Posts by scholar

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 533

There should be no perhaps or maybes but if definite criticism is warranted then this should be done as Furuli himself encourages. If it is oK to discuss such claims or opinions in public then it is appropriate to dismiss these in public also.

Again you make claims about Furuli's methodology concerning the begiining of the New Year in certain calendrical years. These are either typos or in fact that is what the raw data says which raises serious questions as to the integrity of these documents. Furuli has certainly given attention to detail but nothing is infallible and that is why it is incumbent upon the reader to seek answers from the author not from the public. The public cannot help you but merely give sympathy. The ball is in your court.

It has been explained to you and others over many years that Babylonian chronology does not agree with biblical chronology because there exists a problematic 'twenty year' gap between the two. Also, Babylonian chronology. its scribes and historians give no account what so ever of the seventy years of Jewish exile in Babylon for starters and no historical account or placement of the Nebuchadnezzer's madness when he was absent from the throne for seven years. Further, there is no account of the forty year desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzer. So much for accurate history and chronology. These are not problems of interpretation but examples of poor history and poor history means poor chronology.

Even so-called amateurs have taught the experts, the history of science is full of such brilliant men and women who have advanced knowledge. Perhaps Grabbe is paying Furuli the ultimate compliment as he anticipates his second volume.

There is no misleading comment about Alan F and the Brown incident for he had to concede that there was a connection but getting Alan F to admit to this was like pulling teeth. You should read all of the post on this matter. Better still why do you not investigate the issue yourself and see who is right: Jonsson orthe Society that would be a far more honest approach than trawling through past conversations? The facts are plainly set out for any researcher to examine.

When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it.

Your excuse that because Jonsson has simply rehashed current knowledge and therefore is unworthy of a Literature Review is utter nonsense. Literature Reviews do in fact review revisions of earlier works. Besides Jonsson introduces a subject that is not commented on much in the public arena and that is the Gentile Times and Luke 21:24 so it needs to have some Review.

The apostates did a desperate job on Furuli's first volume and no doubt they are burning the midnight oil for snow job on Furuli's second volume.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 532

I disagree for there are experts but even such ones are not infallible. Furuli is competent in the Semitic languages and has used this expertise to put the spotlight on secular chronology and now has published this new research. Open-minded people should read his research and if errors of whatever type are found or believed to be found then these should be communicated to the author.

Experts believe that Babylonian chronology is infallible or correct but it disagrees with Bible chronology with at least a twenty gap between these two conflicting chronologies. Experts have made numerous assumptions about the interpretations of the astronomical data and this is what Furuli is examining by taking a fresh approach at the primary sources. Scholarship is advanced when serious scholars push the boundaries of knowledge by reexamining conventional theories and hypotheses.

I have read Grabbe's review on Furuli's first volume which is short and unkind. It will be interesting to see what he thinks of the second volume. Furuli has received a complimentary from an American SDA scholar who reviewed his first volume. In contrast, Jonsson has not had a Literature Review published as yet to my knowledge even though his opinion has been published for twenty years. Hmmmm!

My comment was not to say that the community of scholars are apostates but rather my comment was a response to your previous post whereby you claimed that there were scholars or experts who had already reviwed Furuli's second volume. Perhaps you meant his first not his second volume. If your contacts whoever they are have examined Furuli's second volume then you should be upfront and provide it. Methinks you bluff.

scholar JW

My last comment a

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 372

My reply to your fictitious dialoque:

You misconstrue the reading and meaning of Jeremiah 25:11-12. The parties to this prophecy include the land of Judah, the nations and the king of Babylon. The text simply states that Judah would become a desolate place during which it would be in servitude to Babylon along with the nations for a period of seventy years. After the fulfillment of that period Babylon also would receive its judgement as had Judah and the nations which was desolation. Simple. Nowhere does Jeremiah end the seventy years with the Fall or Destruction of Babylon in 539 BCE or some later date in history.

Jeremiah 29:10 The phrase 'le +Babylon' can be properly rendered numerous ways because the Hebrew preposition has a wide semantic range. The NWT along with the KJV endorsed by your SDA colleagues says 'at Babylon' which fits the context better because it was in Babylon that the exiles were located and had to remain until the seventy years ended. The seventy years belonged to Judah alone and not to Babylon or the other nations because it was a punish for their sins against Jehovah as prescribed by the Law.

You certainly do 'muddy the waters' by means of your 'two stream' model which purports to explain the nature and timing of the seventy years. You express the view that the seventy years amounts to Babylonish domination but you cannot determine precisely at what event or date should begin this historic period.You readily determine that the seventy years ended in 539 BCE but you refrain from giving an exact date for the beginning. Fuzziness abounds for all to see.

Your exegesis of matters fails to understand what and how the prophecies of judgement by Jeremiah, his contemporaries and predecessors involved. Judah and Israel were respectively to be punished by being plundered by foreign powers with dedtruction of their cities and lands. With Juah as with Samaria long before had the its capital, land and temple brought to utter ruin. Historically, Judah suffered this fate completely in 607 BCE.

In Daniel 9:2 Daniel certainly understood that the seventy years was not then yet fulfilled and were soon yet to be fulfilled. He understood two things about the seventy years: Its length was to be precisely seventy years and that it was a time of punishment of Judah for their sins as shown by his subsequent prayer of repentance climaxed by the angelic response by the prophecy of the seventy weeks of years.

Daniel does refer to the 'devastations of Jerusalem' and he describes further that these 'devastations' amounted to desolation of the land, temple and city in verses 16-18. By themselves chorbah andshamen do not require total devastation or depopulation but such meanings are certainly possible and lie with their respective linguistic domains. What ensures the totality of meaning is not the words themeslves but other defining descriptions or metaphors used by Jeremiah such as 'without and inhabitant' etc.

Desolation goes hand in hand with exile which also goes hand in hand with servitude. These events are the result of an invading army as all of history attests. Exile-Desolation-Servitude are all described by the prophets and historians of the Bible regarding that seventy years.

When Jeremiah addressed his letter to the Exiles in Babylon as in chapter 25 the seventy years had not then commenced because it wasstill future as shown by the English future tense 'will' which no doubt is what the Hebrew text suggests. The land was not then desolated because the land was still populated being only partially invaded by Neb.

There are many different translations of the Hebrew for 25:11 and such variations can put the emphasis where the interpreter seeks. The linguistics of this verse is variable. This means that this verse must not be understood in isolation but in the context of all other seventy year references. Furuli in his first voume page 83-84 lists three distinct translations of this verse.

Being on the Aged Pension is certainly a financial handicap and that will be my experience in five years time. However, if you wish to debate these issues and research as well then you must have resources. This means either buying, borrowing or copying but that is the way it is and if you cannot be in this game then be content to be a observer.

Josephus certainly attests to the fact in many places that the seventy years was a period of exile-servitude-desolation from the Fall to the Return. This is also confirmed by the quote wherein Josephus describes that at the fifty year mark of the seventy year period, the Temple lay in obscurity. The fifty years requires interpretation otherwise it contradicts the many other references to the seventy years. I believe that the Temple observation that it lay in obscurity for fifty years is very relevant and fits very well with what Josephus himself said regarding Judah, Jerusalem and its Temple.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 531

Furuli admits to his expertise and a lack thereof in his very first volume wherein he states that he is not a professional archae-astronomer or historian but is highly skilled in dealing with the primary source documents. He invites criticism from experts as he freely admits that a non-expert is liable to err. So the challenge is there for all experts or non-experts to contact and raise matters with him. At this point let me remind you that you are not an expert in any of these fields and neither is Carl Jonsson.

If you claim that Furuli's research has been refuted by the experts then supply this information as to their identity and publication. The book ha only been published for a few months and it takes considerable time for a Literature Review to be published in a journal. I suspect that your so-called experts are apostates and devotees of Jonsson whom in haste would conduct a piecemeal analysis passing this off a scholarly research.

As I said before you make a lot of noise but not much sense. Put up or shut up!

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

a Christian

Post 239

That is correct it was his first letter whereupon he addresses himself in the third person which to me shows dishonesty. Why could he not be upfront and simply state the matter truthfully and simply share his personal research for comment. The subsequent correspondence shows that the Society was not something to fear but they were open and frank with Jonsson. These letters show more about Jonsson's motives and that the Society was kind and considerate asking him to be patient and to keep matters confidential.

At every point the Society dealt with the matters but because they could not agree with him Jonsson proved to be stubborn and obstinate preferring the way of higher criticism rather than the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with sharing his research with others but if it stirs up a controversy amongst the brothers then how can lead to unity. Jonsson must have known how controversial his chronology would be and was simply asked to keep the matter private. This he could not do as he thought that by lobbying the Society would pressure them to change their doctrine. this delusion failed and he was kicked out. I say, Good riddance!

Remember one is only expelled from the Christian congregation if one is unrepentant.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

What Furuli has published publicly is certainly up for public criticism but then if you have not bothered to check with the author about alleged errors first and you are no expert in this very technical field then you are simply giving your opinion which is just as useful as Joe Bblo's opinion.

There are no doubt some typos but it is only your opinion that such errors go beyond typos. You are not a scholar, have not published anything in this field and do not know the Semitic languages. I could easily say that Furuli's data is accurate until proven otherwise by other experts.

Further, the Appendix is that of the planets and the stars and are not lunar data, further the data raises the issue as to whether these positions are observed or calculated so these provide the tabulations for calendrical months and years. In order, to falsify Furuli's data you woold need to produce your own research to see whether Furuli's conclusions are valid.

In other words, put up or shut up.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

a Christian

Post 238

I cannot comment on the Ray Franz incident because the only information we have about this is supplied by Franz himself and not the parties to his expulsion. In other words we only have one side of the story and it is the stupid one who only relies on one side rather than both sides before making a judgement.

This however is not the case with Carl Jonsson's expulsion as he made public the body of correspondence between himself and the Society over his treatise and one can see by reading the letters that Jonsson is not a man of integrity but was dishonest even from his very first letter. Jonsson from that time had already spread his false ideas to others which eventually led to his expulsion. Jonsson on the face of the evidence was dealt with fairly in my opinion.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly and Alleymom

I note that both of you claim to have found many errors in Furuli's published second volume. My response is that even in his first volume there were some typos which even I emailed this to him and I believe that there was a second reprint of that first volume. In the case of the second volume there may well be many typo errors or in some cases the fault lies in the documents.

In any event both of you two ladies have good computer skills and have already found many 'mistakes' which either need correction or clarification. Why not both of you together compile a list and send it to Furuli also forward me a copy and I will ensure that the matter is followed through. I may even phone him shortly and just mention those couple of things about Nisanu 1 shown in some years as beginning in May.

In the interests of fairness and honesty and Christian ethics if we have some issue then we should take the matter up with the other person so I appeal to your sense of ethics to do what is right. I believe it is most unfair to air publicly the mistakes of others or perceived mistakes without first communicating with that person.

scholar JW

17

Generation problem is a self-inflicted wound

by Doug Mason in

there is no need to go to any university of higher education to solve the wtss problem with generation of matthew 24:34. it only needs a primary school certificate in plain reading.

in each of the nine times that the word generation appears in matthew, jesus is talking about the jewish people of his time.

read: matt 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; and 24:34. .

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 380

You say that the Society's interpretation is a 'self inflicted wound'. I disagree. Scholars and other expositors have for decades and centuries had problems with the interpretation of this phrase in Greek. A survey of older and recent commenraries proves the difficulty in determing what Jesus meant by the phrase 'this generation' so it is no wonder that the FDS have had to revise their views from time to time. I notice that SDA'S with whom you have had some association continue to experience a similar difficulty.

In the past we have moved from a temporal view involving chronology to a contemporary understanding in 1995 which also has exceeded its useful 'shelf life' and the time has come for a fresh look at this subject. Apparently, all will be revealed to the faithful and the unfaithful as all such are vitally intererested in the spiritual food of the FDS in the next scholarly journal of the Watchtower.

scholar JW

16

607 BCE - Jehovah's Witnesses come out and Defend your Beliefs.

by KW13 in

jw
friends

when was the end of the 70 years?

the bible clearly states that the end of the 70 years would be when the king of babylon (namely nebuchadnezzar) was called to account.

what date was this?

scholar

KW13

You are talking blatant nonsense. The Bible does not say that the 'calling to account' applies to the events of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon. This is impossible because Daniel discerned that the seventy years was at the time of writing Daniel 9:2 that the period was then yet unfulfilled. The seventy years ended only when the Jewish exiles returned home in 537 BCE. So, 539 is also impossible because 'the calling to account; which happened after 539 BCE was the desolation of Babylon which happened long after 539 BCE.

The seventy years beginning in 609 BCE is not widely accepted as others propose 605 BCE so there is no definitive event is mutually agreed for the beginning. Jeremiah describes the period as exile-servitude-desolation and could have begun when Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year in 607 BCE.

scholar JW