by cultswatter 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Jeffro
post 1551
When the going gets tough and you run out of argument then true to form you rely on insults which reflects poorly on your integrity and character. It is insulting to call biblical interpretation 'drivel' and only proves that your interpretation is baseless. Anyway I wish you a happy and safe trip and look forward to our regular jousts;
scholar JW
When the going gets tough and you run out of argument then true to form you rely on insults which reflects poorly on your integrity and character.
LOL... Biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black EVER!
It is insulting to call biblical interpretation 'drivel' and only proves that your interpretation is baseless.
You attack valid interpretations all the time, and then back them up with absolutely nothing.
Anyway I wish you a happy and safe trip and look forward to our regular jousts;
I will indeed have a very good trip. And my jousting lance will be well sharpened upon my return. In the meantime, you may like to review the material afresh with an impartial perspective. Forget your biases, read the scriptures as they are written, and stop being a pawn. Good luck.
scholar,
do you want me to post a list of books you should read before discussing the matter further? I do not see what your problem is in sending a couple of pages by e-mail. As I said, I will reply separately about my views on Rolf Furuli (which does not mean that I will not purchase his book/s).
jeanV
post 170
Post a list of books that you have read on chronology and you should purchase or borrow Furuli's first and his forthcoming second volume;
scholar JW
By the way, may I ask what you think of the 1935 news - I mean you think the WTS has flawless chronolgy and although I dont want to get off topic I am curious about what you think of the ""adjustment"" in 1935 thinking. Do you think the old 607/1914 might be ""adjusted""" also
Scholar - since the WTS are masters of flawless chronology , what do you think of the 1935 date change in recent WT magazines?
stllajwexelder
No doubt you are referring to 'Questions From Readers' pp.30-1 in the Watchtower, May 1, 2007 issue which refers to 1935 as the time when the heavenly hope ceased for Christians who from that time onward would have the earthly hope as opposed to the heavenly hope. This is not 'new light' as the wiley poztates propose but simply a re-articulation of previous held understanding of the Scriptures. Celebrated WT scholars have never held to a so-called 'flawless chronology because this subject is built on two premises namely methodology and interpretation, both of which are subject to 'fine tuning'. What we do say is that our chronology is wholly biblical and is consistent with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.In short, our chronology is the most accurate as all of the evidence both secular and biblical clearly proves.
scholar JW
Celebrated WT scholars have never held to a so-called 'flawless chronology...
Scholar, what of the WTS writings regarding 1925? Rutherford asserted that this was when Satan's empire would fall and when the Messianic Kingdom would be "fully established." About the certainty of this we read...
"This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct...." [Watchtower 1922 July 15, p.217]
These things did not come to pass as written, yet they claimed this chronology was "divine." And isn't "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" another way of saying "flawless"?
Scholar,
Here is the list of books I have:
Sachs/Hunger: Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 1 & 5
Grayson: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
Glassner: Mesopotamian Chronicles
Dandamaev: Slavery in Babylonia
Lipschits: The fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule
Thiele: Mysterious numbers of Hebrew Kings
Finegan: Handbook of Biblical Chronology
Van Mieroop: Cuneiform texts and the writing of history
Van Mieroop: A history of the Ancient Near East
Vanderhooft: The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the latter prophets
I recommend also looking at www.caeno.org and www.livius.org
With regard to Furuli, I have followed his comments on the web for quite a while and I cannot say to be impressed. To me, doing a research means trying to establish the truth about something.
His approach is totally different. He believes 607 to be correct and works from there. This is not a scholarly way of operating. I do not question his knowledge of Semitic languages. This does not automatically make him an expert in ANE history and chronology.
He is totally biased and therefore he loses out on credibility.
One comment that he made struck my attention, when he stated that the whole Neo Babylonian Chronology hangs on VAT4956 you find it here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-October/008691.html even myself, an ignorant on the subject, know that this is not the case.
That was the time when he was trying to prove VAT4956 wrong.
As you probably know, he now accepts the astronomy of the diary, but believes it was the mix-up of two diaries (one planetary & one lunar, referring to different years). When they were “merged” into one diary, the wrong date was assigned to it. You can find his comments, reported by thirdwitness on this link: http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=311102&startcat=501&start=101&CategoryID=2967&ThreadID=2402573
I am curious at how he will justify it, reason why I said I might purchase his second book.
I am still interested in the chart you mentioned, because I assume that to be from other sources and not to be made up by him. If you are unable to provide it, I’ll try with someone else.
You probably have noticed that researching the period on the internet you mostly come across information from JW or ex-JW, because they are the only two groups that are interested in 607 or 587. Scholars do not care whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, 586, 607, 551 or any other date. They just try to be objective and transmit accurate history. If they have to reconsider something they will. If tablets seem to contradict the accepted chronology they will not discard them, they will try to understand why.
So to me, they are a lot more trustworthy than Furuli.
Ancient history is not a perfect science. Neither is the Bible, I am afraid. If Furuli examined the Bible and the cornerstones of his Oslo Chronology with the same criticism he uses to examine the accepted Neo Babylonian chronology, I doubt any of the two would stand. You’ll always find loopholes and contradictions, no matter what you examine.
These things did not come to pass as written, yet they claimed this chronology was "divine." And isn't "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct" another way of saying "flawless"?
Well I would sure say so!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli
Rolf Johan Furuli works as a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo.
He is currently involved in translation of non-Christian religious texts, and is considered an expert in ancient languages. In 2005, he finished a doctoral thesis suggesting a new understanding of Classical Hebrew. This study has been privately published.
He is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and have written works about Bible translation and Biblical issues.
Furuli started his studies of New Babylonian chronology in 1984 and has attempted to defend the Biblical chronology advocated by the Wachtower Bible and Tract Society. He has defended the view that Jerusalem was destroyed by the babylonians in 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE.
