Scholar-moron said a bunch of nonsense. I respond:
Here's a fine example of the stock-in-trade fuzziness practiced by Watchtower apologists generally, and exemplified by our resident Scholar-Moron. The SM (note the term's double meaning here) states:
: There is no fuzziness in respect of this historical blunder made by Jonsson. The issue is rather matter of fact, Did Brown connect the Gentile Times with the seven times or not.
Despite the fact that in the original thread where all of this has been discussed ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/1.ashx "WTS Chronology (Oslo Hypothesis) from Vicar;Trinity College Fellow,Cambridge" ) I made a clear point that one must clearly define just what one means by "connect", SM continues to avoid giving a definition. Obviously this is a ploy to enable future back-pedaling and whatever manner of evading facts appears necessary to for SM to think that he's on top of the argument.
The fact is that in the Proclaimers book (p. 134) the word "connect" as used in connection with John Aquila Brown and the "Gentile times" obviously means "equate". I already explained why this is, in the original thread. It's so obvious as to be beyond further discussion: An author stating that another writer "connected" one thing with another, knowing that the audience already understands thoroughly that the author himself equates the one thing with the other, is identically the same as if the author stated point blank that the one thing is equal to the other. I.e., when the author of the Proclaimers book stated in italics that John Aquila Brown did "connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24", he stated that John Aquila Brown equated the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times".
: In Volume 2, p.208, Brown clearly makes a connection in three ways: 1. Immediate context,
A connection, not an equating.
: 2, The phrase 'all these events' which introduces Browns discussion of the Gentile Times,
Ditto.
: 3. The association of the Olivet discourse with the previously discussed events as the fulfillment of prophecy.
Ditto.
: It must be said that Brown and the Society did not equate these periods.
Brown certainly did not, but the statement from the Proclaimers book, shown above, clearly proves that the Watchtower author claimed that Brown did. And of course, we know perfectly well that the reason that the author claimed that Brown equated the periods was to lend support to the Watchtower's present claim that the two time periods are indeed to be equated. If the author didn't think that Brown lent support to this current doctrine, he wouldn't have made a point of italicizing the statement.
: It is Jonssson who first raised this issue
No, it was me, in a 1993 letter to Governing Body member Albert Schroeder, and also in a set of critical notes on the Proclaimers book published in early 1994 (I think) in "Freeminds Journal", by Randall Watters. Naturally I communicated this information to Jonsson, who also realized the Society's blunder. Jonsson eventually incorporated it into the 1998 revision of The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
: and was critical of the Society's Proclaimers book in page 134 for stating that for the first time Brown connected the Gentile Times with the seven times.
Because the Society was dead wrong.
: Raymond Franz in an earlier edition took the view that there was a connection and did Penton and Barbour.
I already explained all of this in the original thread. You have zero reading comprehension. Penton was wrong; so what? Franz made some fuzzy statements that don't mean what you claim; that's your problem.
: I wrote about this matter to Jonsson back in 1998 and he sent photocopies of Brown's material with the exception of page 208 which upon writing to the Society I received a copy of that page. When Alan F attempted to address this issue on this board he tto omitted any reference to that self same page.
Once again we find that your "scholarship" is moronic. I did indeed mention the material on page 208. In fact, I quoted it. At this URL, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/59355/3.ashx I stated:
In a previous post, I posted an extensive set of quotations taken from Brown's book The Even-Tide, which indicate that he did not equate the periods, but related them in an interesting way. Brown said that the Gentile Times were a 1260 lunar year period ending in 1844, while the seven times were a 2520 solar year period ending in 1917. He said that there would be a 75 lunar year prophetic period from 1844 to 1917, during which all the signs associated with Jesus' second coming would occur. Since Brown related the two periods at their endpoints by adding 75 lunar years to 1844 to get to 1917, it can be said that he connected them, but he certainly did not equate them. But that is not the impression that the Proclaimers book gives, which is that Brown equated the periods.
Let?s look once again at what Brown writes on page 208 of Vol. 2:
The times of these monarchies are fixed by the "seven times" of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mohammedan Imposture.... then must it be maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the period of the second judgment; and commencing in 1873, are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates with the "seven times" of the monarchies, and with the 1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.... The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his second coming, foretels all these events; and upon that memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down of Jerusalem, and "that the Jews should be led captive into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, obviously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at which he is to appear as the Judge. [Vol. 2, p. 208]
Nothing in this equates the "Gentile times" and the "seven times". It only gives a vague impression that they are connected in some unspecified way via various prophecies. In what way does Brown connect them? Let?s see exactly how Brown defines his terms:
So once again we find that this self-proclaimed "scholar" is so moronic that he misses clearly posted material. Quite a fine example of a Jehovah's Witness "scholar".
: Of course you can interpret the issue any way you like but the fact remains that a connection is plainly evident
I explained how the notion of a "connection" could be made -- not an equation -- and so has Gamaliel. The "connection" is that Brown said that the "Gentile Times" are a period within the "seven times" of Daniel 4. I also explained how Jonsson carefully showed that Brown did not "equate" the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times" by stating that Brown "did not himself associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24." I explained that Jonsson's use of "did not associate" clearly means, in context, "did not equate". How do I know this? Because I explained all of this to Jonsson, as well as to GB member Albert Schroeder, in several 1993 letters. Obviously the notorious "apostate" Carl Olof Jonsson was able clearly to discern what a "spirit directed" Governing Body member could not.
All of this has been set forth in previous posts, Scholar-Moron. The fact that you don't understand a word of it proves the putrid quality of your "scholarship".
: and that the Society was fully justified in making that statement.
LOL!
: This is not a minor issue at all and goes to the very heart of the proclaimed research for the Jonsson hypothesis.
I agree. Your problem is that every fact goes against everything you've claimed. And your words prove that you're a sham scholar, just as all JW apologists with pretensions to scholarhood are.
By the way, I've added a few bits to the original thread from The SBL Handbook of Style to add to your pain, given that you have no idea whatsoever in how properly to reference books from which you quote.
AlanF
