The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I made that comment as a little piece of sarcasm because you display a blind hatred for our teachings and what we represent also your postings display a reluctance to engage in research and to read widely in the field of chronology. I am not an ignorant person because I research widely having access to theological liibraries in order to keep up to date with current thinking. Do you? Also I have a an interest in conmmentaries which I love and use often, Do you?

  I am not interested in trying to prove anything, a translation of the Bible must by its very nature is very subjective and this is also the case of interpretation of the Bible and chronololgy. There are matters relating to chronology which cannot be proved because either history or the Biblical narrative does not present all of the facts so readers today are left with a 'skeleton' in respect to matters in the past in respect to history and prophecy. God's spirit does add 'flesh' to the matter.

  I simply supply additional facts supplied by scholars either in respected works or found in present and past commentaries and such facts certainly show that in the case of 'malkut' that its translation as 'reign' is rather limited in scope and does truly represent Daniel's historical datum.

  It is imply the case that Jehoiakim could be considered a ;world ruler' because such jings of Judah represented a theocracy, Jehovah's throne on earth so in this theological sense it is an appropriate designation.

  It is foolish of you to assert that malkut cannot be used instead of 'reign' and is a misdirection. The fact is that the Jewish view of long tradition viewed malkut in the case of Jehoiakim's 'third year' was applied to the end of his reign further supported by Josephus.

  Yes, such 'world rulership' by the line of Judah ceased when the last king Zedekiah was dethroned in 607 BC. Daniel simply used the third year of kingship or world rulereship if you like as a historical datum understood by those exiles in Babylon. The 'third year of Jehoiakim' correctly understood has no direct bearing on the calculation of the Gentile Times because the seventy years had not then begun until the dethronement of Zedekiah and the end of that 'world rulership'.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  I made that comment as a little piece of sarcasm because you display a blind hatred for our teachings and what we represent also your postings display a reluctance to engage in research and to read widely in the field of chronology. I am not an ignorant person because I research widely having access to theological liibraries in order to keep up to date with current thinking. Do you? Also I have a an interest in conmmentaries which I love and use often, Do you?

  I do not show blind hatred. I clearly indicate simple facts that indicate its interpretations to be incorrect. Rather than indicate actual errors in what I post, you parrot JW dogma and then accuse me of not researching properly. I have absolutely no obligation toward you to do any research at all, let alone reach some arbitrary benchmark set by you. However I do post in line with the facts, I don't try to puff myself up like you do, and I don't try to stretch things to meet a personal agenda of making a doctrine fit.

  I am not interested in trying to prove anything, a translation of the Bible must by its very nature is very subjective and this is also the case of interpretation of the Bible and chronololgy. There are matters relating to chronology which cannot be proved because either history or the Biblical narrative does not present all of the facts so readers today are left with a 'skeleton' in respect to matters in the past in respect to history and prophecy. God's spirit does add 'flesh' to the matter.

  It seems that you are admitting that your interpretation is not proved. On the other hand, it has been proven that Jerusalem did not fall in 607.

  I simply supply additional facts supplied by scholars either in respected works or found in present and past commentaries and such facts certainly show that in the case of 'malkut' that its translation as 'reign' is rather limited in scope and does truly represent Daniel's historical datum.

  Translating 'malkut' as 'kingship' still does not justify the Society's bizarre interpretation. In a vain attempt to find support for your conclusion, you rely on Jewish interpretation which rejects the veracity of parts of Daniel as authentic and you ignore the simple clear logical face-value interpretation of Daniel.

  It is imply the case that Jehoiakim could be considered a ;world ruler' because such jings of Judah represented a theocracy, Jehovah's throne on earth so in this theological sense it is an appropriate designation.

  Pick a year scholar. You can't say Judah represented a 'world ruler' in two different years that both full within Jehoiakim's reign.

  It is foolish of you to assert that malkut cannot be used instead of 'reign' and is a misdirection. The fact is that the Jewish view of long tradition viewed malkut in the case of Jehoiakim's 'third year' was applied to the end of his reign further supported by Josephus.

  Why would an English speaker use 'malkut' instead of 'reign'? The Jewish tradition also holds that Nebuchadnezzar's 7 years of madness cannot be taken literally, and that other errors exist in Daniel's account.

  Yes, such 'world rulership' by the line of Judah ceased when the last king Zedekiah was dethroned in 607 BC. Daniel simply used the third year of kingship or world rulereship if you like as a historical datum understood by those exiles in Babylon. The 'third year of Jehoiakim' correctly understood has no direct bearing on the calculation of the Gentile Times because the seventy years had not then begun until the dethronement of Zedekiah and the end of that 'world rulership'.

  So you not only deny that it is simple to say that Jehoiakim's third year is simply his third year, but you would even go as far as saying that it a simple 'methodology' to surmise that Judah had different starting points of 'world rulership' even though it wasn't actually a world ruler at either time. Rediculous!
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  It is about time you started to post some facts because up till now all that you do is post apostate propaganda with the same tireless nonsense. The interpretation advanced by celebrated WT scholars is indeed proven according to the testimony of God's Word and is in harmony withn past and present scholarship.

  The translation of malkut as kingship is well supported by current scholarship and highlights the fact that the third year of Jehoiakim applies only to the end of his reign. Those kings sitting on Dabids's throne represent world rulership and this is attested throughout the book of Daniel which is about God's Kingdom and Jehovah having the authority with regard to world rulership. The Society's interpretation is not bizarre at all and this comment only confirm your scoffing attitude to sacred things. This view is the traditional understanding of matters as confirmed by numerous commentators wheras your view is simply a rehash of SDA interpetation based on the theories of the late Edwin Thiele.

  What is being said that the line of Judah with its monarchy represented world rulership as far as Jehovah and his people were concerned and this is well illustrated by the Daniel 4 in the case of Nebuchadnezzer. Your theory about Daniel 1:1 because the year of Nebuchadnezzer is not stated hence this text cannot serve as a chronological datum but only as a historical datum. It is simply impossible to synchronize Daniel 1:1 with Jeremiah 25:1 despite Thiele's best efforts and tables published by the Adventists. If this theory works then the Daniel 1:1 problem would have been solved and there would have been no need for the Maccabean thesis promoted by higher critics.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  Scholar,

  There was nothing of merit in your last post to respond to. Any honest reader who has been following this thread knows that I am right and you are wrong, and I invite anyone who disagrees to tell me so.
• 

  ithinkisee

  hahaha ..... good job Jeffro

  Scholar, isn't it strange that the Society doesn't even address this issue at all anymore. They make up pseudo-issues to address in the Daniel book and don't even touch the biggest issie - 586 vs. 607.

  You would think with people leaving the WT as fast as they are coming in, they would attempt to bolster their claims to authority via 607 (an in turn 1914) - but they DON'T.

  The most we hear from "celebrated WT scholars" anymore is from some hack that goes by the name "Scholar". And "Scholar" just talks a lot but doesn't really say anything of merit.

  Hey, that is just like the Insight book and Kingdom Come Book ... a whole lot of stuff that doesn't really say anything.

  -ithinkisee
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Frankly, I care little for your apostate nonsense. I posted my last ;post for the benefit of Alleymom and I eagerly await her input and her response to an enlarged understanding of malkut. Her responses are intelligent and open-minded and you could benefit by imitatating her character. The reason why I post on this board and defend our biblical chronology is because I am know that it puts fools to shame and elevates the wisdom of those doing the Lord' will.

  scholar JW
• 

  AK - Jeff

  None of it matters anyway. What a bunch of gibberish!

  Who told you or anyone else, irregardless of 607 or 587 or some other date, to convert the seven times of the gentiles into 2520 years. No one! So the start of the gentile times is still a hoax. HMMMMMM..... The scripture in Numbers was not referring to the gentile times was it, Scholar? Use your interps of the Lexicons to prove it was!

  Jeff
• 

  Alleymom

  Neil --

  I think it would be worthwhile to take a closer look at the material you quoted from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (hereafter abbreviated as NIDOTTE) and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT).

  With all due respect, I believe you're overlooking some of the points brought out in these articles.

  Starting with NIDOTTE, here's what you posted:

  However, the meaning of malkut takes on a much broader dimension when considered by theological dictionaries of the OT and for the benefit of people like Jeffro, such publications are not published by Jehovah's Winesses. The DOTTE under a discussion of the the root word melek, states that malkut denotes a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling...refers to the right or office of ruling as king". Such an observation indicates that it is not the duration of regnal years typified by a 'reign' but the characteristic or nature of that reign is implied by this theologically nuanced word.

  The phrase you quoted comes from section 1.(c) "The office of ruling" on pp. 957-958 of volume 2.

  In this section, the authors discuss four Hebrew words derived from the root m-l-k: mamlaka, meluka, malkut, and mamlakut.

  Here is a scan of the relevant passage from page 957:

  Here is what you quoted:

  The DOTTE under a discussion of the the root word melek, states that malkut denotes a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling...refers to the right or office of ruling as king".

  "malkut denotes a stronger emphasis" ... stronger than what? NIDOTTE is discussing two words, malkut and mamlaka.

  Although the semantic aspects of these words largely overlap, it seems as though a stronger emphasis is put on the activity of ruling in the case of malkut. It therefore also refers to the right or office of ruling as king (e.g., 1 Sam. 20:31, 1 Kgs 2:12-15, 1 Chron 12:24), royal dignity (Esth 1:4), and even to the period of reign (e.g., Jer. 49:34).

  In discussing the four words mamlaka, meluka, malkut, and mamlakut, NIDOTTE says that:

  1) mamlaka - can best be translated kingdom or dominion
  2) meluka - kingship
  3) malkut -- overlaps mamlaka, refers to the right or office of ruling, royal dignity, and even to the period of reign
  4) mamlakut - a contamination derived from mamlaka and malkut

  Note the following:

  --- Your source specifically says that malkut, the word we have been discussing from Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1, is used to refer to the period of reign.

  --- Your source says that there is another word, meluka, which "is best translated as kingship."

  Here is a scan from page 958. It is the conclusion of section 1.(c) from the previous page. Note the sentence, which I have underlined in red, which states that meluka [not malkut] is best translated as kingship.

  You stated: >>> Such an observation indicates that it is not the duration of regnal years typified by a 'reign' but the characteristic or nature of that reign is implied by this theologically nuanced word. <<<

  But a careful reading of section 1.(c) shows that your conclusion does not reflect what the authors actually said. The authors specifically said that malkut refers "even to the period of reign (e.g., Jer. 49:34)."

  This is getting long, so I will discuss your next reference in another post.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  (continued from previous post)

  Neil ---

  The other reference you cited was the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, volume 8:

  To further prove the matter, I draw your attention to a comment made by no less an illustrious authority that the TDOT, Volume 8, p.360 wherein it is observed that this "Aramaic term, with its more sharply accentuated character, was better suited as a designation for an institution that was largely dominated by foreign influence". Such a comment justifiably in my view, could refer to the institution of 'kingship' dominated by a foreign political power expressed as a vassalage. In view of these facts, biblical history and the writings of Josephus, it is no wonder that the NWT Committe saw fit to translate malkut as 'kingship' in Daniel 1:1; 2:1 etc.

  Once again, I suggest that we look at the passage you cited in context.

  The reference is TDOT, volume 8, pages 359-360, section 5, "Abstract Expressions" under the entry for melek, which starts on page 346.

  Just as in the previously discussed passage from NIDOTTE, four words are being discussed:

  5.a -- meluka
  5.b -- mamlaka
  5.c -- malkut
  5.d. -- mamlakut

  In NIDOTTE we saw that "the semantic aspects" of mamlaka and malkut "largely overlap." Here in TDOT we see the authors saying that the meaning of the later term malkut "is indistinguishable from that of mamlaka, 'kingdom' (as a comprehensive term)."

  Here is a scan of page 359:

  For a larger image, go to http://www.strike9.com/alleymom/TDOT%2c-page-359.jpg

  And here is a scan of page 360:

  http://www.strike9.com/alleymom/TDOT%2c-page-360.jpg

  Note that in section c, where the authors are discussing the word malkut, they give several Bible references.

  Did you look those references up in the New World Translation, Neil?

  ***

  Rbi8 Ezra 4:5 ***

  5 and hiring counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia down till the reign [malkut] of Da·ri´us the king of Persia

  ***

  Rbi8 Ezra 4:24 ***

  24

  It was then that the work on the house of God, which was in Jerusalem, stopped; and it continued stopped until the second year of the reign [malkut] of Da·ri´us the king of Persia.

  ***

  Rbi8 Ezra 6:15 ***

  15

  And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign [malkut] of Da·ri´us the king.

  Just to review:

  The sentence underlined in yellow from the scan of page 360 says that "malkut" is indistinguishable in meaning from the earlier term "mamlaka," kingdom, as a comprehensive term.

  But if you look at 5.b. on page 359, you will see that mamlaka "brings to expression the functional system 'kingship' in all these aspects: as dominion, residence and reign, power apparatus --- in a word, as an institution."

  I will have to continue this later tonight or tomorrow, when I intend to give references to the academic material on vassalge which I posted two years ago.

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  Thank you for your additional comments on the subject of malkut from the TDOT and the NIDOTE reference works. Obviously, I could not comment on every point of semantics that these references cover because I would have had to post the entire articles. The additional points that you mention are well known to me as a matter of course. It is my intention to prepare an article covering the use of malkut and its providential translation by the NWT Committee as 'kingship'. My research is still not yet completed but I plan to do a thorough lexical and semantic study utilizing all of the commentaries and related journal articles.

  What I have found thus far shows that this word as translated as 'kingship' is the smoking gun for the Jonsson hypothesis and all such criticism of WT chronology, particularly 607.

  No doubt you have learnt that this word malkut has a wide range of meaning and occurs three times in Daniel. each occasion translated as 'kingship' in the NWT therefore a prudent scholar could not limit oneself to the orthodox rendering 'reign' which is theologically redundant. The very fact that it bears a close semantic relationship to meluka 'kingship' and mamlakat 'kingdom' and that malkut 'kingdom' shows that the rendering 'reign' is misleading. The word malkut is to be noted to mean or refer primarily to the activity of ruling rather than the duration of ruling. Interestingly, NIDOTTE says that "noun malkut is also used to express the kingship of God...the Davidic king sits on the malkut of Yahweh". p.958.

  I disagree strongly with your concluding comment that malkut refers to a period of reign this is only the opinion of the lexica but the above refers to this possibility admitted only on the basis of a translation of Jeremiah 49:34 which is best rendered 'kingship' as with the NWT. Did you check this reference, Marjorie?

  scholar JW