Posts by scholar

20

Jeremiah 29:10

by TheOldHippie in

the new danish and swedish revisions of the nwt have "lifted up" the nwt-with references footnote alternative rendering of jeremiah 29:10 into being the preferred one, so that it no longer says "in babylon" but "for babylon".

has there been any change or revision in the english issue?

scholar

Faraon

The context of Jeremiah is not helpful in determining the nature of the seventy years in Jeremiah 29:10 but rather one must consider the other references by Jeremiah, Daniel and the Chronicler. The Society holds the view that the seventy years refers to a specific period of time right down to the very month at least so that that period could truly be fulfilled.

Rolf Furuli who is a Hebraic and linguistic scholar is well qualified to comment on how that verse should be translated wheras Jonsson who is not a competent and qualified scholar must rely on the opinions of other scholars in order to support his rather tenuous position. For me, it is rather foolish for any individual to base his hypothesis on the translation of a single preposition which has a wide semantic range. This is Jonsson's major mistake. Additionally, scholars have many opinions as to chronology of the seventy years yet Jonsson and his supporters have taken a dogmatic view that others would not assume.

scholar

25

What I have learned about Rolf Furuli

by Faraon in

on a recent thread about the year of the destruction of jerusalem, i learned from "scholar" about rolf furuli.. i looked up his name in google, and came with a few interesting links.

all i can say is that i am glad there aren't too many witnesses going to universities, especially those claiming to be researchers.

first they must take their blinds off.. a review of rolf furuli's book "the role of theology and bias in bible translation".

scholar

logansrun

The expression 'Jonsson hypothesis' is most appropriate because Jonsson has not proved his case but simply presented and interpreted the secular and biblical evidence supporting his claims for the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 and the beginning of the seventy years from 607 to 539 BCE. The fact of the matter is that scholars are divided as to whether the Fall of Jerusalem applies to 586 or 587 and both sides have their own reasons for supporting their particular position. Also, the matter of the seventy years is widely open to interpretation amongst scholars so Jonsson's view like the Society's and SDA are interpretations amongst the many. Unfortunately, the posters on this board are deceived by Jonsson in that they believe that he has all the answers and that his critique of WT chronology is Absolute Truth.

Jonsson has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars and simply represents a biased attempt to disprove WT chronology therefore his work does not represent scholarship at its best. Why don't you compare Furuli's chronology and you will see that the secular evidence is not infallible and is open to serious criticism. Furuli presents his research in a unbiased way which contrasts markedly with Jonsson's handling of the 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

hilary-step

Your claim aboy a member of the Governing Body expressing doubt about chronology is hearsay. do not believe what you say without evidence. Our chronology is biblically based, accurate and has withstood the Jonsson rubbish and the stuff based on higher criticism. Our organization is serene, blessed by God and is used by Him to accomplich His purposes. You have a distorted view of the Lord's people and have allowed yourself to be stumbeled marking you as an immature person. If you have found a better religion, Church, Christianity or organization then please inform us all. I do not think so for all you can do is moan and groan. How pathetic you are.

scholar

25

What I have learned about Rolf Furuli

by Faraon in

on a recent thread about the year of the destruction of jerusalem, i learned from "scholar" about rolf furuli.. i looked up his name in google, and came with a few interesting links.

all i can say is that i am glad there aren't too many witnesses going to universities, especially those claiming to be researchers.

first they must take their blinds off.. a review of rolf furuli's book "the role of theology and bias in bible translation".

scholar

Room 215

You have a perverted biew of God's organizatiion and it faithful and discreet slave. The fact is that Furuli is a Witness for many yaers and has earned for himself eminent academic qualifications and is in a position to be judged by his peers and have their respect also. In other words he is in the same position as other academics and fellow scholars Throughout the scholarly community there is always robust debate and criticism. He has used his advanceed learning to serve interests of the Lord's work which begs the question as in what way you and your fellow critics are giving God glory.

scholar

BA BA Hons (cand) Deakin MA Studies in Religion Sydney

20

Jeremiah 29:10

by TheOldHippie in

the new danish and swedish revisions of the nwt have "lifted up" the nwt-with references footnote alternative rendering of jeremiah 29:10 into being the preferred one, so that it no longer says "in babylon" but "for babylon".

has there been any change or revision in the english issue?

scholar

old hippie

The absurd Jonsson hypothesis is based on Jeremiah 29:10 and the translation of a single Hebrew preposition which has a wide semantic range. How foolish to base one's work on the idea of seventy years servitude at the expense of the plainly stated fact that the land was desolate for seventy years. Jonsson's view stands or falls entirely on his exgesis of the nature and length of the seventy years

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

toreador

I have not gone away and I am always ready to pounce and defend the Society's brilliant chronology. Hilary-Step is a intellectual light weight and he does not bother be a bit' When you have earned the degrees and have Jehovah's spirit and belong to the True Religion then there is nothing to be afraid of.

scholar

25

What I have learned about Rolf Furuli

by Faraon in

on a recent thread about the year of the destruction of jerusalem, i learned from "scholar" about rolf furuli.. i looked up his name in google, and came with a few interesting links.

all i can say is that i am glad there aren't too many witnesses going to universities, especially those claiming to be researchers.

first they must take their blinds off.. a review of rolf furuli's book "the role of theology and bias in bible translation".

scholar

Faraon

When you have the academic qualifications that Furuli has achieved then you are in position to be critical of his scholarship. Furuli has done a magnificant jog in elevating the NWT, defending our blood issue and deconstructing the Jonsson hypothesis.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

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

simwitness

I challenge you to provide secular and biblical evidence for 586 or 587 and I do not want round about computation but direct evidence for either of those years marking in your opinion the Fall of Jerusalem.

With amusement

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

City Fan

Abundant secular evidence does not exist for 607, 586 or 586. Such evidence can only relate to what these dates signify and that is to events namely the Fall of Jerusalem wherein much secular evidence abounds. At this stage no single artifact has been found that written in Hebrew has the dates of either 607, 586 or 587. Niether has any artifacts been found that deal directly with the reigns of the kings involved at the time of Jesrusalems Fall No doubt these comments will come as a great surprise but as 607 is an historical date as it is anchored in biblical history and is not a mythical as some would suggest it desrves as much consideration as the alternative dates.

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

You claim to know much about the NWT project and one think with all of that inside knowledge that you would have some tangible evidence as to the identity of the NWT committee and the same would apply to Raymond Franz. For such a committee to exist there must be archival material somewhere ans as the committee is still functioning then you would have thought that in a period of over fifties something more definitive would have been revealed. Whatever criticism can be maid about the quality of the NWT, they are to be praised for their preservation of their anonymity.

scholar