The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  Since you postulated that the word translated "among" also means "with"

  Starting to wonder if English is your first language.

  It's like arguing that the Greek word used in the LXX at Jeremiah 25:11 can also be rendered "destroy" and therefore, the nations destroyed Babylon for seventy years, without providing a single translation that supports that rendering.

  Another pathetic strawman. Comparing two basic English prepositions with similar meanings is entirely dissimilar to comparing two entirely different verbs.
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  Jeffro: I don't care about your speculative pseudo-intellectualism.

  Translation: I have no arguments left and have no understanding of Hebrew and thus my arguments have no merit.

  Why would you even argue against something you don't even understand?

  Jeffro: Starting to wonder if English is your first language.

  Well, we don't have to "wonder" about Hebrew being your first language with that embarassing comment from earlier.
• 

  Jeffro

  Well, we don't have to "wonder" about Hebrew being your first language with that embarassing comment from earlier.

  Ooooohhhh.... brilliant comeback. I will allow other posters with a better knowledge of Hebrew such as Leolaia and AnnOmaly to better explain the Hebrew elements.

  Lurkers can see your drivel for what it is. I've provided appropriate analogies for the textual comparison already, and also shown the contrast between the servitude by all the nations at Jeremiah 25 with the prospect of exile for individual nations at Jeremiah 27.
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  AnnoMaly...

  As was said before, we have here a strawman ... or red herring ... or else an indication of FTF's ignorance about what 'tribute' is.

  No, actually it's more of an indication of Hoffnug's ignorance of what a "tribute" or "vassalage" consisted of. He showed us the Chronicle proving Babylon plundered and conquered many nations and spoiled their resources but this is a non-sequitur, because vassalage did not consist of simply plundering a nation's spoil by force (i.e. after conquering it), but of a formal agreement of protection under the condition that the nation submitted to the King's wishes.

  As Hoffnung has posted, the chronicle details how the Babylonians sacked and plundered many Assyrian strongholds. The Assyrians would not submit so Babylon forcibly took. How can tribute be given by a vassal city ruler if the ruler is dead or deposed and the city ruined?

  That is precisely why Hoffnug's reference to the chronicle is ridiculous and shows his (not my) lack of understanding about what a tribute was. His point in referencing the chronicle was to show that there were nations who had in fact given a tribute that year (i.e. counterarguing my point), but his argument was moot because a tribute did not simply involve monetary gain. Thank you for asking your question, as your in agreement with me, that the chronicle does not prove that a tribute was provided that year.

  Tribute isn't the issue. Servitude is. The Assyrians were in complete servitude to Babylon when they took the last stronghold and the last Assyrian king was removed.

  This is hilarious. Jonnson defines the "servitude" as "vassalage" and makes an equivocation of the two. So by saying "tribute isn't the issue", "servitude is", it shows you lack a basic understanding of my argument and Jonnson's, which is quite embarassing for you. For the fifth time, if the "servitude" meant "vassalage" (i.e. a tribute) and the servitude supposedly began in 609 B.C., then Jonnson needs to provide evidence that a nation provided tribute in that year.

  Particularly after Carchemish, nations in the Hatti-land didn't want the same slash and burn fate that became many Assyrian cities, so they served Babylon and gave tribute.

  Thank you for proving for us, that nations did not give tributes (i.e. as vassals) until after Carchemish, which shows again that there is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute years prior in 609 B.C., the alleged starting point. You have indirectly shown you lack understanding about my argument, Jonnson's, and you've even managed to argue against Jonnson's own suppositions. It's true....sometimes no response is the best response.
• 

  Jeffro

  The perfect mood and the imperfect mood. Now a perfect mood would be inflective of a COMPLETED action with regarded to a specific time period. In English some examples of this would be: He walked for forty minutes. He sat down for an hour. A past action inflective of the imperfect mood would indicate habitual, CONTINUAL, ongoing, repeated action, without regard to a specific time period. In English examples of this would be: He was walking. He was sitting down.

  I was going to let this go, but it was too funny. Here Ethos FaceTheFacts acknowledges that the perfect mood is used with regard to a specific time period. But he seems to miss the fact that this destroys his own argument, because in this case, there is a specific time period - 70 years. So it follows that the perfect mood would be used in reference to the 70 years. He walked for forty minutes. He sat down for an hour. The nations served for seventy years.
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  Jeffro...

  Another pathetic strawman. Comparing two basic English prepositions with similar meanings is entirely dissimilar to comparing two entirely different verbs.

  Again Jeffro shows a gross lack of understanding about morphology; but about Greek this time. There is only one verb used in the LXX at Jeremiah 25:11 (a variant of doulos). The point was that the verb used here can also be rendered "destroy".I was not comparing two different verbs, but showing how one word (in this case a verb, in another case a preposition) can have various renderings. Therefore, showing that a particular word can be rendered differently ("among as "with), ("serve" as "destroy") does not prove anything. You must substantiate that this rendering is valid (i.e. by showing a translation that renders it this way).

  Another embarassing comeback from Jeffro...
• 

  Jeffro

  FaceTheFacts:

  You must substantiate that this rendering is valid (i.e. by showing a translation that renders it this way).

  I have already demonstrated the manner in which the context indicates the correct preposition. It seems therefore that you simply do not understand the meaning of the English word "among", and have trouble separating it from the concept of "divided among".

  The cat suffered no harm while it was among the pigeons.
• 

  FaceTheFacts

  Jeffro...

  I was going to let this go, but it was too funny. Here Ethos FaceTheFacts acknowledges that the perfect mood is used with regard to a specific time period. But he seems to miss the fact that this destroys his own argument, because in this case, there is a specific time period - 70 years. So it follows that the perfect mood would be used in reference to the 70 years. He walked for forty minutes. He sat down for an hour. The nations served for seventy years.

  The "regard to a specific time period" is not in reference to the chronological datum (seventy years) but to the time and context of writing. If the writer of Jeremiah understood that the seventy years had already begun and were continuing into the future (i.e. 609 to the fall of Babylon), an inflective mood of the imperfect would've have been used (i.e. The nations were serving for seventy years). This would mean the servitude had already begun at the time of writing and would continue into the future. Since the perfect tense is used (as in the case of Genesis 15:13) it tells us the servitude had not yet begun at the time of writing (605 B.C.)

  Jeffro....please, do a quick Google search on how Hebrew verbs are rendered. Because these statements are so nonsensical I don't think there's an apt description in my supposed second language, English.

  I have already demonstrated the manner in which the context indicates the correct preposition. It seems therefore that you simply do not understand the meaning of the English word "among", and have trouble separating it from the concept of "divided among".

  You are using inequivocal examples of Anglo-Saxon usages of "among" to argue your case, but it is a non-sequitir because that does not substantiate an alternate rendering from Hebrew. If your conclusion is correct, surely you can find at least one translation of the LXX that renders this way. But you cannot. All you've done is show a lack of insight about translation by simply looking up the translated word "among", it's various meanings, and using one of them to argue your case. But this rendering is not substantiated by anyone other than....yourself.

  Using Jeffro's line of reasoning: "The nations will destroy Babylon for seventy years." Why? The variant of doulos can also be rendered "destroy" instead of "serve". Would this rendering be valid? Of course not. Not a single translation renders it that way. It is no different with the LXX rendering Jeffro feebly and quite ignorantly tried to discredit.
• 

  Jeffro

  If the writer of Jeremiah understood that the seventy years had already begun and were continuing into the future (i.e. 609 to the fall of Babylon), an inflective mood would've have been used (i.e. The nations were serving for seventy years).

  "would've have"... anyway...

  Nice try, but this is simply not consistent with the style "commonly used in prophetic oracles to demonstrate that the events are so certain to happen that it is if they already have", for which the perfect mood is employed, particularly when it is in reference to a specific period of time.
• 

  Jeffro

  By the way, troll, you should know that I reply to your drivel only for the benefit of lurkers. As a result, you're only doing yourself a disservice.