by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
EvilForce
The date 607 is verifiable as it accords with both secular and biblical evidence. It truly is amazing that just as Daniel said in 12:3-4 that God's people living during the time of the end would indeed have insight causing true knowledge to become abundant. So it is with the fulfillment of prophecy that true chronology is now available to the many through its many publications of the FDS.
scholar JW
The only thing that the WTBS is abundant in is hot air and lies. The wicked slave is puffed up with pride. The WTBS has abused Christ's flock and are bloodguilty for their transgressions.
You are going to have to answer to the big guy when your time is up for deceiving people and allowing Satan to use you like this.
May God have mercy on your soul Scholar.
EF
I'm completly with you on your previous two posts in this thread. Scholar has taught me a whole buch of info on the teachings of 607, and I'm greatful for this. I am now absolutly convinced on the date in question. Thank you scholar. No really, thank you.
steve
I remember seeing a woman once defend her reasoning for locking her children in a public storage facility during the day so that she could work without having to pay child care. An attendant heard whimpering and cut off the lock to reveal the two children both under the age of 5, suffering from extreme heat and running high fevers.
Even though their lives had been placed in jeopardy, this idiot woman was so convinced that her reasons for risking them had been justified that she actually granted an interview to explain why what she had done was acceptable. She seemed insane and the children were taken from her.
Scholar is defending an indefensible position with all the passion and conviction of this insane woman, who almost cost the lives of her own children.
Either he is morally bankrupt and a waste of human flesh like anyone else who knows he tells lies which hurt but continue to do so, or, he is not right in the head. Whichever it is, his "witness" and "defense of the WT chronology" is an embarrasment.
Scholar, you have had your butt handed to you so many times on this thread that it is laughable. Why do you continue to put the 'Society' down by 'being on their side'?
J
Such technical errors were made possible by the inability for such poztates to present all the facts whence they were making such dogmatic statements concerning Jeremiah 29:10
1) Your errors are due to your own carelessness and propensity to make claims without checking the evidence, or even understanding the issues. 2) The people you call "poztates" have presented most of the facts on this thread; you, on the other hand, have presented little evidence of substance and many of your so-called facts have been proved to be wrong in this thread. 3) If anyone is making "dogmatic" statements on Jeremiah 29:10, it is your insistance that it must be a static locative. I'm the one who has continually spoken in terms of probability, of what rendering is most probable and what is least probable.
It was I not you that requested that Jenni's material be posted in full and that took repeated requests on my part.
Why do you expect others to do research for you? You also fail to mention the context of your request. You shamelessly bluffed your way by saying that Jenni did not cite Jeremiah 29:10, and you made this claim at my expense...as I had said the opposite. How could you possibly assert what Jenni did or did not cite without having even seen the book? By posting the actual pages of the book, I showed that your claim was just made-up BS.
As usual, the wiley poxtates are compelled to address the facts but continually refuse to present all the facts.
What facts have the "poxtates" refused to present? You insinuate that those you call "poxtates" have something to hide. What would that be? I have to say that I've done a lot to bring these facts to light and present them. What research have you done?
I have for some time urged Jenni's supporters to present Jenni's original article on le in regard to Jeremiah 3:17. There is little point in sourcing Jenni for support unless his seminal article is discussed.
I don't have the article. Why again do you depend on others to do your research for you? Meanwhile Narkissos has already provided in this thread a summary of his paper. Furthermore, it is completely false to say that there is "little point" in citing Jenni without having this article at hand, as if his voluminous work on the preposition Lamed has no value apart from this paper....as well as his plain statements to Johnsson and yourself.
Interestingly, in this verse namely Jeremiah 3:17, the NWT uses le in a locative sense.. So, poztates do not always present all of the facts but use some facts rather selectively.
And you have an annoying habit of mischaracterizing things. We have already discussed this text in this thread, so your claim that we are being selective is false. And you again fail to note that Jenni treats the le in Jeremiah 3:17 as a directional locative, NOT as a static locative....again you fail to note the difference, which is just typical of your failure to understand the basic linguistic facts. The WHOLE issue, manufactured by the WTS, is whether le in Jeremiah 29:10 is a static locative or something else. Narkissos and I have already shown that static locative le is very rare and limited to a small number of fixed expressions and constructions....none of which occur in the present text.
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 dishonest and rather meaningless.
It is entirely honest to admit that a word can have a range of usage and meaning apart from its context. Your "grudgingly admit" reference is pure nonsense. It has been my position all throughout this thread from the beginning that the usage and sense of le depends on what construction it occurs in. This is the whole focus of Jenni's work as well.
The facts is that le can have a locative meaning in this context
False....we have already presented extensive evidence on the specific grammatical context of the le in Jeremiah 29:10.....and it is not one associated with locative usage but patterns with other expressions involving the duration of time units. It is exactly the context that is decisive on the matter because the phrasing fits very well with an established pattern.
and you have not cited any rule of grammar that prevents le being translated 'at' in this case.
I have already explained to you why your request of a rule is unreasonable. Rather, Narkissos and I have already presented in detail other examples of the same grammatical construction....the linguistic pattern that could be formalized into a probablistic rule if one wants to...what matters is not a constructed rule, but the actual pattern that the rule seeks to formalize. That pattern, we have already explained in depth.
The immediate context favors the locative sense over the instrumental because the expression for Babylon would indicate that the seventy years belong to Babylon. Conversely, the the scriptures indicate quite plainly that the seventy years belong to Judah, the land, people alone and not to Babylon.
This is an exegetical fallacy. I'm sure Narkissos can explain it to you, if you do not understand. Meanwhile, you are a priori ruling out the very evidence that would falsify your claim.
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.
That is false. There is plenty justification for concluding that the NWT is wrong because the evidence overwhelmingly is in favor of the "for Babylon" rendering. You see things only in black and white, either it is impossible or not impossible. I say that it is not impossible, but exceedingly improbable, so that it is the least likely option. You are arguing for something that is least likely according to the evidence, while "for Bablylon" is most probable.
Greek lexicography currently asserts that stauros means stake and parousia means presence and so the position of the WT scholars on these matters remains vindicated despite the best efforts of poztates to rewrite the lexica.
Would you care to explain why ancient Greek writers used stauros to mean "cross" then? You have not provided one substantial criticism to my post.
Leolaia
It is the Jonsson hypothesis that makes dogmatic claims concerning the translation of le in Jeremiah 29:10, at least you admit to no dogmatism on this matter so would it not be fair and accurate for you to readjust Jonsson's dogmatism.
I would have thought that for the benefit of all that you would have posted Jenni's original article ofn Jeremiah 3: 17 before running off and forming theories concerning what Jenni may or may not have said about the matter. For starters, Jenni's researchis not readily available and would need to be transalted into English. It is those wiley poztates who promote Jenni not WT scholars so if you are going to promote him then do so completely and not partially.
Just because le is rarely used as a static locative does not mean that it is inadmissable in Jeremiah 29:10 for it is permitted lexically, gramatically and contextually as proven by the traditional rendering of 'at' right up to the present day.
If it is impossible for a grammatical determination to be made in this case then how then can there be any room for dogmatism on your part. If as you allege there is a pattern as shown by Jenni then all this admits to is that there is a certain fluidity in respect to how prepositions should be rendered.
If the evidence is so overwhelming against the NWT rendering then where is this overwhelming evidence? You must remember that such evidence is lacking in the lexicons, grammars, journals and even in the previous three editions of the GTR. It is inly in the 4th edn GTR that Jonsson bases his new evidence on Jenni's linguistic pattern. So your overwhelming evidence against the NWT is sheer bunkum.
There is no exegetical fallacy in assigning a locative meaning as opposed to the instrumental 'for' because there is not a single text in the Bible that connects the seventy years Babylon. Thoise texts that discuss the seventy yeras only connect the period with Judah, its people and Jerusalem.
I do see things rather black and white because when comes to the seventy year there is no other interpretation other than one of desolation, exile, servitude made clear by a direct reading of the principal texts.
The ancient Greek writers used stake rather than cross for it was not until later in the earlly Christian period that cross as a pagan symbol became popularized by dem der wiley poztates in the Patristic literature.
Please correct Jonsson's dogmatism by advisingg him of your more nuanced linguistic approach regarding the transaltion of le in Jeremiah 29:10. Perhaps he will tone things down a bit in his 5th edn GTR.
scholar JW
I do appreciate your attemps to answer my questions Scholar. You wrote:
3. Salvation does not depend upon a chronology or any date.
If this statement of yours is true then the GB has got themselves in deep trouble with God as they force JW's to accept this date or such ones are treated as dead. How do you think God feels about this if your statement is true?
Scholar,
How do I know this? I am sorry, that is my secret. Have you ever heard of Revelation?
Yes I have. I have also heard of Puppet Master's, and as judging from the erratic content of your past few posts yours seems to have abandoned you to yourself, I would suggest that you pray for a revelation, or at the very least some common sense.
I do see things rather black and white because when comes to the seventy year there is no other interpretation other than one of desolation, exile, servitude made clear by a direct reading of the principal texts.
No, you see things in black or white Scholar, not black and white. You see the color that you are allowed to see by the corporate end of the Puppet Mastery, and with them there is never a nuance. HS
Scholar said: I would have thought that for the benefit of all that you would have posted Jenni's original article ofn Jeremiah 3: 17 before running off and forming theories concerning what Jenni may or may not have said about the matter. For starters, Jenni's researchis not readily available and would need to be transalted into English. It is those wiley poztates who promote Jenni not WT scholars so if you are going to promote him then do so completely and not partially.
Neil--
Since Narkissos reads German, I sent him a copy of Jenni's article on Jeremiah 3:17 on May 21. He promptly read it and provided a summary for all of us on page 13 of this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1531452/post.ashx#1531452
Didn't you see it?
Marjorie
scholar pretendus wrote:
: Zechariah 7:1-5 simply indicates that there was already a period of fasting that continued right up to the 4th year of Darius.
At long last you admit that you agree with the text and the Society on this. For a long time, you wouldn't even acknowledge the point.
So we all agree that the period of fasting continued up through 518 B.C.
: This period of fasting began after the Fall of Jerusalem
Immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, yes. So we all agree on this, too.
: in 607
If the period of fasting ran from 607 through 518 B.C., then counting inclusively, it was a period of 90 years.
Of course, the text says nothing about "90 years". It mentions only 70 years.
: and continued as a tradition right up to the present as the 4th year of Darius.
Right, which means that the period of fasting -- using your claimed date of 607 -- was 90 years.
I will also point out for the record that, because you've admitted that the period was a continuing one, you've also admitted that it had not yet ended. In other words, if the answer from Jehovah was that they should continue to fast, then the period would have gone on to 91, 92, 93, ... years. Of course, the text does not tell us what Jehovah's answer was, so whether the fasts continued is unknown. In other words, the period was an ongoing one that, up to the point of time when the Jews inquired of Jehovah, had run for 90 years (according to you and the Society) and might well run a lot longer.
: Obviously, this tradition of annual fastingt continued past the seventy year which was the solemnization of that annual tradition
This is absolute gobble-de-goop. Can't you manage to write in coherent sentences?
: so the question was only logical to ask as to how long they should continue this annual practice of fasting.
Right. And that's what the text said the Jews asked about.
So far so good, scholar pretendus. But you go on to blow it by massive special pleading and thoroughly stupid arguments.
: The evidence is quite clear that the seventy years period must have already expired
This is pure special pleading. You need such a ridiculous claim to be true for no other reason than if it isn't, then you have to admit that Zech. 7:1-5 proves conclusively that Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C.
But look what you've done, logically: You claim that a period of fasting beginning in 607 B.C. and continuing up through 518 B.C. had some sort of break point at 70 years. But the text gives no indication of such a break point. Indeed, as you've agreed, the period is continuous from beginning to end, 607 to 518 B.C. -- again using your own dates. Therefore, your claim is pure special pleading, and is nothing more than a circular argument.
: otherwise it could not have been seventy years
But above you've admitted that the period of fasting you claim lasted 90 years was a continuing one, and therefore it had not yet ended. And when we use the 70-year figure that the text actually assigns to the period of fasting, that 70 years was also a continuing one. Thus your argument is proved irrelevant.
: so then this period ran from 607 until 537 which was a period of annual mournings and fastings.
You've merely pulled this claim out of your ass. As I've demonstrated, it's nothing but special pleading, and it results in an argument that's entirely circular.
: My comment on the scholarly status of Frederick William Franz is simply my personal opinion
So what? It's obviously based not on pure opinion, but on information you've gotten from JWs you trust. Obviously, since no one outside Bethel officially knows who wrote what publications, your information had to come ultimately from Bethelites or former Bethelites. In other words, your sources are the same as ours.
: and is not meant to imply that he was a member of the NWT C ommittee because it is impossible to know the said identity of that commitee.
The committee members -- all Bethelites -- certainly knew who they themselves were. The many Bethelites who worked with them certainly knew who they were. For example, Barbara Grizzuti Harrison worked as a proof reader for the NWT committee in the early 1950s. Many years later, long after she left Bethel and the JWs, she wrote the book Visions of Glory about her experience as a young JW, and she revealed the identitites of some of the translators. A former poster on this board, Maximus, also worked as a NWT proof reader in the 1950s, and confirmed everything that Barbara Grizutti had said, and a lot more besides. And of course, we have the testimony of former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, who as a GB member, was certainly in a position to know. Thus we have three witnesses, and we also have other witnesses I've not mentioned. So it's perfectly evident that someone you trust, with Bethel connections, told you that Fred Franz was THE NWT translator as well as the author of numerous WTS publications -- otherwise you'd have no reason to praise him in the worshipful way you do.
So, scholar pretendus, you've been caught once again with your pants down, claiming that it's impossible to know the NWT committee members' identities, yet knowingly praising its most prominent member.
: Franz was an accomplished writer, researcher and scholar, responsible for much of our literature published in his lifetime so on that basis alone his stature is assured alone, independent of any speculative involvement with the foresaid NWT Committee.
Make such silly claims all you like. We know the truth.
AlanF
