Posts by scholar

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

Leolaia and Narkissos

Context is everything. I disagree with you that no element of duration is implied in verse 2 necessitating the rendering 'In time' as specified by the verb yiten, an imperfect form combined with waw. This form can be used to indicate succession such as 'in time' or 'and then' but the context such as verse 1 does indicate duration by the expression "and proceeded to lay seige to it". Hence, it may be the case that NWT as a literal transalation is simply recognizing the context and the precise verbal form is translating accurately the Hebrew.

Thus it is not 'over translating' but simply being the most accurate-brilliant translation ever made and we all can be so ever grateful to the Author of the Holy Scriptures and His Holy Spirit and the 'celebrated WT scholars for making this possible in this most important of times.

scholar JW

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

Lady Liberty

Your comments that the Society's use of Grayson's publication by altering ir inserting their dates is somehow dishonest or improper shows that you have know knowledge of academic practice or convention. The Society has done nothing wrong by inserting a different date enclosed within square brackets because this is done to indicate to the reader that a correction or explanation is made. You should consult a Style Manual to verify this and if you are living in the USA then the most popular Style Manual is the Chicago Manual of Style, for authors, editors and copyrighters. The Society as a longtime publicher has also its Syle Manual adopted for its own use which also is the case with most Government department, Institutions such as Universities.

So, as long as the adjusted date is enclosed within square brackets and within the quotation followed bythe source properly referenced then everything is OK.

scholar JW

16

An apparent drift in WTS dates

by Doug Mason in

according to the wts library cdrom, the watchtower, august 1 2005, page 12 provides a table of the kings of judah and israel.. i decided to reproduce the table and add two columns.

my first additional column shows the conventionally accepted date and the second additional column shows the difference between the wtss date and the conventional date for each listed king.. as expected, since the final event listed is the destruction of jerusalem, that difference is about 20 years.

i had expected this difference would be maintained throughout the table.

scholar

Doug Mason

At first glance there is no apparent drift in the chart of dates which simply reproduces the chart of the Kings of Israel and Judah presented in the Insight vol 1, pp.464-466. If you are comparing such a chart with other secular charts then there would be many conflicting differences. Your Word file is inaccessible.

scholar JW

19

Why is 537BCE important?

by whereami in

in very layman's terms can some help me why this date is important to the jw 607 theory?

i'm trying to show my wife that the wts is wrong on the 607 date.

i told her that no respected scholar agrees with that date.

scholar

whereami

You are incorrect in claiming that no 'respected scholars accept 607 BCE for there are many scholars including the 'celebrated WT scholars who do in fact accept that date but have seen to it through the scholarly journal The Watchtower over many decades published the biblical-secular evidence for this date.

The recognition of the fact of 537 BCE for the Return of the Jews proves the validity of 607 BCE because of Jeremiah's 'seventy years' of Exile-Desolation-Servitude. The recognition of this fixed historic period demonstrates the overwhelming fact that 607 BCE is the only possible date. Other proposed dates such as 587 or 586 are impossible because such dates cannot account for the seventy years despite the many crazy interpretations of higher critics and apostates.

scholar JW

28

NWT translation of Daniel 1:2 and 607

by behemot in

do you know why the nwt starts verse 2 of daniel ch.

1 with the words "in time..." which are not in the original hebrew text nor in any of the english translations i checked?.

has it to do with supporting their 607 b.c.e.

scholar

behemot

The answer to your question is simple for it aptly demonstrates the brilliance and superiority of the NWT over all other Bible translations. The pertinent phrase in Daniel 1:2 "In time" renders the literal Hebrew verb "And gave". This verb is the future/imperfect form yiten of the verb natan (give) and when combined with waw properly has the meaning 'and then' or 'in time'. This combination (waw + imperfect=yiqtol) is known as a wayyiqtol. The actual time involved is not specified but is determined by the context which in this case is the preceeding verse one indicating that the action was not immedciate but a succession of events.

Interestingly, celebrated WT scholars have long perceived that the 'third year of Jehoiakim' was not of his reign but of his vassalage which correctly interprets Biblical history. Accurate history means accurate chronology and this perception of matters correctly establishes 607 BCE as the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1173

As you have revisited your KISS nonsense I respond forthwith:

Your three step model misrepresents the facts because the Watch Tower Society has never endorsed a regnal list for the Neo-Babylonian period as you claim are cited as such in our literature. The simple fact is that we have simply stated what current knowledge is on the names of the monarchs and their repective reigns knowing full welll that the overall period is twenty years in error.

Celebrated WT scholars have advanced a chronology independent of the pagan Babylonians based upon the historical evidence in the Bible alone so there is no need for certainty for these specific reigns. Furuli has 'blown out of the water' such so called 'Absolute Chronology by showing that the traditional chronology is uncertain and unreliable (Furuli,2007,2:26-Table 1.1 Neo-Babyloian kings).

Furuli also shows differences between Ptolemy's Canon and the Adad-guppi Stele as compared in Table 2.3 which demonstrates 'gaps' between reigns. Regardless of the astronomical integrity of some of the sources this does not always relate to accurate history or chronology for the 'devil' lies in the interpretation of the data. Even if the astrobomical data is certain then there remains scholar's Babylonian Gap problem of twenty years which can be used as a yardstick in constructing a biblical chronology. To wit, let us use these sources with whatever dates are calcuable such as the Fall of Jerusalem in 586/578 BCE add twenty years equals 607 BCE. Or we can simply drop the Babylonian nonsense and work from the Bible's primary data;

1. Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE

2. Return of Jewish Exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem in 537 BCE

3. Seventy year period of Jewish Exile and Desolation of Judah

4. Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE

This is the KISS principle in all its glory and simplicity.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly/Alleymom

This response answers those posts that I have not attended to because of the fact that I am not an expert in ancient astronomy, I do not a astro program and the other relevant technical papers and books to hand. I will outline my intentions in this regard. Many decades ago I commissioned a translation into English of the German article on the VAT 4956 by Weidner which sadly I have lost. This article was translated by a Lecturer in German at the University of Sydney and a copy of which is in a local Theological Library. At the opportune time I will obtain a copy of the Gereman original and the English translation along with other relevant materials so that I can form my own analysis of VAT 4956.

Furuli has done an excellent job in the analysis of this document along with all of the other secular materials in relation to the construction of a so-called Absolute Chronology for the Assyrian, Egyptians and Babylonians which has already caused a major upset for apostates and those who seek to undermine and discredit Bible chronology which hinges on the chronology of the 'seventy years'. That is why Furuli from Chapter One in Volume Two discusses the historical integrity of the seventy years which is comp[letely ignored by all of the other secular documents. It will be interesting to see how other experts view Furuli's hypothesis and his Oslo chronology but at the very least he has challenged the scholarly community that current Babylonian chronology is twenty years too long which accords nicley with Bible chronology.

You both accuse Furuli of making errors and drawing false conclusions but Furuli has chosen a specific methodology, worked with the primary sources and drawn his own conclusions from the data. Others may conclude differently but Furuli has taken a fresh and new appraisal which advances scholarship and research. The real test of the validity of Furuli's interpretation is how in time scholars who are experts in these fields will regard his research. Apostates such as Jonsson are greatly troubled by Firuli's research and Jonsson has already made public feeble attempts to discredit Furuli concerning VAT 4956 and it is probably the case that both of you have beeb guided by him on this forum.

You both accuse Furuli of 'skipping data' but what about the Babylonian scribes who skipped data in relation to key historical events in the life of Nebuchadenezzer? Why is it the case that VAT 4956 is not historically certain in establishing Neb's 37th year for in the interpretation of that tablet that 37 th could be placed also 588 rather than 568 BCE? The crux of this problem is that chronology requires interpretation and that is the case with the astronomical data. Furulu has simply provided an alternative interpretation of the data in which he is entitled to do as a professional Semitic scholar.

I do not wish to be an apologist for Furuli as he is quite capable of looking after himself academically speaking so if you have concerns, worries, criticisms-real or imagined then take these up with the Furuli. This it seems you either refuse to do or are incompetent in so doing. My role is to an apologist for the Bible truth not the meanderings of ancient Babylonian astronomers and their scribes.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Dansk

Post 5760

Your exegesis of Jeremiah 44 :14, 28; 40:11 and Antiquities 10.9.7 is bunkum offering no proof whatsoever that the seventy year began with a Babylonian deportation of Jews in Nebuchadnezzer's 23 rd year and that Judea was not 'desolate...without an inhabitant'.

Jeremiah 40:11 simply states that there a remnant of Jews who remained in Judah soon after the destruction of Jerusalem under the governship of Gedaliah who was killed thus causing those Jews to flee to Egypt. Thus land was desolate and uninhabited by Tishri of 607 BCE.

Jeremiah 44: 14, addresses those exiles in Egypt who also would be punished and thus would not return. Some fugitives may at some future time see Judah but such is a forlorn hope. This oracle was addressed to the entire Judean community which would include previous exilees and those from the time of Jerusalem's destruction.

Jeremiah 44:28, The entire Jewish community would also be punished with only a few escaping that destruction. This rermnant thus could testify to the truth of the prophetic word. In the course of time a Jewish remnant after the expiration of seventy years did in fact return and rebuild Judah as foretold.

Antiquities 10.9.7. confirms the above showing that Nebuchadnezzer invaded Egypt taking Jews back to Babylon. Thus his conquest of Judah left the country 'a desert for seventy years'.

In short, the overwhelming evidence that by the seventh month Tishri, 607 BCE Judah was desolate, uninhabited for seventy years whilst its people were exiled in Babylon serving its king for seventy years until their release and return by the seventh month Tishri, 537 BCE.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1167

You claim that Furuli has skipped over very important data in VAT 4956 well that may be because of the methodology that Furuli employed. Thus you can see the need to take upy your concerns with the author himself. In my view, Furuli provides an excellent summary of the facts as outlined on pages 122-3 showing that this tablet is not infallible.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Dansk

Josephus and the Bible agree as to the fact that the seventy years ran from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return. Certainly. Nebuchadnezzer took Jewish captives in his 23 rd year but these were not from Judah. Judah was completely destroyed and desolated in the 18th regnal year of Nebuchanezzer which is exactly what the Bible writers depicted.

Josephus does not connect the last deportation with the seventy years as you claim because those Jews were not in Judah at that time but elesewhere. Josephus nowhere begins the seventy years from any other event excepting from the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple. Your claim are simply mistaken and misleading so just stick to the facts.

scholar JW