Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

Narkissos

In passing, my learned friend the Right Honourable Rodney Leslie Shearman VDM, highly respected Elder and Hebrew scholar who was tutored in Hebrew by the late Atara Hasofer Ph.D has examined critically all the linguistic material on these posts, the Lexica and the Grammar.

Let me try to translate:
Scholar's JW friend, who has notions of Hebrew although not at any academic level, upholds the NWT.
Big deal.
More surprising (and commendable) is the fact that this JW elder has not turned scholar in for associating with apostates on the internet.
Unless scholar is not a baptised JW or approved associate.
Jenni is quite wrong in excluding the fact that le can have a locative sense in Jeremiah 29:10. The lexicon has examples of such use even though these are very rare.
If they are very rare they should be easy to quote.
Remember, it should be (1) a static locative, (2) susceptible of free use, i.e. not limited to a different stereotyped expression (e.g. le-petach).
Even if the general possibility of a static locative for le- should be retained (and I am still waiting for convincing evidence of that), it would still be necessary to show that this sense suits Jeremiah 29:10 better than the non-locative use apparent in all its other occurrences with ml' + time period.
hillary_step

Narkissos,
I am still not clear on what Scholar was actually suggesting regarding Shearman in that paragraph. He falls short of actually declaring that Shearman agrees with the NWT and his own stance, despite him being the brilliant, upstanding, polished elder that he is.
Perhaps Shearman could come to the Board, as he has purpotedly read all the material on this thread, and give us his reasons for disagreeing with Jenni. We have seen the wagging tail, perhaps it is time that the dog introduced himself.
Unless scholar is not a baptised JW or approved associate.
They call 'approved associates', 'unbaptized publishers' these days. Nothing like a label to prove that you are really alive.
Kind regards - HS
Alleymom

No doubt that you would have noticed how Lundbom's interpretation of the seventy years differs from your view and that of the Jonsson hypothesis.

Ummm, no. You have misunderstood and misrepresented my view of the seventy years in Jer. 29:10. I have been meaning to go back and look for the message where you did so, so I could copy what you said and post a correction. As I recall, you seem to assume that I believe the 70 years started with the captivity of the exiles who are being addressed in the letter sent in Jeremiah 29. That is not correct.
I agree with Lundbom and other scholars that the 70 years in this passage are seventy years FOR Babylon. I thought I had made that very plain in the course of the many discussions we have had on this topic.
I don't mean to be unkind, Neil, but you really don't know what you are talking about with all this stuff you are bringing up about the infinitive. Have you taken the time yet to verify that mel'oth is EXACTLY the same in Lev. 25:30 and Jer. 29:10? In one post you admitted that you had goofed, but then you still sounded somewhat uncertain and said you had not consulted a parsing guide.
It seems as if your approach to this is essentially fideistic. You are apparently (or at least publicly) so convinced of the supposed "brilliance" of the NWT that you seem to think you can work backwards from the NWT English translation and discern grammatical forms and nuances of syntax in the Hebrew, even though you do not know Hebrew. This is simply not possible. Language study does not work that way, as you should know from your university studies. Trying to work backwards from the English to discern meaning in theHebrew is the reason you have posted some huge errors.
Leolaia put a lot of effort into posting some extremely detailed responses, most of which you have ignored. In particular, you have not responded to the messages in which she and Narkissos pointed out your errors where you were assuming that various verses had the preposition lamed, when they didn't have it at all. You made these mistakes because you were trying to use the NWT as a guide to the underlying Hebrew morphology.
(Leolaia and Narkissos, if you are reading this, I would just like to add an extra thanks for all the substantive and detailed responses you have posted in these two threads.)
In all seriousness, why don't you take an introductory Biblical Hebrew course? Of all the courses I took for my BA in religion many years ago, I have had the most satisfaction and lifetime benefits from my Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek classes. What is it that the rabbis say about reading the Torah in translation? Don't they say it is akin to kissing your bride through a veil?
Marjorie
Alleymom

Narkissos:

Even if the general possibility of a static locative for le- should be retained (and I am still waiting for convincing evidence of that), it would still be necessary to show that this sense suits Jeremiah 29:10 better than the non-locative use apparent in all its other occurrences with ml' + time period.

Exactly.
scholar

Alleymom
Well what is your year for the beginning of the seventy years? You have implied by your recent postings that the seventy yeras began at the time of the first exile but in fact that time was the first time in writing to the first exiles that Jeremiah prophesied that the exiles in Babylon wouls remain there for seventy years.
My learned friend and I are in agreement with the NWT and he has found examples listed by Gesenius in his famous Lexicon which illustrates a locative meaning for 'le'. I will post these examples shortly. Such examples suit the context much better than any non-locative preposition such as 'for', for the simple reason that the seventy years are not Babylon's but plainly Jewish.
Yes, it would be nice to do a course in Biblical Hebrew as my learned friend has done but the NWT really makes such an endeavour a luxury that I can ill afford at this time. Afterall, is not the NWT a very literal translation of Hebrew and Greek and is highly praised for its scholarship.
I think the very fact that it is I that has brought to the attention to all including my learned friend Shearman that the NWT has translated the infinitive differently so any linguistic discussion based upon a the common rendering may well be compromised. So, I think I am on top of the subject, meloth is exactly the same as Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 as to its form but is translated differently. Agree?
Narkissos and Leolaia have simply presented a linguistic opinion based on their use of the syntax, they have not sourced and rule of grammar to support their exegesis of the syntax. My learned friend has read these post and warns that Hebrew syntax is very loose and not that important because Hebrew is not a technical language as Greek is which does require precise rules of grammar. In short, Hebrew is a fluidic language IMHO.
scholar JW
AlanF

I recently wrote to Carl Jonsson about his correspondence with the noted scholar and Hebraist, Professor Ernst Jenni, as he referenced in the 4th edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered, pages 378-9. With his permission, herewith is Jonsson's reply to me in full, except that I've deleted items of a personal nature.
*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*
Hi again,
I noticed that the file with my correspondence with Ernst Jenni was not the best one. I'm sending a better one below, that may be easier for you to use. Below his answer in German I have added my English translation. I have also added some information on the qualifications of this scholar.
. . .
Carl
Here is my correspondence with Ernst Jenni:
THE HEBREW PREPOSITION l e AT JEREMIAH 29:10:
E.mail sent to Professor Emeritus Ernst Jenni in Basel on September 30, 2003:
Dear Professor Jenni,
I have been studying Biblical Hebrew for a few years and have recently bought a copy of your extensive and most valuable work, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (2000). I notice that you reject the local meaning as the basic sense of le (pp. 134-135). This is a most interesting conclusion in view of some statements in a recently published book I have been reading. The book, which is written by a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, Mr. Rolf Furuli, is actually a work on Biblical chronology: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews (Oslo: R. Furuli A/S, 2003). It is in connection with his discussion of the 70 years at Jeremiah 29:10 that the meaning of the preposition le in lebâbel becomes important for his chronology. Mr. Furuli argues that the 70 years here refer to 70 years of desolation of Judah, and that the common rendering "for Babylon", therefore, has to be rejected in favour of "in Babylon" or "at Babylon". He says on page 86:
"But what about the meaning of the Hebrew preposition le? Can it really be used in the local sense 'at'? It certainly can, and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of this meaning, one of which is Numbers 11:10, 'each man at (le) the entrance of his tent'. So, in each case when le is used, it is the context that must decide its meaning. For example, in Jeremiah 51:2 the phrase lebâbel means 'to Babylon', because the preceding verb is 'to send'. But lirûshâlâm [the letters li at the beginning of the word is a contraction of le+yod] in Jeremiah 3:17 in the clause, 'all the nations will gather in Jerusalem' has the local meaning 'in Jerusalem', and the same is true with the phrase lîhûdâ in Jeremiah 40:11 in the clause, 'the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah'."
My question is: Would you agree with his use of these examples for allowing lebâbel at Jer. 29:10 to be translated "in Babylon" or "at Babylon" ["seventy years at Babylon"]? Is this really a likely translation? Is it even a possible one?
In support of his translation, Furuli also refers to the renderings in some of the old versions of the Hebrew Bible. He says:
"Looking at the versions, both the Targum Jonathan and the Peshitta use the preposition le, which in both cases have about the same meaning as the Hebrew counterpart. However, the Septuagint has the dative form babylôni, the most natural meaning being 'at Babylon', and the Ge'ez version has westä babilon, which means 'in Babylon' or 'within Babylon'. The Latin Vulgate has in Babylone, the most natural meaning being 'in Babylon' or 'at Babylon' or 'within Babylon'. So the local meaning is the one extant in these versions."
As far as the Septuagint is concerned, it seems to me that Furuli is wrong in claiming that the most natural meaning of babylôni is "at Babylon". Wouldn't the dative here (without being preceded by en) mean "for Babylon" or "to Babylon"? As for the other versions quoted, they seem to give an interpretation of the text rather than a literal translation.
I would appreciate very much your comments on the above.
Sincerely,
Carl Olof Jonsson
Box XXXXX
S-400 20 Göteborg
Sweden

e.mail address:
XXXXX
Phone and fax number: XXXXX

Answer received from Professor Ernst Jenni on October 1, 2003:
Sehr geehrter Herr Jonsson,
Da ich kürzlich schon eine Anfrage aus Deutschland betr. Jer 29,10 erhalten habe (ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit einer Theorie der Zeugen Jehovas), kann ich Ihnen relativ rasch antworten.
Meine Behandlung der Stelle findet sich im Lamed-Buch S.109 (Rubrik 4363). Die Übersetzung ist in allen modernen Kommentaren und Übersetzungen "für Babel" (Babel als Weltmacht, nicht Stadt oder Land); sie ergibt sich sowohl von der Sprache als auch vom Kontext.
Bei der 'lokalen Bedeutung' ist zu unterscheiden zwischen wo? ("in, bei") und wohin? (lokal terminativ "zu, nach"). Die Grundbedeutung von l ist "in bezug auf" und kann mit einer folgenden Orstbestimmung nur in gewissen adverbiellen Wendungen lokal oder lokal-terminativ verstanden werden (z.B. Num 11,10 [Clines, DCH IV, 481b] "am Eingang", vgl. Lamed S.256.260, Rubrik 8151). Jer 51,2 ist l ein Dativ der Person ("und sende Babel [als personifizierter Weltmacht] Worfler, die es worfeln und sein Land [das Land dieser Babylonier] ausräumen" ((Lamed S.84f.94). Zu Jer 3,17 "nach Jerusalem" (lokal terminativ) alles Nötige in Lamed S.256.270 und ZAH 1,1988, 107-111.
Zu den Versionen: Die LXX hat mit babylôni eindeutig einen Dativ ("für Babylon"). Nur die Vulgata hat allerdings in Babylone "in Babylon", danach die King James Version "at Babylon" und so wahrscheinlich auch die New World Translation.
Ich hoffe, Ihnen mit diesen Informationen gedient zu haben und verbleibe mit freundlichen Grüssen
E. Jenni.
---
Prof. Dr. Ernst Jenni
XXXXX
CH-4054 Basel (Schweiz)
Tel. XXXX
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
[Communication E. Jenni - C. O. Jonsson, dated 1 October, 2003:]
Dear Mr. Jonsson,
As I recently have received an inquiry from Germany concerning Jer 29,10 (likewise in connection with a theory of Jehovah?s Witnesses), I can answer you relatively quickly.
My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109 (heading 4363). The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is "for Babel" (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context.
By the "local meaning" a distinction is to be made between where? ("in, at") and where to? (local directional "to, towards"). The basic meaning of l is "with reference to", and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] "at the entrance", cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a personal dative ("and send to Babel [as personified world power] winnowers, who will winnow it and empty its land" (Lamed pp. 84f., 94). On Jer. 3,17 "to Jerusalem" (local directional), everything necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1, 1988, 107-111.
On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative ("for Babylon"). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, "in Babylon", thus King James Version "at Babylon", and so probably also the New World Translaton. I hope to have served you with these informations and remain,
with kind regards,
E. Jenni.
---
Prof. Dr. Ernst Jenni
XXXXX
CH-4054 Basel (Schweiz)
Tel. XXXX
Who is Professor Emeritus Ernst Jenni?
In 1958 Ernst Jenni succeeded the renowned Semitist and Hebraist Professor Walter Baumgartner as Professor of the faculty of theology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, a position he held until his retirement in 1997. With Professor Claus Westermann Professor Jenni is editor of the indispensible and incomparable reference work, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament). He also serves on the editorial committee of the Theologische Zeitschrift. And he is a leading ? if not the leading ? expert on the Hebrew prepositions, having so far written three works in the series Die hebräischen Prepositionen: Band 1: Die Präposition Beth (1992), 400 pages; Band 2: Die Präposition Kaph (1994), 196 pages; and Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (2000), 350 pages.
.
AlanF

This post proves, using only the Bible and Watchtower literature, that the New World Translation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong.
First, I'll show that three scriptural passages prove beyond any doubt that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended in 539 B.C. Then I'll show that the Society's claims about the 70 years are inconsistent.
I'll discuss each point in turn:
Point 1:
The text of 2 Kings 25:11, 12, in combination with the undisputed date of 539 B.C. for the fall of the Babylonian empire, proves absolutely that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended not later than 539 B.C. Concerning these 70 years, the text states (NWT):
11 'And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans . . .'
This verse directly states (taking into account the context of the preceeding verses) that the Jews and surrounding nations would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. It does not specify where they would serve, or when the seventy years began. However, verse 12 is absolutely clear that when the 70 years were fulfilled, or completed, Jehovah would "call to account" or punish the king of Babylon. That unarguably occurred in 539 B.C. when Cyrus' army conquered Babylon and killed its king Belshazzar.
Note that the phrase the NWT renders "when . . . have been fulfilled" has the Hebrew form "Qal infinitive construct", which signfies completed action, i.e., the "fulfilling" or "completing" of the 70 years was a done deal. This is exactly the same construct as is found in Jeremiah 29:10, except that the latter has a phrase that can be translated as "by my mouth" or "in accord with", etc. inserted between "when" and "have been fulfilled".
The Watchtower Society has attempted to explain Jer. 25:12 only once in all of its literature (W79 9/15 pp. 23-4), but its attempt was so ridiculous that it has never been repeated. The claim was that Cyrus was actually the king of Babylon who was "called to account" by releasing the Jews from captivity. How that was a calling to account far worse than having one's kingdom conquered and being killed is not explained.
Point 2:
The text of Jeremiah 27:6, 7 shows that only Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings were the kings of Babylon referred to in Jeremiah 25:12. The text reads (NWT):
6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.
Clearly, "the time even of his own land" coming means its conquering by the "many nations and great kings" who "must exploit him as a servant." This is precisely the "calling to account" described in Jer. 25:12, and proves that such punishment must have been visited upon the last king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar.
The Watchtower Society has never discussed this point.
Point 3:
The text of 2 Chronicles 36:20, in combination with the undisputed date of 539 B.C. for the fall of the Babylonian empire, proves absolutely that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended not later than 539 B.C. Concerning Nebuchadnezzar and the Jews the verse states (NWT):
Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign.
The joint royalty of Medo-Persia began to reign in 539 B.C., when the army of Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon and installed either Darius the Mede (if you accept the statements in Daniel) or Cyrus the Persian as king. In either case, Cyrus was supreme king from the day of his conquering Babylon, and therefore the Jews were no longer servants to the "king of Babylon" that Jeremiah foretold they would be.
The Watchtower Society has never discussed this point.
These three points establish the context for the proper interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10. Because the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended in 539 B.C., and the Jews were still captive for another year or two, the proper translation of Jer. 29:10 is easy to comprehend. In the NASB this reads:
For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.
With the 70 years ending in 539 B.C., it is obvious that substituting "at Babylon" instead of "for Babylon" results in nonsense.
Here is how the NWT has it:
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.?
Readers will note that the phrasing is such as to render the proper understanding extremely fuzzy, because using "in accord with", while grammatically allowable, blurs the clear meaning of the Qal infinitive construct "when have been fulfilled". Specifically, the NWT deliberately renders the passage in such a way that the fact that the 70 years were completed, and only after that would Jehovah turn his attention to the Jews, is blurred. This obviously helps JWs not to question the NWT's rendering.
This completes the proof, using only the Bible and the single Neo-Babylonian date that the Watchtower Society accepts, namely, 539 B.C. for Babylon's fall, that its translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong, and therefore that its entire so-called "Bible chronology" is wrong.
Now I will prove, using the Watchtower Society's own teachings, that its translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong because these teachings result in internal inconsistencies.
Since 1944, the Watchtower Society has claimed that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah were a time of complete desolation of the land of Judah, and they ran from about October 1, 607 B.C. to about October 1, 537 B.C. (cf. W79 9/15 pp. 23-4). But it has also claimed that these years were a time of captivity of the Jews at Babylon. This is obviously inconsistent, because of the trip time from Judah to Babylon, which the Society admits would be about four months for a caravan of men, women, children and their goods (cf. Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 417). Taking account of the exact time of Jerusalem's destruction, about August 1, and the time when the Society says that the land became desolate, about October 1, and when the Jews supposedly arrived back in Judah some 70 years later, about October 1, and the four-month trip time, the time of captivity at Babylon was six to eight months shorter than the time of desolation.
Logically, then, according to the Society's teaching, if the 70 years were a time of desolation of Judah, then the time in captivity at Babylon was only 69 years and 4-6 months. But if the 70 years were a time of captivity at Babylon, then the period of Judah's desolation must have been 70 years and 6-8 months. There is no way to equate these two periods.
Since the Watchtower's teachings are clearly internally inconsistent, and it's obvious from reading WTS literature that the Society much prefers the notion that the 70 years were a time of desolation of Judah (cf. "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981), Appendix to Ch. 14, p. 189), it is obvious that it cannot consistently teach that the time of captivity at Babylon was 70 years. Therefore, by the Society's own internally inconsistent teaching, something must give. Given the Society's preferred teaching that the 70 years were a time of desolation and not captivity at Babylon, the NWT's rendering of Jer. 29:10, namely, using "at Babylon" rather than "for Babylon", is wrong.
It sometimes amazes me that these astute, spirit-directed men at Bethel can't see such simple points.
AlanF
hillary_step

AlanF, Leolaia, Narkissos and Alleymom,
Excellent work! This thread has been very valuable and most interesting to the layman, especially as I believe that Scholar is far more knowledgable about this issue than anybody on the Governing Body.
I had a feeling that someone was pulling Scholar's strings and it seems that Elder Shearman is the puppet-master in this show. Perhaps he will join his protege and defend his position. As I noted, we have seen the wagging tail, perhaps it is time for the dog to appear.
It sometimes amazes me that these astute, spirit-directed men at Bethel can't see such simple points.
My own experiences with members of the GB left me feeling that they actually do not know their Bibles as well as one might expect. They are very politically inclined and that is probably one reason why they sit where they do, but are inclined to silence when presented with something that they have difficulty answering.
HS
Alleymom

Well what is your year for the beginning of the seventy years? You have implied by your recent postings that the seventy yeras began at the time of the first exile but in fact that time was the first time in writing to the first exiles that Jeremiah prophesied that the exiles in Babylon wouls remain there for seventy years.

Neil ---
No, I haven't implied that; you have erroneously inferred it. As I told you in my message #435, "You have misunderstood and misrepresented my view of the seventy years in Jer. 29:10."
You have said that the " 70 years" in the letter quoted in Jer. 29:10 refers to a period of exile which will take place "at Babylon" beginning about ten years in the future, when Jerusalem would be destroyed. According to you, the 70 year period has not yet started when the letter is sent to the exiles in Babylon. You see it as something which will start in the future. My point is that the "70 years" have already started at the time when this letter is sent to the exiles who are already in Babylon.
You ask me, "Well what is your year for the beginning of the seventy years?" Neil, one does not need to know when the 70 years started in order to recognize that they have already started. The promise of the Lord is addressed to the exiles. If you want the 70 years to be a period of "exile" rather than a period of "servitude" then you are stuck with the fact that the exile has already started.
The NWT says:
Jer 29:4 " This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people,
whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon"
According to the NWT, Jehovah has already caused them to go into exile. It says "whom I HAVE CAUSED to go into exile." It does NOT say "whom I WILL CAUSE to go into exile."
You have repeatedly said that you consider the NWT to be a brilliant and literal translation. You persist in doing word studies and exegesis based on the nuances you think you discern in the particular phrasing of the NWT translation.
Why do you disregard the NWT's rendering of Jer. 29:4 which plainly says that Jehovah has already caused them to go into exile? How do you explain the rendering "whom I HAVE caused" when you you interpret the passage to mean "whom I WILL cause"?
Yes, it would be nice to do a course in Biblical Hebrew as my learned friend has done but the NWT really makes such an endeavour a luxury that I can ill afford at this time. Afterall, is not the NWT a very literal translation of Hebrew and Greek and is highly praised for its scholarship.
I'm not touching the bit about "highly praised for its scholarship" --- that's an entirely different topic, which has been covered many times on this board.
But, once again, no matter how literal any translation is, it remains a translation. You simple cannot expect to peer dimly into a translation and examine the nuances of the receptor language's syntax and successfully discern the morphology of the parent language. With no knowledge of the parent language, you can sift the receptor language all day long and be no better off than a pagan sifting the entrails of a sheep in a vain attempt to read the omens.
I don't think the study of Hebrew and Greek is a "luxury" for scholars; it is an absolute necessity. Laypeople can learn to use scholarly helps and they can also compare many different translations, but no true scholar would attempt exegesis based on a translation.
I think the very fact that it is I that has brought to the attention to all including my learned friend Shearman that the NWT has translated the infinitive differently so any linguistic discussion based upon a the common rendering may well be compromised. So, I think I am on top of the
subject, meloth is exactly the same as Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 as to its form but is translated differently. Agree?
If you mean that meloth in these two verses MUST be translated differently, then no, no. I emphatically do NOT agree. The forms are identical. They are both Qal infinitve constructs. There is not some "hidden" difference in the Hebrew verbs which the NWT is trying to bring out by varying their rendition.
You seem to ascribe almost magical powers to the NWT translators, as if every word they wrote must be full of some arcane meaning which can be accurately discerned by those who are willing to diligently compare how identical words are rendered in different verses. This reminds me of the error of the "KJV-only" camp, which seemingly ascribes more inspiration to the translation than to the actual Hebrew and Greek text.
Also, Narkissos and Leolaia have not based their linguistic discussions on a common RENDERING. They have referred to identical forms in the Hebrew text itself. Their excellent and thorough discussions have been based on the Hebrew, NOT the English.
Because you are persistently trying to read more into the English rendering than is really there, you have made some egregious errors, particularly when you have made pronouncements about certain verses having the preposition lamed when lamed is not even there.
How would studying Hebrew be a "luxury"? Would it cost too much? You seem to purchase very expensive scholarly books for your personal study. Can you not afford to purchase some elementary Hebrew grammars or CD's? You should be able to obtain what you need from the library. If you cannot afford the tuition for a university level course, you could probably make arrangements to attend a Hebrew program at your local synagogue. Wouldn't your close friend who knows Hebrew so well be willing to help you get started?
Marjorie
Alleymom

Marjorie:

But, once again, no matter how literal any translation is, it remains a translation. You simple cannot expect to peer dimly into a translation and examine the nuances of the receptor language's syntax and successfully discern the morphology of the parent language.

Neil ---
The NWT (and other translations) do not always render a particular Hebrew form or phrase the same way in each verse in which it occurs. You seem to think that because the NWT renders mel'oth differently in Lev. 25:30 and in Jer. 29:10, there must be some subtle difference in meaning in the Hebrew verb in these verses.
You should consider the fact that in the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs, the NWT renders it in a variety of ways in order to make for a smooth(er) English translation.
I am going to list the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs. Please note that in every one of these verses mel'oth is a qal infinitve construct.
7 verses have the word mel'oth with no additional conjunction or preposition attached.
2 verses have the conjunction "waw" affixed to mel'oth.
3 verses have the preposition "k" affixed to mel'oth.
1 verse has the preposition "b" affixed to mel'oth.
Note that the differences in translation occur even within these groups.
7 verses with mel?oth ? Qal infinitive construct
NWT renderings: the fulfilling, the completing, has come to the full, come to the full
Leviticus 8:33 NWT
And YOU must not go out from the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the day of fulfilling the days of YOUR installation, because it will take seven days to fill YOUR hand with power. Leviticus 12:4 NWT
For thirty-three days more she will stay in the blood of purification. She should not touch any holy thing, and she should not come into the holy place until the fulfilling of the days of her purification.
Leviticus 25:30 NWT
But if it should not be bought back before the complete year has come to the full for him, the house that is in the city that has a wall must also stand in perpetuity as the property of its purchaser during his generations. It should not go out in the Jubilee. Jeremiah 29:10 NWT
"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.? Numbers 6:5 NWT
"?All the days of the vow of his Naziriteship no razor should pass over his head; until the days that he should be separated to Jehovah come to the full, he should prove holy by letting the locks of the hair of his head grow. Numbers 6:13 NWT
"?Now this is the law about the Naz´i·rite: On the day that the days of his Naziriteship come to the full, he will be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting. Daniel 10:3 NWT
Dainty bread I did not eat, and no flesh or wine entered into my mouth, and in no way did I grease myself until the completing of the three full weeks.
uvimeloth - Conunction waw attached to Qal infinitive construct
NWT renderings: and when [ ] are completed, then at the fulfilling, and when [ ] had come to the full
Lev. 12:6 NASB
And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting, a one year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.

Leviticus 12:6 NWT
Then at the fulfilling of the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest. Esther 1:5 NWT And when these days had come to the full , the king held a banquet for seven days for all the people that were found in Shu´shan the castle, for the great as well as the small, in the courtyard of the garden of the king?s palace.
kimel?oth -- Preposition k + Qal infinitive construct

2 Kings 4:6 NWT
And it came about that
as soon as the vessels were full she went on to say to her son: "Do bring still another vessel near to me." But he said to her: "There is no other vessel." At that the oil stopped. Jeremiah 25:12 NWT "?And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,? is the utterance of Jehovah, ?their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.
Ezekiel 5:2 NWT

A third you will burn in the very fire in the midst of the city as soon
as the days of the siege have come to the full. And you must take another third. You will strike [it] with the sword all around her, and the [last] third you will scatter to the wind, and I shall draw out a sword itself after them.
bimel?oth -- preposition beth attached to Qal infinitive construct
Job 20:22 NWT
While his plenty is at its peak he will be feeling anxious;
All the power of misfortune itself will come against him.

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

Share this