All that I am interested in is to notify interested parties that malkut indeed has a wide semantic range and means much more than the common rendering 'reign'. I chose simply to focus on the fact that this word describes the activity of ruling rather than the rather ordinary sense of duration. I gave the reference to the material so any interested party could reserarch the matter further and see the much broader context. I believe I have been faithful with the context.
All that I am interested in is to notify interested parties that malkut indeed has a wide semantic range and means much more than the common rendering 'reign'. I chose simply to focus on the fact that this word describes the activity of ruling rather than the rather ordinary sense of duration. I gave the reference to the material so any interested party could reserarch the matter further and see the much broader context. I believe I have been faithful with the context.
If this really was your true intent, you therefore acknoledge that malkut does nothing to support the allusion (yes, I mean allusion, though 'illusion' would work equally well) that the word refers to some starting point for Jehoiakim's kingship other than its obvious beginning. Those of us who have looked into the word already knew that malkut refers to the position or duration of rulership, and the word on its own implies nothing regarding starting to rule in some other capacity during such period.
Yes, that is truly my real intent. The fact of the matter is that malkut means much more than 'reign' referring to royal power, dominion, royal dignity, kingdom, royal etc. This term describes principally the activity of rulership which is best represented by the rendering 'kingship'. I have never implied that this word describes as you claim starting to rule in some capacity but simply to note that this word is descriptive of the reign of Jehoiakim as a ruler of the Judaic line representing Jehovah's throne at Jerusalem. What is at issue is not the meaning of this word but what that 'third year of Jehoiakim' is related in a historic or chronological sense and the evidence proves that the third year relates to the last three years of his reign rather than the early years of his reign as apostartes try to argue.
Yes, that is truly my real intent. The fact of the matter is that malkut means much more than 'reign' referring to royal power, dominion, royal dignity, kingdom, royal etc. This term describes principally the activity of rulership which is best represented by the rendering 'kingship'. I have never implied that this word describes as you claim starting to rule in some capacity but simply to note that this word is descriptive of the reign of Jehoiakim as a ruler of the Judaic line representing Jehovah's throne at Jerusalem. What is at issue is not the meaning of this word but what that 'third year of Jehoiakim' is related in a historic or chronological sense and the evidence proves that the third year relates to the last three years of his reign rather than the early years of his reign as apostartes try to argue.
So you admit that your emphasis of the definition of the word is not relevant to your argument regarding the alleged start of Jehoiakim's reign in some different capacity, and then you go on to restate, without basis, your presumption that Jehoiakim's third year started from some other point. It has already been indicated that your supposed evidence for the third year being the last three years is simply boulderdash, and yet again you provide no actual evidence to support your claims.
The meaning of malkut is very important as it means that where it appears in the OT and in particular its use in Daniel can alter the interpretation and history of that book, Daniel. You apparently fail to recognize that this Aramaic word means more than 'reign' and is a descriptor of that reign. Tradition by as shown by the commentaries, biblical and Josephus all place Jehoiakim's third year not at the beginning as the apostates claim but in fact at the end which led to the death of Jehoiakim replaced by Jehoiachin and the first siege of Jerusalem with the first deportattion of Jewry to Babylon.
The meaning of malkut is very important as it means that where it appears in the OT and in particular its use in Daniel can alter the interpretation and history of that book, Daniel. You apparently fail to recognize that this Aramaic word means more than 'reign' and is a descriptor of that reign. Tradition by as shown by the commentaries, biblical and Josephus all place Jehoiakim's third year not at the beginning as the apostates claim but in fact at the end which led to the death of Jehoiakim replaced by Jehoiachin and the first siege of Jerusalem with the first deportattion of Jewry to Babylon.
You keep trying to assert that malkut carries more meaning than 'duration', but it makes absolutely no difference to your argument. Jehoiakim's malkut still started at the same point regardless of what meaning you are assigning to it (since it doesn't mean 'paying tribute to some other guy'), and there is nothing in Daniel to suggest that he was malkutting in some other sense further down the track.
So it seems that your entire argument relies completely on Jewish 'traditions of men'.
Josephus makes no actual reference to say that this third year was actually Jehoiakim's third-last.
It is not I that is saying that malkut means much more than simply a duration or 'reign' but that is well recognized by scholars that this word has a wide semantic range. It is a word that means many things and that is proven by the lexical quotes that have already been posted. The NWT Committee under the direction of celebrated WT scholars have decided that in regard to Daniel 1:1 and because of lexica, biblical history, theology, chronology, tradition, Josephus that this Aramaic word is best rendered as 'kingship'.
It does make absolute sense because it correlates this opening verse of Daniel with the facts of history and theology and the use of 'reign' is misleading and inaccurate because Jehoiakim's third year does not synchronize with the first year of Nebuchadnezzer. Such a bizarre interpretation creates a historical contradiction because Jeremiah synchronized Neb's first year with Jehoiakim's fourth year.
Daniel further used malkut in a theological sense in Daniel 2;1 and 8:1 according to the views of past and present commentators so he was quite happy to go malkuting by providing correct theological view of history with its relation to the Kingdom of God.
So then what true religion have you found that conforms to your now so-called superior logic or are you still in spiritual darkness having abandoned the one and only true faith?
So then what true religion have you found that conforms to your now so-called superior logic or are you still in spiritual darkness having abandoned the one and only true faith?
Last Thursdayism. Can't prove it wrong and it fulfills every spiritual need.
