Posts by FaceTheFacts

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro is reduced to arguing about spelling errors and dismissing out of hand my arguments as "pseudo-intellectualism" because the specifics of Hebrew grammar are simply far above his current understanding, yet he tried to argue against it. What honest, unbiased, "truth-seeking" researcher would argue against something he (indirectly proves) knows not a thing about? Yes, he even had to admit, he'd leave the argument to more knowledgeable posters but continues to try to argue against something he knows nothing about.

Hoffnug tried similarly...he tried to use this big, flamboyant chronicle to disprove my argument that not a single nation provided tribute to Babylon in 609 B.C., but instead showed his gross misunderstanding of what "vassalage" consisted of and AnnoMaly inadvertently argued in favor of my point, (namely that nations paid tribute to Babylon after seeing the crushing defeat at Carchemish).

Thus, no one has been able to overcome the arguments and we are already six pages in. The arguments are:

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.
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 that "servitude" meant "vassalage" and therefore disproves his own starting point.
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".
There is no textual basis to assert that the 70-year servitude did not apply to Judah but only to the surrounding nations.

No amount of ad hominem attacks like "troll" and "moron" or attempting to portray me as a past member, or long cut and pastes of irrelevant arguments like Charles Russell, or attempts to sidetrack the discussion into archaeology, will change the fact that the arguments cannot (thus far) be overcome.

Jeffro: Already provided 4 verses from Jeremiah where LXX uses Greek en in this sense in an earlier post.

We are specifically talking about an alternate rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 not a different rendering of "among". More embarassing display from Jeffro.

Question for you Jeffro: Is this translation valid? "The nations will destroy Babylon for seventy years." Why? The variant of doulos can also be rendered "destroy" instead of "serve". Would this rendering be valid? I can show you other instances of where the word translated as "serve" is used as "destroy". Yes or no and please state why.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro...

I was going to let this go, but it was too funny. Here Ethos FaceTheFacts acknowledges that the perfect mood is used with regard to a specific time period. But he seems to miss the fact that this destroys his own argument, because in this case, there is a specific time period - 70 years. So it follows that the perfect mood would be used in reference to the 70 years. He walked for forty minutes. He sat down for an hour. The nations served for seventy years.

The "regard to a specific time period" is not in reference to the chronological datum (seventy years) but to the time and context of writing. If the writer of Jeremiah understood that the seventy years had already begun and were continuing into the future (i.e. 609 to the fall of Babylon), an inflective mood of the imperfect would've have been used (i.e. The nations were serving for seventy years). This would mean the servitude had already begun at the time of writing and would continue into the future. Since the perfect tense is used (as in the case of Genesis 15:13) it tells us the servitude had not yet begun at the time of writing (605 B.C.)

Jeffro....please, do a quick Google search on how Hebrew verbs are rendered. Because these statements are so nonsensical I don't think there's an apt description in my supposed second language, English.

I have already demonstrated the manner in which the context indicates the correct preposition. It seems therefore that you simply do not understand the meaning of the English word "among", and have trouble separating it from the concept of "divided among".

You are using inequivocal examples of Anglo-Saxon usages of "among" to argue your case, but it is a non-sequitir because that does not substantiate an alternate rendering from Hebrew. If your conclusion is correct, surely you can find at least one translation of the LXX that renders this way. But you cannot. All you've done is show a lack of insight about translation by simply looking up the translated word "among", it's various meanings, and using one of them to argue your case. But this rendering is not substantiated by anyone other than....yourself.

Using Jeffro's line of reasoning: "The nations will destroy Babylon for seventy years." Why? The variant of doulos can also be rendered "destroy" instead of "serve". Would this rendering be valid? Of course not. Not a single translation renders it that way. It is no different with the LXX rendering Jeffro feebly and quite ignorantly tried to discredit.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro...

Another pathetic strawman. Comparing two basic English prepositions with similar meanings is entirely dissimilar to comparing two entirely different verbs.

Again Jeffro shows a gross lack of understanding about morphology; but about Greek this time. There is only one verb used in the LXX at Jeremiah 25:11 (a variant of doulos). The point was that the verb used here can also be rendered "destroy".I was not comparing two different verbs, but showing how one word (in this case a verb, in another case a preposition) can have various renderings. Therefore, showing that a particular word can be rendered differently ("among as "with), ("serve" as "destroy") does not prove anything. You must substantiate that this rendering is valid (i.e. by showing a translation that renders it this way).

Another embarassing comeback from Jeffro...

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.

FaceTheFacts

AnnoMaly...

As was said before, we have here a strawman ... or red herring ... or else an indication of FTF's ignorance about what 'tribute' is.

No, actually it's more of an indication of Hoffnug's ignorance of what a "tribute" or "vassalage" consisted of. He showed us the Chronicle proving Babylon plundered and conquered many nations and spoiled their resources but this is a non-sequitur, because vassalage did not consist of simply plundering a nation's spoil by force (i.e. after conquering it), but of a formal agreement of protection under the condition that the nation submitted to the King's wishes.

As Hoffnung has posted, the chronicle details how the Babylonians sacked and plundered many Assyrian strongholds. The Assyrians would not submit so Babylon forcibly took. How can tribute be given by a vassal city ruler if the ruler is dead or deposed and the city ruined?

That is precisely why Hoffnug's reference to the chronicle is ridiculous and shows his (not my) lack of understanding about what a tribute was. His point in referencing the chronicle was to show that there were nations who had in fact given a tribute that year (i.e. counterarguing my point), but his argument was moot because a tribute did not simply involve monetary gain. Thank you for asking your question, as your in agreement with me, that the chronicle does not prove that a tribute was provided that year.

Tribute isn't the issue. Servitude is. The Assyrians were in complete servitude to Babylon when they took the last stronghold and the last Assyrian king was removed.

This is hilarious. Jonnson defines the "servitude" as "vassalage" and makes an equivocation of the two. So by saying "tribute isn't the issue", "servitude is", it shows you lack a basic understanding of my argument and Jonnson's, which is quite embarassing for you. For the fifth time, if the "servitude" meant "vassalage" (i.e. a tribute) and the servitude supposedly began in 609 B.C., then Jonnson needs to provide evidence that a nation provided tribute in that year.

Particularly after Carchemish, nations in the Hatti-land didn't want the same slash and burn fate that became many Assyrian cities, so they served Babylon and gave tribute.

Thank you for proving for us, that nations did not give tributes (i.e. as vassals) until after Carchemish, which shows again that there is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute years prior in 609 B.C., the alleged starting point. You have indirectly shown you lack understanding about my argument, Jonnson's, and you've even managed to argue against Jonnson's own suppositions. It's true....sometimes no response is the best response.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro: I don't care about your speculative pseudo-intellectualism.

Translation: I have no arguments left and have no understanding of Hebrew and thus my arguments have no merit.

Why would you even argue against something you don't even understand?

Jeffro: Starting to wonder if English is your first language.

Well, we don't have to "wonder" about Hebrew being your first language with that embarassing comment from earlier.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro...

Ok moron. Listen carefully. There is no challenge. Judah (or modern Israel) is among the nations. Look at a map.

What a ludicrous attempt to dissuade the argument. The argument is about the LXX and how its rendering completely disintegrates Jonnson's chronology. Since you postulated that the word translated "among" also means "with" and therefore based upon this specific rendering of "with the nations", Judah served as a vassal with the other nations, you must provide us with proof that this rendering is correct. Showing how a word can also be rendered a different one, does not solidify your counterargument. You can't show us a single translation of the LXX that renders it: "with the nations" instead of "among the nations". Therefore, your argument has no merit. It's like arguing that the Greek word used in the LXX at Jeremiah 25:11 can also be rendered "destroy" and therefore, the nations destroyed Babylon for seventy years, without providing a single translation that supports that rendering.

I don't know what's funnier: a): your nonsensical and earlier statements about the Hebrew verbs that show a gross lack of understanding or b): your ridiculous defense that you cannot solidly provide proof for.

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.

FaceTheFacts

In response to Jeffro's latest ad hominem attack..:

Specifically, where he acknowledged that such phrasing is "commonly used in prophetic oracles to demonstrate that the events are so certain to happen that it is if they already have".

If someone says something as if it has already finished, it makes no difference whether it has actually started or not.

ROTFL!!!! Here you show a gross misunderstanding of how Hebraic usage of moods determines how a text should be understood, as otherwise I don't see how anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of how verbs are used in Hebrew could say something so laughably ridiculous. Let me re-explain it for you.

New part just for Jeffro: There are two ways to express past actions in ancient Hebrew. The perfect mood and the imperfect mood. Now a perfect mood would be inflective of a COMPLETED action with regarded to a specific time period. In English some examples of this would be: He walked for forty minutes. He sat down for an hour. A past action inflective of the imperfect mood would indicate habitual, CONTINUAL, ongoing, repeated action, without regard to a specific time period. In English examples of this would be: He was walking. He was sitting down. Now since prophetic statements are often written in past tense to give a textual effect of certainty, whether a statement was written in the imperfect or the perfect mood would allow us to understanding precisely what time frame the author had at the time of the writing. At the time of Jeremiah's writing (dated 605 B.C.) the author does not use language reflective of an imperfect mood, i.e. that the event has already started and is continual into the future.Since the author uses language inflective of a past, completed action and dates the words to 605 B.C. it indicates that when the action is to take place it is not continuing from an undefined past date (prior to 605 B.C.), but has not yet started at the time of writing. This is why I referenced Genesis 15:13, which is virtually identical to Jeremiah 25:11."Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there". What's translated "will be servants" is "and·they-serve·them" (u-obdu-m) and as it stated in the perfect mood, i.e. not indicative of a continuation from the PAST into the future, and in agreement with the context, showing the servitude there had not yet begun, it shows this usage indicates that the "past action" (prophetic reference) has not yet begun at the time of writing. The Egyptians had not begun serving the Egyptians at the time of the story of Genesis 15:13 just as the nations had not begun serving Babylon at the time of the story in Jeremiah 25:11. I'm embarassed I had to explain that to you.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Jeffro...

This is some very basic fallacious reasoning (equivocation fallacy).

The verses Ethos FaceTheFacts here compares with (the Septuagint's rendering of) Jeremiah 25:11 all have other words that refer to people going somewhere. It is not a factor of "among the nations" that means they went anywhere, but the other phrases, I will scatter them, I shall certainly disperse, I have scattered you, I have dispersed you, had to dwell, I shall disperse them. Jeremiah 25:11 does not do this, in either the LXX or MT. FtF also doesn't mention Jeremiah 49:15, 50:23, 50:46, 51:41 where the phrase among the nations has nothing to do with going to a particular place.

I specifically said the usage of "among the nations" in accord with the context of Jeremiah 25 is always in reference to Judaic banishment. Not that every single rendering of "among the nations" means exile for the Jews or a particular nation. You obviously didn't understand my argument was dependent on context, not universal usage.

And Jeffro: you still have not risen to the challenge. If "among the nations" should really mean "with the other nations" surely you can provide for us a single translation of the LXX that supports this. Can you or can you not? It really is as simple as cutting and pasting to support your argument. If you cannot do so, your argument is just pure speculation and does not in any way disprove my argument about the LXX.

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.

FaceTheFacts

AnnOMaly...

A specific page reference this time! But it's actually page 195. So yours IS the unauthorized, tampered-with internet version! Hoffnung has shown that your following quote cuts out the part where Jonsson outlines the problems with the view some modern scholars have about Jer-LXX, and goes on to suggest Jer-MT is the original and superior text (p. 196, ftn. 8 continued).

You pulled the same stunts in your last incarnation - dishonestly quote-mined your sources in an attempt to get scholarly support for your position, completely diregarding the authors' intent and their surrounding comments. Now you're at it again.

There was nothing dishonest about my quotations. There is nothing dishonest with combining multiple references to the same argument, even if they are presented on different pages. Did it anyway change Jonnson's viewpoint or make it appear as if he is saying something he isn't? No. The silly quotation arguments are elementary at best and shows you have no answer for the arguments presented and that you would rather cherrypick something to complain about.

You were saying he was taking it in isolation and superficially without regard for the fact that the WTS takes into account other Scriptures. That is patently and laughably false. You've read the book. You know this.

He is only discussing one scripture, Jeremiah 25:11. I did not say he does not discuss the other scriptures (i.e. Daniel 9:2, 2 Chronicles 36:21) I am saying in this specific instance it makes little sense to belittle the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years by showing what Jeremiah 25 says, if their understanding of what Jeremiah 25 means, is CONTINGENT upon other scriptures. A ridiculous circular argument about if it's a fallacy or not...which shows you have nothing to say about the REAL ARGUMENTS.

Why it should be portrayed as a fault to carefully examine a Scripture's wording in its context to dispel false assumptions is beyond me

It is a fault to attack an interpretation based upon what a specific text does not literally say, when the understanding of that text is contingent upon several other intertextual references, and not the text itself. I don't know how many times I've had to explain this to you.

Far from being strawman argumentation (!), the correct understanding of Jer. 25 is key.

Now you're being ridiculous. I did not say that argumentation regarding Jeremiah 25 is a strawman. And if you believe a proper understanding of Jeremiah is key, then why (after 5 pages and counting) have you failed to address the main thrust of my argument (namely, the perfect mood of the Hebrew morphology) and would instead, like to pedantically go back and forth over things like "improper quotation" when NONE of that is key to the argument at hand?

The passages in Dan. 9 and 2 Chron 36 relating to the 70 years are based on Jeremiah's prophecy. Correctly understand the primary texts first; interpret the later texts based on them in light of those primary texts. (I see Hoffnung has explained this to you as well.)

That is not standard Biblical exegesis at all. It makes little sense to say "correctly understand the primary texts first" IF the primary text is later re-interpreted and re-explained. To arrive at a proper understanding of what the primary text is saying you would have to examine the other texts FIRST and then after examining a preponderance of evidence, arrive at a conclusion which would then be CONTINGENT on (i.e. dependent) the other texts. But again, what difference does this make with regard to my main arguments?

You didn't provide ANY page reference and gave the impression the comments were all one paragraph. I have zero respect and little patience for those who persist in being deceptive with their sources.

I didn't think page references were necessary as the OP already stated the book, the title, the edition, and the title of thread itself tells us what section the information is taken from (A-1 - Jeremiah 25:10-12). There is nothing deceptive as I provided a good deal of reference material to a familiar audience and if this is all you can come up what difference does this make with regard to my main arguments?

That was done on your previous thread (as Ethos).

The argument I presented was NOT presented in a previous thread and continues to go unaddressed. I can't help but wonder why?

Oh now there's a strawman if ever I saw one LOL.

Well if Jonnson says the "servitude" meant "vassalage" and proposes that the servitude began in 609 B.C., the burden of proof requires he substantiate that with a tribute of vassalage to Babylon in that year. Strawman? Hardly. An argument you can't address? Quite so.

They have. You choose to ignore or sidestep those arguments.

The only thing people have come up with is that the LXX is defective and here's the irony: they had to use a Watchtower reference to do it. Not a single scholar, commentary, or respected source was presented that shows that Jeremiah 25:11 specifically is defective in the LXX. Jeffro tried to say it means "with the other nations" but could not raise to the challenge of showing us a single translation that rendered it as "with the nations".

So far you've delivered a rehash of what we all have debated to death

There has never been a debate about the inflective verb moods in Jeremiah 25:11 to my knowledge. There has never been a debate about LXX rendering showing Jonnson's understanding of the servitude as "vassalage" to my knowledge. If these have been debated to death, SURELY you can provide the plethora of threads that cover these subjects, no?

And again.....no refutation of any of my arguments which shows she has nothing left but semantic gymnastics.

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.

FaceTheFacts

Hoffnung...

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.

The argument is moot because as I had already explained there is a difference between utterly conquering and defeating a city and thereby spoiling its resources. and paying tribute as a vassal king. During this time period, vassalage consisted of a monetary tribute (i.e. taxation) to the dominant nation, a formal agreement of the vassal king to respect and adhere to the wishes of the King as well as to not seek aid from surrounding nations and in some cases, pay tribute to the sacrificial gods of the dominating nation (cf. Isaiah 7:2-6; 8:12; 2 Kings 16:10-16; 2 Kings 33:23-35). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines a vassal as: " person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty."

You have only demonstrated for everyone that you lack knowledge as to what a "vassalage" consists of and therefore, your entire argument is precarious and provides no rebuttal to the arguments I presented.

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. Furthermore, the Insight book concurs with C.O.Jonsson on this point.

Actually, it isn't. You are not able to produce a single quote, commentary, reference, or anything of the sort that says Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX is defective. As Jonnson noted, many scholars actually prefer the LXX as they believe it is closer to the original and that the Masoretic Text is a later revision and expansion that underwent many years of editing due to Judaic traditions. No evidence was provided other than speculation about why it might be defective, but no evidence was actually provided.

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

Strawman argument here. There is no textual basis to assert that the servitude of these nations excluded Judah. No evidence is provided here, other than Hoffnug's own viewpoint.

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.

No evidence provided against my exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11, how it's rendered, and what that signifies here. Just more talking and asserting without any actual proof.