Posts by scholar

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

a Christian

Post 239

That is correct it was his first letter whereupon he addresses himself in the third person which to me shows dishonesty. Why could he not be upfront and simply state the matter truthfully and simply share his personal research for comment. The subsequent correspondence shows that the Society was not something to fear but they were open and frank with Jonsson. These letters show more about Jonsson's motives and that the Society was kind and considerate asking him to be patient and to keep matters confidential.

At every point the Society dealt with the matters but because they could not agree with him Jonsson proved to be stubborn and obstinate preferring the way of higher criticism rather than the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with sharing his research with others but if it stirs up a controversy amongst the brothers then how can lead to unity. Jonsson must have known how controversial his chronology would be and was simply asked to keep the matter private. This he could not do as he thought that by lobbying the Society would pressure them to change their doctrine. this delusion failed and he was kicked out. I say, Good riddance!

Remember one is only expelled from the Christian congregation if one is unrepentant.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

What Furuli has published publicly is certainly up for public criticism but then if you have not bothered to check with the author about alleged errors first and you are no expert in this very technical field then you are simply giving your opinion which is just as useful as Joe Bblo's opinion.

There are no doubt some typos but it is only your opinion that such errors go beyond typos. You are not a scholar, have not published anything in this field and do not know the Semitic languages. I could easily say that Furuli's data is accurate until proven otherwise by other experts.

Further, the Appendix is that of the planets and the stars and are not lunar data, further the data raises the issue as to whether these positions are observed or calculated so these provide the tabulations for calendrical months and years. In order, to falsify Furuli's data you woold need to produce your own research to see whether Furuli's conclusions are valid.

In other words, put up or shut up.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

a Christian

Post 238

I cannot comment on the Ray Franz incident because the only information we have about this is supplied by Franz himself and not the parties to his expulsion. In other words we only have one side of the story and it is the stupid one who only relies on one side rather than both sides before making a judgement.

This however is not the case with Carl Jonsson's expulsion as he made public the body of correspondence between himself and the Society over his treatise and one can see by reading the letters that Jonsson is not a man of integrity but was dishonest even from his very first letter. Jonsson from that time had already spread his false ideas to others which eventually led to his expulsion. Jonsson on the face of the evidence was dealt with fairly in my opinion.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly and Alleymom

I note that both of you claim to have found many errors in Furuli's published second volume. My response is that even in his first volume there were some typos which even I emailed this to him and I believe that there was a second reprint of that first volume. In the case of the second volume there may well be many typo errors or in some cases the fault lies in the documents.

In any event both of you two ladies have good computer skills and have already found many 'mistakes' which either need correction or clarification. Why not both of you together compile a list and send it to Furuli also forward me a copy and I will ensure that the matter is followed through. I may even phone him shortly and just mention those couple of things about Nisanu 1 shown in some years as beginning in May.

In the interests of fairness and honesty and Christian ethics if we have some issue then we should take the matter up with the other person so I appeal to your sense of ethics to do what is right. I believe it is most unfair to air publicly the mistakes of others or perceived mistakes without first communicating with that person.

scholar JW

17

Generation problem is a self-inflicted wound

by Doug Mason in

there is no need to go to any university of higher education to solve the wtss problem with generation of matthew 24:34. it only needs a primary school certificate in plain reading.

in each of the nine times that the word generation appears in matthew, jesus is talking about the jewish people of his time.

read: matt 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; and 24:34. .

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 380

You say that the Society's interpretation is a 'self inflicted wound'. I disagree. Scholars and other expositors have for decades and centuries had problems with the interpretation of this phrase in Greek. A survey of older and recent commenraries proves the difficulty in determing what Jesus meant by the phrase 'this generation' so it is no wonder that the FDS have had to revise their views from time to time. I notice that SDA'S with whom you have had some association continue to experience a similar difficulty.

In the past we have moved from a temporal view involving chronology to a contemporary understanding in 1995 which also has exceeded its useful 'shelf life' and the time has come for a fresh look at this subject. Apparently, all will be revealed to the faithful and the unfaithful as all such are vitally intererested in the spiritual food of the FDS in the next scholarly journal of the Watchtower.

scholar JW

16

607 BCE - Jehovah's Witnesses come out and Defend your Beliefs.

by KW13 in

jw
friends

when was the end of the 70 years?

the bible clearly states that the end of the 70 years would be when the king of babylon (namely nebuchadnezzar) was called to account.

what date was this?

scholar

KW13

You are talking blatant nonsense. The Bible does not say that the 'calling to account' applies to the events of 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon. This is impossible because Daniel discerned that the seventy years was at the time of writing Daniel 9:2 that the period was then yet unfulfilled. The seventy years ended only when the Jewish exiles returned home in 537 BCE. So, 539 is also impossible because 'the calling to account; which happened after 539 BCE was the desolation of Babylon which happened long after 539 BCE.

The seventy years beginning in 609 BCE is not widely accepted as others propose 605 BCE so there is no definitive event is mutually agreed for the beginning. Jeremiah describes the period as exile-servitude-desolation and could have begun when Nebuchadnezzer destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year in 607 BCE.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

I am no expert in Calendation but my instinct tells me that you do not understand the fact that calenders do not correspond exactly over time but any such correspondence between say the Babylonian and Gregorian calenders needs to synchronized by means of a intercalary month. I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1. Furuli's tabulated data result from his deciphering and interpreting of the astronomical data from the clay tablets in question so the propblem may not be that of Furuli but the scibes.

At any rate you should write to Furuli and even though the books are published there are always future editions where corrections are noted and even Jonsson has had to make corrections for his now current fourth edition.

scholar JW

50

Gentile Times reconsidered

by confused and lost in

i am half way through this book by carl o. jonsson and the more i read the more certain i become that the 607bce date for the destruction of jerusalem by babylon is nothing more than a fabrication designed to uphold 1914 and hence the "authority" of the watchtower leadership.it makes me sick to think of how they have duped millions of people with their phoney chronology.it makes sitting through studies that mention these dates irritating to say the least.especially when all the heads nod in unison at the mention of the "magic 607"

scholar

Doug Mason

Post 378

Firstly, I planned to respond to your 'fictitious dialogue' today but I will need to do that later. Now to your present post.

Celebrated WT scholars, FDS, Governing Body and humble 'scholar' have made no mistakewith the seventy years. We believe that despite the plethora of interpretations of this event from apostates, scholars and higher critics that our traditional understanding as published in the Society's publications including the scholarly journal The Watchtower is correct.

I have spent may decades of research on this subject and I have perused, examined critically all that is published in leading scholarly, academic journals and Bible commentaries of Cathollic, Protestant and Jewish leanings. Have you done this methodical, intellectual exercise? I think not!

The matter of the two Hebrew words used for desolation and destruction of the land appeared years ago in the Adventist Journal, Witness now defunct. It is certainly the case that the meaning of these Hebrew terms does not automatically mean total or absolute destruction by themselves as their linguistic range is rather broad and non-specific. However, the context of those terms used by Jeremiah and the accompanying language such as 'without an inhabitant' leads one to conclude that the desolation was total and absolute with no sense of vagueness or partiality. So, your argument is weak.

I urge you to engage in formal study on this matter of the interpretation of these Hebrew terms used not only in Jeremiah but the rest of the OT. You should use Lexicons, Theological Dictionaries such as TWOT, TDOT and NIDOTE and major technical commentaries such as Word, Anchor, ICC, Keil &Delitzsch and Hermeneia.

I look forward to your appraisal of these matters as you certainly excell in producing well -polished work

scholar JW

50

Gentile Times reconsidered

by confused and lost in

i am half way through this book by carl o. jonsson and the more i read the more certain i become that the 607bce date for the destruction of jerusalem by babylon is nothing more than a fabrication designed to uphold 1914 and hence the "authority" of the watchtower leadership.it makes me sick to think of how they have duped millions of people with their phoney chronology.it makes sitting through studies that mention these dates irritating to say the least.especially when all the heads nod in unison at the mention of the "magic 607"

scholar

stillajwexelder

Post 13270

You are misinformed because the Society is not or has no plans, needs to revise it Bible-based chronology, It is in the field of eschatology that the FDS has seen fit to have a another look at our understanding of the 'generation' in Mattnew 24:34. Such an endeavour proves that the FDS is indeed 'faithful and discreet' because this phrase is extremely challenging for all scholars and commentators. We were thrilled to learn that such an adjustment was to be made at the recent Annual Meeting of the Society in October and in keen anticipation of this soon to be published revision I have spent much time researching this problematic phrase at Moore Theological Library in Sydney in conjunction with my own personal theological library.

I now see how difficult this subject is and that it has caused numerous interpretations based upon the definition of genea which have been applied to the context of Jesus' Olivet discourse. My research has led me to focus on the Hebrew word dor which has theological or metaphorical meaning of 'assembly'. This seems to fit the new understanding of 'generation' as now applied to the Church or the anointed ones, Elect. etc.

scholar JW

50

Gentile Times reconsidered

by confused and lost in

i am half way through this book by carl o. jonsson and the more i read the more certain i become that the 607bce date for the destruction of jerusalem by babylon is nothing more than a fabrication designed to uphold 1914 and hence the "authority" of the watchtower leadership.it makes me sick to think of how they have duped millions of people with their phoney chronology.it makes sitting through studies that mention these dates irritating to say the least.especially when all the heads nod in unison at the mention of the "magic 607"

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 525

The historical blunder made by Jonsson is repeated throughout the many editions of his book and concerns a dogmatic statement that John Aquila Brown in his Eventide...did not connect Luke 21:24 with the Gentile Times. Jonsson makes this allegation because the Society in the Proclaimers of God's Kingdom on page 134 says that he did connect the two.

I wrote to Jonsson, Franz and Penton who also repeated this falsehood in their respective editions. Jonsson refused to admit to the facts that I submitted which were obtained by letter from the Writing Dept concerning the matter. Franz was stubborn and rude in his response and Penton did not reply. The facts are that Jonsson was informed as to the exact page and reference whereby the connection is plainly stated and yet Jonnson was not intellectually honest to see that he was wrong. This case study plainly demonstrates that Jonsson cannot be trusted with interpreting modern history so then how can he be trusted with interpreting ancient history especially when he is not proficient with the Semitic languages. These facts were made known to Alan F on this very forum and even he was forced to concede that an error was made.

You claim that Furuli has made some errors in his published volumes then the correct and decent thing to do would be to write to Furuli and point such errors out. I would say that any such errors are simply typographical and due to poor proofreading. You make the claim then you should put up.

scholar JW