marking
C.O. Jonsson's response to Watchtower's latest 607 articles
by wannabefree 73 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PSacramento
The irony is that, with 2014 just a few years away, the correct timeline would have put the WT in a better position in reagards to that silly "the generation that won't die" crap, LOL !
-
Leolaia
Regarding this point on Jeremiah 29:10 made by Jonsson:
The Hebrew preposition translated “at” here in NWT is l e . Modern authorities on Hebrew agree that this preposition means “to”, “for”, “with reference to”. They point out that it may also be used in a local or spatial sense (“in”, “at”), but only in certain adverbial expressions, and in any case not at Jeremiah 29:10, where the meaning is “for Babylon”. The Swedish Hebraist Dr. Seth Erlandsson states that, “The spatial sense is impossible at Jer. 29:10.” Other Hebraists agree, including Professor Ernst Jenni, the leading authority on the Hebrew prepositions. His work on the preposition le alone covers 350 pages!
It may be worthwhile to note that we had two very good ("classic") threads on this subject here in this forum, with direct input from Professor Jenni:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/87714/1/Daniels-Prophecy-605-BCE-or-624-BCE
Let me briefly explain why the NWT is wrong and why the spatial sense is not possible. The locative use of l eoccurs in adverbs of orientation indicating a spatial relationship between a verbal action (and the entity performing the action) and the environment. An example of this: "She sits at the door of her house (l-ptch byth)" (Proverbs 9:14). Here l eindicates that the act of sitting is spatially oriented to a door (Jenni notes that the sense isn't purely spatial but directional); where the verbal action occurs is important information which is expressed via an adverb of orientation. Similarly with the l e phrase in Genesis 49:13: "Zebulon will dwell by the seashore (l-chwp ymym)"; the point of this sentence is to indicate where or to where Zebulon would dwell. Now consider Jeremiah 29:10, rendered in the NWT as "In accord with the fulfilling (ml't) of seventy yearsat Babylon (l-bbl)". If this is an adverb of orientation, what is being oriented to Babylon? The NWT would construe an abstract TIME UNIT as spatially located at a city, or being directed towards the city, or that the completion of this TIME UNIT is oriented towards the city. But it is quite odd to think of an event concerning a time unit as spatial rather than temporal. And never in Hebrew does the construction of verb of duration + TIME UNIT + l e phrase have a usage of locating the completion of time units spatially.
The l e phrase must be interpreted in light of its governing verb ml' "to fulfill" (fulfilling a DURATION), so it indicates the entity for whom the fulfilled TIME UNIT has pertinence. The verb ml' "to fulfill, complete" occurs very frequently with TIME UNITs in Hebrew and these TIME UNITs usually are oriented towards an entity that experiences them: "Give me my wife for my days (ymy) are completed (ml'w)" (Genesis 29:21), "The period of your ordination (ywm ymy ml'ykm) is fulfilled (ml't)" (Leviticus 8:33), "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not complete (l'-yml') his days ('t-ymym)" (Isaiah 65:20), etc. So in Genesis 29:21, the completed TIME UNIT has pertinence to Jacob; the seven years were allotted to him so he refers to them as "my days". Similarly, the TIME UNIT in Isaiah 65:20 pertains to the lifespan of an old man who completes "his" days when he dies. The TIME UNIT wouldn't have any meaning unless it was oriented to some entity that it pertains to (whether being allotted the TIME UNIT, or possessing it, or having some other relation to it). So the entity marked by the preposition l e is indicated as having an intrinsic relationship with the quantified duration, regardless of whether the verbal action is fullfilling the duration, or prolonging it, or cutting it short. Here is an example with 'rk "to prolong" + TIME UNIT + l e phrase:
Genesis 26:8: "And it came to pass, when the days (h-ymym) were prolonged ('rkw) for him (l-w), Abimelech king of the Philistines looked through the window". [Jenni gives the formula 'rk "lang sein (Tage)"; this is a prolonging of DAYS pertaining to HIM]
And the same is true with ml' "to fulfill" + TIME UNIT + l e phrase:
Genesis 50:3: "And forty days ('rb`ym ywm) were fulfilled (w-yml'w) for him (l-w); for this is how they fulfilled (yml'w) the days (ymy) of those being embalmed (h-chntym, not a l e phrase but in parallel with one)". [Jenni gives the formula ml' "voll werden (Tage/Jahr[e])"; this is a fulfilling of 40 DAYS pertaining to HIM/THOSE EMBALMED (in general)]
Leviticus 25:30: "And if it is not redeemed until an entire year (shnh tmymh) is fulfilled (ml't) for it (l-w), the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to the buyer". [Jenni gives the same formula as above; this is a fulfilling of an ENTIRE YEAR pertaining to THE HOUSE]
Jeremiah 25:34: "Wail, you shepherds, and cry out; roll in ashes, you lords of the flock, for your days (ymkm) for your slaughter and your dispersions (l-tbwch w-tpwtswtykm) are fulfilled (ml'w), and you shall fall like a choice vessel". [Here we have a fulfulling of DAYS pertaining to YOUR SLAUGHTER AND DISPERSIONS]
Jeremiah 29:10: "When seventy years (shb`ym shnh) are fulfilled (ml't) for Babylon (l-bbl), I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place". [Jenni gives the same formula as above; this is a fulfilling of SEVENTY YEARS pertaining to BABYLON]
Daniel 9:2: "I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years (mspr h-shnym) that according to the word of Yahweh to the prophet Jeremiah must be fulfilled (l-ml'wt) for the devastation of Jerusalem (l-chrbwt yrwshlm), namely, seventy years". [Here we have a fulfilling of a NUMBER OF YEARS/SEVENTY YEARS pertaining to THE DEVASTATION OF JERUSALEM]
Checking the NWT in Genesis 26:8, 50:3, Leviticus 25:30, Jeremiah 25:34, and Daniel 9:2, the l e phrase is not rendered "at" or some other locative expression wherever else this syntactic construction occurs; instead the NWT uses "for", or a possessive. Only in Jeremiah 29:10 is there an exception. Notice too that Jeremiah 25:34 is by the same author and the text in Daniel is dependent on the Jeremiah references to the "seventy years". The NWT here follows the error in the Vulgate (in Babylone), repeated in the KJV and a few other translations influenced by the Latin tradition. The earlier translations in the LXX and Aquila instead have a simple dative (Babuloni), which understands the l e phrase as meaning "for Babylon" or "pertaining to Babylon," "with regard to Babylon", etc.
-
Alleymom
Leolaia: It may be worthwhile to note that we had two very good ("classic") threads on this subject here in this forum, with direct input from Professor Jenni:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/87714/1/Daniels-Prophecy-605-BCE-or-624-BCE
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/90425/1/Jer-29-10-Dr-Ernst-Jenni-replies-to-Leolaia-and-ScholarThanks for posting the links! Ah, those were the days!
I just finished re-reading the second one, "Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar," and it is a gem! I'm looking forward to reading the other one tonight.
Marjorie
-
Doubting Bro
Very well written and easy to read article. Although I know the WTS to be dishonest, to be so blatantly dishonest is a little stunning. It actually makes me angry that I actually believed this stuff at one point not so long ago. There are lots of reasons to recognize that there is no way the WTS is God's sole channel of communication on earth. False prophesy, lack of love, etc. But, I think this sort of dishonesty and selective quoting is by far the biggest indicator that they have no divine backing.
This is where they always get themselves in trouble. Rather than saying that God revealed this date to them and leave it at that, they try to "prove" it using secular sources and changing a verse in their bible to match their teaching. That someone can deconstruct their argument so thoroughly using the same source they are makes them look much worse. Rather than being misguided, they are shown to be devious.
They know that the 607 date must be defended at all costs. Here's the crazy thing, if you used the real date and pushed their crazy 2520 year theory out another 20 years, that would put Jesus coming to power in 1934 with their "selection" in 1938. Add a 80 year "generation" and you get 2014. I wonder why they didn't do that back in 1995? Instead, they changed the definition 3 of what a generation is 3 times to cover up the obvious.
-
PSacramento
Didn't I just say that? LOL !
I think the issue isn't 1914 as much as it is 1919, when the JW were suppoedly CHOSEN by Christ.If 1914 is worng then 1919 never happened.
-
Doubting Bro
Sorry P Sac! I posted right after reading the article without reading the other comments!!
Right, the appointment is where they get their "authority" from. Jesus as usual is just a sidebar.
-
PSacramento
Personally I think 1919 is a far more important date for them than 1914
-
cantleave
saved
-
sir82
You'd think that 1934 / 1938 thing would have appealed to them.
They could have said "what was a sign that Jesus came invisibly? He directed that his organization concentrate on finding 'the great crowd' just one year later, in 1935".
And wan't there a big WT article on "neutrality" in 1938 or '39? They could have said that was another sign of Christ's approval, that he directed them to that conclusion.
By the 1930's they had stopped celebrating Christmas as well - not the case at the time of their being "selected" as "clean" in 1919.
Of course that would necessitate rewritng the history of the "7 trumpet blasts = 7 assemblies in the 1920's" but no one really beleived that anyway - I'm sure they could come up with something without much effort.