NWT Scholars (page 8)

scholar

elderwho There is no great difficulty in reconstructing a schema for the Babylonian dynasty from 625 to 539 BCE. Wt chronology presents the reigns of these rulers in accordance with the secular records beginning with Neb's first year, Nisan 624 ending with Belshazzar in Tishri,539. Similarly, a comprehensive chart for the Divided Monarchy is presented in the Aid and Insight Volumes and one can see the names of the Judean kings who reigned in Judah during that period 625-539 BCE of sum 86 years. These were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. WT chronology has established the reigns for the Neo-Bablonian dynasty beginning with Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzer reigned 43 years fro Nisan 624-582 Evil Merodach reigns of 2 and 18 years proposed,- 581 -? Neriglissar reigns of 2, 4, 18 years proposed ? labashi-Marduk reign of 9 months - ? Nabonidus reign of 17 years - 566- 539 There is only some certainty of 60 years with a shortfall of 26 from the biblical data for the Judean reigns of 18 years and exile of 68 years, a total of 86 years. Jehoiakim reigned 11 years from 628 - 618 Jehoiachin reigned 3 months ending in 617 Zedekiah reigned 11 years from 617 -607 The length of the Judean kings is some 22 years up to the fall of Jerusalem in 607. Your turn to supply a chronology of the Divided Monarchy? scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

Narkissos

Wt chronology presents the reigns of these rulers in accordance with the secular records beginning with Neb's first year, Nisan 624 ending with Belshazzar in Tishri,539. Similarly, a comprehensive chart for the Divided Monarchy is presented in the Aid and Insight Volumes and one can see the names of the Judean kings who reigned in Judah during that period 625-539 BCE of sum 86 years. These were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. WT chronology has established the reigns for the Neo-Bablonian dynasty beginning with Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzer reigned 43 years fro Nisan 624-582 Evil Merodach reigns of 2 and 18 years proposed,- 581 -? Neriglissar reigns of 2, 4, 18 years proposed ? labashi-Marduk reign of 9 months - ? Nabonidus reign of 17 years - 566- 539 There is only some certainty of 60 years with a shortfall of 26 from the biblical data for the Judean reigns of 18 years and exile of 68 years, a total of 86 years. Jehoiakim reigned 11 years from 628 - 618 Jehoiachin reigned 3 months ending in 617 Zedekiah reigned 11 years from 617 -607 The length of the Judean kings is some 22 years up to the fall of Jerusalem in 607.

Good job Scholar. Once you highlight (in red) the specific WT stuff, it clearly appears that 18 years cannot be backed up by any "secular record" -- the "26" figure being an amusing diversion, adding up to it the 4 years of Jehoiakim before Nebuchadnezzar's accession, which nobody doubts, and the 4 years of Evil Merodach and Neriglissar, which you choose to doubt (interestingly the WT itself forgets to mention this "possibility" when it refers to either of them, cf. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/55372/1.ashx). LOL.

Valis

ellderwho, there are words inserted in the NWT to clarify the meaning of the translation but this is true of every Bible translation in every language.

Ernest...I am no bible scholar, but what about the difference I posted? What kind of clarification can it be to insert words that merely suit your porpoises and not reflect a better translation? If I'm wrong please correct me. I barely know two bible scrips and that's about enough for me, but from an academic standpoint I'm always interested.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Neo

Neil,

You said:

WT chronology has established the reigns for the Neo-Bablonian dynasty beginning with Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzer reigned 43 years fro Nisan 624-582 Evil Merodach reigns of 2 and 18 years proposed,- 581 -? Neriglissar reigns of 2, 4, 18 years proposed ? labashi-Marduk reign of 9 months - ? Nabonidus reign of 17 years - 566- 539

It's funny, the Watchtower itself doesn´t show any trace of doubt about how long Evil Merodach and Neriglassar reigned:

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

So, from now on, please don't go against the "faithful and discreet slave", okay?

Neo

Narkissos

Valis,

I know your question was to Earnest but I'm just trying to understand.

Your previous post was not about adding words but about the choice of "apostate" instead of the KJV "hypocrite" in Job 13:16 etc., or have I missed something?

Actually neither are right, and the NWT probably suits its own agenda with the heavily loaded word "apostate" indeed. The Hebrew term (chaneph) rather means "profane" or "impious" (NRSV "godless").

About "adding words", I do think that the use of brackets in the NWT is somewhat dishonest. It is just meant to look serious. It says, as it were: "We exceptionally need to add something to make sense, but as it is not formally in the text we bother to make it appear as such." This is bullshit: if you need 10 words to say what you think the original text says with 6 words, does it mean you "add" 4 words? No. Languages are different, you just create another text and you are responsible for it. Brackets won't help.

Take the beginning of John in the NWT:

1In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Only the definite article before "beginning" is put into brackets.

But what would the translation look like if all "added words" were really put into brackets, and reciprocally "missing words", and other differences, indicated?

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was [a] god. 2 This [one] was in [the] beginning with [the] God. 3 All [things] came into existence through him, and apart [from] him not [even] one [thing] came into existence.

Besides "additions" and "substractions", you would have to explain that the difference of capital and lower case for "God" is "added" to the text, and that the phrase "came into existence" actually translates one single verb.

The NWT reader is alerted to the fact that there is no article before "beginning" (wtf?), and so thinks s/he is reading a very trustworthy version, but s/he is not told that the indefinite article "a" is similarly "added", or that there is no difference between "God" and "god" in the original text. How convenient...

IOW, any translation is necessarily different from the text. But a honest Bible edition will provide the alternative translations, regardless of the theological consequences, in the footnotes.

scholar

Neo

Thank you for the correction. My post was not presented clearly and did not proof read it. I tabulated the data but it came out as a block. Neiriglissar should have read a reign of 4 years proposed. Evil Merodach has a two year reign according to Berossus but 18 years according to Josephus. EVIL-MERODACH in Insight On The Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 1, p.773.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

scholar

Marvin Shilmer Hilary_step

scholar

Marvin Shilmer & hilary_step

Both of you should re-read the challenge to WT critics by me posted on Channel C. In fact, I requested such critics to respond to 3 specific subjects:

1. Date for Adam's creation?

2. List of reigns for the Divided Monarchy?

3. Dates for birth, ministry and death of our Lord.?

Thus far, No one responded by supplying an alternative chronology despite the fact that there were many responses including those from Carl Jonsson which continues. So, I have not lied and in fact I had made a similar challenge on this board which to this DAY remains unanswered!!!

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

Narkissos

Josephus gives 18 years in Antiquities X,11,2 (231). But he quotes Berossus' 2 years and doesn't "correct" it in Against Apion, I,20 (147).

scholar

Marvin Shilmer

Your so called two witnesses for the identity of the NWT Committee are [edited] and Raymond Franz, Thes men have and make claims but what is the bsais or evidence for such claims? Have these men seen documentary evidence? Have they seen the original typed-written manuscript which Knorr gave to the factory on September 29, 1949 for publishing by the forty volunteers on that project? Have these men read the commitee's document which assigned the manuscript to the Society? Have such men read the minutes for the meeting convened by Knorr on September 3, 1949?

These men have made public and private claims which are only based on personal opinion. They have not even given oral testimony of conversations about the committee when in fact Franz easily recounts conversations he had with his former colleagues including his uncle. His CoC contains much detail as to his experiences on the Governing Body and prior years and yet when it comes to the matter of the NWT committe he is silent. hE GIVES NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS LIST.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religiuon

NWT Scholars

Share this