587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

AnnOMaly

Thank you for typing out that PD list, Alleymom. The later lists give the same pattern.
(There are other places in his charts where he has sloppy errors. For instance, on page 318 he gives Sabatu 1, 587 as 2/22. But on the next page, he has Sabatu 6, 587 as 2/26.)
You will have seen, too, that there are dozens in that appendix section alone. And we haven't even begun on the ones in the main chapters or other appendices! If amateurs can spot so many problems, I dread to think what any expert will find.
I hope your health is on the up now.
Alleymom

AnnOMaly :: Thank you for typing out that PD list, Alleymom. The later lists give the same pattern.
Yes. The later lists in PD go up to 75 CE, and there is not one instance where Nisan 1 falls on a date in May. (Incidentally, as you may have noticed, although PD gives the dates as reckoned from midnight to midnight, I used the date from the previous day, since the Babylonian day, like the Jewish day, started at sunset.)
Marjorie: (There are other places in his charts where he has sloppy errors. For instance, on page 318 he gives Sabatu 1, 587 as 2/22. But on the next page, he has Sabatu 6, 587 as 2/26.)
AnnOMaly :: You will have seen, too, that there are dozens in that appendix section alone. And we haven't even begun on the ones in the main chapters or other appendices! If amateurs can spot so many problems, I dread to think what any expert will find.
Yes, there are numerous examples of simple errors in the charts. Just to spell this out for lurkers, I am talking about simple mistakes such as the one I mentioned above, from p. 318 and p.319:
If Sabatu 1, 587 = Feb. 22 (as Furuli says on p. 318)
then Sabutu 2 = Feb. 23
Sabutu 3 = Feb. 24
Sabatu 4 = Feb. 25
Sabatu 5 = Feb. 26
and Sabatu 6 = Feb. 27.
But on p. 319, Furuli says Sabatu 6 = Feb. 26.
There are lots of these errors. The charts are hopelessly confused.
Marjorie
AnnOMaly

(Incidentally, as you may have noticed, although PD gives the dates as reckoned from midnight to midnight, I used the date from the previous day, since the Babylonian day, like the Jewish day, started at sunset.)
I didn't notice. Thanks for alerting me to that.
There are lots of these errors. The charts are hopelessly confused.
Yes they are. They are a mess.
Did you notice what he said about Kasak-Veede on p.296? A big 'Ooops' there! He claimed they took the constellation 'sim' (normally applied to Swallow or southern Pisces) to refer to the 'Bull of Heaven' (i.e. Taurus). They do no such thing! Their article is available online ( http://haldjas.fo 7 lklore.ee/folklore/vol16/planets.pdf ) and they don't mention 'sim' at all. It appears Furuli has got confused with their statement that 'Sin' (the moon-god) was depicted as a horned bull (p.17).
Alleymom

Yes, there are numerous examples of simple errors in the charts. Just to spell this out for lurkers, I am talking about simple mistakes such as the one I mentioned above, from p. 318 and p.319:
If Sabatu 1, 587 = Feb. 22 (as Furuli says on p. 318)
then Sabutu 2 = Feb. 23
Sabutu 3 = Feb. 24
Sabatu 4 = Feb. 25
Sabatu 5 = Feb. 26
and Sabatu 6 = Feb. 27.
But on p. 319, Furuli says Sabatu 6 = Feb. 26.
There are lots of these errors. The charts are hopelessly confused.
Here is another example. The numbers in Furuli's charts for the month of Ayyaru do not add up. These are simple errors. No Akkadian or knowledge of astronomy is required to see that the numbers are wrong.
Month of Ayyaru, year 588 BCE, according to Furuli's chronology.(Taken from Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, volume II, Rolf Furuli, 2007.)
If Ayyaru 1, 588 BCE = May 31, 588 BCE, as Furuli says on p. 297,
then:

Ayyaru 2 = June 1
Ayyaru 3 = June 2
Ayyaru 4 = June 3
Ayyaru 5 = June 4
Ayyaru 6 = June 5
Ayyaru 7 = June 6
Ayyaru 8 = June 7
Ayyaru 9 = June 8
Ayyaru 10 = June 9
Ayyaru 11 = June 10
Ayyaru 12 = June 11
Ayyaru 13 = June 12
Ayyaru 14 = June 13
Ayyaru 15 = June 14
Ayyaru 16 = June 15
Ayyaru 17 = June 16
Ayyaru 18 = June 17
But Furuli’s own numbers disagree:
Furuli, p. 299 Ayyaru 3 = June 4Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 10 = June 10 Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 18 = June 17
The first list was of Furuli’s dates for the month of Ayyaru in the year 588 BCE.
Now, look at the same charts forthe month of Ayyaru in the year 568 BCE.
If Ayyaru 1, 568 BCE = May 21, 568 BCE, as Furuli says on p. 297,
Then:
Ayyaru 2 = May 22
Ayyaru 3 = May 23
Ayyaru 4 = May 24
Ayyaru 5 = May 25Ayyaru 6 = May 26
Ayyaru 7 = May 27
Ayyaru 8 = May 28
Ayyaru 9 = May 29
Ayyaru 10 = May 30Ayyaru 11 = May 31
Ayyaru 12 = June 1
Ayyaru 13 = June 2
Ayyaru 14 = June 3
Ayyaru 15 = June 4
Ayyaru 16 = June 5
Ayyaru 17 = June 6
Ayyaru 18 = June 7
But Furuli’s numbers are once again inconsistent:
Furuli, p. 299 Ayyaru 5, 568 BCE = May 26Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 10, 568 BCE = May 31
Furuli, p. 301 Ayyaru 18, 568 BCE = June 8
Marjorie
scholar

AnnOMaly and Alleymom
I note that both of you claim to have found many errors in Furuli's published second volume. My response is that even in his first volume there were some typos which even I emailed this to him and I believe that there was a second reprint of that first volume. In the case of the second volume there may well be many typo errors or in some cases the fault lies in the documents.
In any event both of you two ladies have good computer skills and have already found many 'mistakes' which either need correction or clarification. Why not both of you together compile a list and send it to Furuli also forward me a copy and I will ensure that the matter is followed through. I may even phone him shortly and just mention those couple of things about Nisanu 1 shown in some years as beginning in May.
In the interests of fairness and honesty and Christian ethics if we have some issue then we should take the matter up with the other person so I appeal to your sense of ethics to do what is right. I believe it is most unfair to air publicly the mistakes of others or perceived mistakes without first communicating with that person.
scholar JW
a Christian

Scholar,
You wrote: In the interests of fairness and honesty and Christian ethics if we have some issue then we should take the matter up with the other person so I appeal to your sense of ethics to do what is right. I believe it is most unfair to air publicly the mistakes of others or perceived mistakes without first communicating with that person.
How then do you explain the Watchtower Society's total failure to "communicate" with Ray Franz before "publicly" disfelowshipping him? And how do explain their failure to "communicate" to Carl Olof Jonsson all of his supposed mistakes before "publicly" disfellowshipping him?
veradico

When someone has written and published a book, its errors do not have to be discussed privately. In fact, since the book has an influence on the public, the discussion of its errors should be made public. It is not as if Furuli has done some private injury to or "sin" against these women. They are simply claiming he has made some blunders in his attempt to provide academic support for the Watchtower's chronology.
AnnOMaly

When someone has written and published a book, its errors do not have to be discussed privately. In fact, since the book has an influence on the public, the discussion of its errors should be made public. It is not as if Furuli has done some private injury to or "sin" against these women. They are simply claiming he has made some blunders in his attempt to provide academic support for the Watchtower's chronology.
Absolutely right, veradico. What Furuli has said is in the public domain and is up for public discussion.
'Scholar,' as I said on the other thread, the mistakes go way beyond typos. And you cannot blame the documents. I see you are reluctant to consider the disturbing notion that the flaws lie in Furuli's lap alone, but unfortunately they do. Perhaps you, scholar, since you are one of his pals, could relate some of Alleymom's and my posts to him. He would probably take it better from you than from us. Or you could even direct him to this thread.
scholar

a Christian
Post 238
I cannot comment on the Ray Franz incident because the only information we have about this is supplied by Franz himself and not the parties to his expulsion. In other words we only have one side of the story and it is the stupid one who only relies on one side rather than both sides before making a judgement.
This however is not the case with Carl Jonsson's expulsion as he made public the body of correspondence between himself and the Society over his treatise and one can see by reading the letters that Jonsson is not a man of integrity but was dishonest even from his very first letter. Jonsson from that time had already spread his false ideas to others which eventually led to his expulsion. Jonsson on the face of the evidence was dealt with fairly in my opinion.
scholar JW
scholar

AnnOMaly
What Furuli has published publicly is certainly up for public criticism but then if you have not bothered to check with the author about alleged errors first and you are no expert in this very technical field then you are simply giving your opinion which is just as useful as Joe Bblo's opinion.
There are no doubt some typos but it is only your opinion that such errors go beyond typos. You are not a scholar, have not published anything in this field and do not know the Semitic languages. I could easily say that Furuli's data is accurate until proven otherwise by other experts.
Further, the Appendix is that of the planets and the stars and are not lunar data, further the data raises the issue as to whether these positions are observed or calculated so these provide the tabulations for calendrical months and years. In order, to falsify Furuli's data you woold need to produce your own research to see whether Furuli's conclusions are valid.
In other words, put up or shut up.
scholar JW

587/607 Question...

Share this