How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside 282 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  In the same verse, yes. But there are two grammatically independent statements, separating elements 1 and 2 from 3 and 4. Element 3 and 4 are in the second half of a compound sentence. Some Bibles render this verse with a separating semicolon (making the separation stronger than ", and"). Some some Bibles just make this verse two separate sentences completely.

  --

  Utter nonsense. The text is quite ambiguous according to scholars and commentators for a number of translations into English are possible based on the Hebrew text. The immediate context proves that the subject in view is not Babylon or the nations but Judah.

  ---

  The 70 years in the last half of the verse applies to the servitude. That's it. You can't push it back into the first half of the verse without breaking grammar.

  ---

  This is simply your opinion for I would argue that the 70 years of servitude and desolation apply both to Judah and the nations.

  ---

  To read this verse grammatically it states Judah would become desolate, an object of horror. (THOUGHT ENDS, NEW INDEPENDENT CLAUSE) The nations would serve Babylon 70 years.

  --

  Grammar won't help you because the text as it reads is ambiguous so you have read this verse in context and the subject in focus is the Land -Judah.

  --

  As for context - ch 15, v 18 - "as it is this day." The servitude had already started at the time of the writing of Jerimiah 25.

  ---

  Wrong. A servitude to Babylon certainly began 10 years prior to the Fall of Jerusalem as Judah was in vassalage to Neb however Jeremiah's prophecy in ch. 25 links the servitude with the desolation of the Land so thiis was a far greater servitude of the Exile.

  --

  What does servitude mean? Ch 27 is pretty explicit, listing nations, and encouraging every nation that doesn't want to be destroyed to "bring its neck under the yoke" of Babylon.
  ---

  Servitude or 'serving Babylon under Neb's reign took different two different forms , first , one of vassalage under a present monarch and an Exile whereupon the Monarch was deposed and forced into Exile to Babylon.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 

  scholar

  TonusOH

  Isn't this the same as the grammatical approach that you rejected earlier? Do you switch between exegesis and 'plain reading' as it suits you?

  --

  The said scholar works with both and is comfortable with both levels of activity namely the natural and plain reading of the text as an OBSERVATION which is the first step in carrying out and exegesis of the text or passage.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  isn’t “the word spoken by Jeremiah” at all,

  Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying God’s word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant .Before Judah’s 70 year desolation in Bavel, Zedekiah had proclaimed a Jubilee for the land and Jehovah turned back until Zedekiah backslided then the deportation.

  Any written statement such as laws or Scripture can be interpreted more than one way. You have you view. Good luck.
• 

  Jeffro

  Fisherman:

  Any written statement such as laws or Scripture can be interpreted more than one way.

  So, what you’re saying is, the Bible is essentially a useless ‘choose your own adventure’.
• 

  Fisherman

  So, what you’re saying is, the Bible is essentially a useless ‘choose your own adventure’.

  Not at all. You were told by “God’s organization” what the Bible means. You reject it and have your own views instead that you believe are true. If God is not a variable in the Bible, then the Bible is only literature. If God is not behind “God’s organization” then their interpretations and direction is not important—which is what this forum is about. But getting back to my post, given your stated position that the Bible is not God’s word and looking at the information in discussion prima facie, what I said applies.
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ Even if God were behind the Bible, it still wouldn’t be evidence of support for your chosen denomination. And you haven’t even gotten past square one of establishing that God even exists.
• 

  TD

  Those of us who regard the Bible as an interesting piece of literature are still bound by many of the same rules and conventions that religious people are, especially when it comes to the more rigid grammar of ancient languages.

  Simple (non-biblical) example: (Είμαι περίεργος αν το αναγνωρίζει ο «λόγιος»)

  
  

  We don't do this in English. (It's not nearly as precise a language)
  
• 

  Fisherman

  establishing that God even exists

  You got it all wrong. That’s what the Bible is all about: “They will have to know that I am Jehovah.” And that is what Christianity is about: “They will see, the Son of Man.” “Every eye will see him.” and the vindication of his church. That is miraculous proof from God which man cannot provide. Not like the miracles recorded in the Bible as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah —-which the Jewish nation rejected. But the sort of evidence that the Bible refers to as:
  “in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” —But that is not what this Forum is about. I am only replying to your question from the Bible. The proof that you seek cannot be provided by me.
• 

  Fisherman

  They put Russel on trial for not being a scholar. I read the transcript of Court record of his cross examination. I think your doctorate is in theology.

  I don’t think the Bible can be translated using strict rules of grammar alone. I think that the translator has a belief to begin with and the grammar conforms to that belief when interpreting and translating to another language. His belief is the rule or the guide and not the grammar. It just so happened that the beliefs of the JW founders were in phase with the grammar.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying God’s word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant.

  
  The point is that the phrase "to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah" in 2 Chronicles can't be applied to the language that wasn't in Jerimiah. Ezra was bringing together something from Leviticus, but that doesn't change the content of Jerimiah.
  
  The land was paying off its sabbaths all the days it was desolate, until the seventy years (of servitude of the nation's to Babylon) was over (completed/fulfilled). This is in no way requires an equivalence of desolation to 70 years.