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

No...unlike pretty much everyone else in this thread I will not use ad hominem attacks but will continue to try to bring the discussion back to one accord.

Now ChristAlone, since you're insinuating that I have been proven wrong (as have Londo, cantleave, and ScenicViewer) perhaps you can be so kind as to point out of how these arguments have been refuted. All you have to do is cut and paste. Are you up to the challenge?

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.
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.

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

Funny...people even said these arguments are rehashes of what has been debated to death. LOL!!!! Now you're really showing your bias. Can anyone show us a single thread where the perfect mood of Jeremiah 25 has been discussed at length? Can anyone show us a single thread where it has been challenged that Jonnson does not meet the burden of proof because there is no evidence that a single nation provided tribute in that year?

I doubt most of these people spouting their derogatory comments about my arguments have even read them! Anyone with eyes can see who's provided the facts here and who is trying to argue over how something should be quoted LOL.

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

cantleave: FTF, What should I be laughing at?

You should be laughing at the fact that out of all the people who admittedly defend the Jonnson chronology, not a single person has been able to refute successfully any of my main arguments and the fact that nearly everyone is more concerned with who I am, instead of addressing the arguments at hand.

cantleave: Three poster have directly challenged your assertions and you have no counter argument. Are you as stupid as you appear? I really hope not. because if you are I feel sorry for you.

Londo said the same thing. Now if you would be so kind as to point out for us where the following points have been addressed and successfully challenged:

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.
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.

ScenicViewer: Your remarks seem to be nothing more than an attempt at side-stepping issues, to draw attention away from the real meat of 607 BCE.

Actually, this is what I would say of pretty much everyone who has replied to the topic. Instead of addressing my specific arguments about Jeremiah 25, everything from archaelogy to past errors in the Watchtower has been mentioned. I haven't sidetracked at all, but I've stuck consistently to my points that several contend have been "refuted" but have still yet to show us where they have.

I am new to the topic of 607 and was hoping to hear sound arguments on both sides if the issue, but you haven't offered much except your lame attemtps at misdirection.

I've yet to see anyone show me how my argument about the perfect mood in Hebrew has been a "lame attempt at misdirection". Are you up to the challenge?

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

So what do we have....4 pages and the most basic argument about the perfect mood has not even been addressed. No one has proven that there was a single nation who provided a tribute to Babylon as a vassal in 609 B.C.

Indeed the counterarguments of this thread can be summed up as: FaceTheFacts is a terrible person and is also Ethos/Thirdwitness/Recovery/Djeggnog who knows...probably scholar as well. FaceTheFacts is a terrible person, he didnt post a single page and paragraph reference for every statement he quoted. Why is this even about Jonnson? Lets talk about a million other subjects instead.

I wonder if onlookers are laughing as hard as I am?

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

So is Jeffro up to the challenge? Can you provide a single translation of the LXX that renders "among the nations" as "with the nations" or not? Just one!

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

Please demonstrate how they have and we can discuss the end of the seventy years.

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

If one passage alone shows the interpretation Carl Jonnson makes to be incorrect there is no need to even look at all the archaelogical evidence. I just cant help but wonder why everyone wants to change the subject. Its not in the eye of the beholder but a simple observation that anyone with two eyes can make.

In summary the argument of this thread is: FaceTheFacts is a banned member!!

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

Londo...thats in another section of Jonnson's book. Meanwhile you can address my earlier points since no one else is able to.

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

3 pages and still no one has overcome the arguments. When people cant sidetrack the issue into a million different subjects to confuse the issue it becomes obvious who can or who cannot put their money where their mouth is. I am quite satisfied with the results. The only argument people have left are ad hominems and accusing me of being a past member.

This was not even a matter of proving 607 but simply showing the alternate 609 to 539 chronology to be impossible according to the text. Its embarassing at this point If you dont have anything to counter the arguments with there is nothing wrong with admitting so.

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

Using the Watchtower publications to prove our points now are we? The LXX is only deemed defective because it is not as explicit in naming Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon as adherents to the presupposition of biblical inerrancy would like it. You have still not shown us how Jeremiah 25 is defective other than that it doesnt mention Nebuchadnezzar That is precisely why many scholars conclude the LXX is closer to the original manuscripts and that the Masoretic text is a revision that was heavily edited to make the outcome of the prophecies seem more precise.

You still have not demonstrated how the text is defective. You still have not even begun to overcome the fact that the perfect mood does not permit the servitude to have started in 609 B.C. You still have not been able to address how there is no evidence that a nation paid tribute to Babylon as a vassal in 609 B.C. and by Jonnson's own definition the servitude could not have started then.

At this point will there even be a need to review other sections? People cannot even substantially argue against such basic points. You know your hand is defficient when you have to quote the Watchtower to help argue your case.