Posts by simwitness

41

The New World Translation

by MrsQ in

jw
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?.

simwitness

I am glad to see that scholar has chosen to continue his illfated 607 discussion here, but I want to comment on this first...

Scholar said:

You ask about the NWT which is without the slightestdoubt the finest translation ever made. The translation was produced by anointed brothers under the guidance of holy spirit. The translation however was not inspired by God and is not infallible but its accuracy is astonishing in pushing the boudaries of biblical scholarship.

So, The translation was produced by "annointed brothers" under the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" but IS NOT inspired of god or infallible.

Then I ask you scholar, what good does that claim do? Basically you have built up, and destroyed, your own argument for why it's "accuracy is astonishing"... jees... you just said it wasn't infallible! IMHO, if the "Guidance of the Holy Spirt" leave us with a fallible, and "non God inspired" translation, what good did it do? More or less, you just stated that a group of men did their best to create a "new" translation of the scriptures... Wow, I must state just how impressive that really is.

How is that any better,. or worse, than other "translations"?

Now, on to your most basic, and consistent argument for accepting the 607 date:

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.

Is this the same "fallible" holy spirit, and not "God Inspired" that helped with the translation? Keep in mind that the "holy writ" that you speak of was translated by "fallible men" without Godly inspriation.

So, when the Society finally fesses up and rethinks it dates and says it really was 586/7 for jerusalam's fall. What will you do then? Will you look back on this and think "wow, all those others were right after all"?

(Of course, if this ever happens, they will have to adjust when they were proclaimed the "Faithful and Discreet Slave", but since moving it by 20 years puts it at 1935. But since that was when heaven was "sealed" it actually fits quite nicely. (another "non god inspired" but guided by the "holy spirit" proclamation).

One last thing, Scholar... Please post your "3 column" line of evidence thing for proof of 607. As many times as you have told others to do it, I have never seen you post yours.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Scholar...

You are the one suggesting that the word has a different meaning here than it does elsewhere. It is up to you to provide evidence to that affect beyond supposition and your "belief". The burden of proof is upon you, not I.

In addition, As Marjorie has already shown, the evidence has already been presented that proves the other point (which is that malkut means kingship or reign, but not vassalage, and that there is atleast one other word that Daniel could have used if he indeed meant vassalage).

You also state:
SDA chronology has very little in common with WT chronology but is the foundation for the Jonsson hypothesis because of its many exegitical similarities. You express concern about my lack of definition, well, there is not much room for dogmatism in biblical chronology because there is very little consensus about such matters, An example would be that there is no agreement about the seventy years and the date for the fall of Jerusalem. So, you have big problems if ypu reject the straight forward WT chronology.

If there is "no room for dogmatism in biblical chronology", then what business is it of the Watchtower's to require it's members adhere to a chronology that is not supported anywhere but in the watchtowser's literature?

There is agreement, among many, about the fall of Jerusalem, it just doesnt agree with what the Watchtower claims it to be.

I'll admit that I do not know the particulars about the "SDA Chronology", but I do know the roots of the organization, and they are common with the Watchtower's.

Marjorie,

I agree with your statements about "Language is Language"...but then, that's the simple way, isn't it?

I'm not a scholar, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

scholar also said:

Of course in the NWT may well render malkut differently but I have not bothered to examine these examples because I do not believe it is important. My exegetical focus is on the uses of the term in Daniel. One must get that right before jumping all over the place and losing sight of the ball.

Language is language... if you don't compare ALL of the examples you cannot possibly come up with a meaning for a word, or even the implications behind it. You are stating that "in this case, malkut means something that there is no other example of"... that's called special pleading... back it up with evidence that it was in fact used in that way elsewhere, or realize that it must have the same meaning as used everywhere else. Especially in light of the fact that there are other words that could have been used that do/did convey the meaning you think was intended here.

A true scholar would realize this.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Scholar said:

By the way I have no problem with SDA chronology as it was the source of my interest some thirty yeras ago and is probably the foundation of the Jonsson nonsense.

You realize the folly of your statement, right? The SDA is an offshoot of the Millerites and other early Adventist groups Which include Charles T. Russell and the BIble Students (which of course, later became the Jehovah's Witnesses).

So, The SDA chronology is not "probably the foundation of the Johnsson nonsense" but instead shares the same foundation as the Watchtower nonsense.

Secondly, can you ever be definitive about a statement? Every answer you give is "probably" this and "maybe" that, and a lot of "it seems to be"... If you are such a scholar, you should atleast be able to use more definite terms.

Apparently you need to go back to debate class and learn how to present your "facts" better. You have called to the carpet on every reference you've sited, and you have been proven wrong in each and every case.

You've lost this round, as you have lost all others.

21

New Illinois Sex Law - Its a Killer

by Amazing in

jw
friends

the governor of illinois just signed into law new legislation that says that anytime during sexual intercourse, if a woman (or man) says stop, then the other person must immediately stop ... or ... they can be charged with rape ... okay ... .

so, i can see it now ... a partner is reaching orgasm and the other person says ... stop ... yeah ... okay, that's the law in illinois ... .

oh, i understand the foundation of the law ... and i suppose it has its good purpose ... but ... .

simwitness

IMHO, if the party of the second part decides they want to stop, the party of the first part will probably already be aware that there is an issue... I doubt the decision would be in the "thoes of passion".... it will have already been fairly obvious that the party of the second part is "not happy", and if the party of the first part is at all concerned with the 2nd parties feelings, they will stop.

However, that being said, I forsee alot of he-said/she-said arguments, and a burden of proof problem.

I thought you said "Don't Stop".
But I said "Stop"!
yeah, but it was preceded by "Don't"...

Give me a break people, Yes, anyone can decide to change their mind at anytime, but we do not need more unenforcable rules for people that just want to "get even" with others to take advantage of.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Marjorie,

Thank you.

There are 2 things that I have enjoyed about this and the KISS thread, and that is the simple, reasonable logic that you and AlanF have displayed. I have always found it amusing that others refuse to take the simple way, becuase they have been taught that it "must be harder than it is". It is that teaching, and that teaching alone that enslaves so many... It is just this enslavement that Christ was putting an end to. Too bad it only took a few days after his death to muck it all back up again. (Biblically speaking, of course).

No leaps are required, no special "It really means this" is neccesary.

And again, Scholar's insistant refusal to answer even the most basic direct question put to him.

Scholar may be a "scholar" but he has not learned anything.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Plum,

In our english dictionaries, and our usage of the words, I have no issue with what you are describing.

My question to scholar, is for his reasoning behind saying that is what the OT writers meant. IMHO, if they meant "vassal/king" they would have used a word that more accurately described that. (I am, of course, assuming that such a word existed).

I find it interesting that Scholar has yet to answer my questions, and his only response to AlanF's recent question has been to say "That scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to mean, it really means something else".

Scholar, If you do not intend to address my question(s) - as simple as they should be for you to answer, please say so.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Furuli doesn't mention his interest in 'hovahs. Too embarassed maybe?

More likely, he doesn't want to expose his bias.

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Scholar,

I find it highly interesting that instead of answering any direct questions, you prefer to turn the question back on the individual.

This can only mean that you are unable to answer the questions.

Remember, it is you that is asserting that "kingship" or "reign" really means "vassalage", therefore the burden of proof is on you, not others.

AlleyMom has provided her proof as to why it cannot/does not.

Where is yours?

264

Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

by ros in

jw
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/.

simwitness

Scholar,

Please explain:

Regarding Daniel 1:1 it can be interpreted to pertain to the latter part of his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzer hence the expression kingship rather than reign as put in the NWT

How "kingship" is any different than "reign" when the verse says "In the third year of".???

I really want to hear your explanation.

You also state:

In any event you have your chronology based on secular schema and mine which is based on a biblical schema. Never the twain shall meet.

When in reality they have met, at 539, you just refuse to accept the rest of the math. THe only "bilbical schema" you present is WTBS schema, and that has already been shown to simply be a "means to an end (date of 1914)".

Please explain, in simple terms, how (or why) the math doesn't work. So far, the only reason you give is the "70 years", and while I understand your issue, have you ever considered that possibly, just possibly, it is your interpetation of the 70 years that is wrong, and not the dates themselves?