Geez is it hard to get an answer out of Scholar or what!
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
In post #516, non-scholar spewed:
Jenni provides no evidence for the use of the preposition le used in Jeremiah 29:10, it is not cited as you claim and I made a typo by saying that he did. I withdraw that mistake and note that he does not cite the text in the material that you have quoted.
What utter rubbish! Without even having seen Jenni's book, you declare that Jenni "did not cite the text" in the citation I gave and that he "provides no evidence" pertaining to Jeremiah 29:10. I claimed in post #3937 that Jenni "examines other instances of preposition in predicates of the verb ml' 'to complete, fulfill' ", and yet you tell me that "it is not cited as you claim". Oh really? I can only think that you are bluffing, hoping you can get away with denying the facts I presented, without having a clue as to the actual truth of the matter. For, if you had examined Jenni's book, you would know that he mentions Jeremiah 29:10 twice, once in connection with the verbal predicate and again in terms of the semantic relation expressed by the secondary preposition.
It seems that Jonsson's and Jorgensen's treatment of Jenni's reference is ambiguous and I would ask that specific pages relating to this matter be posted on this board so that everyone can see what Jenni says about this matter
Be careful what you ask for. Posting the actual pages will only demonstrate what a bald-faced liar you are.
for until this is done Jenni cannot be used as evidence against this theory of Jehovah's Witnesses, a comment made by Jenni in response to an inquiry.
What an bizarre statement. Whether I post pages from Jenni's book on the internet or not, his book still says what it says and furnishes evidence. Furthermore, Jenni made additional comments in his response to Jonsson that further explain his analysis of Jeremiah 29:10. On what basis could Jenni's pertinent remarks be disregarded? You've given none.
Before I turn to the material in Jenni's book, let me again mention another claim of yours (in post #515):
Jenni displays bias against Jehovah's Witnesses which is clear from his remarks to Jonsson
Again I ask you, what specifically did Jenni say in his response that displays a bias against JWs? If you've forgotten what he said, here it is reposted for your benefit:
"As I recently have received an inquiry from Germany concerning Jer 29,10 (likewise in connection with a theory of Jehovah's Witnesses), I can answer you relatively quickly.
My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109 (heading 4363). The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is 'for Babel' (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context.
By the 'local meaning' a distinction is to be made between where? ('in, at') and where to? (local directional 'to, towards'). The basic meaning of l is 'with reference to', and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] 'at the entrance', cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a personal dative ('and send to Babel [as personified world power] winnowers, who will winnow it and empty its land' (Lamed pp. 84f., 94)). On Jer. 3,17 'to Jerusalem' (local terminative), everything necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1, 1988, 107-111.
On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative ('for Babylon'). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone , 'in Babylon', thus King James Version 'at Babylon', and so probably also the New World Translation. I hope to have served you with these informations and remain with kind regards,
E. Jenni."
[Translated from the German. Emphasis added.]
I frankly see no bias displayed. The only mention of JWs is Jenni's simple statement that he was able to send a response right away because he had just received another inquiry about the JW interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10.
Now, in his book Die hebräischen Prepositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000), Jenni characterizes the construction in Jeremiah 29:10 as a subtype of the "Lamed Experientiae" (which also includes Ameliorative and Pejorative Qualification), namely, "Quantification/Relationship through Adjectival or Condition Verbs" (p. 106). That is, instead of treating the preposition as marking spatial relations (e.g. directional "to, toward", locative "at"), Jenni recognizes that the preposition establishes a relationship between a quantified duration ("Dauer") and the entity that experiences the duration. As the scan below shows, Jenni treats the usage of the preposition in light of the predicate verb:
Note that Jenni mentions Jeremiah 29:10 in connection with the verb ml' and specifies the construction as "become full (day/year)". This is exactly what Narkissos noted, and Jenni even cites the same scriptures for comparison that Narkissos mentioned: Leviticus 25:30 and Genesis 50:3. Now, according to non-scholar, Jenni never cited the text of Jeremiah 29:10. I ask non-scholar to please explain what the basis was for this assertion.
Jenni mentions Jeremiah 29:10 again in another section on grammatical relations with lamed. On p. 276, Jenni says that the category he places Jeremiah 29:10 in (Quantification/Relationship through Adjectival or Condition Verbs) has a structure of "x in bezug auf y", that is, "x regarding y" in which quantitative relations involve "regularly determined expressions on the y side", and on p. 277 he examines the construction in terms of the secondary preposition lpy "according to" which introduces the reference to the "seventy years for Babylon":
Please note the translation Jenni gives for the verse: "only when 70 years for Babel are over (erst wenn 70 Jahre für Babel um sind)". The simple fact, then, is that Jenni's exhaustive treatise supports not only Jonsson's reading of the verse, but also nearly every modern translation of the text. Non-scholar's idle claim that no such citation or support can be found in Jenni's book is exposed as groundless. In an earlier post (#510), non-scholar insinuated that the reason why Jonsson resorted to "soliciting opinions" from scholars is that "no such evidence was and is available" in published sources. Instead Jenni's volume supplies exactly this evidence through his detailed analysis, and he reiterated to Jonsson that the "rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is 'for Babel' (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context".
-
Alleymom
Leolaia ----
Outstanding post!
Incidentally, my husband, who has read Jenni's book on the preposition beth, was impressed when I told him that Jenni is being discussed on this board.
For those who are not familiar with Ernst Jenni, his books on Hebrew prepositions are absolutely the most comprehensive works available on that topic. They are truly exhaustive.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
Please note the translation Jenni gives for the verse: "only when 70 years for Babel are over (erst wenn 70 Jahre für Babel um sind)". The simple fact, then, is that Jenni's exhaustive treatise supports not only Jonsson's reading of the verse, but also nearly every modern translation of the text. Non-scholar's idle claim that no such citation or support can be found in Jenni's book is exposed as groundless.
Note that Jenni mentions Jeremiah 29:10 in connection with the verb ml' and specifies the construction as "become full (day/year)". This is exactly what Narkissos noted, and Jenni even cites the same scriptures for comparison that Narkissos mentioned: Leviticus 25:30 and Genesis 50:3.
Narkissos and Leolaia ---
Excellent work!
Marjorie
-
The Leological One
Narkissos,
In the WT chronology 29 AD (or, should I write, CE) is unrelated to the 607 BC / 1914 AD issue. But the confusion might come from the fact that the WT links the 29-33-36 dates to another passage of Daniel, namely the 70 weeks of chapter 9. In this perspective 29 (Jesus' baptism) is supposed to be the beginning of the 70th week of years, 33 (Jesus' death) the middle of the week and 36 (the mission to the Gentiles, starting with Cornelius' baptism) the end of the week.
Of course this has nothing to do with the actual meaning of Daniel (referring to current events in the 2nd century BC), but a similar interpretation can be found in other Christian traditions as well.
See for instance http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/d/daniel_seventy-weeks.html
Thanks for answering BOTH my and my wife's threads~! That was really cool of you.
I had a feeling the 29 CE date wasn't part of the whole 607/586/587 debate but really wasn't sure. Thanks again for the reply and the other great posts on this and the other threads I've read!
-
The Leological One
AlanF,
In addition to Narkissos' comments, I will add that the Watchtower's interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel apply from 455 B.C. to 36 A.D. They try to establish the 455 date (incorrectly, it turns out) completely independently from the way they try to get the 607 date, so as Narkissos said, one has nothing to do with the other.
AlanF
Thanks so much for your relpy~! I thought I'd read in a Christian commentary something concerning a 445 BC date but was really busy getting ready to study for some tests for school and so just skimmed over it, but my wife did mention the WT had the date you mentioned of 455 BC. Thanks for helping reinforce that the 607 BC and 29 CE dates aren't part of the same situation, and it's great reading your posts here~!
-
AlanF
An absolutely outstanding post, Leolaia!
Let's see if our resident JW idiot, scholar pretendus cum mentula flaccidus -- loosely translated "an idiot who pretends to be a scholar but is really a limp dickhead" -- dares to show up again.
I dare say he will, he truly being the most stupid JW I've ever encountered in 13 years on the Net. This moron is so stupid that he can't even see when his own words are turned around against him. Truly a sad commentary on what JWs can do to a once-functional human being.
AlanF
-
AlanF
Here, let me give scholar pretendus' stock answers to various posts above:
Alwayshere
Neriglissar is fully docmentted in th Insight vlumes.
Alan F
I have posted information whereupon the Society's complete chronology for the OT and the Divide Monarchy.. Readers on this board can access the Society's publications that I referred to and see the charts for themselves. You, on the other have had a long time to provide an alternative to WT chronology as all you can do is criticize something that you do not have.
Where is your alternative to the WT chronology that is presented in the publications which includes charts of dates for the OT and charts of dates for the Divided Monarchy?The Jonsson hypothesis does not give much credit to Thiele's scheme bevcause Thiele believes in 586 and Jonsson believes 587. So you are in big disagreement with Thiele bigtime. Come on, put up or shut up/
Narkissos
Frankly, WT scholars not interested in to harmonize Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Alleymom
I believed I have gived you a direct answwwer. If some doubt then what date on reigns is published in Insight volumes then I would be agreement with as this contains the information on chronology. If Babylonian gap cannot filled by WT research then that too bad. Too bad.
Leolaia
You have not yet provide a chronology for the OT and for the Divided Monarchy. You have not supplied any substive criticism of WT chronology as you have claimed to have provided. Ihave fully addressed your previous criticisms and showed these to be false.
AlanF
-
Alwayshere
Neriglissar is fully documented in the insight volumes
Ok, if it is please give me the page number. Thank you.
-