Posts by scholar

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.

scholar

elderwho

The simple fact is that we do have a complete chronology for the OT and have had so many decades, But supporters of the Jonsson hypothesis only have a stanfard chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period. If your chronology is so acccurate and WT chronology is srroneous then why do you present a chronology of the OT or at least a chronology for the Divided Monarchy.

It is evident that my critics on this are deadly frightened that I am right and they are wrong because of the fear and hysteria that my posts on chronology generate and this makes my solo comments worthwhile.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Narkissos and Leolaia

What then is the position concerning the transaltion of Jeremiah 29: 10? Is the NWT rendering of this phrase impossible or highly improbable? You state that you are knowlegeable of Hebrew and Linguistics so Why not provide evidence that shows the impossibility that le in Jeremiah 29:cannot be rendered as 'at' but must be rendered as'for'. Also, as you are skilled in exegesis this exercise should be easy for you both as you can work togethger on it and take as much time as necessary. When you are finished then post your thesis on this board and I will examine it and if it is of scholarly merit then I will make representation to the NWT Committee in order that in a future revision of the NWT a revised rendering can be made.

In reviewing the Jonsson hypothesis in the third edn of the GTR, pp.211-15, Jonsson discusses the matter of transalting this preposition. The rendering of 'for Babylon' instead of 'at Babylon' is the very basis of his hypothesis. If there is some doubt or leeway about this matter then his whole hypothesis is rendered useless so there is a lot riding on it. In fact, Jonsson is taking a big gamble as his whole hypothesis rests on the meaning of a single preposition.

Jonsson rather arrogantly asserts that according to modern Hebrew scholars they generally agree that the local or spatial sense of le is highly improbable or impossible at Jeremiah 29:10. Jonsson rather than sourcing the fact of the matter from a journal article, grammar or lexicon instead refers to partially quoted letters from three scholars only. If in fact the evidence was so demonstrably evident that the NWT was in error lexically or gramatically then why did he not refer to standard Hebrew reference works? I put the case to you that Jonsson in his private research realized that no such evidence was and is available and had to solicit opinions favourable to his argument. If this is the case then this is shabby and amateurish scholarship.

I anticipate your thesis at your earliest possible convenience

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Alan F

Your posts are a monument to the Jonsson Hypothesis which fails in providing a simple coherent interpretation of the seventy years. My posts are a monument to Watchtower chronology that alone honours God;s Word and its prophecies. As usual , your hypothesis has no chronology for the OT but simply consists of a few useless dates that are the subject of considerable debate within scholarship.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Narkissos

My turn, I notice that in the brilliant NWT, Leviticus 25:29 has the phrase 'to the full for him' so in this verse has 'for' rather than 'at' which demonstrates that the preposition 'le' has indeed a wide semantic range.For this reason, the transaltor must decide on the basis of context as to how the preposition should be thoughtfully rendered. The context, chapter 29 certainly favours a locative meaning for this phrase 'at Babylon'. The following verses:

Verse 1: to Babylon

Verse 3 'to Babylon'

Verse 10 'at Babylon'

Verse 15 'in Babylon'

Verse 20 ' to Babylon'

Verse 22 'in Babylon'

Verse 28 'at Babylon'

All of these examples agree as to a local meaning for this phrase. But there is more. Jeremiah;s prophecy is addressed to those exiles already in Babylon and the message of this letter is about their exile and their release from exile. It is most definitely not focussed on Babylon but those Jewish exiles. Further, for purposes of chronology, the rendering 'for Babylon' rather than 'at Babylon' amounts to fuzzines because it is impossible to establish a calender date for the beginning of Babylon's tenure as world power in relation to the seventy years.

I have not misunderstood Alan F's comments on the exactitude of the seventy years. We say that the seventy years was a definite period having a precise beginning and end and that it could only have been a period of desolation, servitude and exile as all of the relevant seventy year texts state. Alan seeks to deconstruct this interpreation by removing those elements and claiming that there were several periods having various datums.

Regarding the WBC quote, it is not a sterotype as you claim but rather the interpretation quoted was made by the commentator who wrote the Exursus on the Seventy Years wherein he discussed the many interpretations on the seventy years. You should read this material before venturing an opinion.

Yes , WT scholars take this period literally otherwise it would have had no relevance to Jeremiah's audience and would have had no significance to Daniel and the Chronicler. The seventy yeras was not some fuzzy period or round number as many scholars including the Jonsson hypothesis propose. Biblical history clearly confirms that this period existed between two key events which truly gives weight to its theological sibhificance as a period marked by desolation-exile-servitude.

scholarJW

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.

scholar

Narkissos

The quote from the WBC is far from suicidal but is corroborative of Society's interpretation of the seventy years as period between two political events : the destruction of the city, end of the Jewish kingdom, depopulation and exile to Babylon in 607 and the begiining of a new world power under Peria with the political decision to release and return the exiles in 537.

Your comment of Jeremiah 29:19 that it is dishonest and that the Hebrew cannot be interpreted as a static locative is wrong. The context of the chapter clearly indicate that a locative is preferable and that the Hebrew preposition le has a wide semantic range which includes: to, in. for, at, etc.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Leolaia

No. I probably don't get it despite your best efforts. I am very sorry because you try so hard. I do not believe that our methodology is inconsistent even though it puzzles Jonsson and he does not like it. However, it all boils down to methodology and this will differ from scholar to scholar and if the chronology works by providing a coherent schema for the OT period then that is fine.

What would be of concern is to the absence of any chronology by your supporters. Perhaps when you have a Bible chronology then you are in a position to critical of others. Go to it girl!

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Alan F

The seventy years ran from Tishri 607 until Tishri 537 and included a period of Ecile, Servitude and Desolation as froretold by Jeremiah and Zechariah, determined by Daniel and reviewed historically by the Chronicler. The following makes the matter clearer;

Jeremiah 25:11 Desolation, Servitude, Exile

Zechariah 7:5; 1:12 Exile, Servitude, Desolation

Daniel 9: 2 Desolation Exile Servitude

2 Chronicles 36: 20.21 Exile Servitude Desolation

All of these texts are employed by Wt scholars to prove that the seventy years was a period comprising these elements ranked accordingly. The seventy years was an exact period of time with a definite beginning and end between two momentous events namely the Fall of Jerusalem and Judah and the exilic return back to Jerusalem and Judah. During this time the land was able to enjoy its sabbaths as foretold. Bible chronology provides an absolute date for determining the end of the seventy years as 537 and its beginning in 607 right to the month/

The Jonsson hypothesis does not provide a coherent and simle account of the seventy yeras but rather has multiple periods with a fuzzy lengths and beginnings which amounts to confusion.

I notice that typically you agree with your fellow apostate Rud Persson who seeks to violate internet protocols respecting the privacy of posters to forums. Yet you scream out loud about Witnesses being cultish and unintellectual. Where is your intellectual integrity? When people threaten to invade a persons privacy by posting e-mails without permission shows a lack of integrity and bad manners. Grow up!

Your reply to my last post was hysterically funny and shows that you are a frightened and desperate man.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

Alan F

Firstly, I have already examined your exegesis presented in your post 3923 and I will post my reply. I found some interesting points but much of which I disagree.

Regarding your current post 3928 I found it interesting but in using Bible commentaries found that your exegesis incomplete. Let me describe my methodology to you so that you are aware of how your material is respectfully and carefully examined:

1. Print out to a hard copy

2. Read carefully each paragragh, underlining and highligting main and secondary points. Those points that are agreed or disagreed are marked accordingly.

3. Scriputes quoted or cited are checked with the NWT Reference Bible

4. All texts quoted or cited are checked with major critical commentaries such as WBC, AB, Hermenaia,K&D, ICC

5. Subject matter explore further by journal articles

6. The context both immediate and general of the relevant scripture quoted or cited is carfully considered

7. Notes are carefully made

Jeremiah 29:10

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

You make much of the translation issue of whether the preposition before Babylon should be 'for' rather than 'at' but I am not to fussed about this point either way. Certainly either preposition changes the meaning of the seventy years as to whether it refers to Babylon's tenure as World Power or to the exile of the Jews. There is much considerable debate about this issue but from this two facts clearly emerge.

1. Bible translations differ as to the translation of this phrase

2. The Hebrew preposition 'le' affords a wide semantic range, 'for' or 'at' are both legitimate renderings

Therefore, it is the context alone which determines how the seventy years is to be understood, ie.Babylon or the Exiles and when I mean context I mean the immediate context , Jeremiah 29:1-32.

You state in your comments that the 'seventy years' must in this instance be a precise length of time but the text does not indicate that because it simply refers to a period of seventy years. You make much of 'precision' in regard to the seventy yeras and are critical of WT scholars because we regard that the seventy years is an inclusive period of exile, servitude and desolation. This proved to be true as correctly note that Jerusalem fell in Tishri, 607 followed by a period of captivity in, to, at, for Babylon until their release and return to their homeland by Tishri 537. In this instant a period of seventy years elapsed between these two momentous evenTS; fall of Jerusalem and the Return of the Exiles. In this period the land was desolate for a complete period of seventy years.

Interestingly, your so called 'precise' seventy years is not demanded by the Jonsson hypothesis as there is no precise beginning of the seventy years but simply the calender date of 609 running to 539. Jonsson's discussion of the seventy years for Babylon admits fuzziness at the begiinning. However, the WBC, Jeremiah 26-52, Vol.27, 1995, p.75 states "Babylon's seventy years in Jer. 29:10 should be interpreted both politically and personally. The political interpretation gives to the number seventy a meaning within international history as a more or less precise count of time elapsed between two significant political events". If the exiles in Babylon understood matters according to the Jonsson hypothesis then they would be without hope because the seventy years would be without a clearly discerned beginning. The exiles in Babylon who received Jeremiah's letter as recorded in Chapter 29 would realized that the Fall marked the beginning of the seventy years.as a momentous event.

The prophecy of Jeremiah 29:10 was a prohecy of hope, restoration based on a period of seventy years of exile and servitude to, for, at , in Babylon and following on from the earlier prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 which in addition refers to desolation of the land combines to form the Jeremaniac seventy years formula: EXILE, SERVITUDE DESOLATION.

The immediate context of Jeremiah in Chapter 29 cannot possibly refer to Babylon's tenure as world power as claimed for verse 10. The context is addressed to those exiles in Babylon and were given instructions as how to conduct their lives as exiles. It does violence to the context by suggesting that the seventy years refers to Babylon's suzerainity rather to the captivity which would eventually end. Surely the latter would be a mesage of comfort rather than the former to boast of Babylon's victory.

I now refer you to the translation issue of the phrasing of 'comleted' and the nullification of this phrasing by the expression 'in accord with'. The NWT's treatment of this passage well illustrates its genius or brilliance over all other translations and I reject your allegation of supposed 'nullification'. The NWT transaltes the Hebrew text accurately as demonstrated by the literal rendering of this passage in the AB, Jeremiah 21-36, Vol.2, 2004, p.353: "when according to the completion for Babylon". which corresponds nicely with the NWT's rendering "In accord with the fulfilling".

This more accurate rendering of the introductory phrase highlights the prophetic impuation of the seventy years as prophesied in the earlier 25:11. for the reason that there was a fulfillment of something that had been prohesied earlier as 'according to' the 'good word'. What was that 'good word' that was in accordance and addressed to these exiles? It could only have been that the exile, servitude, desolation as prophesied by Jeremiah in 25:11 woul last for a period of seventy years. What comfort and hope those Jews must have felt.

In summary, I believe that the period of seventy years as prophesied by Jeremiah and Zechariah, determined by Daniel and later evaluated by the Chronicler demonstrate that this period constituted exile-servitude-desolation all in perfect harmony and bridging the gap between two momentous events in biblical history, the Fall of Jerusalem and the Return. The Bible provides the regnal data for both these events and chronology using this data along with pivotal and an absolute date fixes that period of seventy years beginning Tishri 607 and ending Tishri 537

scholar JW

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.

scholar

hilary_step

You raise some issues. Firstly, you inquire about referencing in WT publications are different because these are written for the general public. These publications are written specifically for the academic community otherwise specific academic conventions would be necessary. The publications are multi- lingual and written for the world wide audience made up of varying education. Simplicity and simplification are requisites for this vast worl-wide field. The answer is simplification.

My mention of the 'Jonsson hypothesis' is my attempt to classify it as a personal interpretation of a small piece of secular chronology. Afterall, in his GTR he is primarily concerned with refuting the historical date of 607. Jonsson's collation of so called historical facts is rather ambitious as many of his so-called historical facts are simply his opinion and are not widely accepted in the scholarly community. The end of Assyria is a case in point as well as the beginning of the neo- Babylonian dynasty, seventy years etc.

I do not need to rely on ad hominem attacks because Jonsson's book well illustrates faulty logic.by using assumptions instead of facts for his conclusions.

I regret to inform you that there are hundreds of chronologies of the OT out there and Jonsson who does not have a chronology of the OT is simply a criticism of WT chronology.So the Jonsson hypothesis is of no interest to scholars because it is just a piece of cultish literature. That is why it has not been peer reviewed in any of the scholarly journals.

The Jonsson hypothesis is not as you claim a 100 years of secular history accepted by every expert in the matter. Jonsson's views have not been cited or referenced in leading journals or scholarly works on chronology even though it has been published for twenty years. The only people who quote are Jonsson are apostates. To date, Jonsson's views have been promoted in a whacky pseudo- scientific journal dealing with Catastrophism.

scholar JW

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.

scholar

confusedjw

Yes the 'Jonsson hypothesis' which presents a particular interpretation of chronology amidst a vast array of chronologies within Christendom. It is famous for it peculiar interpretation of the 'seventy years'.

You seem to be troubled by the earlier 606/607 dilemna. This has long since been resolved and Wt scholars since the forties have determined that 607 is the correct calender date. If I was you I would be more concerned about the controversy over 586 or 587. In fact, leading chronologists or the majority view prefer 586 over the minor school who prefer 587. Others take a middle view and prefer 586/587. Confusion reigns!!!!

Chronology is only a recent study and with developing methodologies it is not to hard to understand the zero problem as it beset most chronologists in the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth century.

scholar JW