scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,054 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  29

  NWT

  by shera in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (douglas walsh v. the right honorable james latham clyde, m.p., p.c., etc., scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.).

  under oath at a trial in scotland.

  (a): i do not speak hebrew.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  herk

  Your claim for the identity of the NWT translators is utter nonsense because all you can quote is merely hearsay and opinion. There has never been published any documentary evidence pertaining to their identity. I have studied the NWT since I first came into contact with the witnesses in 1958 and possess a well worn Reference Bible.1984 Edition. The simple plain fact that the names of the translators is the magnum mysterium which must trouble you greatly.I have several technical Bible commentaries in my library and enjoy the journal faciliies at Sydney University and Moore Theological Theological Library whereupon its my custom to examine and compare the NWT with the latest in biblical scholarship. My resources also attend to Macquarie University which is in the forefront in matters pertaining to textual criticism and studies in New Testament Greek. In fact, it is this university that is engage in research to replace the work of Moulton and Milligan.

  So I do know what I am talking about which is plainly evident that you do not. My shallenge to you is for you to produce scholarship that invalidates the NWT.

  Happy researching

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  29

  NWT

  by shera in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (douglas walsh v. the right honorable james latham clyde, m.p., p.c., etc., scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.).

  under oath at a trial in scotland.

  (a): i do not speak hebrew.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  herk

  You claim to know the identity of the NWT translators then how is this possible? Do you have documentary evidence for this information or are you relying upon speculation? I do not believe that there is anyone who can prove the alleged identity of the translators. You say that the revisions of the NWT were achieved by other careful translators, please give examples of this.

  It is not fantasy to praise the NWT as no other transation comes within a bull's roar of it. My claim about the this work being acclaimed by scholars remains even though it is not infallible or inspired.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  29

  NWT

  by shera in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  (douglas walsh v. the right honorable james latham clyde, m.p., p.c., etc., scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.).

  under oath at a trial in scotland.

  (a): i do not speak hebrew.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  shera

  You have some misconceptions about the NWT. You claim to know the identity of the NWT translators but such information is purely speculation. The policy of the committee was that they were to remain anonymous even after their death so remains for all eternity one of life's many mysteries. It is impossible to know their names as no archival material constitutive of their identity exists. At best there remains merely Bethel gossip and hearsay.

  The NWT is an acclaimed piece of outstanding biblical scholarship unsurpassed by any previous or current translation. The purpose of this majestic work was not to support WT theology but rather to provide a modern and accurate translation suited to the needs of modern Bible students.

  scholar: BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, Australia
• 
  23

  597 bce or 607 bce !

  by Dizzy Cat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  not my usual post - but can any of you reference any material for me that highlights 597 bce a relevant date, rather than 607 bce.. an old friend phoned this morning (who is a jw still) and wanted to know about alternate chronology, aside from what the wts teach.. any info' appreciated !.

  cheers

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jw and Alan Fraud

  No Ii am not pranking you around. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence for discarding 607 for the speculative dates of 586/567. My reason for preferring 607 is not due to some blind allegiance to the Society's teaching on this matter because I have been interested in the Jonsson hypothesis and SDA scholarship for several decades

  I believe that a major weakness in the Jonsson hypothesis is the exegesis of the seventy years. A good example of the many difficulties is the most difficult passage in Jeremiah 25;10--12. Scholars debate whether the seventy years in verse 11 is identical to that in verse 12. Some scholars argue that the former is literal whereas the latter is symbolic. However this section of scripture poses many difficult problems for the advocate of secular chronology, contrariwise for those supporters of the traditional chronology for 607 there remain fewer problems. Jonsson's exegesis of this passage is markedly flawed.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion University of Sydney, Australia
• 
  23

  597 bce or 607 bce !

  by Dizzy Cat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  not my usual post - but can any of you reference any material for me that highlights 597 bce a relevant date, rather than 607 bce.. an old friend phoned this morning (who is a jw still) and wanted to know about alternate chronology, aside from what the wts teach.. any info' appreciated !.

  cheers

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F and Pope Of Eruke

  It is amazing that people who have nothing worthwhile to say resort to sarcasm. It is well known Alan F that you do not possess any original thinking regarding chronology. Your hostili6ty to the WT chronology is solely derived by your own admission to the Jonsson hypothesis. Thus you are intellectually bankrupt. As for the other fellow he would not know the difference between the university of Sydney or Melbourne

  scholar
• 
  23

  597 bce or 607 bce !

  by Dizzy Cat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  not my usual post - but can any of you reference any material for me that highlights 597 bce a relevant date, rather than 607 bce.. an old friend phoned this morning (who is a jw still) and wanted to know about alternate chronology, aside from what the wts teach.. any info' appreciated !.

  cheers

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  jws and undercover

  The Society in many of its publications has explained how the date 607 is calculated. The evidence for this date ids based on the fall of Babylon which is determined by secular evidence. Next, there is the reckonong for the time when the Jews were released by the decree of Cyrus in 537 which thus fulfilled seventy years which must have began in 607. Obviously there is evidence for these historic events as these constitute biblical history. The chronology of the seventy years is a matter of exegesis. Scholars do not have a definitive view about this event. Of course, you have your own understanding of such matters, that is fine but please give the Society a little credit for providing a simple methodology for determining the fate for the fall of Jeruslalem

  The subject of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 cannot be easily dismissed. There is much attention in recent commentaries on Daniel concerning the theology of Nebuchadnessar's vision as decribed in Daniel 4. Further, there is material in Early CChristian historiography regarding Luke and observations regarding eschatology in the use of the eschaton pertaining to Luke 21;24.

  Finally, no one can be dogmatic about any date in the biblical history. Chronology is not an exact science but relies on available materials, the interpretations thereof and exegesis of the biblical accounts. 607 in my opinion is rock solid, 587 and 586 are dead end attempts that approximate a reconstruction of the late period of the Judean monarchy.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, Australia
• 
  23

  597 bce or 607 bce !

  by Dizzy Cat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  not my usual post - but can any of you reference any material for me that highlights 597 bce a relevant date, rather than 607 bce.. an old friend phoned this morning (who is a jw still) and wanted to know about alternate chronology, aside from what the wts teach.. any info' appreciated !.

  cheers

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Dizzy Cat

  Your inquiry concerning the chronology for the Fall of Jerusalem is somewhat problematic. The majority of scholars prefer the dates 586 or 587 for this event. The Society has calculated that according to the biblical record, the date should be fixed at 607 BCE. This calcuable date is in accordance with some of the the secular evidence and an exegesis of the seventy years, The other 'dead end ' dates are attested by available secular evidence and an exegesis of the seventy years. The choice is yours as to which of the dates is the best 'fit'. I prefer 607 because of its prophetic, theological and historioghraphical significance. It is entirely false to assume that some how 607 is not a worthy and trustworthy candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney, Australia
• 
  108

  The Real Truth About Raymond V. Franz Revealed!

  by bjc2012 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  and for those reasons, coj wanted in the beginning, to stay with the organization, just like bill bowens.

  that is all carl wanted.

  yes, as members of the governing body, they knew full well, exactly what carl's writings meant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  bjc2012

  I have never read such rubbish concerning your extravagant claims that COJ's hypothesis albeit Treatise had such consequences for the Society as you describe. Your fanatical belief in the Jonsson hypothesis is misguided. Such chronology is merely opinion and simply represents an attempt to interpret biblical history. The Society's chronology gives an adequate framework for a plausible reconstruction of biblical history. The fact of the matter is that there are varying chronologies and each one has its own merits..COJ's hypothesis is simply one amongst many and is no more factual than the rest. The Society would have had other competing chronologies on their bookshelves.

  scholar

  BA, MA Studies in Relogion, University of Sydney
• 
  13

  Greg Stafford

  by RR in

  1. social
  2. current

  i got this on a forum.

  i left the name out, but the information is good.

  stafford's assisting bro.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  RR

  I was pleased to read your comments on Bo. Greg Stafford. I for one applaud his courage, intellectual insight and his capacity to think '' outside the square'. His recent publications demonstrate that he is a man who truly loves God's Word and the brotherhood. A close friend of mine who spent some time with Greg and his wife found him to be a most deirable young man, reminds one of how the Apostle Paul described Timothy,

  .I wish Greg well for the future and I remain loyal to him whatever the outcome.

  scholar

  BA MA (Studies in Religion)
• 
  24

  Is it 607 or 586 ?

  by happy man in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  >i have seen comercial fore a bok from a swedish man who say jw are wrong on 607 issu, here on this site.</p>.

  <p>now i find this issu on the jw site thuchstone.</p>.

  <p>&nbsp;</p>.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ozziepost

  You have many Bible commentaries, but what sort are they? The one that I have suggested will be of great benefit if you are genuine in your inquiry.. The article lists the journal articles for your examination.. You will need to make an effort otherwise any article that I have will be of no interest to you.

  scholar