Need your help with a little research!!!

by cecil 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cecil

  I have found something interesting in the danish New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. And I would like to know, how the other NW-translations render the same verse.

  It's the "famous" words in Jeremiah 29:10, which in the NWT's rendering usually (at least as far as I know) seem to depict and strengthen the seventy years as a period of captivity, instead of servitude under babylonian supremacy!

  English
  „For this is what Jehovah has said, ’In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall return my...’“

  German:
  „Denn dies ist was Jehova gesagt hat: ’In Übereinstimmung mit der Erfüllung von siebzig Jahren in Babylon werde ich euch...’“

  Polish:
  „Tak bowiem rzekl Jehowa: ’Gdysi sie dopelni siedemdziesiat lat w Babilonie, zworoce na was uwage...’“

  Nothing new here. But when you read the danish NWT you'll be quite surprised:

  DANISH
  „For således har Jehova sagt: ’Først når halvfjerds år er udløbet for Babylon...’”

  Yes, you're right: The danish translation says FOR (equals the english FOR) and not IN (that would be I in danish). And it would be possible to say I BABYLON instead of FOR BABYLON without any other change in this verse.

  The same interesting thing happens when you compare the column-titles for Jeremiah 29:10 in these translations:

  english:
  Return in 70 years

  german:
  Rückkehr nach 70 Jahren

  polish
  Powroca po 70 latach

  And now the danish version:
  70 år (which simply means: 70 years - nothing about a return in this column-title...

  Now that made me really wondering: Should there be any other NWT (in other languages) that render Jeremiah 29:10 different from the english version - and maybe like the danish? Should there be something special about the danish NWT...? At least this verse is QUITE DIFFERENT from the other NWT I've seen! Strange, don't you think so???

  Please correct me if I'm wrong: But the danish NWT says something that the WBTS usually says is incorrect translated in other bibles and which is in direct contrast to the normal WTBS-application of the 70 years in Jeremiah as years of exile and desolation!!

  Here's where I NEED YOUR HELP: Please quote Jeremiah 29:10 from the NWT in your own language (spanish or swedish or... - I think the NWT is available in 31 languages today, but I don't know i which languages) and tell in english if your NWT says FOR Babylon or AT Babylon.

  I am writing a letter to the danish branch-office about this issue (the WT-chronology) at the moment and of course I'm going to ask a question about the rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 i the danish NWT. And I'll publish the answer on this board - if I can get an answer...

  Thanks
  cecil

  PS: I posted this request for help on the main-board yesterday. Maybe I should have place it here...
• 

  mommy

  Hey Cecil,
  I don't have my NWT anymore, sorry. I just wanted o reply to you because I have not seen you for awihle. Great to see you, and glad you are hard at work, against the org Sorry to intrude
  wendy

  Blind faith can justify anything~Richard Dawkins, The selfish gene
• 

  seedy3

  It is interesting to note, that most of the other translations (non NWT) do use the word "for" in english. I looked it up in the NASB, KJV, NKJV, Websters, RSV, Youngs, Darby's, ASV, Hebrews names version. Of these versions it is only the KJV, NKJV, and Websters, that uses the word "at", Youngs uses "of", all of the others use the word "for".

  Now according to my studies I have found that the written date that Jerusalem fell to total destruction was in 597 according to the Babylonian Chronicals. The Babylonian Chronicals are a large set of tables that were actually a copy of the set of event that took palce during the times of the Babylonian Captivity. The translation of these tablets was started in 1887. In 1956 there were a set of smaller tablets that when translated, it was discovered that the Destruction of Jerusalem came in 597bc,in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablets also established many other dates including the time periods that the Babylonian kings ruled. According to the WTS and the chronology they use, Jerusalem fell in 607bc yet when we look at the tablets Nebuchadnezzar was not even king during that time, he did not take the throne until 604bc. If you would like to check out a research link dealing with these tablets, go here

  > http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/DStahlnecker/Chronicles.html

  I'm wondering with the falicy that has happened in the continual trying to establish dates, that the WTS is now making an effort to erase the history as they have so often in the past, by rewriting their literature, including the NWT, to bring it in line with what they are now making their doctrines.

  Maybe this is not what you were looking for but I hope it helps.

  seedy
• 

  Larsguy

  The quote below is from your own reference and confirms these are COPIED DOCUMENTS. Has it occurred to you that the reason they were "copied" was so they could revise this section of history? So how is it they are so reliable?

  Anyway, the Bible contradicts the specific chronology of the chronicles so we know they were revised. For instance, Nebuchadnezzar per the Bible really ruled for 45 years and not 43.

  Basically, 26 years were reduced from the Neo-Babylonian period and 2 years taken from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 16 years from Evil-Merodach, 2 years from Nabonidus and all of the 6-year rule of "Darius the Mede".

  So have fun believing what you want about ancient chronology, but the Bible has a different chronology and history and so does Josephus who claims a 70-year desolation period beginning the 23rd year!! (Ant. 11.1.1). So the chronicles are definitely challenged and contradicted by both the Bible and other sources.

  It's a mess though! Thanks for posting this.

  LG

  'Of all the known ancient historical records, the Babylonian Chronicles are considered one of the most reliable and objective. {2} Yet, these tablets are not original Babylonian records, but are instead duplicates which, "presumably were copied during the Persian period from older documents, which were compiled from the official annals of the Babylonian kings." {3} The reason these duplicates were created is unknown, though it is speculated that they were "notes to aid an inquiry on behalf of the Chaldaean of Achaemenid kings for which a knowledge of the history was required." {4}
• 

  seedy3

  Actually that is why I posted the link, because it does mention that there are those that challenge the chronicals. But as well give the references, so if anyone wanted to take a trip the library or other book source they could look them up and decide for themselves.

  seedy
• 

  cecil

  Wendy

  "Thanks for the flowers" - as we put it in my mother-tongue. Great to know that it wouldn't be as easy to fade away in here, as it prooves to be in our congo. You know what I mean...!!!

  cecil
• 

  cecil

  Hi seedy3.

  Thanks for your reply. I know that most other translations render Jeremiah 29:10 "...FOR Babylon..." or "...TO Babylon..." Other translations again paraphrase the expression "le babel" with another wording, like "When Babylon's seventy years are over." (Tanach - The Holy Scriptures; a jewish translation!!) or "When a full seventy years have passed over Babylon." (The Revised English Bible).

  You wrote
  

  Now according to my studies I have found that the written date that Jerusalem fell to total destruction was in 597 according to the Babylonian Chronicals.

  That's strange. According to what I have read and seen published in recent years, the date 597 B.C. is the date for the EARLIER (second) deportation of jews from (the first took place in Nebuchadnezars accession year - 605 B.C. - according to the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946. BTW: Thanks for the link! There you can read B.M. 21946
  > http://www.seminary.georgefox.edu/courses/bst550/reports/DStahlnecker/BM21946.html

  I assume you just typed the wrong number (...?!), because you also wrote:
  

  In 1956 there were a set of smaller tablets that when translated, it was discovered that the Destruction of Jerusalem came in 597bc,in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

  
  You meant 587 B.C. - as this year partly was the 19. regnal year of Nebuchadnezar - right?

  OK. Here comes another link to a site, that I found very informative:
  > http://www.nexus.hu/enkidu/enkidu.html
  Check it out. It contains an enormous database with 26875 transcribed texts - partly from the neo-babylonian period!

  cecil

  Hi Larsguy.

  Thanks for your comments! You wrote:

  ...Has it occurred to you that the reason they were "copied" was so they could revise this section of history?...So the chronicles are definitely challenged and contradicted by both the Bible and other sources...

  OK. Let's assume for a moment we cannot trust the chronicles. How about the other evidence FROM THE NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD ITSELF (royal inscriptions, economic,administrative and legal documents/inscriptions or the preserved business docs of the neo-babylonian era itself)? How about the synchronisms with the egyptian history of the same period?? How about the astronomical evidence from the neo-babylonian era???

  If these documents and the babylonian chronicles show exactly the same data – and they do! - should that not be proof that what the chronicles show is correct. Instead of claiming that the chronicles have been revised for a certain purpose (what purpose?), maybe we should concentrate on all the evidence from the neo-babylonian period as a whole. And: As far as I know, the secular historical evidence from the neo-babylonian period, that is preserved, is in good harmony with the Bible!

  cecil
• 

  seedy3

  cecil,
  Ya know I looked at that twice, because I didn't want to put the wrong date, LOL, but still did. Must have been a bad day :) Yes actually that was the second in 597, and the destruction was in 586.

  Larsguy, yes they are copies, but I noticed you said "documents" these were not documents, they were tablets (which I guess in that time period they could be refered to as documents) and they were estimated to have been from the period just after the fall of babylon. But perhaps that's not a good time to be copying, because that's when most of the Old testement was rewritten (copied) to encorperate the zoraterian beliefs into the jewish religion. Like the idea of a single almighty god, the idea of a god of evil (statan), and last but not least the idea of a saviour. But that's another story LOL.

  seedy
• 

  Larsguy

  >....they were estimated to have been from the period just after the fall of babylon. But perhaps that's not a good time to be copying.....

  Sorry, this is your imagination and not correct. The tablets actually state when they were copied. One tablet was recorded in the 22nd year of Darius, which would be Darius II. Even the Insight Book I believe addresses this. If you look up this information in that volume regarding these tablets I believe they claim the writing can be consistent with all the way as late as the end of the Persian Period. But for some of them we don't have to guess or estimate when the tablets were copied. Some of there copied near the end of the reign of Darius II.

  Now...once you understand the REALITY of the reason for the copying, which would be for the purpose of revision, you know there is no way these would have been revised until after the reason for the conspiracy to correct these documents took place, which would have been several years after the 14th year of Artaxerxes at the very latest.

  Anyway, the Bible contradicts these tablets specifically.

  1. It gives a 6-year rule to Darius the Mede preceding the 1st of Cyrus, which these tablets ignore.

  2. The Bible indicates the 11th year of Zedekiah was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and thus an 8-year difference. Thus the 37th year of Jehoiachin when he was realized (same year as Zedekiah's reign) would also be an 8-year difference meaning Nebuchadnezzar rule for 45 years and not 43 years. So we know on that basis these tablets were revised.

  But just remember, anything that was "copied" has to be suspected of being a revision automatically.

  In addition, the astronomical texts directly supporting this chronology do in deed reference the specific years of the current chronology, but ingeniously uses similarities in the original chronology to double-date these events, thus more than one date is extractable from both the VAT4956 and the SK400 and both align up with the same rule of Nebuchadnezzar which would date his 19th year in 529BCE. This is totally astronomical and totally independent of everything else. But when you add 74 years to get to the 1st of Cyrus, you end up in 455BCE, the date the Bible would have begun the 483 years until the Messiah (69 weeks) which would have occurred in 29CE. So at this point, there really is no choice about what happened and why there are these discrepancies.

  Please also note that Josephus very much aligns his chronology with that of the Bible and claims a 70-year desert period beginning with the last deportation as the Bible does, thus 74 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the 1st of Cyrus. So there is secular chronology directly conflicting these tablets, but supporting the Bible. Which one is correct or likely correct is where the debate is.

  But the recent evidence NOW makes it all to plain what the original chronology was, so it's just incompetent now not to recognize that 586BCE is a fraudulent, revised date.

  LG
• 

  seedy3

  Hmmmm, larsguy, you are funny.
  First off, we are to accept the one only documantation (the old testiment) that say's it was in 607, and it was not written to influence one religous point of view and their view of history? Yet the other evidence that has been unearthed, says something different. I guess I would believe the "one" over all the others, sure I would, makes sence to me. And yeah the bible was not written with prejudice. Hmmm, Like I said your funny.