Posts by Bart Belteshassur

11

How does the latest translation of Kings 24:12 in the Common English Bible change our views on the date of Jerusalem's destruction?

by Bart Belteshassur in

the last clause of verse 12, kings 24 has always appeared to me to be somewhat ambiguous,.

"and the king of babylon got to take him (jehoiachin) in the eighth year of his being king.

" this has lead to the genneral connection of nebuchadnezzar's eighth year to the start of zedekiah's rule and thus to the equating of nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year with zedekiah's eleventh.. the ceb reads, " the babylonian king took jehoiachin prisoner in the eighth year of jehoiachin's rule.".

Bart Belteshassur

Over%forme- "605 for Nebuchadnezzar first year"

From VAT 4956 an astronomicial tablet list an observation in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year and dates to 568BCE. This therefore gives his first as starting Nissau 604BCE, and that the date for Jehoiachin's exile detailed in the Babylonian chronical ABC5 as the 2nd Adar 597BCE Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year.

Which translation did you use, which gives Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year specifically in 24:12? The CEB has as Jehoiachin's and most are ambiguous at best.

2Kings 25:8-9 does not mention the fall of Jerusalem only the burning of the Temple and the pulling down of walls, which is not defined as Zedekiah's 11th years but only as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, indicating that the exile of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year equates to Zedekiah's 11th. The captives taken in the 19th year were struck down at Rilah and 25:18 lists only seventy two of them.

11

How does the latest translation of Kings 24:12 in the Common English Bible change our views on the date of Jerusalem's destruction?

by Bart Belteshassur in

the last clause of verse 12, kings 24 has always appeared to me to be somewhat ambiguous,.

"and the king of babylon got to take him (jehoiachin) in the eighth year of his being king.

" this has lead to the genneral connection of nebuchadnezzar's eighth year to the start of zedekiah's rule and thus to the equating of nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year with zedekiah's eleventh.. the ceb reads, " the babylonian king took jehoiachin prisoner in the eighth year of jehoiachin's rule.".

Bart Belteshassur

Hi Ann

How should this phrase be understood and translated correctly. It is apparent that as most of the transalations do not clarify who's reign it is that most scholars do not understand it either. Any papers on it would be helpful if you know of any?

The biblical timeline from 609 to 597 comes out with 12 years not the 11 required, whilst we can get to 12 years with accension an year consistant application of this method demands an 586 year for destuction.

Where is there any evidence of synchronisms in the Babylonian and Egyptian records. As I understand the 26th Egytian Dynasty position in the timeline is dependant mainly on Herodotus book2 which many hold to have been written much latter than the rest and therefore viewed as suppect as to it's dating of events.

I will dig out my translation of the LXX, and attempt to find some more regards the MT, and the Deadsea manuscripts in order to through more lgiht on the translation.

Mark

11

How does the latest translation of Kings 24:12 in the Common English Bible change our views on the date of Jerusalem's destruction?

by Bart Belteshassur in

the last clause of verse 12, kings 24 has always appeared to me to be somewhat ambiguous,.

"and the king of babylon got to take him (jehoiachin) in the eighth year of his being king.

" this has lead to the genneral connection of nebuchadnezzar's eighth year to the start of zedekiah's rule and thus to the equating of nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year with zedekiah's eleventh.. the ceb reads, " the babylonian king took jehoiachin prisoner in the eighth year of jehoiachin's rule.".

Bart Belteshassur

The last clause of verse 12, Kings 24 has always appeared to me to be somewhat ambiguous,

"and the King of Babylon got to take him (Jehoiachin) in the eighth year of his being King." This has lead to the genneral connection of Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year to the start of Zedekiah's rule and thus to the equating of Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year with Zedekiah's eleventh.

The CEB reads, " The Babylonian King took Jehoiachin prisoner in the eighth year of Jehoiachin's rule."

This translation removes the only connection between Babylonian Kings regal years and those of Judea in the book of Kings and leaves connection in Jerimiah and Daniel both of which directly apply to Jehoikim only. It does however contradict 2Kings 24:8 " and for three months he reigned in Jerusalem." but this could easily indicate a co reign starting at the end of Jehoiakim's third year at the time of his three years servatute in the accension year of Nebuchandrezzar 2Kings 24:1, 2Chronicles 35:6,7, and Daniel 1:1,2 and giving rise to Daniel's own exile.

In addition it makes the readings of Jermiah 39: 1-10 which has no mention of the destruction of the Temple in the fourth month eleventh year of Zedekiah and Jer 52: 12-27 in the fifth month "that is the nineteenth year Nebuchadrezzar" which doesdetail the burning and looting of the Temple, and the capture of senior officials of Judea, in addition to a military force. The presence of these officials and only sixty men in the city at this time is in accord with the exile of the populus the year before, and their fate could well indicate insurrection as mentioned in Ezekiel 33: 24 five months earlier. In verses 28-30 concerning the exiles of Nebuchadrezzar's seventh, eigteenth, and twenty third years now fit into the their respective years with no need for complecated adjustment to the chronological system and no confussion.

The only issue that I have forseen is that historians will endevour to stick to the 609BCE date for the death of Josiah dispite a total lack of any evidence for such a date. This event has just as much evidence for being placed mid 608BCE or early 607BCE as Egypt was still just as active in the area as they had been in 610 and 609BCE if not more so with the greater threat from Babylon and no Assyrian buffer state to protect invasion across the Euphrates.

Can anyone show how the MT should be tranlated and why, and also the LXX although I have looked at this and with my limited understanding of Greek the LXX agrees with the CEB however I could well be wrong.

4

Jeremiah 29:10

by Crazyguy in

the verse in the jw bible says "at babylon" but so does all the king james versions so what gives, and how does one find the proper translation of this scripture.

also what in your opinions is the most acurate translation of the bible?.

Bart Belteshassur

Crazyguy,

As far as I am aware all modern translations have this as "for", "of","Babylon's 70 yrs" or or a phrase which means the same, that it is the fulfilment of Babylon,s domination of the Nations, including Judea and Israel. It is evident that the Jewish exiles who recieved this letter were already in the period of the 70 years, and that their return would be within less than 70 years from the date of this reading. The KJV is a translation which very closely follows the latin Volgate which has it as "in" and this is why KJV and NWT have it as "at". I wonder why the NWT follows an appostate translation so closely?

This follows the wording of Jer 25:11 that the nations will serve the King of Babylon for 70 years, and Jer 25:12 states at the fulfilment Babylon will be punished and remove from power perminantly. At this time the Jews would be released to Yahweh and he would ensure their returned to Judea Jer 29:10.

17

Agape at work -how?

by Rip in

the essence of the christian congregation was the enlightenment of society by preaching (refer to jesus words 'you are the light') and the beautifying of society by acts of love, helpage that have positive impact on peoples lives (see good samaritan or james' words of the faith without action is dead).

why is the wts obstined at not doings acts of helpage?

even those within the congration especially in africa, no corporate social responsibility.

Bart Belteshassur

Does the word Agape appear in the new testement somewhere? I have only come across this word in contection with the Essene solstise and equinox meals which are similar to the last supper. Can you give me some reference please?

Bart

19

Quantum Physics and philosophy about God

by rawe in

jw
friends

hi everyone,.

this new topic narrows a discussion in another thread: musings about different types of atheist!.

in the next post i'll pick up the discussion where it left off in regards to qm/qp (quantum mechanics / quantum physics) and how it relates to philosophy and belief or lack thereof in god.. cheers,.

Bart Belteshassur

Hi Rawe Mind blowing stuff. Just 2 quick points:- It was always my limited understanding of the Schrodinger Cat experiment that the answer could only be determined by opening the box and observing the Cat's state at the time of the observation, and thus concluding that the cat's state whilst the box is shut can not be predicted. Schrodinger's equation,for 2D only which can be determined for the single electron hydrogen atom give a probability of whether or not the electron is in the box or not, but not a specific location. Heisenberg came to similar conclusions in his uncertainty principle, that determination in this case of life or death or even whether the cat was in the box or not was not possible. I believe this is also the case in the electron twin slit experiment, Young's experiment, were when a single electron is observed passing through one of the 2 slits, it acts as a single wave and the resulting image on the target measures this and agrees. However when the single electron is not observed passing through the slit, the target image measures and records an interference pattern clearly indicating that the single electron had in fact passed through both slits at same time and interfered with its own wave pattern. Therefore observed evidence must not be confused with measurement which is a purely material concept, and that Human observation has the effect of altering the natural all states existence and therefore the evidence. I can not help but conclude that this directs us towards a Duelist view point in which the existence of a God or Gods is possible. Hope this make a little sense, it is a long time since I studied QP the Cat and Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensators (had to get the Treky reference in somewhere).

34

A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

by VM44 in

a jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.

does vat 4956 prove 587?.

many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.

Bart Belteshassur

Hi Ann

Have been through Youngs paper and can only agree that his concept of methodology is 100% correct and the only way to approach the matter. It is a shame however that he does not comply with it

and introduceses unstubstantiated assertions as points of fact instead of subjecting them the he own methodology. In doing this he starts with a persumption that 587 is the correct date when the chronology of Josiah's 18th do not allow for it to ever be declared a jubilee year the first prescriptive action being the Passover of that year. He also has the same problems that are encountered with the 3 month reigns of JHZZ and JHCHN as in other schemes and necessitate an acc to non-acc change following JSH's death in 609, an asserted fact which has no evidence in th Babylonian chronocle or Biblical text.

All that said, his method and result hold some merits which other successful schemes which conform to an equivilent degree lack. Thanks for directing me to his work.

By the way can someone explain how to start a new thread I seem to find the link'icon or instructions, confussed????

34

A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

by VM44 in

a jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.

does vat 4956 prove 587?.

many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.

Bart Belteshassur

Hi Ann

Thanks for the welcome. I don't think Ihave but needless to say will look at ASAP sounds interesting. Like your post by the way always filled with good info.

Thanks again.

34

A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

by VM44 in

a jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.

does vat 4956 prove 587?.

many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.

Bart Belteshassur

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Londo111: I agree 100% with your general point,and thanks.

Bobcat: I have not read the book, however I understand his work and admire the step forward he made in the understanding of biblical chronology.

However I thought his date for the destruction of the temple was 5th month 586bce as apposed to Wiseman at 587, I will check up. By 587/6 I take it you mean 5th 587bce using N-N dating? Unfortunately this date assumes Jerimiah used nonaccession dating which he clearly demostrates he does not (JER 25-3). There are 5 years between the death of Josiah June/July 609, 18th year of Jerimiah's minitry and his 23rd, which he places in the 4th year of Jehoiakim thus there must be an accession year.

In order that Jer 25.1 & 46.2 & Dan 1.1 do not contradict each other the Judean kings reign's must start in the seveth mounth,T-T AC dating and the Jerimiah uses the standard babylonian/Isreal first month start, N-N AC dating throughout his book. Therefore Zedekiah's 11th year is Nebuchadrezzar's 19th and places the destruction in 5th month 586bce.

This date does not contradict any other data as far as I am aware, however I am always willing to be educated. By the way until I worked this out I have been a firm accept of 587, it appeared to fit the Jubilee theory better, although it appears to make more sense now in relation to Jerimiah's second confinement in the house of detention.

COJ and his colleges write very good articles I just wish I had their knowledge of Hebrew to understand the syntax of the MT script.

Thanks again for your welcome as well.

34

A JW apologist writes about VAT 4956

by VM44 in

a jw wrote the following in an attempt to discredit the evidence provided by vat 4956. comments on the author's logic would be appreciated.

does vat 4956 prove 587?.

many point to vat 4956 as proof that jerusalem was desolated in 587bce.

Bart Belteshassur

As this is my first time posting on this site I will try and be as brief as possible.

I have been looking at this whole question for sometime, and come to the following conclusions:

Why is it that the harmony of the "inspired word" is not used to resolve this issue. If one requires to get to any date one wishes to chose and work backwards from the preconception almost any date for the destruction of jerusalem is possible. J Brown, Miller, Russel and others have been doing this for 200 years. The same issues are apparent in various constructs for the "70 weeks".

We must always start with the facts we do know, determine the information we have but do not understand, and produce an answer that fits the information as it is and not that which would like it to be.

The bible contains the timeline which dates Josiah's death (start of calamity) with Cyrus' release of all captives which is 70 years and within the harmony of the text is shown to be so. It is as follows:

Cyrus declares liberty (Jubilee) seventh month 539bce

Jehovah declares liberty (atypical Jubilee) seventh month 10th year of Zedakiah 588bce

Josiah's death 21 years earlier (11 Jehioakim + 10 Zedakiah) end of 6th month 609bce

Is this the 70 years? Please let me have your thoughts.