by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
Therefore, by Scholar's reasoning, the only qualified people to critique the society's reasoning are loyal followers like himself, who are too obedient to question.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
"scholar" wrote:
: I am suspicious of individual who have converted as a Witness after a considerble time of education and reflection whereupon such an individual was convinced intellectually and nourished in faith to being baptized.
By the same token you should be suspicious of anyone who apostatizes from any previous belief and becomes a JW.
Of course, the usual JW double standards come into play here.
: Now, for unexplained amd for irrational reasoms they now find that what they once believed is now error,
Unexplained? This is yet another example of thoroughgoing braindead comments on your part, "scholar". I carefully explained my reasons, giving several examples in posts here and a link to copious examples on another website. The reasons boil down to a simple fact: Watchtower leaders are incorrigible liars.
I would like to know how you justify maintaining complete trust in proven liars.
: a classic example is Alan F who now admits publicly to all that he is no longer a Christian having once from youth being raised in the faith has now become an unbeliever.
What do you mean "now admits"? I've been telling people this fact for years.
: How can such people realy be credible commentators of scripture?
"Such people" can be very "credible commentators of scripture" for a couple of simple reasons: they no longer have to suck up to anyone to convince them of their 'faith', nor do they have to screen out facts that tend to damage cherished beliefs, and so they can be much more objective than a 'true believer'.
A true believer can have but one goal: find evidence to support his predetermined beliefs. A skeptic can have several goals, including finding evidence for and against some position. Thus the skeptic can objectively examine all evidence without fear of losing some cherished belief, whereas the true believer cannot. True believers are thus notoriously untrustworthy, as the example of Jehovah's Witnesses illustrates so well.
AlanF
1/1/1965 Watchtower p. 29 "The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived"
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.
Scholar ---
I have a simple question for you about this quotation from the January 1, 1965 WT.
Is the information about the kings true or false?
Thanks,
Marjorie
Earnest --
I wrote to you on July 30 (back on page 11 of this thread) and said:
Mercer references some articles on vassalage that sound interesting. I may try to look them up in the next week or so.
It's been a busy week for me, but yesterday I was able to read the Jonas Greenfield article cited by Mercer. ( J. C. Greenfield, 'Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,' in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, volume 1. Jerusalem, 1967.) Greenfield discusses some of the terminology used in the vassal treaties of the Ancient Near East. He is particularly interested in the words used for "vassal", "suzerain/sovereign", and "tribute".
The Hebrew word 'ebed (servant, slave) is used to mean vassal. Greenfield discusses several Bible verses and also compares the terminology used in Ugaritic texts and Akkadian texts. (Ugarit is very closely related to Hebrew).
It is clear that Mercer was correct in saying that Daniel could have used a Hebrew word other than "malkut" if he had wanted to express the third year of the "servitude" of Jehoiakim rather than the third year of the "reign" of Jehoiakim.
Additionally, if Daniel had wanted to emphasize in Daniel 2:1 that this was not actually the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (as the text plainly says), but rather it was his "second year after defeating Egypt," when he became the "Great King" of the entire ANE (which would be his literal 20 th year, according to Scholar), there are at least three other ways he could have expressed that.
Greenfield discusses three Hebrew terms: melek gadol, melek rab, and melek yareb which are applied to the "Great King".
So Daniel could have used one of those terms if he had wanted to give his readers a hint that Nebuchadnezzar was now an even greater and mightier king and Daniel was therefore counting his years in a different way. But, of course, it would have been even simpler for Daniel just to say that Nebuchadnezzar had the dream in "the second year after he defeated Egypt". Daniel was a brilliant, well-educated man who had no need to "hint" or "indicate" that he didn't really mean the literal "third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim" or the literal "second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar". He could have come right out and said what he meant in plain language with no ambiguity.
In any case, it is nonsense to suggest (as per Scholar) that "malkut" is translated as "kingship" in order to indicate "vassalage" in Daniel 1:1 but it is translated as "kingship" in Daniel 2:1 in order to indicate "greater sovereignty".
Scholar is not only pleading a special case (as was said earlier in this thread), he is actually pleading two special cases with two different meanings by the same author within just a few paragraphs. Scholar wants us to believe that the NWT translators' use of "kingship" in Daniel 1:1 indicates Jehoiakim's status as a vassal, but in Daniel 2:1 "kingship" is supposed to indicate Nebuchadnezzar's new position as Great King after defeating Egypt.
Marjorie
AlanF
I've been reading the furulli's thread... you & others made a wonderful job.
"Scholar" failed to prove his point, it seems that he is not capable of recognizing
the truth. Thanks a lot!
Could you please explain a bit about 2 Chronicles 36:20?
Caballo Sentado
