How can we discuss the passage of Jeremiah 25:10-12, without referencing verse 12? Again, I’m more interested in discussing 607/587 in general, rather then being straightjacketed to discussion of a book. I believe many have addressed your points successfully.
The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed
by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
FaceTheFacts
Please demonstrate how they have and we can discuss the end of the seventy years.
-
TD
Would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of Jonnson's viewpoint?
If one passage alone shows the interpretation Carl Jonnson makes to be incorrect there is no need to even look at all the archaelogical evidence.
Okay dokay.....
-
Hoffnung
FTF,
- your point trying to make the meaning of Jer 25 dependent on Dan 9 and 2 Chron 36 was debunked, more than once. Too bad you don't want to see it.
- Your idea to use LXX to validate a so called servitude point was debunked too. C.O.Jonsson rightly demonstrated in a page long footnote LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective, a point on which the society agrees with him. Too bad you cannot see that either.
Other than that it was also demonstrated you willfully misrepresented what was written by C.O.Jonsson concerning Jer 25, hence an honest debate with you is not possible. You are not able to Face the Facts, but driven by an agenda we all know too well already, employing the usual tactics. We thank you though for exposing the fallacies of your reasonings to the many lurkers and newbies. It might help quite a few to wake up.
Hoffnung
-
OUTLAW
If one passage alone shows the interpretation Carl Jonnson makes to be incorrect
there is no need to even look at all the archaelogical evidence.....(Can`t) FaceTheFacts
........................
... OUTLAW -
Jeffro
He's now resting his case on claims about the phrase "among the nations" in the Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 (though that translation doesn't mention Babylon in that verse anyway), but even that phrase doesn't always mean 'dispersed into other nations' in the Bible anyway. I specifically showed how the word is used in the Greek scriptures, and even the word as translated 'among', in context, fits anyway. If 'the cat is among the pigeons', it means 'the cat is with a group of pigeons'; no one takes it to mean 'the cat is dispersed to the pigeons' or 'the cat is going to a specific pigeon'. His 'request' for a translation of the Septuagint that uses 'with' at Jeremiah 25:11 is therefore also a strawman.
I have no more time for this guy. He will imagine he's 'won'. I don't care. He can't even be honest about his past identities on the forum.
-
Londo111
For one, AnnOMaly had a very good point about mashing quotes from different pages, but I will let her, moggy lover, Hoffnung, and others speak for themselves. Their posts will be here for the life of JWN and those that wish can review them can decide for themselves whether or not they held their own or not. Commentary on how other poster’s commentary addressing your commentary on Carl Jonnson’s commentary, adds only another layer separating us from discussing 607 vs 587.
TD and Outlaw has a good point in regard to when you said this:
If one passage alone shows the interpretation Carl Jonnson makes to be incorrect there is no need to even look at all the archaelogical evidence.
For one…too late! I’ve already looked at the archeological evidence. For another, it doesn’t follow that the entire argument stands or falls by a particular interpretation of this passage, especially since more than one are offered in this book and these interpretations are independent of Carl Jonnson, not of his origination.
If this were a police investigation into a murder, would they stop at the first piece of evidence that seemed to point to the perpetrator, or would they continue to gather as much evidence as possible from many sources? If they stopped prematurely, would their case hold up in court against a seasoned defense attorney? Would not the attorney say the one piece of evidence was circumstantial? Therefore, the investigation would continue until a substantial case had been built. If the overwhelming preponderance of evidence contradicts the initial conclusion, likely, the initial evidence can be harmonized once the complete picture has been built.
I believe this illustration was used before, but it goes back to the parable of the blind men and the elephant. What if a blind man touched the trunk only and then drew his conclusion?
-
AnnOMaly
FTF #36 to Hoffnung: Jonnson even disagrees with you here. Notice his quotation (footnote 8 on p. 203)
A specific page reference this time! But it's actually page 195. So yours IS the unauthorized, tampered-with internet version! Hoffnung has shown that your following quote cuts out the part where Jonsson outlines the problems with the view some modern scholars have about Jer-LXX, and goes on to suggest Jer-MT is the original and superior text (p. 196, ftn. 8 continued).
You pulled the same stunts in your last incarnation - dishonestly quote-mined your sources in an attempt to get scholarly support for your position, completely diregarding the authors' intent and their surrounding comments. Now you're at it again.
FTF #37 to me: It has nothing to do with the fact that Jonnson examines these scriptures in isolation, but with the fact that he is attacking the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years BASED UPON a reading of Jeremiah 25.
You were saying he was taking it in isolation and superficially without regard for the fact that the WTS takes into account other Scriptures. That is patently and laughably false. You've read the book. You know this. Why it should be portrayed as a fault to carefully examine a Scripture's wording in its context to dispel false assumptions is beyond me. Far from being strawman argumentation (!), the correct understanding of Jer. 25 is key. The passages in Dan. 9 and 2 Chron 36 relating to the 70 years are based on Jeremiah's prophecy. Correctly understand the primary texts first; interpret the later texts based on them in light of those primary texts. (I see Hoffnung has explained this to you as well.)
But even if I didn't leave every single page reference, is this really the best you can come up with?
You didn't provide ANY page reference and gave the impression the comments were all one paragraph. I have zero respect and little patience for those who persist in being deceptive with their sources.
a): how no one thus far has been able to counter my exegesis of Jeremiah 25 which shows the servitude had not begun at the earliest (605 B.C.)
That was done on your previous thread (as Ethos).
b): how Jonnson has been unable to provide an iota of evidence showing that a nation paid tribute to Babylon in 609 B.C., and thus his important starting point is refuted by his own definition of the seventy years
Oh now there's a strawman if ever I saw one LOL.
c): how no one has been able to successfully argue against the LXX and it's rendering of "among the nations" which clearly shows serving the king of Babylon was not a reference to vassalage.
They have. You choose to ignore or sidestep those arguments.
Anyway, as I said, others have this thread well covered. I've already spent too much time on you. Besides, you had said:
"I hope my approach to be very coherent, solidly argued, and as I said not simply a rehash of what you all have debated to death."
So far you've delivered a rehash of what we all have debated to death.
-
tornapart
Recovery, StillRecovery, OlinMoyle41, Ethos, FaceTheFacts.... who next? It makes a total mockery of your debates because you can't even be honest about who/what you are...
-
2+2=5
Wouldn't it be nice Recovery/Ethos/FacetheFacts if the Holy scriptures were in complete harmony with the historic evidence? Isn't that a good thing? Or wo uld you prefer that the bible is in clear conflict with thousands of pieces of evidence that form the foundation of a widely accepted date in history? Why would you want to discredit your sacred writings by trying to conflict them with the overwhelming evidence? Isn't this what you are doing? These are honest questions, you should think about them.
The fact is the bible is in harmony with the historic evidence. It has been explained here and elsewhere over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Many times in fact. On this site and others. Explained on numerous occasions.
The fact is obvious to everyone reading this, that the only reason you cling to 607, AND INSIST THAT THE SCRIPTURES DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACTS, is the implications it has to your entire belief system. It's a hard pill to swallow. Many of us have been there. Just accept that the bible is in harmony with the historical evidence. That's a good thing. Some religious quacks in the 1800's were off track with prophetic speculation. A few people in New York still are. Just digest it and move on. The truth will set you free.
Recovery please stop. Your embarrassing yourself Ethos. The people on this site are here to help you OlinMoyle41. They will actually take the time to listen in and respond to you personally FacetheFacts.
Those few men in Brooklyn who try so hard to defend don't know you or care. If they knew you were on this site though they would spiritually stone you and pitch you to fiery Gehenna.
... OUTLAW
