Commentary is only as good as far is it supports your view. I’ve compared commentaries. Paul’s writings is a commentary of the OT. Like Paul, wt commentary show a grasp and profound understanding. Take for example the Gen 3:15 woman.
How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?
by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ThomasMore
I used to present lots of facts from articles and scriptures, but now my approach is different.
I open a calendar and ask when the person was born. Then I say, Oh that's not even on this calendar. Do you remember when Charles Taze Russel went to visit Jerusalem? They almost always say no.
Then I say - "Neither does anyone else because they are all dead for many decades."
It never sways anyone but I do it anyway.
-
Sanchy
Scholar:: Scholar is big on grammar and big on exegesis but not so big on eisegesis.
-
TD
Scholar
Another word for gobblydook
Not at all. Some of the criticisms of the NWT are weak inasmuch the renderings in question still fall within standard definitions and rules of grammar, even if they do offend the biased views of others. Surely you're aware of this?
With the foregoing in mind, you've argued for a preferential rendering not simply as one of multiple ways the passage could be understood, but as the correct understanding. You've done so on grammatical grounds without actually framing an argument to that effect.
I haven't said you are wrong here. I'm just curious. I'd kinda like to hear the grammatical argument, if there is one.
-
scholar
TD
Not at all. Some of the criticisms of the NWT are weak inasmuch the renderings in question still fall within standard definitions and rules of grammar, even if they do offend the biased views of others. Surely you're aware of this?
--
The said scholar is fully aware of this.
---
With the foregoing in mind, you've argued for a preferential rendering not simply as one of multiple ways the passage could be understood, but as the correct understanding. You've done so on grammatical grounds without actually framing an argument to that effect.
I haven't said you are wrong here. I'm just curious. I'd kinda like to hear the grammatical argument, if there is one.
--
With the foregoing in mind, you've argued for a preferential rendering not simply as one of multiple ways the passage could be understood, but as the correct understanding. You've done so on grammatical grounds without actually framing an argument to that effect.
I haven't said you are wrong here. I'm just curious. I'd kinda like to hear the grammatical argument, if there is one.
--
There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.
scholar JW
-
MeanMrMustard
There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.
Because grammar defintely isn't used for a plain reading of the text.
-
Fisherman
There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.
That is what I’ve been saying all along with and without WT commentary. It was mrmustard that raised the grammatical issue. I use the Hebrew text in Soncino Books of the Bible. I also like to reference the commentary from a rabbinical point of view and not christological works because they usually stem from the false premise that Jesus is God Almighty and applying that to interpretation.
-
MeanMrMustard
There is no grammatical argument necessary as a plain reading of the text and its context suffices.
Oy. You still aren't understanding. A "plain reading" *IS* a grammatical reading. A "plain reading" of the verse that violates grammar is a contradiction. It's a square circle. It's a married bachelor.
Context can clarify the unclear. It can't completely reverse the "plain text" grammatical reading of a clear verse. This isn't like John 1:1 where the true meaning of the Greek is highly debated, and probably will be forever. These verse are universally rendered.
1) Jeremiah 25:11 - It's seventy years of servitude for a plural number of nations. You appeal to context to change many nations into a singular nation. You appeal to context to change servitude into desolation (without an inhabitant) and captivity during the same time span.
2) Jeremiah 25:12 - There is an order of events, and the language used is clear 'When the 70 years ends, Babylon is punished'. You appeal to context to change the meaning to the exact opposite, mainly 'Three years after Babylon is punished, the 70 years ended.In short - if you think you are conducting a "plain reading" without considering grammar, you are reading it incorrectly. You are reading INTO the verse.
-
Fisherman
Grammar is not the issue in Jer 25:11. It is the context and interpretation. The wording of the base text allows 70 year desolation of Judah. -
MeanMrMustard
@DisillutionedJW:
To me it is clear that the verse is saying Judah and the listed gentile nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (even if the desolation of Jerusalem was not proclaimed to last for 70 years).
Right. From this verse you can't say the 70 years applied to the desolation. You can say Jerusalem will become a desolation, but the 70 years attaches to servitude. It applies to servitude of many nations. What does it mean when you have a bunch of nations serving a single nation? Some sort of empire. It's Babylonian rule. Seventy years FOR Babylon.
About the commentaries you cite. A commentary is just that - someone commenting. And that's fine, but in the end, if the commentary winds its way around tortured logic just to switch seventy years of servitude of many nations into 'a period of time when one nation lost its sovereignty' - thereby extending the date beyond v12 to when the Jews got back and started to rebuild, then that commentary wouldn't hold anymore weight to me than the WT commentaries.
I don't go for the "someone - somewhere agreed with me, therefore true" argument. (Not that you are using that logic)
That being said, that commentary begins the 70 years at 606, the date they choose for the first Exile, long before Jerusalem's destruction. Fine - its defining the "desolation" referred to in v18 as more of a soft desolation, like a vassal or servitude. Ummkay. But that still doesn't mean Judah will be "desolate in the sense of servitude/vassal" for 70 years because the 70 years applies to the nations. Why start it at the first Exile of Judah when Neb had been marching around making vassals of other nations round about for years prior? Why reduce 'nations' to 'nation'?
Why not stick to 539 as the end of the 70 years, as verse 12 says, back up to around 609 when he was conquering Assyria, and call it a day?