Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin 184 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Leolaia wrote:

  : Do you know if John Albu's original work is available anywhere? I once did linguistic study of the literary dependence between the Appendix and Jonsson, showing how the former was a concealed response of the latter.

  So far as I know, Albu wrote nothing of his own initiative. Although a brilliant man, he truly prostituted his abilities to the Society. I met him personally in 1994 under rather unusual circumstances. He told me of his past, and how he came to accept the Watchtower Society as "God's spokesman" largely through his determination that Fred Franz's New World Translation was so incredibly faithful to the original Hebrew. Albu had training in various biblical languages, and was trained in Romania as a citizen of that country. Whatever material Albu wrote was absorbed into the Watchtower collective, and produced anonymously. I'm certain of his direct involvement in the writing of the Appendix to Chapter 14 of the "Let Your Kingdom Come" book because at the time, he was the only man capable of doing the research necessary to produce that Appendix. Fred Franz was little more than a vegetable in 1981.

  As a side note, Albu's experience with the Society shows how nasty they can be, even with valuable people who happen not to be valuable enough in the eyes of the top dogs. Albu joined Bethel in the 1980s (he claimed to be "anointed" from his earliest JW days around 1970) but was forced out around 1989 when he developed a debilitating disease and the Society didn't want to foot his medical bills. After that, he got a job as a hotel doorman but spent his remaining time researching various topics on "Bible chronology". He had quite a collection of research material. I have no idea what he was involved in after 1994.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  968

  I ate little of Furuli.

  There is sufficient evidence for 607 because there is secular evidence for 539 and 537 and 607 is a date derived from biblical sources in harmony with contemporary secular evidence.

  There is no biblical evidence for 586 or 587 because of a twenty year gap and the negation of the seventy years by scholars in order to squeeze in 586 or 587. However, there is secular evidence for these competing dates according to current modes of interpretation but there is also much variation in the data so the secular evidence is a 'dog's breakfast' at the moment.

  Our chronology is simple and in complete harmony with Jeremiah, his prophetic statements and his overall theology. Your view is incompatible with Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah. If the experts cannot determine 586 or 587 then that means that the methodology is faulty and a fresh approach should be undertaken just as celebrated WT scholars have dolne by using an event-based chronology rather than a regnal- based chronology.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  outoftheorg

  I accept your criticism but sadly that is the position but these scholars are not hiding because this information has been publihed in the scholarly journal the Watchtower ever since its inception.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Forscher

  You hang on before you make an ass of yourself. Read Furli's website and you will informed about his scholarship, qualifications etc. The man is well qualified in dealing with the primary sources because he is a scholar of those ancient languages. Furuli is skilled with the relevant languages apart from Hebrew and is skilled with the modern European languages so his competence cannot be diminished. Remember that the apostae Jonsson is skilled only in 'cult bashing' not in original scholarship. Furuli is competent with Akkadian so is able to read the cunieform tablets. Jonsson is not.

  scholar JW
• 

  ozziepost

  Scholar:

  Why are you bandying about a spattering of statements but nothing in the way of background, let alone proof? Of course, that is the Watchtower way, sn't it, but still let's read more of this from you:

  Our chronology is simple and in complete harmony with Jeremiah, his prophetic statements and his overall theology.

  I'm intrigued.
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  4473

  It appears that you have stumbled over the expression 'celebrated WT scholars' by denyiong the impossibility of their existence just as you have stumbled over the existence of the NWT Commitee. However, the research and writings of the above has long been published in the publications of the Society and the continuing policy of anonymity ensures that the integrity of the above is preserved. I can help you no further except to say that Holy Spirit plays a most important part but as you are an atheist such a fact would be nonsensical to you.

  The writing of the Appendix is more than slick it is brilliant but is no more decptive as you claim than the mush paraded as scholarship in the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  ozziepost

  Hey mate if you are intriqued then how do you think I feel? I am somewhat intriqued as to why you are intriqued by Jeremiah. Why do not you hop over to Moore Theological Library and consult the shelf of commentaries on Jeremiah as is my custom. I suggest you begin your reading with the Heremeneia series, WBC series and the ABD series thence all will be revealed.

  scholar JW
• 

  ozziepost

  Why do not you hop over to Moore Theological Library

  OK, I can do that since I have my student card there. Meet up? You can show me, eh?
• 

  Leolaia

  Just wondering if pseudo-scholar ever wrote such insipid prose in his "academic" work. Consider the way Furuli expresses himself:

  Furuli: "In 1878 T. G. Pinches wrote regarding a tablet he had discovered, 'indeed seeing that it would overthrow the perfect agreement of Mr. Boscawen's list with the Canon of Ptolemy I did not intend to publish it at all." Regarding a tablet that did not fit their chronological scheme, Parker and Dubberstein wrote that 'the month sign is shaded, and in view of known facts this date cannot be accepted. C. B. F. Walker, who works at the British Museum, and is a scholar with a great knowledge of astronomical tablets, confirmed that the published date of the tablet B. M. 65494 was 'Artaxerxes VI.4.50'....Neither of the authors should be criticized for their words, because it is natural to defend a well established chronology in this way, and 'contradictions' may well turn out to be scribal errors" (p. 22)

  This is how the above would read if written in the same style pseudo-scholar is writing here:

  Pseudo-scholar: "In 1878 the apostate T. G. Pinches tried to hide the truth about a tablet he disvocered, admitting that it would disprove the satanic Canon of Ptolmy I, and so he said he wanted to hide it and not publish it. Two more apostate scholars blinded by thier God-dishonoring chronological scheme, Parker and Dubberstein, tried to fool themselves about reading the signs and decided to not accept the date because they did not accept hte celebrated date of 607. C. B. F. Walker, who works at the British Museum, and is a brilliant scholar who knows the astronomical tablets almost as well as WTS scholars, confirmed that the published date of the tablet B. M. 65494 was 'Artaxerxes VI.4.50', proves the complete falseness of the wishy-washy 587 and 586....These authors are God-dishonoring apostates who fail to respect God's holy Word, and instead defend a groundless chronology and resort to claiming that these discripencies are mere 'scribal errors'.
• 

  Dansk

  Good Morning Scholar,

  You wrote:

  I have revealed my identity so if you are so curious then read my posting history.

  Without having to delve into your vast postings of the past would you please supply me with your surname? I believe your first name is Neil. Thank you!

  You didn’t answer me re my enquiry regarding the following:

  If you are truly a scholar I should very much like to peruse any of your past university papers, or any publications in which you have articles appearing or in which your name is cited.

  Ian