Posts by scholar

111

The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

ref.

related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

scholar

Alan F

Your choice of Josephus for establishing the meaning of parousia in the 1st century is at variance with the meagre discussion of his material in Kittel's TDNT, Vol.5, pp.864-5. Clearly, This term in Josephus can be translated in various ways, all that you have done is selected those texts that show arrival rather than presence. You do not demonstrate completely how this term is used and so arbitrary selection is irrelevant. What figures most importantly for Christians is how this word should be rendered in English for the 24 times it occurs in the NT. Perhaps, as you make bold and fanciful claims about this term, you could indicate how parousia dhould be translated in each of those occurrences.

The Society's WT article on this subject contains no lies as you allege but simply presents the facts of lexicography that parousia means presence with its connotations of arrival and coming unless of course you intend to produce your own lexicon or Bible transaltion.

scholar

BA BA Hons(cand.) MA Studies in Religion

23

Is the author a Witness: Yes

by Quotes in

check out http://members.shaw.ca/stanm/books/theobooks.htm.

theocratic library.

these are my recommendations for books that we can add to our own personal theocratic libraries.

scholar

joenobody

Furuli lives in Norway and I live in Australia so we are not the same person but do have similar academic qualifications and close in age and time as dedicated Witnesses. Furuli has hurled a bomb into the Jonsson camp with their foolish attemts to discredit 607 and to prove the unprovable date/s for the Fall of Jerusalem. Furuli provides a masterful exegesis of the seventy years based on his expertise as a Semitic scholar and demonstrates that the secular evidence is fallible.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

111

The Ugly Truth about Jesus 2nd Presence

by Amazing1914 in

jw
friends

as jws we learned the utmost central watchtower doctrine that jesus returned "invisibly" in 1914 (well it was 1874, but then j. f. rutherford decided jesus really, really, really returned at a later date ... this is also known to jws as "jesus second presence" (greek: parousia = english: presence):.

ref.

related new thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/70098/1.ashx .

scholar

Amazing 1914

The lexical facts of the matter is that parousia has the primary meaning of 'presence' followed by secondary meanings as 'árrival' and 'coming'. This gives a secure foundation to the earlier and current understanding of the Lord's invisible presence which can be traced to the nineteenth century expositors and fully expounded by Russell.

It has been the determination of many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses that the meaning of this Greek word should be subverted to 'coming' aloné which is a gross dishonesty. Such a pitiful attempt is well illustrated in the Appendix of the book by Carl Jonsson- Sign of the last Days.

Alan F has also engaged in sloppy exegesis when discussing the disciple's question as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not present for careful analysis the Interlinear and the NWT translation of these three texts but simply argues his position on the basis of another translation inferior to the NWT.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

Your comments on the dating of 539 BCE are correct and it boils down to the biblical chronologist making a selection of what secular data is of value. It could be argued that this is inconsistent but that depends on the methodology the scholar chooses to use and his worldview. As I have said there is a twenty year gap between both methods and I view this that secular chronology is only able to approximate the date for the fall of Jerusalem as 586/587 and biblical chronology determines the date as 607. By adopting this approach I have no trouble in harmonizing the two and recognize the inherent value of both the secular evidence and the biblical evidence. Therefore my faith is not disturbed by the absurd claims made by higher critics and apostates who stupidly say that 607 is incorrect.

scholar

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

So what1 I am fully aware about the secular evidence for the Nabonidus Chronicle for it used to determine the calender year for the fall of Babylon in 539. This does not mean that a chronologist is bound to accept all other secular evidence as you and Jomsson imply. An independent scholar or chronologist upon surveying all evidence secular and biblical will choose a methodology in accordance with his worldview. The Society has determined that as the Bible already in itself the sole source for the history of Israel should be given priority and primacy in matters of chronology and history particularly where there are discrpanies between the secular and the profane. Already there is a twenty year gap that it is impossible to bridge concerning that latter period of Judean history so such secular records need careful attention.

scholar

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

It amazes me that you admit to the uncertainty as which calender year Jerusalem fell and yet you would hope to convince me that it definitely fell in an unknown or undetermined date. Then you seek to impress me all of the astronomical data which allegedly confirms early calendrical years for Nebs reign. I do not need this information as Jonsson in his writings boasts about so called 14 lines of evidence confirming an unknown and unknowable date. Please give me a break and do not insult my intelligence by presenting such stupid reasoning. Scholars cannot agree even on an Absolute Date for any event for the Old Testament. Jonsson prefers the date for the 37th year of Neb where Thiele prefers a much older date so even on fundamentals there is no consensus. Your chronological speculation is railroaded by the seventy years ending with return of the exiles under Cyrus and its beginning soon after the Fall of Jerusalem. Any other methodology that circumvents the seventy years is doomed to fail and for this reason alone the Society's understanding can only be correct. Scholars including Jonsson are guilty of intelle ctual fraud in trying to promote a failed and unsustainable chronolgy which is confusing, complex, lacking agreement and deviod of any prophetic implication. If you want such a discredited chronology then that is your choice but I place my faith on a certain, sustainable biblical chronology that has prophetic implications as in the spirit of Daniel.

scholar

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

I did not quote Jonsson in saying that 587 must be the date for the fall of Jerusalem so there is no need for a page number but chooses this date for his own reasons. It seems that according to you there is no certainty about any calender year for this event. For this reason it comes down to methodology and by following the revealed wisdom the Society has given priority to the biblical data combined with relevant secular evidence to calculate 607. By following such a method, the many calendrical problems raised by Jonsson are solved as one sees the relevance of biblical chronology fulfilled in prophecy namely the Gentile Times ending in 1914. This is hardly wild prophectic speculation as this prophecy has attracted the attention of Bible Students for centuries.

scholar

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

Your questions to me are frankly stupid and show that you do not understand the matters set before you. Firstly, it is plainly evident to the reader that Jonsson endorses the 587 date over the alternative 586, you ask for a page number well why not read his book. Secondly, the secular evidence for 607 is found for the fall of Babylon calculated for 539, there is secular evidence for the decree of Cyrus who released the exiles in 537 followed by secular evidence for the conquest of Jerusalem during the reigns of Neb and Zedekiah. There is also scriptural evidence for all of these facts and the exile - desolation of the land for seventy years.So 607 is firmly based on historical attected in secular materials and the biblical data.

Yes, scholars to a man show a distinct preference for either 586 or 587 and sometimes the comparison will be discussed, But the very fact that is a different date shows that scholars gave a problem. Also, I believe that the problem lies with methodology which is particularly evident in Thiele's research and that has to do with calendrical problems at best, But it is the attitude to the Bible and whether higher criticism should outweigh the plain statements of scripture that is the root of the methodology and best favours the Witnesses who are truly loyal to the Word.

scholar

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

The Society does not have this problem of calendrical uncertainty using the same biblical data as you describe because the calendrical year for the fall of Jerusalem is determined with certainty as 607.So, there must be a flaw in the methodology that scholars pursue because they all assume a different calendrical year. Despite the uncertainties as to which reckoning is used each scholar has decided his own methodology and date. Jonsson discusses this problem in pages 293-4 but rather than saying that Jerusalem fell in 586-7 or 586/587 he says it must be 587. Other scholars such as Thiele says it must be 586 so any ambiguity is not disclosed to the reader.

I believe that this discrepancy is not a problem of what calender should be used or type of reign but rather it is a methoological problem and the scholars have been caught out in trying to harmonize the secular data with the biblical data. The Society in its wisdom and with the help of Holy Spirit has given primacy to the biblical data over and above the secular and if there is a conflict then let God be true and every man a liar.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

63

PLEASE HELP! Assist in 1914 Rebuttal...

by Jared in

ok, so i'm trying to just plant a tiny seed of doubt somewhere in the cracks of my mothers mind, but that woman has 'jehovah' tattooed on her chest!

anyway, i would not only like help for her benefit but also for my benefit.

so it all started when i questioned her about 1914.... i wrote to her: 'as you had suggested i wanted to do some research.

scholar

City Fan

No one has kicked my butt because nothing that has been posted on this subject is factual but simply a repetition of the Jonsson hypothesis which is only a rehash of SDA chronology. The very fact that critics of 607 cannot determine the calender year for the fall of Jerusalem and cannot agree as to chronology and nature of the seventy years renders such views as foolish. The biblical chronology espoused by the Lord's people is simple and harmonizes with secular evidence and biblical history. Also, it succeeds in determining 1914 when prophecies were fulfilled with the Kingdom. The other secular or profane dates are useless for Christians as such dates do not produce faith.

Not a single posting on this subject is new but simply repeats the false claims of apostates who have gullibly followed the research and opinion of one man who has not had his GTR subjected to any peer review in the scholarly literature. The Jonsson hypothesis is based on the broad meaning of a single Hebrew preposition represented in a single text namely Jeremiah 29:10. If people want to base their beliefs on that single fact then they are to be pitied, I for one, would rather base my belief on cumulative texts and the direct secular evidence.

scholar