by Augustin 184 Replies latest watchtower bible
greendawn
Such an amazing circumstance occurs because the said scholar hibernates in a dark and deep cave and like some mysterious oracle he appears to defend sacred things. The only sacred thing that motivates this fellow is chronology and he grasps every opportunity to defend and proclaim its truth and beauty. After that, he retreats back into that place of darkness.
scholar JW
I do not believe I overate Furuli because he has just recently completed his doctoral dissertation and has completed all necessary requirements to be considered as a bona fide scholar in his own right. I simply present the facts just as he has done about himself on his own website.
Just how much of Furuli did you eat?
What makes something true is whether it is supported by evidence and not the opinions or theories of multitude of scholars. The scholars in Jesus day despite their number and impressive weithy failed to discern the truth about Jesus as the promised Messiah. Similarly. present day scholars reject Jesus as the now reigning King installed in heaven in 1914 but the evidence proves conclusively that this is a fact.
There is no evidence for 607, so you condemn it by your own definition. The only 'evidence' you have is a disprovable and internally inconsistent interpretation that isn't supported by any of the facts.
There is no evidence for the flip flop dates of 586 or 587 that mitigates against the biblical evidence for the year 607, our chronology is simple, base upon secular evidence and biblical history. The very fact that Jonsson and his cronies cannot determine a precise year for the Fall shows that the methodology used is faulty or is running to slow like an unwound clock. Jonsson's theories need to be taken to a clock repairer for some fine tuning wheras the timepiece of God used by celebrated WT scholars has been ticking from 607 through to 1914 and continues...tick...tock...tick..tock!
There is indeed much evidence, including the bible, in support of 587. Your chronology isn't simple; it distorts the natural reading of scriptures such as Jeremiah 25:12 and Daniel 1:1 with untenable explanations to suit its own ends. Whereas there is doubt among some whether Jerusalem's fall was in 587 or 586, all of the experts know for a certainty that it wasn't in 607, so trying to elicit doubt lends no credence to your flawed dogma.
Hey Scholar, my question is very simple. I thought you may have an answer. Surely it can't be too difficult for a scholar like your self.
Guess not.
Outoftheorg
outoftheorg
Sorry, I have chastized the said scholar for not attending to your plaintive appeal sooner. You ask about the 'celebrated WT scholars' as to their existence and their knowability. Scholar will not divulge any information concerning this illustrious group used by the Lord in conjunction with the faithful and discret slave and its Governing Body.
scholar JW
BA Deakin MA Sydney
Well if this illustrious group can not be identified, they will carry no weight as experts in anything.,
Which is your present position. The wbts and its so called celebrated scholars are hiding behind the same veil of "mysterious sources" used by almost all cults and religions.
You and they are nothing to be respected or feared or believed. In fact all of you are rather pathetic.
Those who will not reveal their sources for inspection are hiding the truth and know that they are useless when challenged by the truth.
Outoftheorg
Thank you Neil,
BA Deakin MA Sydney
I feel much better now.
HS
What you forget is that Furuli is a Semitic scholar and linguist and is full competent in studying the original documents. In other words he is able to work with the primary sources so he is able to examine transalations of such materials. Jonsson on the other hand cannot work with the original materials so he has to rely on other experts. Furuli unlike Jonsson is such an expert and that is why is research is now relevant.
Hold on a minute Scholar.
You overstate the man's qualifications. He is not a semitic languages scholar in the sense you suggest. I will admit that Furuli does have course work in the Aramaic and Akkadian, languages that are more like dialects of the same tongue much like Hindi and Urdu (both of which I am conversant in). But his advance work is mainly in Hebrew and his specialty is in the subtlety of Hebrew verbs. That is a far cry from what you suggest.
In any event, linguistics and Semitic history (the area of studies which Babylonian chronology would fall) are two very different fields of study. And I am afraid that Furuli's specialization (the Hebrew language) hardly fits him for the task you so highly rate him for. If he were discussing perhaps how the language of Daniel places its authorship squarely in sixth century B.C., then he would be well within his field and his word would carry weight. However, that is not the area he goes into when critiquing Jonsson. Although he may be capable of reading the Akkadian documents (and I have yet to see just how qualified he is to do that), that doesn't mean he has the training and qualifications to assess how those documents fit together into an accurate picture.
Now don't think that I am saying that Jonsson does either. I know next to nothing about his qualifications. All that I do know, based on the evidence presented in this thread, is that at least one qualified reviewer of his book comments favorably on it.
Respectfully
Forscher
I dont understand the term "Celebrated WT scholars"because the WT to my knowlege doesnt print articals with anyones name on them, unless they have changed there position on this. Also scolars usually if they are scolarly do a doctorate before they are realy considered a scholar.
scholar pretendus goatus buggerus said to outoftheorg:
: You ask about the 'celebrated WT scholars' as to their existence and their knowability. Scholar will not divulge any information concerning this illustrious group used by the Lord in conjunction with the faithful and discret slave and its Governing Body.
Actually, scholar pretendus here has claimed that it is impossible even in principle to know for certain who is a "scholar" within Watchtower circles. That's because of the Society's policy that no one outside the small confines of the Writing Department know who actually writes articles for publication. But it gets worse. Because of infighting and internal jealousies, official internal Watchotwer protocol is that no one in the Writing Department, or anywhere else in Bethel, knows what any specific Writer is working on, other than his superiors. So anything that scholar pretendus claims to know about any potential Watchtower 'scholars' must be known via unofficial channels. That being the case, his calling them "celebrated" is ridiculous. Writers unknown outside a tight little writing community are by definition not "celebrated".
Furthermore, since there are no extant "WT scholars" of any sort -- meaning men officially sanctioned by the Watchtower Society to play the role of "scholar" in the manner of Fred Franz -- scholar pretendus' claims are doubly ridiculous. The last surviving real scholar, one John Albu who died a couple of years ago, was an expert in ancient Middle Eastern chronology, but he prostituted his abilities to the Watchtower Society and thus accomplished little of value. His work was condensed by GB member Lloyd Barry into the Appendix to Chapter 14 in the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come", into a piece of writing as deceptive as it is slick.
AlanF
Such an amazing circumstance occurs because the said scholar hibernates in a dark and deep cave and like some mysterious oracle he appears to defend sacred things. The only sacred thing that motivates this fellow is chronology and he grasps every opportunity to defend and proclaim its truth and beauty. After that, he retreats back into that place of darkness.
Looks like pseudo-scholar is letting his campiness show a bit too much here.
AlanF...Do you know if John Albu's original work is available anywhere? I once did linguistic study of the literary dependence between the Appendix and Jonsson, showing how the former was a concealed response of the latter.
