i am seeking information regarding the rendering of jer 33:11.. the nwt renders the opening of that verse: "in this place that you people will be saying is waste ... ".
whereas the niv renders: "you say about this place, 'it is a desolate place ... '".. which rendering is correct?.
do the mt, lxx and other sources agree?.
I am so deeply indebted to you all for your expertise and for your freely given help and advice. Thank you.
I note with interest that Albertz sees the LXX of Jer 33 "represents a more ancient tradition". I understand he means the LXX represents more reliably the ancient ("original") Hebrew text.
Doug
i am seeking information regarding the rendering of jer 33:11.. the nwt renders the opening of that verse: "in this place that you people will be saying is waste ... ".
whereas the niv renders: "you say about this place, 'it is a desolate place ... '".. which rendering is correct?.
do the mt, lxx and other sources agree?.
Apologies! apologies.
I did mean Jer 33:10 and not Jer 33:11.
Doug
i am seeking information regarding the rendering of jer 33:11.. the nwt renders the opening of that verse: "in this place that you people will be saying is waste ... ".
whereas the niv renders: "you say about this place, 'it is a desolate place ... '".. which rendering is correct?.
do the mt, lxx and other sources agree?.
Tammy, thank you.
The NWT says the people will be saying certain things whereas the NIV says they are already saying those things.
Renderings at that site exhibit a similar divergence.
Is the reason grammatical, use of variant sources, eisegetical or exegetical? Were the people speaking of their own time, or proleptically? Were they using hyperbole? Is the text so loosely phrased that it is not possible to know what was originally intended?
Doug
i am seeking information regarding the rendering of jer 33:11.. the nwt renders the opening of that verse: "in this place that you people will be saying is waste ... ".
whereas the niv renders: "you say about this place, 'it is a desolate place ... '".. which rendering is correct?.
do the mt, lxx and other sources agree?.
I am seeking information regarding the rendering of Jer 33:11.
The NWT renders the opening of that verse: "In this place that you people will be saying is waste ... "
whereas the NIV renders: "You say about this place, 'It is a desolate place ... '".
Which rendering is correct?
Do the MT, LXX and other sources agree?
Thanks,
Doug
came across this debate regarding noah's ark & the flood!.
iam doing research on this subject and found it to be very interesting!.
it is quite long but if you are interested in the science behind the study .... it is not long enough!.
Since you are conducting research, this will take your interest:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Two_Flood_Stories.pdf
In your search, I presume you are including the flood stories of the surrounding nations.
Doug
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
Knowsnothing,
Thank you for pointing me to that interesting thread. I will keep it as a PDF.
Yes, EL was the supreme god while YHWH was one of his underlings. When the Israelites adopted the warlike angry YHWH they gave him the loving creator qualities of El, along with EL's wife Asherah (mother of Baal).
One of the excellent books I own relative to that subject is: "Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan", John Day.
But back to Biblical Criticism (analysis, study), which is the subject of this Thread.
I just received a most valuable book that I recently ordered: "Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century BCE", Rainer Albertz.
Doug
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
A developing hypothesis bouncing around inside my cranium might provide reasons why the Higher Criticism causes mental hernia for the WTS.
The WTS reads meaning into the text (eisegesis) rather than extracting meaning from it (exegesis). The WTS starts with a concluding statement and then claims scriptural statements without consideration of due context as support for their statement.
From Wikipedia:
Eisegesis is the process of misinterpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. ... Eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text.
Exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.
Higher Criticism seeks to understand the culture that produced a piece of Scripture. It says that the material refers to that community. The WTS, however says Scriptures actually refer to the WTS and to its times. For example, when Jesus says, “this generation” the writer is referring to the generation that was living at that time but the WTS sees these words as speaking of people living during the 20th and 21st centuries. In another example: when ancient Israel/Judah was righteous before God, the WTS says they were symbols of the WTS but when these same people were evil they symbolise modern Christendom. This methodology is heightened in the WTS’s use of the apocalyptic literature.
My hypothesis, and it requires testing, includes the thought that while Higher Criticism seeks to climb into the minds of the cultures that produced a writing, that the WTS employs Pesher.
The DSS community (also an end-times community) employed pesher, in which secret meanings were revealed to and through The Teacher: “Their aim is to read historical and eschatological events into the biblical prophecies, understanding them as describing their own sect's situation on the verge of the eschaton.” ( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15650.html )
I see pesher as diametrically opposed to the concepts of Biblical study and analysis that is promoted by Higher Criticism, Lower Criticism, etc.
Doug
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
Hi Barry,
I was an SDA for about 16 years until 1980 - a long time ago.
Never aligned with anyone since, although I did read GNU for a short while after that.
I am free.
Doug
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
Dear Knowsnothing,
Each of the first four OT books (Gen-Num) is a skilful collation of writings produced by identifiable groups. The collation was produced some time after the Babylonian Captivity ended. At times, the collator (possibly Ezra? speculation) intertwined the separate narratives into a single account. A clear example of this is in the Flood story, which knits together two distinct and separate threads.
http://www.jwstudies.com/Two_Flood_Stories.pdf (displays the two flood sources: J and P -- the same two sources for the two Creation stories).
I strongly suggest you read books such as "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Friedman. If you want to see it more clearly, Friedman has a companion book: "The Bible with Sources Revealed".
Writing came into vogue as a means of communication several centuries after the Moses event. Even then it was adopted by only a small group of the elite; so what Scriptures you read are their views.
Broadly speaking, chapters 2 to 7 of Daniel are in Aramaic, the rest is in Hebrew. There are also differences between the MT (Hebrew) and the LXX (Greek). Further, the version and application of Dan 9 used by the WTS is based on the text by Theodotian. See my note at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_GM_on_Daniel_9.pdf
A book that applies literary criticism to a comparison of the MT and the LXX of Daniel is: "Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison", by T. J. Meadowcroft.
Today it is widely accepted that Daniel was compiled during the 2nd century BCE, some 400 years after the neo-Babylonian period.
I did not include Deuteronomy in the above list since that is not a compilation of writings by those priest/scribes I mentioned. The origins of Deuteronomy lie with the scroll "discovered" by priests at the time of Josiah and it was further worked on during the neo-Babylonian period. The priests created it to enforce their religious practices, not a record of something that had really happened in the past. (They always wrote history with their eyes firmly fixed on the present. History was written to shape the present). It is likely that Baruch (Jeremiah's scribe) played a big role in producing Deuteronomy. At the same time, they wrote their history, for obvious purposes, extending Deuteronomy through Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings. The Chronicler wrote Chronicles some centuries after the neo-Babylonian period.
Bible study is far more exciting and challenging that any spoon feeding from the WTS.
Doug
what is it about higher criticism that petrifies the watchtower?
what are they trying to hide?.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/higher%20criticism.
Knowsnothing,
Every single element of the Scriptures is subject to criticism (analysis).
For example, literary analysis could be used to determine which of the Psalms would really have been written by or for King David. It could also be used to help determine whether Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE (400 years after the neo-Babylonian period). As you know, Daniel is written in two different languages, which poses interesting questions.
Doug
