The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Methodology is simply the study or application of method in relation to a discipline or line of inquiry or investigation and is very much applicable to the study of chronology or its construction. Celebrated WT scholars have developed a 'event based' method for our chronology wheras you believe in the use of a 'regnal based' method for your system.

  Again, our methodology is to use the Bible as the primary source and basis for the construction of the chronology whereas your chronology gives primary weight to the secular sources or documents and then try to fit the Bible to these documents.

  I draw to your attention to a recent article which supports my previous comments on methodology and interpretation and their relationship to each other and to a given chronology. The article by Robert C Young in JRTS, December, 2004, pp.577-95 has its pupose in the first paragraph which bewails three factors which are problematic for current chronololgies and these factors relate to methodology, methods and interpretation.

  In view of the immense confusion and problems associated with all current secular chronologies the system adopted by WT scholars is the only one that works, it is simple, accurate and faithful to Scripture. In contrast, your model is a failure, producing no results, betrays God's Word and is the work of demons. You can have it!!

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Marjorie

  Now that we agree that malkut has indeed a wide range of meaning then it is up to the translator to decide how this word should best be rendered in English in the case of its appearance in Daniel.

  Does it mean 'reign', 'kingship', 'kingdom','royal power' etc? The reference works to my knowledge do give 'vassalage' as a meaning for this term but in a historical sense Jehoiakim's reign or kingship was of vassalage for most of or all of his 11 years reign so an event ascribed in his 'third year' could very well relate to an incident in the course of his reign or vassalage. It is noted that his rebellion to Neb caused his removal from the throne and his death so logicaly as his rebellion was of three years so then his'third year' is best attributed to the last period of his reign or kingship. This view of matters is agreed by the Jweish commentators and Josephus and has remained the traditional view right up to the present.

  The NWT is not consistent with the translation of this term because of its variation in meaning but it seems that other translations obscure the fact by simply using 'reign' without due care when careful scholarship shows that the regnal formula had changed according to some scholars. The NWT recognizes this change and the theology of kingship in relation to those rulers who sat on the throne of David.

  I am not sure that I agree with you stating of my methodology for I have previously indicated that my research into this word is a work in progress and I believe that at face value that when scholars use the word 'reign' in Daniel 1:1 they are referring to malkut by implication recognizing that it means much more than the term 'duration'. The use of the term 'kingship' indicates to the reader that the Hebrew term is problematic and that the 'third year' in question may mean much more than a third regnal year so the reader needs to look elsewhere for further clues. Further investigation, shows that the 'third year' cannot mean a third regnal year but can only be reconciled with the fact of a third year at some point in his reign which logic daemand must be the last period of his reign.

  I note your use of Mercer's article of which I have had a copy these many years and I reject his exegesis of malkut in Daniel 1:1 for the reason that Mercer assumes that in order for the end three year view to be valid, it must have 'servitude' read here. What Mercer fails to note and for a Hebrew scholar I find his method wanting, is that he did not check the semantic range of malkut thus assuming that it only means 'reign'.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I omitted the title of the fore-mentioned journal article for your consideration: When Was Samaria Captured? The Need For Precision In Biblical Chronologies.

  scholar JW
• 

  kid-A

  12 pages of mind-numbingly BORING drivel about fictional bible events and dates?

  PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!!!!
• 

  gumby

  12 pages of mind-numbingly BORING drivel about fictional bible events and dates?

  ......and if the events and dates are not fictional, it's even more appauling that someone who claims to be a follower of christ, would spend countless of hours and time to defend dates that christ himself wouldn't get involved in since that was not his message. Scholar even actually believes that sincere bible scholars that have doctrine contrary to his organisations teachings............are inspired by satan himself. In his eyes, these men who devote their lives to their Lord are really only greedy, selfish, demon inspired, haters of Jehovah.

  Pathetic ain't it? Even if your arguments were correct scholar.....your ideas of whats important are so off base, nobody cares to listen to your message. The only ones who would applaud you are those who place importance where you do...............which is way the hell out in left field somewhere.

  Gumby billybob oral roberts the third
• 

  AuldSoul

  Scholar, you have a Private Message.

  AuldSoul
• 

  Jeffro

  Methodology is simply the study or application of method in relation to a discipline or line of inquiry or investigation and is very much applicable to the study of chronology or its construction. Celebrated WT scholars have developed a 'event based' method for our chronology wheras you believe in the use of a 'regnal based' method for your system.

  You are combining the two different valid definitions of 'methodology' here to arrive at an invalid one. Methodology is 'a set of principles and methods used in a particular discipline' or it is 'the philosophical study of methods' but it is not a 'a study of the methods of a particular discipline'. Your salivating scholars have a doctrine-based model. Normal people have a model that takes into account both 'event based' and 'regnal based' details.

  Again, our methodology is to use the Bible as the primary source and basis for the construction of the chronology whereas your chronology gives primary weight to the secular sources or documents and then try to fit the Bible to these documents.

  Once again you straight-out lie. I have already indicated previously that in determining the layout of my model I used only the bible to lay out all of the information relating to the Judean Monarchy before even looking at any secular information. The information correlates extremely well with secular history, and did not require that I 'try to fit' the Bible in.

  In view of the immense confusion and problems associated with all current secular chronologies the system adopted by WT scholars is the only one that works, it is simple, accurate and faithful to Scripture. In contrast, your model is a failure, producing no results, betrays God's Word and is the work of demons. You can have it!!

  LOL... "the work of demons". Sheesh... It is the work of honest and logical interpretation that does not seek to arrive at a particular conclusion to lend support to a doctrine. The Society's model on the other hand is forced to ignore facts... outside of its own circular reasoning, the Society's model doesn't work at all, it is certainly not simpler than the model I have provided (in harmony with professionals in the field), with its twisting of rule relative to rule relative to rule rubbish. It is not accurate, as the many flaws indicated on this forum and elsewhere have demonstrated.
• 

  Alleymom

  Gumby wrote: Scholar even actually believes that sincere bible scholars that have doctrine contrary to his organisations teachings............are inspired by satan himself. In his eyes, these men who devote their lives to their Lord are really only greedy, selfish, demon inspired, haters of Jehovah.

  Neil ---

  What about this statement of Gumby's? Do you really think all the sincere non-JW Bible scholars are demon-inspired haters of Jehovah? If so, I wonder why you continue to cite their articles? Is Robert C. Young, whose article in JETS you just cited above, a demon-inspired hater of Jehovah?

  And what about me? With only a B.A. in religion and no publications on my resume, I would not describe myself as a Bible scholar. But I am a sincere student of the Bible. Do you think I am a demon-inspired hater of Jehovah?

  Do you really believe I (and my whole family) will be destroyed at Armageddon because I cannot believe Jesus returned invisibly in 1914?

  Regards,
  Marjorie
• 

  Earnest

  Alleymom : You have never cited any scholars who support you on this, Neil. If I remember correctly, Earnest posted a message saying he believed this was your own idea and not something you had found in WTS sources. (Earnest, if I have misremembered or misrepresented what you said, please jump in here.)

  You are quite right, Marjorie. Way back in 2003 I wrote that :

  I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature. Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.

  Interestingly, at that time "scholar" responded :

  In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign.

  Earnest
• 

  Alleymom

  You are quite right, Marjorie. Way back in 2003 I wrote that :

  I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature. Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.

  Interestingly, at that time "scholar" responded :

  In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign.

  Thank you, Earnest. I was puzzled at the time by Scholar's response, since he had explicitly said that the word "kingship" suggests vassalage by implication.

  [page 8 of the Furuli thread, click here ]
  
  Alleymom
  
  I did not say that the translation 'kingship' means vassalage at all but the fact is that Jehoiakim was a vassal to Neb. The word kingship suggests vassalage by implication and does just mean reign as a pure chronological datum. In other words one needs to becareful in imputing a chronological datim to this verse as the NWT uses kingship rather than reign.
  
  scholar
  BA MA Studies in Religion

  Neil (Scholar) --- perhaps you could clarify this for us. For two years now, you have continued to focus on the NWT's use of "kingship" rather than "reign" in Daniel 1:1. Your arguments all seem to revolve around the fact that Jehoiakim was a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.

  Earnest said: I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature.

  Scholar --- If the WTS does not say that "kingship" indicates vassalage, then why have you continued to insist for the past two years that the NWT's rendering of malkut by "kingship" has something to tell us regarding the meaning of "in the third year of the malkut of Jehoiakim, king of Judah"?

  Regards,
  Marjorie