25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

448 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

Furuli adds:<br />

“As a linguist I know by experience that language is ambiguous. But<br />

the words of Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 are remarkably clear and<br />

unambiguous.”<br />

It is difficult to see how this is true even of Furuli’s retranslation and<br />

reconstruction of the verse. As stated earlier, his analysis of verse 21 ignores the<br />

contextual connection with verse 20, in which we find the same preposition ad<br />

used in the clause “until (ad) the royalty of Persia began to reign.” Because both<br />

clauses with ad are aimed at explaining when the servitude ended, the<br />

translation of ad as “until” is the most natural in both verses. To render ad as<br />

“while” in verse 20, for example, would make it say that the Jewish remnant<br />

became servants of the king of Babylon “while the royalty of Persia began to<br />

reign,” a statement that is not only historically false but nonsensical.<br />

Most translations, therefore, render the preposition ad as “until” in both<br />

clauses. <strong>The</strong>re are none, as far as I know, that render it “while” in the passage.<br />

<strong>The</strong> reason is not only that this is excluded by the context but also by the fact<br />

that ad seldom takes the meaning “while.” (<strong>The</strong> New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius<br />

Hebrew and English Lexicon,1978, p. 725)<br />

Furuli’s attempt to assign the meaning “while” to ad is a case of the fallacies<br />

of argumentation known as “special pleading” and “assuming the conclusion.”<br />

For his argument to work, he needs ad to mean “while;” otherwise his entire<br />

Oslo chronology falls apart.<br />

Jeremiah 25:9-12: 70 years of servitude—for whom?<br />

In his discussion of Jeremiah 25:9-12, Furuli focuses on verse 11, which<br />

says:<br />

“And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of<br />

astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”—<br />

Jer. 25:11 (NIV)<br />

As was pointed out earlier, Furuli starts his discussion of the 70-year<br />

prophecy by admitting that Jeremiah applies the 70 years to Babylon, not to<br />

Jerusalem. As he states on page 75:<br />

“If we make a grammatical analysis in 25:11, we find that ‘these<br />

nations’ is the grammatical subject, and in 29:10, ‘Babylon’ is the patient,<br />

that is, the nation that should experience the period of 70 years.”<br />

Having concluded (falsely, as has been shown above) that Daniel 9:2 and 2<br />

Chronicles 36:21 unambiguously state that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate for<br />

70 years, Furuli realizes that the meaning of Jeremiah 25:11 has to be changed<br />

to be brought into agreement with his conclusion.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!