Posts by scholar

125

Making 607 crumble

by ellderwho in

during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

You ask for ONE piece of secular evidence to support 607. No problem. The calculation begins with the pivotal date of 539 which is accepted by scholarship to mark the conquest of Babylon. proof of this is established by the Nabonidus Chronicle now located in the British Museum.This clay tablet is a well dated record of the Fall of Babylon which yields the date as October 5 Gregorian or October 11, Julian.

Now, your turn. Have you read Furuli's book which reviewall the so called secular evidence?

scholar

125

Making 607 crumble

by ellderwho in

during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

scholar

justhuman

The matters you raise are well addressed in Furuli's book which decondtructs current secular chronology and shows that the seventy years are not for captivity to Babylon but are years of desolation for Judah. By the way have you read this book or are you too timid to seek an alternative viewpoint. Also, there in fact were only two deporattions, not three as you allege. 607 is based upon the fall of Babylon in 539 which leads to the release of the captives under Cyrus in 537 which brought their seventy years exile to a finish which inturn means that the captivity behan in 607. It does not get any easier than that as it follow the KISS principle.

scholar

90

Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie in

i really wanna know.

i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

frannie b

scholar

herk

What you are really saying is that you DO NOT KNOW the identity of the committee but have to rely upon speculation, rumour or gossip. So, regardless of ones status at Bethel during the forties and fifties there was no evidence sighted. Raymonf Franz's opinion om the matter has little significance if he cannot quote hard facts or evidence. The committee's identity is UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE.

scholar

125

Making 607 crumble

by ellderwho in

during my eight month long study with "elder bob" (moms husband) we have batted around many subjects to say the least.

but the one that really stands out is the dreaded date of 607 bc.

im sorry i just will not let up with this date, and him having to prove it can stand.

scholar

elderwho

You must have rocks in your head when you speak about that dreaded date of 607. There is abundant secular and biblical evidence in support of 607 as a calcuable and credible date for the Fall of Jerusalem. Your only other alternative are the indecisive dates of 586 or 587. Perhaps you should toss a coin and see which comes up first. Rolf Furuli has sourced the work of Grayson but the tiitle differs to the one you posted and is shown as Assyriian and Babylonian Chronicles, A. K. Grayson, 1975, Augustin Publishers, New York in Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews, Rolf Furuli, Volume One, 2003. I suggest that you read this book before making silly comments about the biblical eastablished date of 607 BCE.

scholar

BA BAHons MA Studies in Religion

90

Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie in

i really wanna know.

i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

frannie b

scholar

toreador

I agree with you that one would have thought that Ray Franz would have known or at least have had a good idea as to the identity of the NWT Committee and he enjoyed at least one would think a close or intimate knowledge of his uncle Fred. However, it is somewhat puzzling that Raymond gave no evidence for his identity of the translators. In his Cof C he provides no documentary information in support of his claims, Why did he not have access to archival materials or to the Deed of Arrangement between the NWT Committee and the Watch Tower Society? Because Raymond does not supply evidence for his opinion then one can only conclude that it is only his personal opinion and is no more credible than anyone else's opinion. One may well just as well consult thje opinion of the Bethel janitor or housekeeper;

scholar

BA BA Hons cand. MA Studies in Religion.

90

Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie in

i really wanna know.

i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

frannie b

scholar

metatron

Yes, 'unknown' because under the Deed of Arrangement when the NWT Commitee gave the then Christian Greek Scriptures to the Society for publishing it was conditional that the identity of the Committee was to remain anonymous even after their death. So, any names that are bandied about for ezample as claimed by Franz in his Cof C are purely speculation, rumour or gossip. Whatever input that Fred Franz may have made can only be speculation as no one has seen or read archival or documentary evidence or signed documents to that effect.

scholar

BA BA Hons, cand. MA Studies in Religion

90

Which Bible Translation is Currently the MOST Accurate in Your Opinion?

by Frannie Banannie in

i really wanna know.

i need the most accurate version to refer to in order to continue a project i'm working on.

frannie b

scholar

Frannie Bannanie

In response to your inquiry as to which Bible translation is the most accurate there can be only one qualified candidate and that is the NWT, 1984 edition. Recently, Jason deBuhn published a survey which compared several recent translations and the NWT came put on top. But more to the point that when one follows closely the Biblical text with several commentaries then one can easily see the superiorty of the NWT with both the Old and New Testament. I use the Word Biblical Commentary series and have often confirmed and marvelled at the accuracy of this brilliant translation produced by an unknown group of competent biblical scholars.

scholar

BA Hons cand. MA Studies in Religion

9

New World Translation, eh?

by Bofug in

another on eof my fovourite articles .

the new world translation (nwt) was created between 1950-61 in several parts, beginning with new testament (nt).

the translation was made by an "anonymous" committee, which transliterated and altered texts that were problematic for earlier jws.

scholar

Bofug

You are very mistaken about your comments on the NWT. The committee members are unknown because their identity was and is preserved in anonymity even after their respective deaths. So,. any mention of names can only amount to speculation and gossip and is of little consequence for the scholarship of the this translation is unsurpassed in accuracy and innovation. Perhaps, you you read Jason DeBuhn's analysis of the NWT in comparison with other current translations.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

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.).

scholar

simwitness

RE:JONSSON'S HISTORICAL BLUNDER

Sp, you and Alan F admit that the Society was right after all. You have grudgingly admitted that a connection exists even if it is a technical one. Neither of the two of you have given any attention nor did Jonsson or Franz regarding my three observations regarding the connection on page 208 of Brown's Eventide.

No, it is Jonsson who must prove his case as he first raised the issue with much dogmatism and then when the Society made a different statement he then spent some time in flagging his unsupported view of the matter. Jonsson has not proved that Brown did not associate, relate or connect the two times but has simply shown Brown' meaning and length of the seven times The Society has shwn when asled by me for evidence for their view and they wrote back and said that p. 208 shows the connection and they also sent a copy of page 135 which contains the meaning and length of the seven times (vol.2).

In short the Society has proved the connection and Jonsson has failed to prove that there was no connection, association or relation.

QED

scholar

108

"SCHOLAR" and UNFINISHED BUSINESS

by Gamaliel in

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.).

scholar

simwitness

RE:JONSSON' HISTORICAL BLUNDER

It seems that you want to trivialize this matter and or either ignore it. The fact of the matter is Jonsson has stated his position rather dogmaticaly which contrasts with the less than dogmatic position of the Society as shown in the Proclaimers book. I refer you to Jonsson's GTR, 1998, 3rd. edition, pp.36, and the italized' Brown did not connect' on page 69. This large page is a criticism of the connection explained in the Proclaimer book as reproduced on page 68. Jonsson is plainly in error and the Society was justified in stating the connection as I have explained.

scholar