Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Alleymom

  SCHOLAR: "the Hebrew term malkut does not mean reign "

  But the NWT translates malkut as reign:

  2 Chron. 3:2 -- Accordingly he started to build in the second month on the second [day], in the fourth year of his reign. (NWT)2 Chron 15:10 --- So they were collected together at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of A´sa’s reign. (NWT)
  
  2 Chron 15:19 --- As for war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth year of A´sa’s reign (NWT)
  
  2 Chron 16:1 -- In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of A´sa, Ba´a·sha the king of Israel came up against Judah and began to build Ra´mah, so as not to allow anyone to go out or come in to A´sa the king of Judah. (NWT)
  
  2 Chron 16:12 -- And A´sa in the thirty-ninth year of his reign developed an ailment in his feet until he was very sick; and even in his sickness he searched not for Jehovah but for the healers (NWT)
  
  2 Chron 29:19 --- And all the utensils that King A´haz removed from employment during his reign in his unfaithfulness we have prepared, and have sanctified them; and there they are before the altar of Jehovah. (NWT)
  
  2 Chron 35:19 -- In the eighteenth year of Jo·si´ah’s reign this passover was held (NWT)
  
  Ezra 4:5 --- and hiring counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia down till the reign of Da·ri´us the king of Persia (NWT)
  
  Ezra 4:6 --- And in the reign of A·has·u·e´rus, at the start of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem
  
  Ezra 7:1 --- And after these things in the reign of Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia, Ez´ra the son of Se·rai´ah the son of Az·a·ri´ah the son of Hil·ki´ah (NWT)
  
  Ezra 8:1 --- Now these were the heads of their paternal houses and the genealogical enrollment of those going up with me during the reign of Ar·ta·xerx´es the king out of Babylon (NWT)
  
  Esther 2:16 --- Then Esther was taken to King A·has·u·e´rus at his royal house in the tenth month, that is, the month Te´beth, in the seventh year of his reign (NWT)
• 

  Alleymom

  You forget to mention that Mercer is probably writing from a SDA theological viewpoint and thus their chronology is more closely aligned to higher criticism than to the biblical narrative.

  "Probably"? Well is he, or isn't he?

  I didn't "forget" to mention something I don't know is true. Does the AUSS only publish articles by SDA (Seventh Day Adventist) scholars? I don't know that to be true and, apparently, neither do you, or you wouldn't have used the word "probably".

  Any anyway isn't it a bit of an ad hominen attack to dismiss Mercer because he might be SDA? Do you (or the WT) always/ever provide biographical information for the authors you cite? What can you tell me of Bullinger or Shulman or the numerous authors in the book Judah and the Judeans? (And many of those scholars, incidentally, are rampant minimalists. They don't believe the land was left desolate at all, for any time, let alone 70 years. Didn't you "forget" to mention that when you recommended the book?)

  As for me, I have this simple idea that information should be evaluated on its own merits.

  So when Mercer says there is another word Daniel could have used to express vassalage, I look that word up and see how it is used in the Bible. I posted those verses a couple of days ago.

  When Mercer gives a footnote to an article by another scholar (and Greenfield is ASSUREDLY not SDA!!!!) and says to see this article for information on the use of "ebed" to mean "vassal" I take note of that.

  I do not say, "Oh, that Mercer! He's possibly or probably SDA so I wouldn't believe a word HE says, and I won't go to the trouble of looking up a reference he gives to a non-SDA scholar."

  You sure seem to be upset about SDA beliefs. Aren't the SDA's kissing cousins of the JW's? I have seen family trees of the different denominations, and I recall seeing SDA and JW as both branching off from the Adventists (where Russell got his start).

  I would not have characterized them as "higher critics" since they always seem to take the Bible very seriously. Do you know for a fact that they hold a low view of Scripture? Can you direct me to something which shows their beliefs on verbal inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, etc?

  Isn't all this nothing more than a lot of chaff to draw attention away from the main point? The point is not whether Mercer is possibly or probably SDA <s>. The point is this: Malkut does not mean vassalage, and Mercer says there is another word which Daniel could have used if he wanted to express the meaning of vassalage.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Further, you omit to mention that Mercer acknowledges the many theories, five in fact, which try to place the beginning of Jehoiakims submission to Nebuchadnezzer.

  It's hard to follow your syntax there, but I think I know what you are saying.

  Hmmmm, I was sure I had mentioned that Mercer gives a nice summary of the range of opinion on the verses. Let me scroll back and see ....

  Yep. I quoted Mercer where he said:

  Several commentators take the third year of Jehoiakim as being the last of the three years of servitude to Babylon mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:1.

  I also said, in my post to Earnest:

  He makes some good arguments, imo, plus he does a nice job of summarizing the range of opinion, with some very good footnotes.

  So I guess I didn't omit that after all.

  Your complaints are just silly, anyway, since I gave a complete citation so that anyone could look up the article. Anyone could also PM me and ask for a copy of the article, couldn't they?

  Marjorie
• 

  setfreefinally

  Fascinating stuff!!!

  I appreciate very much everyones work here, including Scholars!
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  I do not know for certain whether Mercer is a SDA but his article reflects SDA opinion on chronology. His article may well convince but does not convince me as it is simply one of a few studies on this subject. It simply demands analysis like all oher studies which represent opinions.

  I have never said that malkut means vasallage as I have stated the current meanings in certain references but because of the fact that Jehoiakim served as a vassal twice in his 11 year reign then from a historiographical viewpoint then his kingship would include his vassalage.

  Of course in the NWT may well render malkut differently but I have not bothered to examine these examples because I do not believe it is important. My exegetical focus is on the uses of the term in Daniel. One must get that right before jumping all over the place and losing sight of the ball.

  By the way I have no problem with SDA chronology as it was the source of my interest some thirty yeras ago and is probably the foundation of the Jonsson nonsense.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  rem

  Wow, what a spanking!

  rem
• 

  simwitness

  Scholar said:

  By the way I have no problem with SDA chronology as it was the source of my interest some thirty yeras ago and is probably the foundation of the Jonsson nonsense.

  You realize the folly of your statement, right? The SDA is an offshoot of the Millerites and other early Adventist groups Which include Charles T. Russell and the BIble Students (which of course, later became the Jehovah's Witnesses).

  So, The SDA chronology is not "probably the foundation of the Johnsson nonsense" but instead shares the same foundation as the Watchtower nonsense.

  Secondly, can you ever be definitive about a statement? Every answer you give is "probably" this and "maybe" that, and a lot of "it seems to be"... If you are such a scholar, you should atleast be able to use more definite terms.

  Apparently you need to go back to debate class and learn how to present your "facts" better. You have called to the carpet on every reference you've sited, and you have been proven wrong in each and every case.

  You've lost this round, as you have lost all others.
• 

  simwitness

  scholar also said:

  Of course in the NWT may well render malkut differently but I have not bothered to examine these examples because I do not believe it is important. My exegetical focus is on the uses of the term in Daniel. One must get that right before jumping all over the place and losing sight of the ball.

  Language is language... if you don't compare ALL of the examples you cannot possibly come up with a meaning for a word, or even the implications behind it. You are stating that "in this case, malkut means something that there is no other example of"... that's called special pleading... back it up with evidence that it was in fact used in that way elsewhere, or realize that it must have the same meaning as used everywhere else. Especially in light of the fact that there are other words that could have been used that do/did convey the meaning you think was intended here.

  A true scholar would realize this.
• 

  scholar

  simwitness

  SDA chronology has very little in common with WT chronology but is the foundation for the Jonsson hypothesis because of its many exegitical similarities. You express concern about my lack of definition, well, there is not much room for dogmatism in biblical chronology because there is very little consensus about such matters, An example would be that there is no agreement about the seventy years and the date for the fall of Jerusalem. So, you have big problems if ypu reject the straight forward WT chronology.

  Regarding malkut it is necessary that the examples of its appearance in Hebrew is essential for a valid word study to be carried out. If you are so smart then tou post the number of occurrences of malkut in the OT and list all of the texts so that a meeaningful comparison can be made. Do not list the english word reign as linked with Strong's concordance as this is inaccurate for word study. Go for it, boy.

  scholar BA MA Studies of Religion
• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar wrote to Sim:
  If you are so smart then tou post the number of occurrences of malkut in the OT and list all of the texts so that a meeaningful comparison can be made. Do not list the english word reign as linked with Strong's concordance as this is inaccurate for word study.

  Sim and Scholar --
  

  I already listed all 91 occurrences of malkut in two separate posts so that a meaningful comparison could be made. This was not a search on "reign"; it was a search on the Hebrew word malkut.
  

  Scholar said: Of course in the NWT may well render malkut differently but I have not bothered to examine these examples because I do not believe it is important.

  How can you "not believe it is important" to study how the word is used in the Bible when you are making (repeated) claims about its meaning?! How can a Bible student "not bother" with the Bible? How can you know the examples are not important if you have not "bothered" to examine them?

  You claim that malkut does not mean reign, but then you refuse to read the verses I have provided where the NWT does translate malkut as reign. Is this because you know or suspect that the verses disprove your assertions? Didn't you take even a quick peek at the verses as you scrolled right past all 91 of them in two separate posts?

  Marjorie