Alan F
Chief Basketweaver
As usual. the basketweaver not only plays the fool but IS the fool. In his usual moronic fashion, he replies to scholar's studied response and is compelled continually to address scholar's superior scholarship.
As usual, the wiley poxtates are compelled to address the facts but continually refuse to present all the facts. I have for some time urged Jenni's supporters to present Jenni's original article on le in regard to Jeremiah 3:17. There is little point in sourcing Jenni for support unless his seminal article is discussed. Interestingly, in this verse namely Jeremiah 3:17, the NWT uses le in a locative sense.. So, poztates do not always present all of the facts but use some facts rather selectively.
It is Jonsson that first made dogmatic statements concerning the impossibility of le meaning at in Jeremiah 29:10 and in some desperation he finds comfort in Jenni's book on Prepositions.But Jenni and no other Hebrew scholar can demonstate on lexical and grammatical grounds that it is impossible for le to have a locative meaning in Jeremiah 19:10. The grammatical context of this verse clearly permits a locative sense for le because there is no grammatical rule or convention that excludes such a usage and the lexica material certainly give le a locative meaning. The context clearly proves that the seventy yeras are not of Babylon but are of Judah because the fulfillment of the word namely the fulfillment of the seventy years is linked not to Babylon but to the return to that place, Jerusalem in Judah.
In short, verse 10 is describing the promise that after seventy years of exile, the people would return back home and is not about servitude to Babylon which is not mentioned in this verse which merely says that Babylon was a place of exile. Nothing more and nothing less than this.Your argument of so-called contradiction is rendered meaningless by the simple fact that verse 10 is about the return linked to the fulfillment of the seventy years. It is only when they were at their place that the seventy years was thus fulfilled according to Jehovah's word through Jeremiah.
Rule of grammar are essential for any translator if such a person widhes to produce a literal translation which of course was the objective of the NWT. Jenni may be of the opinion that le in Jeremiah 29:10 is unlikely to be locative but he does not say that it is impossible, so it is simply his opinion. The traditional rendering of this verse according to the versions and the King James Bible presents the locative meaning and this exceded by far what the moderns present as many modern Bible lean to more simpler readings and are not concerned with literalness of meaning as does the NWT.
Both the immediate context, the book of Jeremiah and the other principal seventy year texts clearly affirm not the instrumental meaning 'for' but the locative meaning 'at' because the clear and simple fact is that the seventy years belong to Judah and not to Babylon. Jeremiah 25:11 says that these nations including Judah would serve Babylon for seventy years and the land of Judah would also be a desolated land for seventy years. This text clearly proves my formulaic expression 70 years=EXILE+SERVITUDE+DESOLATION.
Secular history indicates that those nations did not serve Babylon exactly seventy years but Judah clearly did in accordance to that prophecies of Jeremiah.
Wiley poztaes in their desperation to repudiate the pattern of healthful words wish to rewrite Greek Lexicons by ignoring the primary meanings of words such as parousia and stauros, and rather focus on much later secondary meanings. Such an assumed hermeneutic violates the progress of Greek Lexicography and demonstrates their failure to hold to the original meanings of words. Afterall, is not the purpose of textual criticism to get back to the original form or text and relies very much on lexicography.
scholar JW
