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

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.

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.

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

Are you going to divert the argument on me to cover up the fact that no one can refute my points or were you hoping no one would notice?

There is little point in members making shortsighted attempts at refuting the arguments unsuccessfully when we could just use ad hominem attacks and say FaceTheFacts is a banned member.....or was that the plan all along?

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...

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.

Coming to understand a text is not contingent upon who wrote what first. It is based upon an examination of numerous references (all, if possible) so that a good preponderance of evidence is examined and then a (simple conclusion) of how something should be understood is made. How should Jeremiah 25 be understood? We can examine the text itself, which shows us that the nations will serve the king of Babylon for seventy years and that Judah will be made desolate. Now we go to Daniel 9:2, which says he discerns that Jeremiah prophesied that Jerusalem would be devastated for seventy years. So now, we arrive at a greater understanding of Jeremiah 25, because we have examined OTHER texts (i.e. our conclusion of how it should be understood is DEPENDENT on other references to Jeremiah's writings). I am not saying this exegesis is correct, but simply showing how ALL the texts are interdependent if one wishes to arrive at ONE, cohesive intepretation of the 70 years.

Concerning LXX: why are you not providing a comparison text with the masoretic texts?

I have already done so in post #2, on page 1:

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."

This is a comparison of how the LXX rendering helps us to understand how the "seventy years of servitude" in Jeremiah 25 should be understood.

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 have never stated that any translation is not prone to inaccuracies, but what you are doing is asserting that the rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 is incorrect. You have provided no evidence for this assertion; not a single quote from a Biblical scholar, not a single exegesis on the text itself, and otherwise not a single reason why the LXX should be regarded as inaccurate (in this case) other than the fact that it utterly dismantles Jonnson's interpretation.

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.

Would you like a detailed exegesis of the LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25? I could do the same thing I did with the Hebraic rendering and I guarantee you I would be able to argue my point that the rendering is correct and consistent with what I've already stated. Can you provide a single iota of evidence to place into doubt anything I've written other than your own speculations and hasty generalizations? The ball is in your courtyard.

And my points remained unrefuted.

Londo...

Somebody else brought this up, but I will reiterate the thought: the archeological and scriptural arguments are not unique to Carl Jonsson--why are we debating him rather than discussing the 607 vs 587 debate more directly?

We are discussing Jonnson because the most common alternate interpretation rejecting the seventy years is based largely, if not entirely, upon the statements contained therein his book.

Carl Jonsson is not claiming to be the unique channel of God. Nobody follows him as if he were a religious leader. While I believe it book to be a must read, it is not as though anyone, including himself, believes him infallible on all points. He offers several alternative views in his book in regard the 70 year period.

Immaterial to the discussion. It has nothing to do with Jonnson's persona or the notion that anything he said is infallible. Jonnson is only the center of discussion because his material is the basis for a number of the arguments that are used against 607.

To define parameters in an internet debate will yield the same results as herding cats. It ain’t gonna happen. As the subject is a multi-dimensional continuum, it is impossible to separate the related topics because they are very integral. One does not have to choose between Scripture and History on the matter, as if the two are at odds. The two work hand in hand.

This is precisely why parameters are necessary for this discussion to go anywhere. In 607 threads people want to discuss archaeological evidence, Watchtower misquotes, how Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 should be rendered, what the servitude meant, and so forth. It is not humanly possible nor reasonable for one human being to be able to discuss all these subjects simultaneously. Hence, why the only thing that should be discussed at this point are arguments surrounding Jeremiah 25. I do not believe it is that difficult for mature adults to stick to one subject at a time.

Today, nobody debates the Earth is in orbit about the Sun. When we read Scripture, we read it in such a way so that the two are in harmony. This was not always the case. The Inquisition felt Galileo’s work a threat. Today, the Watchtower has Inquisitions toward those whose views it considers a threat. If we read The Gentile Times Reconsidered from the beginning that is exactly what happened. The Society was more concerned that Carl Jonsson not speak his ideas to others than truth.

In high control groups, the Leadership decides who “needs to know” information. Critical information or information from former members is banned, such as the case of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful. Deviant thoughts are reported to the leadership. Only “good” and “proper” thoughts are encouraged. Frequently, cult literature contains misquotations, statements taken out of context. Information is deliberately held back. The arguments put forth by the group are full of denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking.

607 BC is a useful case study in the above. It is held onto because it is part of the 1914 chronology. The 1914 chronology is important because it is used to support 1919, which is the magic year for the Society where minuscule events are given grandiose importance as the basis for their supreme authority. Eventually they will have to discard 607 and they will find an alternative, and at that time, all these arguments will have been shown to be a waste of time.

Thanks for the history lessons, but I'd appreciate it more if you could address the points I've brought up in my two OP's. Thus far, no one has addressed them or refuted them substantially.

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

ChristAlone....this is not a discussion about archaeological evidence or what it represents. This is precisely an argument about Jeremiah 25 and how it is to be understood. Why don't you disprove my points instead of switching the topic?

Also, my writing style is modeled after how Leolaia and EntirelyPossible write. I love how she compiles her thoughts and how EntirelyPossible argues his points. Again, this is not about me...this is about my arguments.

Two pages and nothing substantial has been brought forth other than ad hominem attacks.

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

jwfacts...

How could anyone trust anything on a thread written by a person the dishonestly keeps creating new accounts for themselves? I really think it is time people let these threads disappear to where they belong. Too many hours have been wasted, going around the same circle.

Fallacy here. Who I am is of no importance. Disprove my arguments or counter my points. People here are so focused on the who that they have lost site of the "hows".

tornapart...

I thought JWs didn't believe in reincarnation?

How many times has this poster reincarnated himself? Going round and round in circles trying to refute the irrefutable....

Witness My Fury...

Recovery you are beyond pathetic.

If you have to make shit up to try and make your point then you have already lost. There must be a very dark hole in your heart matey...

More attacks and speculations about who I am instead of tackling the arguments. Nothing I said has been made up. Everything I stated has been backed by the facts and no amount of speculating who I am...or trying to divert this into a "he/she is djeggnog, thirdwitness, Ethos reincarnated" dialogue will overcome my arguments.

So after a full page no one has refuted my exegesis of Jeremiah 25 which clearly shows the servitude had not started at the time of writing. Quite dissapointing.

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....

FTF ought to know that Jonsson takes into account all the intertextual scriptural references when discussing Jer. 25. The book shows it is the WTS that actually bases its interpretations on superficial reading and ripping those references from their historical context. FTF wants to discuss Jer. 25 without bringing in other relevant scriptural evidence and thus wants to do the very thing he (mistakenly) thinks Jonsson has done. Inconsistent.

Incorrect. You and others still are not getting the point. Let me re-explain it for what, the fourth time, so you can see why I termed it a strawman. It has nothing to do with the fact that Jonnson examines these scriptures in isolation, but with the fact that he is attacking the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years BASED UPON a reading of Jeremiah 25. Jonnson states:

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.

Here he is pointing out that the Watchtower's interpretation of the seventy years is not based upon the text of Jeremiah 25 because the text doesn't say "Jerusalem will be devastated for seventy years" but it refers to the nations' servitude. This is a strawman. Why? Because as I already showed (quoting from p. 463 of the Insight Book), the Watchtower arrives at its interpretation that the seventy years of Jeremiah meant seventy years of desolation based upon the reading of OTHER texts (i.e. Daniel 9:2). They do not arrive at this interpretation from simply reading Jeremiah 25. Thus his argument is a strawman.

The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations.

Jonnson continues refuting the Watchtower's 70-year interpretation by stating the passage says seventy years of servitude, not desolation. The Watchtower does not base their understanding that Jerusalem will be devastated for seventy years from Jeremiah 25 alone, but on Daniel's reinterpretation of the seventy years and other passages like 2 Chronicles. Thus, his argument is a strawman.

No inconsistency on my part.

The following, however, REALLY TICKS ME OFF! BADLY QUOTING FROM YOUR SOURCE!

FTF, you need to pay careful attention to this as pulling isolated quotes from different pages and cobbling them together into one paragraph is very misleading. It's telling that you don't bother to give page references.

I specifically stated I was quoting the thrust of Jonnson's arguments (i.e. his main points). I have not misrepresented anything he has stated or misconstrued any of his words, therefore, I have not badly quoted from my source. But even if I didn't leave every single page reference, is this really the best you can come up with? What really should tick you off is a): how no one thus far has been able to counter my exegesis of Jeremiah 25 which shows the servitude had not begun at the earliest (605 B.C.) b): how Jonnson has been unable to provide an iota of evidence showing that a nation paid tribute to Babylon in 609 B.C., and thus his important starting point is refuted by his own definition of the seventy years c): how no one has been able to successfully argue against the LXX and it's rendering of "among the nations" which clearly shows serving the king of Babylon was not a reference to vassalage.