scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus said:
: Let me describe my methodology to you so that you are aware of how your material is respectfully and carefully examined:
: 1. Print out to a hard copy
I hope you can manage that better than you manage comprehension.
: 2. Read carefully each paragragh,
Not hardly. You have absolutely no reading comprehension at all when it suits your purposes.
: underlining and highligting main and secondary points.
Kindergarten learning at its best.
: Those points that are agreed or disagreed are marked accordingly.
Ditto. Except that the standard of agreement is whether the points agree with your personal version of Watchtower teaching.
: 3. Scriputes quoted or cited are checked with the NWT Reference Bible
Can't be too careful!
: 4. All texts quoted or cited are checked with major critical commentaries such as WBC, AB, Hermenaia,K&D, ICC
And all commentaries disagreeing with your version of Watchtower teaching are duly ignored. Or misrepresented if you think you can get away with it.
: 5. Subject matter explore further by journal articles
Which are also, in the main, duly ignored.
: 6. The context both immediate and general of the relevant scripture quoted or cited is carfully considered
Not by you, obviously.
: 7. Notes are carefully made
Not hardly.
Quite frankly, scholar pretendus, your presentations on this board are so atrociously bad that it's almost amusing. You ignore everything you can't deal with. Rather than debating -- which requires dealing with your opponents' arguments point by point, and attempting to refute each one -- you ignore almost everything, and post your own arguments instead, assuming that somehow, readers are so stupid as to not see what you've done. While this is the method of the Watchtower Society, it isn't the method of scholars. It isn't the method of intelligent debaters. It is the method of morally stupid cultists like Jehovah's Witnesses. And you, you ignorant lout, are by far the most breathtaking, aggressively, and militantly stupid JW in a moral sense that I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with. Now I'm going to prove it, yet again.
Readers will note that you ignored virtually everything I wrote in the post you responded to, or misrepresented it in some way.
: Jeremiah 29:10
: "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place'".
: You make much of the translation issue of whether the preposition before Babylon should be 'for' rather than 'at'
Yet another lie. My argument did not hinge on that issue, and for that reason there was little need to discuss it. Indeed, my only comments on that were of a secondary nature:
. . . while retaining the NWT's incorrect use of "at" rather than "for" in conjunction with "Babylon".
It has been pointed out by many commentators, and confirmed by almost all Bible translators, that the phrase that the NWT translates as "at Babylon" should properly be rendered "for Babylon".
So, Mr. pretendus, just how did your 'careful reading', your 'careful note taking', lead you to this bogus conclusion?
: but I am not to fussed about this point either way.
Good, because I certainly wasn't, and therefore I will not consider your comments about it.
: Therefore, it is the context alone which determines how the seventy years is to be understood,
Precisely the point of my post. How did you manage to miss it?
: ie.Babylon or the Exiles and when I mean context I mean the immediate context , Jeremiah 29:1-32.
: You state in your comments that the 'seventy years' must in this instance be a precise length of time
Yet another lie. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was:
According to the Society (and therefore scholar pretendus), this scripture proves that there was a period of precisely 70 years -- not a week longer and not a week shorter -- of desolation, servitude and exile of the Jews. . . the Society, and JW apologists like scholar pretendus, constantly emphasize that the time of "desolation, servitude and exile" of the Jews lasted precisely 70 years, and that the periods were identical.
So much for your careful reading. It should be obvious even to a kindergartner that I said that the Society and JW apologists make the claim that the 70 years were precisely that, to the month.
And that's absolutely true. More than a decade ago, the late John Albu emphasized to me that this was an extremely important point, and that the idea that the 70 years were only approximate therefore had to be rejected. Note that Albu was the Society's most respected (and probably only) Neo-Babylonian expert for many years, especially after Fred Franz became incapacitated.
: but the text does not indicate that because it simply refers to a period of seventy years.
Well, then, you've shot yourself in the foot by denying the Society's teaching!
: You make much of 'precision' in regard to the seventy yeras
Another misrepresentation. I do not make much of this -- I pointed out that the Society does, and that having done so, it has created internal inconsistency in its claims. It is this inconsistency that I make much of, because internal inconsistency in a set of claims is proof that the claims are false.
It's easy to prove that the Society does claim a exact period of 70 years for the desolation. The Insight book, under "Chronology", states (p. 463):
It was in the seventh month of this latter year [537 B.C.E.] that the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, exactly 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.
The 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come" states (p. 189):
Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ?round number? but an exact figure that could be counted on.
: and are critical of WT scholars because we
"We"? You're no scholar. You're an ignoramus.
: regard that the seventy years is an inclusive period of exile, servitude and desolation.
I proved that the periods are not identical. According to the Society, one of them must be 70 years exactly, and the other two about 69 years and five months.
You haven't shown anything whatsoever about these periods, but seem to still say, in your usual deliberately vague way, that they are the same. But this is impossible.
: This proved to be true as correctly note that Jerusalem fell in Tishri, 607
Wrong. According to the Insight book, under "Jerusalem" (pp. 43-4), Jerusalem fell on Tammuz 9 and on Ab 10 was begun to be burned. Under the subject "Chronology", Insight states (p. 458:
It is very probable that [Cyrus'] decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.
Insight further states (p. 463):
Jerusalem came under final siege in Zedekiah?s 9th year (609 B.C.E.), and the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar?s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). (2Ki 25:1-8) In the fifth month of that year (the month of Ab, corresponding to parts of July and August) the city was set afire, the walls were pulled down, and the majority of the people were led off into exile. However, "some of the lowly people of the land" were allowed to remain, and these did so until the assassination of Gedaliah, Nebuchadnezzar?s appointee, whereupon they fled into Egypt, finally leaving Judah completely desolate. (2Ki 25:9-12, 22-26) This was in the seventh month, Ethanim (or Tishri, corresponding to parts of September and October). Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. It was in the seventh month of this latter year that the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, exactly 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.
As usual, Mr. pretendus, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Note that the last quotation from Insight completely confirms the time scale for the Society's claims, which I gave in my last post.
: followed by a period of captivity in, to, at, for Babylon
Really. So you think that there was no interval between the destruction of Jerusalem around 1 August and the supposed final desolation of Judah around 1 October. It's no wonder you don't want Rud Persson to give your name to the Society.
: until their release and return to their homeland by Tishri 537. In this instant a period of seventy years elapsed between these two momentous evenTS; fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Exiles.
Wrong. According to the Society, the period between the fall of Jerusalem and the return of the exiles was 70 years and 2 months.
: In this period the land was desolate for a complete period of seventy years.
You got that wrong, too. The Society claims that it was from shortly after the assassination of Gedaliah to the return from exile.
Since you obviously have little understanding even of Watchtower teachings, after many years of trying to absorb them, it's no wonder you can't understand my post after one reading.
: Interestingly, your so called 'precise' seventy years is not demanded by the Jonsson hypothesis as there is no precise beginning of the seventy years but simply the calender date of 609 running to 539. Jonsson's discussion of the seventy years for Babylon admits fuzziness at the begiinning.
That's essentially what I said in my last post, you moron:
Furthermore, assigning the 70 years to the period 609 to 539 B.C. is reasonable, since various other scriptures (as I showed in my above post) definitively prove that the 70 years ended in 539 B.C. -- even though the Bible nowhere assigns a beginning to the period and even though, in the absence of direct statements, a beginning date of 609 B.C. is speculation.
: However, the WBC, Jeremiah 26-52, Vol.27, 1995, p.75 states "Babylon's seventy years in Jer. 29:10 should be interpreted both politically and personally. The political interpretation gives to the number seventy a meaning within international history as a more or less precise count of time elapsed between two significant political events".
You think that contradicts the notion that many scholars, Jack Finegan included, have tentatively accepted, i.e., that the 70 years ran from whenever in 609 B.C. the Babylonians defeated the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, to 539 B.C.? What a mentula flaccidus!
On the contrary, that quotation confirms it! The somewhat fuzzy period between 609 and 539 is most certainly time "elapsed between two significant political events" and it is most certainly "a more or less precise count of time elapsed". Once again you've cited a source that contradicts your claim and confirms that of your opponents.
How can anyone be that stupid?
: If the exiles in Babylon understood matters according to the Jonsson hypothesis then they would be without hope because the seventy years would be without a clearly discerned beginning.
Nonsense. They couldn't possibly have had more than perhaps four years uncertainty. If they understood the 70 years to run from the first time exiles were taken to Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 605 B.C. (like Daniel and company), then their time limit as servants to Babylon would have been about 535 B.C. And if they understood Jeremiah 29:10 properly, namely, that when the 70 years for Babylon were over, God would visit good things upon them, then when Babylon fell in 539 B.C., they would have understood that the time limit was up, and that very soon God would visit his pleasure on them.
And that's my whole point about Jeremiah 29:10: The context clearly indicates that first, the 70 years would be completed, and then God would visit his good pleasure on the Jews by arranging over the better part of a year to repatriate them. But the Society has this ass-backward: first God visits his pleasure on the Jews by arranging to repatriate them, and then many months later, upon their reaching Judah, the 70 years are completed.
How can you be so stupid as to miss all this, Mr. pretendus?
: The exiles in Babylon who received Jeremiah's letter as recorded in Chapter 29 would realized that the Fall marked the beginning of the seventy years.as a momentous event.
Only in the Society's imagination.
: The prophecy of Jeremiah 29:10 was a prohecy of hope, restoration based on a period of seventy years of exile and servitude to, for, at , in Babylon
Um, run that by me again? Let's see if you can answer a few simple questions:
How long, exactly, was the desolation of Judah, and when did it start and end, and with what events?
How long, exactly, was the exile, and when did it start and end, and with what events?
How long, exactly, was the servitude of the Jews to Babylon, and when did it start and end, and with what events?
: and following on from the earlier prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 which in addition refers to desolation of the land combines to form the Jeremaniac seventy years formula: EXILE, SERVITUDE DESOLATION.
Yet another deliberate misrepresentation. That scripture shows nothing of the sort. If you want to be perceived as anything but a gross liar, then point out precisely which words from that scripture support the words you capitalized.
: The immediate context of Jeremiah in Chapter 29 cannot possibly refer to Babylon's tenure as world power as claimed for verse 10.
Let's see if your justifications for this claim hold up:
: The context is addressed to those exiles in Babylon and were given instructions as how to conduct their lives as exiles.
Nope. The fact that the Jews were exiles is, in fact, supported by the fact that Babylon was supreme and would be supreme for 70 years.
: It does violence to the context by suggesting that the seventy years refers to Babylon's suzerainity rather to the captivity which would eventually end.
Nope. Same reason as above.
: Surely the latter would be a mesage of comfort rather than the former to boast of Babylon's victory.
This is gobble-de-goop. The fact that Babylon's term of supremacy was prophetically limited would have been extremely comforting to the exiles. How can you be so stupid as to claim the opposite?
: I now refer you to the translation issue of the phrasing of 'comleted' and the nullification of this phrasing by the expression 'in accord with'. The NWT's treatment of this passage well illustrates its genius or brilliance over all other translations
Not really. What it illustrates is that translators can pick and choose words that they think best fit the original intended meaning.
: and I reject your allegation of supposed 'nullification'.
Reject it all you want. You reject even the Society's teachings when it suits you.
: The NWT transaltes the Hebrew text accurately as demonstrated by the literal rendering of this passage in the AB, Jeremiah 21-36, Vol.2, 2004, p.353: "when according to the completion for Babylon". which corresponds nicely with the NWT's rendering "In accord with the fulfilling".
This turns out to be a good deal more complicated than I had first thought. Jay Green's The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek English Bible (which contains an interlinear, literal translation alongside Green's smooth rendering) renders the Hebrew word "lephi" literally as "as My mouth", and in the smooth translation as "according to My mouth", whereas the NIV interlinear has "by-mouth-of-me" and the Analytical Key leaves it out of the literal rendering altogether. Nevertheless, the Analytical Key cross references this word to page 804 of BDB (Brown - Driver - Briggs Lexicon), which shows that the root meaning of the word is "mouth", and provides more than a full page full of various derived meanings for many forms of the word. These meanings or idioms include "according to", "according as", "according to the mouth", and "according to the measure". So it appears that the NWT's literal rendering can somewhat be justified, although the phrasing is awkward, and it is far from literal because it leaves out the important word "when". In fact, the phrasing is awkard no matter how these forms of "accord" are inserted into an English rendering, when the word "when" is retained. For example:
For thus says Yahweh, when, according to the measure of the fulfilment of seventy years for Babylon, I will come to you and I will fulfil my good promise and bring you back to this place.
Or try this:
For thus says Yahweh, when, according to the fulfilment of seventy years for Babylon, I will come to you and I will fulfil my good promise and bring you back to this place.
Neither of these make very good sense. The NWT avoids the awkwardness by leaving out the important word "when":
In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people
The word "when" is extremely important here, because it marks a point in time: the point when the 70 years for Babylon were fulfilled, or completed. The Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on Jeremiah indicates an awareness of this awkwardness by rendering the Hebrew phrase in question, "lephi melo'th . . .", as "according to the measure of the fulfilment of seventy years for Babel" (p. 412), but in smooth English as "When as seventy years are fulfilled for Babylon". And of course, the fact that virtually all Bible translations retain "when" and omit "in accord with" shows that virtually all translators understand these points.
Now the question becomes: why does the NWT leave out the essential word "when"? Obviously because to put it in not only makes the wording awkward if the non-essential "in accord with" is retained, but tends to keep the phrasing fuzzy.
So, my earlier comments stand with only minor modification:
We arrive at an important conclusion: Jeremiah 29:10 is deliberately mistranslated and made fuzzy in the NWT in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the JW community and to support an otherwise unsupportable chronology.
I will also point out that your use of AB, whatever it is, is extremely hypocritical. You quote it as saying, "when according to the completion for Babylon". You accept the literal "when according to" part, because it suits your agenda, but reject the "for Babylon" part because it goes against your agenda. This highly selective use of commentaries is dishonest, but par for the course for the Watchtower Society and its cult followers.
: This more accurate rendering of the introductory phrase
As I've shown, it is a good deal less accurate
: highlights the prophetic impuation
Is that English?
: of the seventy years as prophesied in the earlier 25:11. for the reason that there was a fulfillment of something that had been prohesied earlier as 'according to' the 'good word'.
As I have demonstrated, this all hangs together perfectly with the proper translations of the verses in question. You've failed to address any of my demonstration, and so it stands undisputed.
: What was that 'good word' that was in accordance and addressed to these exiles? It could only have been that the exile, servitude, desolation as prophesied by Jeremiah in 25:11 woul last for a period of seventy years.
Since Jeremiah 25:11 does not mention exile or desolation, you're completely out to lunch on two counts. And since it clearly states that "these nations" -- not just the Jews -- would would serve Babylon for 70 years, and in verse 9 that these judgments applied to "all these nations round about" -- not just to the Jews -- you're barely even half right about the servitude, since history shows that many of the "nations round about" did not serve Babylon for a full 70 years. This is consistent with the correct point of view, that Jeremiah 25:11 is not saying that "these nations" would all serve Babylon for a full 70 years, but that while the 70 years "for Babylon" were running, "all these nations round about" would serve it. And that servitude, verse 12 states clearly, would run out when the king of Babylon was called to account in 539 B.C.
: In summary, I believe that the period of seventy years as prophesied by Jeremiah and Zechariah,
You still haven't addressed the fact that the Society itself disagrees with your claim about Zechariah. When are you going to do this?
: determined by Daniel and later evaluated by the Chronicler
You have yet to deal with the simple fact that the Chronicler explicitly states that the Jews were in servitude to Babylon only until the Persian royalty came to power in 539 B.C.
: demonstrate
You've demonstrated nothing.
: that this period constituted exile-servitude-desolation
You've provided no scriptures to back this claim.
: all in perfect harmony and bridging the gap between two momentous events in biblical history, the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return. The Bible provides the regnal data for both these events
No, it does not. It certainly provides no regnal data for Cyrus, aside from a reference to his first year. It takes secular chronology to establish full regnal data. This secular chronology was first provided by Ptolemy's Canon, and later confirmed by a host of other secular data. And the Bible provides contradictory information about whether Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. The Society glosses over the problem, and certainly doesn't solve it.
: and chronology using this data along with pivotal and an absolute date fixes that period of seventy years beginning Tishri 607 and ending Tishri 537
Well, I've already shown that you have no idea what you're talking about with respect to Tishri, 607 B.C., so any conclusions you've made are invalid.
I've been forced to come to the conclusion, Mr. pretendus, that while you might have taken a few classes in religious studies, you flunked out. There is no way that any decent professor could take the kind of horrendously shitty writing that you crank out and give you other than a failing grade. If a professor who was a member of a reputable educational institution passed you, then he would be terminated, because he would be either grossly incompetent or dishonest.
So apparently, Mr. pretendus, you recently flunked out of school. I suppose that explains your change of title you usually put at the end of your posts.
AlanF
