Jeffro wrote:
:: You say this with the a priori assumption that there was one and only one period of 70 years ("the 70 years") mentioned by Zechariah, one that had a definite beginning and a definite end.
: Using a priori instead of prior doesn't add weight to your post; writing your entire post in Latin - now that would be impressive!
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.
You're grasping at straws, man.
: I have not made prior assumptions. If you properly read my previous posts, you will note that I have stated that the text allows for either interpretation, not that I am right and you are wrong.
I didn't say that YOU are making prior assumptions. The form of my statement clearly indicates that your ARGUMENT requires the a priori assumption that I explicitly mentioned.
Of course, I'm explicitly arguing that your argument is wrong.
:: I'm getting the impression that you simply don't understand an important point
: Have you been getting posting tips from scholar?
About as many as you, I suspect.
: Please don't presume to tell me what I do and do not understand. Understanding a point you have made does not mean I can not put forward a different one that fits the text but disagrees with your point.
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.
:: 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 -- a chunk of time, if you will, with a definite beginning and a definite end -- to the elapsed time. I'm 53 years old, and if I happen to say that I've lived 53 years, that in no sense implies that the period of my life has ended! So it is with the statements in Zechariah: they imply, not periods that have ended, but periods that are ongoing, and happen to have been ongoing for about 70 years when the prophet wrote down the words of the angel or whoever.
: If the periods are both ongoing, there is linguistically nothing to suggest that they are not the same period anyway.
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. Since the textual evidence is there, there is no need for linguistic evidence -- whatever you mean by that -- and your point is moot.
:: Since these fasts would become "an exultation and a rejoicing", they must necessarily continue beyond the then present. And if they would continue, then clearly the observances of fastings that had begun in 587 B.C. were to continue long after the time in 518/17 when the elapsed time from 587 to 518/17 just happened to be 70 years. Therefore there was no end point to the period of fastings -- they continued from 587, through 518/17, right on until the Jewish nation was essentially annihilated in 70 A.D.
: If I say that winter becomes spring, I don't mean that winter continues. The fasts of mourning "became" - 'were replaced by' - rejoicing.
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.
:: Well that's exactly my point: there was no period that had ended -- it was simply the elapsed time from when the denunciation began, likely in 589 B.C., to when Zechariah received his angelic message in 519 B.C. The period of denunciation obviously continued on until the things mentioned by Zechariah as prime evidence of continuing denunciation were gone -- in particular, that the temple was rebuilt, which was not done until about 515 B.C.
: 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.
:: Because it marked the virtually complete destruction of Jerusalem along with the destruction of the temple. These were obviously not destroyed in the earlier sieges, so there's a huge difference between the earlier sieges and the siege of 589-587. I'm sure you'll admit that the indignation that resulted in the destruction of the temple was far greater than anything that went before.
: It can just as rightly be said that it was the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple in 587, rather than the siege in 589, that marked God's indignation.
Yes, and I've already allowed for that. In my previous post (29-Jun-05 12:42) I wrote:
Assuming Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C., the siege of it began in 589 B.C. From 589 to 520/19 (Darius' 2nd year) is 70 years, counting inclusively. One can validly argue that the "indignation" against Jerusalem began when the siege began, and so we have 70 years of "indignation". Alternatively, we can argue that the "indignation" began at Jerusalem's destruction, and then we have an approximate 70-year period.
Once again you've ignored a major point by bringing up something completely irrelevant.
:: You're entirely missing the points I've made.
: See my comments above regarding putting a point forward not meaning that I am rejecting other valid interpretations.
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.
:: First, you're assuming, without proper justification, that there was a definite end to one definite period. Otherwise you couldn't sensibly write about "the length of the period".
: See my comments above regarding the end of the 70-year period.
I've shown why those comments are meaningless.
:: My arguments above show why these are wrong assumptions. Second, you're simply ignoring my argument about "these 70 years" and so forth. You can't prove anything by ignoring peoples' arguments.
: Again, I have not ignored your arguments, I have never said that you are wrong, only that another intrepretation is valid.
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.
:: Of course there is, as Alleymom has shown. If you look at the actual Hebrew text, you'll find that in each instance in my previous post where I highlighted in red the word "these", you'll find the Hebrew word zeh (this or these). So in each case, the Hebrew is clearly talking about a specific elapsed time which had elapsed for 70 years (but not ended) at the point when Zechariah received his divine message.
: Apparently the source I have is not as comprehensive as Alleymom's, and apparently does not exhaustively indicate combining forms, which caused some confusion on my part and for that I apologise.
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).
: As stated in previous posts, the presence of zeh does not take away from the interpretation I have given.
You've stated this, but not proved it. To prove it, you'll have to specifically refute each of my arguments.
:: Now that you know the facts about the Hebrew word for "these", you'll have to go back and try again to understand the arguments I've made, instead of rejecting them based on your misunderstanding of the Hebrew.
: Did scholar teach you this?
Do you really want to go down this route with such remarks? If you do, I guarantee you'll come out the loser.
: I don't have to agree with you to understand you. You don't need to keep asserting that your interpretation is valid as I have never suggested that it is not.
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.
:: Ok, now I understand your point. However, if you carefully consider the actual words of the prophet, you'll see that your argument doesn't apply. In Zech. 1:12, it is the angel of Jehovah who asks the question (NWT): "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?" The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last.
: Just as the question about the 'new moons' of Amos is not about "not knowing how long", niether is the angel's question. It is asked in frustration of the circumstances, not over not knowing the time period.
Now you're getting a bit clearer on what you mean by "frustration". Your first statement was:
::: This would not be the only occurrence in the bible where a question was asked concerning frustration or impatience regarding the length of a known period of time.
This certainly sounds like you're talking about a person being frustrated. This is especially true of your statement in a later post:
::: The question is asked in frustration, not to receive an enumeration of days.
Your phrase "in frustration of the circumstances" is not one I've seen before, and does not elicit a clear word picture.
:: Indeed, you've already argued that the angel must have known how long it would last! So you're mixing up the point of view of the angel with a postulated point of view of the Jews who you seem to think might have posed the question, but did not.
: That's just too condescending. Please don't presume that I would make such a fundamental mistake as that.
If you wrote more clearly about things like what you mean by "frustration", I'd be more able to understand what you mean.
: You have said that you understood my point about Amos 8:5, though this suggests that you did not.
Not your notion of "frustration of circumstances". Nevertheless, your point is still wrong. Zech. 1:12 clearly speaks of a period of denunciation or indignation that had run, up to the point in time of the angel's speaking, 70 years. You want to understand the text to mean something like, "You have been indignant these seventy years which will extend two years or more from today." Well the text simply doesn't say that. Such an understanding doesn't even make sense. And I've already shown that the period of denunciation or indignation did not end in Darius' 4th year, 518/17 B.C., but extended several years more, to when the temple was finished around 515 B.C. So there was not even a specific period of 70 years of denunciation -- only an elapsed period which ran from 589/87 B.C. down through Darius' 2nd and 4th years and finally ended about 515 B.C., and happened to have hit an elapsed time of about 70 years in Darius' 2nd year.
:: As I have shown, your position is not just extremely unlikely, but contradicts fairly straightforward scriptures.
: What have I contradicted? ie, what have I stated that is not consistent with valid interpretations, whether or not they are consistent with your understanding?
See my immediately preceding paragraph above.
:: Once again you're assuming your conclusion, namely, that there was a "singular collective '70-year period'". But as I've shown in this post, this is unwarranted.
: I am simply applying Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor can properly be applied only to approximately equally valid interpretations. Yours contradicts rather clear scriptures, as I've shown.
:: Your reasoning here is entirely self-inconsistent. If the word zeh refers to something that is present, then it's pretty obvious that the time period that is present in Zech. 1 (a period of denunciation spoken of in Darius' 2nd year) is quite different from the time period present in Zech. 5 (a period of fastings and mournings spoken of in Darius' 4th year). Obviously then, these two time periods are different.
: See my comments above.
I trust you'll revisit them.
: As the use of zeh agrees, the period of "these 70 years" could be said to be current or present at any point during that period, just as I could refer to this century as "these hundred years" at any point in the century.
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.
Next post:
::: At Amos 8:5, it asked when the next new moon will be. Times between new moons are a known period, especially by people who use a lunar calendar. The question is asked in frustration, not to receive an enumeration of days. A similar principle may be in involved in Zechariah chapter 1.
:: Ok, now I understand your point. However, if you carefully consider the actual words of the prophet, you'll see that your argument doesn't apply. In Zech. 1:12, it is the angel of Jehovah who asks the question (NWT): "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?" The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last. Indeed, you've already argued that the angel must have known how long it would last! So you're mixing up the point of view of the angel with a postulated point of view of the Jews who you seem to think might have posed the question, but did not.
: 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.
Next post:
::: It is agreed that the 70 years functions as a singular 70-year period in Zechariah chapter 1.
:: It is certainly not so agreed. See above.
: On May 25, AlleyMom posted:
:::: Zechariah 1:12 says "THESE seventy years" (the Hebrew zeh is the singular form of the demonstrative pronoun, and the word for year is singular. In English, this would literally be "THIS seventy YEAR"; i.e., THIS seventy year period, treating the substantive as a collective noun.
: It is based on this statement that I suggested that it is agreed that the 70 years functions as a singular 70-year period in Zechariah chapter 1.
When someone says, "it is agreed that . . .", the implication is that "everyone agrees that . . .". Obviously, neither I nor Narkissos agrees.
At any rate, the same argument can be applied to Zechariah chapter 7. But as I've shown above, the texts clearly indicate that the 70 years mentioned in chapter 1 were part of a longer period of denunciation by God against the Jews, which ran from about 589/87 to 515 B.C., whereas the 70 years mentioned in chapter 7 were part of a much longer period of fasting and mourning that ran from 587 through 518/17 and for at least another 600 some odd years. Therefore, whether one wants to consider these 70-year periods as "singlar 70-year periods" or as a series of years is moot.
AlanF
