scholar

Joined

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

Posts by scholar

• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilkary_step

  In reply to your query I wish to respond as follows. I am suspicious of individual who have converted as a Witness after a considerble time of education and reflection whereupon such an individual was convinced intellectually and nourished in faith to being baptized. Now, for unexplained amd for irrational reasoms they now find that what they once believed is now error, a classic example is Alan F who now admits publicly to all that he is no longer a Christian having once from youth being raised in the faith has now become an unbeliever. How can such people realy be credible commentators of scripture?

  You quote from an article published in the Watchtower, 1989 in regard to the the insight of the Witnesses and the fulfillment pf prophecy. I endorse wholeheartedly those comment and reflect the essence of Christianity in that his people wiuld have insight, would be his people and would in themselves fulfill prophecy and announce prophecy. In short, the Christian church has been prophetic in character and mission. In their prophesied spiritual estate they have fulfilled and are fulfilling the Great Commission and the Gospel Proclamation as prophesied in Matt.28:19,20 and 24:14.

  In the calculation of prophecy Christians are urged not to be misled by fragmentary secular evidence or piles of evidence with its interpretation as opposed to the reading of scripture. For this reason, Witnesses have accurately explained the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of years of Daniiel to the comming of our Lord and the fulfillement of prophecies surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and Babylon in 607 and 539.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  41

  The New World Translation

  by MrsQ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone give me an explanation of how the nw translation came about?

  who, exactly, were on this bible translation committee, and what were their qualifications?

  when was it first published?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  I would have thought that the question as to whether the method for calculating 596/587 and 539 is rather a stupid one because if you have to ask that question then I cnnot but wonder about your state of knowledge about chronology. Firstly, the society has well explained why and how 539 is widely accepted by historians and scholars. The calculation and secular evidence is as I have stated in numerous publications. I would suggest that you get pencel and paper and take good notes and record these in a journal. Now, your next step is to determine how 586/587 is reckoned, its method and the specific evidence used for thes dates. Write this material in your journal and compare your findings. Do the same with 607 and now in your journal pade you will have three parallel columns and then you will see the difference and points of agreement.

  For starters, 5, 59639 has direct secular evidence and the biblical narrative to support this date as the fall of Babylon, the fall of Jerusalem also has many scriptures which fod and described the event similar to Babylons. fall. The main difference between the fall of both cities is that there is no direct secular evidence for Jerusalem as there is with Babylon. The fall of Jerusalem can only be calculated with scripture only with a secular fixed date which is not the same with the calculation of Bavylon. In short, it is only the fall of Babylon that that has an independent chronological base. For this reason the fall of Jerusalem is not regardeda as a absolute or pivtal date as with the fall of Babylon in 539. Also, this is the reason why scholars cannot determine whether it is 586 or 587 for Jerusalem' fall. The society under the guidance of holy spirit and holy writ has determined that 607 is the only possible choice and we can all thank Jehovah and his Son for this amazing understabding.

  May the Lord be praised.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  51

  Update on study with Elder....

  by shotgun in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i took the advice of the forum and informed him i wouldlike to study the bible.

  he arrived case in hand and pulled out the draw close to jehovah publication.. i said i thought we were going to study the bible...he then said well this is a bible publication...i said has not past publications contained errors and changes in teachings while the bible remains true.

  he said yesssss.......do you have something inparticular you want to look at in the bible.....i said i thought we could start in matthew and work our way through.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  shotgun

  I can can assure that I am an active JW and I have never evaded issues but have provided comments on issues that I believe are relevant to those readers of my postings. I have found that many simply want their ears tickled and do not have an open mind. If you are uncomfortable with the concept of church then that is your problem, for me. it is a beautiful term that well expresses the community of the Lord's sheep in worshipping Jehovah by proclaiming the gospel.

  You ask about my comments on JCanon's views on chronology. Simply speaking his views are rubbish, he has no academic credentials and hides behind a stupid nickname. I cannot regard him or his chronology with any respect. I would prefer to deal with the Jonsson hypothesis as then I know what devil I am dealing with.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alleymom

  In my last post to you I gave a brief overview of study in biblical chronology in the last century, this was not meant to be a complete analysis of its history. In any overview of the period one must recognize the contribution made by Thiele as a pioneering attelmpt to resolve the problems of the Divided Monarchy. I do not believe that Thiele's work had any impact on the Society as their approaches are very different and their methodologies. However, I believe that credit where due must be given so I personally see value in Thiele's research even if it becomes a model for comparative purposes only. I also acknowledge the simple fact that in the earlier part pf the last century that there was not much research done in chronology with the exception of the work done by Martin Anstey who provided strong criticism of Ptolemy's Canon. So, it is somehow not surprising that gy the forties the society made adjustments to a already long held view which I believe has stood the test of time.

  Secenth Day Adventists have also made a systematic approach to chronology in various publications culminating in a series of articles which have appeared in their commentary and encyclopedia. They too have had a long fascination with chronology and prophecy as do the Witnesses.Hereagain I acknowledge their scholarship with their various journals and universities even though I do not accept their theology or their chronology. In short, I endeavour to respect genuine efforts by individuals or groups who have a genuine interest in the Gospel and its proclamation but that does not mean that I cannot be critical of those attempts when necessary.

  I agree with you that genuine scholarship must look first at primary sources where available and you make much of the cunieform material/

  I am not a semitic scholar so I have to rely on others or at least consult those material that are available in English. Fortunately, Rolf Furuli has the competence to investigate such material and in his now published book no doubt this will be of much assistance. Nevertheless, I worry about the validity of the cunieform materials to specific biblical issues and the attempt to harmonize both primary sources. Afterall the biblical recore is the only primary source for the biblical history in question and it deals with specific dates, places and reigns of both pagan and diivine kings. The biblical data cobflicts with the secular data as currently understood or the secular data does not deal with the specifics of biblical history. For the Christian one has to make a intellectual judgement and with a prophetic vision in faith make certain judgements about what chronology best conforms to the biblical record. In doing so one undertakes a large intellectual risk of either being mocked or ridiculed by critics, apostates and athiests. The society of witnesses and in keeping with their brothers form earlier times have the courage to go against popular or worldly opinion.

  I have studies chronology for some thirty yeras and I fully appreciate the magnitude of oppostion to our chronology. The Jonsson hypothesis afterall details 14 lines of secular evidence to invalidate 607. This is a formidable and impressive argument but when I examine citicaly his use of the scriptures in support of his secular evidence, I remain unconvinced of his reasoning, argument and exegesis of the texts. A good example of this is of course is Dan 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-22/

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  51

  Update on study with Elder....

  by shotgun in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i took the advice of the forum and informed him i wouldlike to study the bible.

  he arrived case in hand and pulled out the draw close to jehovah publication.. i said i thought we were going to study the bible...he then said well this is a bible publication...i said has not past publications contained errors and changes in teachings while the bible remains true.

  he said yesssss.......do you have something inparticular you want to look at in the bible.....i said i thought we could start in matthew and work our way through.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  shotgun

  Let me assure that I have been a witness since 1964 and first learnt the truth in 1958. I have spent my youth in fulltime service including missionary activity and have served as an Elder for many years. For that long period of time I long spired to achieve a university degree and in recent years have achieved graduate and post garaduate status with the hope of a doctorate in the fields that Iihave spent a life long interest in namely theology, philosophy and biblical studies.

  Regarding dates accepted by the Wt it seems pointless in elaborating on such matters when the society has already commented extensively on such matters. You only have to read what has been published to be fully informed on such matters. I believe quite firmly that the chronology as taught by the society id accurate and in harmony with both the biblical and secular evidence.. This is a journey of scholarship of which if your interest moves you then move fprward with it. You will discover much buried treasure as I have done.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  It ia somewhat amusing that the community of Witnesses are the Keystone cops of scholarship when such a small group without the benefits of univiversity education have been able to produce a translation of the Bible unequalled for its depth of scholarship and its multi-lingual facility, which you grudgingly have paid some respect. Even the Second Day Adventists who have made an extensive service to the field of biblical chronology and with their own universiies offering degree in theology and biblical studies have not produced their translation of the Bible.

  Your comments about apparent revisions of various dates only amount to historical curiosity as it was not until the mid forties that major studies or interest began in the rare field of biblical chronology with the researcg began by Thiele. Therefore, it is not surprising that chronological schemas then proposed would have been adjusted to meet the advances of inguiring biblical scholarship.

  Please keep in mid that you were a person who intellectually believed in Witness teaching and for some peculiar you became converted to the idea that the beliefs that you held were now wrong. Was your intellect not functioning, were you deceived or brainwashed? One cannot but wonder abour your intellectual integrity and credibility and whether you are counted as a Christian.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  41

  The New World Translation

  by MrsQ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone give me an explanation of how the nw translation came about?

  who, exactly, were on this bible translation committee, and what were their qualifications?

  when was it first published?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  The lines of evidence used to establish the validity of 539 are well known and are fully discussed in the Wt publications. I suggest that you read carefully the articles on Chronology in the Aid Book and the Insight Encyclopedia. Further you may read comments concerning 539 in the Jonsson hypothesis as published in GTR, 1998, pp. 80-88 for additional material'

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  51

  Update on study with Elder....

  by shotgun in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i took the advice of the forum and informed him i wouldlike to study the bible.

  he arrived case in hand and pulled out the draw close to jehovah publication.. i said i thought we were going to study the bible...he then said well this is a bible publication...i said has not past publications contained errors and changes in teachings while the bible remains true.

  he said yesssss.......do you have something inparticular you want to look at in the bible.....i said i thought we could start in matthew and work our way through.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  elderwho

  You have a poor understanding of the spirit directed organization and the role of its faithful slave. My suggestion is for you to do more personal study and pray for holy spirit so that all these things can be made manifest to you. My suggestion is for you to focus on the letters of Paul and the role of the Church in these modern times.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  41

  The New World Translation

  by MrsQ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone give me an explanation of how the nw translation came about?

  who, exactly, were on this bible translation committee, and what were their qualifications?

  when was it first published?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  It is good that the matter of Gangas or Schroeder being on the NWT committee has been laid to rest and that all that remains is the fact that the identity of the committee is unknowable.

  I can assure you that there is no embarrassment on my oart for accepting 607. I can assure that the lines of evidence for the acceptance of 539 and 586/7 are not identical. I have no problem accepting 539 but 586/7 is plainly stupid. Let me assure that I am happy and secure in the knowledge that 607 is the only date that agrees with biblical and secular evidence. It is impossible to accept the other candidates but if you can then that is your choice.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  41

  The New World Translation

  by MrsQ in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  can anyone give me an explanation of how the nw translation came about?

  who, exactly, were on this bible translation committee, and what were their qualifications?

  when was it first published?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  Once again you dodge the issue as you do not know the identity of the committee only relying on gossip, hearsay and speculation. It is similar to your lack of evidence for 586 or was it 587. No, it is 586, no that is wrong it is 587. I will stick to the Bible and 607.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion