in the spring of 1980, i was re-investigating my beliefs as a jehovah's witness and this led me to discussions with some people who had done a bit of research on the new world translation.
one of the questions that was disturbing me was the apparent ease the new testament writers quoted old testament passages about jehovah and applied them to christ.
i knew i couldn't get away with that at the kingdom hall, but why did paul, peter and other disciples do this?
According to Pietersma and Rösel, the evidence at hand suggests that "kurios", not IAW/YHWH, was the original rendering of the Divine Name in the LXX. It should also be noted that the ancient Greek OT fragmenst with YHWH are revisions (so-called kaige versions of the LXX). This may indicate that YHWH was not original in the LXX after all. It should also be noted that parts of the NT do not make any sense with "Jehovah" instead of "Lord".
Hope this helps!
-- Augustin --
here is a picture-based explanation of the "seventy years" prophesied by jeremiah.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/70_years_of_servitude.pdf.
please note that there are several pages and that you should set your pdf reader to full page.. as i said before, i have a red-green color vision deficiency, but this time i have taken the plunge and used color.
please tell me where i need to make corrections with the colors.. as always, i appreciate your suggestions for improvements, corrections and additions.. doug.
"scholar JW",
You are in error. As you should be able to know, celebrated scholars have argued that the seventy years "for Babylon" ended in 539 BCE (when Babylon fell). No scholar argues that the seventy years "for Babylon" ended in 537 BCE (two years after the fall of Babylon). According to the celebrated Bible translation La Bible de Jérusalem, the sevent years "for Babylon" could be identified with the following period: 609-639 BCE. I haven't found any scholar advocating WT chronology -- have you? (Furuli is an amateur, not a scholar -- cf. L.L. Grabbe).
Regards
-- Augustin --
in a previous thread, rosa asked for scans of jer 29:10 from the 2003 swedish nwt and from the dutch nwt.. i have provided a scan of the page from swedish nwt at:.
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/jer_29-10_swedish_2003_nwt.pdf.
please note that the file has two pages -- the title page and the page with jer 29:10.. i give you my word that this is the page referred to by coj.. i will provide a scan of the page from the dutch nwt when i receive it.. doug.
Not from 'Sverige', but able to read 'svenska' :) Thanks for your more accurate translation.
-- A. --
in a previous thread, rosa asked for scans of jer 29:10 from the 2003 swedish nwt and from the dutch nwt.. i have provided a scan of the page from swedish nwt at:.
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/jer_29-10_swedish_2003_nwt.pdf.
please note that the file has two pages -- the title page and the page with jer 29:10.. i give you my word that this is the page referred to by coj.. i will provide a scan of the page from the dutch nwt when i receive it.. doug.
Dear Doug,
Thanks. But I guess you mean the Danish (not Dutch) NWT.
Now, this is a (more or less) word-for-word translation (Swedish -> English) of the Swedish edition of Jer 29:20:
"Because this is what Jehovah has said: 'When seventy years have gone for Babylon shall I turn my attention to you, and I shall towards you confirm my good word through taking you back to this place'"
Regards
-- Augustin --
to get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
Leolaia,
Thanks for the Harland article (PDF)!
:)
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Neil,
You wrote:
<< 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. >>
Oh, please do! :) But you should note that the 'review' has no title. Furthermore, as a Christian I respect the copyright of the JOTS. I take it that as a JW you do not, as you accuse me of not bothering "to paste the entire article".
You also wrote:
<< 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. >>
You are making the claim of a true pseudo-scholar! What matters is not that a book has been reviewd and rejected (as is the case with Furuli's amateur book, which he had to publish privately) but whether its message has been accepted by real scholars. The celebrated scholar Reidar Hvalvik has accepted Jonsson's study. No real scholar has ever accepted Furuli's amateur book. (We all know that they never will accept his arguments as he is in error!) In fact, it has already been rejected.
What really matters is that several scholars hold the same view as Jonsson (just take a look at celebrated scholars like Lundbom, Fischer, Winkle, Finegan). No scholar shares the views presented by Furuli in his amateur study. I guess you just have to be a pseudo-scholar for accepting Furuli's views.
PS! I wonder: Is it really "ROLF Furuli or is it "ROFL Furuli"?
-- Augustin --
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
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 --
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Leolaia,
You are so sweet!
-- Augustin --
prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.
"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?
--augustin --
Prof Lester L. Grabbe on Rolf Furuli's "Oslo Chronology":
" Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (JSOT 28:5 [2004], p. 42).
...celebrated WT scholars? Sure!
--Augustin --
did mary the mother of jesus remain a virgin all her life?
the catholic/orthodox believe that she never had sex with her husband and poor joseph had to spend the rest of his life in an unconsummated marriage unable to sleep with his wife.
i find this unlikely that such a demand was imposed on him and there is the well known mention of jesus's brothers.
Hi!
<< I should point out that Luther and Calvin and the other reformers never questioned Mary's perpetual virginity. The idea that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born and gave birth to other children is a recent innovation.
Jeff S. >>
..."a recent innovation"? Now, there was this man called Helvetius... :)
Best regards
Augustin
