So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

link

HS
No person knows the exact date of the fall of Jerusalem though the secular weight of evidence as of todays date seems to indicate that it fell around the years BCE586/7. Until any weight of evidence exists to overturn this view, can you offer the readers of this Board good reason why they should alter the pattern of their lives to suit the interpretations of some researchers, such as WTS researchers who feel that not only is the conventional date incorrect but that the date that they have fallen upon indicates that we are living close to Har-Mageddon, the culmination of all things? Scholars rely on weight of evidence, not personal convenience, or Bible-code type games to draw conclusions
I have tried this out on a number of Witnesses in the past. They all come up with the same explanation. They go painstakingly through the Societies wrong interpretation of the Biblical chronology and tell you "because the Bible says so". You then get into their circular reasoning about how they are Gods organisation because they can interpret these things accurately and they can interpret these things accurately because they are Gods organisation.
You just cant odds it can you?
link
AlanF

Good points, Earnest.
As for a distinction between the way keliy is used in 2 Chron. 36:7, 10, 18, I agree with you that "the text seems quite clear without such silly arguments" as presented by "scholar", but I disagree with your implied conclusion that the fact that "the writer was making a distinction between keliy and chemdah keliy" is of no significance.
In my long post on this subject I quoted from the Introduction to the NWT with References to the effect that the NWT translators deliberately used the same English word for a particular Hebrew or Greek word unless context demanded it. The Society has used this rule, for example, in translating the Greek parousia in the NT as "presence" every time, even when context shows that this is wrong. I can cite other examples in the NT where the Society also translates the same Greek word into different English words even when there is no contextual justification, obviously because their theological interpretations demand it. There is no contextual justification at all for translating keliy in 2 Chron. 36:7, 10, 18 with different English words, so differences can only be due to the taste of the translators, or their view that theological considerations require it. I am convinced that the latter is why Fred Franz chose to use different words here, although I cannot figure out what they might be.
In the marginal translation, Green's Interlinear renders the passages as follows:
36:7: "(some) of the vessels"
36:10: "the valuable vessels"
36:18: "all the vessels"
Note that "(some)" does not appear in the original Hebrew, but Green's, Analytical Key, the NWT and other translations agree that this word is implied in the Hebrew.
Anyalytical Key has:
36:7: "part of the vessels"
36:10: "the precious vessels"
36:18: "all the vessels"
The NIV Interlinear has:
36:7: "and-from-article-of"
36:10: "articles-of value-of"
36:18: "and-all-of articles-of"
Note that in verses 10 and 18, keliy is accompanied by an adjective that modifies it: "valuable articles" and "all the articles".
Given these considerations, let's examine your final argument:
: Now the difference between 2 Chronicles 36:10 and verses 7 & 18 is that the utensils [keliy] in verse 10 are qualified as being "desirable" [chemdah] whereas those in verses 7 and 18 are not.
Not quite. In verse 18 keliy is qualified by "all". So if anything, keliy ought to be translated with an even more general word such as "equipment". But I don't agree that there is any justification, other than the translator's taste, to use different words here, because "vessels", "articles" and "utensils" and even other words are quite adequate to convey the proper meaning. The fact is that we have no idea just what items are included in the category "temple keliy", so the best we can do is to use a very general word and leave it up to the reader to understand it as he sees fit.
: So a different (but equally correct) word is used to show there is a distinction between the two types of keliy which would not have been as obvious if the same English word had been used.
But here you're arguing that there is a distinction, i.e., "two types of keliy". It seems obvious that when Nebuchadnezzar took "temple keliy" the first time (vs. 7) they would have been quite valuable -- otherwise why would he bother to take them? So your argument does not stand up for this reason, and for the reason that a mere qualification by another word does not necessarily imply a slightly different meaning. Otherwise verse 18 would have to be very general, like "all of the equipment" or whatever.
In conclusion, because of the Society's insistence that the same Hebrew word be translated by the same English word unless context dictates otherwise, the fact that different English words were used for the same Hebrew word by the NWT translator indicates either that they saw a difference in context -- which other translators, and I, do not -- or they were inconsistent. I highly doubt the latter, so it is my opinion that the translators (i.e., Fred Franz) deliberately tried to make a distinction between the keliy mentioned in the passages we're discussing, and so this is significant. Why they would do this, I can only speculate, but I don't want to do this. What it accomplishes, I do not know. What I do know is that it demolishes "scholar's" argument.
AlanF
scholar

Alan F and a Christian
I wish to respond to your previous comments. You have misunderstood what I meant when I referred to the Hebrew word not being the same in 2 Chronicles 36:7, 10. 18. Of course the Hebrew word keliy appears in each of those verses, but the word as shown by the letters differs. Hence, it is translated by Green as:
Verse 7 And of the vessels Translated as 'some of the vessels'
Verse 10 with the articles Translated with the valuable vessels
Verse 18 And all the articles Translated 'And all the vessels.
The NWT renders it accordingly:
Verse 7. And some of the utensils
Verse 10 with desirables articles
Verse 18 And all the utensils.
This clearly shows that Greens's Interlinear Bible agrees with the scholarly NWT and that the NWT is consistent in applying its own tralslation rule and shows the folly of Jonsson's three stage deportation hypothesis. These texts discuss the booty taken by Nebuchadnezzar. Jonsson makes the claim that the first time some of the vessels were taken. Next, the second time he brought the valuable vessels to Babylon. Finally, that is the third time, all the vessels were taken to Babylon. So, one then must imagine that it took Nebuchadnezzar three times before he got the loot. That stretches the imagination too much. Besides what Jonsson overlooks is that verse 19 says: 'And he proceeded to burn the house of the true God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also ALL ITS DESIRABLE ARTICLES'. NWT, 1984.p.597. Clearly, the NWT is justified in using articles rather than utensils (vessels) becuse it makes a distinction of the booty.
This means that Nebuchadnezzar with the first deporation he brought some utensils and desirable articles along with Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim died during the siege) to Babylon. In the second deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought all of the utensils, and all of the treasures to Babylon. And burnt the remainder of the desirable articles. All of this was accomplished in two deportations. The fact that there were two deportations only and not thre is supported in the form of chapter headings in the Word Biblical Commentsry on 2 Chronicles by Raymond Dillard beginning with the section on chapter 36 in discussing the reigns of those last three Judean kings.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
AlanF

You're amazing, "scholar" -- a truly braindead, moronic JW apologist so steeped in standard JW non-think that you would have no problem declaring that black is white if that is what your Brooklyn masters demanded. I will proceed to prove this now.
: I wish to respond to your previous comments. You have misunderstood what I meant when I referred to the Hebrew word not being the same in 2 Chronicles 36:7, 10. 18.
No, we understood perfectly. The problem is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Note above that you mentioned "the Hebrew word". That is singular, and so it is obvious that you're talking about the Hebrew word for "vessel, article, utensil", i.e., keliy. From three different interlinear sources I presented scans to show that in each case, the word keliy is the same. How can you look at those scans and still claim that they are different? Easy: it's the same mental defect that allows you to declare that black is white if the Watchtower Society tells you it must be.
: Of course the Hebrew word keliy appears in each of those verses, but the word as shown by the letters differs.
No, it does not. In the three cases the sequence of letters is: kaph, lamedh, yohdh. In each case the vowel pointing is identical. Hence the transliteration: k, e, l, i, y. What do you not understand?
: Hence, it is translated by Green as:
: Verse 7 And of the vessels Translated as 'some of the vessels'
: Verse 10 with the articles Translated with the valuable vessels
: Verse 18 And all the articles Translated 'And all the vessels.
: The NWT renders it accordingly:
: Verse 7. And some of the utensils
: Verse 10 with desirables articles
: Verse 18 And all the utensils.
You've got this totally wrong. The translators rendered these verses this way, not because "the word as shown by the letters differs" -- indeed, "the word as shown by the letters" is exactly the same in all three cases -- but because there are other words in the text that modify keliy and they must be translated as well. Hence, as I pointed out to Earnest in my last post, which you completely ignored, the translations of the phrases differ. The literal translations are as follows, word for word, Hebrew and English:
2 Chron. 36:7
wu-mi-keliy
and-from-vessels
2 Chron. 36:10
keliy chemdah
vessels valuable
2 Chron. 36:18
we-khol keliy
and-all vessels
In verse 7, the word "some" is implied by the context.
: This clearly shows that Greens's Interlinear Bible agrees with the scholarly NWT
True, but irrelevant to our point of discussion. It is irrelevant because keliy is perfectly well rendered in each of these verses by any of "vessel, article, utensil", since we do not have enough information to distinguish which of them keliy is best rendered by, since these words have different shades of meaning in English. "Stuff from the temple" would be a perfectly good colloquial rendering.
: and that the NWT is consistent in applying its own tralslation rule
Wrong. I already quoted that rule:
"Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits."
The NWT uses for verses 7, 10 and 18: "utensils, articles, utensils". Hence, the translator did not hold to the "one meaning" of the "major word" keliy, and was therefore inconsistent in applying his own rule. You do understand that "utensil" and "article" are different words, I hope.
: and shows the folly of Jonsson's three stage deportation hypothesis.
The only thing you've shown by your discussion is how braindead a JW apologist can be. You don't even know what the word "show" means. To "show" something takes more than merely stating or declaring something. It means that an explanation is given. Your discussions consist almost entirely of blanket statements and declarations that thus-and-so is the case, either without any supporting evidence at all, or on occasion, with supposedly supporting evidence that turns out to give no support at all. Nor does the NWT show anything here. It simply presents a rendering, and the reader can take it or leave it. There is no explanation given.
: These texts discuss the booty taken by Nebuchadnezzar. Jonsson makes the claim that the first time some of the vessels were taken. Next, the second time he brought the valuable vessels to Babylon. Finally, that is the third time, all the vessels were taken to Babylon.
At least you've understood what Jonsson argued.
: So, one then must imagine that it took Nebuchadnezzar three times before he got the loot.
Why is that any harder to imagine than your claim, i.e., that it took two times "before he got the loot"?
Why is it so hard to accept the Bible's simple statement of the order of events? 2 Chronicles 36 contains descriptions of the reigns of the last four kings of Judah: Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Verses 1-4, 5-8, 9-10, and 11-21 briefly describe these reigns. Logically, the descriptions of events in these sections must correspond to events that occurred during the reigns of the rulers described.
Thus, when 2 Chron. 36:5-8 discusses Jehoiakim, and verses 6-7 tell us that Nebuchadnezzar came up against him and that "some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah Nebuchadnezzar brought to Babylon", then it is obvious that the utensils were brought to Babylon in the time frame of verses 5-8, namely, during the reign of Jehoiakim.
This understanding is confirmed by the parallelism between certain events described in 36:5-8 and in 2 Kings 24:1-2. We have in 2 Chron. 36:6 a description of what happened to Jehoiakim: "Against him Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up that he might ... carry him off to Babylon." 2 Kings 24:1 says of Jehoiakim that "In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years." 2 Chron. 36:7 describes what happened as a consequence of Nebuchadnezzar's attack: "And some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah Nebuchadnezzar brought to Babylon." It is inconceivable that Nebuchadnezzar, having subjugated Jehoiakim and the latter's having become his servant for three years, would not have taken at least a token amount of booty, including loot from the temple. And according to Daniel 1:1, some of the booty included Daniel and his companions. Note the time scale: After those three years of Jehoiakim's being Nebuchadnezzar's servant, 2 Kings 24:1 says that Jehoiakim "turned back and rebelled against him". During the remaining four years of Jehoiakim's reign, verse 2 says that "Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the sons of Ammon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it." Thus, according to the Bible, there was a gap of some 11 years between the looting of some temple "utensils" when Jehoiakim was first subjugated, and the looting of the temple's "desirable articles" when Jehoiachin was captured. The former was the first deportation of temple utensils and the latter was the second.
Various scriptures indicate that Jehoiakim was killed in some unspecified manner just before Jehoichin became king, and then Jehoiachin became king for only "three months and ten days" (2 Chron. 36:9). His reign is briefly described in 2 Chron. 36:9-10, and at the end of his reign "King Nebuchadnezzar sent and proceeded to bring him to Babylon with desirable articles of the house of Jehovah." So this was the second deportation of temple utensils.
At that point Zedekiah became king. 2 Chron. 36:11-21 briefly describes his rule, at the end of which "all the utensils, great and small, of the house of the true God and the treasures of the house of Jehovah ... everything he brought to Babylon." So this was the third deportation of temple utensils.
It is painfully clear to readers that you have not actually attempted to show anything about these passages, or about the surrounding context. You have merely declared that your, and the Watchtower's, interpretations are correct.
: That stretches the imagination too much.
Yours perhaps, but not those who take the Bible's words about this matter at face value.
: Besides what Jonsson overlooks is that verse 19 says: 'And he proceeded to burn the house of the true God and pull down the wall of Jerusalem; and all its dwelling towers they burned with fire and also ALL ITS DESIRABLE ARTICLES'. NWT, 1984.p.597. Clearly, the NWT is justified in using articles rather than utensils (vessels) becuse it makes a distinction of the booty.
Your argument is pure nonsense. We have no idea just what articles, utensils or vessels are included in any of these passages. You merely assume what you want to prove, i.e, you make a circular argument. But that's par for the course for JW apologists, who don't even normally realize that their main point of reference for all discussions is that Watchtower leaders are always right. The facts and the scriptures are to them nothing more than a means to justify their emotional belief that Watchtower leaders speak for God. Your "arguments" in this thread are a fine illustration of this.
: This means
No, "this" means only that your interpretation, and the Watchtower's interpretation, means:
: that Nebuchadnezzar with the first deporation he brought some utensils and desirable articles along with Jehoiachin ...
blah blah blah same repetition of unproven and unargued-for nonsense.
: The fact that there were two deportations only and not thre is supported in the form of chapter headings in the Word Biblical Commentsry on 2 Chronicles by Raymond Dillard beginning with the section on chapter 36 in discussing the reigns of those last three Judean kings.
Idiot. You once again fail to quote your sources.
Nevertheless, the fact that some commentator might hold certain opinions means nothing more than the fact that other commentators might hold opposite opinions. Thus, the old and respected Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. III, Eerdmans 1978 reprint, pp. 507-8) states:
Vers. 5-8. The reign of Jehoiakim. Cf. 2 Kings xxiii.36-xxiv.7. -- Jehoiakim was at his accession twenty-five years of age, reigned eleven years, and did that which was evil in the eyes of Jahve his God. -- Ver. 6 f. "Against him came Nebuchadnezzar [...] the king of Babylon, and bound him with brazen double fetters to carry him to Babylon." This campaign, Nebuchadnezzar's first against Judah, is spoken of also in 2 Kings xxiv. and Dan. i. 1, 2. The capture of Jerusalem, at which Jehoiakim was put in fetters, occurred, as we learn from Dan. i. 1, col. c. Jer. xlvi. 2 and xxxvi. 7, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, i.e. in the year 606 B.C.; and with it commence the seventy years of the Chaldean servitude of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar did not carry out his purpose of deporting the captured king Jehoiakim to Babylon, but allowed him to continue to reign at Jerusalem as his servant (vassal)... That the author of the Chronicle does not mention the actual carrying away, but rather assumes the contrary, namely, that Jehoiakim continued to reign in Jerusalem until his death, as well known, is manifest from the way in which, in ver. 8, he records his son's accession to the throne. He uses the same formula which he has used in the case of all the kings whom at their death their sons succeeded, according to established custom. Had Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiakim, as Necho deposed Jehoahaz, the author of the Chronicle would not have left the installation of Jehoiachin by the Chaldean king unmentioned. For the defence of this view against opposing opinions, see the commentary on 2 Kings xxiv. 1 and Dan. i. 1; and in regard to ver. 7, see on Dan. i. 2. The Chronicle narrates nothing further as to Jehoiakim's reign, but refers, ver. 8, for his other deeds, and especially his abominations, to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, whence the most important things have been excerpted and incorporated in 2 Kings xxiv. 1-4...
Many other commentators agree with these views, so it is evident that there exist many respected commentators who agree with the views I and Jonsson have presented, as opposed to those you claim are in the Word Biblical Commentary (but I suspect that the full text does not reflect your claims).
So once again we find that you are a disgrace to the title you have claimed for yourself:
: scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
AlanF
Edited by - AlanF on 2 February 2003 14:40:55
setfreefinally

.
aChristian

Alan,
Thank you for saving me a lot of time. Had you not replied to Scholar's post (I here use "post" in place of a far less charitable word, for as Earnest has reminded me my handle demands that I treat Scholar kindly) I probably would have succumbed to the temptation to go one more round with him. But I doubt I would have done so as well, and certainly not as thoroughly, as you just did. You are truly an amazing man. If by chance the Pope ever reads some of the discussions you have had with people such as Scholar on this board he may just consider making you a Saint. For you certainly have the patience of one.
Scholar,
At this point I think you owe it to the readers of this thread to answer the question which Hillary has posed to you on more than one occasion. I think that question went something like this: Since the historicity of the Society's 607 B.C.E. date for Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon is far from certain, do you feel it is right for the Society to demand that all Jehovah's Witnesses shun anyone who openly doubts the accuracy of that date, and the prophetic interpretations which are built upon it?
AlanF

Thanks, aChristian, I think a lot of you, too.
: If by chance the Pope ever reads some of the discussions you have had with people such as Scholar on this board he may just consider making you a Saint. For you certainly have the patience of one.
You have no idea.
AlanF
Earnest

Many thanks, Alan, for your further discussion of whether or not there is a distinction between the keliy of 2 Chronicles 36:10 and verses 7 & 18. It gave me more to chew on and I would like to share my additional conclusions as to why a different word has been used in translating verse 10.
I first considered how keliy has been translated in the NWT in all 325 occurrences. Strong's Lexicon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1044315878-9034.html) gives the basic meaning of the word as article, vessel, implement, or utensil and three of the four are the primary words used to translate it in the NWT - article(s) : 59; vessel(s) : 56; and utensil(s) : 101. However, it soon became clear to me that there was a certain consistency in the words used to translate keliy.
utensil(s) was used when it referred to something sacred, so there were the "utensils of the tabernacle", "utensils of the altar", "utensils of the tent of meeting", "utensils of the holy place", "utensils made for Baal", "utensils of the true God", "utensils for the ministry" etc.
vessel(s) was used when the keliy contained liquids, so there were "vessels for oil", "water in a vessel", "drinking vessels", "wine to drink in gold vessels" and, euphemistically, the "vessels of the young men" (1 Sam.21:5 ftn).
article(s) was used when it referred to something valuable, so there were "articles of silver", "articles of gold", "articles of copper", "articles of skin" (leather), "desirable articles".
instrument(s) was used when it referred to something used for music, so there were "instruments of song", "instruments of the string type", "instruments of David", "loud instruments".
So, even if keliy is used several times in the same chapter it is consistent to consider the meaning of each reference and translate it according to its context. Consider the following passages :
Exodus 35:10-19, 22 "And let all the wise-hearted ones among you come and make all that Jehovah has commanded, namely the tabernacle...; the table and its poles and all its utensils [keliy] and the showbread; and the lampstand of illumination and its utensils [keliy]...; the altar of burnt offering and the copper grating that is for it, its poles and all its utensils [keliy];...Then they came...and they brought...Jehovah's contribution for the work of the tent of meeting...They brought brooches and earrings and rings and female ornaments, all sorts of articles [keliy] of gold..."
1 Kings 7:40-51 "...At length Hiram finished doing all the work that he did for King Solomon as respects the house of Jehovah: The two pillars...and the cans and the shovels and the bowls and all these utensils [keliy], which Hiram made of polished copper for King Solomon for the house of Jehovah...And Solomon left all the utensils [keliy] (unweighed) because of so extraordinarily great a quantity...And Solomon gradually made all the utensils [keliy] that pertained to the house of Jehovah...Finally all the work that King Solomon had to do as regards the house of Jehovah was at its completion; and Solomon began to bring in the things made holy by David his father; the silver and the gold and the articles [keliy] he put in the treasures of the house of Jehovah."
1 Chronicles 18:3-10 "And David went on to strike down Hadadezer the king of Zobah...And from Tibhath and Cun...David took very much copper. With it Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the copper utensils [keliy]. When Tou the king of Hamath...sent Hadoram his son to King David...(there were with him) all sorts of articles [keliy] of gold and silver and copper."
Now let's consider the expression used in 2 Chronicles 36:10, namely keliy chemdah. This expression occurs seven other times in the OT, at 2 Chronicles 20:25; 32:27; 36:19; Jeremiah 25:34; Daniel 11:8; Hosea 13:15 and Nahum 2:9. In each instance it is translated as desirable articles except for Jeremiah 25:34 which renders it as desirable vessel because the context is that the "shepherds" would "fall like a desirable vessel".
So my conclusion is that the editor of Chronicles used keliy chemdah quite deliberately to distinguish the articles from the utensils in verses 7 & 18, and possibly to link it with the desirable articles of verse 19. Just why he did so I would not care to speculate, but I am convinced the distinction was made in the original and correctly conveyed in the translation.
Finally, as a public service I include the relevant sections from the Word Biblical Commentary on 2 Chronicles by Raymond Dillard, 1987, pp.297-303:
Form/Structure/Setting
...The Chronicler has arranged the accounts to portray two themes: (1) the common fate of the last four kings, each ending in exile, and (2) the tribute paid by each, largely through spoliation of the temple. This has the effect of drawing a parallel between the fate of the Davidic dynasty and the temple: both destined for exile, but with hope of restoration....
A wealth of both biblical and extrabiblical evidence is available for the study of the closing decades of the kingdom of Judah. Within the canon the historical records in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented particularly by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Outside the canon abundant Egyptian and Babylonian epigraphic materials, as well as some discoveries in Israel, supplement the biblical accounts; pride of place in this regard must go to the Babylonian chronicles (see D. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings). For efforts to integrate the details of these sources, see...A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem", IEJ 18 (1968) 137-56; "The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom", Congress Volume, Edinburgh, 1974. VTSup 28 (1975) 123-45; H. Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956) 226-30; H. Ginsberg, "Judah and the Transjordan States from 734-582 B.C.", Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 1950, 347-68; J. Myers, "Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.", in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke, 1971, 377-92; A. Green, "The Fate of Jehoiakim", Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (1982) 103-9. E. Stern (Biblical Archaeologist 38 [1975] 26-54) provides a summary of the material evidence....
Comment
4-8 Jehoiakim reigned from Tishri, 609 B.C. until his death in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, 598/97 B.C. For detailed discussion of the chronological issues in this period, see K. Freedy & D. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources", Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970) 462-85.
...While Kings reports his death (2 Kgs 24:6), the Chronicler does not report the death of any of the last four kings of Judah. Instead of reporting Jehoiakim's death, the Chronicler chooses to report an incident from earlier in his reign in which Jehoiakim was either taken into temporary exile or at least prepared for it....No extant evidence corroborates an exile for Jehoiakim at some earlier point in his reign, and scholarly opinion is divided on whether such an exile took place or was only provided for or intended; the language of the Chronicler (36:6, "bound him to take him") makes allowance for the latter approach. It is conceivable that the binding of Jehoiakim was a symbolic demonstration of his status; the threat alone may have made actual deportment unnecessary. If a literal deportation is intended, it should be associated with the deportation of Daniel and his friends along with articles from the temple (36:7; Dan 1:1-3; Jer 46:2) in Jehoiakim's third year (605 B.C.) after Nebuchadnezzar defeated Neco at Carchemish....
The temple vessels are an important theme in the biblical historical and prophetic writings;
Jehoiakim remained the submisive vassal of Nebuchadnezzar for three years (2 Kgs 24:1), but then rebelled. His death left his son Jehoiachin to bear the brunt of the Babylonian reaction.
...Jeremiah's prophecy suggests that Jehoiakim did not die a natural death but may have been assassinated at approximately the time the armies of Nebuchadnezzar set out to retaliate for his rebellion, though there is no direct confirmation for this.
9-10 The Chronicler...reports only his exile and payment from the temple implements.
The submission of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar is dated in the Babylonian Chronicle on the second day of Adar in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year (16 March 597 B.C.). The Babylonian Chronicle provides striking confirmation of the biblical accounts: "In the seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar], the month Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the city of Judah, and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice, received its heavy tribute and sent them to Babylon (Wiseman, Chronicles, 73).
For the compiler of Kings the release of Jehoiachin from prison during the reign of Amel-Marduck (562-560 B.C.) demonstrated that the house of David was the continuing object of divine favor even during the captivity (2 Kgs 25:27-29). Cuneiform administrative documents known as the Weidner tablets (ANET, 308) record supplies delivered to Jehoiachin and his household during their captivity in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar....
Jeremiah's "seventy years" have been variously dated, and the biblical text itself may show multiple understandings of the span of time intended in the reference. At least three possibilities offer themselves. (1) The exile ran from the first deportation (605/4 B.C.) until the decree of Cyrus (539 B.C.). The time period is not exactly seventy years, but close enough. This seems to be the understanding of Dan.9:25 where the end of the seventy years is associated with the decree to rebuild; Daniel himself would have been an exile for this period. The Chronicler (36:20-22) clearly associates the end of Jeremiah's seventy years with Cyrus's decree. (2) The exile ran from the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. to the dedication of the second temple in 516 B.C. This may be the understanding of a passage like Zech. 1:12-17: Zechariah, from his vantage in 520 B.C., still looks for an end to the seventy years; the end of that period is asociated with the reconstruction of the city and God's return to the temple. (3) It is possible that the seventy-year figure is not intended to have a literal referent, but is symbolic for a less defined period of judgement. It is striking that both Daniel and Chronicles use the seventy-year figure as symbolic of larger time periods which als do not have clear referents (36:21; Dan 9:24-27)....
Earnest
AlanF

Hi Earnest,
Thanks for your extended response. I will say that it's refreshing to see someone who is a regular guy like me do some extensive research. It certainly puts our self-proclaimed "scholar" to shame.
: I first considered how keliy has been translated in the NWT in all 325 occurrences.
You actually looked them all up? Geez.
Thanks for looking up all those references. Unfortunately, they don't really help in determining just what the Hebrew writer had in mind, nor in justifying the NWT's use of different words for keliy. As I told "scholar" with respect to 2 Chron. 36:7, 10, 18:
"keliy is perfectly well rendered in each of these verses by any of "vessel, article, utensil", since we do not have enough information to distinguish which of them keliy is best rendered by, since these words have different shades of meaning in English. "Stuff from the temple" would be a perfectly good colloquial rendering."
"We have no idea just what articles, utensils or vessels are included in any of these passages. You merely assume what you want to prove, i.e, you make a circular argument."
Since we have no idea just what objects were included among the keliy mentioned in these verses (the context provides no information about this), translators are perfectly well justified in using any word that fits. They can jusifiably use the same word in each verse, or different words in each verse. The mere fact that in verse 10 keliy is modified by "valuable" does not mean, or even imply, that a different sort of object is being referred to here as opposed to verses 7 and 18. Indeed, because keliy is modified by "all" in verse 18, and "articles" is a more general term than "utensils" (which tends to imply tools of some sort, i.e., "kitchen utensils"), then according to your argument verse 18 should read "all of the articles, great and small". This obviously means every object, including the sort mentioned in verses 7 and 10, whatever they were.
The New Jerusalem Bible uses different phrases in each verse, and that's perfectly fine:
36:7 "some of the objects belonging to the Temple of Yahweh"
36:10 "with the valuables belonging to the Temple of Yahweh"
36:18 "All the things belonging to the Temple of God, whether large or small"
Were I to render these passages in colloquial English, these would be perfectly fine:
36:7 "some of the stuff from the house of Jehovah"
36:10 "with valuable stuff from the house of Jehovah"
36:18 "All of the stuff, large and small, from the house of God"
And once again, the NWT's use of different words here is perfectly fine. What is wrong is for someone to argue that this has any significance in determining how many deportations of "articles" occurred.
Now let's examine your conclusion:
: So my conclusion is that the editor of Chronicles used keliy chemdah quite deliberately to distinguish the articles from the utensils in verses 7 & 18, and possibly to link it with the desirable articles of verse 19. Just why he did so I would not care to speculate, but I am convinced the distinction was made in the original and correctly conveyed in the translation.
But your conclusion is based only on the fact that the New World Translation in seven out of eight instances translates keliy chemdah as "desirable articles". It isn't based on context, since there is nothing in the context that allows one to tell just what "articles" are being referred to. All you've really shown is that it's reasonable for the NWT to use "valuable articles" in verse 10. You haven't shown why it's best to use "utensils" in verses 7 and 18. To form a valid conclusion you would have to show precisely why "articles" does not fit in verses 7 and 18. In other words, you'd have to show why using "utensils" in verses 7 and 18 is better than using "articles" -- but you can't, because there is no textual or contextual way of doing that.
In conclusion, I have no beef with the NWT's use of different words in verses 7, 10 and 18. I do have a beef with the claim of the New World Translation Committee to have consistently used the same English word for a given Hebrew word unless context demands it, because in this case context gives us no information.
Thanks for posting the relevant sections from the Word Biblical Commentary. This material proves that my suspicion that "scholar" misrepresented the text was correct, since I wrote:
"... it is evident that there exist many respected commentators who agree with the views I and Jonsson have presented, as opposed to those you claim are in the Word Biblical Commentary (but I suspect that the full text does not reflect your claims)."
While "scholar" claims that the Word Biblical Commentary supports his claim that the mention of the deportation of temple articles in 2 Chron. 36:7, 10 refers to the same deportation, your quoted text proves quite the opposite:
4-8 ... the Chronicler chooses to report an incident from earlier in his reign in which Jehoiakim was either taken into temporary exile or at least prepared for it... the language of the Chronicler (36:6, "bound him to take him") makes allowance for the latter approach. It is conceivable that the binding of Jehoiakim was a symbolic demonstration of his status; the threat alone may have made actual deportment unnecessary. If a literal deportation is intended, it should be associated with the deportation of Daniel and his friends along with articles from the temple (36:7; Dan 1:1-3; Jer 46:2) in Jehoiakim's third year (605 B.C.) after Nebuchadnezzar defeated Neco at Carchemish...
I think it almost goes without saying that, whether the deportation of Jehoiakim was intended to be literal or symbolic, because standard Babylonian practice was to exact at least a token of tribute from their captured cities, a deportation of temple articles certainly occurred during Jehoiakim's reign -- just as 2 Chron. 36:7 states. And obviously the deportation mentioned in the bolded text above was different from the one after Jehoiachin's capture, which your quote describes thus:
9-10 The Chronicler...reports only his exile and payment from the temple implements.
So we find once again a great deal of scriptural and scholarly support for one of Carl Jonsson's arguments, and none at all for Watchtower arguments or those of its apologists.
AlanF
onacruse

Earnest:
Along with AlanF, aChristian, and others here, I would like to express my appreciation for your open-minded investigative approach to this subject. I've made a couple small comments, but having nowhere near the depth of knowledge on this topic that you others have shown, I've chosen to set back to "watch." I've reviewed this thread, and particularly your posts, every day, with considerable interest.
Craig

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

Share this