Questions concerning 607

by beavis 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 741

  Furuli in his Introduction makes no false claims about his credentials and openly admits where his expertise lies and where it does not. Jonsson on the other hand makes no such admissions but pretends that he is some 'expert.' in all areas and that what he has written must be correct even though his research is secondary in nature offering no fresh insights. In short, he is simply a disgruntled ex-Witness with an agenda.

  If you have a problem with Furuli's methodology then you write to him about and seek an explanation for his claimed use of a secondary source rather than primary source for perhaps there is a very simple explanation. By and large Furuli uses primary sources wherever possible something which Jonsson cannot do.

  I believe that the Reviewer is somehow suspect because I found it impossible to find anu information on Gallagher so is this a pseudonym for someone else because the Review is somewhat suspect in content. If you have information about the Reviewer then please enlighten us.

  Scholar for many years requested that a Literature Review by a respected scholarly journal be made and for the first time this has now happened at scholar's request and yet what is said is rather odd and elevates 607 BCE to the international scholarly community. Bravo!!!!!

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 742

  One thing is certain is that Jonsson wasn't worried about photographs because all that he needed were the opinions of others. Second-hand research is amateurish and unscholarly at best and only 'meaningful for the broader public'. LOL.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  Furuli in his Introduction makes no false claims about his credentials and openly admits where his expertise lies and where it does not.

  Furuli doesn't make false claims about his credentials - that's true. So you would agree with me that he may well be 'an authority' in Semitic languages but not in the other fields essential to his hypothesis.

  Jonsson on the other hand makes no such admissions but pretends that he is some 'expert.'

  Bull! He doesn't 'pretend' anything but brings the existing scholarship together in a methodical fashion.

  If you have a problem with Furuli's methodology then you write to him about and seek an explanation for his claimed use of a secondary source rather than primary source for perhaps there is a very simple explanation.

  I asked him questions last Fall and I'm still waiting on his promise to reply. Why would I ask him more questions for him not to answer?

  I believe that the Reviewer is somehow suspect because I found it impossible to find anu information on Gallagher so is this a pseudonym for someone else because the Review is somewhat suspect in content.

  

  It's a conspiracy!

  Scholar for many years requested that a Literature Review by a respected scholarly journal be made and for the first time this has now happened at scholar's request and yet what is said is rather odd and elevates 607 BCE to the international scholarly community. Bravo!!!!!

  (Talking in the 3rd person again? Most disturbing. )

  Last November you said,

  In contrast, Jonsson has not had a Literature Review published as yet to my knowledge even though his opinion has been published for twenty years.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/3.ashx - post 1498

  You do realize that the review was from the 2005/2006 volume, right?

  I think you've lost the plot a little now, so I'm done.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Digderidoo:

  But surely the WBTS will say that there must be a missing king.

  Yes, the missing Babylonian kings are REAL! Right now they are with the anonymous 'celebrated' WT scholars. They are invisibly present in Egypt measuring the distance from the top of the Great Pyramid of Giza to the Sphinx's sphincter in order to determine the timeline of "this generation". Since Russell was so sure the pyramid established 1914, certainly the measurement to the statue's ass would determine "the end" of the world. Sure, they've falsely predicted the "big A" many, many times. But this time, they're thinking 2012... give or take 30 years.

  Beavis:

  Seriously though, after doing research with Bethel library tools, many dates are left open to interpretation. Frankly, if Jehovah thought it was that important, he would have clearly established an irrefutable record and timeline to illuminate the way for honest hearted truth-seekers. How many Bible prophecies pinpointed Jesus to be the Christ? The time of his appearance and his geneology were right there for the Jewish nation to see. However, when we look at the Scriptural record for Christ's return in Kingdom power, what do we find?

  (Matthew 24:36) "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

  (Luke 21:8) He said: "Look out that YOU are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’ Do not go after them.

  (Colossians 2:8) Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

  I couldn't find any Biblical references to Jesus stating that a cryptic date prophecy would be miraculously discovered by an Adventist studying the Egytian "stone witnesses". However, there are references to those 'prophetically speaking' but in time are proven wrong, false, misleading. Here are examples in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures:

  (Jeremiah 14:14) And Jehovah went on to say to me: "Falsehood is what the prophets are prophesying in my name. I have not sent them, nor have I commanded them or spoken to them. A false vision and divination and a valueless thing and the trickiness of their heart they are speaking prophetically to YOU people.

  (Mark 13:4-7) So Jesus started to say to them: "Look out that nobody misleads YOU. 6 Many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and will mislead many. 7 Moreover, when YOU hear of wars and reports of wars, do not be terrified; [these things] must take place, but the end is not yet.

  Sorry to not give something more helpful, Beavis. But it was actually the Scriptures that helped me understand that 1914 or any manufactured chronology couldn't point to Christ's return, visibly or invisibly. WWI was a great war, but Jesus said, "do not be terrified... the end is not yet." So, 1914, with or without the testimony of the Egytian pyramids, Babylonian rocks, Assyrian crap, Furuli, Jonsson, or CT Russell, is rubbish.

  Scholar:

  Welcome back, brother or sister ! I see that once again Scholar has grown weary of the empty calories of the Watchtower Study Editions and has come to JWD to feast at this Rich Spiritual Banquet. It's evident, too, that Scholar is researching outside of the Governing Body's published food at the proper time. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Scholar really ought not look at such spiritual pornography as produced by 'the world'. No indeed, read the Bible (only the NWT) along with the Society's publications and dream about the pet tiger that will lick up the blood of all JWDers.

  B the X
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 743

  Furuli was upfront and honest about his credentials and he acknowlwdges those areas where he lacks expertise as he outlines in his first volume, page 14. His approach has always been linguistical and does not seek to challenge the findings of archaeo-astronomers but is critical of some of their applications on the basis of his linguistic examination of the primary documents. For this he is more than competent. Jonsson on the hand can do none of these things but simply engage in'cult-bashing'.

  He outlines his methodology in both volumes and seeks to ask new questions by revisiting old terrain which is the very essence of good scholarship.

  It is good that you have asked him questions and you must be patient for the answers for I am confident that he will look after you. If you have any problems then email a list of questions to me so that I can take the matter up with Furuli. Keep your questions short and specific with specific references would help.

  Gallagher whoever he or she is, is a 'mystery' person as despite my best efforts I can find any academic position for this person. It has been observed that apostates are noted for conspiracy and the use of writing under a false names and this applies particularly to Jonsson's closest colleagues.

  This journal AfO is only published annually and is German so it would be easy to miss out on that Review. The University whereupon I obtained my copy has only recently acquired this volume and it is the latest copy in its holdings even though it is for 2005/1006. Besides how is it then that it has taken you so long to post a refernce to it on this forum?

  Methinks that it is you who have lost the plot but unlike you I am far from done.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  His approach has always been linguistical and does not seek to challenge the findings of archaeo-astronomers

  If you can assert that, methinks you haven't realized the import of his theory. One approach has ramifications for the findings in other fields. Disputing the linguistics of an astronomical text will naturally call into question the findings of archeao-astronomers.

  It is good that you have asked him questions and you must be patient for the answers for I am confident that he will look after you. If you have any problems then email a list of questions to me so that I can take the matter up with Furuli. Keep your questions short and specific with specific references would help.

  Thanks but there's no need for an intermediary.

  This journal AfO is only published annually and is German so it would be easy to miss out on that Review. The University whereupon I obtained my copy has only recently acquired this volume and it is the latest copy in its holdings even though it is for 2005/1006. Besides how is it then that it has taken you so long to post a refernce to it on this forum?

  Have you decided to make the American SDA scholar's review public yet? Or are you going to sit on it a while longer?
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 744

  I can only quote what Furuli has actually stated and he is quite clear about his qualifications, motivation and methodology and such are fully expalined very clearly in the Introductions in both volumes. Just read what he says. Jonsson has no qualifications or methodology but as the 'reviewer' says "finest overview of NB chronology available...meaningful for the general public". This therefore, is not research. The book is designed to tear down and not build up.

  If there is no need for an intermediary then don't complain about any perceived delay but be patient.

  Furuli has simply informed me of a written reply from an SDA scholar and so to date I have not received a copy but no doubt this will be forthcoming as he has also informed me that his book has been sent for review by other prominent scholars. All will be revealed in due course. Perhaps you could enlighten all about the status of W. Gallagher? There seems to be a physicist floating around the University of Vienna or Wien. Is he the authority? If so, How is it the case that a scientist did this unusual Review?

  Let us see if you can answer these relevant questions seeing that it was you who first promoted this Review.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  This therefore, is not research. The book is designed to tear down and not build up.

  Not research? Get real! And are you saying it isn't in order to tear down erroneous views? Furuli is also tearing down what he perceives to be an erroneous chronology.

  If there is no need for an intermediary then don't complain about any perceived delay but be patient.

  Who's complaining? I was merely saying how fruitless it would be to ask more questions when the existing ones haven't yet been answered.

  Furuli has simply informed me of a written reply from an SDA scholar and so to date I have not received a copy

  Have you even asked for one?

  Perhaps you could enlighten all about the status of W. Gallagher? There seems to be a physicist floating around the University of Vienna or Wien. Is he the authority? If so, How is it the case that a scientist did this unusual Review?

  (http://www.brill.nl/print.aspx?partid=210&pid=8939 - unfortunately a dodgy link, so page contents posted below)

  Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah New Studies William R. Gallagher Books Available Publication year: 1999 Series: Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, 18 ISBN-13 (i) The ISBN (International Standard Book Number) has been changed from 10 to 13 digits on 1 January 2007 : 978 90 04 11537 8 ISBN-10: 90 04 11537 4 Cover: Cloth Number of pages: xviii, 326 pp. (English), 9 illus. List price: € 120.00 / US$ 179.00 In 701 B.C. the Assyrian king Sennacherib launched his campaign against, a.o., Judah. This event has been recorded in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah, the Biblical war narratives) and, as a consequence, has decisively influenced Jewish and Christian thought. The war, though, has remained obscure for modern historians. The author of this latest volume in Brill's monograph series Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East brings together both Biblical and Assyrian sources on the campaign. Part of these abundant Assyrian materials are new, and consequently enable the author to give new insights on the event itself. A second major result of this study lies in the new, carefully supported interpretations of some Isaiah oracles, and of both the Assyrian and Biblical narratives of Sennacherib's campaign. The meticulous attention given to textual criticism, translation problems, historiographical questions and its cautiously applied literary criticism make it a model of the contextual method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies. Reviews '...a judicious, thorough and invaluable contribution on this perennially fascinating point in ancient history.' K.A. Kitchen, Journal of Semitic Studies. About the author(s) William R. Gallagher, Ph.D. (1992) in Ancient Semitic Philology and Oriental Archaeology, University of Vienna, is author of several articles, including On the Identity of Hêlel Ben Šah?ar of Is. 14:12-15, UF 26 (1994).
• 

  scholar

  AnnOmaly

  Post 745

  Jonsson's book is not research pure and simple but as Gallagher correctly states that it is simply an overview and from my standpoint a bit of 'sult bashing'. Furuli's books are research based raising new questions and seeking a fresh look into current chronologies combined with a radical new hypothesis, oslo chronology.

  I telephoned Rolf at his home and asked whether he had received any communication from an Ann O Maly and he said that he hadn't. Further, he will email me a copy of the SDA complimentary letter as soon as he can find it. Further, he informed that his second volume has been reprinted with some corrections and additions expecially in reply to Jonsson's recent critique and he will forward also tho me that attachment. Further, there is published new research on the beginning of the Babylonian New Year which has been a subject of some controversy. This new journal article should be most interesting with regard to Furuli's data have the year beginning in some years early May.

  I thank you for the update of Gallagher and now I know who and what I am dealing with.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  'Scholar'

  asked whether he had received any communication from an Ann O Maly and he said that he hadn't.

  Our paths crossed on the yahoo New Chronology board last Fall. We exchanged a couple of posts and then he said,

  "I think we now have come far from Rohl and the NC. I therefore will answer Ann privately, since her questions are rather technical." http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/message/24753

  Two weeks later, he posted again on the forum and I reminded him that I was still awaiting a reply. (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/message/24814)

  Further, he will email me a copy of the SDA complimentary letter as soon as he can find it.

  Great.

  Further, he informed that his second volume has been reprinted with some corrections and additions expecially in reply to Jonsson's recent critique and he will forward also tho me that attachment.

  It's good to hear he's listening to constructive criticism and modifying his work accordingly.

  Further, there is published new research on the beginning of the Babylonian New Year which has been a subject of some controversy.

  Details please.

  I thank you for the update of Gallagher

  You're welcome.