You should try the New English Translation (NET) and English Standard Version (ESV), both with comprehensive footnotes. If you prefer a literal (Formal Equivalent) translation, the Interlinears are an option. Old Testament: Kohlenberger and Green. New Testament: E.g., NRSV. Logos Electronic Library System has quite a few Interlinears and Back Translations, including the LXX.
Posts by Vidqun
-
28Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?
by Disillusioned JW inwhich english translations of the bible are you favorites, and why?
my favorites include the (english) revised version bible (of 1881-1885) and its apocrypha (of 1898), the american revised version bible (of 1898, it close to the american standard version), the american standard version bible (of 1901), the new american standard bible - updated edition, the new revised standard version bible with the apocrypha, the complete bible: an american translation (it includes the apocrypha), and the twentieth century new testament.
i also use others beside those.. they are my favorites because i consider them to be highly accurate, and also they are either very literal (but not so literal as to be hard to understand) or they use functional equivalence.
-
-
-
67
Vaccine Deaths
by Sea Breeze init is reported that in the usa, 30 people are dying per day after receiving the corona vaccine.
anyone else hear about this?
- article.
-
-
Vidqun
United Kingdom is encouraging people to take second booster in September. Wonder why? That means the jab and first booster's not doing the trick.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Vidqun
Captive of a concept, if ever I saw one. I am determined to defend the indefensible, even willing to be dishonest to back my argument, finding fault with scribes of long ago, attacking the majority of modern day scholars, and unable to realize when I am beaten.
Ironically he allocates himself the lofty moniker "scholar." I am in step, everybody else is out of step.... By the way, associating with a disfellowshipped person is in itself a disfellowshipping offense, is it not? Same goes for participating in an ex-JW message board. For such a great defender of JW theology, you are quite a hypocrite. I guess it goes with the territory.
-
27
Bill Gates Foundation
by jhine inhi everyone , how are ya'll ?
l have a question particularly for any americans on here .
l have an american friend from la who has recently been trying very hard to investigate bill gates and his foundation , she has shared quotes from a lot people making very serious accusations against bill .
-
-
Vidqun
Must be a coincidence. Anyway, you won't find it anywhere on the Web. Web has been scrubbed.
-
27
Bill Gates Foundation
by jhine inhi everyone , how are ya'll ?
l have a question particularly for any americans on here .
l have an american friend from la who has recently been trying very hard to investigate bill gates and his foundation , she has shared quotes from a lot people making very serious accusations against bill .
-
-
-
44
Poll: Atheists overwhelmingly oppose the death penalty, but most Christians favor it
by Disillusioned JW insee https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/06/16/poll-atheists-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-death-penalty-most-christians-favor-it/ .
i am an atheist and i disapprove of the death penalty.
i remember michael dukakis, when he was a usa presidential candidate, saying i he was opposed to the death penalty - even for rapists and murderers.
-
-
Vidqun
An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life, a good law.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Vidqun
Scholar, I think I have an answer to this conundrum. With all those resources at your disposal, why don't you write us a book about the pros and cons of the chronology of the final days of Judah. It seems as though you have researched the subject top to bottom. See what argument makes sense and what argument is totally BS. Beware, you are not allowed to plagiarize Furuli's work or the Watchtower articles or books. These have been dealt with and did not make the grade. Jonson made sure of that. It must be in your own work and words. You should include all or most of above resources to state your case. Then you publish your book so that it could be peer reviewed. You never know, if your thesis is convincing, you will become the new kid on the block, revolutionizing research on chronology.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Vidqun
Scholar, I have comprehensive libraries at my disposal (Logos, Libronix, BibleWorks, the Online Bible, etc.). If I do not have access to an article, I have a huge University Theology library not too far away.
But coming back to the subject at hand, I am thankful that I am not trapped in JW theology anymore. In my pursuit of truth, I now I have the freedom to study all of the above articles at leisure, without the criticism or negative influence of Big brother. See footnote "Devastations vs. reproach."
Hopefully Rolf Furuli will realize that he is now free to pursue his academic interests without the shackles of the Watchtower to drag him down. For years and years he has been trapped in the Freddy Franz mindset. And as has been said repeatedly, his articles and books have been reviewed by his peers and found wanting.
It seems you have the same problem. You should try to break free. It's exhilarating, as though one is discovering a new world. The indoctrination of the Watchtower is harmful to academic research. It forces one in a specific direction and keeps one's intellectual curiosity stunted. The truth is above all of that. Why do you think they vehemently oppose tertiary education?
If you think you have the truth, put it to the test. E.g., compare Biblical chronology of the last days of Judah to Babylonian chronology. There is minor differences that has to do with the regnal and ascension years, but easily explained if you work out what system was followed. It is not necessary to discredit the scribes because you don't like the contents of their tablets. There is no reason why they should falsify the tablets. There are many reasons why the Society would like to discredit them.
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Vidqun
The discrepancy in Daniel and Josephus, part and parcel of the Society's arguments, is easily explained.
Berossus vs. Josephus: Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 BCE), he took Jewish captives into exile, confirming that the 70 year period, as a period of servitude to Babylon, would begin in 605 BCE. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 BCE. Berossus also insists that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year. No cuneiform documents support this. Yet, the book of Daniel (1:1-3) mentions a minor deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim, which would correspond to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 25:1; 46:2). As a minor deportation, it is not surprising that it does not feature on the list of Jeremiah 52:28-30.
The Jewish historian Josephus respected Berossus. However, he states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1 [10.86]. Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7 [10.184]). He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus” (Josephus, Against Apion I, 19 [1.132]). Here he shares the misconception of a later editor and/or redactor of the book of Daniel, “fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years” (cf. Dan. 9:2).[1] The same goes for the second-century (CE) writer Theophilus of Antioch who believed the 70 years would commence with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years. As seen, Jeremiah applied the seventy years to the Judahites’ Babylonian servitude, and not to the desolation of the land.
[1] Devastations vs. reproach. In the OG we have ὀνειδισμός, meaning “reproach” (singular). See NETS. This is viewed as an error in the transmission: Jer. 25:9 καὶ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν and (I turn them) into a disgrace ולחרפות is read for MT ולחרבת and (I will turn them) into desolations. However, as seen, Dan. 9:2 is not drawn from Jer. 29:10, but Jer. 25:9-12. Here it could mean “reproach, disgrace, insult” (cf. Jer. 18:16; 19:8; Ezek. 5:13, 14). Specifically Jer. 25:9וְלִשְׁרֵקָ֔ה וּלְחָרְב֖וֹת עוֹלָֽם , “and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite.” LXX καὶ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, ולחֶרְפַּת. See BHS footnote. KBLex, in accordance with the textcritical note suggests an emendation to לְחֶרְפַּת (“as a disgrace”). See J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. According to secular chronology, Jerusalem did not lie desolate for seventy years, but her reproach and humiliation could have started with Jehoiakim’s three year servitude, completing Jeremiah’s seventy year cycle (2 Kings 24:1, 2; cf. Is. 25:9, 11).
-
150
Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?
by Vanderhoven7 inanybody know something about vat 4956?.
nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?
any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .
-
-
Vidqun
Here's some articles and books on the subject. The list is not up-to-date. There's many more. Compare the "Insight" articles and Furuli's books with these. Secular history and Bible history compares well with each other with few contradictions. The authors of these articles have no hidden agenda:
Since Wiseman’s complete translation of the Chronicles in 1956, many pertinent studies and reviews have appeared which deal specifically with the problems of the chronology of the last days of Judah. Among the more important, from the most recent in chronological order, are the following: A. Malamat, “The Last Years of the Kingdom of Judah” and H. Tadmor, “The Chronology of the First Temple Period,” The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (WHJP 4/1; ed. A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Massada Press, 1979) pp. 44–60; pp. 205–21; B. Oded, “The Last Days of Judah and the Destruction of Jerusalem (609–586),” Israelite and Judaean History (ed. John H. Hayes and Maxwell Miller; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977) pp. 469–476; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles; A. Malamat, “The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom,” VTSup 28 (1975) pp. 121–145; E. Stern, “Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey,” BA 38 (1975) pp. 26–54; E. Kutsch, “Das Jahr der Katastrophe: 587 v. Chr.,” Bib 55 (1974) pp. 520–545; D. J. A. Clines, “The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-Exilic Israel Reconsidered,” JBL 93 (1974) pp. 22–40; J. M. Myers, “Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries b.c.,” Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971) pp. 377–392; K. S. Freedy and D. B. Redford, “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian, and Egyptian Sources,” JAOS 70 (1970) pp. 462–485; K. T. Anderson, “Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda,” ST 23 (1969) pp. 69–119; S. B. Frost, “The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence,” JBL 87 (1968) pp. 369–382; A. Malamat, “The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem,” IEJ 18 (1968) pp. 137–156; S. H. Horn, “Where and When was the Aramaic Saqqara Papyrus Written,” AUSS 6 (1968) pp. 29–45; “The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah,” AUSS 5 (1967) pp. 12–27; G. Larsson, “When did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?” JTS 18 (1967) 417–423; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) pp. 161–173; John Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden City: Doubleday, 1956) xlvi–lv; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University, 1964) pp. 87–92; D. N. Freedman, “Old Testament Chronology,” The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G. Ernest Wright; Garden City: Doubleday, 1961) pp. 265–299; M. Noth, “Die Einnahme von Jerusalem in Jahre 597 v. Chr.,” ZDPV 74 (1968) pp. 133–157; F. Nötscher, “ ‘Neue’ babylonische Chroniken und Altes Testament,” BZ 1 (1957) pp. 110–114; E. Vogt, “Die neubabylonische Chronik über die Schlacht bie Karkemish und die Einnahme von Jerusalem,” VTSup 4 (1957) pp. 67–96; D. N. Freedman, “The Babylonian Chronicle,” BA 19 (1956) pp. 50–60; A. Malamat, “A New Record of Nebuchadrezzar’s Palestinian Campaign,” IEJ 6 (1956) pp. 246–256; J. P. Hyatt, “New Light on Nebuchadrezzar and Judean History,” JBL 75 (1956) pp. 277–284; H. Tadmor, “Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah,” JNES 15 (1956) pp. 226–230; E. R. Thiele, “New Evidence on the Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah,” BASOR 143 (1956) pp. 22–27; W. F. Albright, “The Nebuchadrezzar and Neriglissar Chronicles,” BASOR 143 (1956) pp. 28–33.