As usual, scholar pretendus not only plays the fool, but is the fool.
In his usual moronic fashion, he replies to Leolaia's studied response:
: Such technical errors were made possible by the inability for such poztates to present all the facts
Wrong. Enough facts were presented by quoting Jenni and others that it was totally unnecessary to post full scans or full texts of the material. When that was done, nothing changed. As usual, you lie by misrepresenting facts.
: whence they were making such dogmatic statements concerning Jeremiah 29:10
This is gibberish English. Why, scholar pretendus, do you continue lying about getting a Master's Degree? No reputable institution would grant a degree to someone with such outlandishly poor language skills.
: It is you that continue to make bold assertions without facts to support such assertions.
LOL! Your posts are study in that.
: Now, you grudgingly admit that technically speaking, the translation le is possible only if one disregards the grammatical context and look only at what lexicons permit.
This is among the most stupid assertions you've made in this thread. No one has denied that "the translation le is possible only if one disregards the grammatical context and look only at what lexicons permit." Posters have been saying this throughout this thread. Your implication that Leolaia's statement is the very first time anyone has said this is an outright lie -- so typical of your pathological love of lying to support your Mommy.
What you stubbornly refuse to admit is that a possible translation made only by dumbly referring to lexicons is not necessarily the correct translation. This is because words often have many flavors of meaning, and therefore context must determine which flavor or flavors are appropriate.
: This is dishonest and rather meaningless.
LOL!
: The facts is that le can have a locative meaning in this context
No, it cannot. Many posters have already proved this in various ways. I will repeat my own argument -- which you have not even attempted to refute -- which proves that the translation "at Babylon" results in a contradiction in various Watchtower claims. Obviously, contradictory claims cannot all be correct.
The context of Jer. 29:10 clearly states that when the 70 years were completed (what the 70 years mean is irrelevant to this argument) Jehovah would fulfill his promise to the Jews and bring them back to Jerusalem. Obviously, once the Jews left Babylon, the 70 years had to be over -- otherwise, Jehovah's word would not be fulfilled to the letter. When the Jews left Babylon in 538 or 537 B.C., it took them at least four months to return to Babylon. But the Watchtower Society and you claim that the 70 years did not end until the Jews were back in Jerusalem -- some four months after they left Babylon. This contradicts the prophecy that the 70 years would already be completed when the Jews left Babylon, and means the Watchtower teaches that the 70 years were still running for four months after the Jews were no longer "at Babylon". By your own claimed standards, since Watchtower teaching contradicts the Bible, it cannot be correct. Therefore, by the Watchtower's own teaching that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned to Jerusalem, the translation "at Babylon" in the NWT at Jer. 29:10 is wrong.
: and you have not cited any rule of grammar that prevents le being translated 'at' in this case.
It has been explained to you a number of times now that no Grammar Dictator determines rules of grammar in any language. So-called rules of grammar are merely generalizations made by scholars of the way people actually speak. What was a rule of grammar in 15th-century English might not be now, and today there are rules of English grammar that violate the rules of 500 years ago.
Jenni's scholarship shows that the use of "le" in Jeremiah 29:10 is extremely unlikely, given its usage in all other Hebrew sources he has explored. It is the opinion of scholars as to what rules of grammar are in living and dead languages. Period.
You can cite no scholars who support the NWT rendering here. All modern scholars who have been asked to render an opinion support a translation like "for Babylon". The NWT simply has no modern scholarly support.
: the preoposition le has a wide semantic range and does possess a locative meaning.
So what? The word "metal" has a wide semantic range, too. Suppose I say, "I like metal." What range of meanings could this possibly have? Taken alone, it could mean a number of things. Only in a larger context can the precise meaning be determined. And that, as I've shown, is precisely why, by the Watchtower's own claims, a locative meaning is impossible here -- Watchtower teaching contradicts a locative meaning.
: The immediate context favors the locative sense over the instrumental because the expression for Babylon would indicate that the seventy years belong to Babylon.
Immediate context favors no such thing, as various posters have proved. And since the Watchtower's own teaching requires rejecting "at Babylon", no objection to "for Babylon" can be raised.
: Conversely, the the scriptures indicate quite plainly that the seventy years belong to Judah, the land, people alone and not to Babylon.
Absolute rubbish. You continue to ignore the words of Jeremiah 25:11, 12. The words are clear: many nations would serve Babylon during a period of 70 years; when the 70 years were complete, those nations would no longer serve. Judah and its people were just one of those many nations.
And of course, you continue to ignore the simple fact that 2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews no longer served Babylon once the Persian royalty -- i.e., Cyrus and company -- came to power. Thus, the Jews no longer served Babylon after 539 B.C.
Furthemore, you've entirely ignored the fact that there is no solid way to pick 537 over 538 B.C. as the year when the Jews returned to Judea. Most modern scholars favor 538, and the only reason the Watchtower picks 537 is that it can't have 607 and therefore 1914 without it. This is special pleading of the worst kind.
: The simple fact is that there is no justification in saying that the NWT is wrong in this instant and that it is impossible to say that the phrase cannot be rendered locatively.
The simple fact is that you're demonstrably wrong, and you know it. Since you know it, you're a liar.
Your penchant for lying is proved further by the following false claims:
: Greek lexicography currently asserts that stauros means stake
Lexicons also show that "stauros" came to mean cross by the time of Christ. The fact that you refuse to admit it simply proves your scholastic dishonesty.
: and parousia means presence
All lexicons show that "parousia" has a variety of meanings, including "presence, coming, arrival, advent" and so forth. A careful perusal of the works of Josephus shows that Josephus used the word in the latter three senses about 85% of the time. To deny this is to deny reality.
: and so the position of the WT scholars on these matters remains vindicated
What their refusal to admit reality shows is that they're grossly intellectually dishonest -- just like you, scholar pretendus.
: despite the best efforts of poztates to rewrite the lexica.
Yet another gross and deliberate lie. The only one in this thread to misrepresent lexicons is you. This is easy to demonstrate, as Leolaia has done. On the other hand, you can't cite even one example where a "poztate" has misrepresented any lexicon.
As usual, scholar pretendus, your post consists largely of demonstrable and deliberate falsehoods. I continue to be astounded that someone with such massive pride in a claim to be Christian can so cavalierly engage in such massive lying.
AlanF
