607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  It is correct to say that Applegate does not advocate a precise chronology for the seventy years but he certainly acknowledges a holistic or unitary interpretation even if in a very subtle form. Applegate's concluding abstract notes the flexibility of interpretation for this period but such flexibility is omitted by Jonsson who promotes a rather dogmatic view that the seventy years was only one of servitude.

  ROFL.

  Tell us, scholar, how exactly does an author who (rightly imo) points to several interpretations of the expression "70 years," none of them being an exact timespan of 70 years, within the OT itself, "acknowledge a holistic and unitary interpretation" which may in any way "vindicate" the WT interpretation of one strict chronological indication? The answer must be quite "subtle" indeed.

  The fact is there is nothing less "flexible" and more "dogmatic" than the WT interpretation, except your own. As Leolaia pointed out, you have fallen into the trap of many apologists, i.e. overstating what you are trying to defend at the risk of being disowned even by those you are trying to defend. Perhaps you will remember that someday.

  As to the merits of being "coherent," "consistent," "holistic," "unitary" or whatever you may call that... as you put it, it boils down to stating that the guy who says "I see twelve cows in this field" is necessarily righter than the one who says "I see three cows, four sheep, two horses and three donkeys". There is a distinct possibility that you are making a virtue out of shortsightedness.
• 

  Augustin

  Applegate is correct in arguing that

  (1) ...the 70 years "for Babylon" (cf. NWT in the Danish edition and the Swedish edition) indicate a period of "servitude for Judah and her neighbours" (p. 92), a period that would end with "the punishment of Babylon after seventy years" (p. 92). We all know that Babylon fell in 539 BCE (not 537 BCE).

  (2) ...Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE.

  All of this is in harmony with the interpretation advocated by NJB, Jonsson, Winkle, Finegan. There is nothing in Applegate's article supporting the Watchtower hypothesis. No support for "celebrated" Watchtower "scholars" there...

  Best wishes

  -- Augustin --
• 

  MuadDib

  "you are making a virtue out of shortsightedness."

  What more do you expect? He's a JW.
• 

  Leolaia

  In fact it is our interpretation of the seventy years as a definite historical period that falsifies current interpretations of the chronology for the Neo Babylonian period. Of course, I scoff at those who offer interpretations that exhibit a disloyalty to God's prophetic Word by either regarding the seventy years as a round number or other concocted theories such as those suggested by the Jonsson hypothesis.

  So does this mean that you scoff at Applegate? You have been trumpeting Applegate as offering the most complete analysis of the "seventy years" and "vindicating" the truth of the matter, yet he concludes that the "seventy years" does not represent a single "definite historical period" but as indicating a period of time open to much reinterpretation within the OT itself. So why have you been slow to scoff at Applegate or been relunctant to even reveal Applegate's scoffworthy analysis.

  The Jonssson hypothesis does not inform its readers of the many conflicting opinions about the seventy years in commentaries and the scholarly literature. It offers several interpretations with numerous 'seventy year periods' but favours the period as best representing servitude to Babylon.

  It is not as thorough as Applegate in presenting all the different interpretations, but it does represent several and naturally favors one of these it finds to be more persuasive than others. You, on the other hand, offer only contempt to "the many conflicting opinions about the seventy years in commentaries and the scholarly literature," except for Applegate of course.

  Applegate admits the diversity of opinion and shows the history of interpretation in the literature, his analysis of the key texts is most refreshing in comparison to the dogmatic and narrow of the seventy years advocated by Jonsson.

  It is the position of pseudo-scholar and the WB&TS that is "dogmatic and narrow"; as I already mentioned in my last post, Jonsson is open to the possibility that the "seventy years" is a round and figurative number. Adopting such a position would have no effect whatsoever on Jonsson's chronology. The bulk of Applegate's analysis concerns textual modifications within Jeremiah itself and how the key texts were reinterpreted by later authors (including the author of Daniel, regarded by Applegate as a Hellenistic author; do you consider Applegate's analysis of Daniel "refreshing"?). If that is so "refreshing", then it is curious to note that your own position has not changed one whit after reading Applegate. If you were to admit that there is not a single understanding of the "seventy years" in the OT, or that some of your favorite texts are only later reinterpretations of this Jeremianic period, or that the Jeremianic texts themselves are ambiguous and have been modified subsequently, then the whole basis of 607 BC collapses because it is critically dependent on your particular interpretation of the "seventy years". Since you cannot give up your cherished date of 607 BC, it is clear that you are most "dogmatic and narrow" on this matter.

  Clearly, Jonsson displays a anti-Witness bias which impugns his scholarship wheras Appleagate simply gives his opinon on the basis of scholarship.

  Please show how an "anti-Witness" bias has crippled his scholarship.

  Therefore, Appl;egate's article is refreshing to read as an advancement on this much neglected subjects and offers many gems for Celebrated WT scholars in their promotion of the truth regarding the biblical seventy years.

  LOL!! Exactly as I have been saying, you have been using Applegate to cherry-pick proof-texts to reinforce your earlier views without engaging substantially with Applegate's actual analysis, just as you now say that it "offers many gems" for you to quote and use.

  Applegate admits that "the current concensus on Jeremiah's use appears to be that, by convention, ancient Near Eastern peoples anticpated seventy years of divine displeasure for a city or land that fell foul of its god, and that an actual period of seventy years may also be in view." True, Applegate offers no chronology for this period but this comment supports my long held publicly staed view that any iny interpretation of the seventy years must be in harmony with the theology of the OT.

  No it does not. Did you not notice my previous posts which show that Applegate considers the Jeremianic "seventy years" as already running sometime before the final destruction of Jerusalem (in 587/6 BC in the standard chronology, in 607 in your "celebrated" chronology)? Of course, Jonsson points out exactly the same thing.

  Obviously, the seventy years had not then commenced prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and deportation of all the people as exiles to Babylon and Applegate's comment on Jer. 29:10 that Yahweh would visit his people in Babylon after the seventy years. It is correct to say that Applegate does not define the seventy years as a period exile, desolation and servitude but neither does he favor Jonsson's servitude position either but Applegate certainly makes observations on those key texts that give credence to the position the Society has long held.

  No it is not "obvious"; what is obvious is that Applegate treats the "seventy years" as already in progress "prior to the destruction of Jerusalem", hence Jeremiah's letter to the exiles from the first deportation. You completely side step this point as usual.

  It is correct to say that Applegate does not advocate a precise chronology for the seventy years but he certainly acknowledges a holistic or unitary interpretation even if in a very subtle form.

  This is completely and utterly false. Applegate's whole analysis shows that the biblical texts do NOT have a single "holistic or unitary interpretation". I have already shown this to be the case.

  Applegate's concluding abstract notes the flexibility of interpretation for this period but such flexibility is omitted by Jonsson who promotes a rather dogmatic view that the seventy years was only one of servitude. Applegate's paper does not support the Jonsson nonsense as to its chronology and interpretation.

  LOL!!! I have already covered this ground in my last post. If Applegate does not support some aspects of Jonsson's analysis, he supports yours even less. Jonsson shares with you the assumption that the different texts in Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel, etc. interpret the seventy years in roughly the same way. Applegate does not share this assumption and thus demonstrates differing interpretations of the seventy years across these texts. You have failed to show how your own interpretation is any more flexible than Jonsson's. In fact, since Jonsson entertains different ways of construing the "seventy years" in Jeremiah as a chronological period (which you criticize as inconsistent and treating the seventy years as a "round" number), he shows himself to be far more flexible than yourself.

  This paper has a far greater import for the Jonsson hypothesis than for biblical chronology because the seventy years is the very basis of that hypothesis with Jonsson caught with conflicting evidence and no precise chronology.

  The paper has no import for the standard biblical chronology (which Jonsson represents). It only has import when a particular theory of chronology reckons the "seventy years" as a chronological datum that must be accommodated by the chronology. With its potential for invalidating the primary chronological support for 607 BC, it is very difficult to see how you can claim that "this paper has a far greater import for the Jonsson hypothesis".

  WT scholars are not dependent on this paper but it is a useful contribution to the current debate with studies on Jeremiah, for me it serves as a corrective or litmus test to Jonsson's fanciful theories that his findings are not based ujpon sound biblical scholarship. I believe that Applegate's paper exposes such foolish chronology with its flawed understanding of the seventy years as a sham, a fraud.

  You should apply for the job of Information Minister in the new Iraq.
• 

  AlanF

  Scholar pretendus wrote:

  : No you do not understand the use of Harper's reference used in the Babylon book at all for all you have done is quoted paragraphs of the Jehoiakim article minus any relevant discussion.

  You truly are a moron. I most certainly gave a good deal of relevant discussion, concluding with this:

  The reference was there to support the immediately preceding statement. Since the reference contradicts the statement, the citation is completely misleading.

  Which of those words do you not understand?

  Now let's turn the discussion back on you: You tell us what sentence the Harper's reference refers back to, and explain clearly why you think the sentence immediately preceding the reference has nothing to do with it.

  : Upon authority do you say that because a source refernce preceeded by a dash immediately refers to the preceeding sentence?

  Upon my own authority as a competent, native English speaker.

  You of all people have no business commenting on anyone's ability to interpret English sentences. Your posts consistently demonstrate a thorough lack of grounding in the language. Would you like some examples?

  : Are you then claiming that the alleged deceit by the writer of the Babylon book was the fact that 618 was the year that Nebuchadnezzer came against Jehoiakim a second time and that the date 618 should have appeared in the Harpe's Dictionary article?

  No. I already stated what the deception was. And that if the writer was not deceitful, he was incompetent. Read my post above once again.

  : I repeat that like other Watchtower critics you have not understood why the reference to Harper's Dictionary was used so try again.

  Again, why don't you inform readers about why the reference was used?

  : You are in error when you claim that that preceeding sentence is what should have appeared in the Dictionary because if this was the case the writer would have used quotation marks and these are absent with this reference.

  I didn't say that the preceeding sentence should have appeared in the Dictionary. I said that the information contained in the preceding sentences -- that Nebuchadnezzar punished the rebel king in 618 B.C. -- should have been there in order that the citation be fair.

  Let me give you an example that even your little brain might grasp. Suppose I posted the following:

  Scholar pretendus claims that the end of the seventy years was in 537 B.C. He also enjoys buggering goats. -- See his post #1201 above.

  If you can understand why my reference to your post #1201 is unfair, then you should also be able to understand my discussion of the Society's deception.

  I'm going to refer to you, from now on, as "scholar pretendus the goat bugger" until you demonstrate comprehension of these simple ideas.

  : As with your stupid and foolish allegations about Thiel

  Let's not start that again. Your idiotic ideas about Thiele have been thoroughly blown away. You're simply too morally stupid to admit it.

  : you have once again demonstrated your hatred of truth, the Bible and Christianity.

  On the contrary: I love the truth, I consider the Bible to be an excellent example of ancient mythical writings, and I only dislike the sort of intolerant, fundamentalist Christianity practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and similar cults.

  AlanF
• 

  Jeffro

  1. The end of the seventy years was marked by the return of the exiles, the land repopulated but still in servitude to a new king at Babylon with her foretold destruction to come.

  Which would mean that Babylon's king would be judged in 537. Which is of course rediculous because it is bleedingly obvious - and made crystal clear by Daniel - that Babylon's king was called to account in 539.

  2. The end of the seventy years was in 537 BCE and Applegate agrees by noting with regard to Jer.29;10"" that after seventy years, Yahweh will visit his people in order to do them good and restore them to their land".

  Even the Society's own Isaiah publication shows 537 to be wrong, in favour of 539. We've been through all this before, and I've shown previously that all of the relevant scriptures are completely compatible with what I have put forward.

  3. They would certainly had enough time returning home by the seventh month in the year 537 and not 538 as the apostates claim.

  There you go again applying the Society's ad hominim bastardization of the word "apostate". It is largely secular scholars who state that 538 is the correct year. Whether some of them may have left any particular religious or political group to join another is irrelevant. Of course, any person who changes religion to become a JW is an apostate too.

  You don't have a shred of evidence for 537, and Josephus' account compared to Ezra's allows for no other year but 538.
• 

  AlanF

  
  I want to point out that Applegate directly contradicts Watchtower teaching on the end of Jeremiah's 70 years. Note his comments:

  p. 92: The book of Jeremiah mentions the "seventy years" on three occasions; 25:11, 12 and 29:10. In each case the "seventy years" is given a different emphasis. In Jer 25:11 the emphasis is on seventy years of desolation and servitude for Judah and her neighbours. In 25:12 it moves to the punishment of Babylon after seventy years. In 29:10 it moves to Yahweh's visitation after seventy years and the restoration of Judah.

  But according to the Society, "Yahweh's visitation" occurred before the 70 years ended. Indeed, the Society claims that the 70 years ended at "the restoration of Judah". Since the Bible directly states that by Tishri of the year of the return the Jews were in their cities, they must have returned a bit earlier, likely in the month before Tishri.

  Clearly, then, the Society's chronology contradicts the Bible, and Applegate supports the Bible.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Here is some more information for 'scholar pretendus the goat bugger', who does not understand good citation practices, having learned all the wrong things from Mommy Watchtower.

  The above discussion around the dishonest quotation from the Watchtower Society's book Babylon the Great has Fallen! God's Kingdom Rules! involves the practice of paraphrasing a source and then giving a proper citation for it. This falls under the general category of "academic honesty". In a short time I found several college student guides that instruct students on proper citation practices and the reason for doing it. Why 'scholar pretendus the goat bugger' cannot understand such simple principles can best be explained by the militant braindeadness and moral stupidity induced by cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Here is some good information from Grinnell College ( http://www.grinnell.edu/WritingLab/CitationGuides/achondiscuss.html ):

  Grinnell College has sought in various ways to emphasize to its students the importance of academic honesty. This paper explains the importance of academic honesty and explores some of its mechanics. . .

  At Grinnell College, as at other colleges and universities, if you are caught violating the rules of academic honesty, you will face punishment, as the Student Handbook details . . .

  These rules are strict for good reasons: academic dishonesty violates the very purpose of scholarship. This purpose is to develop knowledge, which happens in a social process through which academics build it bit by bit. That is, one person makes a discovery and the next person adds to it -- correcting, expanding, modifying, and exploring it. For example, one scholar, finding some new documents relating to the outbreak of the War of 1812, may offer a new interpretation of the causes. Other scholars, reading her argument, may then agree, disagree, or modify her view. They may deem her interpretation misguided, or the documents unpersuasive, or argue that another cause is more important than the one she defends. In such a way new knowledge is created, even about an event of long ago.

  For this cooperative endeavor of scholarship to work, the scholarly community must be able to keep track of who said what; its members must trust that scholars indicate clearly and honestly what is theirs and what is others’. In the example above, those who disagree with or modify the original scholar’s idea cite her as one of their sources and then go on to give their analysis. Since in college you are apprentice scholars, you too must carefully tell your reader where you have read the words and ideas on which your own depend.

  A paraphrase is a close approximation of what a source has said, without using the exact wording. . . In a good paraphrase, you seek to convey the essence of the original without repeating the wording or structure.

  This last paragraph gets right to the heart of the Society's dishonest citation practice. The Babylon book paraphrased some material from Harper's Bible Dictionary, and then added its own view that the event in question occurred in 618 B.C., whereas Harper's specifically stated that it occurred in 598 B.C. Then it followed the paraphrase and its own view with a citation referring to Harper's. The impression given is obvious: all of the material preceding the citation is implied to be a paraphrase from Harper's.

  Now, 'scholar pretendus the goat bugger' seems to think that one can plop a citation willy nilly into a piece of writing and that all is fine if the reader is misled by its placement -- it's the reader's lookout. But academic institutions disagree. For example, Mississippi State University has published the following guideline ( http://www.cse.msstate.edu/academics/honesty.php ):

  Cite the source of any algorithm, idea, or paraphrased words obtained from anyone else using the citation style specified by the instructor. Put the citation at the end of the information obtained from the other person.

  Obviously, in honest academic practice, a citation placed at the end of some information is placed there to show where the immediately preceding information came from.

  Here is a bit more on proper paraphrasing practices, from the University of Maryland ( http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/vail/students/citation/quote.html ):

  Paraphrasing

  Paraphrasing is putting another person’s words in your own words. You may wish to paraphrase in order to maintain your particular style of phrasing things. Paraphrased material must be cited!

  Example

  "In Gorillas in the Mist, Fossey (1983) gives an example to demonstrate that gorillas are very protective mothers. As a tiger approached her offspring Effie, a mother gorilla, sensed the danger even though she was not facing Effie. The researcher observing them did not notice the danger, but the mother gorilla’s vigilance allowed her to take steps to save the baby gorilla (p. 89)."

  It seems to me that anyone with even the faintest semblance of honesty does not have to have the above principles spelled out for him. The fact that 'scholar pretendus the goat bugger' has to be dragged by his cojones toward the path of righteousness shows how deep the mental damage of the JW cult goes.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  response to post 4438

  Your last two posts on this subject regarding your alleged misuse of the reference to Harper's Dictionary in the Babylon book further proves your ignorance of Style in academic writing and your poor comprehension of the subject relating to the use of the article 'Jehoiakim' in that Dictionary. Perhaps you should consult Leolaia on this matter as I believe she is familiar with academic conventions in the Humanities of which you are totally ignorant.

  You still have not undewrstood the reason why the writer/scholar of the Babylon book used the article in Harper's Dictionary as an additional reference to the whole paragraph on pages 133-134 of the Babylon book and is NOT because the last sentence preceeding the citation mentioning 618 BCE should be found in the Harper's reference. The date 618 BCE is not the point at all as you and all your stupid apostates such as Max Hatton have presumed.

  Y our accusations of deceit are groundless and prove that you and your fellow apostates are guilty of mischief and deceit.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Response to post 4437

  No you are dead wrong, Applegate's interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is reasonable as presented on page 92 of his article because WT scholars have long held the view that after the seventy years had ended in 537 BCE with the end of the Exile, the Jews could now experience the blessings of Jehovah with the restoration of the temple which began construction soon thereafter. Such restoration of pure worship certainly commenced soon after as Applegate thoughtfully acknowledges. Certainly, the seventy years ended in 537 BCE by the seventh month Tishri with the Jews resettled in their homes with the opportunity to now restore true worship with the rebuilding of the temple.

  So, this means that the Society's chronology supports the Bible as nicely confirmed by Applegate's wise observation.

  scholar JW