Posts by Alleymom

You are in my thoughts and prayers as you continue to go through treatment. How are the fatigue and nausea this week? Have a restful weekend ... and remember, don't squander your energy on cleaning house!

Blessings,
Marjorie

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Alleymom

No, you are not a demon inspired hater of Jehovah but I hope you are a searcher and a lover of truth and ones' salvation is not determined by a certain creed or doctrine there is personal responsibility for each one to search for Jehovah and learn the truth revealed in his Word, by his Holy Spirit and by his organization. How each one stands at that final hour is a matter between God, his Son and the individual concerned.

Neil --

My faith is this:

I have been saved by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus, who loved me and gave himself for me. Jesus bore my sins in his body on the tree. It is because of his great love for me that God, who is rich in mercy, made me alive with Christ even when I was dead in sin. Now I live to serve him.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for me. I have been set free from the law of sin and death. I have been adopted into God's family. His Spirit within me cries, "Abba, father" and testifies that I am God's child.

The Scripture says that if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But Christ is in me, the hope of glory. And since the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in me, I have faith that he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to my mortal body through his Spirit, who lives in me.

Isn't this the faith that was taught by the New Testament church?

Regards,
Marjorie

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

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

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

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

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Alleymom

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.

Neil --

I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I see that you're now saying that all you wanted to do is let everyone know that malkut has a wide semantic range. But, as others may recall, I am the one who pointed that very thing out to you two years ago in the Furuli thread. I posted the text of 90+ verses from the NWT and a non-JW Bible, and I listed the various meanings attached to malkut.

What I objected to then and what I still object to now is your idea that the two English words "kingship" and "reign" represent different meanings in the Hebrew text, with "kingship" supposedly having implications of vassalage. An analysis of how the NWT translates malkut with regard to various kings makes it plain that this is your own idea, not the WTS's.

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.)

I understand that you do have sources which agree with you that Daniel 1:1 is not referring to the real 3rd year of Jehoiakim, but rather to the 3rd year of his vassalage to Babylon. This was the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, and you are correct when you say that this interpretation is cited by some modern scholars.

But I am unaware of any scholar who agrees with you that this interpretation is supported by or derived in any way from the word malkut. Because you don't read Hebrew, you are looking at the English words used by the NWT and then using linguistic reverse engineering to try to read nuances of meaning back into the Hebrew text. This is cart-before-the-horse backwards. To use your own word, this is truly a flawed methodology.

There is no implication of vassalage in the word malkut.

Two years ago, I cited an article by Mark Mercer, and I gave his references. Let me repeat that information here for other readers:

Mark Mercer, "Daniel 1:1 and Jehoiakim's Three Years of Servitude," AUSS (Andrews University Seminary Studies), vol. 27, no. 3, Autumn 1989, pp. 179-192.
On page 180, Mercer says: "Several commentators take the third year of Jehoiakim as being the last of the three years of servitude to Babylon mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:1. This solution is unlikely, for the text of Daniel states that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim " (bsnt slws lmlkwt), not "in the third year of the servitude of Jehoaikim" (bsnt slws l'bwdh) -- as one might expect if the statement in Daniel 1:1 were derived from 2 Kgs 24:1."

On page 185, he gave these footnote references:

"For the usage of ['bd] ('servant') as a term of vassalge, see J. C. Greenfield, 'Some Aspects of Treaty Terminology,' in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers (Jerusalem, 1967), 1:117-118. For examples, see 2 Kgs 16:7 and 1 Sam 27:12."

D.J. Wiseman, "Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," Iraq 20 (1958): 3-4.

R. Frankena, "The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon," OTS 14 (1965): 152.

The point he is making is that Daniel had another word available to him which he could have used if he had wanted to indicate that this was the third year of Jehoiakim's vassalage rather than the third year of his being king.

Regards,
Marjorie

14

"Outnfree", Get Well Soon

by Robdar in

jw
friends

last weeks message from outnfree:.

how my week has been: very stressful.

am having problems with my ex- and his interaction with our son, and having problems with our son myself.

Alleymom

Brenda --

Prayers and best wishes for your healing. I hope the nausea and fatigue lessens soon! It's amazing that you're still managing so much while undergoing treatment and feeling ill.

Blessings and hugs!

Marjorie

99

Shunned again, and you won't guess where. EVER.

by kwintestal in

jw
friends

well, we were going about our business today as we usually do on a monday.

mrs kwin went to work, kids went to school, i stayed home and made apple sauce and beer.

2:30 comes along and it's time to pick up everyone and, oh yeah ... we have that appointment today.

Alleymom

You know, it was almost this time last year that Mrs Kwin and I were shunned by the Walmart People greeter. I guess it's about time again!

I remember reading that thread! I had to laugh ... who gets shunned by the Walmart greeter???!!! What a Rodney Dangerfield moment.

I'm glad to hear you're discussing today's episode with the counselor. This should be a real eye-opener for her. Better than reality tv ... shunning in her own waiting room.

Life is so weird sometimes. Stranger than fiction ...

Marjorie

99

Shunned again, and you won't guess where. EVER.

by kwintestal in

jw
friends

well, we were going about our business today as we usually do on a monday.

mrs kwin went to work, kids went to school, i stayed home and made apple sauce and beer.

2:30 comes along and it's time to pick up everyone and, oh yeah ... we have that appointment today.

Alleymom

So, where were we? What were we doing there? We were at the counsellor's office, for my daughter to talk about the effects of shunning.

Kwin, was it a school counselor or was this a medical appointment? In either case, I agree with the posters who said you should bring this up when you finally do have your consulation with the counselor.

I am very sorry this woman behaved like this in front of your daughter. Did your daughter pick up on it? Did you and your wife discuss it with her afterwards?

Hugs,
Marjorie

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Alleymom

On October 13, 2005 Scholar wrote: Thank you for your additional comments on the subject of malkut from the TDOT and the NIDOTE reference works. Obviously, I could not comment on every point of semantics that these references cover because I would have had to post the entire articles. The additional points that you mention are well known to me as a matter of course.

Neil ---

You didn't have to post the entire article from NIDOTTE. All you had to do was finish quoting the rest of the sentence.

Here is your original statement regarding the (NI)DOTTE:

The DOTTE under a discussion of the root word melek, states that malkut denotes a stronger emphasis on the activity of ruling...refers to the right or office of ruling as king". Such an observation indicates that it is not the duration of regnal years typified by a 'reign' but the characteristic or nature of that reign is implied by this theologically nuanced word.

Here is what the article says, on page 957:

"Although the semantic aspects of these words largely overlap, it seems as though a stronger emphasis is put on the activity of ruling in the case of malkut. It therefore also refers to the right or office of ruling as king (e.g., 1 Sam. 20:31, 1 Kgs 2:12-15, 1 Chron 12:24), royal dignity (Esth 1:4), and even to the period of reign (e.g., Jer. 49:34)."

In this section, NIDOTTE is comparing the words mamlaka and malkut. It says malkut refers to the following:

#1 --- the right of office of ruling as king

#2 --- royal dignity

#3 --- even to the period of reign

You quoted meaning #1. You left out #2 and #3. That's really not cricket, Neil. If your source does not fully support your claim, then you should not quote from it in a way which suggests that it does. Why don't you run this past one of your professors? I think they would agree with me that you are not handling your sources accurately.

Regards,

Marjorie