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

Further comments on Jeremiah 25:10-12: A crucial part in coming to understanding a text is to compare parallel usages of the statements of the text under examination (i.e. how "parousia" should be translated as "coming" OR as "presence" instead). Below is the text of Jeremiah in it's transliterated Hebrew form.

and-she-becomes (u-eithe) all-of (kl) the-land (e-artz) the-this (e'zarth) to desertion (l-chrbe) to desolation (l-shme) and they serve (u-obdu) the nations (e-guim) the these (e-ale) king of (ath-mlk) Babel (Bbl) seventy (shboim) year (shne)

The verb used here (aw-bad') uses the verb pattern "Qal" here and is inflective of the perfect mood. The perfect mood is used to state completed actions in the past (i.e. "He studied, He talked, He served) which is commonly used in prophetic oracles to demonstrate that the events are so certain to happen that it is if they already have and this is done by using this tense. The imperfect mood would have been more definitively used to indicate an ongoing action in the past that will continue into the future (i.e. the nations having started serving Babylon in 609 B.C. and continuing to serve into the future). What does this indicate? That the writer of Jeremiah (who dates the oracle to about 605 B.C.) did not indicate that the servitude had yet begun, but was yet future. Therefore, the servitude, at the very earliest, had not started by 605 B.C. but was designated to a specific time interval to be completed in the future.

The rationality of my statements can be seen when we read a text that is almost word-for-word the same as Jeremiah 25:11; that of Genesis 15:13 which states: "13 God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslavedand oppressed four hundred years."

Comments: Similar statements are made in reference to the nation of Judah: "And you must say to them, ‘Just as YOU have left me and have gone serving a foreign god in YOUR land, so YOU will serve strangers in a land that is not YOURS.’”(5:19) "And I will hurl YOU out from off this land into the land that YOU yourselves have not known, neither YOUR fathers, and there YOU will have to serve other gods day and night, because I shall not give YOU any favor.”’ (16:13) "I also will make you serve your enemies in the land that you have not known". (17:4)

Further comments: What is translated "be enslaved" in the New American Standard Version, is virtually the same phrase contained in Jeremiah 25:11 and the context is patently similar as well. What's translated "they will be enslaved" is "and·they-serve·them" (u-obdu-m) which is virtually the same as "(u-obdu) from Jeremiah 25:11; they are both inflected in the perfect mood (i.e. completed action in the past). This shows that just as Abraham's descendants had not yet "served them" (i.e. The Egyptians), the nations had not yet begun serving "the king of Babylon". The mood here again, is indicative of a future occurrence and NOT one of continuous, habituous past action that will continue indefinitely into the future. Besides, the fact that such a time period is specifically designated as "seventy years" (i.e. written in Hebrew as a COMPLETED action of the past) shows that the writer could not possibly have interpreted the 70 years as something having already started, as it would be grammatically incorrect for a fixed time period.This conclusively proves that the servitude, at the earliest, had not yet begun by 605 B.C. which utterly dismantles all of Jonnson's chronology. So what did the "servitude" in Jeremiah imply?

The meaning "to serve" (i.e. as a slave) is indicated in general contexts in Gen. 14:4; 1 Samuel 1:11; 17:9; 1 Kings 4:21; Jer 25:11; 27:6ff." - Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 2005)

In summary all of my arguments are:

Jonnson did not substantiate what is required by the burden of proof (i.e. the tribute/vassalage of nation to Nabopolassar in 609 B.C.)
Jonnson's conclusion that the 70 years referred only to the nations contravenes the text, poses a strained exegesis, and has no textual basis for concluding so.
The perfect mood reflective in Jeremiah 25:11 (as supported by Genesis 15:13) does not indicate a future continuance of an event that has already started (which would require the use of the imperfect mood)
Therefore, the servitude, at the very least had not yet begun in 605 B.C., which in turn, dismantles all of his chronology.

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

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. to 1914 A.D.). Since there is no shortage of opinions and arguments about this subject, I find it necessary to define clearly the parameters of each review and subsequent discussion of this book. This thread specifically will deal with section A (the exegesis of Jeremiah 25) and the reckoned chronology from therein (i.e. 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E.). Other related subjects such as Daniel 9:2, the list of Babylonian Kings' regnal years, questionable Watchtower statements/dishonesty, the translation of Jeremiah 29:10, and so forth are not confined within the parameters of our discussion. These will be discussed a future time, in a separate thread, to avoid a conglomeration of several simultaneous arguments which can, in turn, confuse or make it difficult to keep track off the discussion.

Disclaimer: All quotes cited are taken directly from Jonnson Olof, Carl. The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology and Christ's Return. (Commentary Press, Revised and Expanded, 2004)

It is held that these seventy years were a period of complete desolation for Judah and Jerusalem. Although it is predicted in the passage that the land of Judah would be a devastated place, it should be noted that this “devastation” is not equated with, or linked with, the period of the seventy years. All that is clearly and unambiguously stated in the text is that “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”. The phrase “these nations” is a reference back to verse 9, in which it is predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would come against “this land [that is, Judah] and its inhabitants, and also against all these nations round about.” The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations.”Servitude” here should not be taken to mean the same thing as desolation and exile.

An "easy target" fallacy is committed here (i.e. a strawman) since the Watchtower's interpretation of the "70 years" referring to a period of desolation is not based on a superficial reading of the text of Jeremiah 25 alone, but upon a series of intertextual references to the "seventy years" of Jeremiah (i.e. 2 Chronicles 36:21; Daniel 9:2; cf. Insight On The Scriptures, p. 463, Vol. 1).

Thus, the nations that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nations that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. The seventy years of servitude foretold by Jeremiah, therefore, did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon.

The highlighted statements are incorrect for several reasons. Since Jonnson postulates that the 70 years began in 609 B.C.E., the burden of proof requires that he substantiates a tribute of vassalage in that specific year. Bear in mind, that there is difference between a nation's utter defeat and loss of battle and a tribute of vassalage. 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). Thus, there is no substantiation for the starting point of the 70 years here.

Also when reading Jeremiah 25, Jonnson's proposes a strained exegesis on the text and it's quite obvious that his bolded statements thus have no basis in the text itself.

The chapter begins: "The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Je·hoi′a·kim the son of Jo·si′ah, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon; which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem (i.e. the emphasis here is clearly on the Judeans and their disobedience and the text provides no basis to "exclude" Judah from among "these nations"). “Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words (the emphasis and audience of the message has not changed here) here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about (i.e. the preceded warnings apply to Judah and the surrounding nations); and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. (i.e. Judah and the surrounding lands will suffer this fate) 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, (the audience being referred to even at this point obviously still includes the Judeans) an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

Later in Jeremiah 25 he continues describing the calamity coming upon "all the nations" (i.e. "these nations) and Judah is specifically mentioned: "And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: 18 namely, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings."

Also a reading of Jeremiah 25:11 in the LXX (which is far older and traditionally regarded as more accurate than the Masoretic text) states:"And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years." The LXX equivalent makes it quite obvious that the "servitude" (specifically, the servitude of seventy years) is NOT in reference to vassalage as it would be nonsensical to say: "The nations (they) will serve as vassals among the nations." Hence, it is patently obvious the "seventy years" refer to "THESE NATIONS", "ALL THE NATIONS", etc. which would include Judah and this attenuates his chronology causing two contravening methodologies and it invalidates his interpretation of "servitude" as "vassalage."

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

Actually I believe Recovery was thirdwitness....not sure about olinmoyle.

The thread should be up today. Its simply a matter of organizing my notes and comments into structured arguments.

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

Review/discussion will be for another thread. This was just to gauge the interest before I spent time on it.

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

Cedars....you're kidding right? I went back and re-edited my post after I had seen your third condescending response to me. Your feeble attempt to smooth things over at the end of yet another post insulting my viewpoint and a very insulting insinuation aboug my intelligience (or lack thereof) does not somehow excuse your behavior. I have read other threads you've been involved in cedars...and people have pointed out similar things to you, not out of spite, but because your statements are patently disrespectful.

We are not in third grade are we? Lets not try to play the reverse psychology game. This is not an issue of me trolling and being desperate for an argument. The issues here are: a) your judgemental tone b): your assumptions and hasty generalizations c): your lack of acknowledgement of both d): your inability to handle any type of criticism.

As a grown man...these things need to be dealt with.

40

Does it get boring....

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

does it become boring/monotonous reading thread after thread about how terrible the gb is and how much of a cult jws are...etc.

etc.?.

.

FaceTheFacts

Thanks to everyone for the (positive) responses.

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

Excuse me for defending myself....and explaining why I enjoy historical literature reflective of turbulent political climate.

Excuse me for pointing out obvious biased assumptions about the nature of my character and my lack of historical information about Rutherford.

Recovery/Ethos/whoever's modus operandi must be quite "normal"...as I don't see anything particularly "revealing" about defending one's self.

Seriously....the obsession with terming anyone who signs up here who is not flagrantly opposed to JW's a previous poster, is quite unfair and ridiculous to say the least.

ScenicViewer....see post 24, at the very top of this page where I explained in detail my reasons.

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

I'm curious as to what it was about this publication that makes it one of your favourites from that era? I've not read the book, but I've listened to a recording of Rutherford's "Face The Facts" talk at the Royal Albert Hall. In it he sounds pompous and arrogant, and his talk is strewn with political opinion. I find it difficult to imagine anyone being a fan of Rutherford or his writings in the modern age unless they are completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character.

Cedars....that's an unfair assumption. It is one of my favorite "Rutherfordian" publications because it presents an interesting and dramatic demonstrance of how many people (namely, the Bible Students) reacted to the turbulent political climate of the time and it is also set just a few years after the Great Depression. You don't necessarily have to agree with someone's viewpoint or opine positively about their character...to enjoy and learn from their writings. Many people also enjoy reading about/listening to Hitler's "pompous" and "arrogant" "political opinion" though they are not "completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character." Why? Because it's interesting to see such a charismatic and manipulative speaker in action and to see direct evidenceof the manipulative methodology employed during these time periods.

Here are some statements that I (personally) love from the "Face the Facts" brochure:

"Facts fully stated are never open to successful contradiction, and therefore they stand admitted."

"Because the full statement of the facts tends to shock the susceptibilities of some persons furnishes no excuse or justification to withhold from the public any part thereof.."

"When presented to the people, those hearing the facts should face the facts with calmness and sobriety and then sincerely take the course that is for their best interest."

"All nations of the earth face the same condition. No one, therefore, should be moved by prejudice or partiality against another because of race, nationality, or color." (considering the 58% unemployment rate of African-Americans and considerable deportation of immigrants to provide more jobs for White men during the Depression, this is very interesting)

"What is that hideous monstrosity? It is the totalitarian government or ruling power, which makes the State supreme, regiments all the people, rules them by arbitrary dictators, compels all to render complete obedience thereto,.." (very reminisicent of George Orwell's, 1984)

Sorry for the long response....but I just wanted to show that my reasons are not as ludicrous as perhaps originally perceived. This is history in context! I love this stuff.

EDIT: Cedars....I can't help but feel somewhat alarmed and offended at your condescending tone and the numerous assumptions you've asserted about my character repeatedly and without justification.

It sound more than a bit confrontational, and pre-supposes that you have facts we need to "face."

Assumption #1

I find it difficult to imagine anyone being a fan of Rutherford or his writings in the modern age unless they are completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character.

Assumption #2

Notice the insulting assumption that I am somehow oblivious and ignorant of the historical character of Rutherford when a): I am well aware and well studied in this era of history b): a person's character is of complete irrelevance to an individual's ability to learn, enjoy, or benefit in any form from said person's writings

Hence the complete hypocrisy in the following statement:

I still find it hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book of this rubbish. But, each to his own. The world is such a wonderful place because we are all different.

This is a paradox if I've ever seen one. Because you can't separate an author's character from the historical/moral import of his writings it is somehow "hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book" of this "rubbish (your opinion) and therefore anyone who does enjoy such reading is judged accordingly. Then, you attempt to deflate your own hasty generalization by stating "the world is such a wonderful place because we are all different" and yet previously you declared the book "rubbish" and "pompous" and "arrogant" since they are the "bigoted rantings of a psychopathic maniac."

I am appalled by this reasoning, quite honestly.

40

Does it get boring....

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

does it become boring/monotonous reading thread after thread about how terrible the gb is and how much of a cult jws are...etc.

etc.?.

.

FaceTheFacts

Yeah I agree the meetings are usually woefully boring as well. And NO I am not counting time.....why is that even relevant to this thread?

46

JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts in

jw
friends

having just finished reading the gtr (4th edition), i've compiled my notes and observations and am composing a comprehensive review/analysis of many sections.

so my question: would anyone be interested in reading and/or participating in a discussion about a number of jonnson's viewpoint?

be assured, it will be of substantial merit and not the typical superficial and remiss arguments you perhaps expect from someone who is a jw.. .

FaceTheFacts

Winstonsmith.....what?! No way! I can send you a copy of it if you want.