Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro 223 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4177

    The source for the use of Interregnum for the reign of Hoshea is presented in the TABLE of CONTEMPORARY KINGS and PROPHETS and RELATED EVENTS, pp. 161 ff. in THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND, 1944 The chart or table also shows three other Interregnums for the Divided Monarchy.

    scholar JW

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4178

    Issue of calendation are issues of methodology because it is on the basic of a specific calendation employed by the chronologist that enables him/her to construct such chronology. There are no good scholarly reasons to prohibit the dating of the reigns for the Kings of Judah by using the Nisan to Nisan system and it makes far better sense to use a consistent dating system for both Judah and Israel. Simple is best.

    It is not a matter of some disclaimer about the accuracy of the chart for chronology is not about absolute for there are very few dates that can can be truly viewed as absolute or pivotal. The statement explaining the methodology is simply a straightforward explanation of the method used in tabulating the scheme.

    Be careful of Decision Table Analysis as a method forit is simply a "a method of considering all the parameters that affect an outcome or series of outcomes, and of making sure that no combination of conditions is overlooked". Thus such an analysis depends upon a set of pre-suppositions that bedevil all previous attempts to reconcile the data for the Hebrew Kings. Rodger Young as a systems analyst was the first scholar to use use a method and published his research in a paper published in 2003. No doubt you first learnt of this from Ann O Maly who first learnt it from me on one of my earlier posts on this forum whereupon i first drew attention to Rodger Young's methodology.

    You should check your chronology with that of Rodger Young an dnot any points of difference.

    Yes I do pay lip service to the scholarly literature but at least I note it, have the latest research at my fingertips and become aware of recent trends in scholarly research. Forewarned is forearmed.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    'scholar':

    The source for the use of Interregnum for the reign of Hoshea is presented in the TABLE of CONTEMPORARY KINGS and PROPHETS and RELATED EVENTS, pp. 161 ff. in THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND, 1944 The chart or table also shows three other Interregnums for the Divided Monarchy.

    LOL. 1944. Hilarious! You're getting even more desperate. Thanks for the laugh.

    Despite your reference to "three other interregnums", Insight explicitly denies that there are any "interregnums" in the chronology of Judea (and also wrongly claims there is only one co-regency).

    *** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
    Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency.

    There is nothing new in your other recent responses. You've just repeated your previous claims. Refer to my previous response.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4191

    It is you that is desperate hence the production of your pretty chart in comparison to simple and clear chart in the Appendix in the latest NWT.

    The expression 'interregnum is not used as such in our recent publications but in the case of Hoshea his Kingship is accurately described with the use of this term.in IMHO.

    At least I have responded to your nonsense and no doubt will do 'battle' st some future time.

    scholar JW

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    It is you that is desperate hence the production of your pretty chart in comparison to simple and clear chart in the Appendix in the latest NWT.

    Hardly. I consider the Watch Tower Society's efforts to be little more than a bad joke. It's very easy to debunk them, and I have kindly provided that information for the benefit of others. I have actually provided various charts with various levels of detail for different periods as necessary for the relevant information about the period. The main chart, logically, contains the most detail. Your comparison of my main chart with the NWT's appendix is stupid, because I've already shown you earlier in this thread that I've also provided a chart in that style.

    The expression 'interregnum is not used as such in our recent publications but in the case of Hoshea his Kingship is accurately described with the use of this term.in IMHO.

    Not only is the term not used, but the JW chronology of the entire period of the divided monarchy is quite different to what appeared in the publication you've desperately quoted from 1944. Worse still, both are wrong anyway.

    At least I have responded to your nonsense and no doubt will do 'battle' st some future time.

    You have responded, but your tenuous case is certainly no better for it. It's amusing to watch how the deluded JW apologist mind focuses on minutia of how an individual aspect 'might' be 'defended', always in isolation, and with terrible reasoning. I have in fact independently arrived at a chronological framework that harmonises all the relevant scriptures and is also consistent with modern scholarship.

    In contrast, the Watch Tower Society is left languishing with trite statements about how all other sources—including independent Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records—just 'happen' to be 20 years different to their own figures by the end of the divided monarchy.

    *** it-1 p. 1221 Isaiah, Book of ***
    The Assyrian and Babylonian chronological records (though their reliability is questionable) seem to indicate that Sennacherib ruled some 20 years after [Watch Tower's dates for] his campaign against Jerusalem.
    *** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
    The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time.
    *** it-2 p. 895 Sennacherib ***
    Sennacherib’s death is considered to have come some 20 years after [Watch Tower's dates for] his campaign against Jerusalem.
    *** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
    So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years?
    *** ad p. 326 Chronology *** (not in Insight)
    their dates for the fall of Samaria and Sennacherib's attack on Judah in Hezekiah's fourteenth year differ from our dates by twenty to thirty years

    JW apologists such as yourself are left floundering, trying to come up with weak excuses for each separate problem (which you need to do, because your broader religious superstitions depend on it), whereas for me, everything just fits together.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    Post 4193

    Your pretty chart is a good overview of orthodox chronology as presented by many scholars but the' devil is in the detail' and that is where your scheme fails. If one was to compare your scheme with that offered by Mc Fall, Young and Thiele amongst many others then there would be many differences of opinion as to the dates and the events for to date the only scheme that has gained universal acceptance is that of Thiele. Scholar however in saying this, that in making such a comparison between your chronology and that of others there may well be a difference of only one year in some instances for your scheme simply mirrors the 'popular' chronology of today.

    You are entitled to view our chronology as a 'bad joke' and I am quite sure that most scholars would agree with you especially Thiele who had not time for our chronology. For my part I believe the 'joke' is on modern scholarship because we have a scheme that is simple, faithful to Scripture, harmonizes the 390 year period of Ezekiel, user-friendly and breathes life into Bible History, Theology and Prophecy.

    I believe that the use of 'interregnum' to describe the earlier kingship of Hoshea based on 2Kings 15;30 is most appropriate even though it does not currency in our publications today. Of course our chronology for the Divided Kingdom differs to what was published in 1944 but so what for all scholarship is a work in progress and no doubt if you checked Thiele's work which was published in three editions there would have been changes and adjustments.

    I am glad to see that you acknowledge the fact of my responses but you have simply not proved your case especially in regard to Hoshea's reign alleging that we have a problem. There is no problem for us but your problem is how to adequately deal with 2Kings 15:30. and this you have not done adequately. Further, you have not dealt adequately with the translation issues of 2Kings 17:1 proving that Hoshea's reign ended rather than began in that year as we interpret matters. You need to work much harder on this!!!! LOL

    Your claim that our chronology is 'languishing with trite statements' is rather amusing for you assume that chronology for the Divided Monarchy is so ever easy and simple without any technical hurdles. Certainly our scheme proves that there is a twenty year difference or gap in certain points of contact between Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian history but so what? All that a competent chronologist needs to do is 'fine tune' or to quote Rodger C Young to use a Corrective in reconciling the biblical data with the secular data. Celebrated WT scholar over many decades have used Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as that Corrective.

    In conclusion, Bible chronology differs between scholars particularly in the period of the Divided Monarchy for the biblical data in the form of numbers are mysterious providing a continuous challege for scholarship. Our scholars have triumphed and succeeded in providing a simple but workable scheme so I am duly proud of what we have accomplished as an organization.

    scholar JW

  • bohm
    bohm

    Jeffro, thanks for the entertainment!

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    scholar:

    Your pretty chart is a good overview of orthodox chronology as presented by many scholars but the' devil is in the detail' and that is where your scheme fails. If one was to compare your scheme with that offered by Mc Fall, Young and Thiele amongst many others then there would be many differences of opinion as to the dates and the events for to date the only scheme that has gained universal acceptance is that of Thiele. Scholar however in saying this, that in making such a comparison between your chronology and that of others there may well be a difference of only one year in some instances for your scheme simply mirrors the 'popular' chronology of today.

    I produced my chart independently of other sources, so the fact that it is consistent with other sources is only testament to its accuracy.

    You are entitled to view our chronology as a 'bad joke' and I am quite sure that most scholars would agree with you especially Thiele who had not time for our chronology. For my part I believe the 'joke' is on modern scholarship because we have a scheme that is simple, faithful to Scripture, harmonizes the 390 year period of Ezekiel, user-friendly and breathes life into Bible History, Theology and Prophecy.

    Nothing but tedious rhetoric there.

    I believe that the use of 'interregnum' to describe the earlier kingship of Hoshea based on 2Kings 15;30 is most appropriate even though it does not currency in our publications today. Of course our chronology for the Divided Kingdom differs to what was published in 1944 but so what for all scholarship is a work in progress and no doubt if you checked Thiele's work which was published in three editions there would have been changes and adjustments.

    The specific problem here is not that revisions have been made (setting aside the fact that all Watch Tower revisions are futile attempts to defend their tenuous numerology), but that you desperately insist on citing an abandoned revision to defend their current chronology.

    I am glad to see that you acknowledge the fact of my responses but you have simply not proved your case especially in regard to Hoshea's reign alleging that we have a problem. There is no problem for us but your problem is how to adequately deal with 2Kings 15:30. and this you have not done adequately. Further, you have not dealt adequately with the translation issues of 2Kings 17:1 proving that Hoshea's reign ended rather than began in that year as we interpret matters. You need to work much harder on this!!!! LOL

    Not only have I explained the problem, but I have also specifically indicated why the Watch Tower Society inserts the spurious periods prior to the reigns of Hoshea and Zechariah. Specifically, to make up the difference of twenty years when aligning the reigns for the kingdom of Israel with their distorted expansion of the kingdon of Judah.

    Your claim that our chronology is 'languishing with trite statements' is rather amusing for you assume that chronology for the Divided Monarchy is so ever easy and simple without any technical hurdles. Certainly our scheme proves that there is a twenty year difference or gap in certain points of contact between Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian history but so what? All that a competent chronologist needs to do is 'fine tune' or to quote Rodger C Young to use a Corrective in reconciling the biblical data with the secular data. Celebrated WT scholar over many decades have used Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as that Corrective.

    What a joke! Independent Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records all indicate that the Watch Tower Society chronology is out by twenty years, and the Watch Tower Society even admits that fact. The records for the period in the Bible are completely consistent with the records of Assyria, Babylon and Egypt. It is only the Watch Tower Society's distorted interpretations that are in conflict.

    In conclusion, Bible chronology differs between scholars particularly in the period of the Divided Monarchy for the biblical data in the form of numbers are mysterious providing a continuous challege for scholarship. Our scholars have triumphed and succeeded in providing a simple but workable scheme so I am duly proud of what we have accomplished as an organization.

    The Bible on its own disproves the Watch Tower Society's superstitious chronology. With the revised translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in the NWT, this is now even more obvious. Even with the incorrect use of "at Babylon" (even though in the JW belief the Jews exiled in 607 were only "at Babylon" for, at most, 69¼ years), it is obvious from the context of verses 10-15 (even without considering the fact of the broader context that it's a letter to exiles already in Babylon about 7 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction) that "seventy years" refers to a period that ends before 'turning attention' to their return. Replacing the intentionally ambiguous "in accord with", the bumbling translators now clearly state that attention would be given to their return "When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled". In the delusional JW belief, the 70 years end when the Jews arrive in Jerusalem (supposedly in October 537 BCE), so there would hardly be any point in having attention turned to their return after they're already there. (The fact that many Jews remained in Babylon is also irrelevant, because that did not change in 537 either.) In reality, the passage indicates that 70 years would end (when Babylon's king was called to account in 539 BCE), and then the Jews would be allowed to return after that (in Cyrus' first regnal year, 538 BCE). And this is only one of many problems with the JW chronology directly from the Bible. Extra-biblical sources are in fact an unnecessary nail in the coffin of JW chronology, because the Bible already makes the coffin air-tight.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    No doubt you first learnt of this from Ann O Maly who first learnt it from me on one of my earlier posts on this forum whereupon i first drew attention to Rodger Young's methodology.

    ... and you in turn first learned of Young's paper from whom, Neil? C'mon now, seeing as we're all giving credit where it is due, spit it out.

  • Bart Belteshassur

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit