scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,125 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  I have read your extensive analysis of my original claim that Jonsson has commited an historical blunder in alleging that Brown did not associate the Gentile times with the seven times and that the Society was mistaken in connecting these times. I do not have the time at this stage to reply to your nonsense as I have academic assignments to complete but be assured that I WILL reply to your gross misrepresentation of the facts. In the final event it is up to each reader to make up his mind as to whether Jonsson, Franz and Penton are deceitful in discussing this matter. From my research and the emails sent to Franz and Jonsson I believe that their scholarship is bankrupt and not to be trusted. This matter will not go away as I intend to pursue it with much vigour. I simply do not trust anything you say as you and your cronies have only one agenda and that is to destroy Chistian values and truth leaving nothing to sustain spirituality in those who love Jehovah and Jesus Christ.

  scholar
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  There is no fuzziness in respect of this historical blunder made by Jonsson. The issue is rather matter of fact, Did Brown connect the Gentile Times with the seven times or not. In Volume 2, p.208, Brown clearly makes a connection in three ways: 1. Immediate context, 2, The phrase 'all these events' which introduces Browns discussion of the Gentile Times, 3. The association of the Olivet discourse with the previously discussed events as the fulfillment of prophecy. It must be said that Brown and the Society did not equate these periods.

  It is Jonssson who first raised this issue and was critical of the Society's Proclaimers book in page 134 for stating that for the first time Brown connected the Gentile Times with the seven times. Raymond Franz in an earlier edition took the view that there was a connection and did Penton and Barbour.

  I wrote about this matter to Jonsson back in 1998 and he sent photocopies of Brown's material with the exception of page 208 which upon writing to the Society I received a copy of that page. When Alan F attempted to address this issue on this board he tto omitted any reference to that self same page. Of course you can interpret the issue any way you like but the fact remains that a connection is plainly evident and that the Society was fully justified in making that statement. This is not a minor issue at all and goes to the very heart of the proclaimed research for the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  The issue comes down to credibility and throroughness in research which on these issues, Jonsson fails because if he is unable to interpret modern history then how is he competent with the interpretation of ancient historu? Neither Jonsson or Alan F realized that p.208 in the Eventide is the 'smoking gun' which clearly indicates an association or connection of both 'times'. Jonsson raised this issue as a platform in his original thesis which dealt with a history of the Gentile Times teaching and was later contradicyed by the Society, Franz, Penton and Barbour.

  scholar
• 
  108

  "SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scholar,.

  back on october 7, you said:i will respond to your response to the historical blunder made by franz and jonsson as alleged by me in a couple of days.. .

  (the post was http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/901501/post.ashx#901501 the thread was wts chronology(oslo hypothesis) from vicar;trinity college fellow,cambridge.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Gamaliel

  Thank you for the reminder. At present I am in the midst of preparing two research papaers that need to be submitted mid November, Yes, I believe that Jonsson and Franz have made a historical blunder which renders the Jonsson hypothesis as worthless. The fact of the matter is that the claim that John Aquila Brown did not connect the seven times with the Gentile Times is frankly stupid. The Society in its Proclaimers book stated that a connection of these events was made by Brown and is supported by Brown's description on page 208 of Brown's Eventide. Franz in his earlier edition namely 2nd., 1992 (1994) agrees with the Society's position as explained in his review of the Proclaimer's book on page 367. Franz has later corrected corrected himself in deference to Jonsson in the current editions of CoC.

  In addition, Penton in his history of Jehovah's Witnesses as Apocalypse Delayed,1988, p.21 also is in agreement with the Society's position of the connection of the Gentile Times and the seven times. However, his footnote to this information again defers to the Jonsson blunder. Penton also is in agreement with Barbour that the connection was made by Brown.

  In fact, I sent several emails regarding this historical blunder to both Franz and Jonsson before posting this information on this board. Their replies regarding this matter were unsatisfactory and ignored the Society's expanation as I had outlined to them.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 
  24

  My sincere thanks to "scholar."

  by yesidid in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scholar please accept my heartfelt thanks.

  i was reading some of your replies in dawn?s thread

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/58618/1.ashx

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary step I wish to add another name to my list: the late Frederick W. Franz + the greatest Bible scholar ever lived. scholar
• 
  24

  My sincere thanks to "scholar."

  by yesidid in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scholar please accept my heartfelt thanks.

  i was reading some of your replies in dawn?s thread

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/58618/1.ashx

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary step

  You request a list of scholars who do not accept the conventionally accepted date for the first Fall of Jerusalem. For starters, I submit two scholars: Neil Mc Fadzen and Rolf Furuli. However, there is a big problem with your question: Which date are we talking about? 586 or 587? Because there is no unanimity of opinion amongst chronologists, historians and biblical scholars regarding this problematic date/

  scholar
• 
  24

  My sincere thanks to "scholar."

  by yesidid in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scholar please accept my heartfelt thanks.

  i was reading some of your replies in dawn?s thread

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/58618/1.ashx

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary step

  No, I am not a coward. I have referred to Jonsson's books on many occasions on this board. This is evidence that I have publicly mentioned these writings and have not sought to hide this fact. You ask for lists of names of authorities who disagree with Jonsson. The most contentious issue for the Jonsson hypothesis is the seventy years and the names of scholars who have different opinions are easily obtained in the literature. When you ask this type of question only hihjlights your ignorance of chronology.

  scholar
• 
  90

  WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  gamaliel report, september 2003: .

  the source of the 606 and 607 bce date for nebuchadnezzar's destruction of jerusalem was originally based on misunderstanding ptolemy and some poor biblical exegesis.

  interestingly, a lot more jehovah's witnesses are now aware of second adventist origins for c.t.russell's ideas.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary step

  If you intend writing to Furuli's University then post your letter and the reply on this board. The joke will be on you. You must not be veru bright when you say that Furuli and scholar admit that the chronology of the period is fragile. If fragility of the period is argued then it is a problem for all scholars including your guru Jonsson. However, if one relies on the biblical record for the period then there is a solid foundation for the Society's sacred chronology.

  scholar
• 
  24

  My sincere thanks to "scholar."

  by yesidid in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scholar please accept my heartfelt thanks.

  i was reading some of your replies in dawn?s thread

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/58618/1.ashx

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  hilary step

  It seems that because Furuli omitted any reference to WT chronology that he is it variance with it because he ha proposed a Oslo chronology. Perhaps you need to read his book again and see that it is a frank, unbiased attempt to set matters staraight. For your information Jonsson's views are not shared by the rest of the world but are simply his personal view which is purely one amongst many.Yes why don't you write to his university and make a complaint and all that will do you is make your stupidity public.

  You seem to have a hang up with judicial committees, perhaps you should consider the more important issues of which chronology is at the bottom of the scale. Remember Jonsson only got into trouble because he disobeyed instructions given to him and published his treatise under a pseudonym and spread his theories amongst the brethren/

  scholar
• 
  90

  WTS Chronology(Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge

  by Gamaliel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  gamaliel report, september 2003: .

  the source of the 606 and 607 bce date for nebuchadnezzar's destruction of jerusalem was originally based on misunderstanding ptolemy and some poor biblical exegesis.

  interestingly, a lot more jehovah's witnesses are now aware of second adventist origins for c.t.russell's ideas.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Alan F

  Here again you shoot from the hip without taking careful aim. You admit that you have not consulted a Style Manual but rather preferring common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not to common so you had better consult the Style Manuals that I have referred to. But as you are not a scholar and have not published anything except your web page then you would not need to conform to academic conventions. The only people who listen and read your junk are as mindless and faithless as yourself. When you are serious about scholarship then you will be less dogmatic, more humble and open minded.

  You have never addressed the issue that a person like myself who ia a active Witness is able to do something that no other Witness has done and that is to undertake undergraduate and postgraduate studies in philosophy and religion. Is this in itself, proof that I am capable of independent thought and am able to engage in reflective and critical thinking? You claim to be an expert on the Witnesses then how is this so?

  Your favorite scholar