Posts by Alleymom

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.

Alleymom

Neil ---

I gave you Dr. Jenni's contact information upthread, in my message #368:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1488196/post.ashx#1488196

I will be responding to Leolaia's presentation of Jenni.s material because it contains nothing that disproves the transaltion 'at' for Jeremiah 29:10 as it is simply a concordance, listing the uses of prepostions. It does not contain any discussion of the translation challenge which is presented to scholars in this instance.

No, it is not merely a concordance. Concordances simply list the verses in which a given word appears, with no further information.

If you look at how the examples are grouped in the pages which Leolaia scanned, you should be able to see, even though you do not read German, that this is more on the order of the lists of examples of lamed arranged by meaning in standard lexicons such as Brown-Driver-Briggs.

Incidentally, have you ever read through the whole entry for the preposition lamed in BDB? It goes on for pages. If you haven't ever given it a careful reading, it occurred to me that you might want to do that before you write to Dr. Jenni. It's j ust a thought, so take it for what it's worth, but it seems to me that if you read the numerous subheadings in BDB, along with the Bible references given under each sub-heading, you might be able to have a more technical conversation with Dr. Jenni.

Edited to add: I don't know if you saw the post where I said my husband has read through all of Jenni's book on the preposition beth. For you to suggest that Jenni's work is akin to a concordance shows that you have a big misunderstanding of the nature of his exhaustive work.

Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

Alleymom to Scholar: it's been my experience that you tend to ignore my questions.

Also, you did not respond to my suggestion that you write to Dr. Jenni and discuss your concerns with him. I was quite serious about that. That's why I took the trouble to look up his mailing address and email address for you. Since you suspect the "apostates" are misrepresenting his scholarship, why not write to him and find out what the real story is.

And, btw, speaking of Dr. Jenni, you have still not acknowledged your error or retracted it. You told Leolaia that Dr. Jenni did not cite Jer. 29:10 in his book on lamed. You were wrong. Leolaia posted scanned images of the actual pages. I think you owe her an apology, Neil, I really do.

Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

There is no need to repeat the point ad nauseum.

I brought it up in February for the first time and haven't discussed it since then. I'm sorry if I belabored the point too much in yesterday's post, but it's been my experience that you tend to ignore my questions.

Yes, the letter as set out in Jeremiah 29 was clearly addressed to those exiles already in Babylon at least some ten years before the Fall of Jerusalem but that does not mean that the seventy years had already began or was in progress. The seventy years could only have begun when the entire nation was in exile and in servitude to Babylon with the land emptied of all inhabitants, desolate for seventy years. This climactice event only began when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.

Jeremiah's letter in chapter 29 simply reminded those exiles and other future exiles that the exile would not finish until seventy years which occurred in 537 BCE. Considering the length time for the exiles, suitable counsel was given for those exiles to sttle down and enjoy their new situation until their eventual release at the ende of the foretold seventy years.

But, Neil, this makes no sense at all.

The exiles in Babylon wanted to know what they should do. The false prophets were telling them that God would deliver them very shortly. Jeremiah told them that it was going to be 70 years (I am leaving aside, for the moment, whether that was 70 years FOR Babylon or AT Babylon.)

They were already in exile. The days of their exile had already begun. You say that Jeremiah's letter reminded them that the exile would not finish for seventy years.

But if the exile had not yet started for these exiled Jews who had already been deported from Jerusalem and were living in Babylon when Jeremiah wrote to them, then it would not be seventy years until their exile ended. It would be seventy years plus however many years they had to wait, in exile, before they could even begin to start counting their period of exile.

You're trying to twist this to say that whenJeremiah wrote his letter to the exiles in Babylon (who needed to know how long they were going to be in captivity and whether they should settle down or expect God's deliverance in the near future), Jeremiah essentially told them that they couldn't even begin to start counting their days of exile yet.

According to your interpretation, what Jeremiah wanted the exiles who were already in Babylon to understand was that they would have to wait until the whole nation went into exile, THEN they could begin counting the days of their exile, and their exile would last for 70 years starting from THEN, whenever THEN was going to be.

The only trouble is, the letter says no such thing. You are twisting and distorting it to make it say that somehow the exiles who were going to be there in Babylon for 80+ years were only allowed to "count" it as 70 years. It sounds like some creative number-crunching to me, fudging the facts, fudging the figures. 70 is 70. 80+ does not equal 70.

I have always understood this chapter to be a chapter of hope and encouragement. The exiles are in great distress, and they don't know who to believe. Jeremiah writes and gives them a definite figure, a date they could count on. It's probably a shock to many of them to hear that it's going to be 70 years, but at least they can now make their plans, and they can teach their children and grandchildren to hope for deliverance at the promised time.

But if they aren't allowed to count the days they have already been in exile, and if Jeremiah doesn't even tell them when they can start counting, then the 70 year figure is meaningless to them.

Remember, the Bible is very clear that Jeremiah did NOT tell them that they could start counting the days of exile at a specified point in the future. He did not say, "When the city of Jerusalem is destroyed ten years from now, then you can start counting the 70 years of exile."

The plain reading of the text is that Jeremiah wrote a letter to the exiles already living in Babylon, telling them that the Lord would deliver them when 70 years had been fulfilled for Babylon.

"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."

You are changing the meaning. The Scripure says "you". The promise is to the exiles who are already in Babylon.

You want to make it mean that the Lord is promising to visit the exiles-of-the-future, the ones who will come to Babylon after Jerusalem is destroyed, and fulfill His good word to them, the exiles-of-the-future.

Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

Scholar to alleymom:

I see nothing that alters my opinion that the NWT is correct in rendering the Hebrew preposition 'le' as 'at' in Jeremiah 29:10 because the context demands it and Hebrew scholarship permits it.

Neil ---

Could we please revisit the point I raised in a post to you in the Babylonian Business Records thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85117/1406816/post.ashx#1406816

Feb. 16, 2005 Neil --- Regarding the 70 years --- You may remember from our previous conversations that I am not an apostate JW. I am a traditional Christian. I love the Lord and turned my life over to him many years ago. I try to serve him each day, and I accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God. As I read your chronology posts, one of the things I keep noticing is that you consistently characterize those who reject the WT's interpretation of the 70 years as "apostates" or "higher critics". You should know from your research that there are many millions of devout Christians (members of conservative Christian churches) who see no contradiction between the Bible and the neo-Babylonian records. The way you present it, a Christian has to choose to believe the Bible or choose to believe secular historians and scholars. That is a false dichotomy. When I read Jeremiah 29, for instance, what I see is a beautiful declaration of God's unswerving love and purpose for his people Israel (and, by extension, for me, a child of God who has been adopted into God's family through faith in Christ Jesus, my Lord.) The exiles in Babylon were distressed and troubled at heart. They wanted to know what they should do. Should they believe the false prophets like Hananiah who were telling the people still in Jerusalem that the bondage would be short-lived, and that the Lord would break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar off the neck of all the nations within two years? Jeremiah wrote them a letter of great comfort, assuring them that God loved them and would fulfill his purpose for them. "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." But he told them not to believe the false prophets and diviners who were prophesying lies in God's name. Jeremiah told the exiles to build houses and settle down, to plant gardens and eat the produce, to marry and have sons and daughters, and to find wives for their sons and give their daughters in marriage so that they, too, might have sons and daughters. He told them this because their exile ---- which had already started --- would last longer than two years. "This is what the LORD says: 'When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.' "

This letter was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem. It was sent to the captives who were already in Babylon. And the seventy years had already started.

Jeremiah does not say, "Soon Jerusalem will be destroyed, and then seventy years after THAT, the Lord will bring you back." No. He is writing to a people who are sick at heart, who are wondering, "How long, O Lord?"

And he tells them to settle down, because the Lord will come to them when seventy years have been completed for Babylon. Now you can argue about whether that means seventy years IN Babylon or seventy years FOR Babylon to oppress the nations.

But the point is that the seventy years have already started. And Jerusalem has not yet been destroyed. So in Jeremiah 29 the terminus a quo for the seventy years is not the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which had not yet taken place.

Blessings,
Marjorie

In your response, you seemed to be saying that I was mistaken because it was Jeremiah who prophesied to the people in Jerusalem, but it was Ezekiel who prophesied to the Jews in Babylon.

However, I pointed out to you that while it was generally the case that Jeremiah prophesied to the people in Jerusalem, the Bible states very clearly at the beginning of Jeremiah 29 that Jeremiah wrote a letter and sent it FROM Jerusalem TO the exiles in Babylon. The Bible even gives the names of the messengers who delivered the letter.

It really doesn't matter whether the preposition lamed means "FOR" or "AT/IN" in Jeremiah 29:10, because the CONTEXT is a letter to the Jews who were ALREADY exiled in Babylon and who wanted to know how long they would have to stay there. Would it be a mere two years, as the false prophets were saying?

Jeremiah tells them to settle down and plant gardens and build houses, etc. because the Lord would come for them when seventy years had been completed for Babylon. It doesn't matter whether the "lamed" means 70 years living IN Babylon or 70 years FOR Babylon to oppress the nations.

The point is that when Jeremiah wrote his letter to the exiles in Babylon the 70 years had ALREADY started, and Jerusalem had NOT YET BEEN DESTROYED.

Marjorie

(edited because I am having trouble with the formatting)

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.

Alleymom

Scholar: I remain highly suspect as to how apostaters are using Jenni's scholarship.

Neil,

I have a very serious suggestion, and I hope you will consider it. Why don't you write to Dr. Jenni and discuss this with him?

Here is his address (obtained from the University of Basel's website, www.unibas.ch):

Prof. Dr. Ernst Jenni (Dozent, emeritiert)
Theologisches Seminar
Nadelberg 10
4051 Basel
Tel. 061/267 29 01

[email protected]

Marjorie

35

14 YEAR OLD JW GIRL NEEDS BLOOD - CAN YOU HELP

by SHUNNED FATHER in

jw
friends

a 14 year old jw girl in vernon, british columbia, canada needs a blood transfusion.

the watchtower society lawyers.

both parents are jw.

Alleymom

Alleymom: what troubles me is the question of what constitutes truly informed consent.

Scully: You're quite right. This is where the WTS, in my professional opinion, does its members a huge disservice. By plying them with propaganda and misinformation for years and years, and promoting a general distrust among JWs of the medical profession, the average JW layperson cannot make a rational decision - and in fact, the decision is often a solely emotional one based in their deepest fear of displeasing Jehovah and losing his favour, and subsequently losing out on their only opportunity to Live Forever In Paradise On EarthTM.
The doctors can only offer statistical odds of risks versus benefits. And to the mind of the average JW, the risk of losing God's FavourTM is 100% if they accept blood, even if the risk of death is 100% if they refuse blood, they still believe they have a 100% chance of being ResurrectedTM.
Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a medical professional who will not be held liable for honouring a patient's expressed wishes to refuse treatment) there is no ethical doctrine of Informed Refusal. Even if a patient is clearly making a decision that is detrimental to them, they have the right to refuse treatment.

Scully --

Sorry for not responding earlier. I just saw your post this morning.

The editorial in the Journal of Medical Ethics was very interesting, in that it took a position in favor of doctors informing their JW patients that dissident members of their own organization have conscientiously accepted blood. The doctor who wrote the editorial said that he intended to make this information available to his own patients.

excerpt from the Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:299-301 Editorial "Refusal of potentially life-saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses: should doctors explain that not all JWs think it's religiously required?" Raanan Gillon Imperial College School of Medicine, London University [...] In summary, this editorial makes the fairly modest proposal that doctors would at least be professionally justified?and some might consider that they were professionally obliged?to ask their Jehovah's Witness patients if they would explain why they rejected potentially life-saving blood transfusions, and to ask them if they would read arguments from members of their own religion?of course currently dissident members?justifying their acceptance of blood from within the belief system of that religion. The editorial considers and rejects counterarguments to these modest proposals. Henceforth the writer intends to act accordingly and to have available in his medical office photocopies at least of "Lee Elder"?s paper in this issue 1 which he will invite his Jehovah's Witness patients to read. Other doctors may wish to consider doing something similar. One final point, ad homines. Jehovah's Witnesses themselves should respect the virtues of these proposed actions, which involve asking people to explain their religious beliefs, asking them to listen to counterarguments, and asking them to read articles promoting alternative religious viewpoints. As a group, JWs are among the most ardent exponents of such an approach, especially on Sunday mornings when they knock at the doors of perfect strangers and ask permission to reason with them, and offer them literature, as part of their endeavour to help these strangers save their immortal souls. Thus of all people JWs should themselves be the last to find it offensive or immoral if their doctors risk offending them when they return the compliment in an effort to save their mortal bodies. It remains possible for all parties to decline either form of attempted salvation.

Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

Leolaia: Would you please explain why you said that Jenni in his book does not cite Jeremiah 29:10 as I claimed, or why you implied that no support exists for Jonsson's position on the rendering "for Babylon" in standard Hebrew works such as Jenni's, or why you said that Jenni is biased against JWs?

Scholar ---
Please answer Leolaia's question.
You told her that Jenni did not cite Jeremiah 29:10. She scanned the pages to show that he did.
Here is what you said to Leolaia in your message #516:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1477624/post.ashx#1477624

Jenni provides no evidence for the use of the preposition le used in Jeremiah 29:10, it is not cited as you claim and I made a typo by saying that he did. I withdraw that mistake and note that he does not cite the text in the material that you have quoted.

Here is the link to the message where Leolaia provided scans of the pages where Jenni did cite Jeremiah 29:10 --

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1480578/post.ashx#1480578

Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

Leolaia: Would you please explain why you said that Jenni in his book does not cite Jeremiah 29:10 as I claimed, or why you implied that no support exists for Jonsson's position on the rendering "for Babylon" in standard Hebrew works such as Jenni's, or why you said that Jenni is biased against JWs?

Leolaia --- Your excellent research certainly deserves a response. Your scans of the pages from Ernst Jenni's book show beyond any doubt that Ernst Jenni did cite Jeremiah 29:10 in his book on the preposition lamed. You even highlighted the relevant lines to make it easier to see. Furthermore, as you pointed out, Jenni cited the same passages Narkissos did. Jenni specifically said that Jeremiah 29:10 reads 70 years FOR Babylon. Since scholar misrepresented Jenni's work, he certainly ought to retract his claim and apologize for his errors. Marjorie

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.

Alleymom

My earlier response remains in respect to your silly game. The answer to your question is simply that whatever the Insight volumes have published on the reigns of the Babylonians stands because that reflects current scholarship and it may or may not conflict with previous information. Whatever the case it shows that fluidity for the Neo-Babylonian period remains. Bible chronology has simply a passing interest in so-called secular evidence for the period but a far greater interest in the biblical evidence.

Scholar ---

I am not playing a silly game. I asked you a simple question, and you have refused to give me a direct answer. What you posted above is still not a direct answer.

The answer to your question is simply that whatever the Insight volumes have published on the reigns of the Babylonians stands because that reflects current scholarship and it may or may not conflict with previous information.

#1 --- It may or may not conflict with previous information? Well, does it or doesn't it? Is there new light or not?
#2 -- If the information in the Insight volumes does conflict with any of the six statements I have listed from the January 1,1965 WT, could you please tell me which statements in that article were in error?
#3 --- And if the information in the 1/1/65 WT is inaccurate, could you please tell me what new archeological information was found between 1965 and the publication of the Insight volumes which led to the Society changing its position as stated in the 1/1/65 WT?
Thank you,
Marjorie Alley

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.

Alleymom

GBL, Toreador, Alan, and Narkissos ---

Many thanks for your thoughtful responses. And also, many thanks for not jumping all over me <wry grin>.

Right after I posted my message, my husband and I went out to dinner, and I told him I wasn't sure if I was out of line to say what I did. But I'm glad I did speak up, because your replies gave me a lot to think about.

One of the things I appreciate about this board is the honesty and straightforwardness so many of you bring to the discussions.

Alan: I will call claimed Christians like scholar pretendus hypocrites when they repeatedly display gross dishonesty. This is not so much for their own good, but for that of onlookers who can see what's true and what's not. If this idiot changes his mind and begins showing honesty, then of course people on this board will welcome him. Sometimes it takes a mighty slap or series of slaps upside the head to wake up a cult member. A number of JWs I've dealt with over the years were much like scholar pretendus, defending the indefensible and refusing to admit even the tiniest problem with Watchtower teaching. They eventually saw the truth, and told me that my sometimes harsh words contributed much to waking them up. Some of them are now my friends.

Gross dishonesty, especially in the use of scholarly references, is one of my own pet peeves, and I've called people on that in my discussions in my regular forum. In my post I talked about using rhetoric such as reduction ad absurdum to make a point, and I can see, from what you said, that you sometimes use "harsh words" deliberately in order to make your point. And the fact that you have had people tell you that your "sometimes harsh words" helped wake them up is a telling point.

Narkissos: The character presently known as scholar strikes me as exceedingly disingenuous. As a result, I have no ambition to convince "him" of anything, and I would not even try to pursue a long argument with "him". When "he" happens to write some nonsense on a subject I happen to know a little about (e.g. Bible translation), I just pick it up and try to make my point. That's all. I'm not bothered that scholar goes unconvinced, because this is part of "his" character.
Now if the person who hides behind "scholar" gets tired of this lousy character someday and comes out with a different (I mean, just intellectually honest) character, I'm sure he'll be fully welcome. He would not be the first one here switching from apologist to honest (even if that should mean apostate). If he doesn't want to take the risk he can close his "scholar" account and register under another alias (the administrators would know but I'm sure they would not "out" him).

Very interesting. This idea of the role playing makes a lot of sense to me. And I feel that I understand you better now --- you are not trying to convince "scholar," you're just responding to points. Actually, it helps me understand something about myself, too: I have always felt very uncomfortable addressing Scholar as"Scholar"; I would prefer to call him Neil. I guess I think of the real "him" as Neil. The character known as "scholar" really is just a persona.

Toreador: Scholar does have a way of rubbing a person the wrong way when he will not answer direct questions when asked and keeps coming back with points discussed many times before and answered. He is a master at evading questions and making ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the facts.

Yep, he sure does <s>. I've been around the mulberry bush a few times with him in the past, and the evasions do get tiresome.

GBL: Not to sound at all condecending considering your intimdating knowledge of what you talk about but when you've been a part of all those lies, when you've been a Witness and you've waded in the hypocracy.. we know what he's up to and we take it personally.

<nodding my head> That's one of the things I said to my husband at dinner. Even though I've been involved in talking to JW's for about 15 years now, I'm still an outsider looking in, so, for me, it's still sort of academic. OTOH, I've become close to some of you and have heard enough of the horror stories, that I can really understand why you take it personally. That makes a lot of sense to me.

What I'm getting from all of your responses is that, from your firsthand knowledge, you see this guy as dangerous, and your first concern is to address the falsehood.

Thanks for your patience in explaining.

Marjorie