scholar pretendus, you're simply a fucking idiot, which I will proceed to prove.
In proof, we have the following:
: The period of mourning mentioned in Zechariah 7 was a tradition commensurate with the seventy years of chapter 7 and chapter 1.
This is a completely meaningless jumble of words.
: This tradition continued past the seventy year period mentioned in both the 2nd and 4 th year of Darius.
This is entirely a product of your ridiculous imagination. The texts are clear: they equate the periods in question with 70 years. You simply ignore the texts.
: 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.
More meaningless jumble.
: The seventy yeras period must have already expired by the time of the 2nd year and by the time of the 4th year
"Must have"? That's special pleading with a vengeance.
: so there is no need for any special pleading.
Then why do you do it?
: The very fact that a finite period of seventy years proves that it had already been fulfilled
You call this English? You can't write coherent English sentences, so it's no wonder you can't comprehend languages like Hebrew and Greek.
: otherwise another number would have been specified for both the 2nd and 4 th year.
Complete gobble-de-goop, as usual.
: No special pleading here.
On the contrary. Nothing but special pleading here.
: All that is continuous was the traditional and annual fastings of mournings
Which the texts directly specify were 70 years long.
: which was independent of the seventy years as shown by verse 3 and verse 5: A period of fastings set against the seventy years.
The fact that you refuse to quote and then comment upon the precise words of the texts shows that you know that if you do, you can't get away with such transparent lies.
: 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.
Again, pure special pleading necessitated by your agenda of defending Watchtower nonsense at all costs.
: Claims made about Franz and the NWT Committee are simplly speculation a nd gossip perpetrated by apostates who have their agenda.
Really. Then by the same token, your sources from which you've concluded that Fred Franz was the greatest Bible scholar of all time are equally "speculation a nd gossip". Obviously you're far too stupid to realize your hypocrisy and double standards.
: The claim as to whether le in Jeremiah 3: 17 and 29:10 is purely directional or static locatival is a matter of opinion
As is every translation in the NWT.
: and is not endorsed by the lexica, grammar or the textual tradition
Of course it is. You have only to read the material to see it. Of course, given the fact that you're too lazy to obtain much relevant source material, it's no surprise that you haven't bothered to read most of said material.
: despite Jenni's material which may not be very relevant because of the fluidity of Biblical Hebrew.
Yet more special pleading.
You have yet to supply any sources that directly support your claims.
: It is certainly not the case that as you allege all modern scholars prefer 'for Babylon' as opposed to 'at Babylon'
Oh? Then do provide source references.
But of course, we all know you won't. This is more bluffing on your part, just like your pretending to have read Jenni's material.
: so it is foolish for the Jonsson hypothesis to be so presumptuous about the matter.
Since you can't provide any references to back up your lies, it is you who are being presumptuous.
: 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.
By the same stupid reasoning, all that can be said about the NWT is that the Watchtower Society has produced a Bible translation of sorts, nothing more or less than this.
Are you really that stupid, Neil? Do you really think that no one knows what you're doing?
: IF as you say that it is unlikely the case that le cannot have a locative meaning in Jeremiah 29:10
All modern scholarly opinion confirms this. The fact that you cannot produce any scholarly opinion supporting the NWT, except for outdated opinions at least 400 years old, and sometimes 1500 years old, proves it.
: is still an opinion and does not negate or exclude the locative assignation if the translator feels so disposed.
Good! Then I will let you declare victory on this.
Note to those who failed to read my previous posts: "let" means the opposite here of what you think it does. It's in the tradition of 500-year-old English.
: My contention that the seventy years is not of Babylon's but of Judah is not ridiculous as you surmise.
I surmise nothing. I proved that your claim is ridiculous, and cited the relevant Bible texts, which you reject.
: 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.
Yet more special pleading and circular argumentation.
: In fact, verse 10 of Jeremiah 29 does certainly describe the return to that Jerusalem when the seventy years are fulfilled.
Yes, it does, but the exact circumstances are as I have described: When the 70 years were completed for Babylon, by Babylon's being conquered and its king killed, the 70 years of the servitude of the many nations mentioned in Jer. 25:11 were over. Therefore the servitude ended, not with a return to Jerusalem, or with the Jews physically leaving Babylon, but with the demise of the Babylonian empire.
I note with pleasure your complete inability to deal with the fact that the Watchtower Society's teaching necessarily requires that the 70 years be ended, not with the Jews' leaving Babylon, but with the Jews' arriving in Jerusalem. This is conclusive proof, from the Watchtower Society's standpoint, that the 70 years ended with the Jews being AT JERUSALEM, NOT AT BABYLON. Since this clear implication contradicts both your claims, and various other claims of the Society, it's obvious that your overall set of claims is self-contradictory, and cannot be true.
: The correct translation 'at Babylon' certainly focusses the seventy years on an exile,
I've proved that it does not. That you ignore my proof means nothing more than that you have no arguments.
: servitude whilst the land was desolate for seventy years
How can an exile that ended AT BABYLON be completed by an end to the desolation of Judah which occurred some four months later when the Jews arrived AT JERUSALEM?
: and dissolves completely the notion that the seventy years was only one of servitude.
LOL!
: 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
So you agree that the 70 years ended, not AT BABYLON but AT JERUSALEM!
: 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
Nothing but more transparently circular argumentation.
: Jermiah 25:11 and the preceding context certainly is suggestive of desolation, exile and servitude
"Suggestive" means nothing in the face of its direct statement that "many nations" would serve Babylon. You simply want to read into the passage what isn't there, because such a dishonest reading is in line with overall Watchtower teaching. You've entirely failed to address the points I showed that prove your stupid claims to be false.
: because the land was depopulated
Both the Bible and archaeology prove that the land was well populated during the entire supposed period of desolation.
: 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.
This is a mere simple-minded repetition of Watchtower dogma.
: Thos nations were caught up in the Babylonian maelstrom as with Judah
You've entirely failed to address the points I brought up about this. You're a thoroughly dishonest fuckhead, Neil.
: 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.
This is an out and out lie. The passage says nothing about Judah. From the 'glorious' NWT:
"And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Just where do you see "Judah" mentioned, you ridiculous liar?
: 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
Prove it. Cite the relevant sources.
Of course, just as I suggested that you'd fail to "produce a Bible text that explicitly states that the Jews would be in exile in Babylon for exactly 70 years", you'll fail to produce any evidence at all for your claim.
: wherein much later under the influence of apostate Christainity, various secondary meanings arose such as cross and coming.
You're living in your dreams, scholar pretendus. Josephus himself generally uses "parousia" in the sense of "{coming, arrival, advent} with a subsequent 'being there' or presence", and sometimes even in the sense of "{coming, arrival, advent}" as a point event. Adolf Deissmann, in his monumental work Light from the Ancient East, showed conclusively that by the 1st century, "parousia" had taken on a variety of meanings above and beyond that of Greek usage of 500 years earlier. Obviously the Bible writers, using the popular koine Greek of their day, were in line with both Josephus' usage and that of their contemporaries. To claim different is to claim that "let" means "prevent". Furthermore, Leolaia has provided extensive documentation to prove that 1st century use of "stauros" often meant "cross", since that was the standard object of punishment the Romans used.
: Once again scholar overturns the deceit, lies half-truths of the evil slave class.
You apparently have no idea how stupid such a comment is. But that's par for the course. The Black Knight speaks!
AlanF
