Augustin

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 52 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Augustin

• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Oh well... According to the "excellent" study by Applegate, Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE.

  Interestingly, the "liberal" bias in Applegate's study is not accepted by leading and celebrated experts on the book of Jeremiah: Both J. Lundbom and G. Fischer make the point that the seventy years "for Babylon" (Jeremia 25 & 29) should not be equated with the time of the exile (which probably lasted ca. 49 years and ended after the end of the seventy years "for Babylon" in 539 BCE, as "predicted" by Jeremiah 29:10, NWT [in Danish and Swedish]).

  -- Augustin --
• 
  290

  607

  by Zico in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone provide me with any evidence (links to other sites is fine) that jerusalem could not have possibly fallen to the babylonians in 607?

  thanks again for your answers.

  zico

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Applegate is correct in arguing that

  (1) ...the 70 years "for Babylon" (cf. NWT in the Danish edition and the Swedish edition) indicate a period of "servitude for Judah and her neighbours" (p. 92), a period that would end with "the punishment of Babylon after seventy years" (p. 92). We all know that Babylon fell in 539 BCE (not 537 BCE).

  (2) ...Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE.

  All of this is in harmony with the interpretation advocated by NJB, Jonsson, Winkle, Finegan. There is nothing in Applegate's article supporting the Watchtower hypothesis. No support for "celebrated" Watchtower "scholars" there...

  Best wishes

  -- Augustin --
• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Neil MF,

  Liberal scholars tend to think the Biblical writers were confused about history. If they agree with parts of the Watchtower eisegesis, that would be of no surprise. The following celebrated scholars agree with Jonsson re: the seventy years "for Babylon" (NWT Danish, NWT Swedish): Young, Fischer, Lundbom, Aalders, Gurney. Both Aalders and Gurney have reached the same conclusion as to how Daniel understood the seventy years "for Babylon". No celebrated scholar has ever advocated 607 BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction.

  Perhaps one should ask Mr. Applegate for his view on 607 BCE as the year for Jerusalem's destruction... I mean, if the opinion of Mr. Applegate is so important

  Hope this helps!

  -- Augustin --
• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Neil MF,

  Applegate is a liberal scholar. He most definitely does not agree with the Watchtower. Thus, if Applegates disproves Jonsson, he most certainly disproves the Watchtower as well. As to the Book of Jeremiah, the new commentaries by Fischer and Lundbom both supports Jonsson! In his commentary on Daniel, the scholar Ch. Aalders made the same observations on Dan 9:1-2 as did Jonsson. No real scholar supports the Watchtower. And, of course, no scholarly commentary on Jeremiah would support the Watchtower. And we all know why! :)

  All the best

  -- Augustin --
• 
  129

  607, 70 years, 1914

  by crazies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  sorry for the long post!.

  what the watchtower society says:.

  24 the book of truthful historical dates ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Dear Neil,

  In which way does Applegate's essay "destroy" the interpretation advocated by Winkle, Jonsson, Fischer, Lundbom, NJB? Having Applegate's essay at hand, I am not able to see that this essay gives any support for 607 BCE. Perhaps you can help me understand? It seems to me that Applegate contradicts the Watchtower hypothesis.

  Best regards

  -- Augustin --
• 
  20

  When is Satan thrown out of heaven?

  by M.J. in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  the jws, of course, claim this occurred in 1914, thus making the way for the new heavenly order with christ (michael) having won the battle and taking his place on the throne.. but what does revelation itself suggest as the timeframe for this battle?.

  doesn't the society's version suggest that heaven was out of control until then--kind of like another earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  
  The following books might be consulted:

  Koch, M.: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau. Zur Funktion des Mythischen in der Johannesapokalypse am Beispiel von Apk 12. (WUNT 2/184). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Excellent study -- it covers all problems.

  McNamara, M.: The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. (AnBi 27). Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute. McNamara is good on the OT background.

  Regards

  Augustin
• 
  20

  When is Satan thrown out of heaven?

  by M.J. in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  the jws, of course, claim this occurred in 1914, thus making the way for the new heavenly order with christ (michael) having won the battle and taking his place on the throne.. but what does revelation itself suggest as the timeframe for this battle?.

  doesn't the society's version suggest that heaven was out of control until then--kind of like another earth?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Leolaia,

  Do you have access to Andrew's (Andreas') commentary on revelation?

  Regards

  Augustin
• 
  5

  dutch - finally finished my research

  by DannyBloem in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  well, i decided to do a bit of reserch myself about the wts and the bible.. it is finally finished.

  i did make a document out of it, to show to friends and family still in.. well, it started as a letter, but it end up being 94 pages long..... here it is http://www.files.bz/files/4675/redenen_voor_ons_geloof.pdf.

  only it is in dutch.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Danny,

  Goed zo! Lekker! ;)

  Ben je of was je wel een geteuge?

  Best wishes -- from Germany

  Thomas S.
• 
  25

  The Image of Daniel chapter 2

  by cyberdyne systems 101 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Narkissos,

  Thanks! Yes, Prigent's commentarry is excellent. He also has an interesting study (monograph) on Rev 12. I didn't like Delcor's commentary, but it's a long time since I read it. I know that Klaus Koch is still working on his commentary on Daniel; only the parts on Dan 1-3 have been published (as far as I know). I am really looking forward to it!

  Best wishes!

  -- Augustin --
• 
  25

  The Image of Daniel chapter 2

  by cyberdyne systems 101 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i have been looking at some of the society's publications recently and was wondering what people's understanding without wts bias was to the image?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Narkissos,

  Thanks! Would you recommend his book on the Apocalypse? Also, would you recommend some, perhaps 2-3, (major scale) French commentaries on Daniel? I know Lacocque's commentary.

  -- Augustin --