Hubby is Researching 607...

by cognac 183 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  scholar: "It is simply your opinion that Furuli's data is incorrect."

  Great!
  If it's only Ann's opinion, then you must have come up with lots and lots of non-JW scholars who are of the opinion that Furuli's data is correct!
  Since you probably have a huge list, can you narrow it down to a list of scholars who meet these rather basic criteria:

  • Non-JW, No IBSA connections
  • Legitimate historians for that time and region with university education
  • Not pyramidologist
  • Alive today

  Just to be reasonable, you only need to provide a list of about 20 of the most scholarly scholars who agree with Furuli's 607B.C. assertation.

  And to be fair, once you've provided your list, perhaps Ann would be willing to provide a list of 20 non-apostate-JW scholars who disagree with Furuli's 607B.C. conjecture.
• 

  Black Sheep

  I think we all know why Scallop doesn't just deal with the data and would rather play the 'my father is better than your father' game that most of us gave up in childhood.
• 

  White Dove

  So, has Hubby found anything interesting concerning that year? I couldn't find it anywhere in the history books or online. It kept me going back to 576 or something BC.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  “scholar” said:

  2, The date 607 BCE is based on the historical record of the Bible, utilizes regnal data (the Babylonian list of rulers – Mad) from secular chronologies and other secular historians such as Josephus.

  Then “scholar” said on the same page (#2):

  Babylonian list of rulers and their reigns (regnal data – Mad) is fraught with problems so and agreement as to details is impossible but there are many reference works that have various proposals for your attention.

  So which is it? Regnal data can be trusted, or it can’t? Also, are you finally admitting that you cannot prove from the Bible alone (based on the first statement above) that Jerusalem fell 607 years from the common era? I have been waiting for MONTHS for an answer to this from you. Bet you thought I forgot, didn’t you?

  If you have learned so much from the WTS, why don’t you know that you should put at least a few pages between contradictory statements?

  I am not interested in writing up a long list of references or Bibliography or sources because… in 7 pages of posts I have only been able to name one wop, JW linguist that MUST be right because he agrees with me! *This last sentence is a blatant alteration, by Mad Dawg, of the original post. Mad Dawg believes in full disclosure even if it is only to prevent the original author from pissing and moaning about being misquoted by vile, heathen, mischievous apostates.*
• 

  isaacaustin

  Looks like 'scholar' is unable to deal with hard facts and his list of pseudoscholars being exposed for what they are- trash.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  It is simply your opinion that Furuli's data is incorrect. Astronomy programs are not apostate but the interpretation and application of those programs is sullied by apostates who have an agenda.

  What is there to interpret or sully, Neil? It's very simple.

  Either a planet or the moon was x degrees away from star y on such-a-date at such-a-time ... or it was not.

  Furuli's claimed positions are either in harmony with the astro-programs' positions ... or they are not.

  Either the astro-programs' positions harmonize with the tablet's stated positions ... or they do not.

  If you think my 'agenda' means I am giving false information about what the astro-programs calculate, then please expose my errors.

  Even someone as admittedly ill-equipped as yourself can learn how to operate an astronomy program. Naturally you're not going to do that because you are too afraid to look. The ultimate horror for you is that I might actually have presented correct data. You feel safer cocooning yourself in your prejudices. That is so sad for someone who prides himself on being a 'scholar.'
• 

  startingover

  Scholar said:

  It is simply your opinion that Furuli's data is incorrect. Astronomy programs are not apostate but the interpretation and application of those programs is sullied by apostates who have an agenda.

  If anyone has an agenda, it's the WTS. They know that without 607 they are just another religion.
• 

  Goshawk

  I couldn't get either Astro Programs Starry Night Pro or Red Shift to support the 606/7 date.

  What am I doing wrong?
• 

  Alwayshere

  Watchtower Society can't get 607 either. They say King Neb. first rule is 624. 2Kings 25:8-9 says "it was King Neb. 19th year when Jerusalem was desolated." 18 years later is 606.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Any use of a astroprogram and the interpretation of the data is dependent on the knowledge of the subject and is best left to professionals rather than pretend amateurs. I have no confidence in your use of such programs and the interpretation of the data.

  It is not the point that your agenda is giving false information to conform to an 'apostate' viewpoint but whether you are competent in the matters that you are commenting on and I see evidence of your competence. Furuli on the other hand demonstrates competence insuch matters and that commands my attaention.

  Learning how to operate a astro program does not qualify one to be critical of anothers's use of such programs but rather it is the understanding of the subject that is more important.

  scholar JW