Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep 763 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Well there, scholar pretendus, just as I predicted, you ran away from all actual discussion of the specifics I brought up. Instead, you reverted to your standard, meaningless generalizations that have been refuted by the entire scholarly community.

  One of my main points was that the Watchtower Society has never commented on some of the most important scriptures for understanding the 70 years of Jeremiah. You confirmed that.

  This thread now stands as another monument to the monumental braindeadness of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  AlanF
• 

  Narkissos

  Scholar,

  With you disingenuousness and stupidity attain ultimate balance.
  

  (1) You misunderstand AlanF's statement that the 70 years must be a precise duration, missing that this actually represents the WTBTS's stance; then (2) you quote a commentary, misunderstanding its point that Jeremiah's "70 years" are a stereotype, not meant to be taken literally ("more or less precise"). Finally (3) you realise you need to take the 70 years literally and you desperately try to fit the commentary into this (mis-)understanding.
  

  Your comment of Jeremiah 29:19 that it is dishonest and that the Hebrew cannot be interpreted as a static locative is wrong. The context of the chapter clearly indicate that a locative is preferable and that the Hebrew preposition le has a wide semantic range which includes: to, in. for, at, etc.

  How does the "context of the chapter" prove that? Please provide examples that le can be taken as a static locative. When le is locative it is generally directional and implies a movement ("to", "into", not "at"). I, on the other hand, provided a structural parallel (conjunction + melo'th le + object + duration, in a temporal sentence just as in Jeremiah 29) which shows that in this phrase it is not locative at all ("for"). Your turn.
• 

  scholar

  Narkissos

  My turn, I notice that in the brilliant NWT, Leviticus 25:29 has the phrase 'to the full for him' so in this verse has 'for' rather than 'at' which demonstrates that the preposition 'le' has indeed a wide semantic range.For this reason, the transaltor must decide on the basis of context as to how the preposition should be thoughtfully rendered. The context, chapter 29 certainly favours a locative meaning for this phrase 'at Babylon'. The following verses:

  Verse 1: to Babylon

  Verse 3 'to Babylon'

  Verse 10 'at Babylon'

  Verse 15 'in Babylon'

  Verse 20 ' to Babylon'

  Verse 22 'in Babylon'

  Verse 28 'at Babylon'

  All of these examples agree as to a local meaning for this phrase. But there is more. Jeremiah;s prophecy is addressed to those exiles already in Babylon and the message of this letter is about their exile and their release from exile. It is most definitely not focussed on Babylon but those Jewish exiles. Further, for purposes of chronology, the rendering 'for Babylon' rather than 'at Babylon' amounts to fuzzines because it is impossible to establish a calender date for the beginning of Babylon's tenure as world power in relation to the seventy years.

  I have not misunderstood Alan F's comments on the exactitude of the seventy years. We say that the seventy years was a definite period having a precise beginning and end and that it could only have been a period of desolation, servitude and exile as all of the relevant seventy year texts state. Alan seeks to deconstruct this interpreation by removing those elements and claiming that there were several periods having various datums.

  Regarding the WBC quote, it is not a sterotype as you claim but rather the interpretation quoted was made by the commentator who wrote the Exursus on the Seventy Years wherein he discussed the many interpretations on the seventy years. You should read this material before venturing an opinion.

  Yes , WT scholars take this period literally otherwise it would have had no relevance to Jeremiah's audience and would have had no significance to Daniel and the Chronicler. The seventy yeras was not some fuzzy period or round number as many scholars including the Jonsson hypothesis propose. Biblical history clearly confirms that this period existed between two key events which truly gives weight to its theological sibhificance as a period marked by desolation-exile-servitude.

  scholarJW
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Your posts are a monument to the Jonsson Hypothesis which fails in providing a simple coherent interpretation of the seventy years. My posts are a monument to Watchtower chronology that alone honours God;s Word and its prophecies. As usual , your hypothesis has no chronology for the OT but simply consists of a few useless dates that are the subject of considerable debate within scholarship.

  scholar JW
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  Scholar, your hypothesis isnt the subject of ANY debate within scholorship because every scholor in the world realizes its crackpot bullshit.
  
  GBL
• 

  Alwayshere

  Watchtower honers Gods word and it's prop

  Scholar, the Watchtower honers no one but the Society. Most of us on this post know the WTS is run by Apostates.They have lied and said "The Creator promises the New World would be here before the generation of 1914 passes away." Look on the inside cover of any Awake from March 1988-October 1995. They call all their prophecies"mistakes" but the Bible calls it False prophesy. And if you read Deuteronomy 18:20-22, You will see what happens to those who say "God "says something that he did not say.The Bible also says "any one LIKING or carrying on a lie will be destroyed."Revelation 22:15.They have been part of every thing they have held to be wrong. They were associated with the UN from 1992-2001, They also own 51% of a company who make War Weapons and they invest in the stock market and in Philip Morris cigs. at that.The Watchtower has experienced complete failure of all its predictions including the dates 1914,1918, 1925 1942-45, 1975. In addition it has made thousands of ridiculous statements. The following claim about the Watchtower being "consistently dependable" is a lie. "Since 1879 it has been published regularly for the benefit of sincere students of the Bible. Over that extended period of time the Watchtower has consistently proven itself dependable."[New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures 1950 p.793.] According to Jesus, that makes the Devil their Farther.[John 8:44]
• 

  Leolaia

  The context, chapter 29 certainly favours a locative meaning for this phrase 'at Babylon'. The following verses:

  Verse 1: to Babylon

  Verse 3 'to Babylon'

  Verse 10 'at Babylon'

  Verse 15 'in Babylon'

  Verse 20 ' to Babylon'

  Verse 22 'in Babylon'

  Verse 28 'at Babylon'

  All of these examples agree as to a local meaning for this phrase.

  Did you even check the wording in the Hebrew to see if the phrase l-bbl (with the preposition) occurs in those cases? Apparently not. Verse 1: בבלה. Verse 3: בבלה. Verse 10: לבבל. Verse 15: בבלה. Verse 20: בבלה. Verse 22: בבבל. Verse 28: בבל. Only verse 10, the passage under consideration, contains the le preposition prefixed to "Babylon". (D'oh!) And even if the lamed were present in these phrases, Narkissos was not disputing that le was capable of locative meaning; he was observing its usage in the particular construction in verse 10. What is funny is that a few of the phoney examples you provide above, if they had included le in the first place, would be examples of the directional sense -- not that static sense the NWT uses for verse 10 (cf. v. 3: "whom Zedekiah king of Babylon sent to Babylon"). And Narkissos cited a very specific construction (conjunction + melo'th le + object + duration, in a temporal sentence) for which the locative reading is not appropriate, and your counter-examples not only failed to represent this construction, they failed to even include the preposition le!

  Is that what passes for scholarship these days?
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks Leolaia for responding.

  I personally doubt "scholar" has any training in Hebrew or linguistics, not to mention exegesis which requires both and a little more. In fact, common sense would be enough in the present case -- unfortunately there is no training in such a discipline.

  What scholar wrote amounts to say: if I find in a given portion of text the sentences "I went to the garden," "I walked in the garden;" "I sat in the garden," "I worked in the garden", and "I bought flowers for the garden," then the last sentence actually must mean "I bought flowers in the garden," because all other conjunctions introducing "the garden" are locative. Anybody but scholar can see the patent fallacy. The only thing that would immediately convince him would be a NWT revision by the WTBTS, dropping the inept translation of Jeremiah 29:10.
• 

  AlanF

  scholar pretendus said:

  : Your posts are a monument to the Jonsson Hypothesis

  There is no such thing. Why do you keep lying? This is like dismissing physics because you don't like a particular popular author who writes 'physics for the layman' books.

  : which fails in providing a simple coherent interpretation of the seventy years.

  Another lie. Jonsson, supported by the likes of Jack Finegan, argues that the most likely interpretation is that the 70 years began in 609 B.C. when Babyon conquered the last bits of the Assyrian empire, and ended in 539 B.C. when Babyon itself was conquered. What could be simpler?

  Unlike Watchtower chronology, this chronology accounts for every relevant scripture. As I have proved, Watchtower chronology requires ignoring the most important scriptures bearing on the 70 years, and requires interpreting a number of others in a very stupid and unscriptural way.

  When someones posits a Neo-Babylonian chronology that accounts for all relevant biblical facts, and is completely in accord with a secular chronology that is based on a number of astronomically confirmed dates, and someone else posits a chronology that ignores or rejects inconvenient biblical facts and conflicts with said secular chronology, it's a no-brainer as to which one an honest scholar would accept. The only people who reject such a well-established chronology are those with a huge emotional investment in a sectarian religious agenda, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

  : My posts are a monument to Watchtower chronology that alone honours God;s Word and its prophecies.

  Nonsense. Your posts ignore "God's Word" as much as the Watchtower Society does. This thread proves it.

  Furthermore, you dishonor your God by engaging in massive self-deception along with massive, deliberate lies.

  : As usual , your hypothesis has no chronology for the OT

  Neo-Babylonian chronology runs from 626 B.C. through 539 B.C., and the relevant dates are completely determined by secular chronology. The Bible provides a few extra clues for certain events not mentioned in the secular records. Therefore, most Old Testament chronology is irrelevant.

  Furthermore, a number of fine scholars like Edwin Thiele have come extremely close to establishing a full OT chronology that accounts for all relevant biblical facts. The fact that a number of fine scholars disagree on fine points means nothing more than that they have the academic freedom to disagree with each other about things not clearly stated in the Bible.

  On the other hand, Watchtower chronology ignores many biblical facts and problematic passages. The Watchtower's version of OT chronology is established as much by decree of the Bethel Writing Department as it is by the Bible. Such a dishonest method deserves no attention from honest scholars.

  You seem to think that the fact that the Society agrees with itself by establishing a set chronology (any JW who disagrees is disfellowshipped) is a plus for the validity of its chronology. Well it isn't. It's no more a plus than the fact that the Flat-Earth Society boots out people who disagree with its claims is a plus for flat-earthism.

  : but simply consists of a few useless dates that are the subject of considerable debate within scholarship.

  LOL! The only debate is whether Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 586 or 587 B.C. And of course, the debate exists only because the Bible itself gives indications that the destruction occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th regnal year. The Watchtower resolves this by ignoring the problematic passages, and simply declaring a date.

  More on Rud Persson's threat to turn you over to your local congregation: It's ironic that you, who scream about your academic freedom being threatened, don't seem to realize that it's not folks like Rud who threaten it, but your very own Mommy, the Society. If you weren't completely convinced that the Society would disfellowship you for associating with "apostates", you wouldn't see Rud's threat as a threat.

  So much for JW claims that they're members of a loving, honest organization that values freedom of thought. You yourself demonstrate that JWs don't believe that.

  AlanF
• 

  toreador

  AlanF wrote:

  More on Rud Persson's threat to turn you over to your local congregation: It's ironic that you, who scream about your academic freedom being threatened, don't seem to realize that it's not folks like Rud who threaten it, but your very own Mommy, the Society. If you weren't completely convinced that the Society would disfellowship you for associating with "apostates", you wouldn't see Rud's threat as a threat.

  Aint dat da truth! My relatives walk around on eggshells fearing they might be talking to an apostate. Heaven forbid they might hear something that might stumble them. LOL What a joke, if they only knew the truth about the truth.

  Toreador