Posts by scholar

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

Mary

Post 10132

Wordly scholars do not promote any date at all because chronology as a subject does not receive the attention it justly deserves. When a date is necessary then such scholars simply refer to whatever date currently is popular and this varies largely between 586 or 587 BCE. These are the 'popular' dates within current scholarship but are innacurate as shown by the meticulous research by the 'celebrated' WT scholars who have proven the validity and integrity of 607 BCE.

Alan F has a compulsive habit of replying not only in supersonic haste but in great depth to 'scholar's ' posts in which scholar skilfully keeps in junping through the hoops. The biggest laugh in on those who are sucked in by the likes of Alan F because he professes to be an agnostic/atheist.

Of course you do not like Rolf Furuli because as a professional scholar skilled in the original languages has the temerity to challenge the amateurish research of Carl Jonsson. Furuli unlike so many others is not fooled by Carl Jonsson who has simply recycled critiques of WT chronology from other sources such as the Adventists.

Rolf Furuli's published research has nothing to do with refuting Carl Jonsson's nonsense, Furuli explains his purpose and the necessity of a new Oslo chronology and a fresh look at the methodology of chronology. Jonsson nowhere gets any mention in the two volumes, not in the radar so to speak.

You seem to a bit of a drama queen for asserting that WT doctine has harmed families, this is just satanic or demonic propaganda. The True Religion including its doctrines which are all Bible based bind families together in love-hope-faith.

The claim that the 'seven times' in Daniel are simply applied to Nebuchadnezzer without a major or prophetic fulfillment is simply your interpretation and completely false because the context of the chapter revolves the God's Kingdom which was then at that time a present reality and a future reality with the expiration of the Gentile Times.

All other Christian faiths do not believe in the Kingdom because they would preach it but they do not as you well know. They simply mouth it as a word, concept or phrase not understanding its reality and significance. Only the Witnesses understand it, preach it and represent it.

In conclusion, the fact that an individual like Alan F is an unbeliever gives him no credibility on any comment related to the Bible because all that he can sayis from the position of a sceptic who has no love of God or His Word. If you cannot see that then there is little hope for you at present.

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

Mary

Post 10128

The dates 586/587 BCE are most certainly not supported by the Bible but only have support from Ptolemy's Canon along with other materials. These dates are falsified because there is no factoring in of the seventy years leaving a chronology computed by the regnal lists of rukers for the Neo-Babylonian period. The date of 607 BCE is based upon that significant historical period of the seventy years thus conforming to all of the biblical data. Wordly scholars in the main are critical of the Bible and do not take it seriously so the seventy year period of servitude, desolation and captivity is regarded by all or at least the majority as a myth.

The meandering of Alan F is of no threat to me because every refutation of WT chronology has been refuted by me and his continued tirades against me prove that he feels threatened for there is a certain despersation in his responses. Everytime he moves, scholar checkmates him.

One serious scholar who supports 607 BCE and has the required doctorate is Rolf Furuli and he has published scholarly research in support of 607 BCE by demonstrating the 'twenty year' gap between biblical chronology and secular chronology.

I am unable to provide a list of names of the 'celebrated' WT scholars but I can provide names of other WT scholars who support 607 BCE and this I have already done on this forum.

The very fact that Jonsson devotes some 400 pages of research to refute a single date proves that the date must have some evidence for nowhere in any of scholarly published material has seen so much effort gone into to destroy or disprove a popular, single date. There must be some substance in it for this date to attract such hostility. This fact alone should give you and the other nutters some cause to ponder.

Christians are commanded to pay attention to the prophetic word and to preach the Gospel, the date of 607 BCE is part of the Gospel because it relates to the beginning of the Kingdom. The reality that it is JW's alone who believe in the Kingdom and preach it. What about you? Do you believe in the Kingdom? Do you preach the Kingdom? Does your guru, Alan F even believe in God? If not, Why do you take notice of his disbelief in the Bible?

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

Mary

Reply 10126

The date 586 BCE is not supported by the Bible or secular history because the date does not account for Jeremiah's 'seventy years' and Josephus. This date is very popular with most serious scholars but it has a contender with the appearance of the date 587 BCE which is championed by apostates. The date 607 BCE is the only date that is supported by the Bible, Neo-Babylonian chronology when adjusted and secular history by means of Josephus. Research over many decades by the 'celebrated WT scholars' and other WT scholars of more recent times have confirmed this obvious fact.

Apostates dismiss 607 BCE because of its historical and prophetic connection with the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE demonstrating the reality of the Kingdom and its Gospel and prefer the darkness rather than the light of truth.

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

leavingwt

Where did you go?

For your information you have paid us a compliment of the highest order for the use of an 'oxymoron' is that used by a rhetorician in philosophical discourse. No fools there or misguided people there.

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

Finally-Free

There is no point being finally free if you have found something better to go to. Have You? I think not because you would have said so.

The date 607 BCE is most definitely well established and scholar has argued the case on this very forum for many years. Apostates rely solely on the Jonsson's published research for he is the major critic of WT chronology with some critiques by Adventists prior to Jonsson.

The evidence for 607 BCE is based on the Bible and complements secular history namely that of Josephus and well grounded Neo-Babylonian chronology or as one WT scholar desribes as 'Watchtower Neo-Babylonian Chronology'.

The NWT is 'no joke' for serious scholars but is regarded at best as the work of serious scholars and at worst, ' the most dangerous book in the world'.

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

bennyk

You prove my point exactly. You offer nothing but ridicule and sarcasm. What Gospel do you preach if you have one, Do you? If you are a Christian then how are you obeying Jesus' command at Mattjew 28:19, 20?

scholar JW

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

scholar

reniaa

Congratulations for your courage in providing a good defence of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beautiful and sacred teachings and its modern day organization.

Be assured that our teaching regarding chronology especially the date 607 BCE is soundly established on the Bible and secular history. The date is well proven and supported by several WT scholars many of whom are qualified at University level and have made significant contributions to biblical scholarship similatr to that of the NWT Committee.

Apostates hate 607 BCE and only rely on the published work of an apostate Carl Jonsson and they simply accept everything he has written without any criticism it is just as Jesus said about 'the Blind leading the blind'. Further, such ones only slander us but do not provide any alternative; If the Witnesses are not the True Religion then where is it to found today? They have no coherent doctrine, no ministry, no brotherhood in short they have NOTHING to offer except ridicule and vile hatred of Truth, Justice and Christiian Freedom.

Keep up the good work

Your brother in faith

scholar JW

35

Scholarly support for 607bce ?

by wobble in

i mentioned to a bro.

who is supposed to be answering some of my "concerns" with wt teaching that all the non-witness refs.i have seen to the fall of jerusalem place it twenty years later at 587-586 bce.. he maintains that some scholars support 607. does anyone know of a reliable scholar ,who is a recognised expert in this period,who does support 607 ?.

i am well aware that it makes no difference,as the bible nowhere gives us 2520 years,but i am fed up with his assertions and would like to blow this one out of the water so i can ask him to please check his facts.. only help if you really have time ,it's not life or death.. many thanks.

scholar

Wobble

Reply 204

There is indeed scholarly support for the biblical date and these are the scholars both past and present who aupport 607 BCE: Rolf Furuli, Neil Mc Fadzen, Philip Couture, John Albu and the community of 'celebrated WT scholars'. It must also be pointed out in the interest of intellectual honesty that scholars worldwide cannot agree on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem so it is only JW's who have determoned the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

scholar JW

2

Couture's treatise refuted

by Doug Mason in

you can obtain a copy of carl olof jonsson's refutation of philip couture's treatise at:.

http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/coutures_treatise_refuted.pdf.

(see note 53 in version 4 of carl's book gentile times revisited, p.

scholar

Doug Mason

Carl Jonsson's so-refutation of Couture's treatise is incomplete because it does not deal with the most important issues suvh as the 'seventy years'. Also because Couture's treatse is impossible to locate and source such a refutation has no value whatsover. On esuspects that Couture's research is very damaging to NB chronology and so critics of WT chronology have gone to various lengths to conceal this 'smoking gun'.

scholar JW

24

the seventy year thing

by logic in

i hate to keep bringing it up but i would to give the jws something to think about.

if the isrealites had done as god had told them, to serve babylon voluntairly as they had done in the beginning, then when would the seventy years of so called total devastation have began.

god said that only if they did not serve babylon that they would be destroyed.

scholar

Mary

Post 9866

Sweet Mary! Scholar ignores no such evidence because he has read everything published on the subject and has well proven the fact of 607 BCE. The Bible completely agrees with our position as any reader can easily determine besides it is well demonstrated by the facts of fulfilled prophecy culminating in that epochal year 1914.

scholar JW