OMG!!!
You folks may have provided the critical piece to a puzzle I've been pursuing for quite a little while! I wish I could share the story with you, I think you'd love it. But I can't. What I can do is to say thanks guys. And especially AlanF, he provided the piece. But it wouldn't have happened without Scholar's baiting!
Thanks friends!
Forscher
Celebrated WT scholars? :)
by Augustin 184 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Forscher
-
AlanF
Still no references from scholar pretendus as to who has supposedly peer reviewed Furuli's work, despite repeated requests. It's obvious either that no such reviews exist, or that the ones that do are severely critical and an embarassment to Furuli and his cheerleaders.
scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:
: Lester Grabbe did not peer review Furuli's work but simply a critique listed as a Book Review in a leading scholarly journal something of which Jonsson has not bothered to do.
Can't you write intelligible English? Obviously not.
Furthermore, you moron, no author can "bother" to get a critique of his book listed somewhere. It is the reviewers and magazine editors who must "bother" to do this. Indeed, it would be a violation of professional ethics to solicit favorable reviews.
: Furuli has long sent out at least twenty copies of his work to various scholars and institutions during the short time it has been published and has already received feedback from a prominent SDA scholar.
Really. One out of twenty. A good score. And of course, nothing has actually been published, most likely because the reviews are scathing and the reviewers know they're dealing with a nut.
And just what did this "prominent SDA scholar" have to say? Are you brave enough to post the entire content of the comments, along with who this scholar is?
: Jonsson has had his work published for more than twenty years and over this time there is still no Book Review.
Like I and others have explained till we're blue in the face: Jonsson has not come up with new material but only collated existing and well accepted scholarly data and conclusions. There is no need for a review.
: Grabbe was not poking fun at Furuli but rather paid him a compliment for his attempt to rewrite scholarship
My, my. You really are stupid. Grabbe's review is dripping with sarcasm. Do you really need it explained line by line?
: and really this is what contributes to advances in scholarship where a scholar breaks new ground or submits current thinking to testing.
True in general, but you should realize that what Furuli is doing is like trying to rewrite gravitational theory. Both gravitational theory and Neo-Babylonian chronology are backed up by massive amounts of data, and so potential minor problems such as Furuli raises in his book -- most of which have already been solved by various authors including Carl Jonsson -- don't cast doubt on the overall correctness of the theories. You and Furuli would throw out the 99.99% of data that establishes the chronology and retain the 0.01% that you claim bolsters Watchtower claims. This is not only scholastically dishonest but just plain stupid.
: Grabbe reminds the reader that "gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship"
That's part of his sarcasm.
: and he looks forwardto Furuli's next volume.
Nonsense. How you manage to glean such a stupid claim from Grabbe's words is frightening. Indeed, after characterizing Furuli's ideas as amateurish and naive, and commenting that he is obviously unwilling to put his ideas to the test with recognized scholars, by which he clearly indicates his disapproval of Furuli's claims, he sarcastically says: "A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing."
: Jonsson's nonsense has not been subject to a peer review or a Book Review but on the back cover of his last two editions there are two endorsements by two scholars who express a favourable opinion about Jonsson's work. Wiseman promises to notify a number of correspondents of the work but since 1998 the date of the third edition where is there any mention of Jonsson's work in the scholarly literature?
You make this so easy. Like I said, you're the best shill I've ever seen. I'll expand a bit on the theme of why Neo-Babylonian chronology is so well established and why Jonsson's work simply reflects the best of modern scholarship.
Various scholars, including Carl Jonsson, have shown conclusively that the entirety of Neo-Babylonian chronology can be established on a variety of bases, most particularly with the help of Babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets. Other sources such as the tens of thousands of dated business documents and Ptolemy's Canon are also extremely useful. In the article "Egypt, Egyptians" The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books (Editors: Bill T Arnold & H.G.M. Williamson, 2005, InterVarsity Press: Illinois.) describes the time frame of Egyptian history as it relates to Jewish history. Concerning the basis for this time frame author L. Depuydt states (p. 239):
The ultimate foundation of first-millennium BCE chronology is the longest sustained research project of all time: Babylonian astronomy. At Babylon, celestial events were recorded continuously in astronomical diaries from the eighth century BCE to the first century CE (Sachs and Hunger). Sophisticated theories rooted in these observations were formulated in the third and second centuries BCE (recently Brack-Bernsen). Babylonian astronomy first surfaced not in the original cuneiform tablets, but in Greek works on astronomy, especially those of Ptolemy of Alexandra (second century CE). Ptolemy's Royal Canon is antiquity's single most important chronological document (Depuydt 1995b). Manuscripts of the Royal Canon came to light in the early seventeenth century CE. The Royal Canon lists three types of data: (1) the successive rulers earlier of Babylon and later of Alexandria, including Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians, Macedonians and Egyptians, beginning with the Babylonian king Nabonassar; (2) the lengths of their reigns converted into multiples of Egyptian 365-day years, with day 1 being February 26, 747 BCE; (3) the cumulative count of years from Nabonassar, the so-called Era of Nabonassar. The Royal Canon's veracity has never been doubted, but neither has it ever been positively proven. Paradoxically, proving the Royal Canon will also render it superfluous. Thus a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead (Depuydt, in press [b]; Jonsson). Proof of the Royal Canon is to be found in Babylonian astronomical texts. These sources emerged at the end of the nineteenth century CE. The decipherment of Babylonian astronomy soon followed. Some principal sources have become more easily accessible to historians only recently. Babylonian astronomy takes us back to 747 BCE. Then Assyrian limu lists take over. In Assyria, each year was named after an official called the limu. Lists of limus have survived (Millard). These lists make Near Eastern chronology reasonably solid back to about 910 BCE.
Everything stated in the above paragraph is consistent with Carl Jonsson's work. Indeed, over a period of time I learned about all of the above from his various editions of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. This proves that Jonsson's work accurately reflects the best of modern scholarship and is in no sense Jonsson's own creation, although ex-JWs owe him a debt of gratitude to have put all the right information to refute Watchtower chronological lies in one place. Also note that not a single word in the above supports scholar pretendus' pretentions.
Note that Jonsson is cited above (The Gentile Times Reconsidered) as just another scholarly source reference, along with such noteworthy scholars as W. F. Albright, L. Depuydt, Jack Finegan, K. A. Kitchen, F. X. Kugler, A. R. Millard, Ronald A. Parker, Waldo H. Dubberstein, Abraham Sachs, Hermann Hunger and Edwin R. Thiele.
: Regarding Cagni's claim that this work is a serious study for the field of Assyriology then again where in the scholarly literature since 1998 have serious scholars used or benefited from this so called 'serious study'?
Once again, you moron, academic scholars generally cite each other when writing for a technical audience. They don't cite anyone, scholar or amateur, writing for a lay audience. It would be like the famous theoretical physicist Richard Feynman citing a popular book by Isaac Asimov to support some idea he wrote in a physics journal.
: One cannot but feel that there is an agenda against the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses manifested by these two fellows.
Nonsense. Wiseman is an old and respected scholar. I know nothing of Cagni. But all good modern scholars will, of course, support the general run of standard Neo-Babylonian chronology, and so every one of them will be "against the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses" in the sense that they would not hesitate to refute it.
: If the endorsements are of any value why does not Jonsson make public the full content of such letters of admiration?
Unlike you, Jonsson lets the facts he presents speak for themselves.
: Alan F, you boast that Jonsson's work mainly consists of summarizing the cream of modern scholarship but if this is truly the case How is it that Jonsson's views clearly are a minority view and does not represent the majority of scholars as to the date for the Fall and the exegesis of the seventy years.
We've been through this plenty of times before, but I'll summarize: there is virtually no disagreement on anything of importance in Neo-Babylonian chronology. The reigns of the kings are securely established. In this sense, Jonsson summarizes the best of modern scholarship. However, on minor details like Jeremiah's 70 years, we have only the Bible as a guide. Josephus gives contradictory information and cannot be trusted on his own. Since the Bible is open to much interpretation -- you have only to look at the history of Watchtower teachings to see this, where all current teachings are claimed to be the result of divine direction, even when they've changed -- often only secular material can clear up what the biblical writings mean. And in some cases, nothing will clear it up. Of course, your worship of the Watchtower Society means that you accept all current Watchtower claims, but this is irrelevant to how proper scholars go about their business.
Furthermore, majority vote really doesn't count for much in good scholarship. You yourself really believe this, because even though by far the majority of modern biblical scholars accept some notion of the trinity, you reject their scholarship. Thus, your charge against Jonsson is dishonest and self-serving. And I've already explained that because the majority of modern biblical scholars tend to follow the fundamentalist Edwin Thiele, whereas secular scholars follow their own kind, and there are a lot more biblical than secular scholars, that's why a majority accepts 586 over 587. But once again, I have yet to read dogmatic statements on the matter, and most scholars have no problem accepting either date. And yet again, the date is of no real importance. It's only important to JWs since it's part of the Watchtower tradition used to justify the authority of Watchtower leaders over the rest of the cult.
: If the book does not need a review of any sort then its significance for the serious student is somewhat diminished as it merely amounts as I have reminded Augustin that it is a piece of 'cult bashing'.
Nonsense. The book is of great value to anyone who wants a good summary of ancient Middle Eastern chronology. The fact that Jonsson rightly attacks the Watchtower Society's basis for disfellowshipping people for rejecting Watchtower nonsense is irrelevant to the excellent chronological summary. People would have to do years of difficult searching to find that material, and many could not because they don't have the academic resources at hand.
: If serious scholars do not regard the Jonsson hypothesis as a piece of 'cult bashing' then one could infer that it is a serious study of Neo- Babylonian chronology and the biblical seventy years but where then is a Book Review?
You're going in circles again and I won't follow.
: Where has this 'serious study' been utilized by scholars in discussions of chronology and biblical history?
I gave one example above, and I explained why serious academic scholars don't usually cite works written for laymen.
: Augustin claims that a quotation by some Norwegian scholar of Jonsson in his book on the Witnesses is proof of something. Proof of what?
Augustin already explained, you moron. Why do you have to have things repeated to you? Do you think that your denial will change the fact that all modern scholars reject Watchtower chronology?
: Even James Penton in his history of the Witness sources Jonsson as does Raymonf Franz but this is irrelevant in this discussion of the merits of Jonsson's alleged scholarship because fellow sympathizers will always find comfort in the arms of each other.
This is irrelevant to everything.
: The scholars mentioned by you such as Lundbon etc do not endorse the Jonsson hypothesis,
Of course not, because there is no such thing. You cannot even state what you think it is, because as soon as you try, your nonsense is so evident that even you can't stomach it.
: they have not quoted from Jonsson's work
L. Depuydt cited Jonsson, as shown above, for his statement that "a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead."
: and their published writings and commentary on the seventy years differ greatly from Jonsson.
Greatly? No. At most by a few years, and they always explain why they differ.
But again, you're using a dishonest argument here because you reject any and all scholarly ideas that contradict Watchtower teaching. Good scholarship is entirely irrelevant to you; only the pronouncements of your cult leaders hold any weight. You use scholarship as a way to fool naive potential converts into thinking that "Watchtower scholarship" has a basis in anything other than the self-proclaimed spiritual authority of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
: There would be a few facts of common agreement just as would also be the case with celebrated WT scholars and Furuli but the substance is very much of wide dispute.
Once again, the chronology is undisputed. Only minor details are disputed.
And once again, the undisputed Neo-Babylonian chronology solidly nails down the coffin lid on Watchtower chronology, and we all know that once that's done, all other Watchtowerish details are irrelevant.
: In this repect, Grabbe admits that with Furuli that "some biblical passages make such a statement" What was that statement? It was that ' seventy years desolation of the land' which is against Jonsson's opinions.
So what? I already explained why this is immaterial, since that claim takes a small number of ambiguous biblical passages in isolation and neglects the overall context.
: Grabbe nowhere in his Book Review gives any indication that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian servitude or domination but he recognizes that some texts can if read literally refer to desolation even if he himself has a different view of matters, a view which is left unstated.
So what? Some biblical texts, read literally and in isolation, say that the universe was created in six literal days.
: Typically apostates are desperate people with nowhere to turn and nowhere to hide for they a re exposed for the deceivers they are: haters of God's Word, his people and his organization.
A typical diatribe from a desperate cultist. I fart in your general direction!
: The chronology published by the Society, developed by celebrated WT scholars has shown itself superior to the empty theories of secular scholars who cannot amongst themselves cannot produce a simple and coherent chronology.
Of course they can, because they have. It can be found in books such as The Cambridge Ancient History. Your real beef with them is that they unanimously reject Watchtower chronology. That's all.
And we all know how badly the Society has mucked up chronology during its history. Russell borrowed all of his chronology from the Second Adventists, and especially from Nelson Barbour. Barbour in turn got some of it from people heavily influenced by the discredited Millerites. Russell taught that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 B.C. and was so ignorant of real scholarship that he didn't know that there was no "zero year" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. Even when P.S.L. Johnsson pointed this out to him around 1913, he failed to do anything about it. And even when C. J. Woodworth and George Fisher used the 607 date in the 1917 book The Finished Mystery, Joseph Rutherford and Fred Franz failed to pick up on the 'correct' date and so the Society used 606 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction until 1944, when Franz finally changed it by fiat in the book The Kingdom Is At Hand. And of course, we all know that most everything the Society now claims happened in or around 1914 was taught for about half its history to have occurred in or around 1874. So do we see a history of good scholarship here? No. We see a history of bungling. Rather than "celebrated WT scholars" we find celebrated Watchtower bunglers. And I do mean celebrated. And in Rutherford's case, an inebriated WT bungler. LOL!
AlanF
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:
: I have never been trounced by anyone on this board and have met all arguments 'head on'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Head on to you is obviously shoving your head hard into the sand.
You have yet to refute Josephus' proof that the Jews returned in 538 B.C., even though you've claimed a number of times that you were about to. We know from your past performance that eventually you'll forget about it, except that somehow you'll 'remember' refuting Josephus, and then crow how smartly you've defeated those wiley apostates on yet another front. Of course, you won't remember where or how you did it.
AlanF
-
hillary_step
Scholar,
One thing is for sure that 'scholar' gets the attention and concern from senior members of this forum which indicates that they are very fearful and worried about what I say and what I will say.
lol....What is a little pathetic about your delusionary statement is that you have no idea that you are being used by 'wily poztates' to preach to a wider audience. You remind me a little of Ian Paisley, whose life the IRA protected, as he was a massive one-man recruiting agency for the IRA. Your erratic debates on this board, followed by your inability to even accept that the WTS might be incorrect in their chronological assumptions, have helped many onlookers to see the error in the arguments of the Brooklyn Chronology.
That you think this is all about *you*, shows just how easily you miss the point of important issues.
At least Rolf Furili had the good sense to plan his escape route in the preface to his latest book, by acknowledging the theoretical nature of his chronological meanderings. You will not even countenance such a stand, though at one stage you did admit to me on this Board that you agreed that the WTS was going 'beyond its authority' in disfellowshipping those who question its chronology.
I wonder if you still hold to that viewpoint, as I have sensed a hardening in your attitude with each debate you lose? ( <--- Question )
Best regards - HS
-
ringo5
Wow! I usually don't have the patience to slog through any of these threads, but I'm glad I got as far as I did on this one.
This sequence just confirms to me how JW apologist's can completely distort another writer's viewpoint, or in this case, claim exactly the opposite of that same viewpoint!
First we have scholar's claim:I have this day a copy of the Book Review of Furuli's brilliant research by Lester Grabbe and as usual none of the posters on this forum have bothered to pursue further your rather abbreviated introductory comment on Furuli. Apostates go only for the sensational and are not interested in exploring the issues at any length.
What you fail to mention is that Grabble acknowledges Furuli's scholarship and seemingly credits him as a 'gifted amateur'. Also, Grabbe confirms the fact that the some scriptures confirm that the 70 years was a period of desolation which very nicely overturns the Jonsson apostate noinsense.
By the way when are apostates going to urge Jonsson to have work peer reviewed as Furuli as appropriately done? I fear that cowardice is the nature and spirit of apostates.
scholar JW
Then, AlanF follows up by posting what Grabble ACTUALLY wrote:Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28.5 (2004)
FURULI, ROLF, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, 1 (Oslo: R. Furuli A/S [[email protected]], 2003), pp. 251. n.p. ISBN 82-994633-3-5.)
Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. F.’s expertise is admittedly in Semitic languages, and his PhD (in progress) is on the Hebrew verbal system. He notes, ‘My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian’. This has not deterred him from making some radical re-interpretations of Achaemenid-period chronology and putting it forward boldly as an ‘Oslo chronology’. Part of his redating is fairly modest: he accepts the beginning and end of Achaemenid rule according to the standard dating, and puts the beginning of Darius I’s reign only one year later than is conventional. He argues, however, that the first 11 years of Xerxes’ reign overlap with the last 11 of Darius, and that Artaxerxes I came to the throne in 475 BCE and ruled 51 years. (F. has indeed found the interesting fact that a couple of tablets have the years ‘50’ and ‘51’ for Artaxerxes, but he admits that overwhelmingly tablets make 41 his last year and none is found between 41 and 50, suggesting the obvious: a scribal error.) Gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship, notably M. Ventris and Linear B. But Ventris was willing to work with specialists such as J. Chadwick whereas F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history. Perhaps the most telling point is his rather naive argument that the 70 years of Judaean captivity must be a literal 70 years of desolation of the land because some biblical passages make such a statement. A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing.
L.L. GRABBE
It's just astounding how someone can call white black and black white....Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20 -
XJW4EVR
celebrated WT scholars
Oxymoron.
-
Jeffro
All that you have said merely amounts to apostates agreeing with other and posing his nonsense as 'proof of argument'. Such back-slapping shows that content on this forum is empty and futile. Apostates hate Furuli because he is different, he obtained academic qualifications, holds an academic position whilst an active member of his faith. He has written books, journal articles that challenge current scholarly thinking which drives the aposates mad. Jonsson is the opposite who has no qualifications, no academic position and has contributed nothing to further the cause of scholarship except in becoming lauded, praised and worshipped by poztates.
You really need to learn what the word "apostate" means, beyond your naive demonizing of the word.
I have never been trounced by anyone on this board and have met all arguments 'head on' and will continue to do so despite the cultish propaganda from the 'wiley poztates'. One thing is for sure that 'scholar' gets the attention and concern from senior members of this forum which indicates that they are very fearful and worried about what I say and what I will say.
You're not really that delusional are you? You have been thoroughly "trounced" on every point you have raised. You think anyone here 'fears' your poor reasoning ability and lack of linguistic skills? With your tired rants, persecutions complexes, and delusions of grandeur, no-one is at all worried about anything you have to say. Don't you realise that you've made yourself a laughing stock?
Yes. a loyal and faithful Christian always holds the 'faith card' which frustrates apostates because they have left the faith and are without faith such as Alan F and yet these are the people who pretend to offer something of substance but in reality have no Church, Brotherhood, Ministry or the True Religion. All they have are bitter and sweet memories. They live in the past.
Witnesses claim that faith is not mere 'credulity'. But their house of cards is based on the Society's self-endorsing claims regarding 1918 which are in turn based on 1914 and 607. The fact that 607 is wrong undermines the supposed basis for the Witnesses' 'faith', so 607 must be staunchly defended in what is circular reasoning at its apogee.
-
Jeffro
It is completely laughable that 'scholar' imagines that Grabbe is in any way supportive or even complimentary of Furuli. It is impossible for anyone with even the most basic of reading comprehension skills to honestly believe that Grabbe's review is an endorsement.
Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship.
Translation: "Oh dear... not another one!'
He notes, ‘My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian’. This has not deterred him from making some radical re-interpretations...
Translation: "He admits he has no qualifications but makes bold statements anyway."
Gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship ... whereas F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history.
Translation: "Some amateurs have done a good job. Furuli isn't one of them."
Perhaps the most telling point is his rather naive argument...
Translation: "Naivety typifies his work."
A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing.
Translation: "This volume wasn't."
-
Dansk
Scholar,
Genuine scholars have no fear of revealing who they are, so if you are as genuine as you maintain why won't you reveal your true identity?
If you won't reveal your true identity because of fear of Watchtower this proves yet again what a heinous cult it is by making its adherents live in the shadows. If Watchtower had nothing to hide it would be openly honest and not have its members fearful of asking searching questions.
I'm enjoying the debate, although much of what you say is tiresome because it's been covered before but you won't accept defeat in spite of all the evidence proving you are wrong. Still, if you hadn't come here I wouldn't have learnt even more information about Watchtower lies, because those who have answered you so intelligently, such as AlanF and Alleymom, etc., have supplied the necessary information to back up their arguments. You are doing exJWs and those who are fading a great service because you are representative of the foolishness espoused by Watchtower and are exposing it to the ridicule it deserves.
Ian
-
scholar
Alan F
4466
So where and why not has Jonsson's muddle been reviewed as a Book Review which is the case with Furuli's latest tome.? Please no excuses just get the job done if you have any intellectual spine. A score of one out of twenty is a vast improvement over Jonsson who scores a zero. What the prominent SDA scholar had to say will be revealed when I receive further in formation from Furuli but if you cannot get Jonsson moving then I do not see why I have to reveal other opinions of Furuli's momentous contribution.
When you say Jonsson's work does not need a review then what you are admitting that his work is simply amateurish with no scholarly merit, a piece of worthless 'cult bashing'.
Grabbe's review of Furuli was hardly sarcastic but simply expressed a different opinion in fact he paid Furuli a compliment in stating that Furuli's thesis was a rewriting of scholarship. You pay Furuli a giant compliment when you compare Furuli's thesis with that of the gravitation theory. The so called masses of data supporting the Neo-Babylonian chronology is yet to be fully tested and Furuli unlike Jonsson has the academic credentials to subject current thinking to the blowtorch. There must be something drastically wrong with such secular chronology because the Bible proves there is a twenty year gap between the sacred and secular chronologies.
Regardless of how many lines of evidence used to support current Neo-Babylonian chronology it still conflicts with the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah and the reference work that you have cited endorses 586 rather than Jonsson's 587 date and does not endorse ant precise ending of the Assyrian World Power which is pivotal to the Jonsson hypothesis. So your qoutation from DOTHB simply illustrates current thinking on chronology but methinks Furuli 's research will shake such thinking to its core.
Your quotation from the article by Depuydt indicates apart from sourcing Jonsson's work that there is now a need to prove Ptolemy's canon and that a "shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead". Such a paradigm shift has already begun with the researching of Babylonian and Egyptian chronology in Furuli's forthcoming second volume.
In regard to your support of Cagni that he himself is not cited in the article ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS in the same reference and of course neither is Jonsson.
Your claim that Neo-Babylonian chronology solidly nails down the coffin lid on Watchtower chronology is simply wishful thinking because such chronology cannot account for the bib lical seventy years and falls short of some twenty years without mentioning the other problems of incomplete Babylonian and Egyptian history.
Bible Students from the time of Russell have been well served by a carefully crafted biblical chronology that with some fine tuning over many decades has contributed in somme small to the faith in the prophetic word. This contrasts well with secular chronologies base upon the theories of higher critics and poztates who have lost their faith in the truths and beauty of God's Word.
scholar JW