Posts by scholar

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

a Christian

I am sorry for taking so long in replying to your query concerning the alleged contradiction between Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1. I have researched this subject thoroughly using the Society's publications, commentaries etc and Jonsson's GTR, 3rd edition, 1998, Appendix article 'The Third Rear of Jehoiakim', pp.335-344. I set out on paper a chart containing dates (secular and Society's), reigns for Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar, brief description of each historical events, relevant scriptural texts and the synchronisms between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. This chart presents in a simple and visual way the complete range of data.

I have found that the Society's explanation to be accurate and that there is no contradiction between Dan.1:1 and 2:1. Jonsson's thesis contains a few errors of fact, asumptions and poor scholarship. But overall analysis was most helpful in checking the historical reconstruction made by the Society. But most importantly, my research revealed a significant fact that has been overlooked by all scholars that I have checked thus far and does not appear in any of the Society's publications.

My post is brief but I will give more details later as I need to format my research offline when time permits.

You need to read those two texts carefully to see what is in common. It all hangs on this in the final analysis.

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

Earnest

I wish to reply to your comments. The simple reason why I do not elaborate in detail all that could be said is simply that I am rather new to computer use and do not enjoy at this stage the abilities in making impressive posts as others do. In time with practice I will no doubt improve. Also I have found that when I have given reference to the scholarly literature in the past I have found that these have been ignored. You are the only person thus far that at least has taken the trouble to look at those references. You must remember that when I make a posting or reply to a posting I am not going to submit a scholarly thesis on that subject for there are propere avenues for this to occur and the internet is not one of these. Other posters like Alan F have the luxury to post extensive and elaborate replies this however does not mean good scholarship. If such replies satisfies you then that is fine but you must remember that such replies are only a summary of what Jonsson has published.

Regarding the terminal date for the seventy years it is true that certain texts as you have described can be used to refer to the fall of Babylon if uou subscribe to the servitude theory. However if you subscibe to the desolation theory then those texts can equally ell refer to 537. You have listed the Bibliography in the commentary in Luke then you must read and investigate the times mentioned in Luke 21:24 wherein theologians give a eschatological interpretation for that expression. The Gentile Times is clearly a eschatological application on the 'times' in Luke 21;24 OR AT THE VERY LEAST IS CONSISTENT WITH CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL OPINION..

Your question about 1914 is rather hypothethical do not you agree? I would say that the very fact that the First World War began in 1914 and which concluded the already calcuable date of the end of the Gentile Times could be considered rather highly providential. If we are serious about such scholarly matters then one has to be prepared to access theological libraries and consult the journals and not just reply on one piece of research into chronology namely Jonssons. You have to do the hard yards as Ihave done over many years. Ihave worked very hard to enjoy my academic success at my age and continue to pursue mu studies. I did not get my degrees in a packet of cornflakes or bought them from an American University. Please be assure that the more one studies chronology the more difficult it becomes. For this reason alone, the Society's presentatation of the matter is both consistent with the secular evidence and the biblical record. Attempts made otherwise have to scrap the seventy years in its entirety in order to fit a chronology with all of the so called secular evidence.

Ask yourself in respect to the end of the seventy years. What event would have been more imporatnt to the exile awaiting the prophesied end of the seventy years, the Fall of Babylon or the actual release by Cyrus permitting the exile to return to his home and worship Jehovah again ate a restored temple.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

50

WHAT IS THE BEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE?

by Utopian_Raindrops in

jw
friends

ok.....i really need to have a personal bible reading again with no ones ideas but my own.

just me god and the bible!

i will most likely be looking in others but for 15 years the new world translation has been my base bible along with so-called bible-based literature.

scholar

ozziepost

You have misunderstood my reply. I simply drew your attention to a journal in the Moore College holdings that discusses the subject of Bible translation. The reading of this journal enables one to have a good appreciation of the NWT when the principles of translation are applied. It was not meant to imply that this would be an endorsement of the NWT. Many people have a favorite translation for various reasons but when looks into the literature then the standards are somewhat higher.

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

Hi Earnest

Why listen to the monkey (Alan F) when you can listen to the organ grinder (Carl Jonsson). Jonsson in his GTR, 3rd Edition,1998.pp.191-235 discusses the seventy years in full. The most imporatant section begins pp.228 to 235. Jonsson's argument rests on Jeremiah 29:10 and the controversial translation of a Hebrew preposition. Why would you base your entire argument upon 'for ' or 'at'. as a basis for determining whether the seventy years is only one of servitude or as clearly stated in scripture, a period of desolation.

Jonsson is uncertain as to whether the seventy years ran from 605 to 539 or 609 to 539 BCE. But other scholars postulate other dates to accommodate their own special theories. As I have said earlier the seventy years began with a dramatic historical event, namely the fall odf Jerusalem introducing a watershed in Jewish history and ending with an equally draatic historical event, namely their release under Cyrus in 537. The Society's interprestation best fits the scriptural testimony of seventy years of desolation and subsequent exile under Babylonoian rule finally ending under Cyrus

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

50

WHAT IS THE BEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE?

by Utopian_Raindrops in

jw
friends

ok.....i really need to have a personal bible reading again with no ones ideas but my own.

just me god and the bible!

i will most likely be looking in others but for 15 years the new world translation has been my base bible along with so-called bible-based literature.

scholar

ozziepost

The reason that I say that the NWT is the the best and the most accurate translation made thus far is because it is a provision from Jehovah - James 1:17. You may find it helpful to consult the journal BIBLE TRANSLATOR held at Moore College Library which will enhance your appreciation of the NWT. My endorsement of the NWT arises not because of my academic attainments but from decades of using the NWT and comparing it with commentaries, other translations, lexicons and word study reference works.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

50

WHAT IS THE BEST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE?

by Utopian_Raindrops in

jw
friends

ok.....i really need to have a personal bible reading again with no ones ideas but my own.

just me god and the bible!

i will most likely be looking in others but for 15 years the new world translation has been my base bible along with so-called bible-based literature.

scholar

Without doubt the NWT is the finest and most the most accurate translation of the Bible ever made. However, it is prudent for any sincere Bible student to have in their libraries a number of Bible translations as this gives one variety because no translation is inspired or infallible.I like the NIV Study Edition because it is very easy to read but for indepth theological research the NWT is absolutely triumphant.

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

Farkel

What about your nickname 'Farkel'? Are you jealous of my academic qualifications?

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

Earnest

Your posts provide interesting reading as you are having a running debate with Alan F,. It is good that you appreciate the complexity of biblical chronology particularly the seventy years. This subject has attracted discussion in the scholarly literature but to this day the situation the situation remains as clouded as ever. This obvious facy has been lost on Alan F who simply states a certain test, provides an interpretation and then proclaims this or Jonsson.s view of those texts as absolute truth. I have said time and time again that the seventy years needs to fully explored in its entirety which can onlly be properly done in a suitable academic way. You cannot interpret this subject just by one or two texts but all must be brought together in order to make sense, I believe that 607 through to 537 is the only possible solution. It thus begins with a dramatic historical and biblical event namely the Fall of Jerusalem and terminates with an equally dramatic historical event, namely the release of the exiles from Babylon to a desolated land.

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

rem

Sorry, you are wrong; The facts of secular history require a certain amount of interpretation. This is shown by the fact that there are very few dates in biblical chronology that are universally accepted. History is not just facts but requires interpretation.in order to create history. Jonssonn's hypothesis although is based on secular evidence also contains much theory and exegesis. Similarly, WT chronology is based on certain accepted historical evidence and scriptural exegesis. For this reason, I believe that 607 is triumphant over the strained dates of 586/587 and frankly I do not give two hoots whether you you agree with me.

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

ozziepost

Greetings, The only connection that I have to Rolf Furuli is that we share the same beliefs namely as active Witnesses. Of course. both of us have post graduate qualifications in our respective disciplines.

scholar BA MA Studies in Religion