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 --
Jeffro
When did apostates have any interest in logic? For if they have then what then is their new 'true religion'? Or are they still stumbling in the dark?
Advocates of 586 rather than 587 which is the apostate favourite date prove that their whole methodology of determining the date for the Fall is faulty so such confusion indicates that the approach is incorrect. Contrariwise, WT scholars have no confusion as the adopted methodology is firmly based upon the infallible Word of God.
scholar JW
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 --
yesidid
Serious scholars do not accept 607 or 587 but accept 586.
Celebrated WT scholars reject 586 and 587 as implausible dates based upon a faulty premise and accept the only possible date of 607.
scholar JW
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 --
Hellrider
Have you read all of the peer reviews of Furuli's research? Or are you only interested in opinions from apostates in relation to Furuli? Why not address the issue as to why Jonsson's nonsense has not been peer reviewed by serious scholars?
Furuli is a linguist and semitic scholar whereas Jonsson is a nobody, an apostate who does not like 607 but prefers 587 which is rejected by serious scholars who prefer 586. Furuli is highly repected in academia whereas Jonsson is simply an unknown 'cult basher' with an 'axe to grind'.
scholar JW
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 --
Augustin
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.
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. Furuli on the other hand has had his work examined by his peers and that makes the difference between Furuli, the scholar and academic and Jonsson, a non-scholar and amateur.
scholar JW
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
Furuli has already submitted his research for peer review but why has not Jonsson done this after a lengthy period of twenty-three years? Where is there a Book Review for the Gentile Times Reconsidered published? If such is indeed lacking does that not raise questions about the validity of Jonsson's juvenile scholarship in the mind of truly qualified academics and scholars because his work is simply seen as 'cult bashing'?
scholar JW
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 --
Augustin
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. At least Furuli has had his work peer reviewed which the apostate Jonsson with his amateurish hypothesis has not.
Further, Lester Grabbe is a recognized authority in biblical history and promotes 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem wheras the Jonsson nonsense advocates 587 BCE.
scholar JW
jerusalem 607 bce vindicated.
why jehovahs witnesses are right for sticking to the bibles chronology of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.
arguments for 587 bce are scripturally flawed, causing four bible prophecies to fail.
Farkel
You are a joke for you now seriously expect people to believe in the sloppy 586/587 date which according to you is based on the idiotic king that got whacked. It seems that getting whacked did not stop there but the apostates and secular scholars are also getting whacked by the celebrated WT scholars.
scholar JW
jerusalem 607 bce vindicated.
why jehovahs witnesses are right for sticking to the bibles chronology of 607 bce for the destruction of jerusalem.
arguments for 587 bce are scripturally flawed, causing four bible prophecies to fail.
Narkissos
These two periods do not have the same starting point at all and no such commonality is given in the ninth chapter of Daniel even in the author's mind because these events are separated by history in relation to their judgement, repentance and their return. There is no problematic at all in saying that the later seventy weeks of years commenced in the fifth century becuse the focus at that point was on the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
scholar JW
the nail in the coffin of the society's understanding of the seventy years appears to be zech 1:12 and 7:1. both of these verses refer to the 70 years as ongoing rather than past events.
i'm not sure how anyone can claim the society has a "holistic" view of the 70 years when they haven't even dealt with these two verses.. i should say they haven't dealt with them at all, there is one article for each of those verses, but, iirc, the argumentation was very weak.
anyone happen to have those references off hand?.
Narkissos
It appears from your refusal to consider what scholars actually about the seventy years exposes you stupidity and ignorance. If you bothered to consider the reference I gave you would not have been hasty in accusing me of misquoting. Zechariah's seventy years began with the Fall and ended at the Exile when the Jews had returtned home in 537 BCE and no other interpretation can remove that basic fact.
Scholars do in fact give credence to the view that Zechariah's seventy years was a literal period ending long before the time of Zechariah's visions. Other scholars continue the time up until Zechaiah's prophesying but this theory fails because it is not sound chronologically as Jonsson illustrates.
scholar JW
the nail in the coffin of the society's understanding of the seventy years appears to be zech 1:12 and 7:1. both of these verses refer to the 70 years as ongoing rather than past events.
i'm not sure how anyone can claim the society has a "holistic" view of the 70 years when they haven't even dealt with these two verses.. i should say they haven't dealt with them at all, there is one article for each of those verses, but, iirc, the argumentation was very weak.
anyone happen to have those references off hand?.
Narkissos
The plain reading of Zechariah 1:12 is that the seventy years was a past experience of judgement and desolation brought now to the immediate attention of Zechariah with the reassurance that the temple which had lain waste for seventy years would be rebuilt. That is what is plain and obvious to all.This understanding of matters is supported by WBC Micah-Malachi, Vol 32 by Ralph Smith,1984. Smith states "In Zech 1:12 and 7:5 it refers to the period of Jerusalem's destruction." on page 191.
Interestingly as you have raised the matter of the black stone of Essarhaddon, scholar Lipinski's conclusion was that "the seventy years was a period of divine anger against a city or sanctuary." (Smith, 1984, p,191)
scholar JW
