scholar pretendus wrote:
: Chief Basketweaver
Your scholarly coffin is indeed woven of sharp reeds, the kind that, if you lean on them, will pierce your hand right through. The Watchtower Society is such a reed.
: As usual. the basketweaver not only plays the fool but IS the fool. In his usual moronic fashion, he replies to scholar's studied response and is compelled continually to address scholar's superior scholarship.
So says, the armless, legless Black knight. So said Saddam Hussein's press secretary. LOL!
: As usual, the wiley poxtates are compelled to address the facts but continually refuse to present all the facts.
Leolaia has already shown your lies here, so there's no use my trying to guild the lily very much.
: I have for some time urged Jenni's supporters to present Jenni's original article on le in regard to Jeremiah 3:17. There is little point in sourcing Jenni for support unless his seminal article is discussed. Interestingly, in this verse namely Jeremiah 3:17, the NWT uses le in a locative sense..
This shows your atrociously poor grasp of the language details at issue here. The locative sense in this passage, as has been pointed out several times, is directional, not static. That says nothing at all about the static locative sense that the NWT uses in Jer. 29:10. Besides, what the NWT does is irrelevant. Good scholarship is relevant.
: So, poztates do not always present all of the facts but use some facts rather selectively.
Leolaia has already pointed out your lie. Plenty of information has been given on all points you've brought up, including and especially the use of "le" in Jer. 3:17.
: It is Jonsson that first made dogmatic statements concerning the impossibility of le meaning at in Jeremiah 29:10
Dogmatism or lack thereof is irrelevant to the issue of the meaning of "le" in Jer. 29:10. But when all modern scholars agree that "le-babel" means "for Babylon", it's alright to be dogmatic.
: and in some desperation he finds comfort in Jenni's book on Prepositions.
You hypocrite! If you could find any scholarly support whatsoever for the Society's translation of "le" as "at", you'd be trumpeting it wildly. Jenni is the world's foremost scholar on Hebrew prepositions, and his opinion holds much weight. It's a transparently stupid thing for you to call such scholarly weight "finding comfort".
: But Jenni and no other Hebrew scholar can demonstate on lexical and grammatical grounds that it is impossible for le to have a locative meaning in Jeremiah 19:10.
Once again you ignore the fact that it's impossible to demonstrate anything conclusive about a great many texts. The point is that it's extremely unlikely that "at" is the correct translation.
You also ignore the fact that, on the other hand, you admit that you cannot demonstrate that "at" is the correct translation. Therefore, for you to use the NWT's translation to prove anything is hypocritical in the extreme.
: The grammatical context of this verse clearly permits a locative sense for le because there is no grammatical rule or convention that excludes such a usage and the lexica material certainly give le a locative meaning.
Once again, the fact that words can take on certain meanings in certain contexts does not mean that they can take on all possible meanings in a given context. Were that possible, language would be almost impossible to understand.
: The context clearly proves that the seventy yeras are not of Babylon but are of Judah because the fulfillment of the word namely the fulfillment of the seventy years is linked not to Babylon but to the return to that place, Jerusalem in Judah.
I and other posters have conclusively demonstrated that your claim is ridiculous. I've also proved that the Society's own teaching eliminates any possibility that "at Babylon" is the correct translation of the verse -- a demonstration that you've almost completely ignored -- because it teaches that the 70 years ended when the Jews were at Jerusalem, not at Babylon.
: In short, verse 10 is describing the promise that after seventy years of exile,
There is no such promise. You cannot point to a single Bible text that speaks of such.
I challenge you, scholar pretendus: produce a Bible text that explicitly states that the Jews would be in exile in Babylon for exactly 70 years.
If you refuse, then all will know -- as if further demonstration were necessary -- that you know you don't have any facts to back up your claims.
: the people would return back home
Jer. 25:11 clearly states that the Jews and many other nations would be in servitude to Babylon for 70 years. Jer. 25:12 clearly states that none of these nations would serve Babylon after the 70 years were completed. Since Babylon was conquered in 539 B.C., that servitude did not continue after 539 B.C. 2 Chron. 36:20 clearly states that once the Persians were in power, no one would be serving Babylon. If Jer. 29:10 is consistent with these passages, it cannot be referring to a return of the Jews back home, but to an ending of their servitude to Babylon.
: and is not about servitude to Babylon which is not mentioned in this verse
Only if one accepts the NWT's rendering. The rendering "for Babylon" clearly indicates 70 years of servitude.
On the other hand, if one accepts the rendering "for Babylon", then the verse indicates nothing explicit about 70 years of exile.
So, since the question of whether the verse indicates anything explicit about 70 years of servitude or exile hinges entirely on the proper rendering of "le-babel" ("at Babylon" or "for Babylon"), your argument is clearly circular, and yet another example of special pleading.
: which merely says that Babylon was a place of exile.
This is immaterial to the proper rendering of the passage. It works either way.
: Nothing more and nothing less than this.Your argument of so-called contradiction is rendered meaningless by the simple fact that verse 10 is about the return linked to the fulfillment of the seventy years. It is only when they were at their place that the seventy years was thus fulfilled according to Jehovah's word through Jeremiah.
This is more gobble-de-goop. You simply refuse to address the simple fact that the Society's teaching that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned to Jerusalem means that they also teach that the 70 years ended when the Jews were at Jerusalem. If the 70 years ended when the Jews were at Jerusalem, then they could not have ended some four months earlier when the Jews were still at Babylon. QED.
: Rule of grammar are essential for any translator if such a person widhes to produce a literal translation which of course was the objective of the NWT.
Duh.
: Jenni may be of the opinion that le in Jeremiah 29:10 is unlikely to be locative but he does not say that it is impossible, so it is simply his opinion.
Your argument is again hypocritical, because even if Jenni said that a locative meaning were impossible, you would reject it. Why? Because that most eminent and clearly spirit-directed Bible scholar Freddie Franz has precedence in your mind.
: The traditional rendering of this verse according to the versions and the King James Bible presents the locative meaning
So what? The KJV and "the versions" contain many, many other errors of translation that modern scholars have fixed.
: and this exceded by far what the moderns present as many modern Bible lean to more simpler readings and are not concerned with literalness of meaning as does the NWT.
What utter nonsense. Modern Bible scholarship is far better than the scholarship of the 4th through 19th centuries.
: Both the immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and the other principal seventy year texts clearly affirm not the instrumental meaning 'for' but the locative meaning 'at'
All these claims have been demonstrated to be false.
Next comes the usual special pleading and circular argument:
: because the clear and simple fact is that the seventy years belong to Judah and not to Babylon.
Repetition for emphasis will not make this so.
: Jeremiah 25:11 says that these nations including Judah would serve Babylon for seventy years
Exactly.
: and the land of Judah would also be a desolated land for seventy years.
The passage says no such thing.
: This text clearly proves my formulaic expression 70 years=EXILE+SERVITUDE+DESOLATION.
Since the passage says nothing about exile, but only speaks of 70 years of servitude of many nations, and says nothing about 70 years of desolation of Judah, your claim is demonstrably false.
: Secular history indicates that those nations did not serve Babylon exactly seventy years but Judah clearly did in accordance to that prophecies of Jeremiah.
Yet more special pleading. If Jer. 25:11 means, as you claim, that Judah would be exiled/in servitude/desolated for a full 70 years, and the passage makes no mention of Judah but of "many nations", then according to your reasoning, ALL of these "many nations" would have to suffer precisely the same fate as Judah. But since you admit that they didn't, then to make an exception of Judah is pure special pleading. Thus your argument is proved false.
: Wiley poztaes in their desperation to repudiate the pattern of healthful words
"Pattern of healthful words" = Watchtower nonsense".
: wish to rewrite Greek Lexicons by ignoring the primary meanings of words such as parousia and stauros,
Yet another ridiculous lie. No JW critic is ignoring what these lexicons say. Indeed, we're taking full account of them. Who is it that presents all of the definitions in these discussions? JW critics or JW defenders? Demonstrably, only the critics do this, while JW apologists like you consistently fail to present the full range of meanings of the words in question. This is easy to prove: you cannot find a single instance in this thread where you've presented -- on your own and without a good deal of prompting -- the full range of meanings of words like "le", "parousia" and "stauros". Rather, you've presented only the meanings consistent with Watchtower teaching. This is gross scholastic dishonesty. So who, really, is trying to rewrite the lexicons?
: and rather focus on much later secondary meanings.
This is another gross misrepresentation. Language evolves. Words that mean one thing in one period can mean entirely the opposite 500 years later. Words can completely change their meanings and take on a range of new meanings. To ignore this is to ignore the reality of language, and a translator who dumbly translates by using only the most ancient or primary meaning is guaranteed to make many mistranslations.
Here's an example from English: Some 500 years ago the word "let" meant "prevent". Today it means "allow". So the word has taken on the opposite meaning. Now, if a translator as stupid as the Society requires its translators to be decided to use the most ancient and primary meaning of "let" when translating from the modern English NWT to say, the Mbomo tongue, the Mbomo people would be quite misled.
Another problem with this stupid approach to translation is that the Society is inconsistent in its use. It uses this approach only when some doctrinal issue is at stake, such as its doctrines derived from the meanings of "parousia" and "stauros". So it's evident that the Society itself engages in a form of special pleading when adhering to this demonstrably stupid method.
: Such an assumed hermeneutic violates the progress of Greek Lexicography and demonstrates their failure to hold to the original meanings of words.
This statement is a clear demonstration of your total lack of knowledge of how language works.
: Afterall, is not the purpose of textual criticism to get back to the original form or text and relies very much on lexicography.
True, but your application is completely stupid. An essay written in modern English must be read with a very different understanding of the language than an essay written by William Tyndale many centuries ago.
The same goes for Greek. Using Greek that was 500 years older than material written in the 1st century to translate 1st century manuscripts is guaranteed to result in gross errors. This is certainly true with respect to "parousia" and "stauros", whose meanings demonstrably evolved over the centuries.
As usual, scholar pretendus, your post is an extremely stupid mixture of lies, misrepresentations, false claims and poor argumentation. It's a fine reflection of the material written by your idol, Fred Franz. It's no wonder you idolize that lunatic. Too bad your looniness isn't backed up by Franz's narrow brilliance.
AlanF
