. I'll happily take suggestions from some of the fine forum members such as AnnOMaly or Leolaia though. Indeed, it was AnnOMaly's excellent advice that led me to perform the decision-tables analysis.

    It's amusing that you pay lip service here to 'scholarly literature' here, even though you actually ignore all of the scholarly literature in favour of the delusional chronology offered by the Watch Tower Society.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4175

    There is no significance between the two editions, both indicate that Hoshea's reign began in Ahaz' 12th and not ended as your chronology claims. The NWT editions are in agreement with most modern Bibles translations.

    Our example is one of history and public record and imparting public information goes without saying. What's your record?

    As I said, 'there is no place for dogmatism in chronology', we have simply provided a 'suggested chronology' for the Divided Monarchy.

    Your chronology is simply an interpretation of the biblical data, it matters nought as to well it supposedly harmonizes because in the end according to computer jargon: Garbage In =Garbage Out and that is so true with chronology. Pretty charts does not accuracy make. Your translation of 2Kings 17:1 falsifies your chronology based on the reign of Hoshea and if you are wrong here then the rest of your chronology is imperiled. We have no problem with harmonizing the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah as shown by our published lists for the period.

    Your original chart id read offline on a printed page could require some magnification, your updated chart is much more user-friendly for I choose to print out rather than reading on screen.

    Beware of vassalages as they compromise your chronology for one must be faithful to the historical record. Your scheme is simply contrived to fit your agenda in attempting to debunk WT chronology. Your chart is not historically sound because it does not account for 2Kings 15:30 and is also based on misunderstanding of 2Kings 17:1. You clearly are not smart enough to deal adequately with the history behind these two texts and not demonstrated adequate research for these two texts.

    The suggestion about reconciling the Ahaz' 12th and 14 th year is simply doing chronology for even in your chart you list many suppositions in order to reconcile your chronology for all chronologists do this or in other words' 'fiddle the books'. Where we have 'fiddled the books' we are transparent about this by alerting the reader by means of the Latin circa.

    WT chronology simply agrees with Ussher on some points of methodology, it is independent of Ussher's scheme.

    I was pleased that you 'looked' at the reign of Tilgath Pileser and so have we.

    If you argue that interregnums are bogus then you are out of step with Ussher and many other fine chronologists since his day for I can say similarly that your 'co-regencies' are also bogus.

    Arithmetic is basic to chronology but those numbers do not just have numerical value for those numbers represent more than a numerical value as shown by how these are used and interpreted in the biblical record. Numbers must be used with caution and do not have have any mystical value unless used in terms of prophecy.

    Offering a simplicsic scheme is being smart, honest and prudent but more important it is user=friendly which unfortunately is not the case with most modern-day schemes.

    Regarding the data in 2Kings 18:1-10 we do not have any problems with reconciling that data as nicely shown in Aid to Bible Understanding, there is no direct statement in the Bible that supports your interpretation of this matter so it remains your invention and your problem, not ours.

    Prophecies are paramount ot chronology for they breathe life into what would simply be 'dead' history, such builds faith in God's purposes. You interpret the 390 year period as 'Israel's years of guilt' running from the beginning of the Divided Monarchy until Fall of Babylon. Our understanding differs on this, because it is more accurate to end the period with the end of the Monarchywith Zedekiah The book of Daniel does not discuss the Ezekiel's prophecy but focussed on the duration of the seventy years beginning in 607 BCE which was the also the ending of Ezekiel's 'years of guilt.

    'Making something up' is what all chronologists do in order to make their respective chronologies work because the Bible as far as I know does not have scheme written up in our modern caledation unless on eturns up in some yet to be discovered ancient manuscript. Here is hoping! LOL.

    There are no contradictions with the Aid or Insight volumes except in your own imagination but I cannot help you with this problem.

    Methodologies are personal, we have ours, you have yours and other scholars such Thiele , Mc Fall, Young have their own an dthat is how chronology is done. I cannot help you here for it is your problem not mine.

    Whether or not Interpretation is separate to Methodology or part of it as you prefer the end result is the same for Chronology proper contains both elements and that is all that that I am trying to teach you.

    scholar JW

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit