Yes, of course, Scholar.
You are cornered, and clearly in the wrong, without facts to validate your opinion.
Therefore, it must be the apostate rat bastards. That is the only way you, and Watchtower, could be wrong.
Yup, that explains it. A CONSPIRACY OF APOSTACY!!!!
(end sarcasm)
~Quotes, of the "LMAO" class
Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar
by Alleymom 76 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Quotes
-
Satanus
I smell a rat and I think I have found the culprit thanks to Jenni and Jack Lundbom.
It is satan. Thank god for satan, eh? Where would jw's be without someone/something to blame? Mirrors are outlawed in the wt kingdom.
S
-
upside/down
it is not looking too good for the aposates
You do include yourself in that group of so-called "apostates" right?
Your self righteous, smug, faux intellectual banter although very WTS "like" is still unsanctioned (by "mother")and your being here and even engaging in the subject with those that would offer "another" viewpoint is heresy according to WTS "official teachings" on the matter.
Does it occur to you that all conclusions (for you) are predetermined? It wouldn't matter how much "evidence" was piled up you would blindly follow WTS protocol on all matters.... especially so-called "scholarly" matters. Ask yourself HONESTLY why you even engage in such false reasoning... as in true reasoning there is the possibility of changing your viewpoint if through debate and evidence one was convinced otherwise. You have no intent NO MATTER WHAT of every being swayed away from WTS "theology" therefore to claim yourself a "Scholar" is only self-serving and not necessary as the WTS "scholars" can do all your work for you ..... your job is to just agree and be an apologist for the things that don't "fit". Has or does the WTS EVER consult with you? Have you ever discovered anything and brought it to their attention... and they used it? The opposite is in fact the truth... your just a "sheep" being spoon fed WTS dogma..nothing more.
You are not a Boerean!
scholar JW
Does the "society" know this? Have they granted you their "credentials".... I think you'll find that even we here at JWD are more accomodating than they are... even we LET you hold on to your self-proclaimed status as a "scholar".... bet you a pile of dung they won't .... and if you were honest and showed them your work HERE, they'd disown you in a heartbeat and turn on you and beat you!
I dare you.... no I double dare you to put my words to the test.
u/d (of the hates hypocrites like JC did class)
-
scholar
Leolaia
Jenni did not address my questions to my satisfaction because you micheivously interfered and compromised Jenni's response because he replied to both of us with a response. His answeris merely his interpretation of how le is used in Classical Hebrew and was not confined to its use in the book of Jeremiah alone which wouls have been more relevant to the problem at hand.
Jenni states that lamed in 360 occurrences has general orientations radiating from a subject nut not connected with free localities like towns or countries and all of then in a directional sense and never purely in a static -locative sense. This is interpretation. Jeremiah 29:10 has le affixed to Babylon as a place or geographical locality which may be the only occurrence which contradicts Jenni's maxim.
Jenni's opinion is based upon is early paper on Jeremiah 3:17 which has 'at Jerusalem' according to the NWT. Again the NWT has 'at Babylon' in Jeremiah 51:49 so we now have three ezamples whereupon a locative sense is assigned to a place by means of the preposition 'at'.
Jenni made no comment on the textual tradition beginning with the LXX which demonstrates a locative sense and has been preserve by the KJV and the NWT.
Jenni made no comment on the semantics of the LXX and this is a important matter for further study but I mention that Jonsson's linguist fried has entered into this area. The matter is whether the Greek rendering rules out a locative meaning absolutely and the same with the Hebrew.
In short. Jonsson said that a locative sense is impossible or highly improbable but in view of this preposition having a broad semantic range would rule out such unwarranted dogmatism.
scholar JW -
Narkissos
His answeris merely his interpretation of how le is used in Classical Hebrew and was not confined to its use in the book of Jeremiah alone which wouls have been more relevant to the problem at hand.
Nope. A construction parallelism (same form of the same verb + same preposition + duration) in Leviticus (as I pointed out in the other thread) is linguistically more relevant than other uses of the same preposition in other constructions within the same book. But how could you know?
Jenni states that lamed in 360 occurrences has general orientations radiating from a subject nut not connected with free localities like towns or countries and all of then in a directional sense and never purely in a static -locative sense. This is interpretation. Jeremiah 29:10 has le affixed to Babylon as a place or geographical locality which may be the only occurrence which contradicts Jenni's maxim.
Nope. The above parallelism clearly shows that in this construction le is not locative at all. Just as lô could be a directional locative in another context but cannot be a locative at all in the specific construction of Leviticus 25:30 (even in the NWT, "for him"). I'm sorry if you don't understand, learn Hebrew, read a few hundred pages and it will become very clear to you (although you might still not admit it).
Jenni's opinion is based upon is early paper on Jeremiah 3:17 which has 'at Jerusalem' according to the NWT. Again the NWT has 'at Babylon' in Jeremiah 51:49 so we now have three ezamples whereupon a locative sense is assigned to a place by means of the preposition 'at'.
Jenni made no comment on the textual tradition beginning with the LXX which demonstrates a locative sense and has been preserve by the KJV and the NWT.
Jenni made no comment on the semantics of the LXX and this is a important matter for further study but I mention that Jonsson's linguist fried has entered into this area. The matter is whether the Greek rendering rules out a locative meaning absolutely and the same with the Hebrew.
In short. Jonsson said that a locative sense is impossible or highly improbable but in view of this preposition having a broad semantic range would rule out such unwarranted dogmatism.Jeremiah 3:17 MT has a dubious repetition of l-iroushalaim; the first instance is clearly not locative, because le simply introduces the complement of the verb qr' according to its usual syntax, NWT "they will call (le) Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah". The second instance, which may well be a scribal error (dittography) as it is absent from the LXX, makes sense in the Hebrew text as a directional (not static) locative, with a verb of movement: to her ('eleyha) all the nations will be brought to (le) the name of Yahweh to (le) Jerusalem. The translators who maintain the pleonastic MT just substitute a static locative ("at," NWT; "in," NRSV) in order to avoid the last repetition, for evident stylistic reasons, but the grammatical analysis of the MT clearly implies a directional locative.
(Edited to add, as an afterthought: the first instance of l'iroushalaim in 3:17 is a great example to show the abyssal inanity of your previous reasoning, namely "because it is a city name the preposition must be locative": "they will call le-Jerusalem" does not mean "they will call to [or at, in] Jerusalem". Structure makes the meaning.)
In Jeremiah 51:49, as I already pointed out in the other thread, it is quite clear that lebavel is not locative either. "The slain ones of all the earth" obviously did not fall in Babylon or at Babylon but because of, on account of Babylon (logical connection). Here the LXX en Babulôni (28:49), introduces a new ambiguity (it may or may not be taken as a static locative), on which Revelation 18:24 will build. But it is exegetically impossible to read the ambiguity back into the Hebrew text.
Again, I'm really sorry if you don't understand. Learn or find another hobby.
-
Leolaia
pseudo-scholar....If you feel that Jenni did not answer your question to your satisfaction, you do know that you are free to continue your correspondence with him, don't you? You make it sound as if your one-and-only shot at clarifying the matter was ruined by those darn wiley poztates!
It is absolutely not mischivious for me to want to check with Jenni to see if I have accurately represented his position, as I don't read German fluently as well. You talk as if you alone had the right to correspond with him and say I must have "wicked intents" to ask him my own questions. Get real.
Narkissos....About Jeremiah 3:17, another interesting datum is the hexaplaric variant tó onomati kuriou eis Ierousalém, which unambiguously translates the lamed as a directional "into Jerusalem," against the static locative reading ("at Jerusalem").
-
jst2laws
Leolaia said,
those darn wiley poztates!
Scholar,
Can you say that with an Elmer Fud drawl?
Jst2laws
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
Jenni did not address my questions to my satisfaction.
And there we have the crux of your blinkered worldview. Nothing *anybody* produces as evidence will ever satisfy you if it does not fall in line with WTS theology. The touchstone of truth where you are concerned, is not what is true, but what is 'theocratic'.
Scholar, you are a cult victim.
HS
-
Leolaia
Regarding the en Babulóni "in Babylon" in Jeremiah 51:49 (LXX), the preposition (+ dative case) is sometimes used in the LXX and NT with senses analogous to the Dative of Cause or Reference:
"He died on account of the blood (lit. en tó haimati "in the blood") of Asahel his brother" (2 Samuel 3:27; LXX).
"On account of our iniquities (lit. en tais anomias "in the iniquities"), we, our kings and our priests, have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands" (Ezra 9:7; LXX).
"Their land will be stripped of its fullness on account of the violence (lit. en asebeia "in impiousness") of all who live in it" (Ezekiel 12:19; LXX).
"Then your fame went forth among the nations on account of your beauty (lit. en tó kallei sou "in your beauty")" (Ezekiel 16:14; LXX).
"This very night you will all fall away on account of me (lit. en moi "in me")" (Matthew 26:31).
"And they praised God because of me (lit. en moi "in me")" (Galatians 1:24).
The LXX of Jeremiah 51:49 (en Babulóni pesountai traumatiai pasés tés gés, lit. "In Babylon the slain men of all the earth shall fall") is thus ambiguous between a genuine locative and a sense similar to "On account of Babylon, the slain men of all the earth shall fall". Interestingly, Symmachus misinterprets the lamed as a quasi-possessive: tés Babulónos sumpesountai héttómenoi apo pasés tés gés "the slain of Babylon (genitive) have fallen from all the earth".
-
scholar
Narkissos
Nope, Your claim that the construction parallelism of Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 is erroneous. Jeremiah uses the infinitive form as translated by the brilliant NWT as 'the fulfilling' which is noted by both Jenni and Lundbom. Such an infinitive dissolves your exegesis as it is the fulfillment of the seventy years which is the focus not Babylon. This event or durative was simply located at Babylon as shown by the preposition 'le' and by the locative or dative for the LXX.
scholar JW