You provide a list of six so called false satements made by me. I interpret matters somewhat differently for I may have made one or two technical errors but as I am not a scholar of Hebrew and if a mistake is made then I am happy to be corrected.
Those are not mere technical errors. These include big blunders of fact (such as #1) in which a whole line of argument is based on such error, or attempts to bluff your way by claiming things are one way when they are not (such as your claim #4 that Jenni never cited Jeremiah 29:10, or your claim #3 that le is used in Jeremiah 29:28). It is one thing to have an erstwhile error of recall or analysis, it is another thing to make assertions repeatedly without regard to the facts.
Your list is nothing short of a perversion of truth, typical perverted poztate thinking.
The list is a fair representation of what has gone on in this thread....you making bald assertions to back up the WTS translation and chronology, and others showing that your so-called facts and claims have no substance.
The facts are that Jeremiah 29:10 has been accurately translated with the phrase 'at Babylon' in accordance with all Hebrew lexica and grammar, consistent with the textual tradition, the context of the chapter and the book of Jeremiah.
A case in point, with respect to your "facts". Yes, "at Babylon" is technically possible if we disregard the grammatical context and look only at what lexicons may "permit" a word to mean. It is just as possible to render the phrase as "seventy years according to Babylon", even tho this is almost surely wrong. But as Narkissos, Marjorie, Jenni, and I have shown throughout this thread, "at Babylon" is a most unlikely translation, whereas "for Babylon" or a quasi-possessive (e.g. "Babylon's seventy years") is the best way to capture the dative sense of the phrase, especially considering the given construction. Comparing the two alternatives, there is no question that "for Babylon" is vastly superior to "at Babylon". Just because "at Babylon" is technically possible in some limited contexts does not justify the WTS' mistranslation of this verse.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to your bizarre thesis that stauros does not mean stake but cross
There is nothing bizarre about it at all. Care to explain why you think it is bizarre? Because if ancient Greek writers used it to mean "cross", well, it can mean cross! And you misrepresent my essay to say that I claim "that stauros does not mean stake". For you to imply such a thing shows that you do not understand my "thesis" at all.
and the nonsense that parousia does not mean presence but coming.
Again, nonsense in your mind, but not in reality. Care to prove that parousia does not mean "coming"? And again, you misrepresent things to say that I claimed "that parousia does not mean presence".
Perhaps these willey poztates should now produce their own grammars and lexicons or have their nonsense research published in reputable scholarly journals.
Reputable scholarly journals and reference works already discuss how stauros can refer to a "cross", parousia can mean "coming", or ..... how le can mean (indeed, usually means) "for, belonging to".
