Posts by Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

While I agree with "scholar" that the chronology of Daniel is not altogether clear, I find his contention that the translation of "malkuth" demonstrates something unusual about Jehoiakim's reign to be as irrelevant as the Seder Olam.

Unless it is maintained that the NWT itself is inspired, the English word used is quite irrelevant. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word (in Theodotion) is the common word used to describe kingly rule throughout the OT. It may be true that the NWT Translation Committee did use "kingship" rather than "reign" because they had concluded he was a vassal king, but that in itself does not change the meaning of the original text...it only indicates the bias of the translators. But I am not convinced that they had that intention. Why not ? Because in Daniel 2:1 the same Hebrew and Greek words are used in reference to Nebuchadnezzar and the NWT translates it as "kingship" in that verse too.

Furthermore, I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature. Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.

Earnest

52

Would you be willing to admit it if you've been a hypocrite?

by onacruse in

for the last 20 years of my association with the jws, i was, more or less, a hypocrite.

they taught things i didn't believe, but i went to the meetings and, by my presence there and by my "non-answers" i in essence supported something that i didn't believe.. it's a hard thing to say "i was a hypocrite.".

i was.. craig

Earnest

Craig,

They taught things I didn't believe, but I went to the meetings and, by my presence there and by my "non-answers" I in essence supported something that I didn't believe.

I don't know that I would consider that hypocritical. I take the view nowadays that I am an observer and a guest at the KH and do not consider that I endorse everything that is said by my presence. If I am affronted by something that is said then I get up and walk out.

I do think I was a hypocrite at times when I was reader at the Watchtower Study or book study. I felt very uncomfortable but did not have the courage to skip the passages I could not accept. I no longer "enjoy" that "privelege" so it is no longer an issue.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

Hi Marjorie,

In "scholar"s defence, Shulman's book was also published "unedited" in English, Spanish, French and Russian. It was originally entitled The Sequence of Events in the Bible but was changed for non-Jewish readers to The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament: Diagramatic-Geographical-Chronological. It was translated into English by Sarah Lederhandler and published by Gefen Books in 1995.

The good news for those unfamiliar with Hebrew (including myself) is that an English version has been released on CD (!!) and should be available from [email protected]. This seems to be a Russian publishing house in Israel but I am not certain. I have had no reply to an email I sent today with enquiries about the CD but will let you know if I do.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

Remind me, why exactly does Scholar want us to look at [The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament by Eliezer Shulman]?

Marjorie,

Good question. Whatever it is, it's on page 143 so that should help. In a previous post "scholar" said:

There are two independent chronologies that I have to hand that refer to three seventy periods each having a different begiining and end and there at least four different interpretations aside form the Society's chronology that relate to the seventy years

and I suspect that Eliezer Shulman is one of these. Why "scholar" believes Shulman's chronology is relevant to the discussion is not quite clear unless he simply wants to show that "the subject of the seventy [years] is far more complex than you know".

This seems to be the main thrust of his argument - that biblical chronology is complex and so Watchtower chronology has as much merit as any other. If truth be told he goes a bit further than that and describes it as "divine revelation" but he represents neither the scholarly world nor Jehovah's Witnesses with such hyperbole.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

Hi Alan,

Third, since the book [The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament] was published by Israel's Ministry of Defense, it almost certainly goes along with traditional Jewish dating of the various events in Jewish history -- which is supported by no secular data but pretty much only by Jewish tradition, and which conflicts completely with secular and Watchtower dating.

I haven't been able to lay my hands on this book but what I have found supports your suggestion above.

Eliezer Shulman/Schulman was born in Bessarabia [Ukraine] in 1923. At the age of 16, he planned to immigrate to Israel on an "illegal" immigrant convoy, but was prevented by the outbread of World War II. Instead he was exiled to Siberia in 1940 for his Zionist activities. It was only in 1975 that Shulman was allowed to leave Siberia with his family to settle in Israel.
In Siberia, Shulman began to work as a blacksmith, then as a tractor-driver, a railway-worker, a senior engineer, and finally the manager of a planning department. Throughout his long years of exile, Shulman did not give up his Jewish national values. He taught Hebrew, Torah studies, Jewish History, and Zionism to his two Siberian-born daughters. In order to teach and examine the Bible, Shulman would sketch for them the chronology of people and events in the form of charts and timelines taken exclusively from the Talmud and from the Seder Olam.

The book, The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament, is apparently made up of facsimiles of these sketches. However, there are problems with traditional Jewish dating as you observe. The Seder Olam (which means Order of the World) was only written in the second century A.D. and "is noticeably and documentably flawed".

Even within the orthodox Jewish community, scholars concede that in depicting the Persian period, the Seder Olam truncates what "is universally accepted by historians today" to have been a 207 year span (539 – 332 B.C.), to a mere 52 years.
First, Mitchell.
Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology ; Jason Aronson, Inc.; Northvale, NJ; 1997. Statement of Purpose, p. xix; Appendix B, pp. 161-172.

This truncation allows the seventy years of Daniel (490 years) to finish at the time the second temple is destroyed. It also seems Shulman has allowed Zionism to colour his chronology when he writes:

"Abraham was born 1948 years after Adam. It was in the 3760 years from the birth of Abraham to the rebirth of the State of Israel. It was 3760 years from Adam to the beginning of the Common Era. It was 1948 in the Common Era dating when Israel was reborn."

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and so, perhaps, "scholar" will share with us just what Shulman did write which is relevant to this thread.

Earnest

147

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

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

Earnest

Thanks Alleymom. That is so elementary even I can understand it. No bothering about the meaning of Hebrew words, or different periods of seventy years, or how many deportations there were to Babylon.

Kisses to you too,

Earnest

38

Questions about Jehovah's Witnesses that I need answers to

by the real truth in

i'm not trying to offend anyone by asking questions, but i really want answers to my questions from jehovah's witnesses.

ok, i've been having a problem with john 1:1. how many gods are there?

the most famous distortion in the nwt is john 1:1. the nwt inserts the word "a" in front of the second god in this verse.

Earnest

In the language in which the gospel of John was written there was no distinction between upper and lower case so the distinctions you see in English are entirely at the discretion of the translator. If we were to write the English equivalent of the original it would be :

INTHEBEGINNINGTHEWORDWASANDTHEWORDWASWITHTHEGODANDTHEWORDWASGOD

That's quite difficult to read, especially if the whole Bible is like that. But have you considered the subtle interpretation the KJV and many other translations give to this verse in capitalising the "god" that the Word was. Consider these four different ways of writing verse one and it may help to answer your question:

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was God.

In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was god.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

scholar:

My comments about Wiseman's ability in regard to his skill as a exegete stands.

Dr. Wiseman certainly does not need the support of an intellectual microbe like me. His record speaks for itself as editor of the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series and author of volume 9 in the series - 1 & 2 Kings - which "includes a passage-by-passage approach to interpreting Kings" and "provides up-to-date commentary that focuses on exegesis of the text". You have clearly never met the man and are quite unaquainted with his biblical work so it would be prudent to inform yourself first before commenting on his ability.

But all of this does not make him an expert in every field of scholarship does it?

No. Is anyone an expert in every field of scholarship ? Yet that is what you seem to require before you will accept an endorsement of Jonsson's 'Gentile Times Reconsidered'.

This conference you have attended is a bit of a worry if in fact these scholars trivialize the date 607 which really differs from the Devil's dates of 587/586 by a mere 20 years.

Quite possibly they would not have trivialised 607 if I had explained 587/586 were the Devil's dates. But I had not understood that myself. I can quite believe that AlanF is the devil incarnate (for his arguments are quite diabolical) and wouldn't accept what he says at face value. Which is one of the reasons I am attending this conference. These men and women have no bone to pick with the Watchtower Society. They have no stake in preferring one date to another and are remarkably humble in acknowledging what they do and do not know. Yet those to whom I have spoken are unanimous that 607 could not possibly be Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year (2 Kings 25:8). He wasn't even on the throne. There are so many other events, including the destruction of Nineveh and the effective end of the last (native) dynasty of Egypt, that cannot be reconciled with such a date. I hope to devote a post to this once the conference has ended.

Really, I think someone is pulling your chain.

As a complete ignoramus in the field of Assyriology I have been treated with great consideration, patience and kindness by all those I have approached with my questions. This is scholarship at its best.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

jws:

I don't particularly care for the assumption that somebody has to have a certain set of credentials to be able to do research and/or make a valid point.

I completely agree with you and consider the emphasis "scholar" gives to the need for academic credentials is simply a reflection of his own sense of achievement in obtaining an MA. There are many examples of people "unlettered and ordinary" excelling in academic fields. I consider the New World Translation one of the better translations for Bible students (and I expect "scholar" would agree) but the evidence we have indicates those involved in the translation were not PhD's, but made use of existing scholarship. Which is what Carl Jonsson has done.

scholar:

You ask about Wiseman's qualifications? Firstly, this can be readily seen in his publications. Has he written any scriptural commentary either in a book or in a journal article? His reputation as a reputable scholar is based in his field of expertise namely Ancient History and Assyriology only.

When you expressed interest in the endorsement that Dr. Wiseman had given, you wanted to know "how he could endorse a hypothesis written by someone who has not attained scholarly qualifications". When Dr. Wiseman states the obvious, namely that you do not need 'a qualified Assyriologist' to quote texts that have already been published and interpreted, you then point out he does not have "competence" in biblical exegesis. Really? Did you know he was an editor of the New Bible Dictionary, The New Bible Atlas, the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, and an editor of the NIV and the NIV Thematic Reference Bible. He was also chairman at the Tyndale House for Biblical Research, Cambridge.

I wish to make the following request...I have long pursued the query as to whether any scholar has subjected Jonsson's book to a peer review in some internationally recognized journal...why don't you ask somebody to publsh a review in a major journal.

The conference I am attending is on Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology and there is nothing new in Carl Jonsson's book which would require a review. Frankly, the Assyriologists I have spoken to at Cambridge University are simply incredulous that anyone would support 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem and see no need for a book to disprove it. It seems [to them] like writing a book to disprove the moon is made of cheese. Believe me, I have no pleasure telling you this. I would much rather 607 and everything that hangs on it were true. But it is not and haggling about whether the 70 years were years of desolation or not is, imo, simply a smokescreen to avoid coming to terms with this basic fact.

Earnest

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

Earnest

scholar:

Jonsson is simply a amateur scholar not a professional scholar

I have followed your correspondence with interest and really appreciate the academic references you make from time to time which have some bearing on biblical chronolgy. I have also taken the time to read Carl Jonsson's book 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered' and the academic support he provides for his arguments is very thorough. I am a bit surprised that you choose to criticise his academic credentials rather than what he has to say and recall that on a previous thread ('THE SEVEN TIMES of Daniel Chapter 4') you said:

I am inclined either to write or telephone D J Wiseman and ask him how is it that he could endorse a hypothesis written by someone who has not attained scholarly qualifications namely Carl Jonsson. For anyone to be taken seriuosly would have has at least a PH.D or upper level Master's qualifications. I would very much like to know the precise endorsement by Wiseman of the Jonsson hypothesis.

I wondered about this myself and asked Mr Jonsson about the precise endorsement that Professor Wiseman had given. He replied:

The quotation from Professor Donald J. Wiseman on the back cover was taken from a letter to me dated 18 January 1990. The letter dealt with the dates on some cuneiform tablets at the British Museum that he and Chris Walker had been checking for me.
Wiseman ends his letter with the following statement:
Your work is most valuable and I would appreciate having any other publication
details of any update you issue. I have already drawn the attention of a number of
correspondents to it.
Before using Wiseman's statement for the third edition of GTR, I sent him the parts quoted on the back cover and asked for his permission to use it. He answered immediately, in a brief letter dated 28 January 1998, saying:
Thank you for your letter of January 25. I am glad to learn that you are working
on a third revised edition of your useful work on 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered'.
I am certainly willing for you to quote me in the way you state in your letter.
When the third edition had been published later that year, I sent a copy to Wiseman. He immediately sent me a handwritten letter postmarked 5 August 1998. It says:
Dear Mr. Jonsson,
This morning I received the revised edition of your book The Gentile Times Reconsidered which I am pleased to have. This is a most useful and timely publication which will be of great value to the understanding of the truth and interpretation of Scripture & also of ancient Near Eastern history and chronology. I am glad that the small part I may have played in encouraging your research has such a fruitful outcome.
With thanks and best wishes.
Yours sincerely, Donald J. Wiseman

Mr. Jonsson offered to send me copies of the letters but I declined, having no reason to doubt his integrity. However, I did write to Dr. Wiseman as follows:

I hope you don’t mind my taking the liberty of writing to you regarding a book I have recently been reading, namely ‘The Gentile Times Reconsidered’, by Carl Olaf Jonsson.
This book goes into some depth in discussing the chronology of the Babylonian kings and your own research on the subject is referred to a number of times. As the accuracy of this chronology affects the beliefs of millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses you will appreciate there is some controversy on the conclusions which have been reached.
Questions have been raised as to whether Mr Jonsson is really equipped to write a scholarly work without the academic qualifications needed to be taken seriously. As you have been quoted as describing it as a "most valuable [work]" I wonder if you would care to briefly comment on its scholarly worth.

Dr. Wiseman replied:

I assume you refer to Carl Olaf Jonsson's 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered' of which he gave me the Third Revised Edition 1998 after I had answered his questions and pointed out late Babylonian astronomical and economic dated texts. These have all been published and interpreted so that it does not need 'a qualified Assyriologist' to quote them. This he does in an accurate and reliable way. Since my retirement, now many years ago, I have not seen any ancient texts which would counter his chronolgy of this critical period. Nor have I seen any internationally or academically credited reply to the chronological references in his book, which I still consider a valuable work.
I hope this gives you the assurance you need.
With best wishes, etc.

I am also quite interested whether the scholars you do refer to support the chronology Jehovah's Witnesses endorse. With this in mind I will be attending the 'International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology' in London next week (7-11 July) and hope to discuss this with Abraham Malamat and others. I will certainly let you know.

Earnest