Posts by Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

So, a summary of FTF's arguments:

There is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute to the nation of Babylon in 609 B.C., thus Jonnson's hypothesis does not meet the burden of proof. it is documented that many nations had to pay the Babylonians quite heavy spoils in Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4
The challenge to anyone who said "among the nations" means something other than it says: please provide a translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations". It is demonstrated by C.O.Jonsson in a long footnote on page 195, that the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective. The context of the quotes FTF uses disprove his very argument. There is most certainly no reason at all to reject the Masoretic Text and use the LXX instead, unless you collect errors. Furthermore, the Insight book concurs with C.O.Jonsson on this point.
There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations. The 70 years in Jeremiah 25 specifically refers in the verses to Babylon, and its period as regional superpower, and not to the exact lenght of Judah's servitude. the very Fact this point is brought up, shows FTF does not understand what he reads, or does not want to understand what he reads in Jeremiah 25:11, 12
The perfect mood not being indicative of a continual action from the past continuing into the future, thus signifying the servitude had not yet begun by 605 B.C. in view of point 2 and 3 above, considering what shady reasonings and faulty translations you are willing to abuse to score a point, to find the exact limits in the verbal conjugaison that Jeremiah might have used in Jeremiah 25:11, 12 is a very weak foundation to build any conclusion upon.

FTF thank you for showing to the many lurkers how dishonest your reasonings are.

PS: apologies for my earlier double post.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", that there is no record of any nation paying tribute to the Babylonians, is easily debunked with Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4, describing the last few years of Nabopallassars reign. A picture of the chronicle is below.

It reads:

1 The eighteenth year of Nabopolassar(608/607): In the month Ulûlu the king of Akkad (Akkad=Babylon) mustered his army and

2 following the bank of the Tigris to the mountains of Bit-Hanunya

3 in the district of Urartu, he went up. He set fire to the cities and

4 plundered them extensively. In the month Tebêtu the king of Akkad went home.

5 The nineteenth year(607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

6 Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince,

7 mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...].

8 The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu.

9 After his departure, Nebuchadnezzar did battle at Biranati, situated in the mountains,

10 captured Biranati, set it on fire, and took many prisoners.

11 He conquered all of the mountains as far as the district of Urartu.

12 In the month Ulûlu the prince returned to Babylon. In the month Tašrîtu the king of Akkad mustered his army and

13 marched to Kimuhu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

14 He crossed the river, did battle against the city, and in the month Kislîmu he captured the city.

15 He sacked it and stationed a garrison of his in it. In the month Šabatu he went home.

16 The twentieth year(606/605): The army of Egypt marched [17] against the garrison of Kimuhu

17 which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. For four months,

18 they laid siege to the city, captured it, and defeated the garrison of the king of Akkad.

19 In the month Tašrîtu, the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates, and

20 pitched camp in Quramatu, which is on the bank of the Euphrates.

21 He had his army cross the Euphrates and they captured [22] Šunadiri, Elammu,

22 and Dahammu, cities of Syria,

23 and plundered them. In the month Šabatu the king of Akkad went home.

24 The army of Egypt, which was in Karchemiš, crossed the Euphrates and

25 against the army of Akkad, which was camped in Quramatu,

26 it marched. They pushed the army of Akkad back so that they withdrew.

27 The twenty-first year(605/604): The king of Akkad stayed home while Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son

28 and crown prince, mustered the army of Akkad.

Babylonian Chronicle nr. 4 clearly demonstrates that Babylon (or Akkad in the Chronicle) took the spoil of a lot of cities in the period between 609 and 605 BCE, and that during the reign of Nabopalassar, prior to battle of Carcemish and Nebuchadnezzar ascension on the throne in 605. It can also be added that Nabopalassar had already made alliances with quite a few other nations to defeat the many Assyrian strongholds, Cyaxares, the Median King, and the Scythians are specifically mentioned. It is beyond any doubt that Babylon was the dominating partner in all these alliances.

FTF's so-called "the most basic argument", is proven to hold no ground whatsoever, and FTF dishonest reasonings are again exposed.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

FTF,

- your point trying to make the meaning of Jer 25 dependent on Dan 9 and 2 Chron 36 was debunked, more than once. Too bad you don't want to see it.

- Your idea to use LXX to validate a so called servitude point was debunked too. C.O.Jonsson rightly demonstrated in a page long footnote LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25 is defective, a point on which the society agrees with him. Too bad you cannot see that either.

Other than that it was also demonstrated you willfully misrepresented what was written by C.O.Jonsson concerning Jer 25, hence an honest debate with you is not possible. You are not able to Face the Facts, but driven by an agenda we all know too well already, employing the usual tactics. We thank you though for exposing the fallacies of your reasonings to the many lurkers and newbies. It might help quite a few to wake up.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

Sorry mate, I don't debate with liars.

I have proven enough.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

You want to really know it, don't you. Let us, to demonstrate FTF's points hold no ground, and thereby also show FTF's dishonesty, provide the entire footnote 8 of C.O.Jonssons book, instead of the selections FTF made, and it shows that the conclusion based upon the LXX rendering of Jer 25 is plain incorrect, as it is a "defective translation" (society's own words in the Insight book):

"The quotation is from The New World Translation (NW), which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). The Greek Septuagint version (LXX) says: “and they will serve among the nations,” instead of: “and these nations wil1 have to serve the king of Babylon.” In Jeremiah 25:1–12 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are omitted. There are many differences between Jer-MT and Jer-LXX. Jer-LXX is about one-seventh shorter than Jer-MT, which contains 3,097 more words than Jer-LXX. A number of modem scholars hold that Jer-LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that was earlier than the text tradition represented by Jer-MT, arguing that Jer-MT represents a later revision and expansion of the original text, either by Jeremiah himself, his scribe Baruch, or some later editor(s). Thus, with respect to Jeremiah’s prediction that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would attack and destroy the kingdom of Judah, these scholars often find it difficult to believe that Jeremiah was able to give such concrete and specific forecasts. They find it easier to accept the more general and vague wordings of the Jer-LXX as representing the original prediction, with all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar being left out. However, some of the scholars who have adopted this view admit that it creates problems. If the original prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1–12, which was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and was presented to the king a few months later (Jeremiah 36:1–32), did not contain any references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar, how then could Jehoiakim, after having listened to and burned up the roll with the prophecy, ask Jeremiah: “Why is it that you have written on it, saying: The king of Babylon will come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to cease from it?’ “ (Jeremiah 36:29, NW) As this same question is found both in Jer-MT and Jer-LXX, the original prophecy must have explicitly mentioned the king of Babylon. Professor Norman K. Gottwald cites this verse and says: “If the prophet had not somewhere in his scroll openly identified Babylon as the invader, the sharp retort of the king is difficult to explain.” (N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth. New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, p. 251.) This strongly indicates that Jer-MT might very well represent the original text here. It should be kept in mind that LXX is a translation made hundreds of years after the time of Jeremiah from a Hebrew text that is now lost, and, as the editors of Bagster’s The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament point out in the “Introduction,” some of the translators of the LXX were not competent to their task and often inserted their own interpretations and traditions. Most scholars agree with this observation. The Watch Tower Society, too, emphasizes that “the Greek translation of this book [Jeremiah] is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text.”—Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 32.

It is now very clear for all to see FTF only selected what fitted his ideas and ignored all the rest. Any conclusion based upon the LXX translation of Jer 25 is looking for trouble. Exegesis of LXX jer 25? who are you trying to fool mate...

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

FTF

"they are all interdependent, intertextual references to the seventy years. The point was: the Watchtower's exegesis of what the "servitude" and the "seventy years" meant is not simply a reading of Jeremiah 25:10-12 but it is the end result of interpreting several intertextual seventy year references."

You ignore the whole point: you need to know what Jeremiah wrote in ch. 25 to correctly understand 2 Chronicles 36 & Daniel 9, as this is the prophecy upon which the other 2 are based. However, when Jeremiah wrote his prophecy in ch. 25, the other 2 verses were not written yet, so a correct understanding of Jer 25 does not depend on Daniel 9 or 2 Chron. 26. So they are not interdependant, as you put it, the dependacy is only one-way. Jer 25 is sufficient as stand-alone text, unless you have an agenda of course. The only reason C.O. Jonsson mention it, because of the fabrications of people like you, and the society you want to defend.

Concerning LXX: why are you not providing a comparison text with the masoretic texts? you only provided different English translations of LXX, which is already a Greek translation from a different language, how old the translation is, does not take away that it is a translation, with its inaccuracies that come with any translation. I stand to the point, anything you want to prove upon that basis, is worthless if you choose to ignore what was written in the original language.

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

- 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 specifically refer to the 70 years of Jer 25, hence Jer 25 is required for a correct understanding of both verses, not the other way around. Jer 25 specifically states that the 70 years are for Babylon, not for Judah or Jerusalem. C.O.Jonsson is correct.

- LXX or the septuagint, is a translation made for a population of dispersed Jews in the hellenic empire who could not read there own language any more. It contains quite a few inaccuracies, more than on this point alone. I do not know what makes you believe that it "is far older and traditionally regarded as more accurate than the Masoretic text", but it is quite easy to prove it is an incorrect presentation of the facts. To drive the point home, the WTBS has all interest to present things the same way as you do, however they choose not do it, and stick to the more correct masoretic text. Any conclusion based upon the inaccurate rendering of the LXX without comparison with other renderings, removes your credibility and demonstrates you do not want to expose facts, but you are looking for elements that fit an interpretation you already hold, discarding everything that contradict it.

- If the point you try to prove in your 2nd part, holds any ground, than all the English translations of this verse would be incorrect. A lot of well educated people looked into the many renderings of this verse, before they wrote the translations as they did. Again you are not exposing any fact, but looking for elements that fit an interpretation you already hold.

Hoffnung

259

The Gentile Times Reconsidered (607 B.C.E.) -Part A1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12 Reviewed

by FaceTheFacts in

during the last three to four months, i have spent a great deal of time sinking my teeth into various critical biblical commentaries and lexicons.

naturally, after beginning to research "the truth about the truth" one of the most commonplace yet controversial arguments revolve around the "gentile times" doctrine (i.e.

the application of the seven times of daniel 4 from 607 b.c.e.

Hoffnung

The Facts are quite easy, and confirmed by the insight book, under "Assyria". The 70 years of Jeremiah 25 indeed started at the 17th year of Nabopalassar, when he defeated the Assyrians in Haran. That is where they became the supreme power of the region and one after the other of the "surrounding nations" became vassal, or under servitude, of Babylon. The former supreme power was Assyria. It is telling you do not find this tidbit of info under "Babylon" in the it-book. A comprehensive list of the vassal nations you find in the 2nd part of Jeremiah 25, e.g. Elam = part of present day Iran. As the territory of all these surrounding nations is immensely vast, obviouly they did not become vassal nations at the same time, it required some time to bring the Babylonian armies to the nations. That, the by then sill crownprince, Nebuchadnezzar needed some time, estimated 4 years, to bring also Judah into this servitude, does not influence the starting point of the prophecy.

Face the Facts, Rolf Furuli tried the very same thing with the same kind of words as you do. His book did not convince anybody.

Hoffnung

9

October 15 Study WT, Page 17 Story: "Richard, Lowell, Ramon, Bill:" A Gay Subtext?

by Room 215 in

i don't now whether anyone else read that article, but several of the photos , and the comments under the subtitle "happy marriages" wherein the happy quartet suggested that they acceded to marriage only when uber-zealot females who took priority over physically attractive girls could be found.... made me wonder... hmmmm... .

Hoffnung

I can also confirm that Lowell has a son, Larry, definitely his son, and Lowell is indeed still married. the wife's name is Margareth by the way.

There are no rumours about them being gay around here.

Hoffnung