Augustin

Joined

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

Posts by Augustin

• 
  8

  Jer 29:10 in the Swedish 2003 NWT

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Not from 'Sverige', but able to read 'svenska' :) Thanks for your more accurate translation.

  -- A. --
• 
  8

  Jer 29:10 in the Swedish 2003 NWT

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  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 --
• 
  40

  The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos

  by FireNBandits in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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"?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Leolaia,

  Thanks for the Harland article (PDF)!

  :)
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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 --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 --
  

  
  
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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 --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 --
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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 --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  Leolaia,

  You are so sweet!

  -- Augustin --
• 
  184

  Celebrated WT scholars? :)

  by Augustin in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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 --

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 --
• 
  30

  Mary the mother of Jesus a perpetual virgin?

  by greendawn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Augustin

  
  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
• 
  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 --