by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
AREAS OF INTEREST AND RESEARCH:
The religion of the Bible and its text in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, Bible translation, the verbal systems of classical Hebrew and the other Semitic languages, Accadian/Sumerian texts and grammar.
Furuli doesn't mention his interest in 'hovahs. Too embarassed maybe?
TR
Furuli doesn't mention his interest in 'hovahs. Too embarassed maybe?
More likely, he doesn't want to expose his bias.
So, "scholar", how about answering my question about 2 Kings 24:1-4?
I know, I know, you don't have an answer. What else is new?
AlanF
Cmon Scholar,
You need to help us out here! If you believe it is necessary for us (non jws) to accept 607 or suffer the second death at armageddon you kindly need come up with some refutation of the points made by alleymom and AlanF and others instead of weedling your way out of it.
If God really expects us to accept 607 versus 586/7 why did he let Satan screw things up so badly that 99 percent of present day scholars of this topic believe it to be 586/7? The appt of the bible students in 1919 hinges on this very thing doesn't it?
Does God want 99 percent of us to be destroyed because he (God) failed to keep the ancient tablets decipherable?
In your opinion do we need the uncovering of ancient tablets (worldy or pagan by WTS standards) to verify the appt of the WTS in 1919? Shouldn't the bible, supposedly the only inspired book, be the only book we would need to figure out the way of salvation? In other words do we NEED ancient secular tablets of PAGAN origin, decipher these to the correct date, figure out or find out who is teaching this date, join this group, and believe everything they tell us as a direct gift or light from God or be destroyed?
Those of us nonscholars (without BMA studies in religion) here are depending on you?SFF
Why am I stuck in red?
Alan F
You ask for my observations on 2 Kings 24:1-4. The problematic part of this section begins with verse 2 wherein Jehovah sends marauding bands against Judah. This event must have occurred between Jehoiakim's fourth year (625 BCE) and his eighth year (621-20 BCE) whereupon his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar began according to Daniel 1:1 and 2 Kings 24:1. During those four years or so Nebuchadnezzar had not then invaded Judah but nevertheless Jehoiakim's kingdom was under constant threat. If one assumes that 2 Kings 24:1 applies to the latter part of Jehoiakim's reign it does not necesarily follow that the events in verse 2 immediately follow on as there may well be discontinuity between the evnts of verse 2 and verse 1.In short, I believe that the invasion of the marauders precedes that of the commencement of the vassalage of Jehoiakim to Nebuchadnezzar. You will find reference to this discussion in the GTR, 1998, pp. 340-341.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Just as I predicted, "scholar" -- you gave "a pile of excuses", not an answer. You failed to address any of the specific questions I raised.
Once again, the scripture reads:
1 In his [Jehoiakim's] days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him. 2 And Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chaldeans and 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, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken by means of his servants the prophets.
It is obvious that verse 2 describes events that occurred after Jehoiakim "turned back and rebelled" against Nebuchadnezzar. Why is this so obvious? Because there would be no point in Jehovah's beginning to send "marauder bands" against a loyal vassal. Verse 2 thus describes events that happened because Jehoiakim rebelled.
Thus your silly excuse for an explanation fails. Even Watchtower knows enough not to comment on the implications of this verse.
AlanF
vas•sal
Pronunciation: (vas'ul),
[key]
—n.
1. (in the feudal system) a person granted the use of land, in return for rendering homage, fealty, and usually military service or its equivalent to a lord or other superior; feudal tenant.
2. a person holding some similar relation to a superior; a subject, subordinate, follower, or retainer.
3. a servant or slave.
—adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a vassal.
2. having the status or position of a vassal
vas•sal•age
Pronunciation: (vas'u-lij),
[key]
—n.
1. the state or condition of a vassal.
2. homage or service required of a vassal.
3. a territory held by a vassal.
4. vassals collectively.
5. dependence, subjection, or servitude.
king•ship
Pronunciation: (king'ship),
[key]
—n.
1. the state, office, or dignity of a king.
2. rule by a king; monarchy.
3. aptitude for kingly duties.
4. (cap.) a title used in referring to a king; Majesty (prec. by His or Your).
It is possible to engage both and reach a like meaning. Especially if used biblically speaking as in God being a king number 1 and whatever kingship anyone else holds would be perhaps considered “by the grace of god”
Plum of the newly self-declared devils advocate class who is bored
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Second Kings 24:1 shows that Nebuchadnezzar brought pressure upon the Judean king "and so Jehoiakim became his servant [or vassal] for three years. However, he [Jehoiakim] turned back and rebelled against him [Nebuchadnezzar]." Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1. It could not be Jehoiakim’s third year of his 11-year reign over Judah, for at that time Jehoiakim was a vassal, not to Babylon, but to Egypt’s Pharaoh Necho. It was not until Jehoiakim’s fourth year of rule over Judah that Nebuchadnezzar demolished Egyptian domination over Syria-Palestine by his victory at Carchemish (625 B.C.E. [apparently after Nisan]). (Jer 46:2) Since Jehoiakim’s revolt against Babylon led to his downfall after about 11 years on the throne, the beginning of his three-year vassalage to Babylon must have begun toward the end of his eighth year of rule, or early in 620 B.C.E
Alan F
You are mistaken in your view that Jehovah sent marauding bands because Jehoiakim rebelled. In fact, verses 3 and 4 give the reason, it was because of Jehovah's word spoken by the prophets and to remove Judah from his sight because of the sins of Manasseh and for the innocent blood spilt by Manasseh. These verses give three reason for Jehovah sending invaders into Judah.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
Thanks for editing Plum's unnecessary remarks out Onacruse. It serves no purpose to use language like that. It takes all the enjoyment out of reading this thread to have things like that unnecessarily posted. If he doesnt care about this thread/discussion then why post here at all.
