Vanderhoven 7
Your 11 assumptions are no problem for the said scholar but you should make each of hese assumptions a Study Project?
The said scholar can assist you.
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
slimboyfat
hanks for the response, Fisherman, but I am not sure you have solved the problem so much as simply restated it. I know they think the 70 years at Babylon is a definite 70 years period, but the 70 years for Tyre is a shorter period. I know that’s their take, but what I’m asking for is a justification for that position. The text simply says Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years, not part of 70 years. If that “represents” a shorter period than literal 70 years, then why not the other 70 years too? What’s the justification for saying one must be exactly 70 years, but the other 70 years doesn’t?
---
Context and a careful reading of the text explain the difference between Jeremiah's 70 years and Isaiah's 70 years- different periods both occurring in the Babylonian period during Neb's reign with different implications as foretold by the prophets with different consequences.
--
Yeah dozy the date change from 606 to 607BCE was so strange and so blatant that, on some level, I didn’t even believe it could be true. But it does seem as simple as that - they moved it back a year to account for the absence of year zero and still keep the 1914 date. The honest thing to do would have been to move 1914 forward one year to 1915 (is that right?) but that would have spoiled the coincidence of World War One beginning on their favoured date. Does scholar have an answer for that one.
---
Yes, I do. It is called just doing Chronology which requires a methodology along with an interpretation of the data and the related history finally all scholarship evolves over time so when a chronologist sees the need to change or adjust then the chronology is fine-tuned.
--
Another problem is, if Satan was cast down from heaven in September/October 1914, then how come World War One began in August already?
---
The answer is right there. The book of Revelation does not give a precise chronology for the ousting of Satan from heaven but only for the end of the Gentile Times which event marked the beginning of God's kingdom confirmed by the outbreak of the Great War which was consistent with Satan being cast to the earth but as the Great War has no precise marker as it evolved during the first few months so all events fit well together.
---
Plus there was something (I forget the details) about the year 537BCE saying that events were supposed to occur within a year but there is nothing in the Bible that says it was within a year. They just assume it was not longer than a year in order to make the prophecy fit. But why not two, or three, or four years? Other than it spoils the chronology.
Plus they claim that 537BCE is an absolute fixed date and that 70 years must be counted back from then to 607BCE. But there’s no good reason why, if you are adamant about keeping the literal 70 year period, you couldn’t do it the other way round and say that 586BCE is the absolute fixed date and count 70 years forward from that to the other date at 516BCE instead
---
WT scholars have never regarded 537 BCE as an absolute date for it is calculated to fit the historical facts at the time of Cyrus' Decree in his first year and is widely accepted by scholars providing a good anchor for forming a chronology for that period.
---
Plus as Sanchy said, how do we even know that Daniel 4 is meant to be interpreted as a centuries long chronological prophecy anyway? It is a stretch to say the least.
--
No stretch but an interpretation based on what Daniel 4 says, the lexical meaning of times, the theme of God's Kingdom and Biblical Theology.
---
Plus the fact that 1914 is no longer within anybody’s reasonable conception of a single generation now. It’s ridiculous.
Until the 1990s, I think many JWs had the attitude that the whole 1914 chronology thing seemed like a bit of a leap in terms of proving it from the Bible, but on the other hand Bible Students did identify the year 1914 decades before World War One started that year. Therefore, was the reasoning at the time, Jehovah probably helped the Bible Students reach the 1914 date from the Bible somehow, and events that year proved them correct. But the further back in time 1914 recedes, the less important it seems, and the idea of stretching the “lasts days” from that date becomes increasingly incredible.
--
Utter nonsense. the date 1914 in terms of Eschatology has been well vindicated by the facts of modern history, biblical theology etc for such a chronology has breathed life into Eschatology and due credit for this belongs to those early Bible Students and their antecedents.
scholar JW
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
slimboyfat
ust out of curiosity scholar, have you got an apologetic answer for that one? Why should we take the 70 years literally in one case but not the other? Here is the relevant quote from the Isaiah book:
--
No problem. The simple answer is that in the case of the 70 years of Tyre it is that this period represents a period of Babylon's domination in which Tyre would be in servitude to Babylon which owing to lack of precise historic details must be viewed as a round number. In the case of Judah whose 70 years was also a period of servitude to Babylon, a period of Exile with a devasted or empty land is a precise historic period because the Biblical record presents a complete history with a definite beginning and end of that period.. Simple really!!
scholar JW
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
Diogenesister
Scholar This is taken from Ralf Furuli's Wikipedia page (I realise it may not be the best source, but I have read elsewhere that Furuli is no expert in the area he weighs in on here). Also, you can hardly decry Carl Olaf's scholarship, whilst calling Watchtower researcher's "scholars" in the same breath. Neither being qualified in the traditional sense.
--
Furuli unlike COJ admits to his lack of expertise in some areas but in other areas, as a Semitic scholar, he has expertise in dealing with ancient languages and has demonstrated competence in interpreting the astronomical data contained in the cuneiform clay tablets. COJ was no scholar in that he had no University degree in the fields in that he claimed expertise but nevertheless, his thesis presents sound scholarship worthy of a critique. Furuli was a WT scholar and has the academic credentials to be fully qualified in the traditional sense.
---
n response, in a 2004 issue of Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Lester L. Grabbe, professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."[14]"
--
I am fully aware of Grabbe's criticism of Furuli but again his expertise is not in the field of Semitic studies.
scholar JW
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
Alethia
really dont get JWs like Scholar etc. Are you messing with us Scholar or are you really that deluded?
---
The only persons who were deluded were Carl Jonsson and his associates as they failed to disprove 607 BCE as the only date for the Fall of Jerusalem. COJ's thesis is flawed from many standpoints as he gave more weight to NB Chronology than the Biblical record. which shows the historical reality of the 70 years as a period of the desolation of Judah which has been a stumbling block for scholarship also he failed to properly account for the Jewish/Babylonian Exile of 70 years.
scholar JW
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
Beth Sarim
After you read CoC and In Search of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz,,,Carl Olaf Jonsons 2 books drives the entire Borg fallacy home. You can truly put to bed any doubt in your mind the entire JW borg is based on speculation and inconclusive dogma.
--
Utter nonsense. A studious examination of COJ's thesis proves the validity of 607 BCE and 1914 CE which is validated by Biblical Theology and the said scholar has spent many decades spanning from the early seventies in studying the accuracy of WT Bible Chronology.
scholar JW
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
Chevelle
Can you provide some examples of the work that you allege Carl Olaf Jonsson plagiarized from SDA scholars in Australia?
--
I did not say or mean to infer that COJ plagiarized the work of others for it is clear from his own statement that he carried out independent research in order to address the issue of 607 BCE raised by a student. The earliest critiques from SDA sources in Australia are as follows:
An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic Interpretation Of The Watchtower Society, G. Rogerson, 1964, 60 pages.
Max Hatton - SDA Pastor, Research and correspondence with WT society during the sixties.
Leonard Tolhurst - SDA Pastor and Librarian of the SDA Theological Seminary at Cooranbong, NSW.
Neil Tolhurst- SDA representative about early 1972-73 who carried out criticisms on WT Chronology in the course of his door to door ministry.
1914 and Christ's Second Coming An Examination of Jehovah's Witness Teachings on the Subject, William MacCarty, 1975, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, DC which was the first non-Australian source on WT Chronology later credited by COJ in his GTR.
Many Adventists during that period in Australia were critical of our presentation of Chronology featured in the publication Babylon the Great Has Fallen published in 1963.
scholar JW
'
-
362
Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday
by slimboyfat infor newbies, who was carl olof jonsson?
he was a jw in sweden who was challenged by a householder in the 1960s, who pointed out to him that secular history books don’t agree with watchtower that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, but instead place the event 20 years later.
the reason the date is important is because it is the starting date for jw chronology which leads to 1914 as the end of the gentile times, and the beginning of the last days, as jws understand it.
-
-
scholar
slimboyfat
Carl Olaf Jonsson despite having produced scholarly research into WT chronology, more specifically the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem was not a scholar in the sense that he did not undergo learning at a University or received a Degree. COJ attempted to disprove 607 BCE by means of 17 lines of evidence from NB Chronology accompanied by his own interpretation consistent with the current scholarship of Jeremiah's '70 years' and an interpretation of the 'Gentile Times ' in Luke 21:24.
He published his original treatise submitted to Brooklyn Headquarters in 1977 titled The Gentile Times Reconsidered in four editions with a Fourth Edition reprinted as a First Edition 2021 subtitled Have Jehovah's Witnesses been wrong all along about 607 BCE? I had corresponded with COJ expressing my criticisms of his original thesis and he kindly sent me an autographed copy of his Third Edition, 1998.
One of my earlier criticisms was that he incorrectly accused the WT authors of the Proclaimers book of misrepresenting the connection of the Gentile Times with Luke 21:24 made by John Aquila Brown in his published Eventide, 1823.
Further, COJ failed to make any discussion of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile of 70 years in its theological and historical significance with the Fall of Jerusalem and failed to recognise that the 70 was a period not only of Babylonian servitude but a period of Exile with a desolated land of Judah. Further, he overstated the case of VAT 4956 as providing solid evidence for the date of 587 BCE as an Absolute Date for the Fall of Jerusalem rather than the preferred date of 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon advocated by WT scholars since 1963. A Semitic scholar and former Winess, Dr. Rolf Furuli has since published scholarship that shows that VAT 4956 can also be interpreted to prove a 20 year gap in the NB Chronology which supports 607 BCE rather than 586BCE or 587 BCE.
Jonsson has never publicly produced his original treatise despite publishing online the correspondence between himself and the WT Society during the period when his treatise was being evaluated and it is hoped that this treatise will become publicly available.
Further, in terms of scholarly criticism of WT Chronology particularly 607 BCE and 1914 CE, COJ's research followed on the heels of earlier research made by SDA scholars and others in Australia from the fifites onto the sixties which was very similar in content to what COJ later published under the above title. Thus, his research impressive as it may be to some it was simply a replication of others' research'
Carl Olaf Jonsson Vale - May he rest in peace
scholar JW emeritus
-
-
-
scholar
Happy Dad
What I require is a copy of the original treatise that was sent to Brooklyn in 1977. I already have the published 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions as well as the latest First edition 2021.
scholar JW
-
-
-
scholar
fast Jehu
I find it rather strange that COJ or any of his associates namely 'the Editors' of COJ's Gentile Times Reconsidered have never posted or made publicly available the original typewritten manuscript sent to Brooklyn known as a treatise in 1977 which according to the posted correspondence over the years was of two parts. It would be beneficial for interested researchers to have a copy of that original document in addition to his published treatise under the aforesaid title. Unfortunately, COJ is uncontactable so if someone out there has access to this treatise it would be greatly appreciated. My friend Doug Mason whose assistance I have sought on this matter was not able to provide this document.
scholar JW