by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Scholar,
You say that your presence here is solely for the defence of the Watchtower societies chronology. However, your latest comment "having abandoned the one and only true faith?" I now have to ask you a question.
Please, establish the truth or validity of your statement, by presentation, argument or evidence, of this conglomerate being "the one and only true faith".
steve
It is not I that is saying that malkut means much more than simply a duration or 'reign' but that is well recognized by scholars that this word has a wide semantic range. It is a word that means many things and that is proven by the lexical quotes that have already been posted. The NWT Committee under the direction of celebrated WT scholars have decided that in regard to Daniel 1:1 and because of lexica, biblical history, theology, chronology, tradition, Josephus that this Aramaic word is best rendered as 'kingship'.
It does make absolute sense because it correlates this opening verse of Daniel with the facts of history and theology and the use of 'reign' is misleading and inaccurate because Jehoiakim's third year does not synchronize with the first year of Nebuchadnezzer. Such a bizarre interpretation creates a historical contradiction because Jeremiah synchronized Neb's first year with Jehoiakim's fourth year.
Scholar, it has never actually been the use of the word 'kingship' as such that has been the problem, but the Society's application of the word to try to make it refer to some other starting point, and it is the alternative starting point that does not have any valid basis.
Daniel further used malkut in a theological sense in Daniel 2;1 and 8:1 according to the views of past and present commentators so he was quite happy to go malkuting by providing correct theological view of history with its relation to the Kingdom of God.
Daniel gives no indication that he is talking about some theological usage, and all of his references to years of reign (or 'kingship' if you like) work perfectly well when using their typical known reigns, except when using the Society's flawed model with which absolutely no sources agree. Saying Daniel was using some 'theological sense' is simply a weak excuse for applying one's own belief system instead of the clear reading of the verses.
Jeffro
Agreed, because biblical Hebrew has a somewahat limited vocabulary and provides a wide semantic range noticeable when translated into another language such as English. So, as I have said to you many times, it all boils down to exegesis or interpretation. Scholar's cardinal rule is applicable CHRONOLOGY= METHODOLOGY + INTERPRETATION.
The application of this word as a starting point or as a end point is rather pertinent or is this expesssion 'third year' a historical or chronological is another way of stating the matter. In this regard, scholars opinions do in fact differ because some scholars prefer a beginning point and others see it as a end point.
Scholars do in fact that the matter is theological as in the case of Daniel 2:1 and this is reflected in the commentaries and I have mentioned these facts to you. Becuse a certain model works well as you say does not make it correct becuse our model also works just as well it simply represents the fact that there can be many other interpretations of the matter. the book of Daniel is about theology as again noticed ny commentaries whi acjnowledge that its theme is about the Kingdom of God or eschatology;
scholar JW
Agreed, because biblical Hebrew has a somewahat limited vocabulary and provides a wide semantic range noticeable when translated into another language such as English. So, as I have said to you many times, it all boils down to exegesis or interpretation. Scholar's cardinal rule is applicable CHRONOLOGY= METHODOLOGY + INTERPRETATION.
LOL. Even your rule is wrong, since interpretation of source material is a component of the methodology of chronology.
METHODOLOGY [of CHRONOLOGY] = INTERPRETATION + other methods and principles.
The application of this word as a starting point or as a end point is rather pertinent or is this expesssion 'third year' a historical or chronological is another way of stating the matter. In this regard, scholars opinions do in fact differ because some scholars prefer a beginning point and others see it as a end point.
I, along with many professionals in the field, say that Jehoiakim's third year is his third year (accession-year system) which agrees perfectly with all available sources. Placing it at some other point has a very weak foundation and is not backed up by the facts.
Scholars do in fact that the matter is theological as in the case of Daniel 2:1 and this is reflected in the commentaries and I have mentioned these facts to you. Becuse a certain model works well as you say does not make it correct becuse our model also works just as well it simply represents the fact that there can be many other interpretations of the matter. the book of Daniel is about theology as again noticed ny commentaries whi acjnowledge that its theme is about the Kingdom of God or eschatology;
Theological or not, Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year was his 2nd year (accession-year system), and it is simply JW dogma to say otherwise. The only reason your model seems to work well for you is because you just ignore anything that doesn't fit. You clutch at tiny quotes from sources such as Thiele for minor details, as if they agree with you, but you ignore the fact that all of these sources are much more akin to my model.
Jeffro
You are finally coming around to understanding (albeit slowly) the importance of methodology and interpretation in the construction of a chronology.
Yes, I am aware that you have a specific interpretation of where the 'third year of Jehoiakim' occurs in his reign and there are scholars who agree with this view. I believe in an interpretation that places that 'third year' towards the end of that reign and again there are scholars who agree with this view which has a greater foundation, based upon scriptural facts and is the traditional understanding.
The second year of Neb's kingship is of course theological as plainly stated in the commentaries because 'kingdom' is a very theological word in both the OT and the NT. No, our model works for all, plain and simple and one does not have to resort to 'cooking the books' to fit some pet theory, ignoring the plain statement of scripture. Your theory violates biblical history, it is dumb and bad history to boot. You are the supporter of Thiele because you are using his model and if he is accurate in some matters then we can utilize his research as necessary. By the way have you read Thiele or are you big-noting yourself?
scholar JW
You are finally coming around to understanding (albeit slowly) the importance of methodology and interpretation in the construction of a chronology.
You funny little man. I have been telling you for weeks the correct definition and usage of the word 'methodology', which you still continue to misuse.
Yes, I am aware that you have a specific interpretation of where the 'third year of Jehoiakim' occurs in his reign and there are scholars who agree with this view. I believe in an interpretation that places that 'third year' towards the end of that reign and again there are scholars who agree with this view which has a greater foundation, based upon scriptural facts and is the traditional understanding.
Yep. I say three equals three and you see it a different way.
The second year of Neb's kingship is of course theological as plainly stated in the commentaries because 'kingdom' is a very theological word in both the OT and the NT. No, our model works for all, plain and simple and one does not have to resort to 'cooking the books' to fit some pet theory, ignoring the plain statement of scripture. Your theory violates biblical history, it is dumb and bad history to boot. You are the supporter of Thiele because you are using his model and if he is accurate in some matters then we can utilize his research as necessary. By the way have you read Thiele or are you big-noting yourself?
Again you put your arrogance on display for all to see. Your model is, of course, not simple, as it requires a special explanation to make it fit into your model rather than letting the facts explain themselves and fall into place perfectly all on their own, letting the bible harmonize with the known facts of the period.
Of course we are just dealing with one single of the many problems with the silly 607 thing. You think you do quite well in defending even this one point, but everyone else sees that you fail miserably to convince anyone. And when all of the issues are considered in concert, the Society's interpretation flails around hopelessly like the dying dog that it is.
Jeffro
There is no such thing as one correct definition for this word but several definitions and there is more than one methodology in interpreting the relevant phrase.
Our model is much simpler than yours as it is based on history but yours is frankly dishonest but your arrogance denys you upholding the Bible over 'higher criticism'. You are a funny little bloke! For in reality we are dealing with many huge problems with this silly 586/587 debacle because the clear statements of God's inspired Word are ignored. You are left with a dead-end chronology that has no life in it just like a dead horse which you continue to flog.
scholar JW
There is no such thing as one correct definition for this word but several definitions and there is more than one methodology in interpreting the relevant phrase.
It is interesting to know that not only do you twist scripture, but you are happy to ignore the English language as well. How can anything you say be trusted if you wilfully contest even the simplest of things about which you are clearly wrong. There very certainly is a correct definition for the word 'methodology', and it does not include using it to mean 'method'. 'Methodology' means "the system of methods and principles used in a partiuclar discipline", or "the brand of philosophy concerned with the science of method and procedure". It never validly means "method". To give you the benefit of the doubt, I decided just now to check whether your usage is at all acceptable. A usage note for the word explains, "Methodology can properly refer to the theoretical analysis of the methods appropriate to a field of study or to the body of methods and principles particular to a branch of knowledge ... In recent years, however, methodology has been increasingly used as a pretentious substitute for method in scientific and technical contexts ... the misuse of methodology obscures an important conceptual distinction between the tools of scientific investigation (properly methods) and the principles that determine how such tools are deployed and interpreted." So, once again the facts agree with me and indicate you to be wrong.
Our model is much simpler than yours as it is based on history but yours is frankly dishonest but your arrogance denys you upholding the Bible over 'higher criticism'. You are a funny little bloke! For in reality we are dealing with many huge problems with this silly 586/587 debacle because the clear statements of God's inspired Word are ignored. You are left with a dead-end chronology that has no life in it just like a dead horse which you continue to flog.
You imply that my model is not based on history, which is an amusing little lie, since my model is plainly consistent with the known period according to secular historians, and it does not conflict with any part of the bible once the interpretations foisted by the Watchtower Society are removed. It is a simple fact that all of the problems against the 607 dogma are harmonious with each other and gel to form a complete picture that completely invalidates the Society's interpretations - interpretations which exist only to lend support to its other doctrines.
I should have listened when I was told never to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
All that I am interested in is to notify interested parties that malkut indeed has a wide semantic range and means much more than the common rendering 'reign'. I chose simply to focus on the fact that this word describes the activity of ruling rather than the rather ordinary sense of duration. I gave the reference to the material so any interested party could reserarch the matter further and see the much broader context. I believe I have been faithful with the context.
Neil --
I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
I see that you're now saying that all you wanted to do is let everyone know that malkut has a wide semantic range. But, as others may recall, I am the one who pointed that very thing out to you two years ago in the Furuli thread. I posted the text of 90+ verses from the NWT and a non-JW Bible, and I listed the various meanings attached to malkut.
What I objected to then and what I still object to now is your idea that the two English words "kingship" and "reign" represent different meanings in the Hebrew text, with "kingship" supposedly having implications of vassalage. An analysis of how the NWT translates malkut with regard to various kings makes it plain that this is your own idea, not the WTS's.
You have never cited any scholars who support you on this, Neil. If I remember correctly, Earnest posted a message saying he believed this was your own idea and not something you had found in WTS sources. (Earnest, if I have misremembered or misrepresented what you said, please jump in here.)
I understand that you do have sources which agree with you that Daniel 1:1 is not referring to the real 3rd year of Jehoiakim, but rather to the 3rd year of his vassalage to Babylon. This was the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, and you are correct when you say that this interpretation is cited by some modern scholars.
But I am unaware of any scholar who agrees with you that this interpretation is supported by or derived in any way from the word malkut. Because you don't read Hebrew, you are looking at the English words used by the NWT and then using linguistic reverse engineering to try to read nuances of meaning back into the Hebrew text. This is cart-before-the-horse backwards. To use your own word, this is truly a flawed methodology.
There is no implication of vassalage in the word malkut.
Two years ago, I cited an article by Mark Mercer, and I gave his references. Let me repeat that information here for other readers:
Mark Mercer, "Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim's Three Years of Servitude," AUSS (Andrews University Seminary Studies), vol. 27, no. 3, Autumn 1989, pp. 179-192.
On page 180, Mercer says: "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. This solution is unlikely, for the text of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim " (bsnt slws lmlkwt), not "in the third year of the servitude of Jehoaikim" (bsnt slws l'bwdh) -- as one might expect if the statement in Daniel 1:1 were derived from 2 Kgs 24:1."
On page 185, he gave these footnote references:
"For the usage of ['bd] ('servant') as a term of vassalge, see J. C. Greenfield, 'Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,' in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers (Jerusalem, 1967), 1:117-118. For examples, see 2 Kgs 16:7 and 1 Sam 27:12."
D.J. Wiseman, "Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," Iraq 20 (1958): 3-4.
R. Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," OTS 14 (1965): 152.
The point he is making is that Daniel had another word available to him which he could have used if he had wanted to indicate that this was the third year of Jehoiakim's vassalage rather than the third year of his being king.
Regards,
Marjorie
Maybe he went to the privy
