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

by FaceTheFacts 255 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    ChristAlone....this is not a discussion about archaeological evidence or what it represents. This is precisely an argument about Jeremiah 25 and how it is to be understood. Why don't you disprove my points instead of switching the topic?

    Also, my writing style is modeled after how Leolaia and EntirelyPossible write. I love how she compiles her thoughts and how EntirelyPossible argues his points. Again, this is not about me...this is about my arguments.

    Two pages and nothing substantial has been brought forth other than ad hominem attacks.

  • Hoffnung
    Hoffnung

    FTF

    "they are all interdependent, intertextual references to the seventy years. The point was: the Watchtower's exegesis of what the "servitude" and the "seventy years" meant is not simply a reading of Jeremiah 25:10-12 but it is the end result of interpreting several intertextual seventy year references."

    You ignore the whole point: you need to know what Jeremiah wrote in ch. 25 to correctly understand 2 Chronicles 36 & Daniel 9, as this is the prophecy upon which the other 2 are based. However, when Jeremiah wrote his prophecy in ch. 25, the other 2 verses were not written yet, so a correct understanding of Jer 25 does not depend on Daniel 9 or 2 Chron. 26. So they are not interdependant, as you put it, the dependacy is only one-way. Jer 25 is sufficient as stand-alone text, unless you have an agenda of course. The only reason C.O. Jonsson mention it, because of the fabrications of people like you, and the society you want to defend.

    Concerning LXX: why are you not providing a comparison text with the masoretic texts? you only provided different English translations of LXX, which is already a Greek translation from a different language, how old the translation is, does not take away that it is a translation, with its inaccuracies that come with any translation. I stand to the point, anything you want to prove upon that basis, is worthless if you choose to ignore what was written in the original language.

  • Londo111
    Londo111

    Somebody else brought this up, but I will reiterate the thought: the archeological and scriptural arguments are not unique to Carl Jonsson--why are we debating him rather than discussing the 607 vs 587 debate more directly?

    Like others, once I was sufficiently convinced in my research that 607 BC was wrong, it was then that I was comfortable with reading The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I think most Witnesses who awaken follow a similar route. They don't start off reading "apostate" books--the indoctrination is too strong. Carl Jonsson is not claiming to be the unique channel of God. Nobody follows him as if he were a religious leader. While I believe the book a must read for those interested in the topic, it is not as though anyone, including himself, believes him infallible on all points. He offers several alternative views in his book in regard the 70 year period.

    To define parameters in an internet debate will yield the same results as herding cats. It ain’t gonna happen. As the subject is a multi-dimensional continuum, it is impossible to separate the related topics because they are very integral. One does not have to choose between Scripture and History on the matter, as if the two are at odds. The two work hand in hand.

    Today, nobody debates the Earth is in orbit about the Sun. When we read Scripture, we read it in such a way so that the two are in harmony. This was not always the case. The Inquisition felt Galileo’s work a threat. Today, the Watchtower has Inquisitions toward those whose views it considers a threat. If we read The Gentile Times Reconsidered from the beginning that is exactly what happened. The Society was more concerned that Carl Jonsson not speak his ideas to others than truth.

    In high control groups, the Leadership decides who “needs to know” information. Critical information or information from former members is banned, such as the case of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful. Deviant thoughts are reported to the leadership. Only “good” and “proper” thoughts are encouraged. Frequently, cult literature contains misquotations, statements taken out of context. Information is deliberately held back. The arguments put forth by the group are full of denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking.

    607 BC is a useful case study in the above. It is held onto because it is part of the 1914 chronology. The 1914 chronology is important because it is used to support 1919, which is the magic year for the Society where minuscule events are given grandiose importance as the basis for their supreme authority. Eventually they will have to discard 607 and they will find an alternative, and at that time, all these arguments will have been shown to be a waste of time.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Hoffnung...

    You ignore the whole point: you need to know what Jeremiah wrote in ch. 25 to correctly understand 2 Chronicles 36 & Daniel 9, as this is the prophecy upon which the other 2 are based. However, when Jeremiah wrote his prophecy in ch. 25, the other 2 verses were not written yet, so a correct understanding of Jer 25 does not depend on Daniel 9 or 2 Chron. 26. So they are not interdependant, as you put it, the dependacy is only one-way. Jer 25 is sufficient as stand-alone text, unless you have an agenda of course. The only reason C.O. Jonsson mention it, because of the fabrications of people like you, and the society you want to defend.

    Coming to understand a text is not contingent upon who wrote what first. It is based upon an examination of numerous references (all, if possible) so that a good preponderance of evidence is examined and then a (simple conclusion) of how something should be understood is made. How should Jeremiah 25 be understood? We can examine the text itself, which shows us that the nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years and that Judah will be made desolate. Now we go to Daniel 9:2, which says he discerns that Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would be devastated for seventy years. So now, we arrive at a greater understanding of Jeremiah 25, because we have examined OTHER texts (i.e. our conclusion of how it should be understood is DEPENDENT on other references to Jeremiah's writings). I am not saying this exegesis is correct, but simply showing how ALL the texts are interdependent if one wishes to arrive at ONE, cohesive intepretation of the 70 years.

    Concerning LXX: why are you not providing a comparison text with the masoretic texts?

    I have already done so in post #2, on page 1:

    Also a reading of Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX (which is far older and traditionally regarded as more accurate than the Masoretic text) states:"And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years." The LXX equivalent makes it quite obvious that the "servitude" (specifically, the servitude of seventy years) is NOT in reference to vassalage as it would be nonsensical to say: "The nations (they) will serve as vassals among the nations." Hence, it is patently obvious the "seventy years" refer to "THESE NATIONS", "ALL THE NATIONS", etc. which would include Judah and this attenuates his chronology causing two contravening methodologies and it invalidates his interpretation of "servitude" as "vassalage."

    This is a comparison of how the LXX rendering helps us to understand how the "seventy years of servitude" in Jeremiah 25 should be understood.

    you only provided different English translations of LXX, which is already a Greek translation from a different language, how old the translation is, does not take away that it is a translation, with its inaccuracies that come with any translation.

    I have never stated that any translation is not prone to inaccuracies, but what you are doing is asserting that the rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 is incorrect. You have provided no evidence for this assertion; not a single quote from a Biblical scholar, not a single exegesis on the text itself, and otherwise not a single reason why the LXX should be regarded as inaccurate (in this case) other than the fact that it utterly dismantles Jonnson's interpretation.

    I stand to the point, anything you want to prove upon that basis, is worthless if you choose to ignore what was written in the original language.

    Would you like a detailed exegesis of the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25? I could do the same thing I did with the Hebraic rendering and I guarantee you I would be able to argue my point that the rendering is correct and consistent with what I've already stated. Can you provide a single iota of evidence to place into doubt anything I've written other than your own speculations and hasty generalizations? The ball is in your courtyard.

    And my points remained unrefuted.

    Londo...

    Somebody else brought this up, but I will reiterate the thought: the archeological and scriptural arguments are not unique to Carl Jonsson--why are we debating him rather than discussing the 607 vs 587 debate more directly?

    We are discussing Jonnson because the most common alternate interpretation rejecting the seventy years is based largely, if not entirely, upon the statements contained therein his book.

    Carl Jonsson is not claiming to be the unique channel of God. Nobody follows him as if he were a religious leader. While I believe it book to be a must read, it is not as though anyone, including himself, believes him infallible on all points. He offers several alternative views in his book in regard the 70 year period.

    Immaterial to the discussion. It has nothing to do with Jonnson's persona or the notion that anything he said is infallible. Jonnson is only the center of discussion because his material is the basis for a number of the arguments that are used against 607.

    To define parameters in an internet debate will yield the same results as herding cats. It ain’t gonna happen. As the subject is a multi-dimensional continuum, it is impossible to separate the related topics because they are very integral. One does not have to choose between Scripture and History on the matter, as if the two are at odds. The two work hand in hand.

    This is precisely why parameters are necessary for this discussion to go anywhere. In 607 threads people want to discuss archaeological evidence, Watchtower misquotes, how Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 should be rendered, what the servitude meant, and so forth. It is not humanly possible nor reasonable for one human being to be able to discuss all these subjects simultaneously. Hence, why the only thing that should be discussed at this point are arguments surrounding Jeremiah 25. I do not believe it is that difficult for mature adults to stick to one subject at a time.

    Today, nobody debates the Earth is in orbit about the Sun. When we read Scripture, we read it in such a way so that the two are in harmony. This was not always the case. The Inquisition felt Galileo’s work a threat. Today, the Watchtower has Inquisitions toward those whose views it considers a threat. If we read The Gentile Times Reconsidered from the beginning that is exactly what happened. The Society was more concerned that Carl Jonsson not speak his ideas to others than truth.
    In high control groups, the Leadership decides who “needs to know” information. Critical information or information from former members is banned, such as the case of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful. Deviant thoughts are reported to the leadership. Only “good” and “proper” thoughts are encouraged. Frequently, cult literature contains misquotations, statements taken out of context. Information is deliberately held back. The arguments put forth by the group are full of denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking.
    607 BC is a useful case study in the above. It is held onto because it is part of the 1914 chronology. The 1914 chronology is important because it is used to support 1919, which is the magic year for the Society where minuscule events are given grandiose importance as the basis for their supreme authority. Eventually they will have to discard 607 and they will find an alternative, and at that time, all these arguments will have been shown to be a waste of time.

    Thanks for the history lessons, but I'd appreciate it more if you could address the points I've brought up in my two OP's. Thus far, no one has addressed them or refuted them substantially.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Recovery were you banned as Ethos or did you just slink off from this thread you started then and hope no one would notice?

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242271/26/Analysis-of-anti-607-BCE-Rebuttals

    There is little point is members making lengthy time consuming efforts in answering this timewaster...or maybe that is the plan here all along?

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Are you going to divert the argument on me to cover up the fact that no one can refute my points or were you hoping no one would notice?

    There is little point in members making shortsighted attempts at refuting the arguments unsuccessfully when we could just use ad hominem attacks and say FaceTheFacts is a banned member.....or was that the plan all along?

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    Face the Facts, you ARE a banned member. You are either Recovery, Ethos, or both. And just SAYING that you haven't been sufficiently answered doesn't make it so. You have declared yourself the "winner" many times after very thoroughly being destroyed by other posters. You've lost. 607 has been answered OVER and OVER and OVER again on this site. There's no argument. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607. Point of fact. 1914 is a false prophecy. Face the Facts.

  • Hoffnung
    Hoffnung

    You want to really know it, don't you. Let us, to demonstrate FTF's points hold no ground, and thereby also show FTF's dishonesty, provide the entire footnote 8 of C.O.Jonssons book, instead of the selections FTF made, and it shows that the conclusion based upon the LXX rendering of Jer 25 is plain incorrect, as it is a "defective translation" (society's own words in the Insight book):

    "The quotation is from The New World Translation (NW), which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). The Greek Septuagint version (LXX) says: “and they will serve among the nations,” instead of: “and these nations wil1 have to serve the king of Babylon.” In Jeremiah 25:1–12 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are omitted. There are many differences between Jer-MT and Jer-LXX. Jer-LXX is about one-seventh shorter than Jer-MT, which contains 3,097 more words than Jer-LXX. A number of modem scholars hold that Jer-LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that was earlier than the text tradition represented by Jer-MT, arguing that Jer-MT represents a later revision and expansion of the original text, either by Jeremiah himself, his scribe Baruch, or some later editor(s). Thus, with respect to Jeremiah’s prediction that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would attack and destroy the kingdom of Judah, these scholars often find it difficult to believe that Jeremiah was able to give such concrete and specific forecasts. They find it easier to accept the more general and vague wordings of the Jer-LXX as representing the original prediction, with all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar being left out. However, some of the scholars who have adopted this view admit that it creates problems. If the original prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1–12, which was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and was presented to the king a few months later (Jeremiah 36:1–32), did not contain any references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar, how then could Jehoiakim, after having listened to and burned up the roll with the prophecy, ask Jeremiah: “Why is it that you have written on it, saying: The king of Babylon will come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to cease from it?’ “ (Jeremiah 36:29, NW) As this same question is found both in Jer-MT and Jer-LXX, the original prophecy must have explicitly mentioned the king of Babylon. Professor Norman K. Gottwald cites this verse and says: “If the prophet had not somewhere in his scroll openly identified Babylon as the invader, the sharp retort of the king is difficult to explain.” (N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, p. 251.) This strongly indicates that Jer-MT might very well represent the original text here. It should be kept in mind that LXX is a translation made hundreds of years after the time of Jeremiah from a Hebrew text that is now lost, and, as the editors of Bagster’s The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament point out in the “Introduction,” some of the translators of the LXX were not competent to their task and often inserted their own interpretations and traditions. Most scholars agree with this observation. The Watch Tower Society, too, emphasizes that “the Greek translation of this book [Jeremiah] is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text.”—Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 32.

    It is now very clear for all to see FTF only selected what fitted his ideas and ignored all the rest. Any conclusion based upon the LXX translation of Jer 25 is looking for trouble. Exegesis of LXX jer 25? who are you trying to fool mate...

    Hoffnung

  • TD
    TD
    Jonnson is only the center of discussion because his material is the basis for a number of the arguments that are used against 607.

    Again, I don't doubt that, but are Jonnson's alternative scriptural interpretations the basis for the arguments against 607? I don't have the latest edition, so maybe things have changed. I read multiple lines of evidence supporting 586/587 which struck me as more secular/historical than theological/interpretive in nature. His sciptural interpretation came across more as an attempt to harmonize the two than an argument unto itself.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Using the Watchtower publications to prove our points now are we? The LXX is only deemed defective because it is not as explicit in naming Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon as adherents to the presupposition of biblical inerrancy would like it. You have still not shown us how Jeremiah 25 is defective other than that it doesnt mention Nebuchadnezzar That is precisely why many scholars conclude the LXX is closer to the original manuscripts and that the Masoretic text is a revision that was heavily edited to make the outcome of the prophecies seem more precise.

    You still have not demonstrated how the text is defective. You still have not even begun to overcome the fact that the perfect mood does not permit the servitude to have started in 609 B.C. You still have not been able to address how there is no evidence that a nation paid tribute to Babylon as a vassal in 609 B.C. and by Jonnson's own definition the servitude could not have started then.

    At this point will there even be a need to review other sections? People cannot even substantially argue against such basic points. You know your hand is defficient when you have to quote the Watchtower to help argue your case.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit