Furuli, Rolf Though Furuli does not answer the question of whether or not he is a Jehovah's Witness, he is considered one of today's foremost apologists for the Jehovah's Witnesses (see cult apologists).His area of expertise is linguistics. However, reviving a century-old, refuted concept, Furuli believes that words are the essence of meaning. This concept has been shown to be a fallacy (see James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961 - out of print, but Amazon.com will search for it if you ask them).
Author of "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses." Naturally, the book is heavily biased in favor of the New World Translation - a Bible version produced by Jehovah's Witnesses to support their false doctrines.
- Book - ยป More Books
The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses. by Jehovah's Witnesses apologist Rolf Furuli.This book is just a Jehovah's Witness apologetic. In the description of the author, it does not state that he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This book picks out three books critical of the New World Translation to refute. These three books are Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and The Gospel of John by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.; The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament by R.H. Countess; and So Many Versions by S. Kubo and W.F. Specht. Considering the author's claims of providing an objective analysis, it is surprising that he attempts to refute books that are critical of the New World Translation. James Stewart. Reader review at Amazon.com. Full review available here
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Terry
-
Terry
A book on translation?
If you are looking for a book on The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, (in my opinion) you won't find it here. This book claims to be, "...a philological and linguistic approach to the issues, rather than a theological one."(Page xvii) On page 155, Mr. Furuli states,
As we proceed with our discussion, we should keep in mind that the following section of this chapter (or any other part in this book) is not written to defend the renditions of the NWT or the arguments behind them.
Again on page 292 he states,
There is therefore, a need for literal Bible translations with extensive footnotes and appendices, so as to inform the reader of the different choices that have been made on his or her behalf. Because the NWT is just such a translation, it was chosen as the object of our study.
Mr. Furuli does state in note 8 on page xvii, "Any work will, to a certain extent, be colored by the author's theology, this is of course also the case with this book." This is too weak of an admission. What you find is a book that should have been entitled 'New World Translation Defended.' This book is just a Jehovah's Witness apologetic. In the description of the author, it does not state that he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This book picks out three books critical of the New World Translation to refute. These three books are Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and The Gospel of John
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.; The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament [Out of print] by R.H. Countess; and So Many Versions [Out of print] by S. Kubo and W.F. Specht. Considering the author's claims of providing an objective analysis, it is surprising that he attempts to refute books that are critical of the New World Translation.
On pages XV and 45, he states that translation is interpretation. On page 27, he criticizes the TEV for some of its translations of SARX stating,
...thus, the interpreting is done for the reader, when it should be done by the reader.
But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)? Again on page 31, he states,
Idiomatic translations convey words that represent the interpretations of the translators. Literal translations convey concepts that the readers can interpret.
But didn't he say that translation is interpretation (rhetorical question)?
On page 42, he states that Nida & Taber's translation (interpretation) of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader. But this is a two-edged sword. The New World Translation of Eph. 1:4 is forced upon the reader. The largest problem with all of this is that he is contradicting his organization! In The Watchtower, 7/1/73, page 402, it stated,
Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.
And, in The Watchtower, 10/1/67, page 587, it stated,
Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason, the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah's visible organization in mind.
One glaring deficiency in this book is no discussion of the concepts of 'marked' and 'unmarked' meanings of words. This is fundamental to any book on translation. If you want to read a real book on Bible translation, Mr. Furuli references two books I would highly recommend. They are "The Theory and Practice of Translation by" E.A. Nida
& C.R. Taber published by Leiden: Brill, 1974 and From One Language to Another by J. de Waard & E.A. Nida published by Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986. This review was written by James Stewart ([email protected]), and posted to Amazon.com on July 9, 1999. It is used here by permission.
-
scholar
jeanV
Post 172
You have some excellent reference books in your library and Furuli's volumes would be quite at home as these would add an extra dimension because another viewpoint on evaluating the secular evidence would be presented. So, buy the book.
You cannot make a judgement on Furuli's research just by reading a few comments on the net but you need to read his research on chronology in its entirety and then you can make an informed evaluation. That is why I have closely studied Carl Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered in fact I have his 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition and so I am able to make an informed evaluation of his hypothesis so you should likewise do with Furuli as I have done with Jonsson. I am somewhat puzzled that you have not listed Jonsson's book on your list. Have you read it or are you playing possum with me.
You cannot make an opinion about Furuli until you have read Furuli and you cannot make any comment about his methodology until you know what his approach is and this is set forth in the Introduction in his first volume. Furuli is more than qualified to write on this topic as he is a Semitic scholar and can assess primary sources. I have studied Jonsson because I have read Jonsson and he is unskilled in the Semitic languages so his approach is unscholarly and shows a biased approach against Bible chronology and the sacred date of 607 BCE.
I disagree with your comment that scholars are uninterested in the dates for Jerusalem's Fall as the calendrical issues surrounding this event continuously plague scholarship as recent studies show. The very fact that there is such controversy shows that their methodology is hopeless and that is why Furuli's examination of current scholarship is most welcome. Furuli is ln fact looking at those very same tablets and showing that there are significant problems with the traditional chronology.
I am afraid that when it comes to a toss-up between the Bible and ancient history I will adhere to the superiority of the Bible rather than profane secular history every time and I am sure that Furuli as a honest scholar would agree.
scholar JW
-
jeanV
Scholar,
I have GTR4 by COJ. I have not listed it as Carl is not a scholar but a researcher. what I cited are the reference works based on which one can make a research and build an opinion.
as the calendrical issues surrounding this event continuously plague scholarship as recent studies show.
the issues relate only to 587 or 586. I have not found any other issues, unless you can show some. My comment was related to the fact that scholars do not have hidden interests in proving a date rather than another one. They study the evidence and present a chronology. There is no debate among scholars on the neo-Babylonian chronology (if you have contrary evidence, I'll gladly consider it).
I am afraid that when it comes to a toss-up between the Bible and ancient history I will adhere to the superiority of the Bible rather than profane secular history every time and I am sure that Furuli as a honest scholar would agree.
the controversy is only between WTS (and its interpretation of the Bible) and ancient history. WTS discards 90% of ancient history. does it make sense to you?
-
scholar
jeanV
Post 175
It is good that you admit that Jonsson is a mere researcher and not a scholar whereas Furuli is a scholar and his book would be right at home in your library.
That is sufficient that scholas are plagued by the controversy over 586 or 587 and is a folly of their making for they have not factored in the biblical 'seventy years' thus making a mockery of their chronologies. There is a debate about Neo-Babylonian chronology which has been spearheaded by the celebrated WT scholars and recently further explored by Rolf Furuli.
If you say that WT discards 90% of ancient history then how is it the case that modern scholarship ignores the historical period of the seventy years which was a momentous period of Jewish and biblical history and how is it the case that the ancient Babylonian scribes incompetently ignored that seventy years and the Egypt's forty year desolation?
scholar JW
-
jeanV
sorry Scholar but Furuli is not a scholar in ANE history.
I know people that are a lot more experienced than him that do not claim to be scholars.
Does Furuli examine the cornerstones of his Oslo chronology with the same critical eye he uses in examinig VAT 4956? How does he explain the observations that do not match? How does he explain that Kugler said that of all the diaries Strm. Kambys 400 (BM33066) is one of the worst being affected with many errors?
-
scholar
jeanV
Post 177
Correct, Furuli is not a scholar in ancient history but he is a scholar of Semitic Studies and is thus well qualified to deal with the primary sources of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Jonsson is not a scholar of anything and I am unaware of so called 'experienced ones' as scholars without the academic qualifications behind them in the field of chronology.
He does deal with those documents in his book and will further explore the issues raised by you in more depth in his next volume so if you read his current book you will have your questions answered.
scholar JW
-
jeanV
being scholar in something does not qualify you to be it in something else. I hope at least on these basics you agree.
Maybe you should spend more time on ANE boards, you can meet a lot of experienced people there that are simply passionate about history, astronomy, ecc.. but not scholars.
Dealing is one thing, devoting 60 pages or more (as he does in his 2nd volume for VAT 4956) is quite another. Furuli simply assumes that Strm. Kambys 400 is correct. If he examined it with the same critical eye as he does for the documents that contradict his chronology, it would not stand.
-
OUTLAW
Scholar..Celebrated Watchtower Scholars???..Where?..Who is celebrateing them?..No one knows who these idiots are..Would these be the same genius`s that predicted "The Generation of 1914 would not pass away"?..LOL!!..Of course,the generation of 1914 is dieing off just to make the WBT$ look bad!Their leaving the WBT$ in coffins!..They`ve all gone apostate!!..Oh those clever apostates!..LOL!!...OUTLAW
-
AlanF
Scholar pretendus displays his usual gross hypocrisy and double standards by touting Furuli's so-called "scholarly credentials" as evidence of his ability correctly to interpret ancient materials. Yet of his "celebrated WTS scholars" not a single one had or has (assuming there are any left alive) any academic credentials. Fred Franz took a couple of years of introductory Greek back around 1915. That's it; he was entirely self-taught in anything else concerning Greek and Hebrew.
Obviously, credentials are not the issue. The issue is what is true and what is not. Real experts in the field of ANE studies, whether having full academic credentials or not, are unanimous that WTS chronology is wrong. They present massive amounts of evidence proving it. WTS writers and apologists demonstrably suppress or even deliberately misrepresent relevant evidence, just as scholar pretendus here has been doing for years. They must, since the real evidence is against their tradition.
AlanF
