by Augustin 184 Replies latest watchtower bible
Leolaia said:
: LOL, pseudo-scholar, last month you were saying that Applegate was a leading commentator whose scholarship was "wise", "thoughtful", "refreshing", who "vindicates" your views on the 70 years. Now he is not even a "serious scholar"!!! Scholar pretendus goatus buggerus is nothing if not consistent. Consistent in displaying massive, militant, wilfull moral stupidity. AlanF
Jeffro
Since when have you posted anything relevant but simply rehash the discredited Jonsson hypothesis?
Ambiguity is your problem not mine because it is the apostates that prefer confusion rather than the simple Bible teachings. The Bible cannot be reconciled with the 587 hypothesis because there remains the twenty year gap caused by faulty Neo-Babylonian chronology.
scholar JW
Leolaia
Correct. You seem rather confused or amused by my remarks. Applegate certainly has provided a serious approach to Jeremiah which is devastating to the Jonsson hypothesis but his chronology is wobbly and shows inattention to this phase of the argument which shows that wordly wisdom is inferior to godly wisdom, a reminder that you should take to heart.
scholar JW
Alan F
You forgot to add 'it is only scholar that always, without fail gets my immediate attention'.
scholar JW
scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:
: You forgot to add 'it is only scholar that always, without fail gets my immediate attention'.
LOL! Only because you're the best JW shill I've ever seen! You truly are the very best advertisement of how badly a cult can infect and make coddled cream of a person's mind.
The simple fact is that you often contradict yourself in the very same post, and more often in the same thread. You're simply too stupid morally (i.e., stubborn) to admit it.
When are you going to come up with your, um, 'devastating' rebuttal of my 'misuse' of Josephus? Cat still got hold of your brain?
AlanF
Alan F
Alan FYou forgot to add 'it is only scholar that always, without fail gets my immediate attention'.
And that makes you feel.......? Important? I agree.
Neil,
You wrote:
<< Yes you provided a reference but you omitted the title and did not bother to paste the entire article so as your claims could be tested. No matter I will obtain the article shortly and give my observations on the matter. >>
Oh, please do! :) But you should note that the 'review' has no title. Furthermore, as a Christian I respect the copyright of the JOTS. I take it that as a JW you do not, as you accuse me of not bothering "to paste the entire article".
You also wrote:
<< The mere quotation by scholars of Jonsson's hypothesis in order to refute Jehovh'a Witnesses is meaningless. What is required is that there is a Book Review or scholarly critique of Jonsson's work by means of a peer review and this has not been done. >>
You are making the claim of a true pseudo-scholar! What matters is not that a book has been reviewd and rejected (as is the case with Furuli's amateur book, which he had to publish privately) but whether its message has been accepted by real scholars. The celebrated scholar Reidar Hvalvik has accepted Jonsson's study. No real scholar has ever accepted Furuli's amateur book. (We all know that they never will accept his arguments as he is in error!) In fact, it has already been rejected.
What really matters is that several scholars hold the same view as Jonsson (just take a look at celebrated scholars like Lundbom, Fischer, Winkle, Finegan). No scholar shares the views presented by Furuli in his amateur study. I guess you just have to be a pseudo-scholar for accepting Furuli's views.
PS! I wonder: Is it really "ROLF Furuli or is it "ROFL Furuli"?
-- Augustin --
Since when have you posted anything relevant but simply rehash the discredited Jonsson hypothesis?
Firstly, I haven't actually read Jonsson's work first-hand. Secondly, I'm not aware that it has been discredited. Thirdly, Jonsson simply presents existing findings of other scholars. But those irrelevancies aside, obviously you haven't been paying attention to me for the last year or so. I have presented specific information on how 587 is consistent with Jeremiah, Daniel, 2 Chronicles, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Tyre, the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, Necho, Hophra, and Josephus' indication of the duration between the end of Israel and Cyrus' rule, including a detailed timeline of the entire period with scriptures indicated, and indicated that several leading scholars agree with that date, all from my own research. What indeed have you brought to the table other than rehashed Society dogma?
Ambiguity is your problem not mine because it is the apostates that prefer confusion rather than the simple Bible teachings. The Bible cannot be reconciled with the 587 hypothesis because there remains the twenty year gap caused by faulty Neo-Babylonian chronology.
I am left with no ambiguity. You like to imagine that your problems are really the problems of others, just as you have previously claimed regarding the '20-year gap'. You have no real answers to these problems, so you hide behind false claims such as "the bible cannot be reconciled with ... 587", as if such had not already been accomplished. In reality the facts just aren't compatible with the Society's frail mish-mash. The Society's model resembles a poorly laid-out storyboard for a B-grade comic book, with an occasional secular reference thrown in for window dressing. It really is a joke when held up to the light of day.
Augustin
It would have been more honest of you if you had quoted the comment about Furuli in full and indicated that this was a Book Review hence no title.
Yes it does matter whether a book is reviewed as this is normal scholarly practice and one would have expected that Jonsson's work would have been subject to such academic practice. Such is not the case so it can be properly concluded that the only use of Jonsson's material is simply 'cult bashing' with no serious scholarly importance. You are quite mistaken in claiming that Lundbom, Winkle, Finegan have adopted Jonsson's views because clearly there are considerable difference of opinions. Furuli's research is rather new and it is rather premature for you to cast judgement as to how other scholars will react to Furuli's research.
What can be said is that the Jonsson hypothesis is 'dead in the water'.
scholar JW
