Hi Gamaliel,
You'll be entertained by this post, I think. "Scholar" has really hoist himself by his own petard this time.
Now, "scholar", you wrote:
: It is good that you have drawn attention to the work of Eliott's work which shows that expositors at that time had a much greater appreciation for the relevance of chronology to prophecy which remains foundational to WT chronology.
A far more accurate statement is that those men were fanatical nutcases just like Barbour, Russell and today's Watchtower leaders, and they imposed their own desire for the ?end of the world? on various Bible statements, many of which were never even meant to be prophecies at all or prophecies with a fulfillment beyond the time of the Israelites. The fact that virtually all of what seem to have been intended as long range prophecies have utterly failed proves that these men put their faith in nothing more than their own dreams and guesses.
: This is in sharp contrast to the empty Jonsson hypothesis
Again you prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Jonsson is a biblical inerrantist and certainly believes in Bible prophecy.
: whic his now under serious challeng by Furuli's scholarship.
Serious challenge my ass. I've read Furuli's book and it contains a good deal of misrepresentation and skirting of issues -- just like your own foolishness on this board.
Now we will see how a true non-scholar hoists himself by his own petard several times in one paragraph. But this is par for the course for "scholar".
: The Jonsson hypothesis contains an historical blunder when it claims that John Aquila Brown did not associate the Gentile Times with the seven times. The Society in its Proclaimeers book, p. 134 notes that Brown connected these times. Raymond Franz in his Crisis of Conscrience, 1992, 2nd edn.,p.367 agrees with the Society and takes the opposite view to Jonsson who first made this claim in his original treatise.
A minor but still telling point: page 367 of the 2nd edition (initial printing, May 1992) contains Franz's letter appealing his disfellowshipping. The pages you should have referenced are 142 and 143. If you can't manage to get a simple thing like a page number right, then how can anyone trust you with the interpretation of ancient sources like the Bible?
A major point is that your claim that Franz agrees with the Society and takes the opposite view of Jonsson is simply wrong. Franz doesn't even mention ?the Gentile Times? in connection with John Aquila Brown, in any edition of Crisis of Conscience. In the 2nd edition he writes:
The evidence is that Brown was the real originator of the interpretation of the "seven times" of Daniel chapter four, the interpretation that produces the 2,520 years by means of the day-year formula.
Brown first published this interpretation in 1823 and his method converted the "seven times" into 2,520 years in exactly the same way found today in Watch Tower publications.
So all Franz said was that Brown converted the "seven times" of Daniel 4 to 2,520 years, but said nothing about the ?Gentile Times?. Once again, "scholar", you demonstrate an astounding inability to understand what you read.
: Now Franz in his latest edition has chanfged his mind and now supports Jonsson
Wrong. The material in the 2nd edition is almost identical to that in the 4th edition (pp. 178-9). Neither mentions the Gentile times in connection with Brown. What the 4th edition contains that the 2nd does not is footnote 5 (p. 179), which explains that the Proclaimers book is wrong in stating that Brown "connected" the "seven times" with the ?Gentile Times?.
: which means that neither of these men can interpret modern history so how is it possible they can be trusted with ancient primary sources.
You've hoist yourself by your own petard with this one, "scholar", and your beloved Watchtower Society as well. We will keep this principle of interpretation in mind in that which follows.
: Penton using Barbour also provides information that supports the Society's postion on this simple historical fact that Brown did connect the Gentile Times with the seven times.
Penton was wrong.
Brown explicitly states that the Gentile times could not have begun so early as the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. He was trying to give evidence for his claim that they began much later, with Mohammed's flight from Mecca in 622 A.D. (the Hegira).
It was revealed to St. John [in the Revelation] as determined, that the outer court, and the holy city also, should be given up to the Gentiles, to be trodden under foot forty and two months. In extending the significant figures of the symbol, the inference will arise, that Jerusalem and all Judea were to be surrendered for the appointed time as a possession to these Mohammedan infidels; and such has in reality been the fact.... This part of the revelation unquestionably coincides with that of Luke, and proves that the time of the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, as declared by our Lord, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, and which times are by this revelation, clearly affirmed to be twelve hundred and sixty years, cannot derive their commencement from so early a period as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies; and therefore, also, that the Roman insignia cannot be the ?abomination of desolation? spoken of by Him. [Vol. 1, pp. 48-9]
Brown makes some statements that can be put together into some semblance of organization:
The times of the Gentiles then are the duration of the Mohammedan power; and when the period of that tyranny is accomplished, Jerusalem will be no longer trodden down of the Gentiles.
[Vol. 1, p. 35]
The Gentile times are connected with Revelation and are forty two months of years, or 1260 years long, and they are lunar years:
In the grand drama of the Apocalypse, the vision of the two witnesses occupies a conspicuous station. That prophecy is absolutely connected with the prediction of the Saviour, that ?Jerusalem should be trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;? and their times are defined to be 1260 years, or ?forty and two months.? [Vol. 1, p. 105]
Brown states clearly when the 1260 years of the Gentile times end:
The first proposition maintained, and which may be denominated, The duration of the mystery and bondage of the holy people, is that --
From the Hegira, May 622, to the finishing of the mystery, and the expulsion of the Turks from the Holy Land, who, succeeding the Saracens in their possession of that territory, continue still to scatter the power of the holy people, are to be reckoned twelve hundred and sixty Mohameddan years, or 1222 solar years, which end April, 1844. [Vol. 1, p. 60]
Brown explicitly said that the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream were a different prophetic period from the ?3 1/2 times? he applied to the Gentile times. Arguing that the seven times did not mean seven days or seven years, he said:
They are ?seven times,? and, therefore, are to be taken in the same symbolical sense as other prophetical periods, and as the ?time, times, and a half;? and, if this opinion be correct, then must the history of Nebuchadnezzar be taken in its typical import. The ?seven times? would, therefore, be considered as a grand week of years, forming a period of two thousand five hundred and twenty years, and embracing the duration of the four tyrannical monarchies.... Commencing, therefore, the calculation of the ?seven times,? from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, A.C. 604,... the termination of these 2520 years will fall out in the year 1917. It has been seen that the expiration of the 1335 Mohammedan years, and the completion of the forty-five years of Daniel, beyond the elongated period of the 1290 years, when the ?abomination which maketh desolate? is to be taken away, take place in the same year, 1917; and both these positions serve mutually to confirm and illustrate each other. [Vol. 2, p. 135]
d In keeping with the style of many other commentators of the 19th century, and of course, their offspring, the Watchtower Society and Jehovah?s Witnesses, Brown was very confident of his dates:
To me it appears as much a matter of certainty, as if a voice were heard from heaven, proclaiming the year 1844 to be the grand crisis of the nations, and the year 1917 to be the last year of the second and final judgment, and of the sentence of ?the quick and the dead,? that judgment commencing at the second epoch of 1873. [Vol. 2, p. 170]
Other statements relevant to the discussion may be found in Vol. 1, pp. VII-VIII, XI, XII, and Vol. 2, pp. 130-4, 152-5, 168-9, 171-2, 193, and 196.
Given the above information, it?s evident that the writers of the Proclaimers book were unable to understand what they read in Brown?s book -- if they read it at all.
Now, ?scholar?, you stated a principle above, that since ?neither of these men can interpret modern history so how is it possible they can be trusted with ancient primary sources.? Since Brown?s book is certainly modern compared with ?ancient primary sources?, and Watchtower ?scholars? cannot understand what they read in it, and if you believe what you wrote, you?ve proved to yourself that Watchtower writers cannot be trusted properly to interpret ancient primary sources. And since you haven?t the sense to do your own research, but put complete faith in these demonstrably incompetent Watchtower ?scholars?, neither can you. By the same line of reasoning, neither can Rolf Furuli.
AlanF
