by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
Interlude:
Ladies and gentlemen, this dinosaur fossil is 150,000,017 years old!-- How do you know?-- Mind you, sir, I was told it was 150,000,000 years old when I began working here 17 years ago.
(Any resemblance with the debate on Zechariah 1 & 7 might be just in my mind...)
LOL! Using ad hominem and et cetera, then, don't add weight to standard English writings. Note that standard practice is to put such commonly used Latinisms in italics.
LOL It's a good thing you italicized "italics" for me... who do you think I am, Forrest Gump? You may like to note that in my post, I did use italics, though if your browser does not support, or renders differently, the <em> tag, they may not have shown. Latin expressions can add weight, but not when they are overused, used unnecessarily, or used in a manner that gives the appearance of a superior attitude.
Of course, I'm explicitly arguing that your argument is wrong.
If you understood why my arguments are correct, then you wouldn't continue making ones that are demonstrably wrong.
The main reason I've said that you don't understand my arguments is that you've pretty much failed even to attempt to refute them. In a discussion where parties disagree, it simply doesn't do for one party to set forth his argument, and completely ignore what the other parties say -- as if the mere setting out of his argument automatically refutes the others. This is the technique of scholar pretendus, who consistently ignores 95% of what intelligent posters like you write.
The arguments you have given apply linguistic rules that are simply not the only way the texts can validly be understood. I have continually said that either of us may be right, though I have not said that both of us are right, because that is mutually exclusive.
I have continually stated that I am not saying that your interpretation is not valid, and therefore I have no reason to refute your arguments. (This is not the same as scholar's technique of ignoring information that specifically refutes his posts.) In reply, you have attacked what I have put forward simply because it does not agree with your interpretation, though what I have said is compatible with the original text. Neither of us can know absolutely for sure which interpretation is right, and so the only argument is whether an interpretation is valid. You have only shown my interpretation to be 'invalid', in that it does not conform to certain linguistic rules you have applied, that are not the only valid way the text can be understood. Frankly I'm surprised that this sidepoint has gone on this long. The point is, the 70 years in both verses can validly be seen as a 70-year period (running from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 to Darius' decree to finish the temple in 517). Both of us have also previously acknowledged that round periods may also have been referred to.
:: one that I've tried to explain a number of times in this thread: just because someone says that some specific period of time has elapsed from a beginning event until today does not necessarily mean that the person is assigning a completed period
It also does not automatically mean that they are not. The singular form of 'these' and 'year' in the original text, can be validly interpreted in agreement with the assertion that a discrete 70-year period is intended.
Here's a good example of your ignoring one of my main points: there is solid textual evidence that they're not the same period. I'll repeat: one is a period of denunication of the Jews by God that had gone on for 70 years by Darius' 2nd year; the other is a period of mourning and observing fastings by the Jews that had gone on for 70 years in Darius' 4th year. Clearly, the actors are different: in the 1st case it's God, in the 2nd it's the Jews.
Rebuilding the temple from 517 to 515 need not be included in the period of denunciation as the people would see it as a joyous thing to make progress on the temple, and would see God's support in that rebuilding work. The text does allow for the period of 'denunciation' and 'fasting' both running for the same period of time. Different 'actors' can both be in the same 'play'.
You're entirely missing the point: the FASTS continued. That the meaning of the fasts would change is irrelevant. Winter changes into something else -- spring. The fasts did not change into something else.
Though the fasts continued, to commemorate what happened, as Zechariah chapter 8 relates, they were no longer fasts of mourning and wailing, but of rejoicing after the 70 years. The purpose of, and the attitude toward, the fasts changed after 517. As Zechariah 8:18 confirms, God says that the fasts would "become for the house of Judah an exultation and a rejoicing and good festal seasons." These are not expressions of denunciation. (edit - see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1585909/post.ashx#1585909)
: Technically neither mention of the 70 years immediately marked the end of that 70-year period, but the reference in Zechariah 7 can be seen as much closer to the end of that period if they are viewed as the same period.
This is a meaningless statement, because it's completely obvious from the fact that the 4th year of Darius was further along in time than his 2nd year.
It is a very simple point, but not meaningless. The point is the 70 years can be seen as about to end and still be currently on-going.
But when a valid interpretation refutes the point you put forward, and you fail to admit or understand it, that is certainly missing the point.
This point appears to be at the crux (stauros? LOL) of the issue. You state that a valid interpretation refutes something I say, and that I am therefore wrong. I am saying that there can be more than one valid interpretation - obviously both cannot be what was originally intended, but both can be valid interpretations, and it is unwise to dogmatically say that either is right or wrong if both fit the text (though one interpretation refutes the other.) I am talking about possibilities; it seems that you are talking about pride.
The main point of my discussion is that your interpretation is wrong. Therefore, when you fail to deal with my arguments, you're ignoring them.
I understand that you are saying I am wrong, but that doesn't mean I have to bend over backwards and agree with you about that. You have demonstrated that my interpretation does not fit the rules that you have applied for your interpretation. You have not demonstrated that the text cannot support my interpretation.
Perhaps you should obtain a Hebrew-English interlinear, like Kohlenberger's The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament. I also use the Analytical Key to the Old Testament (John Jospeh Owens, 1989, 4 volumes), which gives every word in the OT along with its grammatical breakdown and a cross reference to BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs).
Perhaps if someone gives me the money I will.
Do you really want to go down this route with such remarks? If you do, I guarantee you'll come out the loser.
Man, stop taking yourself so seriously. Chill. Peace out.
You're not being logical. If my interpretation is correct, then yours is not. Specifically, it is not "possible that both sections of Zechariah refer to the one period", as I explained above.
Yes, if your interpretation is "correct" then mine is not. However your interpretation being "valid", does not mean that mine is not.
Occam's Razor can properly be applied only to approximately equally valid interpretations. Yours contradicts rather clear scriptures, as I've shown.
You have not demonstrated that I have contradicted any scriptures, only your understanding of them.
Once again your argument is assuming a conclusion. And you're continuing to ignore the simple fact that we're dealing with periods that the scriptures directly state are (1) one of denunication -- a denunciation performed by God against the Jews, and which began about 589/87 and ended about 515; (2) one of mourning and fasting that began at the destruction of Jerusalem, continued on past Darius' 2nd and 4th years, and did not stop until at least Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D.
In my study of the 607 issue, I have endeavoured to harmonize the accounts regarding the 70 years, and I believe I have done so. I did not start out with any assumptions but began looking at all of the relevant scriptures with the aim of harmonizing them. During the process, I did employ the scientific method of establishing a hypothesis that seems to fit the facts and then test that hypothesis, but if something did not fit I dropped it. Because the 589 start of the 'denunciation' seemed too arbitrary, I did not work it into my model, however I have never said that that interpretation is not valid.
: It is evident by your statement, "The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last" that you did not understand my point about referring to Amos 8:5, so I will expand on it. Almost every single instance of a question in the Hebrew scriptures in the form "How long...?" is an expression of frustration of the circumstances, not a request for an actual length of time, whether that time period is actually known or not.
That's a good point in general, but simply not applicable here, for reasons I've explained above.
I can see how the reasoning is not applicable to your interpretation, but it does fit the text.
Here's a good example of your ignoring one of my main points: there is solid textual evidence that they're not the same period. I'll repeat: one is a period of denunication of the Jews by God that had gone on for 70 years by Darius' 2nd year; the other is a period of mourning and observing fastings by the Jews that had gone on for 70 years in Darius' 4th year. Clearly, the actors are different: in the 1st case it's God, in the 2nd it's the Jews.Rebuilding the temple from 517 to 515 need not be included in the period of denunciation as the people would see it as a joyous thing to make progress on the temple, and would see God's support in that rebuilding work. The text does allow for the period of 'denunciation' and 'fasting' both running for the same period of time. Different 'actors' can both be in the same 'play'.You're entirely missing the point: the FASTS continued. That the meaning of the fasts would change is irrelevant. Winter changes into something else -- spring. The fasts did not change into something else.Though the fasts continued, to commemorate what happened, as Zechariah chapter 8 relates, they were no longer fasts of mourning and wailing, but of rejoicing after the 70 years. The purpose of, and the attitude toward, the fasts changed after 517. As Zechariah 8:18 confirms, God says that the fasts would "become for the house of Judah an exultation and a rejoicing and good festal seasons." These are not expressions of denunciation.
Okay, okay, don't have a field day on this. Yes I did say 'denunciation' a couple of times where it is not consistent with what you were saying - the typing fingers have a mind of their own. In my model the period of denunciation equals the time of fasting, so the word 'denunciation' spilled out. The marked instances of the word 'denunciation' should be replaced with 'mourning' for consistency.
If in fact the eyewinesses saw sommething other than a stake, a take with a crosspiece in the shape of a cross, then why did not theu use that specific Geek word.
But what other Greek word was there that referred to a two-timbered cross? You have posed this question several times already, assuming that there was another word that referred specifically to a stake with a crossbeam. But this is not the case. The word stauros referred to Roman crucifixion in all its various forms (just as Latin crux did), including a two-timbered cross as ancient sources clearly prove. You are imposing the English distinction between "stake" and "cross" on an ancient Greek word, assuming that the shape of the instrument was critical to its meaning; if it lacked a crossbeam, it was a stauros, if it had one, it was something else. But this is patently false, as Lucian and others show.
Agaim this is confirmed by the use of xulon to denote the instrument of Jesus' death which has a similar or parallel meaning as stauros, a tree or piece of wood.
And the first-century writer Seneca also referred to a two-beamed cross metaphorically as a "tree", so there is nothing inherent in a word for "tree" (or "stake" for that matter) that excludes the inclusion of another piece of wood. Don't forget that the titilus (the board stating the charge, "King of the Jews") was usually another piece of wood as well. By mentioning xulon as a proof in of itself without addressing any of my points on the matter in my original essay, you give the distinct appearance of criticizing without even reading the piece.
In Greek, there are a number of words that could be used to describe such a cross-like instrument.
And the only one I know of at the time was stauros. As usual, you fail to state any specifics and make made-up claims without any supporting evidence. Stauros was the general word to refer to crucifixion as practiced by the Romans, Greeks, and other peoples, and it was the only word that was specifically depicted in two-beamed terms....by pagan Greek writers describing the execution instrument. This fact is well-known, as even your Liddell-Scott lexicon recognizes (see AlanF's post on the matter).
I also see you have made no response to my complaint concenring your lies/misrepresentations about my essay's use of primary sources.
Stauros was the general word to refer to crucifixion as practiced by the Romans, Greeks, and other peoples, and it was the only word that was specifically depicted in two-beamed terms
I really don't understand this whole cross/stake argument. It is alleged by the Society that the device for Jesus' death could not be a cross because the cross is a pagan symbol, yet he was killed by the Romans who were pagans. That would tend to suggest, all word definitions aside, that it is not unlikely that the Romans might use a cross for their executions.
I do understand the argument that wearing a cross is a little bit like wearing a replica of a gun that killed someone you loved but that's a separate issue.
Jeffro....The Society mixes up the issue of the use of a cross symbol in religious devotion with the Roman practice of crucifixion; the argument that Jesus did not die on a cross is intended to discredit the use of the cross symbol (and note that Rutherford adopted the "stauros was a stake" theory when Bible Students were still using the cross as a symbol, and Rutherford sought to rid the group of this "Babylonish" taint), and it is often presented as the "clincher" argument in anti-cross articles in WTS literature to prove that the cross symbol has no place in Christianity. In order to buttress this claim that Jesus did not die on a cross (which itself is aimed at discrediting the use of the symbol), they Society claims that the word stauros did not REFER to the two-beamed crosses the Romans usually used in their executions. If stauros did not refer to such crosses, but instead referred to something else (i.e. a "stake" alone), then clearly the stauros the Bible claims that Jesus was executed on could not have been a cross. That is the basis of the torture-stake theory. The Society has also claimed that the Latin equivalent crux also could not have meant "cross" (the instrument, not the symbol), that Lucian used the word stauros to refer to impalement on a simple stake, that Livy used the word crux only to refer to simple stakes, and so forth. All these claims are false.
Hope this clarifies things....
:: one that I've tried to explain a number of times in this thread: just because someone says that some specific period of time has elapsed from a beginning event until today does not necessarily mean that the person is assigning a completed period
It also does not automatically mean that they are not. The singular form of 'these' and 'year' in the original text, can be validly interpreted in agreement with the assertion that a discrete 70-year period is intended.
Jeffro ---
I'm fighting off a summer cold and haven't yet caught up on all the recent messages in this thread, but I do have a comment/question about the exchange quoted above (especially in light of Narkissos's message at the top of this page).
Are you basing your current understanding of the Zechariah passages on the fact that zeh appears in the singular? If so, I am somewhat concerned that you may have misunderstood my earlier posts.
A couple of days ago you were of the opinion that the word "these" does not appear in the Hebrew text. That's when I jumped in to say that, yes, actually, the demonstrative pronoun is in the text.
Perhaps I should have left it at that, but I get sort of compulsive about details, so I went ahead and brought up something I had mentioned earlier, which is that the word "zeh" is actually the singular form of the demonstrative pronoun (henceforth "DP"). (Usually, but obviously not always, when you see "these" in the English translation, you'd expect to see 'elleh (common plural DP).
I then shrugged this off as not a big deal by saying the usage was as if it were being treated as a collective noun. I rather suspect you've taken what I said and run with it, and perhaps in a way I would not go, myself. If so, I fear it's because I don't use the linguistic terminology as precisely as Narkissos, who is far abler than I to explain things using proper grammatical terms.
I read Hebrew, but it's only occasionally that I consult the various advanced reference grammars we have at home (Jouon/Muraoka, Waltke, Gesenius, van der Merwe.) I look things up when I am puzzled about a particular point, and then I may go ahead and read through a whole chapter while I am there, but just in a casual way. My husband, OTOH, and Narkissos have this linguistic stuff down pat.
So, Jeffro, if anything I have said seems unclear to you, please go by Nark, who is a real expert.
Anyway, I was a little surpised to see that you have made a rapid leap from stating that the word "these" doesn't even appear in the text to now saying that the singular form "can be validly interpreted in agreement with the assertion..." If I might, I'd just like to urge a little caution. Since you don't know Hebrew, you have to be extra careful about making assumptions about language use in the Biblical text which are based on your knowledge of how English works.
And Nark, if I have goofed in anything I have said, or if I have misrepresented your views, please feel free to jump in anytime and straighten me out! I had meant to get back to you about the question of to what degree Hebrew distinguishes a difference between the near and the distant DP, but I got caught up in other things and never really finished looking through the lists in Evan-Shoshan.
On a quick read-through, it seemed to me that there was no instance in the MT of the kind of construction I had posited, where a modern rabbi, speaking of the forty years the Jews spent in the wilderness, might say "those forty years." That doesn't seem to be the kind of construction that would have been used, and I wonder if it has something to do with the way the ancient Hebrews thought of time. I thought I remembered seeing something relevant in DeVries (Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow), but now I've misplaced the book.
Regards,
Marjorie
Leolaia...
Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to clarify what I said though. I'm familiar with the basic background, the word stauros etc. But they seem to ignore the flaw in their reasoning that the Romans were pagans so it is not a great stretch of the imagination that they might use a pagan symbol. More historically though, I was under the impression that the Romans used trees to impale people on without going to the trouble of stripping them down to single poles.
Alleymom (Marjorie),
Thanks for the information. It does help to clarify things a little.
Anyway, I was a little surpised to see that you have made a rapid leap from stating that the word "these" doesn't even appear in the text to now saying that the singular form "can be validly interpreted in agreement with the assertion..." If I might, I'd just like to urge a little caution. Since you don't know Hebrew, you have to be extra careful about making assumptions about language use in the Biblical text which are based on your knowledge of how English works.
To clarify my 'rapid leap', I had already understood from the context that a collective noun of 70 years was referred to. However, as I explained to AlanF, the source I had used for the Hebrew terms does not exhaustively list combining forms, and so there was no reference to zeh in the passage therein. However the inclusion of zeh does seem to suggest that the 70-year period does indeed serve as a collective noun.
Are you able to confirm whether it is linguistially possible that the original text may refer to the 70 years referred to in Zechariah chapter 1 as a period of 70 years that had not yet ended, and that ran from 587 to 517? It certainly does seem acceptable that the demonstrative pronoun can refer to a point during a 70-year period. I have heard plenty about how it can be interpreted as a 70 year period elapsed up until that time, but I have not heard anything that explicitly excludes the interpretation I have given.
Jeffro....That is true, that the Romans were pagans themselves....however, I don't think the crux compacta came into existence or was intended to be a "pagan symbol". This is an interpretation after the fact, the shape itself is simply a historical accident created by merging two originally independent forms of punishment together (patibulum-bearing and crucifixion on a crux simplex).
I'm sorry that the topic has again veered in this thread to something other than the 607 issue....I was just trying to respond to pseudo-scholar's rather outrageous statements.
