Scholar, please don't post and run...

by in a new york bethel minute 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

Jeffro

What utter rubbish. There was no deportation of Judean captives in either Neb's acc or first regnal year, this is simply a red herring, a flight of fancy that has no biblical and historical evidence. All that you have is an interpretation of Daniel 1:1 which does not mention what regnal year of Neb coincides with the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship. Further, in the list of deportations in Jeremiah 52 there is no reference to such claimed deportation.

A simple comparison of Jeremiah 25:1 with Daniel 1:1 indicates clearly where Nebuchadnezzar's reign ran relative to Jehoiakim, keeping in mind that Jeremiah did not use the accession-year system and his rendering is one year more. There was no regnal year to report for Nebuchadnezzar because it was his accession year by Daniel's rendering. There is absolutely no inconsistency, and this agrees completely with what is known by historians. A comparison of Jeremiah 52:28 with 2 Kings 24:14 indicates that Jeremiah's account does not exhaustively list the number of exiles, so the absence of a mention of exiles in 605 does not mean that no captives were taken as part of the booty on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Jerusalem.
It seems that your argument has shifted to the census of the deportations with a priority assigned on the size of a certain numbers. Your deporatation theory is no even dignified by the Jonsson hypothesis not is considered by scholars for it is your desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
On the contrary, I have moved on from other arguments for the time being because you have not provided any reasonable defense against them, so I am providing additional information which also shows the Society's interpretations to be flawed. I have no need for 'desperation'.
Jonsson agrees that the Jeremiah list is only partial and incomplete because the numbers given conflict with 2 Kings 24:14. This passage gives the number of captives as 10,000 and occurred in Neb's 8th year and this conflicts with the 3023 mentioned by Jeremiah in Neb's seventy year. In short, basing your argument on such conflicting and confusing numbers is fraught with risk and is better to use data that less troublesome.
I suppose such reasoning supports your view quite well, because the Watchtower Society's interpretation is based on absolutely no data at all which eliminates all risk in the twisted minds of those who believe it.
scholar

Jeffro
There is no comparison between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25;1 except as a figment of your imagi nation. There is no data that connects these two texts nor is there any historical coincidence. Your theory about the accession/nonaccession year system is simply one of many interpretaions that scholars have sought to harmonize the 'third year' of Daniel 1:1 but as I have said before repeatedly to you that in Jehoiakim's third regnal year he was a vassal to Necho and it was not until his fourth regnal year that Nebuchadnezzer began ruling, this was his accession year. The following year at Nisan began his first regnal year in 624 BCE. Therefore the third year mentioned in Daniel was a third year of his kingship as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer which proved to be his last year and the eight year of Nebuchadnezzer as Josephus agrees.
The absence of exiles for Neb's acc year or first regnal year is indeed compelling evidence that no deporation took place. To base an argument upon the absence of facts or evidence is reckless and foolish. Your arguments concerning the deportations is nonsense and is not even used in the Jonsson hypothesis so if it had any validity at all , Jonsson would have exploited those facts to his advantage.
scholar JW
Jeffro

There is no comparison between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25;1 except as a figment of your imagi nation. There is no data that connects these two texts nor is there any historical coincidence. Your theory about the accession/nonaccession year system is simply one of many interpretaions that scholars have sought to harmonize the 'third year' of Daniel 1:1 but as I have said before repeatedly to you that in Jehoiakim's third regnal year he was a vassal to Necho and it was not until his fourth regnal year that Nebuchadnezzer began ruling, this was his accession year. The following year at Nisan began his first regnal year in 624 BCE. Therefore the third year mentioned in Daniel was a third year of his kingship as a vassal to Nebuchadnezzer which proved to be his last year and the eight year of Nebuchadnezzer as Josephus agrees.

There is of course a clear connection between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1, which is much simpler than the Society's bizarre rendition which ignores the meaning of the original text, but this has already been explained at lengh in previous threads. Yes, genuine scholars seek to harmonize facts. Conversely, the Society does not seek to harmonize anything - it just ignores and attempts to discredit everything (specifically, all of the facts) that does not fit its interpretations. Your conjectural correlation of Jehoiakim's third year to his actual eigth is based purely on a deliberate misinterpretation of Daniel 1:1. You allege that Josephus agrees. In Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 6, Josephus says that "in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the government over the Babylonians." (Obviously Daniel, in Babylon, using the accession-year system, would render this as Jehoiakim's third year.) Josephus continues "when Nebuchadnezzar had already reigned four years, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim's government over the Hebrews, the king of Babylon made an expedition with mighty forces against the Jews, and required tribute of Jehoiakim, and threatened upon his refusal to make war against him." Nebuchadnezzar didn't appoint Jehoiakim as a vassal king, he demanded a tribute from him. Jehoiakim's initial 'refusal' wasn't a refusal to be king, but a refusal to pay tribute. There is no room here to suggest that Nebuchadnezzar began ruling in some additional god-appointed fashion, nor that anything other than Jehoiakim's typical reign is being discussed. Josephus does not support the Society's view at all. In his 11th year as king, Jehoiakim stopped paying tribute, and Nebuchadnezzar killed him.
The absence of exiles for Neb's acc year or first regnal year is indeed compelling evidence that no deporation took place. To base an argument upon the absence of facts or evidence is reckless and foolish. Your arguments concerning the deportations is nonsense and is not even used in the Jonsson hypothesis so if it had any validity at all , Jonsson would have exploited those facts to his advantage.
You ridicule me for agreeing with Jonsson, then you ridicule me for not agreeing with Jonsson.
Still waiting on your Neo-Babylonian chronology sans 20-year gap - until then the Society's interpretation is "reckless and foolish"
scholar

Jeffro
There is absolutely no connection between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 bcause Daniel deals with events that occurred with the end of Jehoiakims's reign when replaced by Jehoiachin and the first deportation of the exiles occurred which included Daniel. Jeremiah 25:1 deals with events in the earlier phase of Jehoiakim's reign which saw Nebuchadnezzer become king. So you have in fact reversed the history in order to support an incorrect chronology.
Josep[hus agrees that the third year of Danoiel regers tho the last three year period of Jehoiakim's reign of eleven years. There is little point of me ridiculing Jonsson to you because you have nbot bothered to read his book tothe point of not owning a copy.
scholar JW
Leolaia

Josep[hus agrees that the third year of Danoiel regers tho the last three year period of Jehoiakim's reign of eleven years. There is little point of me ridiculing Jonsson to you because you have nbot bothered to read his book tothe point of not owning a copy.

Say what?
Jeffro

There is absolutely no connection between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1 bcause Daniel deals with events that occurred with the end of Jehoiakims's reign when replaced by Jehoiachin and the first deportation of the exiles occurred which included Daniel. Jeremiah 25:1 deals with events in the earlier phase of Jehoiakim's reign which saw Nebuchadnezzer become king. So you have in fact reversed the history in order to support an incorrect chronology.

Evidence? Is there where you resort to your clearly invalid mistranslation of malkut?
Josep[hus agrees that the third year of Danoiel regers tho the last three year period of Jehoiakim's reign of eleven years. There is little point of me ridiculing Jonsson to you because you have nbot bothered to read his book tothe point of not owning a copy.
Where does Josephus indicate this alleged agreement?
Jonsson's information is essentially a compilation of information that is available from other sources. If I had Jonsson's book you would say I have relied on apostate sources. Because I don't have it, you say I haven't bothered to read it. Your duplicity and your flawed in logic are apparent to all.
Jeffro

Leolaia
Josep[hus
agrees that the third year of Danoiel regers tho the last three year period of Jehoiakim's reign of eleven years. There is little point of me ridiculing Jonsson to you because you have nbot bothered to read his book tothe point of not owning a copy.
Say what?I am beginning to think, based on 'scholar's' poor spelling and grammar, and his destitute logic, that he may be intoxicated when he posts.
scholar

Jeffro
The translation of malkt as ;kingship' is perfectly valid for Daniel 1:1 as it clearly alerts the reader to the fact of Jehoiakim.s vassalage and that thge deporation occurred at the end of his reign. Josephus discusses the matter in hisAntiquities Book 10 chapter 6 clearly showing that thesae events occurred during the last three years and not the first three years.
How I choose to use Jonsson is my business and I disagree with his hypothesis but he raises some interesting comments that are useful in refuting your nonsense which demonstrates your unfamiliarity with his material.
scholar JW
Jeffro

The translation of malkt as ;kingship' is perfectly valid for Daniel 1:1 as it clearly alerts the reader to the fact of Jehoiakim.s vassalage and that thge deporation occurred at the end of his reign. Josephus discusses the matter in hisAntiquities Book 10 chapter 6 clearly showing that thesae events occurred during the last three years and not the first three years.

'Kingship' does not mean 'vassalage', so there is little weight in your argument anyway. In what way does Daniel 1:1 'clearly alert' the reader to vassalage? Where does Josephus mention the particular siege during which Daniel was taken? The only time-based indication in Daniel 1:1 is that it was Jehoiakim's third year. Antiquities indicates that Nebuchadnezzar demanded tribute from Jehoiakim in his 8th year, and that in his 11th, there was a siege, but there is nothing to suggest that Daniel was taken at that time.
How I choose to use Jonsson is my business and I disagree with his hypothesis but he raises some interesting comments that are useful in refuting your nonsense which demonstrates your unfamiliarity with his material.
Unbiased posters on this board would agreee that I have demonstrated an appropriate degree of knowledge of this subject for refuting your 607 dogma. Whether I am specifically familiar with a source whose validity you reject is unimportant.
scholar

Jeffro
The translation of malkut as kingship is a valid rendering because the Hebrew word denotes the activity of rulership and I never said that malkut means vassalage but such is characteristic of the reign of Jehoiakim. Right? There is absolutely nothing that indicates that Daniel was taken in Neb's acc or first regnal year either but the evidence is certainly there thar Daniel along with princely captives was taken in the first deportation at the end of Jehoiakim' reign or his 'third year'.
Whilst posting on this board you indicate how shallow your knowledge and all that you are doing is simply repeating apostate nonsense with nothing new but poor logic and a poor sense of biblical history.
scholar JW

Scholar, please don't post and run...

Share this