Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alleymom

  Scholar to alleymom:
  
  I see nothing that alters my opinion that the NWT is correct in rendering the Hebrew preposition 'le' as 'at' in Jeremiah 29:10 because the context demands it and Hebrew scholarship permits it.

  Neil ---
  

  Could we please revisit the point I raised in a post to you in the Babylonian Business Records thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85117/1406816/post.ashx#1406816

  Feb. 16, 2005 Neil --- Regarding the 70 years --- You may remember from our previous conversations that I am not an apostate JW. I am a traditional Christian. I love the Lord and turned my life over to him many years ago. I try to serve him each day, and I accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God. As I read your chronology posts, one of the things I keep noticing is that you consistently characterize those who reject the WT's interpretation of the 70 years as "apostates" or "higher critics". You should know from your research that there are many millions of devout Christians (members of conservative Christian churches) who see no contradiction between the Bible and the neo-Babylonian records. The way you present it, a Christian has to choose to believe the Bible or choose to believe secular historians and scholars. That is a false dichotomy. When I read Jeremiah 29, for instance, what I see is a beautiful declaration of God's unswerving love and purpose for his people Israel (and, by extension, for me, a child of God who has been adopted into God's family through faith in Christ Jesus, my Lord.) The exiles in Babylon were distressed and troubled at heart. They wanted to know what they should do. Should they believe the false prophets like Hananiah who were telling the people still in Jerusalem that the bondage would be short-lived, and that the Lord would break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar off the neck of all the nations within two years? Jeremiah wrote them a letter of great comfort, assuring them that God loved them and would fulfill his purpose for them. "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." But he told them not to believe the false prophets and diviners who were prophesying lies in God's name. Jeremiah told the exiles to build houses and settle down, to plant gardens and eat the produce, to marry and have sons and daughters, and to find wives for their sons and give their daughters in marriage so that they, too, might have sons and daughters. He told them this because their exile ---- which had already started --- would last longer than two years. "This is what the LORD says: 'When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.' "
  
  This letter was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. It was sent to the captives who were already in Babylon. And the seventy years had already started.
  
  Jeremiah does not say, "Soon Jerusalem will be destroyed, and then seventy years after THAT, the Lord will bring you back." No. He is writing to a people who are sick at heart, who are wondering, "How long, O Lord?"
  
  And he tells them to settle down, because the Lord will come to them when seventy years have been completed for Babylon. Now you can argue about whether that means seventy years IN Babylon or seventy years FOR Babylon to oppress the nations.
  
  But the point is that the seventy years have already started. And Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed. So in Jeremiah 29 the terminus a quo for the seventy years is not the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which had not yet taken place.
  
  Blessings,
  Marjorie

  In your response, you seemed to be saying that I was mistaken because it was Jeremiah who prophesied to the people in Jerusalem, but it was Ezekiel who prophesied to the Jews in Babylon.

  However, I pointed out to you that while it was generally the case that Jeremiah prophesied to the people in Jerusalem, the Bible states very clearly at the beginning of Jeremiah 29 that Jeremiah wrote a letter and sent it FROM Jerusalem TO the exiles in Babylon. The Bible even gives the names of the messengers who delivered the letter.

  It really doesn't matter whether the preposition lamed means "FOR" or "AT/IN" in Jeremiah 29:10, because the CONTEXT is a letter to the Jews who were ALREADY exiled in Babylon and who wanted to know how long they would have to stay there. Would it be a mere two years, as the false prophets were saying?
  
  Jeremiah tells them to settle down and plant gardens and build houses, etc. because the Lord would come for them when seventy years had been completed for Babylon. It doesn't matter whether the "lamed" means 70 years living IN Babylon or 70 years FOR Babylon to oppress the nations.

  The point is that when Jeremiah wrote his letter to the exiles in Babylon the 70 years had ALREADY started, and Jerusalem had NOT YET BEEN DESTROYED.

  Marjorie

  (edited because I am having trouble with the formatting)
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  There is no need to repeat the point ad nauseum. Yes, the letter as set out in Jeremiah 29 was clearly addressed to those exiles already in Babylon at least some ten years before the Fall of Jerusalem but that does not mean that the seventy years had already began or was in progress. The seventy years could only have begun when the entire nation was in exile and in servitude to Babylon with the land emptied of all inhabitants, desolate for seventy years. This climactice event only began when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.

  Jeremiah's letter in chapter 29 simply reminded those exiles and other future exiles that the exile would not finish until seventy years which occurred in 537 BCE. Considering the length time for the exiles, suitable counsel was given for those exiles to sttle down and enjoy their new situation until their eventual release at the ende of the foretold seventy years.

  scholar JW
• 

  Alwayshere

  Alleymom, there is no use to argue with scholar because he is an Apostate and does not want the truth. He even disagrees with his own organization because on page 253 of their Vol.1 Isaiah's Prophecy it plainly shows the 70 years is how long Babylon had World Power. In paragraph 21 last sentence says:"Different Nations come under that dominationat different times.But at the end of 70 years that domination will crumble." The organization is run by Apostates and he is no better.They just made a mistake and told the truth for once.
• 

  AlanF

  What's the matter there, scholar pretendus? Afraid to answer my questions?

  Here they are again:

  Just what do you think Jonsson contributed to "that whacky, pseudo-scientific Catastrophism journal"?

  Do you agree that Velikovsky was a crank, and even with Martin Gardener that he was "the very model of a crank"?

  It's obvious that you're afraid to answer because you know that as soon as you do, I'm going to kick your sorry little ass once again.

  AlanF
• 

  Alleymom

  There is no need to repeat the point ad nauseum.

  I brought it up in February for the first time and haven't discussed it since then. I'm sorry if I belabored the point too much in yesterday's post, but it's been my experience that you tend to ignore my questions.

  Yes, the letter as set out in Jeremiah 29 was clearly addressed to those exiles already in Babylon at least some ten years before the Fall of Jerusalem but that does not mean that the seventy years had already began or was in progress. The seventy years could only have begun when the entire nation was in exile and in servitude to Babylon with the land emptied of all inhabitants, desolate for seventy years. This climactice event only began when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.
  
  Jeremiah's letter in chapter 29 simply reminded those exiles and other future exiles that the exile would not finish until seventy years which occurred in 537 BCE. Considering the length time for the exiles, suitable counsel was given for those exiles to sttle down and enjoy their new situation until their eventual release at the ende of the foretold seventy years.

  But, Neil, this makes no sense at all.

  The exiles in Babylon wanted to know what they should do. The false prophets were telling them that God would deliver them very shortly. Jeremiah told them that it was going to be 70 years (I am leaving aside, for the moment, whether that was 70 years FOR Babylon or AT Babylon.)

  They were already in exile. The days of their exile had already begun. You say that Jeremiah's letter reminded them that the exile would not finish for seventy years.

  But if the exile had not yet started for these exiled Jews who had already been deported from Jerusalem and were living in Babylon when Jeremiah wrote to them, then it would not be seventy years until their exile ended. It would be seventy years plus however many years they had to wait, in exile, before they could even begin to start counting their period of exile.

  You're trying to twist this to say that whenJeremiah wrote his letter to the exiles in Babylon (who needed to know how long they were going to be in captivity and whether they should settle down or expect God's deliverance in the near future), Jeremiah essentially told them that they couldn't even begin to start counting their days of exile yet.

  According to your interpretation, what Jeremiah wanted the exiles who were already in Babylon to understand was that they would have to wait until the whole nation went into exile, THEN they could begin counting the days of their exile, and their exile would last for 70 years starting from THEN, whenever THEN was going to be.

  The only trouble is, the letter says no such thing. You are twisting and distorting it to make it say that somehow the exiles who were going to be there in Babylon for 80+ years were only allowed to "count" it as 70 years. It sounds like some creative number-crunching to me, fudging the facts, fudging the figures. 70 is 70. 80+ does not equal 70.

  I have always understood this chapter to be a chapter of hope and encouragement. The exiles are in great distress, and they don't know who to believe. Jeremiah writes and gives them a definite figure, a date they could count on. It's probably a shock to many of them to hear that it's going to be 70 years, but at least they can now make their plans, and they can teach their children and grandchildren to hope for deliverance at the promised time.

  But if they aren't allowed to count the days they have already been in exile, and if Jeremiah doesn't even tell them when they can start counting, then the 70 year figure is meaningless to them.

  Remember, the Bible is very clear that Jeremiah did NOT tell them that they could start counting the days of exile at a specified point in the future. He did not say, "When the city of Jerusalem is destroyed ten years from now, then you can start counting the 70 years of exile."

  The plain reading of the text is that Jeremiah wrote a letter to the exiles already living in Babylon, telling them that the Lord would deliver them when 70 years had been fulfilled for Babylon.

  "For thus says the Lord, ?When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place."

  You are changing the meaning. The Scripure says "you". The promise is to the exiles who are already in Babylon.

  You want to make it mean that the Lord is promising to visit the exiles-of-the-future, the ones who will come to Babylon after Jerusalem is destroyed, and fulfill His good word to them, the exiles-of-the-future.

  Marjorie
• 

  Alleymom

  Alleymom to Scholar: it's been my experience that you tend to ignore my questions.

  Also, you did not respond to my suggestion that you write to Dr. Jenni and discuss your concerns with him. I was quite serious about that. That's why I took the trouble to look up his mailing address and email address for you. Since you suspect the "apostates" are misrepresenting his scholarship, why not write to him and find out what the real story is.

  And, btw, speaking of Dr. Jenni, you have still not acknowledged your error or retracted it. You told Leolaia that Dr. Jenni did not cite Jer. 29:10 in his book on lamed. You were wrong. Leolaia posted scanned images of the actual pages. I think you owe her an apology, Neil, I really do.

  Marjorie
• 

  AlanF

  Alleymom, you're now experiencing the frustration of dealing with Watchtower apologists. These people are virtually always dishonest to a fault. Most of their arguments are special pleadings, ignore facts willy nilly, and are designed to support ideas that were flawed from their beginning. Far from supporting the Bible, these people dishonor it with their lies. They make statements and accusations that are unfounded, and when called to account, refuse to answer questions. They're hypocritical to a fault.

  Scholar pretendus is a poster boy for the dishonest Watchtower apologist.

  AlanF
• 

  Alwayshere

  Scholar pretendus is a poster boy for the dishonest Watchtower apologist

  Well said AlanF.
• 

  toreador

  Scholar has stuck around this thread longer than usual. Maybe he will finally stick around long enough to learn something.

  Tor
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  Please send me the contact address and email address for Ernest Jenni as I have only one specific question to ask of him. I have had no success in finding a bio and reviews of his work on prepositions but there is much written concerning his theological lexicon in Englich which is available to me.

  I will be responding to Leolaia's presentation of Jenni.s material because it contains nothing that disproves the transaltion 'at' for Jeremiah 29:10 as it is simply a concordance, listing the uses of prepostions. It does not contain any discussion of the translation challenge which is presented to scholars in this instance.

  scholar JW