Alleymom

Joined

• started 37 topics
• posted 933 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Alleymom

• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  but my bringing this point forward is simply to show that Daniel may well be alerting the reader to a different context or thought by the choice of this word.

  No, on the contrary, the point you have been trying to make is that the NWT translators' use of "kingship" rather than "reign" is theologically significant and is meant to alert the reader.

  Daniel used the same word [malkut] that is translated interchangeably as "reign" and "kingship" throughout the NWT. HE is not alerting the reader to anything new by HIS choice of the word malkut.

  It is the NWT translators whom you claim are alerting the reader to a different context by their use of "kingship" rather than "reign".

  Actually, if Daniel is alerting us to anything, it is to be careful of the WT's claims. It is very interesting to note that he places extra emphasis on Jehoiakim's being a king by his repetition of "malkut ... melek", as Earnest and I have pointed out.

  There are three ways the Bible commonly expresses years:
  
  a) In the third year of So-and-So
  b) In the third year of the reign of So-and-So
  c) In the third year of King So-and-So

  But Daniel uses BOTH words, as if to alert the reader that Jehoiakim is a king and this is the third year of his reign.

  d) In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah ...

  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  It concerns me not one iota that the WT chronology is unique because that is where its power lies namely in its basis for prophecy, a call to faith and a strong theological and historiographical basis. For these three reasons, there is no need for any other endorsement from any scholar, critic, apostate etc.

  Of course there is a need for their endorsement!
  You need them to endorse your 539 date, without which you have nothing.

  You HAVE to have a date from those scholars in order to have a starting point for your chronological calculations.

  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Sorry for the truncated post last night. We upgraded to Windows 2000 over the weekend and all kinds of odd things were messed up. I'm using an old version of our ISP software tonight.

  Scholar wrote:
  
  In fact for your information and if you are such an expert on chronology you would know that there are very few BIBLICAL dates that are universally accepted. The fall of Babylon alone enjoys that acclaimation [sic].

  Scholar, the irony is that YOU are the one who told us to read the book which exposes the error of that statement.

  You seem to be forgetting Eliezer Shulman from page 6 of this thread. Remember how YOU recommended his book, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, and I went and found a Hebrew edition?

  Eliezer Shulman follows the ancient Seder Olam chronology and dates the fall of Babylon to 3390 A.M. (~ 368 BCE), not to 539 BCE. He dates the destruction of the first temple to 3338 A.M. (~ 422 BCE). I brought this up to you in my post of July 15, 05:05, on page 6 of this thread.

  I asked you to give me an exact quote from page 143 and you never did.

  Here is what you said:

  On p. 6 of this thread, on 16 July 17:04, scholar wrote:
  
  The relevant information is found on page 143 and simply contains a chart illustrating the Jewish traditional understanding of the seventy years.based upon Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1,2. The diagram speaks for itself and in my mind simply illustrates the complexity of the nature, duration and chronology of this critical period of Judean history. I do not support its findings because it is at variance with our understanding of this period.

  The diagram which "speaks for itself" says that Koresh (Cyrus) took Babylon in 3390 A.M..

  So your claim that the date of the fall of Babylon is universally accepted and "alone enjoys that acclaimation" [sic] is simply not true.

  And you must be aware of this, since you are the one who recommended Eliezer Shulman's book in the first place, and since you looked at page 143 and commented on the diagram there, and since you said "its findings" are "at variance with our [meaning the WT's] understanding of this period."

  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  >>> In fact for your information and if you are such an expert on chronology you would know that there are very few BIBLICAL dates that are universally accepted. The fall of Babylon alone enjoys that acclaimation.
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Gamaliel and Ros -- Yes, I'm using TrueType fonts, HebraicaII and GraecaII. (At least those are the ones I usually use. But I don't remember if my Logos software uses different fonts, and IIRC I pasted from Logos.) I guess the thing to do would be to use image files as Gamaliel does or transliterate as Earnest has done. I have to confess I haven't been able to make Strike9 work for me, so I've never uploaded images. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again for putting up the Hebrew image files, Gamaliel! Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  You would find it imperative to consult Jewish commentaries on both verses and see an alternative viewpoint.

  Scholar ---

  As I have said before, I have consulted Jewish commentaries. Jewish commentaries do NOT support the WT's chronology. No one supports the WT's chronology. In all the vast world of scholars, there is no Assyriologist, no Christian scholar, no Jewish scholar, no museum curator, no archaeologist, no historian, no professor, no chronologist, no anyone who supports the WT's chronology.

  Furthermore, neither Jewish commentaries nor Christian commentaries support your claim that the word malkuth means something different in Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1 then it means in the other 89 places it occurs in the Tanakh.

  Earnest has suggested that not even the WT supports your claim regarding the meaning of malhuth.

  Can you give me even one reference to a scholar who supports the position you have taken regarding the meaning of malkuth? The alternative viewpoints you mention have to do with the ancient Jewish scholars' desire to make the chronology work out so that the prophecy of Daniel 9 ends with the destruction of the second temple. They have nothing whatsoever to say regarding the meaning of malkhuth, kingship, reign, vassalage, etc., all the things you have brought up in the last few days. Their arguments are not based on philology at all.

  I am not without sympathy for you. If you are really someone who is doing scholarly reading, then you are finding out that there is no justification whatsoever for the WT chronology, and I understand that this must be very upsetting.

  But wouldn't it be more honest to admit that you don't have answers right now but that you still believe the WT is the one true religion? Why participate in a discussion board if you are not prepared to explain your beliefs to those who ask?

  I am very sincere when I say that I just do not understand the WT's position on Daniel 2:1 being the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

  How do you explain the WT's position that Daniel 1:1 is the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel 2:1 is his 20th year?

  How can Neb's 7th year + 3-year-training-course = Neb's 20th year?

  I can't see where you get this from.

  Hoping for a substantive response,
  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Gamaliel --

  Yes, I do see the Hebrew letters in your post. Thanks for posting the two verses, btw. I don't know what Scholar is talking about with this new reference to TWO Hebrew terms. The word is exactly the same in both verses.

  It is too bad that your excellent list of five questions has never been addressed. I liked how you worded them, and I thought they got right to the heart of the issue.

  Marjorie
• 
  147

  586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

  by Alleymom in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  nabonidus -- 17 years.

  nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

  nabonidus -- 17 years

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Thank you Allymom. First for the K.I.S.S. approach for us chronologically challenged. and for doing the research beforehand so that we are not swept away by pseudo-scholors who attempt to confuse the facts with BS.

  Loris, as someone who was never a JW, I think I bring a different perspective to this. I am genuinely interested in archaeology and history (and have even toyed with the idea of writing some juvenile mysteries with archaeology themes). I got hooked back when my husband was an editor at Biblical Archaeology Review.

  So I don't have an axe to grind with respect to the chronology. I don't have to protect the 1914 date, as Scholar does.

  What I wish I could convey to "the chronologically challenged" is that they can be assured that the myriad of dated contract tablets give us the starting and ending point of each king's reign. Just as the heaps and heaps of dated junk in our own homes could be used by historians (or garbologists <s>) to reconstruct events in our families' histories, so the scholars who specialize in these documents have been able to trace the family histories of numerous individuals.

  Scholar throws up one smokescreen after another in the Furuli thread, but the simple truth is that the lengths of reign are known from the tablets themselves.

  If one were to browse through the sections of a university library which contain publications of the actual texts of the cuneiform documents, it would soon be apparent that the amount of information we have for this era is simply staggering.

  These people were both literate and legal, a combination which leads to a lot of paperwork (or "tablet" work <s>.) Not only are the contract tablets dated, they also give a long list of witnesses, as well as the scribe's name, names of officials, names of both parties involved, etc. Scholars who specialize in this can actually trace the careers of these officials. They can trace the financial fortunes of the great merchant families. They know when people got married and conveyed property and disputed inheritances.

  JCanon and scholar both ignore this, even though it is absolutely central to the discussion.

  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  Earnest --

  I saw that you specifically mentioned Theodotion rather than "the LXX". I was curious, so I looked the verses up in the Greek. It is interesting that Theodotion and the Old Greek apparently equate the phrases "third year of King Jehoiakim" and "third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim," as is indeed the case in numerous instances throughout the Masoretic text.

  It is also interesting to note that Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar are both called

  basileu"

  just as they are both called "melek" in the Hebrew.

  IOW, the text itself makes no distinction in their kingship, even though, as we know from other verses, Jehoiakim was, in fact, a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar.

  Marjorie
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Alleymom

  In short, there is a strong Jewish tradition thsat supports the WT understanding that the third years was the eleventh year of Jehoiakimm;s rule.

  Scholar ---

  Is there any Jewish tradition that supports the WT understanding that the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:1 was really the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's rule?

  If Daniel 1:1 is Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as the WT affirms, then how can Daniel 2:1 be his 20th year?

  The boys had a three year training course. Even if you count this time inclusively, as is often the case in the Bible, I do not see how:

  year 7 + 3-year-training-course = year 20.

  I was never one of Jehovah's Witnessses, and while I have read a fair amount of your organization's literature, I am not thoroughly acquainted with WT explanations. Can you tell me how your organization explains this discrepancy?

  Marjorie