25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

376 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

have noticed that Harkavy states in the preface that the English<br />

text is that of the Authorized Version, that is, the KJV. George<br />

Lamsa’s translation has been strongly criticized because of its heavy<br />

dependence on the KJV. Also in Jeremiah, chapter 29, he almost<br />

slavishly follows KJV. His “at Babylon,” therefore, means nothing.<br />

I have not been able to check Helen Spurrell’s translation. It was<br />

published in London in 1885, not 1985, as Furuli’s Bibliography<br />

erroneously shows, so it is not a modem translation.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Swedish Church Bible of 1917 has recently been “replaced”<br />

by two new translations, Bibel-2000 and Folkbibeln (1998). Both<br />

have “for Babylon” at Jeremiah 29:10. In answer to my questions,<br />

the translators of both translations emphasized that l e bâbel at<br />

Jeremiah 29:10 means “for Babylon” not “at” or “in” Babylon.<br />

Remarkably, even the new revised Swedish edition of the NWT has<br />

changed the earlier “in Babylon” (Swedish “i Babylon”) in the 1992<br />

edition to “for Babylon” (Swedish: “för Babylon”) in the 2003<br />

edition. (See above, p. 211, ftn. 26)<br />

Because the rendering “for Babylon” contradicts the theory that<br />

the 70 years refer to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, Furuli<br />

needs to defend the notably infrequent rendering “at” or “in”<br />

Babylon. He even claims that the preposition “for” gives the 70<br />

years “a fuzzy meaning:”<br />

If “for” is chosen, the result is fuzziness, because the number 70<br />

then loses all specific meaning. <strong>The</strong>re is no particular event marking<br />

their beginning nor their end, and the focus is wrong as well, because it<br />

is on Babylon rather than on the Jews. (p. 86)<br />

This is an incredible statement and another example of Furuli’s<br />

special pleading. It is difficult to believe that Furuli is totally<br />

ignorant of the fact that both the beginning and the end of<br />

Babylon’s supremacy in the Near East were marked by<br />

revolutionary events — the beginning by the final crushing of the<br />

Assyrian empire and the end by the fall of Babylon itself in 539<br />

BCE. Surely he must know that, according to secular chronology,<br />

exactly 70 years passed between these two events. Modern<br />

authorities on the history of this period agree that the definite end<br />

of Assyria occurred in 610/609 BCE. In the box on page 234 of<br />

chapter 5 above, for example, four leading scholars are quoted to<br />

this effect: viz. Professor John Bright and three leading<br />

Assyriologists, Donald J. Wiseman, M. A. Dandamaev, and Stefan<br />

Zawadski. It would be easy to multiply the number. Another<br />

example is Professor Klas R.Veenhof. He describes how the last

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!