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

Response to Scholar's post 568 to Alleymom:

There is only one period of seventy years referred to by Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. This period was of exile, desolation of the land, servitude to Babylon. a period of mourning and denunuciation. It began in 607BCE and finished in 537BCE.

Neil,

But in your post 566 you referred to a "seventy year period of mourning."

This seventy year period of exile was a constant reminder of the contemporaneous desolation of their homeland and was memorialized by a seventy year period of mourning as demonstrated by the annual fastings.

You refer to TWO 70-year periods: a 70-year period of exile and a 70-year period of mourning.

These cannot be identical, because the 70-year period of exile ended in 537 when the Jews returned home to Jerusalem, right?

But when did the 70-year period of mourning end? The 70-year period of mourning which you mentioned in post 566 was still ongoing in Zechariah 1:12. The people had been back home in Jerusalem for almost 20 years, ever since 537, and they were STILL fasting. They wanted to know if they could STOP fasting.

So according to what you said in post 566 , there were at least two 70-year periods: a 70-year period of exile which ended in 537 and a 70-year period of mourning which started when the temple was destroyed and which was still ongoing in the year 519 according to Zech. 1:12.

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

Toreador

Response to post 624

: I think I may be getting confused by all this.

Here's what's at issue in the question about Zechariah. Pretend you are back in junior high and your history class is putting up a giant timeline on the back wall of the classroom.

Both conservative and critical Christian scholars as well as Jewish scholars such as Eliezer Shulman are working with several 7-inch-long strips of colored construction paper indicating various seventy-year periods. They are taping these strips of paper over the timeline.

Scholar only has one 7-inch strip of paper, indicating one and only one 70-year period. And he is having trouble, because if he tapes the right-hand end of his strip of paper at the year 537, when he says the Jews returned to Jerusalem, then he has nothing left to put over the years of fasting and mourning being spoken of in Zechariah.

According to Zechariah AND according to the Paradise Restored to Mankind book, there was a seventy year which starts at the Fall of Jerusalem and continues "right up to the time of 519 BCE."

Last night in My post 443 on page 14 of this thread I pointed out to Scholar that Zechariah indicates the fasts are ongoing. Even though the exiles have been back home in Jerusalem since at least 537, they are still having annual fasts.

Zech 1.12 -- the second year of Darius. "O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which Thou hast been indignant THESE seventy years?" [Hebrew has singular "this"]

Zech 7:5 --- the 4th year of King Darius. "When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months THESE seventy years" [Heb. has sing. "this"]

Note that the word is THESE, not THOSE. [Literally, in the Hebrew, THIS, not THAT.]

"THESE/THIS" indicates that the particular seventy year period being spoken of in Zechariah is an ongoing period. It is NOT a seventy-year period which CEASED some twenty years ago in 537.

In Alan's post 4076 he wrote to Scholar:

First, your claim here shows that you agree with the statement in the Paradise Restored book that the Bethelites raised the question, not of whether they should begin again a fast that they had left off 20 years earlier, but whether they should "continue to hold such a fast".

Second, the Society directly states that the Bethelites "had been celebrating" that fast, namely, were continuing to hold it. Third, if the Bethelites were continuing to celebrate the fast in 518 B.C., and they commenced that fast in 607 B.C., then the time period of fasting was obviously 90 years, counting inclusively. But that contradicts the direct statement in Zech. 7:5, namely, that the fasting lasted 70 years.

In order to cover the period of continued fasting in Zechariah, Scholar either needs a longer strip of paper, since his strip ends at 537 BCE, or he needs to have more than one strip of paper, like all the rest of the students. He can't have a longer strip of paper, because the Bible clearly talks about "70 years" not "90 years" of fasts, as Alan pointed out above.

It turns out that even the WTS has two strips of paper. According to the Paradise Restored to Mankind book there was a 70-year period of annual fasts which starts at the Fall of Jerusalem and continues "right up to the time of 519 BCE."

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

Narkissos noted that: Scholar just wrote:

The publication Paradise Restored to Mankind- clearly sets out the many fasts which the exiles commemorated annually during the seventy years from the Fall of Jerusalem right up to the time of 519 BCE.

Scholar ALSO just wrote:

Your claim that the FDS teaches that there are two 'seventy year' periods is hysterical. ... this sole seventy year period could only have begun after the Fall of Jerusalem

... Because the now returned exiles were continuously fasting does not prove that there was another seventy year period independent of Jeremialh's seventy years.

And then he promptly goes on to name TWO seventy year periods!

#1 --- "This seventy year period of exile "

#2 --- " a seventy year period of mourning as demonstrated by the annual fastings."

Neil, if the idea of two seventy year periods is "hysterical," then how come you yourself just identified TWO seventy year periods??? A seventy year period of exile AND a seventy year period of mourning.

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 Narkissos:

The prohet Zechariah wrote concerning the delay in rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonians which event led to the exile and desolation of the Judah. Even though the exiles had now returned home some twenty years, the temple was not yet completed so the angel brought a message of comfort reminding them of the fact that temple and its cities or the land of Judah had been denounced these seventy years. [emphasis added]

Neil ---

I hope to get to your other messages tomorrow, but let me address this one now.

The WTS says that the year 537 marked the end of what they see as the one and only 70-year period. Other Bible scholars, both Jewish and Christian, have understood the Bible to be speaking of different 70 -year periods of "servitude," "captivity," "desolation" ( as shown, for instance, in the charts of the book you recommended a few years ago by Eliezer Shulman.) Some, like Narkissos, would say that the Bible itself shows a change in understanding of what the original 70-year prophecy signified.

But if you believe, as the WTS does, that there was one and only one 70-year period, which ended in 537, then there is no way at all to fit the passages in Zechariah into your chronological scheme. Because, as you yourself have pointed out in the quote shown in the box above, the exiles had been back home in Jerusalem some twenty years when the events of Zechariah take place.

Zech 1.12 -- the second year of Darius.
"O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which Thou hast been indignant THESE seventy years?" [Hebrew has singular "this"]

Zech 7:5 --- the 4th year of King Darius
"When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months THESE seventy years" [Heb. has sing. "this"]

Note that the word is THESE, not THOSE. [Literally, in the Hebrew, THIS, not THAT.]

"THESE/THIS" indicates that the particular seventy year period being spoken of in Zechariah is an ongoing period. It is NOT a seventy-year period which CEASED some twenty years ago in 537.

This is the same problem that you had with Jeremiah 29:10, only there you want to say that the seventy-year period which is being spoken of is not going to START until ten years in the FUTURE. Here in Zechariah you want to say that the seventy-year period ENDED some twenty years in the PAST.

And since the WTS insists that there is one and only one seventy-year period (rather than separate periods of servitude, captivity, desolations) there is absolutely no way you can reconcile this inconsistency.

Others, who accept that there are different seventy-year periods being spoken of (or who suggest, as Narkissos has done, that the interpretation in the Bible itself changed over time) have no problem at all with Zechariah.

Page 143 of the book of chronological charts you recommended by Eliezer Shulman, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, shows several different 70-year periods. Shulman shows 70 years from the "Destruction of the Temple" to the "Building of the Temple." He also shows "70 years of the kingdom of Babylon," "70 years of the Babylon exile," and "51 years from the destruction of the Temple until the end of the kingdom of Babylon."

Biblical scholars who adhere to a conservative view of the Scriptures have no problem with the "THESE 70 years" of Zechariah, because they understand there to have been a 70-year period between the destruction of the temple in 586 and its restoration under Darius in 516.

This is thoroughly addressed by Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) in two books which I read many years ago: Daniel in the Critics' Den, and The Coming Prince. Note that this conservative Christian was writing long before Carl Olof Jonsson or Dr. Ernst Jenni.

Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

There have been some significant additions to the sister thread at:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/13.ashx

Of particular interest:

--- Narkissos has provided a summary of the article Dr. Jenni wrote on Jer. 3:17.

--- Alan has posted a copy of an email from Carl O. Jonsson along with Jonsson's translation of an article on Jer. 29:10 by a French scholar, Emile Nicole.

Both of these posts contain information from foreign language academic journals which would not be easily accessible to most readers on this board.

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

I just read Jenni's article « Jer 3, 17 ,,nach Jerusalem" : ein Aramaismus » (ZAH 1/1 1988). Although it doesn't touch on Jeremiah 29:10 (which is not even suspect of being a directional locative to him, not to mention a static locative) it does make a number of interesting points which have some indirect bearing on the subject being discussed. I will try to summarise some of them:

Narkissos ---

Many thanks for taking the time to summarize this article for those who do not read German.

As a consequence, le- in ancient Hebrew is never by itself locative. It indicates a more generic relation, which only looks like a locative as a result of the expression it is a part of.

But the use of the preposition le- completely changes in later works (Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) and becomes an independent directional (still not static) locative. This is apparent, for instance, from the way the older min / 'el (from / to) in 1 Kings 9:24 ("from the city of David to her own house") becomes min / le- in the rewriting of 2 Chronicles 8:11. Very probably this new Hebrew usage, which coexists with older directional locative prepositions, results from the influence of Aramaic (e.g. Ezra 4:12,23; 5:8,12,14; 6:5; 7.13).

This is in complete agreement with the statement of Prof. Emile Nicole which Alan posted. (You should write to Prof. Nicole and tell him about this thread. I am sure he would love to hear from you, Nark!)

Alan ---

I very much appreciated having the chance to read Prof. Nicole's comments. Thank you (and COJ) for providing them.

Prof. Nicole, writing in Bulletin du Club des Hebraisants, Vol. 16 (1999), No.2:

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".

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

Almost every rule is violable, which is why I said it can never be proven that a rule applies 100% of the time. But that doesn't mean that it's anything goes, and you can willy-nilly translate any way you want because nothing prevents the rendering 100%. As I noted before in post #4275 , this assumes a completely inappropriate burden of proof: "The job of the linguist or philologist is to determine the most probable sense of a given word or phrase, not to insist on the least probable sense if the most probable one cannot be established with 100% certainty".

That is why Jenni's work is a descriptive grammar, documenting the known patterns of constructions in Hebrew that comprise the given word's usage.

Leolaia ---

Another excellent post. Scholar is apparently searching (in vain) for a prescriptive grammar which would clearly rule out the possibility of "at" or "in" Babylon.

On the other hand, Alleymom, Narkissos, and I have presented many examples that clearly should be rendered as "for, belonging to, with respect to", e.g. with a quasi-possessive, benefactive, and/or dative sense. This is the decisive issue, because this evidence would show whether the NWT rendering is improbable or whether the "FOR Babylon" rendering (which is adopted by almost every modern translation except those influenced by the AV) is most probable.

I thought that was worth highlighting.

Neil wants to disregard the primary evidence of the thousands of dated cuneiform tablets which establish the chronology of the 6th century BCE and hang everything on the WTS's translation of one Hebrew preposition. Their translation of this preposition is not supported by modern scholars (Neil has acknowledged this). By accepting the NWT translation of this preposition, he disregards the fact that this interpretation requires that the letter from Jeremiah is being addressed to the exiles-of-the-future, not to the exiles who are already there (and he also disregards the NWT rendition of 29:4, "I HAVE caused," not "I WILL cause.") Finally, he disregards the implications of all the other scriptures which have been cited by Alan so many times.

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

Marjorie:

But, once again, no matter how literal any translation is, it remains a translation. You simple cannot expect to peer dimly into a translation and examine the nuances of the receptor language's syntax and successfully discern the morphology of the parent language.

Neil ---

The NWT (and other translations) do not always render a particular Hebrew form or phrase the same way in each verse in which it occurs. You seem to think that because the NWT renders mel'oth differently in Lev. 25:30 and in Jer. 29:10, there must be some subtle difference in meaning in the Hebrew verb in these verses.

You should consider the fact that in the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs, the NWT renders it in a variety of ways.

I am going to list the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs. Please note that in every one of these verses mel'oth is a qal infinitve construct.

7 verses have the word mel'oth with no additional conjunction or preposition attached.
2 verses have the conjunction "waw" affixed to mel'oth.
3 verses have the preposition "k" affixed to mel'oth.
1 verse has the preposition "b" affixed to mel'oth.

Note that the differences in translation occur even within these groups. In the first group, for instance, compare Dan. 10:3 "the completing of the three full weeks" and Lev. 12:4 "the fulfilling of the days of her purification."

7 verses with mel'oth --- Qal infinitive construct
NWT renderings:
--- of fulfilling
--- the fulfilling
--- has come to the full --- come to the full
--- the completing

Leviticus 8:33 NWT
And YOU must not go out from the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the day of fulfilling the days of YOUR installation, because it will take seven days to fill YOUR hand with power. Leviticus 12:4 NWT
For thirty-three days more she will stay in the blood of purification. She should not touch any holy thing, and she should not come into the holy place until the fulfilling of the days of her purification.
Leviticus 25:30 NWT
But if it should not be bought back before the complete year has come to the full for him, the house that is in the city that has a wall must also stand in perpetuity as the property of its purchaser during his generations. It should not go out in the Jubilee. Jeremiah 29:10 NWT
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." Numbers 6:5 NWT
All the days of the vow of his Naziriteship no razor should pass over his head; until the days that he should be separated to Jehovah come to the full, he should prove holy by letting the locks of the hair of his head grow. Numbers 6:13 NWT
"Now this is the law about the Naz´i·rite: On the day that the days of his Naziriteship come to the full, he will be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting. Daniel 10:3 NWT
Dainty bread I did not eat, and no flesh or wine entered into my mouth, and in no way did I grease myself until the completing of the three full weeks.

uvimel'oth - Conunction waw attached to Qal infinitive construct

NWT renderings:
--- then at the fulfilling
--- and when [ ] had come to the full

Leviticus 12:6 NWT

Then at the fulfilling of the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest. Esther 1:5 NWT And when these days had come to the full , the king held a banquet for seven days for all the people that were found in Shu´shan the castle, for the great as well as the small, in the courtyard of the garden of the king's palace.
kimel'oth -- Preposition k + Qal infinitive construct

NWT renderings:
--- as soon as [ ] were full
--- that when [seventy years] have been fulfilled
--- as soon as [the days of the siege] have come to the full

2 Kings 4:6 NWT
And it came about that

as soon as the vessels were full she went on to say to her son: "Do bring still another vessel near to me." But he said to her: "There is no other vessel." At that the oil stopped. Jeremiah 25:12 NWT " '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, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.'

Ezekiel 5:2 NWT

A third you will burn in the very fire in the midst of the city as soon

as the days of the siege have come to the full. And you must take another third. You will strike [it] with the sword all around her, and the [last] third you will scatter to the wind, and I shall draw out a sword itself after them.

bimel'oth -- preposition beth attached to Qal infinitive construct

NWT rendering:
while [his plenty] is at its peak

Job 20:22 NWT

While his plenty is at its peak he will be feeling anxious;
All the power of misfortune itself will come against him.

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

Marjorie:

But, once again, no matter how literal any translation is, it remains a translation. You simple cannot expect to peer dimly into a translation and examine the nuances of the receptor language's syntax and successfully discern the morphology of the parent language.

Neil ---

The NWT (and other translations) do not always render a particular Hebrew form or phrase the same way in each verse in which it occurs. You seem to think that because the NWT renders mel'oth differently in Lev. 25:30 and in Jer. 29:10, there must be some subtle difference in meaning in the Hebrew verb in these verses.

You should consider the fact that in the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs, the NWT renders it in a variety of ways in order to make for a smooth(er) English translation.

I am going to list the 13 verses in which mel'oth occurs. Please note that in every one of these verses mel'oth is a qal infinitve construct.

7 verses have the word mel'oth with no additional conjunction or preposition attached.
2 verses have the conjunction "waw" affixed to mel'oth.
3 verses have the preposition "k" affixed to mel'oth.
1 verse has the preposition "b" affixed to mel'oth.

Note that the differences in translation occur even within these groups.

7 verses with mel?oth ? Qal infinitive construct
NWT renderings: the fulfilling, the completing, has come to the full, come to the full

Leviticus 8:33 NWT
And YOU must not go out from the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the day of fulfilling the days of YOUR installation, because it will take seven days to fill YOUR hand with power. Leviticus 12:4 NWT
For thirty-three days more she will stay in the blood of purification. She should not touch any holy thing, and she should not come into the holy place until the fulfilling of the days of her purification.
Leviticus 25:30 NWT
But if it should not be bought back before the complete year has come to the full for him, the house that is in the city that has a wall must also stand in perpetuity as the property of its purchaser during his generations. It should not go out in the Jubilee. Jeremiah 29:10 NWT
"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.? Numbers 6:5 NWT
"?All the days of the vow of his Naziriteship no razor should pass over his head; until the days that he should be separated to Jehovah come to the full, he should prove holy by letting the locks of the hair of his head grow. Numbers 6:13 NWT
"?Now this is the law about the Naz´i·rite: On the day that the days of his Naziriteship come to the full, he will be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting. Daniel 10:3 NWT
Dainty bread I did not eat, and no flesh or wine entered into my mouth, and in no way did I grease myself until the completing of the three full weeks.

uvimeloth - Conunction waw attached to Qal infinitive construct

NWT renderings: and when [ ] are completed, then at the fulfilling, and when [ ] had come to the full

Lev. 12:6 NASB
And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting, a one year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.

Leviticus 12:6 NWT

Then at the fulfilling of the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest. Esther 1:5 NWT And when these days had come to the full , the king held a banquet for seven days for all the people that were found in Shu´shan the castle, for the great as well as the small, in the courtyard of the garden of the king?s palace.
kimel?oth -- Preposition k + Qal infinitive construct

2 Kings 4:6 NWT
And it came about that

as soon as the vessels were full she went on to say to her son: "Do bring still another vessel near to me." But he said to her: "There is no other vessel." At that the oil stopped. Jeremiah 25:12 NWT "?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, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.

Ezekiel 5:2 NWT

A third you will burn in the very fire in the midst of the city as soon

as the days of the siege have come to the full. And you must take another third. You will strike [it] with the sword all around her, and the [last] third you will scatter to the wind, and I shall draw out a sword itself after them.

bimel?oth -- preposition beth attached to Qal infinitive construct

Job 20:22 NWT

While his plenty is at its peak he will be feeling anxious;
All the power of misfortune itself will come against him.

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

Well what is your year for the beginning of the seventy years? You have implied by your recent postings that the seventy yeras began at the time of the first exile but in fact that time was the first time in writing to the first exiles that Jeremiah prophesied that the exiles in Babylon wouls remain there for seventy years.

Neil ---

No, I haven't implied that; you have erroneously inferred it. As I told you in my message #435, "You have misunderstood and misrepresented my view of the seventy years in Jer. 29:10."

You have said that the " 70 years" in the letter quoted in Jer. 29:10 refers to a period of exile which will take place "at Babylon" beginning about ten years in the future, when Jerusalem would be destroyed. According to you, the 70 year period has not yet started when the letter is sent to the exiles in Babylon. You see it as something which will start in the future. My point is that the "70 years" have already started at the time when this letter is sent to the exiles who are already in Babylon.

You ask me, "Well what is your year for the beginning of the seventy years?" Neil, one does not need to know when the 70 years started in order to recognize that they have already started. The promise of the Lord is addressed to the exiles. If you want the 70 years to be a period of "exile" rather than a period of "servitude" then you are stuck with the fact that the exile has already started.

The NWT says:

Jer 29:4 " This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people,
whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon"

According to the NWT, Jehovah has already caused them to go into exile. It says "whom I HAVE CAUSED to go into exile." It does NOT say "whom I WILL CAUSE to go into exile."

You have repeatedly said that you consider the NWT to be a brilliant and literal translation. You persist in doing word studies and exegesis based on the nuances you think you discern in the particular phrasing of the NWT translation.

Why do you disregard the NWT's rendering of Jer. 29:4 which plainly says that Jehovah has already caused them to go into exile? How do you explain the rendering "whom I HAVE caused" when you you interpret the passage to mean "whom I WILL cause"?

Yes, it would be nice to do a course in Biblical Hebrew as my learned friend has done but the NWT really makes such an endeavour a luxury that I can ill afford at this time. Afterall, is not the NWT a very literal translation of Hebrew and Greek and is highly praised for its scholarship.

I'm not touching the bit about "highly praised for its scholarship" --- that's an entirely different topic, which has been covered many times on this board.

But, once again, no matter how literal any translation is, it remains a translation. You simple cannot expect to peer dimly into a translation and examine the nuances of the receptor language's syntax and successfully discern the morphology of the parent language. With no knowledge of the parent language, you can sift the receptor language all day long and be no better off than a pagan sifting the entrails of a sheep in a vain attempt to read the omens.

I don't think the study of Hebrew and Greek is a "luxury" for scholars; it is an absolute necessity. Laypeople can learn to use scholarly helps and they can also compare many different translations, but no true scholar would attempt exegesis based on a translation.

I think the very fact that it is I that has brought to the attention to all including my learned friend Shearman that the NWT has translated the infinitive differently so any linguistic discussion based upon a the common rendering may well be compromised. So, I think I am on top of the

subject, meloth is exactly the same as Leviticus 25:30 and Jeremiah 29:10 as to its form but is translated differently. Agree?

If you mean that meloth in these two verses MUST be translated differently, then no, no. I emphatically do NOT agree. The forms are identical. They are both Qal infinitve constructs. There is not some "hidden" difference in the Hebrew verbs which the NWT is trying to bring out by varying their rendition.

You seem to ascribe almost magical powers to the NWT translators, as if every word they wrote must be full of some arcane meaning which can be accurately discerned by those who are willing to diligently compare how identical words are rendered in different verses. This reminds me of the error of the "KJV-only" camp, which seemingly ascribes more inspiration to the translation than to the actual Hebrew and Greek text.

Also, Narkissos and Leolaia have not based their linguistic discussions on a common RENDERING. They have referred to identical forms in the Hebrew text itself. Their excellent and thorough discussions have been based on the Hebrew, NOT the English.

Because you are persistently trying to read more into the English rendering than is really there, you have made some egregious errors, particularly when you have made pronouncements about certain verses having the preposition lamed when lamed is not even there.

How would studying Hebrew be a "luxury"? Would it cost too much? You seem to purchase very expensive scholarly books for your personal study. Can you not afford to purchase some elementary Hebrew grammars or CD's? You should be able to obtain what you need from the library. If you cannot afford the tuition for a university level course, you could probably make arrangements to attend a Hebrew program at your local synagogue. Wouldn't your close friend who knows Hebrew so well be willing to help you get started?

Marjorie