Sharp comments, Simwitness! Unfortunately, they'll be lost on this sham of a scholar.
You've noted sham-scholar's gross double standards and deliberate vagueness in his refusal to clearly define his terms. This is a very typical ruse by JW defenders to avoid "being wrong". Once they have to admit to "being wrong" about anything with regards to their religion, the game is up and they know it.
To recap, Jonsson used the words "associate", "identify" and "connect" in the sense of "equate". Jonsson wrote, in the 2nd edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered (1986 edition, pp. 21-22):
The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years... Not only was he the originator of the 2,520 year calculation, but he was also the first to apply the 2,300 year-days of Daniel 8:14 from 457 B.C.E. to 1843 B.E... Brown's calculation that the "seven times" of Daniel 4, were a period of 2,520 years was first published in 1823... Brown's exposition of the "seven times" is based on Daniel 4. Nowhere does he refer to the "seven times" of prophetic punishment directed against Israel at Leviticus 26:12-28, as did other expositors after him. "Nebuchadnezzar was a type," Brown says, "of the kings of the tyrannical earth, and his kingdom of the three successive kingdoms which were to arise." The "seven times," or years, of Nebuchadnezzar's affliction, "would, therefore, be considered as a grand week of years, forming a period of two thousand five hundred and twenty years, embracing the duration of the four tyrannical monarchies; at the close of which they are to learn, like Nebuchadnezzar, that 'the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.' " Brown calculates the 2,520 years from the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (604 B.C.E.) to 1917 C.E., when "the full glory of the kingdom of Israel shall be perfected."
The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24. At the Albury Park Prophetic Conferences, held at Albury, south of London, England from 1826 onward, the times of the Gentiles was one of the topics discussed. Even at the first meeting they were connected with the 2,520 year period.
As confirmed to my friend in a phone call, the Society's writer obviously used the word "connect" to mean "equate", on page 134 of the Proclaimers book:
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the "seven times" of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Mornng, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah's removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
The JW audience that is the primary target of the Proclaimers book is given no clue that Brown's application of the "Gentile Times" was as Jonsson stated. This audience is well aware that the Society teaches that these periods are the same periods. It's obvious, then, that the author intended that his JW readers understand the phrase "connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" to mean "equate" them. This is further proved by the very next sentence in the text, which talks about E. B. Elliott bringing "attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the 'seven times'". If Brown "connected" the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times", and the audience implicitly understands that they are supposed to be the same periods, and 'knows' that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914, and Elliott "drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the 'seven times'", then it takes no genius to get the author's point: Brown and the other expositors equated the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times".
That the author of the Proclaimers book intended to contrast its statement about Brown making a connection between the two time periods with Jonsson's statements about associating, identifying and connecting them is proved by his use of italics: Brown "did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." If he meant that there were merely a loose association, i.e., as I've shown was what Brown actually wrote (that the "Gentile times" were contained within the "seven times"), then it would be pointless to emphasize a statement about a connection.
Now, sham-scholar has admitted that Brown didn't equate the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Thus, to be consistent, he must claim that the author of the Proclaimers book also didn't equate the periods -- and that seems to be the thrust of his latest round of claims. But to make the point that this book disagrees with Jonsson's position, he must claim that Jonsson said that Brown did equate them. Yet we've seen that Jonsson said exactly the opposite.
Note what sham-scholar says in the post above: "Jonsson first raised the issue when he stated that Brown did not associate the Gentile Times with the seven times". What issue? The issue of whether Brown did or did not "connect" or "associate" the two periods. For there to be a point of contention between the Proclaimers book's author and Jonsson, their respective uses of "connect" and "associate" would have to be the same, since the former said that there was a connection, but the latter said that there was no association made by Brown. And this is exactly what sham-scholar claims: "the Society is corrrect in stating that a connection, association or relation is clearly evident in Brown's work and that Jonsson's statement is an error." I.e., sham-scholar claims that Jonsson's use of "associate" does not mean "equate". But in view of Jonsson's actual statements quoted above, this is the opposite of what Jonsson meant.
In summary, for sham-scholar to have a point, he must argue and prove that both the Proclaimers book's author and Jonsson meant the opposite of what their readers would clearly understand, and what official spokesmen (i.e., a Writing Department official and Jonsson himself) have stated on the record.
Sham-scholar has, to date, made no such arguments. He has simply proclaimed that the Proclaimers book's author is correct and Jonsson is wrong. He hasn't even argued, much less shown, why he thinks that either author means the opposite of what is clearly written.
AlanF
