What I have learned about Rolf Furuli

by Faraon 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Room 215

  You have a perverted biew of God's organizatiion and it faithful and discreet slave. The fact is that Furuli is a Witness for many yaers and has earned for himself eminent academic qualifications and is in a position to be judged by his peers and have their respect also. In other words he is in the same position as other academics and fellow scholars Throughout the scholarly community there is always robust debate and criticism. He has used his advanceed learning to serve interests of the Lord's work which begs the question as in what way you and your fellow critics are giving God glory.

  scholar

  BA BA Hons (cand) Deakin MA Studies in Religion Sydney
• 

  logansrun

  scholar,

  Why do you insist on using the term "Jonsson hypothesis" when the man is simply recapitulating the near-universal view of archaeologists and scholars that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 ?

  To me it sounds as if you are trying to peg that date on one man to obscure the reality that everybody outside of Jehovah's Witnesses supports 587/6. By calling it the "Jonsson hypothesis" you insinuate there is something unusual about what he writes and should not be taken seriously. The reality is quite the opposite.

  Bradley
• 

  hillary_step

  Bradley,

  To me it sounds as if you are trying to peg that date on one man to obscure the reality that everybody outside of Jehovah's Witnesses supports 587/6. By calling it the "Jonsson hypothesis" you insinuate there is something unusual about what he writes and should not be taken seriously. The reality is quite the opposite.

  Trying to get our esteemed Scholar to admit to this is like trying to eat water. Jonsson's work was more a collation of evidence than a newly established hypothesis.There are some minor theological portions where Jonsson joins the dots, and these are the ones that Scholar in his dissonant frenzy insists on focusing on. Obviously he thereby hopes to discredit several hundred years of archeaological history and proclaim himself and his fellow though far better educated Gnat, Rolf Furuli, as victorious Dragonflies or at the very least sychophantic helpers to the 144,000 Locusts.

  If there is a God in Heaven, he must surely be squirming with embarrassment at some of his apologists on earth.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  RunningMan

  Guys like Furuli actually do far more harm than good to the Society.

  They highlight issues that most Witnesses would never even hear about. JWs are better off if they never even notice that anyone thinks 607 is wrong. As well, many of these apologists spend so much time debating with people who are actually qualified and knowledgeable, that eventually they succomb to the wieght of evidence and change sides.

  I recall hearing James Penton on the radio when I was a teenager. It was encouraging to see a person with actual credentials supporting our teachings. However, eventually JP changed sides, and the impact was twice as great as it could have been, because he was our only qualified defender at the time. So we were left, not only without support, but knowing damn well that no qualified person believed us.
• 

  TD

  I think that scholar is Rolf Furili. Does'nt schloar have his degree in linguistics?

  Rolf J. Furuli and Neil W. McFadzen are two different people. Mr. Furuli's grasp of the English language is actually quite good.
• 

  jgnat

  Deakin University Conduct of Research
• 

  Faraon

  Scholar:

  When you have the academic qualifications that Furuli has achieved [,] then you are [will be] in position to be critical of his scholarship. Furuli has done a magnificant [magnificent] jog in elevating the NWT, defending our blood issue and deconstructing the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion

  1. AA Pre Medicine
  2. BA Education
  3. MA Urban Education
  4. MA Administration and Supervision
  5. MA Agnostic Studies

  For a "learned man" you are poor excuse for academics, which you seem to flash at any opportunity. Those credentials only impress fools. I know principals who would be put to shame by a sixth-grader when it comes to basic math, spelling, and writing.

  As a JW, you should know that you should have not gone on to "higher education" because "the end of this system of things is near"

  I have quoted true scholars' criticisms of him. It is not only my opinion, but as a free thinker, and not one with the WT blinders own, I have a constitutionally protected right to my opinion.

  That he has "elevated the NWT" makes him even more disgusting in my eyes. IMO he has contributed to the depression, suicide, and murder of untold thousands. He has no business giving "expert" opinions in the field of medicine if his expertise is linguistics.

  That goes for you too. If you claim to have an expert knowledge of religion, you should know better, and not contribute to human misery.

  If I were you, I would stop "flashing" your credentials, which may or may not be true. Judging you by your common sense, you are in no position to evaluate others.
• 

  Faraon

  Scholar,

  You have a perverted biew [view] of God's organizatiion organization and it faithful and discreet slave. The fact is that Furuli is [has been] a Witness for many yaers [years], and has earned for himself eminent academic qualifications and is in a position to be judged by his peers, and [repeated use of and instead using a comma] have has [subject/ verb agreement. The subject is Furuli, a singular noun] their respect also. In other words he is in the same position as other academics and fellow scholars. Throughout the scholarly community there is always robust debate and criticism. He has used his advanceed [advanced] learning to serve interests of the Lord's work, which begs the question, as in what way you and your fellow critics are giving God glory?

  scholar

  BA BA Hons (cand) Deakin MA Studies in Religion Sydney

  Isn't it a requirement in Australia to take, and pass, courses in English?

  You write like a third grader when you constantly repeat the word "and" instead of using commas.

  Please either quit "flashing" your "academic credentials" or learn how to write, spell, and to think critically. I was going to add ethics, but I know of no JW who has them. To them, "Ethics" means "change your thoughts to the latest New Light (tm)"

  Faraon
• 

  scholar

  logansrun

  The expression 'Jonsson hypothesis' is most appropriate because Jonsson has not proved his case but simply presented and interpreted the secular and biblical evidence supporting his claims for the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 and the beginning of the seventy years from 607 to 539 BCE. The fact of the matter is that scholars are divided as to whether the Fall of Jerusalem applies to 586 or 587 and both sides have their own reasons for supporting their particular position. Also, the matter of the seventy years is widely open to interpretation amongst scholars so Jonsson's view like the Society's and SDA are interpretations amongst the many. Unfortunately, the posters on this board are deceived by Jonsson in that they believe that he has all the answers and that his critique of WT chronology is Absolute Truth.

  Jonsson has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars and simply represents a biased attempt to disprove WT chronology therefore his work does not represent scholarship at its best. Why don't you compare Furuli's chronology and you will see that the secular evidence is not infallible and is open to serious criticism. Furuli presents his research in a unbiased way which contrasts markedly with Jonsson's handling of the evidence.

  scholar
• 

  fjtoth

  Scholar,
  

  Would a genuine scholar make the following criticisms without seeing the rafters in his own eyes?
  

  The expression 'Jonsson hypothesis' is most appropriate because Jonsson has not proved his case but simply presented and interpreted the secular and biblical evidence supporting his claims . . .

  Why not then speak of the "Watchtower hypothesis"? The WT Society has merely presented and interpreted its own claims with very little if any credible evidence. And why give Jonsson the credit for a so-called "hypothesis" that appeared in print long before he showed that it is a far better explanation than the one given by the WT Society?
  

  scholars are divided as to whether the Fall of Jerusalem applies to 586 or 587 and both sides have their own reasons for supporting their particular position.

  Isn't this an admission that Jonsson's explanation is scholarly? More important than any supposed disagreement between 586 and 587 is the almost unanimous rejection of 607. How prudent is it to reject an explanation acceptable to the majority of scholars in favour of an explanation that most of them have rejected? It seems to me that the only excuse the WT Society has for such a poor choice is "their own [prideful and stubborn] reasons for supporting their particular position."
  

  Unfortunately, the posters on this board are deceived by Jonsson in that they believe that he has all the answers and that his critique of WT chronology is Absolute Truth.

  Is it truly scholarly to accuse others of being deceived when the weight of evidence is in their favour? Is it honest? As for claims of having "all the answers" and possessing "Absolute Truth," these were made by the WT Society long before Jonsson was even born!
  

  Jonsson has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars and simply represents a biased attempt to disprove WT chronology therefore his work does not represent scholarship at its best.

  Isn't it contradictory to say in one breath that Jonsson's view is supported by some scholars and then in another breath to say that he "has not had his work peer reviewed by scholars"? Is it fair to say he's biased when he shows plainly what scholars have advocated and what they've rejected? Is it "scholarship at its best" to reject Jonsson in favour of the WT Society when the majority of scholars reject the explanation given by the WT Society and have not done so with regard to Jonsson's explanation?
  

  Why don't you compare Furuli's chronology and you will see that the secular evidence is not infallible and is open to serious criticism.

  Where is the honesty and sincerity in saying that the evidence presented by some scholars is "not infallible" when that fact is especially true of one's own so-called "evidence"? Which is more "open to serious criticism, the claims of the majority or claims that the majority have shown to be outdated and as unsupported by sound reasoning and evidence?
  

  Furuli presents his research in a unbiased way which contrasts markedly with Jonsson's handling of the evidence.

  Furuli's "research" conflicts with the results of more recent evidence that fully supports Jonsson's handling of the evidence. Isn't it therefore more than a bit absurd to make the above accusation?

  fjtoth