607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jeffro

  TD:

  The interpolation is certainly his as you can see from this partial scan of page 36:

  I'm not saying the interpolation isn't there. I'm saying you are misconstruing it. Look at the other verse (Luke 5:10) as an example. It very clearly does not refer to an action that had already started. See also my response above.

  Burton is saying:

  • 'Simon, James and John will become catchers of men and then continue to catch men.'
  • 'Jerusalem will become trampled and then continue to be trampled.'

  In neither case is any past action conveyed.
• 

  TD

  Hmmm.

  Well the last damn thing in the world I want to do here is morph into 'Scholar,' especially since I am certainly no friend of the JW's and their view of 607.

  Burton said the periphrastic future can indicate continuance or it can indicate customariness and gives an example of each. I'm afraid I'm lost when it comes to the one to one comparison you're making in English given that the emphasis here is on Greek lexical context instead of pure grammar,

  Isn't the thought here: "Jerusalem will become trampled and then continue to be trampled" a pretty standard future progressive that could have been expressed in one word? Periphrastic expressions like, "During my life" do not have such a clearly defined time frame.
• 

  Jeffro

  TD:

  Burton said the periphrastic future can indicate continuance or it can indicate customariness and gives an example of each.

  Yes. But in each case, he refers to something that starts in the future and then continues, i.e. something that starts in the future and then becomes customary.

  As indicated by Burton's examples, the concept of the Periphrastic Future refers to an action that starts in the future and then continues, as distinct from the standard Progressive Future, which may indicate an event that continues in to the future. (Compare Burton's example of the Progressive Future at Phillipians 1:18, where it indicates an action that is already happening and will continue to happen in the future.)

  Are you claiming that Simon, James & John were already 'catching men' before they initially became disciples??
• 

  TD

  Are you claiming that Simon, James & John were already 'catching men' before they initially became disciples??

  Not at all, Jeffro. I've already pointed out that 5:10 and 21:24 are two different lexical contexts and by my own reasoning, the captioned claim above would be a complete non-sequitor.

  If anything, I'm claiming that Jerusalem was already under the heel of Rome at the time the words were allegedly spoken and that this is not incompatible with the periphrastic constuction that was used.

  I didn't used to believe this. Eight years ago, (I believe it was a discussion with ThirdWitness) I took the postion that 21:24 was an unaffected use of the future tense (Partly based on Bauer Arndt Gingrich which I've cited above.) and Alan gave me enough references privately from Wallace and others to convince me that it was possible. But I really have no iron in this fire nor any real interest in winning or losing a debate here. Carry on, my friend.
• 

  Jeffro

  TD:

  I've already pointed out that 5:10 and 21:24 are two different lexical contexts and by my own reasoning

  You're free to believe whatever you like. But your claim is not supported by the source material. Burton considers both examples to employ the exact same grammatical structure rather than 'two different lexical contexts'. So, claim that Luke 21:24 refers to an existing condition if you like, but don't claim that Burton supports your view. In fact, the only difference between the future 'trampling' and the other future events indicated at Luke 21:24 is that the others refer to a specific future event whereas the trampling would continue.

  If anything, I'm claiming that Jerusalem was already under the heel of Rome at the time the words were allegedly spoken

  'Already under the heel' is your own commentary, and has no bearing on the intended meaning of the future 'trampling'. As such, the association of the then-present situation under Rome (i.e. your own idiomatic description of the earlier situation under Rome as 'under the heel') with a future 'trampling' is an equivocation fallacy.
• 

  TD

  Jeffro,

  Continuance and customariness are two different lexical contexts, and it's actually Wallace's term, not mine. If this is of any interest at all to you, I'll try to dig up the article. This whole discussion seems to most unpalatable though and I'm not exactly sure why.
• 

  Jeffro

  TD:

  Continuance and customariness are two different lexical contexts

  Continuance indicates an on-going action (e.g. Earth orbits the sun) whereas customariness indicates an action that is performed at intervals (e.g. I wash my hair).

  That distinction is not relevant to the context of Burton's demonstration that both his examples (Luke 5:10 and 21:24) refer to things that start in the future, and then continue (or become customary).

  At some point in the distant past (before the formation of Earth), an imaginary observer could employ the periphrastic progressive to say:

  • Earth will orbit the sun (continuance)
  • Jeffro will wash his hair (customariness)
  • Jerusalem will be trampled (continuance)
  • Simon, James and John will 'catch men' (but not in a gay way) (customariness)

  In all these cases, it is a future event that continues in some manner.

  Once the action has already started, saying it 'will happen' is no longer an instance of the periphrastic future progressive but the standard future progressive.
• 

  never a jw

  English please, I get in a bad mood, very tense indeed, almost periphrastic and lexical at times when people speak with such customariness.

  I am sure I can impress few people with this, even though I have no idea what the hell I am talking about.
• 

  Jeffro

  never a jw:

  I am sure I can impress few people with this, even though I have no idea what the hell I am talking about.

  Yes, I think few will be impressed by that. But if you'd said something more impressive, perhaps a few would be impressed.
• 

  Jeffro

  TD:

  I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive.

  It should be noted that in addition to the fact that the grammar of Luke 21:24 indicates that the trampling (and the falling by the sword and the being led captive) was actually yet future, the Greek text of Luke 21:24 separately uses a future-tense verb (ἔσονται) in reference to the 'Gentile Times', further indicating that the alleged period had not yet begun.