Posts by scholar

23

Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis

by scholar in

it has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for bible chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. rolf furuli a semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology.

it should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with jonsson's gentile times reconsidered.

to date i am unaware of any scholarly review of the jonsson hypothesis.

scholar

rem

Sorry, you are wrong.. The Jonsson hypothesis is presented under the title 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered'. Is not this subject a theological one? I would have thought so. Jonsson presents his criticism of this theological viewpoint from an analysis of chronology and history based upon his interpretation of the secular evidence and his exegesis of Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24. and of course the seventy years. Interestingly, the two scholars who endorsed the treatise are Assyriologists.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

23

Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis

by scholar in

it has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for bible chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. rolf furuli a semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology.

it should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with jonsson's gentile times reconsidered.

to date i am unaware of any scholarly review of the jonsson hypothesis.

scholar

TD

Yes you are correct in that Jonsson accepted the traditional chronology ans sought to provide additional evidence by means of the secular records and his own exegesis of the seventy years. However, he provides a critique of the Gentile Times based on this research as well as his own exegesis of Luke 21:24. This material however lacks any theological perspective which I believe is a major weakness in his argument, a fact that I have constantly referred in my oustings on the Jonsson hypothesis.

Furuli on the other hand is presenting new research on the secular evidence used to establish the traditional chronology which must have major implivations for a re-interpretation of biblical history and chronology. I understand that his two volumes will not be presenting any theologicol perspective.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

23

Oslo hypothesis vs. Jonsson hypothesis

by scholar in

it has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for bible chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. rolf furuli a semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology.

it should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with jonsson's gentile times reconsidered.

to date i am unaware of any scholarly review of the jonsson hypothesis.

scholar

It has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for Bible Chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. Rolf Furuli a Semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology. It should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered. To date I am unaware of any scholarly review of the Jonsson hypothesis. If someone kows something to the contrary then please advise.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

To all chronologists

I have just been advised that a new first volume on secular chronology and the Bible by Rolf Furuli will be published this coming spring. Orders cand be taken now. I will post the URL when I return home from work today.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

hilary-step

You are probably correct that the SECULAR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE favours 586/587 but this view is something I have recognized in many of my earlier postings. The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the BIBLICAL WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE which favours 607. I also understand that secular chronology is far too complex and uncertain which leads to many conflicting opinions amongst scholars despite the fact that there are many astronomical fixed dates . Whereupon, there are very few biblical dates if any, apart from the Fall of Babylon that enjoys complete consensus. The calculation of 607 is well based on historical evidence as you well know and provides an immediate and direct coputation to the Fall of Jerusalem.

In contrast, Jewish biblical chronology is very complex and also suffers the major difficulty of wide opinion. This is well highlighted in the study by Jewish chronoligist Eliexer Shulman in his 'The Sequence of Events in the Old Testament', 1987. This publication presents three seventy year periods, each of which has a different beginning and end. Namely:

Seventy years of the kingdom of Babylon

Seventy years of the Babylonian Exile

Seventy years of Jeruslalem's desolation

I will be replying to the other postings

Regards

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

onacruse

Sorry I do not buy your 'divine revelation'. Did you have a mystical experience? If so, please explain as I have done considerable studies in the field of mysticism. Anyway, if your experience is genuine then you are an enlightened one. Therefore all on this board will now see you as a guru. All questions become your problem. Methinks you are 'On a Cruise'.

No doubt you have not read or will read the reference I gave to you in my last post.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion.

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

onacruse

You ask for unequivocal evidence for the 2520 years. This is an absurd proposal as it is akin for asking for unequivocal evidence for 586/7 or 607. This is impossible. What is possible is the research of scholars in the fields of theology, eschatology and historiography which shows the typological significance of both the eschaton and Jerusalem in Luke and Nebuchadnezzar in the tree dream mentioned in Daniel 4.

Exegesis is indeed a tricky thing but there is no other way to understand prophecy or the written text unless you receive divine revelation. If exegesis frightens you then stick to Mc Donald theology of fast food which is the only sustenance that the majority of posters consume. Are you prepared for hard work and to think beyond the square? I am surpised that you have not made any attempt or comment on the two Lukan studies that I have referred to on this subject. Anyway,evidence for the Gentile Times can be adduced from journal articles listed in the Bibliography at page 999 in Luke 1:35-24:53, Vol.3, Word Biblical Commentary, John Nolland: Word Books, Dallas Texas, 1989.

Respecting Daniel, tou will find the section on the tree dream in the Anchor Bible Commentary most enlightening.

Regards scholar BA MA Studies in Relgion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

donkey

I hope you are not like your pseudonym. I have in fact said a great deal about the subject of chronology on this board. Perhaps ypu could read all of my postings. I have found that nearly all of those who read my posts do not understand anything about chronology and its complexity. Also, a reluctance even to appreciate the value of the Society's viewpoint. There is displayed by many a fear and ignorance of this subject. My response is tailor made to the audience. I say as little as possible when I knoe that it will not be appreciated. Everyone clamors for evidence for the Society's chronology wherupon they ignore what has already been published. What has been published is quite sufficient for any reasonable person. The scholarly literature readily admits the complexity of biblical chronology and in fact I do not know of biblical event apart fro the Fall of Babylon that is not subject to some dispute.

I know that these comment will not please you. You ask about the value of degrees. The process of obtaining a degree in this country requires hard work and an ability to think clearly and do research. The field of religious studies gives one considerable experience in the areas that I am interested in . I believe that such degrees well qualifys one to discuss matters pertaining to biblical studies and theology etc.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

Farkel

My name is Neil Mc Fadzen. I forgot to mention that I am a certified member of the Golden Key National Honour Society. This can be authenticated by contacting the Branch Office in Sydney, Australia. Enough is said about my academic qualifications. as it is not normal practice to to list publicly one's personal academic record. If you must know you can telephone me and I will give you subject and award details.

You state you have no qualifications then perhaps if you are so inclined attempt a course in those fields in which you claim to be so knowledgeable.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

163

So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander in

okay, i know that historical evidence is that jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the wtbts would have.

however, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical jw.

they (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the wtbts is wrong.

scholar

johny cip

Thanks for your simple calculation for 586/7. I would have neve guessed that it it could be made so simple. Is it not rather strange that the Society's calculation is just as simple. You have the Fall of Babylon in 539BCE followed by the release of the captives by Cyrus in 537 BCE concluding seventy years of captivity and desolation which brings one to 607BCE. It is too easy.

Be careful : the devil is in the detail'

Regards

according to Alan F I am a braindead, brainwashed scholar, BA MA Studies in Religion