Jeremiah 29:10

TheOldHippie

The new Danish and Swedish revisions of the NWT have "lifted up" the NWT-With References footnote alternative rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 into being the preferred one, so that it no longer says "IN Babylon" but "FOR Babylon". Has there been any change or revision in the English issue?

Gordy

My NWT says "at Babylon" not "in Babylon."

blondie

WT-CD 2001

Jeremiah 29:10

10

"For this is what Jehovah has said, ?In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.?

A Paduan

"when you become older, ownership will not still be important to you, and you will be free and so dwell in the Land"

TheOldHippie

OK, sorry, small slip by me, as I back-translated, should read "at" and not "in", but the point is of course that Scandinavian translations have started rendering it "for", which means the arguments for 607 are crumbling from within.

outnfree

OldHippie,

I did find that interesting. I think you are right that the Society is going to have to come up with some way to backtrack from the 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem. Too many JWs can do a google search and find that NOBODY agrees with that date.

out

Elsewhere

lol... I wonder if the WTS will release a Watchtower that basically says: "Oops! We were wrong about 1914 all along! Don't forget to turn in your time at the end of the month and make sure you remain generous in your donations to the World Wide Work... oh and don't forget... the end is NEAR... veeeery soon!"

cecil

Hi OldHippie

I wrote a letter to the danish bethel about that issue a couple of years ago - and I received a written answer, that basically said: "The expression le BabeI can mean AT Babylon and FOR Babylon". OK, so far so good. Now, here comes the "bonustrack": "It does not make any difference if it says AT or FOR in this case..." was the explanation given to me, as to the reason for choosing FOR instead of AT. Now, I wonder why the danish translators (who, interestingly, now work with Translation Services in Brooklyn (or Patterson?) - their translation-efforts/-work cannot have been that bad then...) did not choose AT Babylon in the first place? OK - That's my little personal experience with Jeremiah 29:10

/cecil

acsot

It would be so much easier for the ol' boys in Brooklyn to just do away with the Bible completely. It would at least be honest and eliminate the necessity of backtracking and rewording and inventing explanations. I'm sure if they look hard enough they'll even be able to come up with a Scriptural example of why JWs no longer need to read the Bible but just have faith in whatever drivel is printed in the Watchtower.

Narkissos

IMO the meaning CANNOT be "at" or "in" Babylon (the 1995 French NWT, however, has "à Babylone" = "in Babylon"). "For", "as regards", "in relation to" are possible.

Cf. RSV: For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon's seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

This is, of course, to be compared to 25:11f: This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste.

Jeremiah 29:10

Share this