Someone doesn't like Alan F. & Carl O.

whereami

Was reading this apologist website regarding Rolf Furuli new book. Check out these two post that were made:

JW1983 - Rolf Furuli

A slightly revised edition of "Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian
Chronology, Volume I was published in 2006. The book discusses Persian
chronology, what the Bible says about the length of the Babylonian exile,
and it includes criticisms of the chronology of Parker and Dubbertein.

Due to unforseen circumstances Volume II has been a little delayed, but we
expect it to arrive from the printer in about 30 days. The conclusion of the
discussion of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is that the evidence speaks in favor
of an expansion of this empire by 20 years. In the part discussing the
Neo-Assyrian Empire, evidence is presented in favor of rejecting the pivotal
date 15 June 763 B.C.E. (the solar eclipse in the eponymy of Bur-Sagale) and
for an expansion of this Empire as well. The conclusion of the part dealing
with Egypt, is that an absolute chronology cannot be made, because of lack
of astronomical data, and that any relative chronology is uncertain. The Appendix
includes a 60-page detailed linguistic, philological, and astronomical
analysis of the next oldetst Astronomical Diary, VAT 4956, and a similar
25-page analysis of the oldest Astronomical Diary, BM 32312 and the Saturn
tablet BM 767380+7683, supposed to be from the reign of Kandalanu.

One interesting characteristic of these old cuneiform tablets is that the
positions of the planets in relation to the stars and star constellations
very often are not exactly correct, but only approximately correct. If an
astrologer observed a planet, he would give an exact position, but if the
position was computed, we would not expect accuracy. Therefore, the nature
of the mentioned positions suggest that backward calculations were much more
common than hitherto believed.

The books can be ordered from Awatu Publishers, [email protected]

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [NewChronology] Rolf Furuli

[edit] [delete] Posted at 14:12 - 16/07/2007

abrother -

After reading his book, Jonsson and AlanF and their dupes will have to bury themselves in cow manure.
[edit] [delete] Posted at 14:48 - 16/07/2007

slimboyfat

Charming. I wonder whether Furuli will discuss why the Isaiah book says we don't need to take the seventy years for Tyre literally and what implications that has for the Jewish exile...doubt it somehow.

Slim

slimboyfat

Could you possibly say which apologetic website?

Slim

OUTLAW

I would love to see Rolf Furuli debate AlanF here on the board..Furuli wouldn`t have a chance.....I had no idea AlanF had Dupes!..LOL!!...OUTLAW

Terry

Every argument has a premise. If the premise is false, then; the conclusions based on the premise are false also.

The Watchtower mavens based their so-called Bible (i.e. secular+imagination) Chronology on something. That is how they get dates in the first place (all of them wrong, by the way).

The "something" the Watchtower bases its computations on have been demonstrably false.

What to do? What to do? What to do?

The only possible rebuttle is this.

1.All computations are without conclusive proof because they are not accurate, therefore; you cannot prove conclusively we are wrong using secular sources.

2.By fuzzing out the sources and declaring them inaccurate we cover our tracks.

One interesting characteristic of these old cuneiform tablets is that the
positions of the planets in relation to the stars and star constellations
very often are not exactly correct, but only approximately correct. If an
astrologer observed a planet, he would give an exact position, but if the
position was computed, wewould not expect accuracy.

Parse this slowly, if you will.

Something involving astronomy, dates and numbers is correct or incorrect. What can it mean to say it is "not exactly correct"?

"Approximately" can mean almost anything. For example, my pants cost $64 is approximately correct. Exactly correct would be "my pants cost $64.48.

Unless and until you SPECIFY by how much the postitions are "not exactly correct" you haven't done much but muddy the water.

You have to know the correct positions first. Then, you have to be able to calculate the difference. The result will give you a number which can be stated specifically as a percentage of correct or incorrect. For example: "The astronomical calculations were off by 20% or 1% or .1468 per cent.

You see?

It is a ploy to cast doubt and give wiggle room to a failed argument.

Either the dates set by the Watchtower Society have always proved to be accurate or they have not. Actual human experience in the last century demonstrates the Watchtower to be False Prophets.

The facts stand.

On a side note: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has developed an entire industry devoted to putting out fires concerning the utter lack of corroboration concerning history of native American peoples. DNA evidence demonstrates there are 4 Asian strands that contributed to the American "Indians" and not Semite forebears!

What does the Mormon Church do by way of rebuttal? The same thing as the Watchtower Society does about its chronology! It disputes the accuracy of DNA studies!!

A liar with their pants on fire will scream almost anything to put the fire out!

stillajwexelder

you haven't done much but muddy the water.

Exactly what Ray Franz describes in C of C - for Aid book etc, they set out to muddy the waters on 587 to allow for 607 BCE

Open mind

Terry:

As usual, nicely stated. And you gave me a nice visual chuckle with this:

A liar with their pants on fire will scream almost anything to put the fire out!

For some reason I was picturing a couple GB members and a few hyper-dogmatic local elders.

Open Mind

AlanF

Carl Jonsson is the expert here, and if history is any guide, he'll pretty well demolish Furuli's 2nd book just as he did the 1st. Obviously, Furuli isn't approaching the subject objectively, but with the goal of reaffirming his religious beliefs. That leads to all manner of scholastic dishonesty and manipulations.

AlanF

whereami

Here you Slim- http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/

changeling

Someone help me out here: what is Furuli saying? How is he in in conflict with Carl O? Does this have anything to do with the 607/587 contoversy? A brief and simple summary would be nice.

Thanks,

changeling

Someone doesn't like Alan F. & Carl O.

Share this