Posts by Jeffro

99

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

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

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"

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.

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'.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Jeffro

To be fair, so did a lot of ex-JWs when they first came here. Pointing that fact out is probably not going to help them overcome their cognitive dissonance.

However, there is a difference between honest people looking for answers, and someone here simply to stubbornly and dogmatically 'defend' an indefensible point.

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.

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.

99

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

by in a new york bethel minute in

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

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.

99

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

by in a new york bethel minute in

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

Jeffro

Yes there was an exile where some of the population including Daniel and the princes were taken to Babylon in the 7/8th year of Nebuchadnezzer which was the first deportation. Asecond deportation of thge entire population of Jews in Neb/s 18th year caused the entire land to be desolate thus commencing the seventy years foretols by Jeremiah and confirmed by Josephus who quioted Jeremiah. Josephus confirms the description and use of language that the land was desolated for seventy years. These are the plain simple facts and cannot be overturned by faulty or perverted reasoning.

No scholar, you've got it completely wrong yet again.

Daniel and his companions were taken earlier, in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Most, not some, were exiled in the 7/8th year. And according to the bible, less than a thousand were taken in the 18th year, and nearly as many were taken again in the 23yrd year. The main exile according to the bible was in the 7/8th year, so why don't your esteemed WT 'scolar's start their seventy years from then? It is because their previous 1914 wall over in a heap, which it does in view of the facts anyway.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Jeffro

Since January 7, 2001

Sorry scholar, my mistake. I thought you meant that you had actually had some success, not that you were merely defending it.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Jeffro

I thank you for your criticism. Scholar is a dummy and not very bright at anythning and that is why he is unworthy of being credited as one of those'celebrated WT scholars'. Scholar hangs his head in shame but the only time he can raise his head is when he ably defends Wt biblical chronology and so he does have some purpose after all.

And when will that be?

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.

Jeffro

Daniel 1:1 cannot be used to support the view that Neb took Judean captives in his first or acc year because Daniel does not tell us what year it was that coincided with the third year of Jehoiakim's kingship. However, Josephus does give us this relevant piece of information when he coincides this event as the Neb's 8th year with the 11 th year of Jehoiakim when the first deporation occurred in 617 BCE. Also, the Hebrew word translated kingship does not equate with reign so Daniel is not talking about the third regnal year of Jehoiakim but rather the third year of his vassalage as Josephus confirms.

Yes, Josephus indicates that Jehoiakim's 11th year is Nebuchadnezzar's 8th, and it should be enough for most people that 11 is not equal to 3, but you seem to be a special case in this area. If we take 8 off both, we arrive at Jehoiakim's 3rd year, and Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. Therefore Josephus certainly does provide evidence that backs up Daniel 1:1 which confirms that Nebuchadnezzar took captives in his accession year. The 'kingship' thing again... 'scholar', we've been through this... the Hebrew word translated 'kingship' in the NWT is not a different word to 'reign' at all. There is simply is no different word used. You can't actually specify what two different words are contrasted, because there is only one word in question. Daniel didn't say 'vassalage', or 'rule relative to Nebuchadnezzar's rule', or anything confusing. He used the Hebrew word for 'reign', which does not indicate anything other than what would typically construed, specifically the third year from the start of his ruling (using the accession year system, which corresponds to his fourth year according to Jeremiah). If for argument's sake you were right, what alternative Hebrew word would you suggest Daniel would have used if he meant 'reign' instead of 'kingship'?

Josephus who is the prominent authority on Berossus does not detail the histgory of Nebuchadnezzer but the Bible gives more informatgion and this is confirmed by what information Josephus does give for this period. Your opinion of the matter is unsupported by the Bible and by Josephus and by celebrated WT scholars.

Your statement that my opinion is unsupported by the bible and by Josephus is simply a lie, as I have a constructed chronology which is completely harmonious with both. It is only the salivating WT scholars that I (along with the entire professional community) am at odds with.

You continually suggest that the Society's interpretation is factual on the basis that the Society's interpretation is consistent with the Society's interpretation, and that the facts must be wrong because they are not consistent with the Society's interpretation. Are you sure you know who's side you're on because you're certainly not making the Society's scholarship look too bright.

68

This One Is For Scholar And His Celebrated WT Scholars

by Honesty in

i have some quotes from several respected bible linguists regarding the new world translation: .

dr. julius mantey - "a manual grammar of the greek new testament" calls the new world translation "a shocking mistranslation".

dr. bruce metzger, late professor of new testament at princeton university -"a frightful mistranslation", "erroneous", "pernicious", and "reprehensible".

Jeffro

I went on the ministry this morning and placed 4 magazines

Why?