Posts by simwitness

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" 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" 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.).

simwitness

AlanF... Thank you for your comments.

Scholar,

this is not just some minor error on the part of Jonsson

Who said he was in error? I asked you what difference it truly made if he was... IF he was in error... yet you maintain he is, when there is evidence he is not in error. Prove that he is wrong... prove that Brown actually "connected" the two times as the WTBS suggests... so far, the only "connection" is limited to one paragraph in his works, and then it is a fuzzy connection at best.

Perhaps, the WTBS is "in error" by overstating this connection.

Again I ask you, what makes Brown's work worthy of this debate? I also think you are way overstating it's importance:

In fact it is foundational to his original treatise and in his later published GTR

In my reading of the GTR, it seems to be more of a footnote regaurding other's attempts to come up with an end times chronology, and is not an attempt to explain every facet, or connection of each author's attempt. If anything, it is showing that the WTBS is in no way unique in it's attempts, nor is it even genuine in being the originator. Nothing that the WTBS teaches is something that they (the WTBS) originated on thier own.

That the WTBS says "Brown Connected" and Jonnson says "Brown didn't connect" means nothing. It is a difference of opinion on a body of work by a dead man. It is only too bad that Brown cannot, for himself, say what he intended by that one paragraph on page 208.

if you cannot get the facts of modern history correct then how can you work and interpret ancient primary sources.

"facts of modern history" is a far cry from interpeting an authors interpetation of biblical passages and meanings.

I have no interest in working or interpeting primary ancient sources, there are enough people wasting their time on that right now. What can be said is that the WTBS is not interested either, as they are only interested in sources that back up their chronology, and they are finding them fewer and farther between.

The WTBS hasn't been able to get it's own history straight, much less "ancient primary sources". Hell, it took them 80 years to figure out what the word "generation" meant, and then they only made it more vague. (Bonus Question: What resource did they use as thier "dictionary" for that word?)

BTW, how many archealogical expeditions has the WTBS funded? How many "original texts" can be found at Bethel? How much has the WTBS contributed to the understanding of the "Bible Age" ? Has the WTBS actually contributed anything unique to the world of biblical archeology or understanding?

Riddle me this, Scholar, Where does the WTBS do it's research? Where does it gain access to the "ancient primary resources"?

One last thing:

Jonsson has blundered with this recent history or has twisted, ignored or been biased the evidence. You then would have to question that in regard to secular chronology is he also being honest, biased and accurate with the data. Rolf Furuli well demonstrates that Jonsson's claims are biased and not accurate

Firstly, you have not proven that Jonsson has blundered anything, or that he has twisted, ignored or been biased. These are your assumptions, these are your claims, but you have yet to prove any of them.

While I don't claim that Jonsson was unbiased, I do take his word as to why he did the research. He was attempting to prove the WTBS's chronology was correct, and soon discovered that it was not. He, Like others before him, attempted to share his work with the WTBS only to be "kicked out" without reguard to his research.

Yourself and, I assume, Rolf Furuli are, on the other hand, biased to prove the WTBS correct. You do not take a scholarly approach to the material, but instead start with an assumption that the WTBS is correct, and then ignore any data that might prove the WTBS wrong.

In short, you have a vested interest in Jonnson (and others) being "wrong".. therefore your research is heavily biased, and not to be trusted.

The WTBS writings have been shown time and time again... to have blundered with recent history or has twisted, ignored or been biased with the evidence... doesn't this mean that they are not to be trusted?

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.).

simwitness

Scholar...

While I agree there is a "loose association" of the two times evident in Brown's work, I do not agree with your statement that Johnnson made an error in saying that the two times were not connected.

This has been dealt with by other's, in this very thread, in much detail. Detail you choose to ignore.

Basically, this comes down to semantics, and you are grasping at straws in order to prove a point.

If the only defense that you can muster for your organizations "scholarly chronology" is this, then you really have no leg to stand on.

Obviously, you realize the implications that Johnsson's, Penton's and Franz's work means to the society and it's chronology, and in usual fashion you look for any flaw to attempt to discredit it. If the society's chronology and interpetations were, as they claim, "inspired of holy spirit", then these works would have no meaning, and you would not bother looking for these insignificant "errors".

Even IF Johnsson was wrong in this regaurd, what true difference does it make? Has Johnsoon once claimed infallability? Did he tell his reader's, in any way, that if they choose to believe different than what he wriote that they would be "lost" at armageddon and were not true christian's?

And if this is the standard taht you hold Johnsson to, is this not the same standard that you should hold the WTBS too? How many error's are they allowed to commit before the entire body of works must be tossed? After all, the WTBS does teach that if you choose to believe different, you will be dead at armageddon, and you are not a "true christian". Even your posts, in this thread, insinuate as much...

Scholar, If the facts were all that mattered to you, you would see how simple this really is... "theory's" and "interpetations" of writings are not facts. Faith is not fact. Faith is a choice, and making the choice to have faith in the WTBS, despite it's many shortcomings, cannot be made based on "facts".

Have a pleasant day.

208

THEY'VE DONE IT!!!! The WBTS set a new date!

by dmouse in

the latest watchtower, dec 15th 2003, is an out and out attack on the rank and file for dropping into a drowsy state spiritually.

ok, so armageddon didn't come before the generation of 1914 grew old and died.

but does that mean that the big a isn't near?

simwitness

dmouse,

I think you are correct, that this information is in here for a reason, however I disagree that they are trying to point at 2034 specifically...

I think they are trying to say that the end will happen between now and the maimum 120 year thing...

Could happen tomorrow, but it definitely should/would/could happen by 2034.

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.).

simwitness

scholar...

Remember, you are the one making the claim that there is a "special" connection between the two.. I am just questioning your reasoning. Nothing more. You are the one required to prove your point, as I have no point to prove.

I have already stated that I do not have access to the work in particular.

Earlier in this thread, Gamaliel posted what appears to be the relevant passage from the book, and it clearly showed that the gentile times would occur within the seven times... that was the extent of the connection, that one would occur during the other.

Does that mean that we are to "associate mentally" these two times so as to make them equals? Are these two times to be considered the same? Is that the connection you want out of them? That is the connection that the WTBS infers in thier writings.

Is this the relevant passage to which you refer? Was Brown any more, or less, inspired than the WTBS writers? Why should we put any additional weight to this writing? Furthermore, you have stated that other's made a mistake when referencing the WTBS reference to this writing, and that proved them to be "un-scholarly". Not only have your "specific reasons" been shot down, but you have proved yourself to be very "un-scholarly" in your approach.

When questioned, you fall back on non sequitor and ad hominum attacks instead of explaining your position.

Wether or not the two times are connected is, technically, irrelevant at this point. You are attempting to discredit individuals based on interpetations of thier writings, which is in turn interpeting others writings. You pick meaning of words so as to make them so vague, while ignoring the obviousness of the writers intent.

Who's more correct when talking about Brown's connection of the two times? The WTBS or others? At this point, I say who cares... interpeting a dead mans interpetation of a passage in the bible seems like a collosal waste of time to me.

In short, scholar, you are unable to deal with facts.

Have a pleasant day.

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.).

simwitness

scholar,

I have read them, and yet you still haven't made any sense... In an earlier posting, you stated that your reasons were being ignored. Since you have been answered point by point by others, I failed to see where they were ignored. I was assuming that if you would repost them, we would all be able to understand precisely the point you are making.

I do not have access to a copy of Brown's work, but I will take at face value the postings by others that refer to it. It would appear that you are over connecting the connection. "To associate mentally" the two times is a far cry from what you have been suggesting in your ealier posts.

If I have to read Brown's work in order to see that "Jehovah's Organization is one of truth", was he a memeber of the organization? Should I listen to the rest of his work?

I "associate mentally" the "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" with an "abusive cult", does that make it a fact? or even the right association?

And, finally:

Jehovah's Organization is one of Truth!

That specifically precludes the WTBS as a member of that organization. It's been well documented the number of lies that are contained within the WTBS publications, new and old. They can't even be honest when it comes to their own history.

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.).

simwitness

scholar:

You give me the name of the person that you or your agent spoke to in the Writing Department and I will phone that person

What should his name matter, dont't all in the Organization believe exactly the same things? Isnt all of the writing department led by the "Holy Spirit" such that any answer given, from anyone, would always be correct?

If you are having trouble with the word 'connect' then I suggest that you consult a good dictionary.

No one here has had any issue with the word connect, But many of us are still wondering exactly what you mean by the word connect.

Again I ask you to state, as concisely as possible, your "Three Reasons", and to also explain how they have not already been addressed. Remember, just becuase you dont agree with the response does not mean that your reasoning has been ignored.

So, for the benefit of all, please restate your reasoning. Obviously, we don't "get it".

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.).

simwitness

Scholar:

You stated:

[QUOTE] When I wrote to Jonsson and Brown I gave three specific reasons that plainly demonstrated that a connection of these times is plainly evident to the reader.[/QUOTE]
2 Requests:

1. Please state those three specific reason's here.
2. Please comment on how the earlier replies by AlanF, etc... ignore those reasons, or fail to address them.

Drop the rhetoric and deal only with the "facts" at hand, as a true scholar would.

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.).

simwitness

Scholar: Please succinctly state your SPECIFIC points that you claim others are ignoring. Also, You're loaded and accusational language is not helping your case.