2+2+5 Well said!!
The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed
by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jeffro
"and I will scatter them among the nations that neither they nor their fathers have known." (Jeremiah 9:16) "“‘And I will pursue after them with the sword...for a curse and for an object of astonishment and for a whistling at and for a reproach among all the nations to which I shall certainly disperse them." (Jeremiah 29:18) "For I am with you,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “to save you; but I shall make an extermination among all the nations to which I have scattered you" (Jeremiah 30:11) "For I shall make an extermination among all the nations to which I have dispersed you." (Jeremiah 47:28) "She herself has had to dwell among the nations." (Lamentations 1:3) "Just like this the sons of Israel will eat their bread unclean among the nations to which I shall disperse them.” (Ezekiel 4:13)
All renderings of "among the nations" clearly refer to the banishment of the Jews into foreign lands. Thus the rendering in the Septuagint "they shall serve among the nations" with a virtually identical context to the aforementioned scriptures, shows that this is in reference to exile and not vassalage as Jonnson implied.This is some very basic fallacious reasoning (equivocation fallacy).
The verses Ethos FaceTheFacts here compares with (the Septuagint's rendering of) Jeremiah 25:11 all have other words that refer to people going somewhere. It is not a factor of "among the nations" that means they went anywhere, but the other phrases, I will scatter them, I shall certainly disperse, I have scattered you, I have dispersed you, had to dwell, I shall disperse them. Jeremiah 25:11 does not do this, in either the LXX or MT. FtF also doesn't mention Jeremiah 49:15, 50:23, 50:46, 51:41 where the phrase among the nations has nothing to do with going to a particular place.
-
Witness My Fury
I think we should just call him Legion and be done with it.. "My name is Legion: for we are many."
-
Pterist
2+2=5 ******Ethos, 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.********
Concur
-
ScenicViewer
Witness My Fury,
"My name is Legion: for we are many."
The perfect name for FaceTheFacts and his many Screen Identities!
-
FaceTheFacts
So is Jeffro up to the challenge? Can you provide a single translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations" or not? Just one!
-
FaceTheFacts
So what do we have....4 pages and the most basic argument about the perfect mood has not even been addressed. No one has proven that there was a single nation who provided a tribute to Babylon as a vassal in 609 B.C.
Indeed the counterarguments of this thread can be summed up as: FaceTheFacts is a terrible person and is also Ethos/Thirdwitness/Recovery/Djeggnog who knows...probably scholar as well. FaceTheFacts is a terrible person, he didnt post a single page and paragraph reference for every statement he quoted. Why is this even about Jonnson? Lets talk about a million other subjects instead.
I wonder if onlookers are laughing as hard as I am?
-
cantleave
FTF, What should I be laughing at? Three poster have directly challenged your assertions and you have no counter argument. Are you as stupid as you appear? I really hope not. because if you are I feel sorry for you.
You need to answer Anne before you conclude "4 pages and the most basic argument about the perfect mood has not even been addressed", now get to work and convince me.
-
ScenicViewer
FaceTheFacts,
FaceTheFacts is a terrible person...
- Actually, no one said that about you.
is also Ethos/Thirdwitness/Recovery/Djeggnog...
- Because you have had several identities here before, and you are rehashing material that you've already posted under at least one of them.
...probably scholar as well.
- Certainly no one accused you of that.
FaceTheFacts is a terrible person
- Again, you exaggerate, no one said that.
Lets talk about a million other subjects instead.
- People are simply trying to keep you honest on this topic.
Your remarks seem to be nothing more than an attempt at side-stepping issues, to draw attention away from the real meat of 607 BCE. As someone mentioned, you like to use many words to make it appear as if you have solid arguments. I am new to the topic of 607 and was hoping to hear sound arguments on both sides if the issue, but you haven't offered much except your lame attemtps at misdirection.
I wonder if onlookers are laughing as hard as I am?
- You're not laughing, you're pretending.
-
FaceTheFacts
cantleave: FTF, What should I be laughing at?
You should be laughing at the fact that out of all the people who admittedly defend the Jonnson chronology, not a single person has been able to refute successfully any of my main arguments and the fact that nearly everyone is more concerned with who I am, instead of addressing the arguments at hand.
cantleave: Three poster have directly challenged your assertions and you have no counter argument. Are you as stupid as you appear? I really hope not. because if you are I feel sorry for you.
Londo said the same thing. Now if you would be so kind as to point out for us where the following points have been addressed and successfully challenged:
- The perfect mood not being indicative of a continual action from the past continuing into the future, thus signifying the servitude had not yet begun by 605 B.C.
- There is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute to the nation of Babylon in 609 B.C., thus Jonnson's hypothesis does not meet the burden of proof.
- The challenge to anyone who said "among the nations" means something other than it says: please provide a translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations".
- There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations.
ScenicViewer: Your remarks seem to be nothing more than an attempt at side-stepping issues, to draw attention away from the real meat of 607 BCE.
Actually, this is what I would say of pretty much everyone who has replied to the topic. Instead of addressing my specific arguments about Jeremiah 25, everything from archaelogy to past errors in the Watchtower has been mentioned. I haven't sidetracked at all, but I've stuck consistently to my points that several contend have been "refuted" but have still yet to show us where they have.
I am new to the topic of 607 and was hoping to hear sound arguments on both sides if the issue, but you haven't offered much except your lame attemtps at misdirection.
I've yet to see anyone show me how my argument about the perfect mood in Hebrew has been a "lame attempt at misdirection". Are you up to the challenge?