Posts by AlanF

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

AlanF

I want to summarize scholar pretendus' main arguments about the proper rendering of "le-babel" in Jeremiah 29:10 up to this point, and then show why they are wrong. He claims that the New World Translation's rendering of "le-babel" as "at Babylon" is not only correct, but is the only possibility, for these reasons:

A. Various lexicons show that translating "le" as "at" is allowable.

B. The context of Jeremiah 29:10 shows that the 70 years are implied to be a period with respect to the Jews in exile in Babylon, not a period with respect to Babylonian supremacy.

C. The fact that the Watchtower Society assigns definite start and end dates to the 70 years means something.

D. The fact that the Watchtower Society claims that it has a definite and complete "Bible chronology" for the Jewish period means something.

Against these claims we have the following:

1. The fact that a rendering is allowable does not make it correct. Context and general usage determines that.

2. All modern scholars who have been asked to give an opinion on the proper rendering of "le" in Jer. 29:10 have replied that "for Babylon" is the correct rendering, and that "at Babylon" is quite improbable.

3. Modern independent English bible translations are almost unanimous in rendering the passage as "for Babylon" or something similar. The only exceptions I'm aware of are the Harkavy Bible (1916), the Spurrell Old Testament (1885), George Lamsa's translation from the Syriac Peshitta, and the New World Translation -- all of which were done by individuals rather than teams of scholars. Old translations like the King James Version and the Latin Vulgate are, well, the products of old and probably outmoded scholarship.

4. All modern Bible commentators who have commented on the proper rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 agree that "for Babylon" is correct.

5. The fact that a rendering is allowable grammatically does not mean it is allowable contextually, either in a local context or an overall context.

6. As I have shown in my post above, the overall context of the biblical mention of the 70 years shows unequivocally that this time period ended in 539 B.C. -- one to two years before the Jews' exile ended or they returned to Palestine. Therefore the phrase "le-babel" in Jer. 29:10 cannot refer to the ending of an exile or captivity of the Jews at Babylon, or a desolation of the land of Judah ending a year or two after 539 B.C.

7. The mere assignment of start and end dates to a time period is meaningless if solid evidence against such dates is deliberately ignored. The Watchtower Society ignores all such evidence.

8. A mere claim to have a complete chronology of the Jews in the biblical period is meaningless if solid evidence against such dates is deliberately ignored. The Watchtower Society ignores all such evidence. Furthermore, a complete chronology of the Jews is irrelevant to the question of our time period of interest here: the Neo-Babylonian period, which lasted from 626 to 539 B.C. and is only marginally concerned with the Jews.

Further discussion:

It is easy to settle on an interpretation and then derive all sorts of corollaries from it. That does not mean that the interpretation or the corollaries are correct. That is especially so when the interpreter ignores all evidence against his interpretion.

For example, about 1876, the founder of the Watchtower Society settled on the interpretation that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah were a time of captivity of the Jews in Babylon. Over the years, his successors expanded on and reinterpreted that idea, and now determine the time period as follows:

We are willing to be guided primarily by God?s Word rather than by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence, counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland in 537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchadnezzar, in his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah from the throne and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a throne in earthly Jerusalem.--Ezekiel 21:19-27. ["Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p. 189]

In other words, they start with 537 B.C. as the date of the return of the Jews to Judah (this date is disputed), then assume that the 70 years were a time of desolation of Judah (ignoring a great deal of contrary biblical evidence, and the fact that their own claims are internally inconsistent), and then simply count back 70 years to derive 607 B.C. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of the desolation of Judah.

By exactly the same kind of reasoning -- except that this time it is backed up by all scriptural and secular evidence -- we can determine the end date, and a candidate for the start date, of the 70 years. Paraphrasing the Watchtower Society's above exposition:

We are willing to be guided primarily by God's Word rather than by a chronology that is based principally on sectarian interpretations that disagree with the Scriptures. We use sound secular chronology to further verify the correctness of our views, because when both Scripture and secular evidence agree completely, we can be certain that we are correct. It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years ended with the fall of the Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C. (Jeremiah 25:8-12; 27:6-8; 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23) Hence, counting back 70 years from Babylon's fall, we arrive at 609 B.C. for the date when Nabopolassar, in his 16th regnal year, captured the city of Haran and put a final end to the Assyrian Empire, thus establishing Babylon's supremacy over all nations in Mesopotamia.

See how easy that is? But the trick is not in the exposition, but in proving the various parts of it, and proving that they all hang together.

And this is precisely what scholar pretendus, Rolf Furuli, and various other Watchtower apologists fail to do. They focus on little bits of information that don't seem to fit the overall picture, or that they can force not to fit by bad argumentation based on a sectarian agenda, and try to build a whole new picture from these bits. They fail to realize that by focusing on these little bits and ignoring the big bits, they've lost sight of the big picture. Put another way, they're extremely selective, often to the point of outright dishonesty, about the evidence they will accept.

Another extremely important point about Watchtower apologists: their religion forbids them to accept evidence contrary to Watchtower teaching. If they do, they will surely be disfellowshipped and shunned by their fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. Furthermore, because of the extreme mind control brought about not only by such threats of punishment, but by their acceptance of the doctrine that Watchtower leaders speak for God, by their definition all evidence contrary to Watchtower views must be wrong because it contradicts God. Thus, there is no way that a JW can accept such evidence, because if he does, he risks losing many years -- even a lifetime -- of family association and his entire circle of JW friends.

It is this extreme cultishness of Jehovah's Witnesses that results in the wild and ridiculous arguments we see presented here by scholar pretendus and by other JW apologists elsewhere. With them, straw grasping is a fine art.

AlanF

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

AlanF

Carl Jonsson sent the following material to me for posting on this board. The material below that was originally in French was translated and sent to Jonsson by a scholar in France. I want to point out that this material proves that the "scholarship" exhibited by the JW apologist Rolf Furuli in his book Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews (self-published, 2003) is atrociously poor.

Jonsson's email, posted with permission:

The statements I quoted in my letter to Professor Jenni from Furuli's book contained a claim that "The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples" where le is used in the local sense. It is interesting, therefore, to read what a Hebraist in France, Professor Émile Nicole, says about the examples given in this dictionary in an answer to a question about le published in a French journal for Hebraists. He finds only one example of these "about 30" where le might have a local sense, namely, Numbers 20:24, "you were rebellious at [le] the waters of Meribah." But even here this sense is questionable, and he quotes a French Bible translation that gives the alternative rendering, "respecting [le] the waters of Meriba". I checked how NWT renders this verse, and remarkably, it, too, has "respecting the waters of Meriba"!

I'm enclosing below an English translation of the question with the full answer by Professor Nicole. It is also interesting to notice his remark that "the usual conclusion" is that the 70 years at Jer. 29:10 refer to "the hegemonic period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire." This is contrary to "Scholar's" claim that this understanding of the text is rare. Unfortunately, Nicole, in his last sentence, quotes a translation of Dan. 9:2 that is not quite literal and may easily be misunderstood as applying the 70 years to the ruined state of Jerusalem. (In GTR4, p. 219, I have commented on some similar renderings.) From his comments, however, it is quite obvious that this is not how Nicole understands the 70 years.

JEREMIAH 29:10: ANSWER TO A QUESTION

Translated from the Bulletin du Club des Hébraîsants, Vol. 16 (1999), No. 2:

MAIL FROM OUR READERS

Question:

In Jeremiah 29:10 the Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation give the expression l e babel a locative meaning: "at Babylon". Could you get me a copy of one or several appropriate commentaries, or could you give me an explanation of one or several members of the [Association pour la Lecture de la Bible Hébraîque] team?

Answer:

The commentaries that I consulted do not mention the Jehovah's Witnesses translation. All of them understand the le as introducing an attributive complement: "When 70 years will have been accomplished for Babylon." The question they discuss is the one of calculating the period. The fall of Babylon having happened in 539 B.C., two different dates are proposed for the beginning of the 70 years, either the fall of Nineveh in 612 (which makes an interval of 73 years) or the accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar in 605 (= 66 years). The usual conclusion is that 70 must be understood as a round number corresponding to the hegemonic period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

The translation "for Babylon" is the most natural one. It corresponds with one of the most common uses of the preposition le and goes well with the sentence as a whole.

The translation "at Babylon" is not very natural, but is it possible?

The spatial meaning of the preposition is well supported, but it often corresponds to a movement (e.g., "to go to Babylon"). It is the preposition be that usually indicates the place where we are ("living in Babylon").

It is true that [the Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique by Paul] Joüon (§ 133d) presents the uses of the preposition in this way: "le means to. Often it expresses the direction (but in a less precise manner than 'el); and often, too, there is neither direction nor movement." The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Vol. IV, 1998) indicates the two meanings: direction (to, towards, meaning no. 2) and place (in, near, meaning no. 4). This seems to authorize the translation "in Babylon" (place where we are). Nevertheless, when we examine the quite long list of examples furnished by the DCH for this use, we see that there is often movement (e.g.: Gen 32:2, "Jacob went on his way"; Gen 49:26, "that the blessings come on Joseph?s head"), or that the locative use of le is related to 'al, next to (e.g.: 2Ki 11:11, "the runners ... stayed ... next to the altar ..."). The only example quoted where there is neither movement nor proximity is the first mentioned, Num 20:24, "you were rebellious at the waters of Meribah", but it is also possible to understand the preposition le as does the [French translation by the] Rabbinat Français: "respecting the waters of Meriba".

Thus the possibility of rendering the le as does the New World Translation remains insufficiently founded or justified.

The hottest issue in this debate is that the difference in translation limits what is at stake. The end of the hegemony of Babylon (70 years for Babylon) corresponds to the return of the exiles to Jerusalem, as Jeremiah 29:10 explicitly states and as Daniel understands it when he speaks of "70 years for the ruins of Jerusalem" (Dan 9:2).

Émile Nicole

[The French Hebrew scholar Émile Nicole is Professor of the Old Testament at the Faculté Libre de Théologie Evangelique de Vaux-sur-Seine.]

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

AlanF

This post proves, using only the Bible and Watchtower literature, that the New World Translation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong.

First, I'll show that three scriptural passages prove beyond any doubt that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended in 539 B.C. Then I'll show that the Society's claims about the 70 years are inconsistent.

I'll discuss each point in turn:

Point 1:

The text of 2 Kings 25:11, 12, in combination with the undisputed date of 539 B.C. for the fall of the Babylonian empire, proves absolutely that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended not later than 539 B.C. Concerning these 70 years, the text states (NWT):

11 '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. 12 And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans . . .'

This verse directly states (taking into account the context of the preceeding verses) that the Jews and surrounding nations would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. It does not specify where they would serve, or when the seventy years began. However, verse 12 is absolutely clear that when the 70 years were fulfilled, or completed, Jehovah would "call to account" or punish the king of Babylon. That unarguably occurred in 539 B.C. when Cyrus' army conquered Babylon and killed its king Belshazzar.

Note that the phrase the NWT renders "when . . . have been fulfilled" has the Hebrew form "Qal infinitive construct", which signfies completed action, i.e., the "fulfilling" or "completing" of the 70 years was a done deal. This is exactly the same construct as is found in Jeremiah 29:10, except that the latter has a phrase that can be translated as "by my mouth" or "in accord with", etc. inserted between "when" and "have been fulfilled".

The Watchtower Society has attempted to explain Jer. 25:12 only once in all of its literature (W79 9/15 pp. 23-4), but its attempt was so ridiculous that it has never been repeated. The claim was that Cyrus was actually the king of Babylon who was "called to account" by releasing the Jews from captivity. How that was a calling to account far worse than having one's kingdom conquered and being killed is not explained.

Point 2:

The text of Jeremiah 27:6, 7 shows that only Nebuchadnezzar's line of kings were the kings of Babylon referred to in Jeremiah 25:12. The text reads (NWT):

6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.

Clearly, "the time even of his own land" coming means its conquering by the "many nations and great kings" who "must exploit him as a servant." This is precisely the "calling to account" described in Jer. 25:12, and proves that such punishment must have been visited upon the last king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar.

The Watchtower Society has never discussed this point.

Point 3:

The text of 2 Chronicles 36:20, in combination with the undisputed date of 539 B.C. for the fall of the Babylonian empire, proves absolutely that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended not later than 539 B.C. Concerning Nebuchadnezzar and the Jews the verse states (NWT):

Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign.

The joint royalty of Medo-Persia began to reign in 539 B.C., when the army of Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon and installed either Darius the Mede (if you accept the statements in Daniel) or Cyrus the Persian as king. In either case, Cyrus was supreme king from the day of his conquering Babylon, and therefore the Jews were no longer servants to the "king of Babylon" that Jeremiah foretold they would be.

The Watchtower Society has never discussed this point.

These three points establish the context for the proper interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10. Because the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah ended in 539 B.C., and the Jews were still captive for another year or two, the proper translation of Jer. 29:10 is easy to comprehend. In the NASB this reads:

For thus says the LORD, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place.

With the 70 years ending in 539 B.C., it is obvious that substituting "at Babylon" instead of "for Babylon" results in nonsense.

Here is how the NWT has it:

10 For this is what Jehovah has said, ?In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.?

Readers will note that the phrasing is such as to render the proper understanding extremely fuzzy, because using "in accord with", while grammatically allowable, blurs the clear meaning of the Qal infinitive construct "when have been fulfilled". Specifically, the NWT deliberately renders the passage in such a way that the fact that the 70 years were completed, and only after that would Jehovah turn his attention to the Jews, is blurred. This obviously helps JWs not to question the NWT's rendering.

This completes the proof, using only the Bible and the single Neo-Babylonian date that the Watchtower Society accepts, namely, 539 B.C. for Babylon's fall, that its translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong, and therefore that its entire so-called "Bible chronology" is wrong.

Now I will prove, using the Watchtower Society's own teachings, that its translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is wrong because these teachings result in internal inconsistencies.

Since 1944, the Watchtower Society has claimed that the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah were a time of complete desolation of the land of Judah, and they ran from about October 1, 607 B.C. to about October 1, 537 B.C. (cf. W79 9/15 pp. 23-4). But it has also claimed that these years were a time of captivity of the Jews at Babylon. This is obviously inconsistent, because of the trip time from Judah to Babylon, which the Society admits would be about four months for a caravan of men, women, children and their goods (cf. Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 417). Taking account of the exact time of Jerusalem's destruction, about August 1, and the time when the Society says that the land became desolate, about October 1, and when the Jews supposedly arrived back in Judah some 70 years later, about October 1, and the four-month trip time, the time of captivity at Babylon was six to eight months shorter than the time of desolation.

Logically, then, according to the Society's teaching, if the 70 years were a time of desolation of Judah, then the time in captivity at Babylon was only 69 years and 4-6 months. But if the 70 years were a time of captivity at Babylon, then the period of Judah's desolation must have been 70 years and 6-8 months. There is no way to equate these two periods.

Since the Watchtower's teachings are clearly internally inconsistent, and it's obvious from reading WTS literature that the Society much prefers the notion that the 70 years were a time of desolation of Judah (cf. "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981), Appendix to Ch. 14, p. 189), it is obvious that it cannot consistently teach that the time of captivity at Babylon was 70 years. Therefore, by the Society's own internally inconsistent teaching, something must give. Given the Society's preferred teaching that the 70 years were a time of desolation and not captivity at Babylon, the NWT's rendering of Jer. 29:10, namely, using "at Babylon" rather than "for Babylon", is wrong.

It sometimes amazes me that these astute, spirit-directed men at Bethel can't see such simple points.

AlanF

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

AlanF

I recently wrote to Carl Jonsson about his correspondence with the noted scholar and Hebraist, Professor Ernst Jenni, as he referenced in the 4th edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered, pages 378-9. With his permission, herewith is Jonsson's reply to me in full, except that I've deleted items of a personal nature.

*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*=====*

Hi again,

I noticed that the file with my correspondence with Ernst Jenni was not the best one. I'm sending a better one below, that may be easier for you to use. Below his answer in German I have added my English translation. I have also added some information on the qualifications of this scholar.

. . .

Carl

Here is my correspondence with Ernst Jenni:

THE HEBREW PREPOSITION l e AT JEREMIAH 29:10:

E.mail sent to Professor Emeritus Ernst Jenni in Basel on September 30, 2003:

Dear Professor Jenni,

I have been studying Biblical Hebrew for a few years and have recently bought a copy of your extensive and most valuable work, Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (2000). I notice that you reject the local meaning as the basic sense of le (pp. 134-135). This is a most interesting conclusion in view of some statements in a recently published book I have been reading. The book, which is written by a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, Mr. Rolf Furuli, is actually a work on Biblical chronology: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews (Oslo: R. Furuli A/S, 2003). It is in connection with his discussion of the 70 years at Jeremiah 29:10 that the meaning of the preposition le in lebâbel becomes important for his chronology. Mr. Furuli argues that the 70 years here refer to 70 years of desolation of Judah, and that the common rendering "for Babylon", therefore, has to be rejected in favour of "in Babylon" or "at Babylon". He says on page 86:

"But what about the meaning of the Hebrew preposition le? Can it really be used in the local sense 'at'? It certainly can, and The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of this meaning, one of which is Numbers 11:10, 'each man at (le) the entrance of his tent'. So, in each case when le is used, it is the context that must decide its meaning. For example, in Jeremiah 51:2 the phrase lebâbel means 'to Babylon', because the preceding verb is 'to send'. But lirûshâlâm [the letters li at the beginning of the word is a contraction of le+yod] in Jeremiah 3:17 in the clause, 'all the nations will gather in Jerusalem' has the local meaning 'in Jerusalem', and the same is true with the phrase lîhûdâ in Jeremiah 40:11 in the clause, 'the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah'."

My question is: Would you agree with his use of these examples for allowing lebâbel at Jer. 29:10 to be translated "in Babylon" or "at Babylon" ["seventy years at Babylon"]? Is this really a likely translation? Is it even a possible one?

In support of his translation, Furuli also refers to the renderings in some of the old versions of the Hebrew Bible. He says:

"Looking at the versions, both the Targum Jonathan and the Peshitta use the preposition le, which in both cases have about the same meaning as the Hebrew counterpart. However, the Septuagint has the dative form babylôni, the most natural meaning being 'at Babylon', and the Ge'ez version has westä babilon, which means 'in Babylon' or 'within Babylon'. The Latin Vulgate has in Babylone, the most natural meaning being 'in Babylon' or 'at Babylon' or 'within Babylon'. So the local meaning is the one extant in these versions."

As far as the Septuagint is concerned, it seems to me that Furuli is wrong in claiming that the most natural meaning of babylôni is "at Babylon". Wouldn't the dative here (without being preceded by en) mean "for Babylon" or "to Babylon"? As for the other versions quoted, they seem to give an interpretation of the text rather than a literal translation.

I would appreciate very much your comments on the above.

Sincerely,

Carl Olof Jonsson

Box XXXXX

S-400 20 Göteborg

Sweden

e.mail address:

XXXXX

Phone and fax number: XXXXX

Answer received from Professor Ernst Jenni on October 1, 2003:

Sehr geehrter Herr Jonsson,

Da ich kürzlich schon eine Anfrage aus Deutschland betr. Jer 29,10 erhalten habe (ebenfalls im Zusammenhang mit einer Theorie der Zeugen Jehovas), kann ich Ihnen relativ rasch antworten.

Meine Behandlung der Stelle findet sich im Lamed-Buch S.109 (Rubrik 4363). Die Übersetzung ist in allen modernen Kommentaren und Übersetzungen "für Babel" (Babel als Weltmacht, nicht Stadt oder Land); sie ergibt sich sowohl von der Sprache als auch vom Kontext.

Bei der 'lokalen Bedeutung' ist zu unterscheiden zwischen wo? ("in, bei") und wohin? (lokal terminativ "zu, nach"). Die Grundbedeutung von l ist "in bezug auf" und kann mit einer folgenden Orstbestimmung nur in gewissen adverbiellen Wendungen lokal oder lokal-terminativ verstanden werden (z.B. Num 11,10 [Clines, DCH IV, 481b] "am Eingang", vgl. Lamed S.256.260, Rubrik 8151). Jer 51,2 ist l ein Dativ der Person ("und sende Babel [als personifizierter Weltmacht] Worfler, die es worfeln und sein Land [das Land dieser Babylonier] ausräumen" ((Lamed S.84f.94). Zu Jer 3,17 "nach Jerusalem" (lokal terminativ) alles Nötige in Lamed S.256.270 und ZAH 1,1988, 107-111.

Zu den Versionen: Die LXX hat mit babylôni eindeutig einen Dativ ("für Babylon"). Nur die Vulgata hat allerdings in Babylone "in Babylon", danach die King James Version "at Babylon" und so wahrscheinlich auch die New World Translation.

Ich hoffe, Ihnen mit diesen Informationen gedient zu haben und verbleibe mit freundlichen Grüssen

E. Jenni.

---

Prof. Dr. Ernst Jenni
XXXXX

CH-4054 Basel (Schweiz)
Tel. XXXX

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

[Communication E. Jenni - C. O. Jonsson, dated 1 October, 2003:]

Dear Mr. Jonsson,

As I recently have received an inquiry from Germany concerning Jer 29,10 (likewise in connection with a theory of Jehovah?s Witnesses), I can answer you relatively quickly.

My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109 (heading 4363). The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is "for Babel" (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context.

By the "local meaning" a distinction is to be made between where? ("in, at") and where to? (local directional "to, towards"). The basic meaning of l is "with reference to", and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] "at the entrance", cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a personal dative ("and send to Babel [as personified world power] winnowers, who will winnow it and empty its land" (Lamed pp. 84f., 94). On Jer. 3,17 "to Jerusalem" (local directional), everything necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1, 1988, 107-111.

On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative ("for Babylon"). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, "in Babylon", thus King James Version "at Babylon", and so probably also the New World Translaton. I hope to have served you with these informations and remain,

with kind regards,

E. Jenni.

---

Prof. Dr. Ernst Jenni
XXXXX
CH-4054 Basel (Schweiz)
Tel. XXXX

Who is Professor Emeritus Ernst Jenni?

In 1958 Ernst Jenni succeeded the renowned Semitist and Hebraist Professor Walter Baumgartner as Professor of the faculty of theology at the University of Basel, Switzerland, a position he held until his retirement in 1997. With Professor Claus Westermann Professor Jenni is editor of the indispensible and incomparable reference work, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament). He also serves on the editorial committee of the Theologische Zeitschrift. And he is a leading ? if not the leading ? expert on the Hebrew prepositions, having so far written three works in the series Die hebräischen Prepositionen: Band 1: Die Präposition Beth (1992), 400 pages; Band 2: Die Präposition Kaph (1994), 196 pages; and Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (2000), 350 pages.

.

34

CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

by diamondblue1974 in

the daily telegraph(london).

may 19, 2005, thursday.

AlanF

Well I guess I'll have to think about your comments, Abaddon. But I'm still extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone else -- a judge, jury, whatever -- can decide what my intent might have been. Under the pressure of extreme circumstance, people themselves might not know their own intent. They might not have even had an intent, but were acting purely by instinct. But if in practice, European judges and juries have the sense not to allow the excesses so often seen in American courts, then it may be a good law. Time will tell. I do agree that true incitement to hatred shouldn't be allowed, because we know from history what it can do.

AlanF

34

CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

by diamondblue1974 in

the daily telegraph(london).

may 19, 2005, thursday.

AlanF

Abaddon said:

: This law would apply if your comments or conduct are "likely to stir up" religious hatred.

: It does not say you cannot criticise.

: There's a big difference.

Maybe, maybe not. JWs and Muslims tend to scream "persecution!" or "religious hatred!" at the slightest hint of criticism.

The main problem with such a vague law is that it doesn't clearly define "likely to stir up". Under some circumstances, any criticism at all might be judged likely to stir up religious hatred. Who is it that would determine the interpretation of such a fuzzy concept? Judges, of course. And judges often make extremely diverse interpretations. Without clearly defined, objective standards of what is "likely to stir up", people would be forced to err on the side of shutting up -- which is an infringement of the right of free expression.

: "Believing in god is silly. People are free to do it, obviously, provided they don't break the law because of their beliefs, but I can't for the life of me see any logic in it".

: This is criticism.

In some circles it will also be seen as speech likely to stir up religious hatred. There are many people, especially in American Fundamentalist circles, who view such comments as potentially stirring up hatred against them.

: "Persons of x religion are violent, criminal and evil".

: That is a comment "likely to stir up" religious hatred.

True, but what if it also happens to be a true statement? The law would then make telling a particular truth illegal.

How about if you say, "Jehovah's Witness beliefs can be death dealing." That's perfectly true, as we all know. What if this law is passed, you say that on this board, and the Watchtower Society takes you to court and argues that it's a criticism likely to stir up religious hatred. How would you defend yourself?

: Freedoms are only allowable freedoms if, by their exercise, they do not restrict the freedoms of others.

Precisely. And that's why a law such as this is ridiculous. Criticism, even the harsh kind, hurts no one unless someone else acts on it. And no one is forcing others to act on criticism. Putting ideas in other people's heads is a precious right not to be infringed upon.

: Seems simple and fair to me.

If that law were passed, and you criticized the Christian religion by saying, "Many Christian beliefs are stupid and illogical", and someone got bent out of shape and took you to court, and the judge happened to agree that your comment was hateful, and you were jailed, I think you'd change your tune.

The simple fact is that laws, however well intended, are often used in ways that the lawmakers never intended or envisioned. The American Patriot Act is a good example. It contains provisions that allow law enforcement people to go well beyond the previous norm if they judge that they're investigating "terrorism". But recently, a number of law enforcement agencies have misused these provisions to go after people who have nothing to do with "terrorism". All they've had to do is expand the definition of terrorism a bit beyond what the lawmakers intended.

: People have a right to live life without fear the comments of others might make them become victims of crime when they have committed none themselves.

That's where your thinking is off base. My comments to you are not going to make you do anything or not do anything. At most, they might influence you to make your own choice to do something.

: Someone saying something like that infringes the freedom of another, and thus should not have the freedom to publish such 'hate speech'.

It doesn't infringe freedom at all.

If a law could be phrased in such a way that it was extremely narrowly defined, there might be some merit in it. But it should not be open to the sort of interpretations that would allow one judge to make one decision and a different judge to make another one.

:: on a par with the equally insane British law that people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals

: Well, the law doesn't say what people think it says, and there isn't a British law that says people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals.

I don't know what specific laws there are in this regard, so I was speaking loosely. I've read several stories where some poor bastard defends his family by injuring a criminal and is then treated far worse than the criminal. I've also read that it's now illegal in Britain to defend oneself with a weapon, the "logic" being that government will do whatever defending is needed. So how does that work? A criminal threatens your kids with rape, and you have him hold off while you call the local gendarmerie? And perhaps the officer asks you to put the rapist on the phone so he can try to convince the rapist to go away?

AlanF

34

CRITICISING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS COULD BE MADE ILLEGAL

by diamondblue1974 in

the daily telegraph(london).

may 19, 2005, thursday.

AlanF

This insane proposed law is on a par with the equally insane British law that people shouldn't defend themselves against criminals.

AlanF

43

Did our ancestors really live for hundreds of years?

by pennycandy in

jw
friends

for all you scientific brains out there .

.. the bible claims lifespans of over 900 years.

what does science say about this?.

AlanF

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that humans have ever normally lived beyond what they do today.

Some comments about lifespans:

We need to carefully distinguish between average lifespan (defined as the average time that a human lives from birth) and average lifespan of a healthy adult. The two numbers are usually quite different. The difference is because of child mortality. In almost all human societies, child mortality has been very high, which knocks down the average lifespan. But once a human reaches about the age of 18-20, he has survived plenty of diseases and so forth, and can expect to live many more years. The main threat to mortality after that has been accidents and unusual infectious diseases, like the Black Plague. Given that, we can also define the average maximum lifespan of a healthy adult as that of a person who experiences no accidents or unusual disease and dies of "old age" rather than a specifically identifiable cause.

So far as I've read, the average maximum lifespan of a healthy adult is about the same now as it was 4-5000 years ago. This is pretty much as expected in evolutionary terms. And one would also expect that this lifespan has changed little in hundreds of thousands of years.

AlanF

59

Dead Relative Due To Blood Policy?

by AlanF in

.

i'd like to hear comments from anyone who had a relative die because of the watchtower society's misguided policy on blood transfusions.. alanf

AlanF

Thanks for the replies! I'm so sorry to hear about these terrible and unnecessary losses!

For those who lost loved ones, when and where did this happen?

AlanF

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

AlanF

scholar pretendus said:

: Now you have leant something.

I suppose I might have learnt something, but you have yet to learn to spell.

: Jonsson has contributed to the Catastrophism journal,

Yes, to debunk its main premise.

Making such a contribution does not mean support of the premise, nor does it mean association with such a journal -- as you have lyingly implied.

This is quite in contrast to the Watchtower Society's overt support of Velikovsky -- which you have deliberate ignored.

[removed] You mock Jonsson for debunking Velikovsky while ignoring Mommy's support of the same.

: articles on Chronology despite your cockiness about him not having an association with that whacky journal.

I never mentioned anything of the sort. This, as is true of most of your [removed] claims, is nothing more than a product of your fertile imagination.

: Now your research is proving that my observation was correct.

Nope. I've already shown above that everything you've claimed is false.

: In fact, this is the only journal that has published a review of GTR.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the material presented in GTR.

[removed] The Watchtower Society specifically published an article supporting Velikovsky. Yet you fail to acknowledge this simple fact, and worse, fail to recognize that by publishing such a supportive article, the Society explicitly supported the very "whacky" bullpucky that you (falsely) take Jonsson to task for supporting.

: Jonsson has not had his work published in serious, mainline journals or had his work peer reviewed in these journals.

As has been shown ad nauseum, this is a red herring. Jonsson's work is a summary of worldwide scholarly opinion. As such, it needs no further review. Asking for review is like asking that the popular works of Ernst Mayr be subject to review before publication -- they reflect the scholarly views of all recognized scholars in the world and therefore need no review.

: By the way, Kristen Jorgensen, Jonsson's linguist is not a female as you have previously stated but of the male gender.

Well I guess I'll have to do a bit of intensive research on this critical matter.

: I thought you apostates knew each other better.

Aside from Jonsson's writings, I have no knowledge of this person.

But the fact that you class someone who has never been a JW as an apostate, merely because he/she disagrees with your views, is extremely telling.

: By the way seeing that you are full of information. Why have you not posted Jonsson's original letter to Jenni in full so that the exact nature of Jonsson's inquiry can be seen.

I have no access to Jonsson's personal files. If you want to see his files, ask him yourself.

How stupid and straw-grasping can a person be?

: Your

Correction: "You"

: stupidly ridicule my academic qualifications, What proof do you have for your claims?

[removed - as NO ONE needs to justify or reveal personal details when the do not wish to]

: You seem to have the same fascination of my qualifications as other apostates do with that of the greatest biblical scholar, Frederick William Franz.

Riiiight. Franz was bright enough to be almost entirely self-taught. Had he not stupidly fallen in with Rutherford, and had he gone on with his studies, he would have done brilliantly. But because he fell in with Rutherford and allowed his mind to be subverted, all his brilliance was for naught. The difference between Franz and you is that Franz could argue competently enough to convince even bright people of nonsense, and Franz never flunked out of a course (although he never completed a full course of study in a regular college). The sameness is that you both argue falsely.

AlanF