NWT Scholars (page 9)

hillary_step

Scholar,

Your so called two witnesses for the identity of the NWT Committee are Norm Swif and Raymond Franz, Thes men have and make claims but what is the bsais or evidence for such claims?

The evidence of the 'claims' made by both these men ( N.S. and Raymond Franz ) is that they both knew the parties involved in the production of the NWT, not that they knew *of* them. They were directly witnesses of this fact.

Now, if you wish to dismiss their evidence as it was granted verbally and not backed by written evidence, would you also be as willing to dismiss the numerous statements made in the WTS and The Bible that are third party and that have no written evidence attached to them? This would surely only be fair by your own standards.

Best regards - HS

ellderwho

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

The book "Babylon the great has fallen" page 184 fills in the proposed years of reign that you have in question.

"begins rule in 580 B.C." (Evil-marodach)

Evil-merodach, two years 578 BC

Neriglassar, four years 574 BC

Labashi-Marduk, nine months 574 BC

Nabonidus "a glorious rule till 539 B.C." ( or 34 years rule)

The only way the WT list above works is if Nebuchadrezzars' rule begins in 605 not 624.

Which would then give Nabonidus the 17 years you gave him.

Its interesting that you use the word "proposed" and a ? mark, this would indicate that your really not sure, and you have to assume the missing years to fit doctrinal implications (1914)

Will you not accept what the FDS has put out in written literature such as the book "Babylon the Great" to fill in the questionable years of rule?

To the average person without any background in neo-Babylonian studies will gladly accept what the FDS has put forth, subsquently 1914 making perfect sense.

So the WT has not "established" years rule.

Its still your turn.

scholar

elderwho

The list of Neo-Babylonian rulers that I posted is simply what has appeared in recent WT publications, Where some authorities have different figures then I use 'proposed' and a question mark to indicate that the data is problematic.ET chronology uses biblical and secular evidence to establish the beginning of Neb's reign in 624 and not 604 as you suggest, if the data has a gap this is because there are some problems with the secular data and not the date for Neb's reign. I agree with the Babylon book but I based these figure on the latest Insight volumes. If I was writing for a professional source I would have taken more time and checked everything but as this is an informal board and I wished to respond quickly so my list was submitted in haste but it gives a broad outline for the period.

However, with all the time needed there still has been no response to my requests for an alternative chronology so perhaps you should begin to focus on an alternative if in fact yo believe that Neb reigned in 604.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

hillary_step

The list of Neo-Babylonian rulers that I posted is simply what has appeared in recent WT publications, Where some authorities have different figures then I use 'proposed' and a question mark to indicate that the data is problematic.ET chronology uses biblical and secular evidence to establish the beginning of Neb's reign in 624 and not 604 as you suggest, if the data has a gap this is because there are some problems with the secular data and not the date for Neb's reign. I agree with the Babylon book but I based these figure on the latest Insight volumes. If I was writing for a professional source I would have taken more time and checked everything but as this is an informal board and I wished to respond quickly so my list was submitted in haste but it gives a broad outline for the period.

Translation : I have been busted yet again.

At this point Scholar usual modus operandi is to shreik that those without 'faith' cannot understand Bible matters and why should he have to deal with them. He then slinks off for a few weeks hoping that when he returns in his resiliant ignorance, subscribers will have forgotten what happened in his last exchanges.

Problem is we all have memories longer than he might hope for.

HS

scholar

hilarary _step

You miss the point, I am not saying that Franz and [edited] did not know the men on the committee because the list of names could well have been that committee and that Franz was correct in revealing those names. But it is a fact that the committe requested that their identity be not revealed. So, that means that we cannot know or prove such matters because the Society will neither affirm or deny such a matter. So, regardless of how much oral testimony is given this does not constitute proof unless it is supported by other independent written evidence. It is one thing to list names but that is not proof nor can such list of names be proved. Therfore, I repeat that the Committee is unknown and unknowable at this stage until firm evidence is produced. In a way, the whole matter has mystical overtones which sends shivers through one is it not?

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

scholar

hilary_step

I do not rum away and have reponded as requested. I have not been busted but I have busted critics of WT chronology showing the gaps in the secular record and showing no gaps in the biblical list. You in fact cowardly flee when you cannot and will not put a proposed biblical chronology as the FDS has done. Why don't you put up or shut up?

scholar

toreador

In a way, the whole matter has mystical overtones which sends shivers through one is it not?

Only if you believe in ghosts and goblins. I am sure they would like to try to keep it a mystery just as much as they want the mystical aspect of them being a governing body dispensing spiritual truth at the proper time. Time has proven otherwise, that of their being incompetent or God being impotent as far as keeping them up to date dispensing truth.

Toreador

Marvin Shilmer

Scholar

[edited] and Ray gave firsthand accounts. What more do you want a witness to do?! When you ask a witness to rape ?Do you know who the rapist was?? and they answer ?Yes. It was Barry.,? would you deny their firsthand account until they gave evidence that they saw what they saw! How absurd!

The Bible says to accept the word of two witnesses. There are two witnesses with firsthand accounts. Apparently you do not accept this biblical tenet. How convenient for you.

Marvin Shilmer

Earnest

Substituting a commutative relation ("in union with") to a non-commutative ("in") makes the whole statement a tautology (which it is not originally).

I think you didn't get my point about the translation of en...What I said is it does not work in reciprocal propositions, for it is a naturally commutative formula.
"I am in union with you" already implies "you are in union with me". The two sentences together form a useless repetition.
"I am in you" does not logically imply "you are in me". The two sentences together create a new meaning.

Darn it, Narkissos. I don't mind that you know Hebrew and Greek but when you know English better than I do I really feel inferior. I did misunderstand your point and appreciate your clarification. I am not convinced it is trinity-connected as the same grammatical form is also used of Jesus and the disciples (John 14:20), but agree the subtlety of the reciprocal proposition is missing in the NWT.

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

I am surprised at what you say here, not because it is wrong, but because you know how impractical it would be if "all 'added words' were really put into brackets, and reciprocally 'missing words', and other differences, indicated" in any translation. Although many translations (including the KJV) do indicate some instances where there have been added words, there are no translations which meet the standards you propose as it would be more confusing than helpful.

IOW, any translation is necessarily different from the text.

Which is my point.

But a honest Bible edition will provide the alternative translations, regardless of the theological consequences, in the footnotes.

Does that mean, then, that all translations without footnotes are dishonest ? The fact is that the critical apparatus of the NWT is more comprehensive than the majority of Bibles available, and that most of the footnotes (except those referring to the use of 'Jehovah') have little theological consequence but are helpful in understanding the flavour of what was written. For example, there are numerous verses where the footnotes indicate the reading of the LXX, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac as well as the Masoretic text when they don't concur.

In your criticism of the NWT it seems you are expecting a standard that is not met by any translation, and is unlikely to be attained in the future.

ellderwho, Valis...thanks for your posts...I will reply later.

Earnest

scholar

Marvin Shilmer

So we have two first hand accounts for the identity of the NWT Committee,.What are these accounts? Please provide a transcript of such testimony or at least supply more meaningful information than a list of names as supplied by Franz in his COC.

scholar

NWT Scholars

Share this