by Alleymom 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
Does all of this mean that the New World Translation Bible written by the society is now debunk? That it is not accurate, not a true interpretation of the Hebrew Language? Does this mean that they forced the language to fit their teaching, doctrines etc.?
Blueblades
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-March/031717.html
Also note James Spinti's disclaimer, in which he says that Eisenbrauns does not "distribute" Rolf Furuli's book(s); it lists them.
I'm puzzled by the distinction he draws. When looking through an Eisenbrauns catalog, how can one distinguish between books which are "distributed" and books which are "listed"?
[Edited to say -- I think what Spinti must mean is that Eisenbrauns does not publish Rolf's books. But everyone in the thread knows that.]
Marjorie
Marjorie,
I'm puzzled by the distinction he draws. When looking through an Eisenbrauns catalog, how can one distinguish between books which are "distributed" and books which are "listed"?
Yes, as 'James' noted, book publishers and book distributors are two distinct arms of the book industry. Being a book publisher implies a relationship with the author, being a distributor does not. I think he was trying to distance Eisenbraun from such a relationship with Rolf Furuli in the service of accuracy.
It is a shame that Rolf Furuli, whos linguistic talents are indisputable has attached himself toi the WTS baggage. In order to support their cause and their conclusions he has invested energy in projects that are of little significance and that confound his talents, and has also been proved on more than one occasion of at the very least, handling the truth carelessly.
I think it all rather sad.
HS
It's all your (apostate) fault Furuli is getting hammered by his peers. That's what this site says at least, http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2636&reply=9#msg9 It's always the apostates fault that the reson apologists can't defend themselves. These people just don't want to wake up from this dream! Why is it so hard to admit that they might just be wrong on certain things. Anyway check out the site it's very funny to see them trying to make up excusses to defend Furuli.
Marjorie, if for example you type Oded Lipschits as author you will note that all his books are actually published by Eisenbrauns.
whereami, I sometimes look at that site, too bad some of the posters do not dare to come here to confront their ideas
For those interested, I copied and pasted below the rest of Furuli's summaries of his most recent books:
Its aim is to find quality rather than quantity, and this means that the focus is on finding the semantic
meaning (uncancellable meaning) of the different parts of the Hebrew verbal system, in contrast with
conversational pragmatic implicature. Different characteristics of verbal clauses, such as temporal
reference, modality, iterativity, and completedness are caused by the interplay of different factors.
Modern textbooks and monographs focus on the uses and functions of the conjugations and stems, and
by this show the results of this interplay. But this basically represents the conversational pragmatic
implicature of verb phrases and not the semantic meaning of each part of the verbal system.
Chapter 1 is a review of the basic viewpoints regarding the classical Hebrew conjugations for
the past one thousand years; the setting being the number and nature of the conjugations as seen by
each scholar.
Chapter 2 discusses the principles behind the distinction between semantic meaning and
conversational pragmatic implicature. A set of new parameters for the discussion of aspect is
presented, and the differences between English and Hebrew aspects are discussed.
Chapter 3 has a diachronic setting and asks whether the semantic meaning of the verbs are
different in the younger parts of the Tanakh compared with the older ones. The verbal systems of
Akkadian, the Amarna letters. Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Aramaic are compared with the Hebrew verbal
system, and the impact of the Masoretic pointing on the understanding of the verbal system is
discussed.
Chapter 4 deals with the meaning of the infinite forms: the participle represents the root idea
of the lexeme, and the infinitive the verbal idea of the root. The function of these forms is described in
order to illuminate the use of the wayyiqtol form..
Chapter 5 deals with the yiqtol form, and its use is compared with the use of the wayyiqtol. It
is shown that 1,027 yiqtols have past reference; and 270 clauses with wayyiqtols are compared with 289
clauses with yiqtols with past reference. The conclusion is that in most cases the reason for the choice
of a yiqtol rather than a wayyiqtol is that the author wanted another word element to precede the verb;
896 of the 1,027 yiqtols with past reference are preceded by such a word element. If the word order
were changed, the yiqtol would probably be changed into a wayyiqtol.
The conclusions of chapters 3, 4, and 5 lead up to chapter 6 where the wayyiqtol is discussed.
Much evidence is given that the way(y)- prefix is the conjunction w (pronounced waw). Examples of
wayyiqtols with the same subject and of yiqtols followed by wayyiqtols in non-past and past contexts
are given. The pleonastic use of waw is discussed, and examples of wayyiqtols with present, present
completed, and future reference are listed. All these examples suggest that the wayyiqtol is a yiqtol
with prefixed waw. There are four situations where the imperfective nature of a verb can be shown:
conative, ingressive, and resultative events, and events where one action intersects a state that holds or
an action that continues and that is expressed by a wayyiqtol. Examples of such situations are given,
and they suggest that wayyiqtol is imperfective.
Chapter 7 deals with the qatal and weqatal. Several scholars believe that qatal has some kind
of static property. A comparison between the 2,505 qatals and 2,461 yiqtols with present reference
suggests that there is no static-fientive opposition between the two. Those who see the conjugations as
aspects almost universally view qatal as signaling complete or completed situations. When seemingly
imcomplete events are described (present or future), the action is viewed as complete in the mind of the
author. 203 examples of qatals with present reference, and 97 with future reference are discussed, in
order to show that qatal can signal both incomplete (unbounded) and complete(d) (bounded) situations.
The conclusion is that the qatal form represents the perfective aspect, though with a meaning different
from the English perfective aspect.
The penultimate stress of first-person singular and second-person singular masculine of the
weqatal is discussed, and it is shown that 1,232 forms have ultimate and 422 have penultimate stress.
There is a clear pattern, but not full consistency.
The conclusion of the previous chapters is that classical Hebrew has only two conjugations:
yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol representing the imperfective aspect, and qatal and weqatal representing
the perfective one. If this is true, how can we account for the use of verbs in the corpus? This is
discussed in chapter 8. On the one hand we have the situation that any finite or infinite form can be
used to signal the same meaning. On the other hand we find clear patterns where particular verbs are
used for particular purposes. The following factors contribute to the seemingly chaotic use: (1) The
aspects are not mutually exclusive, but there are both similarities and differences. (2) When the
requirement for precision in communication is low, any form can be used; when it is high, particular
forms must be used. (3) Linguistic conventions create particular patterns in the choice of forms. Five
different groups of passages are discussed, where different verb forms are used to signal the same
meaning. Then four different groups are discussed, where the imperfective rather than the perfective
aspect ought to be used. The last part of the chapter discusses the interplay of different discourse
factors.
Chapter 9 gives a summary of the conclusions. It shows that the present model can account
for all uses of verb forms in classical Hebrew without exceptions, and discusses whether this suggests
that the definitions are too vague. The practical consequence of the conclusions for Bible translation is
discussed, and the possible application of the verbal model presented here to the verbal systems of the
cognate languages.
Paperback, 516 pages. Publication date: June 2006. Price: 300 NOK (Appox: € 39, US $ 46) plus
postage.
[Note the following part of his conclusion: "On the one hand we have the situation that any finite or infinite form can be used to signal the same meaning." If waw+perfect = perfect (the claim of Furuli and the NWT translators) and waw+perfect = imperfect (based on the evidence for waw consecutive) than perfect = imperfect. However, Furuli does agree that "when the requirement for precision in communication...is high, particular forms must be used." Only in these situations will he allow for a distinction between aspects (albeit a distinction delineated by his new definition of aspect), but, even when he deems the requirement for precision to be high, he does not think it appropriate to distinguish between, for example, perfect and waw+perfect.]
Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology compared with the chronology of the
Bible Volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews
Volume II Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology
Rolf J. Furuli
The two volumes represent a new approach to chronological studies. The conclusion of Parker
and Dubberstein and the traditional chronological model is not used as a point of departure. But
hundreds of pictures, copies and transcriptions of cuneiform tablets have been studied, and important
tablets have been collated. This has led to new chronological schemes for the four empires.
In Volune I it is argued that a great part of the intercalary months reported by Parker and
Dubberstein for the Persian Empire are questionable. It is further argued that a strong case can be made
in favor of a reign of Bardiya between Cambyses and Darius I of eighteen instead of seven months, and
this will make confusion in the king list of Claudius Ptolemy. The cuneiform tables also suggest:
• A co-regency of Darius I and Xerxes of eleven years.
• The reign of Artaxerxes I should be pushed back ten years,
and he reigned 51 and not 41 years.
• There is one extra year between Artaxerxes I and Darius II.
The conclusion drawn in volume II is that the New Babylonian Empire should be expanded by twenty
years. This means that Nebuchadnezzar II started to reign in 624 and not in 604 B.C.E., as is almost
universally believed. The New Assyrian and the Egyptian empires are pushed back twenty years as
well. As a basis for the aforementioned conclusions the following subjects are discussed:
• Cuneiform tablets used as evidence for the traditional chronology are analyzed.
• Contracts and royal inscriptions that suggest an expansion of the
New Babylonian Empire are analyzed
• More than 60 pages are used for an analysis of VAT 4956. The
conclusion is that the lunar data on the tablet better fit 588 than
568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
• The few other astronomical tablets relevant to the New Babylonian
chronology are discussed.
• The many tablets from the last twenty years of the New Assyrian
Empire that contradict each other are discussed.
• The values of the New Assyrian astronomical reports are assessed.
• Problems with the Assyrian Epynom lists are pointed out.
• The reigns of the Assyrian kings and their chronology are compared
with the chronology of the kings of Judah.
Vol I: 251 p. paperback. Publication date: June 2006. Price: NOK 250 (Appox: € 30, US $ 40) plus
postage; volume II: ca. 350 p. paperback. Publication date: December 2006. Price NOK 280 (Appox:
€ 34, US $ 45) plus postage.
Thanks Veradico. Furuli's book on chronology vol. II is still not available (I guess because of translation not being finished). On his website he does make an interesting comment:
A word of caution
Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. And any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, Steel, and Brack-Bernsen, but it asks about the origin and quality of the tablets in question, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal years of real kings. Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much more numerous and much more complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established "the only true chronology", but that it has demonstrated that neither the accepted chronology which is based on P&D is "the only true chronology" .
There is some truth in it. What Furuli fails to mention is that Neo Babylonian chronology is well supported by historical documents and is surely not a period where a lot of discussion is still going on among scholars (except on details). Furuli basically rejects 90% of the accepted chronology from the 5th to the 7th century BCE. Honestly, on numbers alone, what are the chances that he is right?
