The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets (page 15)

Alleymom

Not meaning to muddy the water again, but I would like to add something for the benefit of any lurkers.
This cognitive dissonance you are witnessing from Scholar is caused by a necessity to prove that Daniel 4:10-17 means Jesus started ruling in the heavens in 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that is the case, and the only way their uncanny numerology could be true is if 607 B.C.E. is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
In other words, they take issue with the entire known world's view of history to try and establish their pet year of 1914 by Scripture. If you are thinking this sounds like twisting history and Scripture to fit dogma, give yourself a cookie, you're right.
OldSoul

OldSoul -- That's not mudding the waters at all. Not everyone has the patience to sift through all the details of these discussions on chronology, so it's helpful that you reminded lurkers of the WT's real motive in maintaining the 607 BCE date. Marjorie

Alleymom

Scholar: There is no text in Daniel that says that Neb took Judean captives in his acc year or his first year

Jeffro: A proper chronology of the relevant scriptures places Daniel 1:1 occuring in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. (As previously covered at lengh, there is no basis for the Society's pretending that "kingship" means something different to "reign" because there is no distrinction in the original text, and other words could have been employed if vassalage was intended.)

Jeffro ---

The sad thing is that Scholar knows this. There was a long discussion about the meaning of "kingship" and "reign" over two years ago. I not only gave him numerous verses from the NWT, I also referenced and quoted from several academic sources which confirmed that another word was used to refer to vassalage.

Scholar has admitted that he does not know Hebrew, and yet he continues to pontificate about the supposed meaning of the Hebrew words when all he is doing is relying on the NWT translators' choices of English words.

He peers into the NWT English and tries to divine nuances of meaning as if he's reading tea leaves. Not surprisingly, he comes up with interpretations which are peculiar to him.

Regards,
Marjorie

Jeffro

The sad thing is that Scholar knows this. There was a long discussion about the meaning of "kingship" and "reign" over two years ago. I not only gave him numerous verses from the NWT, I also referenced and quoted from several academic sources which confirmed that another word was used to refer to vassalage.

Yep... I remember you referred me to the link to the convo from two years ago which had the same information that I was trying to get through to scholar a month or so ago. But he just repeats the same empty drivel over and over and over again without any facts. Of course he can't actually indicate which two words are being contrasted, because there is only one word involved. It takes a fairly powerful delusion to get where 'scholar' is.

scholar

Alleymom

Marjorie

It is not a question of divining tea leaves but simply recognizing that the Hebrew word malkut can mean kingship and is appropriate in the case of Jehoiakim's reign because it largely was one of vassalage, first to Egypt under Necho then to Babylon under Nebuchanezzer.

scholar JW

Jeffro

It is not a question of divining tea leaves but simply recognizing that the Hebrew word malkut can mean kingship and is appropriate in the case of Jehoiakim's reign because it largely was one of vassalage, first to Egypt under Necho then to Babylon under Nebuchanezzer.

This is rediculous. What scholar is saying is analogous to saying "the Italian word mela can mean 'fruit' and is appropriate because there was a carrot". He has switched from saying that 'malkut' does mean 'kingship' instead of 'reign', to saying that it can mean 'kingship' (though 'kingship' means the same thing as 'reign' anyway, and does not mean the same as 'vassalage'). Just as the Italian word 'mela' (meaning 'apple'), is indeed a fruit, but is not at all a carrot, neither does 'malkut' mean 'vassalage'.

scholar

Jeffro

It is not ridiculous because the word 'reign' does not mean the same thing as 'kingship'. Both these terms are very different in meaning and in the case of Jehoiakim his reign and kingship were that of a vassal king.

scholar JW

Jeffro

It is not ridiculous because the word 'reign' does not mean the same thing as 'kingship'. Both these terms are very different in meaning and in the case of Jehoiakim his reign and kingship were that of a vassal king.

So provide, as previously requested, the two contrasting Hebrew words being considered that indicate your point for Daniel 1:1.

Alleymom

Scholar wrote:

It is not ridiculous because the word 'reign' does not mean the same thing as 'kingship'. Both these terms are very different in meaning and in the case of Jehoiakim his reign and kingship were that of a vassal king.

Neil,

The NWT uses "kingship" and "reign" interchangeably to translate the Hebrew word malkuth.

From the Furuli thread, 2003:

--- If there is a big difference between "kingship" and "reign" then can you explain this:

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 You said "the word kingship suggests vassalage by implication."
Is there an implication of vassalage with regard to Jehovah, Saul, Solomon, David, and Nebuchadnezzar? The word "REIGN" is used in reference to:

Asa
Ahaz
Josiah
Ahasuerus
Artaxerxes
Darius the Persian

Regards,
Marjorie (Edited several times because I can't get the material from the Furuli thread to display properly inside a quote box.)

scholar

Alleymom

Marjorie

Of course the NWT in its wisdom uses the English words 'reign' and kingship' variably and did not you ever ask as to Why this is the case? You illustrate your argument by citing numerous examples but did you bother to reason first on the matter in order to understand Why this is the case? Surely a woman of your intelligence could research these matters and arrive at a solution.

scholar JW

Gordy

Of course the NWT in its wisdom uses the English words 'reign' and kingship' variably and did not you ever ask as to Why this is the case?

How about bad scholarship?

It is not ridiculous because the word 'reign' does not mean the same thing as 'kingship'.

Oxford Dictionary definitions : king·ship The position, power, or province of a king. The domain ruled by a king; a kingdom. The period or tenure of a king; a reign. Used with his as a title for a king. A monarchy. reign Exercise of sovereign power, as by a monarch. The period during which a monarch rules. Dominance or widespread influence: the reign of reason

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

Share this