by Alleymom 76 Replies latest watchtower bible
Your claim that the construction parallelism of Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 is erroneous. Jeremiah uses the infinitive form as translated by the brilliant NWT as 'the fulfilling' which is noted by both Jenni and Lundbom. Such an infinitive dissolves your exegesis
Oh boy.
What do you think mel'oth is in Leviticus 25:30?
...
...
...
Infinitive... construct... qal... just as in Jeremiah 29:10.
Oh good God...pseudo-scholar thinks after ignoring the linguistic facts for so long he can now argue his point on grammatical grounds? I think I must've chortled when I read his last post.
After turning a deaf ear during so many pages of the last thread towards the point Narkissos and I tried to get through his thick skull, namely that the specific construction the multivalent lamed occurs in greatly affects its semantic value, now he suddenly embraces this point and attempts to argue it for his own position. Lest it be forgotten, pseudo-scholar just yesterday in this very thread (in post #542) said that Jonsson's claim "that a locative sense is impossible or highly improbable," based on the differing constructions of lamed as pointed out by Jenni in his response to Jonsson, is ruled out as "unwarranted dogmatism" by what else but "this preposition having a broad semantic range" irrespective of construction. Look, scholar, you can't have it both ways.
And pseudo-scholar's attempt to argue this point is a complete failure, because the two texts (Jeremiah 29:10 and Leviticus 25:30) are not even dissimilar in the way he says they are.
Your claim that the construction parallelism of Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 is erroneous. Jeremiah uses the infinitive form as translated by the brilliant NWT as 'the fulfilling' which is noted by both Jenni and Lundbom.
What Jenni noted most specifically on p. 109 of his book (see the scan) is the construction parallism between both texts as instances of Quantification of Duration involving the verb ml' "voll werden" + Tage/Jahr". Are you saying that Jenni was erroneous for claiming this parallelism?
This event or durative was simply located at Babylon as shown by the preposition 'le' and by the locative or dative for the LXX.
First of all, the event (the telic completing of the duration) and the duration are not the same. Second, in post #4052, I already explained why your interpretation of lamed as an adverbial is improbable in this construction:
"If l-bbl is to be interpreted as a locative, then what is the entity that is being situated spatially in Babylon? The only entity (which is also the subject of the clausal verb) stated in the clause is the "seventy years". Treating Jeremiah 29:10 as belonging to the categories in Rubrik 81 would posit the seventy years as a "thing" that is located at Babylon (rather than the exiles being located at Babylon); this is quite unnatural, since the semantic relationship between an abstract TIME UNIT and a city or kingdom is more naturally relational (e.g. 70 years pertaining to Babylon) or possessive (e.g. 70 years belonging to Babylon), than being the spatial location of a TIME UNIT. Otherwise, it would have to be the event itself (the completion of the 70 years) that is located "at Babylon", i.e. the 70 years, wherever they may have started, will end at Babylon; this reading similarly fails to presuppose a 70-year exile in Babylon, and would constitute a lone exception to an otherwise recognizable syntactic pattern (e.g. ml' + (TIME UNIT) + le phrase). In contrast, we have already seen a well-attested construction in which the verb FULFILL takes a TIME UNIT as its theme/patient and a le-phrase denoting the entity for whom the time unit concerns. Jeremiah 29:10 fits perfectly into that pattern."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1485503/post.ashx#1485503
So please back up your position by citing other examples of an event of FULFULLING a specific TIME UNIT which is spatially located somewhere. Since you are arguing (as a die-hard only could) that the lamed in Jeremiah 29:10 must be a static locative instead of its usual sense and does not belong to the same construction that it most naturally fits into, you need to show that a usage of ml' (or similar verb) + (TIME UNIT) + le phrase for locating events spatially even exists. If you can't do that, we can't arbitrarily treat the lamed as not belonging to the construction it otherwise matches to a tee. In other words, the burden of proof is on you to show not only that the lamed is not a member of the Quantification of Duration construction but also to demonstrate what construction it does belong to.
You talk as if you alone had the right to correspond with him and say I must have "wicked intents" to ask him my own questions. Get real
Well, of course he treats you this way. He is a JW !!! You are an apostate, likely df'd, and going to be worm food, in his opinion. He is going to be a prince in the New ORDER!!
Why do we even bother arguing wiith this arrogant putz?!?
Poor scholar!
Would anything change if the point were conceded?
There is ample evidence, apart from an appalling lack of scholarship, that this organization is deceptive and will twist contextual meaning to suit its ends whenever it deems the ends justify such deceit. Given this basic untrustworthiness and patent lack of candor, why do you insist on defending their view despite an absence of anything resembling proof?
You are a scholar. I grant you that. However, your scope of study is limited to subjects prefiltered through the reasonings of those who are not scholars. I see why you are so insistent on your viewpoint. You correctly sense you can never find your way back into their school of sophistic reasoning, if ever you step outside of it for one moment.
So, you continue demonstrating all that you have learned from them about how to start with a conclusion and then find substantiation, no matter how far the truth and reasonableness must be strained to accomplish the task. You are a living demonstration of how terrible a thing it is to waste a mind. I wish there were some penalty for what has been done to you.
Sympathetically,
OldSoul
Old Soul
You forget that I read everything possible and I investigate matters if at all possible. I read theological papers, journals, theses etc which is something unfamiliar to the many. I have a large library and have access to the largest theological library in this country. I do not trust poztates because they are wiley and lack intellectual integrity and I know that scholarship from whatever the direction is about opinion, interpretation and research, so your criticism is simply erroneous and pathetic.
scholar JW
I do not trust poztates because they are wiley and lack intellectual integrity and I know that scholarship from whatever the direction is about opinion, interpretation and research, so your criticism is simply erroneous and pathetic.
That is insulting and you know it scholar - and a down right lie
You forget that I read everything possible and I investigate matters if at all possible. I read theological papers, journals, theses etc which is something unfamiliar to the many. I have a large library and have access to the largest theological library in this country. I do not trust poztates because they are wiley and lack intellectual integrity and I know that scholarship from whatever the direction is about opinion, interpretation and research, so your criticism is simply erroneous and pathetic.
Read all about it! Read all about it! - "Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory".
HS
It is abundantly clear that pseudo-scholar's modus operandi is basically bluffing and saying anything in favor of the NWT and seeing whether it would stick. Witness what has transpired in the two threads on Jeremiah 29:10:
1. pseudo-scholar (in #507) claimed that in the "context of the chapter" (ch. 29) "the Hebrew preposition le has a wide semantic range which includes: to, in, for, at, etc.", and in his next post (#508) he specified the references to "to/at/in Babylon" in v. 1, 3, 10, 15, 20, 22, 28. FALSE. In #3918, I showed that the preposition le doesn't even occur in these verses!! If anything, these verses show that the static locative is indicated with other means in ch. 29 (such as the preposition be, which is basically a locative).
2. In post #510, pseudo-scholar claimed that "no such evidence was and is available" that can be sourced to "a journal article, grammar or lexicon" that shows the NWT to be erroneous in its translation of Jeremiah 29:10. FALSE. In post #2548, Narkissos cited literary evidence of other texts that attest the non-locative construction in Jeremiah 29:10, and in post #3937 I cited Dr. Ernst Jenni's own response to Jonsson wherein he indicated that his book Die hebräischen Prepositionen provided this same evidence for the construction in 29:10. Pseudo-scholar says that Jenni provides only opinions, not evidence; this is false, as the bulk of Jenni's book is the citation of texts in support of his categorizations.
3. In post #516, pseudo-scholar said that "the NWT uses 'at Babylon' also at Jeremiah 29:28: 51:49 and I suppose that 'le' is used in these texts". FALSE. Narkissos (in #2256) points out that in 29:28 there is no preposition, le or otherwise. A simple check of the Hebrew text would have clarified the matter, but pseudo-scholar went ahead and supposed le occurred to 29:28 just because "at Babylon" is used in the NWT for this verse.
4. Also in post #516, pseudo-scholar said that "Jenni provides no evidence for the use of the preposition le used in Jeremiah 29:10, it is not cited as you claim ... he does not cite the text". Another bluff, here he declares what is and isn't contained in Jenni's book...sight unseen. He even dared me to post "specific pages relating to this matter ... on this board so that everyone can see what Jenni says". FALSE. In post #3984, I posted these very pages which show that Jenni twice cited the text (!), indicated that it be translated "70 Jahre für Babel", and provided textual evidence showing how Jeremiah 29:10 patterns with other predicates of duration verbs (exactly the texts cited by Narkissos in post #2548). Pseudo-scholar has quite predictably refused to even acknowledge or apologize for falsely claiming that I was wrong to say that Jenni did cite Jeremiah 29:10 in his work.
5. In this thread (in post #535), pseudo-scholar claimed that "the textual tradition beginning with the LXX ... allows for a locative reading". FALSE. In post #4256, I showed that the dative case used by the LXX supports exactly the non-static locative rendering (e.g. "pertaining to, belonging to, with respect to", etc.) that pseudo-scholar is objecting to. I have to wonder if pseudo-scholar even knows what the dative case is used for.
6. In post #544, pseudo-scholar claimed that "the construction parallelism of Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 is erroneous", and cites the use of the infinitive form in Jeremiah 29:10 which is even "noted by Jenni". FALSE. Another spectacularly false claim. As I pointed out in #4267 and earlier in #3984, Jenni himself noted this parallelism, and in #2877 Narkissos points out that the verbal form in both texts is the same.
And on and on it goes. Pseudo-scholar's record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims imitates quite well the example set by the Society.
Narkissos
Meloth at Leviticus 25: is not an infinitive, so in Jeremiah 29:10 we have the infinitive form, 'the fulfilling ' which does not appear exactly in Leviticus. What you and Leolaia have failed to recognize that it is only the NWT that recognizes the verbal form as an infinitive and translates accordingly which demonstrates the accuracy of this brilliant translation.
scholar JW
scholar: I do not trust poztates because they are wiley and lack intellectual integrity and I know that scholarship from whatever the direction is about opinion, interpretation and research, so your criticism is simply erroneous and pathetic.
Do I understand, then, that you credit the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with "intellectual integrity" in their expressed views on all matters? That seems to be the unspoken thrust of your reply, who else would poztates be compared with.
Has this organization always had this mark? If so, please indulge me and define "intellectual integrity" so I will understand how you account for so much knowing deceit. For example: take note of their application of "nouthesia" in the lesson considered today by the majority of Witnesses earth-wide. How do you make this kind of blatantly manipulative and deceitful application fit with some notion of "intellectual integrity?"
There is absolutely no way a Greek reader of Ephesians could get the idea that Paul encouraged fathers to put the mind of God into their child. Rather, the Greek reader would have understood "nouthesia" to mean recalling God to their mind by way of admonishment. Consistently, for four consecutive paragraphs (9-12), an obvious intellectual deceit is perpetrated to convey the idea to the unscholarly Witness that the mind of God should be put into their child. Is my questioning this an example of my "wiley" "lack [of] intellectual integrity?" Or is your acceptance of it without challenge evidence of your lack of intellectual integrity?
Seriously. I'd love to know what you think intellectual integrity is. For the record.
Curiously,
OldSoul
