by ithinkisee 129 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia, I especially think 'scholar' needs to review point 7 from that page:
A scholar exhibits humility. Those that I have personally met that are “scholars” were all remarkably humble about their own work and accomplishments. They are cautious in their affirmations and conclusions, and try not to overstate themselves. In addition, they always cite their sources.
Jeffro
You are simply reading something into the text that is simply not there. It makes no sense to imply that Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzer as ruling in his first or acc year because of omission. The fact is that Daniel omits any chronological reference to Nebuchadnezzer but simply refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship as a datum. There is no link between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 then your theory becomes plausible. But you have to prove that there is a connection between tghese two texts in order to support your claim and this is something you cannot do.
One can only conclude that both texts refer to two separate events as to time and history and any amount of fudgy bookkeeping won't help. Also, scholars are unsure as to whether the First year of Nebuchadnezzer in Jeremiah 25:1 refers to his first regnal year or his accession year so your theory fails on this basis alone additionally Daniel refers to the third year of kingship which clearly implies not a third regnal year but a third year in the course of his reign of 11 years.
Your method is complex and amounts to dishonesty as you fail to take the data literally. Our method is simple and faithful to the Inspired Word.
scholar JW
I do not believe you Scholar, for the simple reason you did not use the phrase "celebrated WT Scholars (tm) "
-ithinkisee
I am concerned as "scholars" is now referring to himselves in the plural.
You are simply reading something into the text that is simply not there. It makes no sense to imply that Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzer as ruling in his first or acc year because of omission. The fact is that Daniel omits any chronological reference to Nebuchadnezzer but simply refers to Jehoiakim's third year of kingship as a datum. There is no link between Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 then your theory becomes plausible. But you have to prove that there is a connection between tghese two texts in order to support your claim and this is something you cannot do.
It is not simply because the year is omitted by Daniel, but because Jehoiakim's third year was Nebuchadnezzar's accession year and Daniel said it was Jehoiakim's third year (accession-year system). You can say the word 'kingship' a million times over and it will not change the meaning of the original Hebrew word into anything else.
One can only conclude that both texts refer to two separate events as to time and history and any amount of fudgy bookkeeping won't help. Also, scholars are unsure as to whether the First year of Nebuchadnezzer in Jeremiah 25:1 refers to his first regnal year or his accession yearAh... now you appeal to what scholars say. Scholars say Jerusalem fell in 587.
so your theory fails on this basis alone additionally Daniel refers to the third year of kingship which clearly implies not a third regnal year but a third year in the course of his reign of 11 years.
You claim that your method is simple and that mine is complex. I say that when Daniel says third year of Jehoiakim, that it means third year of Jehoiakim. But you, without legitimate basis, claim that he was referrring to "a third year in the course of his reign". You claim that the word 'kingship' implies something that it simply does not. You act like it's a different word than would normally be used for 'reign', but it is not. The only manner in which your method is simple is that it is simply wrong.
Still waiting on your chart of Neo-Babylonian kings.
scholar JW
$$$$$$$$$
I love this guy, i see some of you are dogging my man , please don't do that, please-
do you guy realize the GEM that we have by having a jw like this guy post on the net-
look at all the text this guy has logged and all of it recorded forever on the WWW- we will be able to quote this guy 6 months from today when he is long gone, we will be able to use his quotes as proof of how a jw defends the wt regardless of what facts, proof or evidence really are
we are always telling NONJW that jw go to any length to defend the wt positions on issues, now we literally have our own living breathing "CASE STUDY"
consider how hard it is to get elders or co or do or even bethelites up on the net doing exactly what this Unappointed jw male is doing, it is priceless folks
i am tellling you folks be kind to this dude we can't afford to lose him , we need to just keep im talking/posting
you see once you get him down IN PRINT the rest is easy
take for example what i plan on doing and have done so many times before
i will take a nonjw let them see for themselves the info on the dates in question and let them see how a jw will look at accepted facts and because they differ from the boys in writing , they will go with the boys in writing every single time
man that type of documented mindset on the part of a jw is Priceless
so please don;t tick this guy off and make him leave
i can't speak for the rest of you , BUT I NEED THIS POSTER
it makes my job of keeping nonjw out of this religion so EASy
like shooting fish in a barrel
Jeffro
You can try to ignore the fact that the word 'kingship' invalidates your theory but it is a fact that this specific word carries a different meaning to 'reign' otherwise the NWT would not have translated the word as they have done. Scholars agree that in Daniel 1:1 third year does not refer to his third regnal year. The text does not indicate the specific year of Neb's reign so you assume that it is this or that just as I can assume that it refers to another later year. The evidence flatly disproves your theory.
One must refer to other scholars on matters of chronology and take not of their research which is what celebrated WT scholars do and which you do not but you rely on your own opinion which is foolish. Scholars have no date for the Fall of Jerusalem, some say 587, 586, 588, 589 so it is a feast all based on the same empirical evidence. Daniel did not say the third year of reign but the third year of kingship. You have already listed the range of meanings for the word Malkut but it seems that you failed to get the point.
If our method is simple then it is less likely to be wrong but your method is complex and more likely to be wrong. Simplicity always wins out in the end and that is why we are right and you are wrong.
scholar JW
JT
My sole purpose in posting on this board is to entertain and if you are being entertained by my defence of WT chronology for all posterity then I am well pleased. This gives me much satisfaction knowing that our chronology is far superior to that of apostates and higher critics.
scholar JW
Jeffro,
Good work my man. You have showed Scholar to be a complete tool. Especially how he resorts to namecalling when you don't play his "overcomplication" game.
-ithinkisee
scholar,
please allow me to quote you in 'evolution book' style:
history is wrong you dummy
steve, just some morning entertainment.
