by Augustin 184 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia
Furuli has already submitted his research for peer review but why has not Jonsson done this after a lengthy period of twenty-three years? Where is there a Book Review for the Gentile Times Reconsidered published? If such is indeed lacking does that not raise questions about the validity of Jonsson's juvenile scholarship in the mind of truly qualified academics and scholars because his work is simply seen as 'cult bashing'?
scholar JW
Furuli is a very intelligent individual, but like many such JW's (Celebrated scholars?) he has a habit of forging arguments in defense of certain facets of JW doctrine and policy that are completely incompatible with other facets of JW doctrine and policy
Here's a classic example:
A few years ago, in defense of the transfusion medicine taboo, Furuli argued for an absolute, unqualified prohibition on the "Use of blood." He flatly declared that, "All other uses [besides consumption] of blood (haima), even if not being mentioned in the Bible individually, are forbidden." http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37#12803
This is strictly an argument of convenience that absolves the claimant of any responsibility in demonstrating either a physical or moral equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood.
Unfortunately, it's incompatible with other aspects of JW policy. JW's can and do hold jobs in the healthcare industry (e.g. Doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc.) and their duties sometimes involve the "Use" of blood at least for testing purposes if for nothing else.
The JW parent organization has specifically told those individuals who have inquired in writng that as long as the blood was not being "Used" for purposes of transfusion or consumption, than such "Use" is strictly a matter of conscience.
Like I said, Furuli is an intelligent individual, but despite that, some quirk in the JW mindset seems to prevent these individuals from seeing the futility of arguing a position this is inherently inconsistent. (Like the current JW prohibition on transfusion) Constructing an argument that doesn't contradict some aspect of official policy is a virtual impossibility.
Neil,
You wrote:
<< I think you are the amateur not Furuli because you did not give details or paste the article containing Grabbe's biased opinion of Furuli's scholarship. >>
Now, I did provide you with the reference: JSOT 25:3 (2004), p. 42. Being an amateur (and only pretending to be a scholar) I guess you didn't understand that. It is, of course, a lie that Jonsson's excellent book lacks approval from celebrated (real) scholars. The scholar Reidar Hvalvik (who teaches at the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology), author of The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (WUNT 2/82. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996) leans on Jonsson's study in his book on Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, no real scholar has accepted Furuli's biased amateur study... I wish you a speedy recovery! -- Augustin --
I gather that Furuli is the only identified "celebrated" JW scholar. All the others are anonymous.
Augustin
Yes you provided a reference but you omitted the title and did not bother to paste the entire article so as your claims could be tested. No matter I will obtain the article shortly and give my observations on the matter.
The mere quotation by scholars of Jonsson's hypothesis in order to refute Jehovh'a Witnesses is meaningless. What is required is that there is a Book Review or scholarly critique of Jonsson's work by means of a peer review and this has not been done. Furuli on the other hand has had his work examined by his peers and that makes the difference between Furuli, the scholar and academic and Jonsson, a non-scholar and amateur.
scholar JW
Furuli on the other hand has had his work examined by his peers and that makes the difference between Furuli, the scholar and academic and Jonsson, a non-scholar and amateur.scholar JW
The "peer reviews" on Furuli weren`t exactly flattering though,were they, lol. I believe some statements about Furulis "work" were quoted above, by Leolaia, among others. And just for the record, Furuli is a linguist, not a historian, and his JehoWatchtower-inspired "theories" about 607 have no more intelectual value than a piece of toilet paper. And by the way, not even in my own (and Furulis) country, have I ever seen any articles about, or by him, in scinece or history-magasines, and I read some of them on a regular basis. I suspect this is because he is an embarassment to the whole academic community here. A hero in Watchtower-land, an idiot in the real world.
Hellrider
Have you read all of the peer reviews of Furuli's research? Or are you only interested in opinions from apostates in relation to Furuli? Why not address the issue as to why Jonsson's nonsense has not been peer reviewed by serious scholars?
Furuli is a linguist and semitic scholar whereas Jonsson is a nobody, an apostate who does not like 607 but prefers 587 which is rejected by serious scholars who prefer 586. Furuli is highly repected in academia whereas Jonsson is simply an unknown 'cult basher' with an 'axe to grind'.
scholar JW
Let's hear it again: Neil's own words;
Furuli is a linguist and semitic scholar whereas Jonsson is a nobody, an apostate who does not like 607 but prefers 587 which is rejected by serious scholars who prefer 586. Furuli is highly repected in academia whereas Jonsson is simply an unknown 'cult basher' with an 'axe to grind'.
You admit that serious scholars do not agree with 607.
So when do you have your first get together with Ozzie and other "celebrated" apostates in Oz.
yesidid
For all I know scholar is Australian.
scholarjw, Welcome to the Learn About jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Board
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hello brothers and interested ones,
Off and on I like to read some of this site to see how JWs are doing here. I have been up and down in the organization for many years - but never out. Raised in the truth all my life. 48 years now.
My name doesn't mean scholar in the modern pretensious sense. I just mean in the old sense of scholar as student. This late in life I'm attending university full-time.
I have to say that I'm a bit discouraged these days. I've always thought I should be the one to help answer questions and help build others up. I've read people here that are in a better position spiritually to handle the kinds of questions I used to answer.
I probably won't participate much. I just hope that some of the spiritual strength of my brothers and sisters rubs off on me.
Thanks.
Scholar jw needs our encouragement. It appears he's not getting much from the congregation.
Further, Lester Grabbe is a recognized authority in biblical history and promotes 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem wheras the Jonsson nonsense advocates 587 BCE.
'scholar's' pathetic attempts at logic always make me laugh. He points out a source that agrees with 586, emphasising the fact that all of the evidence points to that period, and he somehow imagines that this supports his 607 dogma. His reasoning is: "Some say 587 but others says 586, therefore it must be 607". It is just rediculous.
