Posts by Earnest

126

DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire in

jw
friends

.

i think as time goes on and dna gets understood better and better it will be imposible for fundamental christians to defend thier position against evolution.

kind of like the catholic church going against galileio saying the "earth is not the center of the universe".. "eventually"(maybe not now) to fight against the evidence makes you look very stupid and under heavy mind control.. don't get me wrong i beleive there is a god, and i think he used "gradualism" to create the universe and life, i even feel the first 2 chapter of genesis are discribing a very long drawn out process that took just as evolutionist are telling us, billions of years till finally man appears.. eventually the wt is going to have to change its understanding of genesis to even stay credible..

Earnest

Have I missed something ? Just what does DNA establish about man's origin ?

32

MILLIONS PROTESTING AGAINST WAR

by Realist in

jw
friends

.

millions have protested against bush and his blood for oil war all across europe and the world!.

there is still hope for peace!

Earnest

Revolting has been an american way of life since the beginning.

True, true.

19

JW growth

by larc in

jw
friends

there has been much discussion here regarding the growth rate of the jws.

i thought i would put up some numbers that show the long term trends.

first of all, i would like to state that there was surprisingly little growth under rutherford.

Earnest

Hi larc,

So, here are some numbers on growth rates: 1941-1963: 11%, 1963-1974: 6.6%, 1974-1990: 4.5%, 1990-1995: 4%, 1995-2002: 2.26%.

It is interesting to compare the world population growth rates for the same periods (derived from http://blue.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html) :

1950 - 1963 : 1.8%, 1963-1974 : 2.0%, 1974-1990 : 1.7%, 1990-1995 : 1.46%, 1995-2002 : 1.27%.

This suggests that in the last seven years more than half the growth was natural. However, I think the natural growth is less in first world countries and the increase is from less developed regions.

If that is so it suggests that their increase will continue. Why ? Because 95% of the 78 million people added to the world each year live in the less developed regions. ( http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf)

Regards,

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 12 February 2003 20:57:56

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

In other words, you'd have to show why using "utensils" in verses 7 and 18 is better than using "articles"...

That is just what I did in the context of the way the NWT translated keliy elsewhere. But I am quite happy to answer your questions :

What context in 2 Chron. 36:5-8 indicates that keliy in verse 7 should not be rendered "articles"?

I previously showed that the NWT translates keliy as articles when it specifically qualifies the keliy as valuable. As the keliy of verse 7 is associated with the house of Jehovah but has no further qualification it should be rendered as "utensils", not "articles".

What context in 2 Chron. 36:11-21 indicates that keliy in verse 18 should not be rendered "articles"?

I previously showed that the NWT translates keliy as articles when it specifically qualifies the keliy as valuable. As the keliy of verse 18 is associated with the house of the true God but has no further qualification it should be rendered as "utensils", not "articles".

Do you think that verse 10 excludes things that are sacred?

No.

Why do you claim that it's best to use "utensils" in verses 7 and 18, rather than "articles"?

I am claiming it is most consistent to use "utensils" in verses 7 and 18, rather than "articles". See the answers above.

Why do you claim that "articles" does not fit in verses 7 and 18?

See the answers above.

Your overall argument implies that keliy means one thing in verse 7, something else in verse 10, and in verse 18 the same thing as in verse 7. How do you know that these meanings are not all the same?

I do not know the meaning of keliy in these three verses. I agreed that it could be translated with the same word in each case or a different word in each case. But I am talking about consistency in translation and my argument is that the NWT is consistent in the way it has translated these three verses. I think it probable that there is a difference between what is described in verse 7 and verse 10 because why qualify the one as "desirable" and not the other. But I do not know that. I cannot prove it. I can only say it is probable. But I am convinced that the NWT is consistent in the way it has translated keliy in these three verses.

If I told you that on my wife's 45th birthday I gave her "some things", and on her 46th birthday I gave her "valuable things", and on her 47th I gave her "a lot of things", would my use of "valuable" imply in any way that what I gave her the other two times was not valuable?

No. The other two times they may have been valuable and they may have been a bunch of flowers or a hat. We cannot know. But we do know that on her 46th birthday you definitely gave her "valuable things".

The overall flow of narrative in 2 Chron. 36 is to briefly describe, in chronological order, certain main features of the reigns of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. During Jehoiakim's reign, "some" keliy were deported. During Jehoiachin's reign, "desirable" keliy were deported. During Zedekiah's reign, "all" remaining keliy were deported. Does this sequence not suggest to you that the keliy in each case were in exactly the same category, i.e., "stuff from the temple"? Explain your answer.

Yes, the keliy in each case was "stuff from the temple". But as the second set of keliy was qualified as "desirable" that suggests to me that a distinction has been made.

Do you think that it is reasonable to claim that the keliy taken during Jehoiakim's reign did not include valuable things?

No, I think it probably did include valuable things. But that is an assumption. The difference may be that in the first and last instances there was a mix of valuable things and other things whereas in the second instance there were only valuable things (probably gold and silver). All I know for sure is that the writer made a distinction. Without further information that has to be good enough in itself.

AlanF : What is wrong is for someone to argue that this has any significance in determining how many deportations of "articles" occurred.
Earnest : Exactly. And that is as true of Jonsson as it is of "scholar".
AlanF : That would be true if Jonsson's argument hinged on the proper tranlsation of keliy in each verse.
AlanF : The argument is not based on "a generic word". It is based on the fact that three deportations of keliy from the temple are recorded.

We are both talking about whether or not the translation of keliy is relevant to the number of deporations. And we are agreed it is not. We are also agreed that the difference in the translation of keliy in the NWT is intentional. Can we let it rest there.

I was interested to see your quote from Alan Rogerson's book. The first, and one of the fairest, non-Witness books about the Witnesses that I have read. I believe he is now in Melbourne, Australia. I wonder if he's one of the Wallabies on this board ?

Oh, and finally some interesting points from the most recent volume "scholar" referred to: Word Biblical Commentary, volume 13, by T.R.Hobbs, 1985, pp.348-353 (2 Kings 24):

Comment
The Babylonian Chronicle (see Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, 1956, 43-77, and Grayson, Texts from Cuneiform Sources - Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles , 1975, 99-102) provides an outline of the international events that led up to the Babylonian invasion and the sacking of Jerusalem. To be noted is that from 609 B.C. onward the Babylonian interests under Nabopolassar are decidedly towards the west. In mid-609 B.C. Nabopolassar's army attacked Harran (BM 29101:66-75). In the following year they fought against Beit Hanunya and returned home in the month of Tebet (BM 22047:1-4). Early in 607 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, was engaged against various enemies on the banks of the Euphrates (BM 22407:5-15), and in the latter part of 606 B.C. Nabopolassar fought against Egyptian and Syrian armies in the northwest of his territory.
In 605 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar fought at the head of the Babylonian army at Carchemish (BM 21946:1-10) and returned home to assume the throne on the death of his father. Then followed a series of campaigns into "Hatti" (Palestine), after which he returned home in 605/604 B.C. in the eleventh month. In his first year (604/603 B.C.) he marched into Palestine, and by the ninth month (Kislev) he had sacked Ashkelon. In the second month (Iyyar) of the following year (603/602 B.C.) he again ventured into Palestine, as he did again in the third month (Siwan) of his third year (602/601 B.C.). Late in his fourth year (601/600 B.C.) he marched against the borders of Egypt but was met with a serious setback and consequently spent his fifth year recuperating and refitting his army. In 599/598 B.C., in the ninth month (Kislev), he again moved west and plundered several Arab towns to the east of Palestine. The following year he attacked Palestine, again in the ninth month. The account offers very specific details of his capture of Jerusalem on the second day of Adar (the twelfth month), ie, February 16, 597 B.C.
This sketch of international affairs, to which can be added the activities of Psammetichus II of Egypt, provides the background for the events found in 2 Kgs 24 and 25. Sometime after the defeat of the Egyptian army at Carchemish in 605 B.C., Judah became subject to Babylon. Exactly when is not known. The campaign to Ashkelon in 604/603 B.C. would provide a suitable context for this (see A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah in the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom", VTSup 28, 1974, 129-31, for the possibilities).
1 With this verse compare 2 Chr 36:6-7, which is not a complete parallel. Chronicles adds the note about the confiscation of the temple vessels and their installation in Nebuchadrezzar's temple in Babylon, a statement challenged by Jer 27:18. On the use of "attack" see 3:21; 6:24; 16:5, etc. The expression "in his days" is not helpful in dating the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar. It must have been sufficiently early in the reign of Jehoiakim to allow him three years' servitude. The campaign records in the Babylonian Chronicle are imprecise enough to be of little use. The most likely context is the Babylonian attack on Ashkelon in Kislev of 604/603 B.C. (so Malamat, VTSup 28:131-32, and Albright, "The Seal of Eliakim and the latest Pre-exilic History of Judah", JBL 51 [1932] 90-91). Josephus (Antiq. x. 87) mistakenly places the first invasion of Nebuchadrezzar in his fourth year (i.e., 601/600 B.C.), but the Babylonian Chronicle proves this to be false. Larsson ("When Did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?", JTS 18 [1967] 417-23) seeks to harmonize this material with Chronicles and comes up with a date of 605 B.C. for Jehoiakim's subjugation. But this is unlikely.
..."then he turned in rebellion" is a synonym for "revolt" (see 1:1; 3:5); LXX translates both with ethetesen. The rebellion could well have taken place within the period between Kislev 601/600 B.C. and Kislev 599/598 B.C. The first of these dates corresponds to Nebuchadrezzar's abortive attack on Egypt; the second is the date of his attack on Hatti and the neighboring Arabs. In the year between, no military activity took place. Instead, Nebuchadrezzar stayed at home to refit.
2 ...
"raiding bands." These marauders, lightly armed troops best suited for hit-and-run tactics, were taking advantage of the relatively weak position of Judah at this time. The nature of the coalition suggests that Nebuchadrezzar hired mercenaries from the east of the Jordan to act on his behalf, presumably until he was strong enough himself to launch a full-scale attack on Palestine. This attack did not come until Kislev of 598/597 B.C. (see BM 21946: 11-13). The subjugation of the Arabs the year before would have provided the Babylonians with sufficient power east of the Jordan to encourage such mercenary raids on Judah. That these raids netted Nebuchadrezzar some Jewish prisoners (so Malamat, VTSup 28:131) is an attractive possibility. It is unlikely that such raids were just for fun. It might also help solve some of the confusing problems over the final number of prisoners taken into exile. The situation is reflected in Jer 35:11....
5 Compare with 2 Chr 36:5-8 and note the minor additions. No mention is made in Kings of Jehoiakim's death, whereas the account in Chronicles states that the Babylonian king had him bound and dragged off to Babylon. Josephus (Antiq. x.97-98) adopts a similar understanding of events, although in his account Jehoiakim is subsequently executed. Josephus's chronology has recently been revived by Larsson (JTS 18 [1967] 417-23), and [Bustenay] Oded , "Judah and the Exile," in: John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History, 1977 , 471) attempts a synchronization. However, the expression "he slept with his fathers" would suggest burial of some form in Jerusalem, not beyond Judah. This point is made by codex Vaticanus, which adds "in the garden of Uzzah." There is nothing here to throw light on Jeremiah's comment (Jer 22:19; 36:30) on the death of the king. The suggestion that the king was assassinated (so Bright, History of Israel, 1972, 327) is certainly possible, but one would have expected a reference to it in the text....
8 The record of the reign of Jehoiachin begins with the typical formulaic introduction. "eighteen years old." 2 Chr 36:9 reads "eight," but this is unlikely. An eight-year-old boy who reigned for three months is hardly likely to have merited the criticism offered in v 9....
10 The Babylonian army attacked Jerusalem in response to the rebellion. According to the Babylonian Chronicle the attack began in the month of Kislev (Nov.-Dec.) 598/597 B.C. and ended three months later on the second day of Adar (Feb.-Mar. 597 B.C.). On the dating, see E. Kutsch, "Das Jahr der Katastrophe, 587 v. Chr.", Biblica 55 (1974) 520-45. The three-month period corresponds neatly with the length of the reign of Jehoiachin....
12 ...
"in the eighth year of his reign." The date is according to Nebuchadrezzar's reign. The perspective is therefore now that of one who was familiar with the Babylonian method of reckoning, or familiar with the date of Nebuchadrezzar's accession. It corresponds well with the date in the Babylonian Chronicle. To build too much on this in terms of the redaction history of the book (see J. Gray, I and II Kings, Old Testament Library, 753) is a mistake. Jer 52:28, universally regarded as a later edition of the fall of Jerusalem, reads "seventh," which ignores the Babylonian reckoning by not taking into account the accession year of the king. According to the Chronicle, the city fell on the second of Adar (Feb. 16) in the seventh year of the king. The exile of prisoners would have taken some weeks to organize and would therefore have taken place in the early months of the following year, the eighth.
13 Following the fall of the city, the Babylonians help themselves to the spoils of war. As one might expect, the temple and palace treasures are a primary target, as had happened many times before. Not only is the pattern followed, but also the prophecy of 20:16-19 is now being fulfilled....It is argued that Jer 27:19-22 is a contradiction because it refers to vessels still in the temple during the reign of Zedekiah. There is no contradiction here. In neither account, Babylonian or Judean, is it stated that everything was looted. Nebuchadrezzar clearly made provision for the continuation of the economic and political life of Judah after the first deportation, albeit in a much reduced form, by the appointment of Zedekiah as king.
15 ...When compared, the two passages [verse 14 and verses 15 & 16] betray a different interest. V 14 is concerned mainly with the removal of specifically military personnel from the Jerusalem establishment. Vv 15-16 are more widely based. Malamat's suggestion (VTSup 28:133-35) that the addition of 3,023 (Jer 52:28) and 7,000 (v 16) is approximately 10,000 (v 14), and that there were therefore two initial deportations in the seventh and eighth years of Nebuchadrezzar is most tempting. The initial 3,023 referred to the "Jews," i.e., those from outside Jerusalem who were deported before the fall of the city by the army Nebuchadrezzar had left in Palestine when he returned home after the Arab campaign in his sixth year. It is here, however, that the theory falters. That Nebuchadrezzar left such an army behind is unlikely and is not supported by the Babylonian Chronicle.

Earnest

Edited by - Earnest on 9 February 2003 6:57:8

49

AlanF Is a Sucker

by onacruse in

jw
friends

he sucks up so much bandwidth that he's now an emperor!.

thanks for hammering on that keyboard, alan.

you've helped a lot of people see the light, including me (even if it did take a few years .

Earnest

onacruse:

A Freudian slip : morituri te salutant Latin "those about to die salute thee"

(this gladiator has no plans of dying in combat)

Edited by - Earnest on 9 February 2003 6:44:59

49

AlanF Is a Sucker

by onacruse in

jw
friends

he sucks up so much bandwidth that he's now an emperor!.

thanks for hammering on that keyboard, alan.

you've helped a lot of people see the light, including me (even if it did take a few years .

Earnest

Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

So far you have not presented an iota of argument about why context indicates that keliy ought to be rendered in verses 7 and 18 different from verse 10 in the NWT. I have no argument with rendering keliy as "articles" in 36:10, or in a vacuum rendering 36:7, 18 as "utensils", but the claim is made that the NWT is consistent in translating specific Hebrew words into unique, specific English words as long as context permits, but neither you nor "scholar" has given a single bit of argument about why the context of verse 10 is so different from that of verses 7 and 18 that it is justifed (in NWT Translation Committee terms) to render the word keliy differently in the one verse.

Isn't it peculiar how two people can see things so differently. Knowing that the NWT translates keliy as utensil(s) when it refers to something sacred, and article(s) when it refers to something valuable, it seems glaringly obvious to me why it should be translated as articles in verse 10 and utensils in verses 7 and 18. It almost seems an insult to your intelligence to spell out what is obvious to me so please understand it is not meant in that spirit. And if we still cannot agree then let us accept that either you or I have a blind spot in this matter (and it ain't me ).

In verse 10 the expression is keliy chemdah which is translated as desirable articles.

The word chemdah comes from the root word chemed meaning to desire, take pleasure in as a verb, and a desire or delight as a noun (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT, Brown, Driver, Briggs, 1929, p.326). The NWT translates chemdah as desirable in 22 of the 25 occurrences, desired once (2 Chronicles 21:20), desire once (Daniel 11:37) and dainty [bread] once (Daniel 10:3). All the references in Chronicles (except 21:20 above) refer to desirable articles but the sense can also be derived from the other scriptures:

Ezra 8:27 "...as desirable [chemdah] as gold."

Daniel 11:8 "...their desirable articles [chemdah keliy] of silver and of gold..."

Daniel 11:38 "...by means of gold and by means of silver and by means of precious stone and by means of desirable things [chemdah]."

Daniel 11:43 "...hidden treasures of the gold and the silver and over all the desirable [chemdah] things of Egypt."

The fact that the NWT consistently translates keliy as article(s) when it refers to something valuable is easily verified. To cite a few examples:

"articles [keliy] of silver and articles [keliy] of gold" - Genesis 24:53; Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35; 2 Samuel 8:10; 1 Kings 10:25; 2 Chronicles 9:24.

"articles [keliy] of copper" - Joshua 6:19,24; 2 Samuel 8:10; Ezekiel 27:13.

"article [keliy] of skin [leather]" - Leviticus 13:49,52,53,57-59; Numbers 31:20.

In the three instance of keliy under consideration in 2 Chronicles 36 they all refer to keliy "of the house of Jehovah" and "of the house of the (true) God" so without further qualification we would expect the NWT to translate them as "utensils" as reference to something sacred. In verse 10 there is the additional qualification that they are "desirable keliy" which does not apply to keliy in verses 7 & 18 and so it is consistent to translate that instance of keliy as "desirable articles". QED

Jonsson's argument is valid whether keliy is rendered "articles", "vessels", "utensils", "stuff" or anything else consistent with context.

Perhaps I should rephrase my conclusion : The three references to keliy in 2 Chronicles 36:7,10,18 do not in themselves establish how many deportations of "articles" occurred. This can only be established by consideration of additional information. Happy ?

scholar:

I applaud Earnest in posting the section from this commentary series on the book of 2 Chronicles as it contains some interesting observations.

I appreciate your applause but the onus is really on you to post the information to which you refer. As Alan said, I'm just a "regular guy" with a regular job. To get hold of your references I must cycle to the library in my lunchtime and then copy it out or borrow the publication if I am allowed. I have no problem with that in itself - I enjoy the research. But I do think you should carry your own load. That having been said I would not discourage you from citing academic papers to support your contentions. Chronology is an academic subject. But if you wish to be considered seriously you must make your information available and demonstrate you are using it in context.

Earnest

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Craig (aka onacruse):

Thank you for your kind words, but you are far too modest about your own contributions which are always thought-provoking. In some respects I'm a bit of a strawman, not because my argument is weak, but because I am not defending an ideology except truth itself. My identification with JWs is not dependent on 1914 or any other year as I simply believe that Jehovah has used them to further his purpose in the same way that he used the Catholic Church, the reformers (like Luther and Tyndale) and various Bible Societies that exist today. It is not quite orthodox but that has never been my strength.

AlanF:

But your conclusion is based only on the fact that the New World Translation in seven out of eight instances translates keliy chemdah as "desirable articles". It isn't based on context, since there is nothing in the context that allows one to tell just what "articles" are being referred to. All you've really shown is that it's reasonable for the NWT to use "valuable articles" in verse 10. You haven't shown why it's best to use "utensils" in verses 7 and 18. To form a valid conclusion you would have to show precisely why "articles" does not fit in verses 7 and 18. In other words, you'd have to show why using "utensils" in verses 7 and 18 is better than using "articles" -- but you can't, because there is no textual or contextual way of doing that.

You are quite correct that keliy could be translated differently in each verse as the New Jerusalem Bible does, or with the same word in each case as you proposed. However, in the context of the NWT where it used utensils when keliy refers to sacred "stuff" and articles when keliy refers to valuable "stuff" it is quite clear why using "utensils" in verses 7 and 18 is better than using "articles". It does not mean that the other translations are wrong or inferior, just that the NWT is consistent with its own terms of reference.

What is wrong is for someone to argue that this has any significance in determining how many deportations of "articles" occurred.

Exactly. And that is as true of Jonsson as it is of "scholar".

Earnest

25

Is the GB and FDS the same thing?

by William Penwell in

jw
friends

this may have come up before in discussion so my apologies if it old stuff.

interesting point that the district overseer seemed to make a distinction between the governing body and the faithful and discreet slave class.

when i was growing up it was always the same thing.

Earnest

*** w71 12/15 760-1 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
HOW THE GOVERNING BODY CAME TO EXIST
How did this governing body make its appearance in recent times? Evidently under the direction of Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ. According to the facts available, the governing body became associated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. C. T. Russell was patently of that governing body back there in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Being fully dedicated to God through Christ, he set himself to apply his time, energy, abilities, wealth and influence to defending Gods inspired Word and spreading its message. To that end he began publishing Zions Watch Tower back there in July of 1879, believing, as he said in its columns, that this had Jehovahs backing, and hence there would be no solicitation for money. He manifested the qualifications of an overseer as set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and accordingly he was requested by the congregation of Christian Bible students at Allegheny to serve as its pastor or spiritual shepherd. Five years later Zions Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated and served as an "agency" to minister spiritual food to thousands of sincere persons seeking to know God and to understand his Word and to come into relationship with him through Christ.
Dedicated, baptized, anointed Christians became associated with that Society at headquarters in Pennsylvania. Whether on the Board of Directors or not, they rendered themselves available for special work of the "faithful and discreet slave" class. They aided in the feeding and directing of the slave class, and thus a governing body made its appearance. This was evidently under the guidance of Jehovahs invisible active force or holy spirit.

*** w72 12/15 755 Do You Submit to Christ's Headship Today? ***
This governing body is the administrative part of a "faithful and discreet slave" or "steward" class concerning which Jesus promised: "His master . . . will appoint him over all his belongings." (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-44)

Edited by - Earnest on 5 February 2003 19:42:40

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

Earnest

Many thanks, Alan, for your further discussion of whether or not there is a distinction between the keliy of 2 Chronicles 36:10 and verses 7 & 18. It gave me more to chew on and I would like to share my additional conclusions as to why a different word has been used in translating verse 10.

I first considered how keliy has been translated in the NWT in all 325 occurrences. Strong's Lexicon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1044315878-9034.html) gives the basic meaning of the word as article, vessel, implement, or utensil and three of the four are the primary words used to translate it in the NWT - article(s) : 59; vessel(s) : 56; and utensil(s) : 101. However, it soon became clear to me that there was a certain consistency in the words used to translate keliy.

utensil(s) was used when it referred to something sacred, so there were the "utensils of the tabernacle", "utensils of the altar", "utensils of the tent of meeting", "utensils of the holy place", "utensils made for Baal", "utensils of the true God", "utensils for the ministry" etc.

vessel(s) was used when the keliy contained liquids, so there were "vessels for oil", "water in a vessel", "drinking vessels", "wine to drink in gold vessels" and, euphemistically, the "vessels of the young men" (1 Sam.21:5 ftn).

article(s) was used when it referred to something valuable, so there were "articles of silver", "articles of gold", "articles of copper", "articles of skin" (leather), "desirable articles".

instrument(s) was used when it referred to something used for music, so there were "instruments of song", "instruments of the string type", "instruments of David", "loud instruments".

So, even if keliy is used several times in the same chapter it is consistent to consider the meaning of each reference and translate it according to its context. Consider the following passages :

Exodus 35:10-19, 22 "And let all the wise-hearted ones among you come and make all that Jehovah has commanded, namely the tabernacle...; the table and its poles and all its utensils [keliy] and the showbread; and the lampstand of illumination and its utensils [keliy]...; the altar of burnt offering and the copper grating that is for it, its poles and all its utensils [keliy];...Then they came...and they brought...Jehovah's contribution for the work of the tent of meeting...They brought brooches and earrings and rings and female ornaments, all sorts of articles [keliy] of gold..."

1 Kings 7:40-51 "...At length Hiram finished doing all the work that he did for King Solomon as respects the house of Jehovah: The two pillars...and the cans and the shovels and the bowls and all these utensils [keliy], which Hiram made of polished copper for King Solomon for the house of Jehovah...And Solomon left all the utensils [keliy] (unweighed) because of so extraordinarily great a quantity...And Solomon gradually made all the utensils [keliy] that pertained to the house of Jehovah...Finally all the work that King Solomon had to do as regards the house of Jehovah was at its completion; and Solomon began to bring in the things made holy by David his father; the silver and the gold and the articles [keliy] he put in the treasures of the house of Jehovah."

1 Chronicles 18:3-10 "And David went on to strike down Hadadezer the king of Zobah...And from Tibhath and Cun...David took very much copper. With it Solomon made the copper sea and the pillars and the copper utensils [keliy]. When Tou the king of Hamath...sent Hadoram his son to King David...(there were with him) all sorts of articles [keliy] of gold and silver and copper."

Now let's consider the expression used in 2 Chronicles 36:10, namely keliy chemdah. This expression occurs seven other times in the OT, at 2 Chronicles 20:25; 32:27; 36:19; Jeremiah 25:34; Daniel 11:8; Hosea 13:15 and Nahum 2:9. In each instance it is translated as desirable articles except for Jeremiah 25:34 which renders it as desirable vessel because the context is that the "shepherds" would "fall like a desirable vessel".

So my conclusion is that the editor of Chronicles used keliy chemdah quite deliberately to distinguish the articles from the utensils in verses 7 & 18, and possibly to link it with the desirable articles of verse 19. Just why he did so I would not care to speculate, but I am convinced the distinction was made in the original and correctly conveyed in the translation.

Finally, as a public service I include the relevant sections from the Word Biblical Commentary on 2 Chronicles by Raymond Dillard, 1987, pp.297-303:

Form/Structure/Setting
...The Chronicler has arranged the accounts to portray two themes: (1) the common fate of the last four kings, each ending in exile, and (2) the tribute paid by each, largely through spoliation of the temple. This has the effect of drawing a parallel between the fate of the Davidic dynasty and the temple: both destined for exile, but with hope of restoration....
A wealth of both biblical and extrabiblical evidence is available for the study of the closing decades of the kingdom of Judah. Within the canon the historical records in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented particularly by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Outside the canon abundant Egyptian and Babylonian epigraphic materials, as well as some discoveries in Israel, supplement the biblical accounts; pride of place in this regard must go to the Babylonian chronicles (see D. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings). For efforts to integrate the details of these sources, see...A. Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem", IEJ 18 (1968) 137-56; "The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom", Congress Volume, Edinburgh, 1974. VTSup 28 (1975) 123-45; H. Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15 (1956) 226-30; H. Ginsberg, "Judah and the Transjordan States from 734-582 B.C.", Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 1950, 347-68; J. Myers, "Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.", in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. H. Goedicke, 1971, 377-92; A. Green, "The Fate of Jehoiakim", Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (1982) 103-9. E. Stern (Biblical Archaeologist 38 [1975] 26-54) provides a summary of the material evidence....
Comment
4-8 Jehoiakim reigned from Tishri, 609 B.C. until his death in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, 598/97 B.C. For detailed discussion of the chronological issues in this period, see K. Freedy & D. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources", Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970) 462-85.
...While Kings reports his death (2 Kgs 24:6), the Chronicler does not report the death of any of the last four kings of Judah. Instead of reporting Jehoiakim's death, the Chronicler chooses to report an incident from earlier in his reign in which Jehoiakim was either taken into temporary exile or at least prepared for it....No extant evidence corroborates an exile for Jehoiakim at some earlier point in his reign, and scholarly opinion is divided on whether such an exile took place or was only provided for or intended; the language of the Chronicler (36:6, "bound him to take him") makes allowance for the latter approach. It is conceivable that the binding of Jehoiakim was a symbolic demonstration of his status; the threat alone may have made actual deportment unnecessary. If a literal deportation is intended, it should be associated with the deportation of Daniel and his friends along with articles from the temple (36:7; Dan 1:1-3; Jer 46:2) in Jehoiakim's third year (605 B.C.) after Nebuchadnezzar defeated Neco at Carchemish....
The temple vessels are an important theme in the biblical historical and prophetic writings;
Jehoiakim remained the submisive vassal of Nebuchadnezzar for three years (2 Kgs 24:1), but then rebelled. His death left his son Jehoiachin to bear the brunt of the Babylonian reaction.
...Jeremiah's prophecy suggests that Jehoiakim did not die a natural death but may have been assassinated at approximately the time the armies of Nebuchadnezzar set out to retaliate for his rebellion, though there is no direct confirmation for this.
9-10 The Chronicler...reports only his exile and payment from the temple implements.
The submission of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar is dated in the Babylonian Chronicle on the second day of Adar in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year (16 March 597 B.C.). The Babylonian Chronicle provides striking confirmation of the biblical accounts: "In the seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar], the month Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the city of Judah, and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice, received its heavy tribute and sent them to Babylon (Wiseman, Chronicles, 73).
For the compiler of Kings the release of Jehoiachin from prison during the reign of Amel-Marduck (562-560 B.C.) demonstrated that the house of David was the continuing object of divine favor even during the captivity (2 Kgs 25:27-29). Cuneiform administrative documents known as the Weidner tablets (ANET, 308) record supplies delivered to Jehoiachin and his household during their captivity in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar....
Jeremiah's "seventy years" have been variously dated, and the biblical text itself may show multiple understandings of the span of time intended in the reference. At least three possibilities offer themselves. (1) The exile ran from the first deportation (605/4 B.C.) until the decree of Cyrus (539 B.C.). The time period is not exactly seventy years, but close enough. This seems to be the understanding of Dan.9:25 where the end of the seventy years is associated with the decree to rebuild; Daniel himself would have been an exile for this period. The Chronicler (36:20-22) clearly associates the end of Jeremiah's seventy years with Cyrus's decree. (2) The exile ran from the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C. to the dedication of the second temple in 516 B.C. This may be the understanding of a passage like Zech. 1:12-17: Zechariah, from his vantage in 520 B.C., still looks for an end to the seventy years; the end of that period is asociated with the reconstruction of the city and God's return to the temple. (3) It is possible that the seventy-year figure is not intended to have a literal referent, but is symbolic for a less defined period of judgement. It is striking that both Daniel and Chronicles use the seventy-year figure as symbolic of larger time periods which als do not have clear referents (36:21; Dan 9:24-27)....

Earnest