Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  My comments about the meaning of malkuth are based upon the fact that the NWT translates the term as kingship rather than reign in the three places in Daniel in which the term appears. The word specifically refers to the activity of ruling or to the right or office of ruling. Some lexicons do give reign as a meaning but my bringing this point forward is simply to show that Daniel may well be alerting the reader to a different context or thought by the choice of this word.

  The two Jewish commentators although using reign in their translation have in fact interpreted the third year to the latter part of Jehoiakim.s reign and not to the beginning. So, they agree with the WT interpretation.Interestingly, their is the theology and historiography behind malkut in Daniel 1:1 which puts a different nuance on this word. These comments are found in the Hermeneia Commentary ob Daniel. Ufortunately, these comments are sourced to publications only avilable in German. In short, I believe that the use of kingship rather than reign reflects the brilliance and forward thinking of the NWT.

  It concerns me not one iota that the WT chronology is unique because that is where its power lies namely in its basis for prophecy, a call to faith and a strong theological and historiographical basis. For these three reasons, there is no need for any other endorsement from any scholar, critic, apostate etc. In fact for your information and if you are such an expert on chronology you would know that there are very few BIBLICAL dates that are universally accepted. The fall of Babylon alone enjoys that acclaimation.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Gamaliel

  Ros,

  When I saw your Hebrew, I checked to see if I was mistaken, but I don't have the fonts installed. Yet I see your Hebrew. Now I'm curious.

  Actually, mine are not from a font, each letter is a separate, small graphic file (gif). I have some Hebrew and Greek fonts installed, but they probably wouldn't be on another machine. I can't read Alleymom's font on the machine I'm using now. If I download the font, HebraicaII, it will work, or if I edit her fontname in the HTML behind her post, to one of the names of a Hebrew font on my machine -- then it will work.

  Gamaliel
• 

  Alleymom

  Gamaliel and Ros -- Yes, I'm using TrueType fonts, HebraicaII and GraecaII. (At least those are the ones I usually use. But I don't remember if my Logos software uses different fonts, and IIRC I pasted from Logos.) I guess the thing to do would be to use image files as Gamaliel does or transliterate as Earnest has done. I have to confess I haven't been able to make Strike9 work for me, so I've never uploaded images. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again for putting up the Hebrew image files, Gamaliel! Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  >>> In fact for your information and if you are such an expert on chronology you would know that there are very few BIBLICAL dates that are universally accepted. The fall of Babylon alone enjoys that acclaimation.
• 

  Alleymom

  Sorry for the truncated post last night. We upgraded to Windows 2000 over the weekend and all kinds of odd things were messed up. I'm using an old version of our ISP software tonight.

  Scholar wrote:
  
  In fact for your information and if you are such an expert on chronology you would know that there are very few BIBLICAL dates that are universally accepted. The fall of Babylon alone enjoys that acclaimation [sic].

  Scholar, the irony is that YOU are the one who told us to read the book which exposes the error of that statement.

  You seem to be forgetting Eliezer Shulman from page 6 of this thread. Remember how YOU recommended his book, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, and I went and found a Hebrew edition?

  Eliezer Shulman follows the ancient Seder Olam chronology and dates the fall of Babylon to 3390 A.M. (~ 368 BCE), not to 539 BCE. He dates the destruction of the first temple to 3338 A.M. (~ 422 BCE). I brought this up to you in my post of July 15, 05:05, on page 6 of this thread.

  I asked you to give me an exact quote from page 143 and you never did.

  Here is what you said:

  On p. 6 of this thread, on 16 July 17:04, scholar wrote:
  
  The relevant information is found on page 143 and simply contains a chart illustrating the Jewish traditional understanding of the seventy years.based upon Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1,2. The diagram speaks for itself and in my mind simply illustrates the complexity of the nature, duration and chronology of this critical period of Judean history. I do not support its findings because it is at variance with our understanding of this period.

  The diagram which "speaks for itself" says that Koresh (Cyrus) took Babylon in 3390 A.M..

  So your claim that the date of the fall of Babylon is universally accepted and "alone enjoys that acclaimation" [sic] is simply not true.

  And you must be aware of this, since you are the one who recommended Eliezer Shulman's book in the first place, and since you looked at page 143 and commented on the diagram there, and since you said "its findings" are "at variance with our [meaning the WT's] understanding of this period."

  Marjorie
• 

  Earnest

  Edited: This post was a confirmation that Furuli's book is now available.
• 

  Alleymom

  It concerns me not one iota that the WT chronology is unique because that is where its power lies namely in its basis for prophecy, a call to faith and a strong theological and historiographical basis. For these three reasons, there is no need for any other endorsement from any scholar, critic, apostate etc.

  Of course there is a need for their endorsement!
  You need them to endorse your 539 date, without which you have nothing.

  You HAVE to have a date from those scholars in order to have a starting point for your chronological calculations.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  but my bringing this point forward is simply to show that Daniel may well be alerting the reader to a different context or thought by the choice of this word.

  No, on the contrary, the point you have been trying to make is that the NWT translators' use of "kingship" rather than "reign" is theologically significant and is meant to alert the reader.

  Daniel used the same word [malkut] that is translated interchangeably as "reign" and "kingship" throughout the NWT. HE is not alerting the reader to anything new by HIS choice of the word malkut.

  It is the NWT translators whom you claim are alerting the reader to a different context by their use of "kingship" rather than "reign".

  Actually, if Daniel is alerting us to anything, it is to be careful of the WT's claims. It is very interesting to note that he places extra emphasis on Jehoiakim's being a king by his repetition of "malkut ... melek", as Earnest and I have pointed out.

  There are three ways the Bible commonly expresses years:
  
  a) In the third year of So-and-So
  b) In the third year of the reign of So-and-So
  c) In the third year of King So-and-So

  But Daniel uses BOTH words, as if to alert the reader that Jehoiakim is a king and this is the third year of his reign.

  d) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah ...

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  I believe that the use of kingship rather than reign reflects the brilliance and forward thinking of the NWT.

  You have said:
  
  a) there is a big difference between "kingship" and "reign"
  b) "kingship" suggests vassalge by implication
  c) the NWT's use of "kingship" rather than "reign" is brilliant

  If their use of "kingship" rather than "reign" is brilliant, could you please explain what difference the NWT sees in the following kings. The word malkut is used in reference to each of these kings, but in some cases the NWT translates malkut as "kingship" and in some cases they translate it as "reign".

  The word "KINGSHIP" is used in reference to:
  
  Jehovah
  Jehoiakim (our Daniel 1:1 verse)
  Saul
  Solomon
  David
  Darius the Persian
  Zedekiah
  Evil-Merodach
  Nebuchadnezzar
  Belshazzar
  Rehoboam

  The word "REIGN" is used in reference to:
  Asa
  Ahaz
  Josiah
  Ahasuerus
  Artaxerxes
  Darius the Persian

  --- What do the kings in each group have in common?

  --- In what way are the kings in group 1 different from the kings in group 2?

  -- Why is Darius the Persian in both groups?

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  if you are such an expert on chronology

  I am content to sign myself "alleymom".

  I make no claims to be a scholar. I have done a lot of reading, but I have never published an article in an academic journal. My only degree is a BA in religion.

  Marjorie, a simple "alleymom"