Scholar since you are such a student...and "supposedly" seeking your masters.....present the letter to a German professor at your university to translate.
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
gumby
He's kinda like a woman who stays with the guy who beats the piss out of her but she still insists he's a good guy if you only knew him.
Gumby
-
scholar
Alan F
The period of mourning mentioned in Zechariah 7 was a tradition commensurate with the seventy years of chapter 7 and chapter 1. This tradition continued past the seventy year period mentioned in both the 2nd and 4 th year of Darius. From this one can easily see that the total period of mourning was 90 years but in fact was independent of that past historic seventy year period. The seventy yeras period must have already expired by the time of the 2nd year and by the time of the 4th year so there is no need for any special pleading. The very fact that a finite period of seventy years proves that it had already been fulfilled otherwise another number would have been specified for both the 2nd and 4 th year. No special pleading here. All that is continuous was the traditional and annual fastings of mournings which was independent of the seventy years as shown by verse 3 and verse 5: A period of fastings set against the seventy years.
So, we have a tradition of fasting which was a continuous period and a already expired period of seventy years which represents clearly what Zechariah sauys in chapters 1 and 7.
Claims made about Franz and the NWT Committee are simplly speculation a nd gossip perpetrated by apostates who have their agenda.
The claim as to whether le in Jeremiah 3: 17 and 29:10 is purely directional or static locatival is a matter of opinion and is not endorsed by the lexica, grammar or the textual tradition despite Jenni's material which may not be very relevant because of the fluidity of Biblical Hebrew. It is certainly not the case that as you allege all modern scholars prefer 'for Babylon' as opposed to 'at Babylon' so it is foolish for the Jonsson hypothesis to be so presumptuous about the matter. Jenni's so called authority on Hebrew prepositions is a line trumpeted by apostates. All that can be said that Jenni has written a scholarly work on Hebrew prepositions, nothing more and nothing less than this.
IF as you say that it is unlikely the case that le cannot have a locative meaning in Jeremiah 29:10 is still an opinion and does not negate or exclude the locative assignation if the translator feels so disposed. My contention that the seventy years is not of Babylon's but of Judah is not ridiculous as you surmise. Because the texts such as Jeremiah 25:11, Daniel 9:2, Zechariah and Chronicles all connect the seventy yeras not with Babylon but with Judah, Jerusalem and its land. In fact, verse 10 of Jeremiah 29 does certainly describe the return to that Jerusalem when the seventy years are fulfilled.
The correct translation 'at Babylon' certainly focusses the seventy years on an exile, servitude whilst the land was desolate for seventy years and dissolves completely the notion that the seventy years was only one of servitude.
The simple fact of the matter is that the seventy years ended right on time to the very month when the Jewish exiles returned home to their land and city which proves that the seventy yeras was primarily one of devastation of the land and not servitude alone, from Tishri 607 to Tishri 537. QED
Jermiah 25:11 and the preceding context certainly is suggestive of desolation, exile and servitude because the land was depopulated and the deportees as exiles were made to serve Babylon for seventy years whilst the land underwent its sabbaths and devastations for that same period of seventy years. Thos nations were caught up in the Babylonian maelstrom as with Judah but in Jeremiah 25:11 it is Judah that bears specific mention over and above the other nations who similarly would experience a their measure of servitude.
In regard to the meaning of stauros and parousia it is simply a matter of fact that at the time of thoseBible writers in the first century these words had a primary meaning of stake and presence wherein much later under the influence of apostate Christainity, various secondary meanings arose such as cross and coming.
Once again scholar overturns the deceit, lies half-truths of the evil slave class.
scholar JW
-
EvilForce
No you haven't overturned it Scholar you are crazy as a shite house rat and rolling around in it. Answer my question. Why can't you get one of your professors to translate the letter?!?
-
scholar
Leolaia
Jonsson in his GTR, 3rd edn p.213 says:"Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jeremiah at Jeremiah 29:10". In support of such an arrogant statement he merely cites opinions sought from three Hebrew scholars by means of private letters.
I do not believe for one moment that the grammatical or semantic construction excludes a locative sense for le in Jeremiah 29: 10, certainly there is an opinion amongst scholars including Jenni that such an exclusion is demanded but if there is no lexical or grammatical rule forbidding such a locative sense and if lexica and tradition omits it, then the NWT rendering cannot be judged as inaccurate.
In view of the absence of such rule of grammars applicable in this instant, the precise and accurate redering of the foresaid construction 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years', the textual evidence of a locative sense by the LXX and the Versions and the immebiate context of Jeremiah, the translator can quite properly assign a locative sense for le for this text.
You harp on the matter of construction of Jeremiah 29:10 which in itself excludes a locative sense because there are no other examples of it otherwise in the OT. So be it, Hebrew has much fluidity in respect to prepositions and particles and I do not believe that the construction is of any grammatical or aematic significance as you, Narkissos and Jenni argue. If there is then please cite a text on Hebrew grammar or syntax in support of your inventive linguistic opinion.
I add this to spice up your ignorant and amateurish thesis on the cross. It could not have been theologically posssible for our Lord to die on a cross because of its attribution to iconography. Further, the Gospel eyewitnesses testified to a stake as stauros instead of a cross and the word stauros in that early period of Christianity meant simply a stake or pole.
scholar JW
-
scholar
Narkissos
Please note the following coup de grace supporting the static locative meaning for le as 'at Babylon' properly rendered in the NWT;
In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon = When the seventy years at Babylon are fulfilled.
With such evidence I can confidently say that NWT rendering is not only permissable on the grounds of the lexica, grammar, context and textual tradition but indeed highly accurate.
As a side note, even thought these words of Jeremiah were addressed to the first exiles or deportees before the final fall of Jerusalem indicates that the seventy yeras at that time were not then operative for the land was not at that time in a desolate state.
scholar JW
-
scholar
EvilForce
If the poztates do not oblige me with this request then I will need to obtain the original and have it translated at the Department of German at the University of Sydney.
scholar JW
-
Alleymom
Evilforce --
You asked Scholar why he can't get one of his professors to translate the "letter."
Just to clarify, Dr. Jenni's letter to Leolaia and Scholar was written in English. In the recent messages, Neil has been referring to an article by Dr. Jenni which was published in the journal Zeitschrift fur Althebraistik.
Ernst Jenni. "Jer 3, 17, ‘nach Jerusalem’: ein Aramaismus." Zeitschrift fur Althebraistik 1/1 1988
Scholar ---
The article is copyrighted, so I am not going to be the one to post it here. You should be able to obtain it through your university as an interlibrary loan, as I did. My husband read the article and went over it with me. Narkissos gave an accurate summary. (Which goes without saying --- Narkissos's scholarship, knowledge, and honesty are apparent, and for you to imply otherwise is shabby indeed.)
Your constant accusations of scholarly dishonesty are becoming tiresome. Frankly, I am appalled at the slanderous statements you have made about Dr. Jenni. Presumably you agree with your organization's policy that pedophiles are not thrown out unless there are two witnesses, but, on the other hand, it's ok for you to accuse a respected scholar of academic dishonesty, not on any solid grounds (you don't read German or Hebrew and you have not read his work) but on the basis of some "feeling" or "suspicion" you have.
If you still have a question which was not answered in his letter to you, why haven't you written to him again, as I have suggested? The man is old, and he is one of the world's foremost Hebrew scholars, and yet he took the time to respond to you. And how do you respond to his kindness? By complaining and accusing him of dishonesty.
Incidentally, I am disappointed that you did not bother to tell all of us that you had received a reply from Dr. Jenni. I went to the trouble of looking up his email address for you so that you could write to him with your concerns. I would have appreciated hearing back from you when you received a response from Jenni.
Why did you sit on the letter for so long?
Marjorie
-
EvilForce
Thanks for the clarification Alley.....great post !!! :)
-
Alleymom
If the poztates do not oblige me with this request then I will need to obtain the original and have it translated at the Department of German at the University of Sydney.
Neil ---
Why didn't you put in your own interlibrary loan request for the article as soon as you received the letter from Dr. Jenni? He suggested you read it. It's puzzling that you would wait so long.
And since you distrust the "poztates" why would you want to rely on their scans of the article? How could you know they hadn't doctored it?
Incidentally, you may have missed a message I posted to you a few minutes ago. You posted three in a row around the same time I was working on mine. If you scroll back a little, you'll see it.
Marjorie