Hubby is Researching 607... (page 17)

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1136

Therefore let us leave criticisms of Furuli's theisis to those experts. Let the experts speak.

scholar JW

AnnOMaly

He has received a favourable ... review to his first volume

You claimed this about 2 years ago on your post #1498 where you said,

"Furuli has received a complimentary from an American SDA scholar who reviewed his first volume."

And when asked about it, you said on #1499,

"When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it."

But later (#1500) you added,

"When I get the information from Furuli then I will sit on it until the opportunity arises for it to be made public."

I think 2 years is long enough to sit on it, don't you think? Or do you still not have any more details - if indeed the positive review exists at all?

Therefore let us leave criticisms of Furuli's theisis to those experts. Let the experts speak.

Make your mind up.

I got an email back from my friend at the University of Toronto, well more like the "CC" of the reply to his email from the professor of Astronomy of UofT, the guy in charge of "chronological history of astronomical events" ( cool title !).

In a nutshell, the dating of the astrologigal events in accordance with tablets is done via multiple lines of evidence and for a secular date that has been accepted to be disproven, the majority of those lines of evidence must be rpoven to be false and since most of those lines are also based on multiple lines of evidence also, it would take a archelogical find of epic proportions to call into question the widely accepted dats of the neo-babylonian period.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

scholar: "Let the experts speak."

The experts have spoken volumes by simply ignoring Furuli and his crazy astronomy and make-believe history. Furuli, Watchtower Corp., and other pyramidologists that argue 607BCE have been totally rejected by genuine historians, astronomical researchers, and accurate Bible scholars.

It's the equivalent of some nut coming along and arguing that Columbus' first voyage began in 1472 and he returned to Spain in 1493. The extra 20 years were somehow misplaced, because measurements of the Great Pyramid prove 1472 as the start of his voyage. Will historians even bother with any such "evidence", wasting their time and energy on such nutty theories? Of course not.

I'm afraid that if Furuli continues promoting JW falsehoods ahead of honest research, he won't qualify to be a janitor at the University of Oslo. Oh well, he'll be 67 soon. They'll likely just chalk it up to senility.

elder-schmelder

It would be funny to watch what Supporters of 607BCE would say if the watchtower dropped the 607BCE date, and they were left defending it. (They would be DF'd) LOL

elder-schmelder

PSacramento

The new light to justify the "generation that will not die" dying may just be that 607 is NOT the date that it once was, LOL !!

Alwayshere

Scholar, no matter what you say, you can NEVER prove from the Bible, Jerusalem fell in 607.

AnnOMaly

PSacramento's expert has spoken (thanks for that, PS). And, of course, this professor is representing the consensus of scholarly opinion as we know very well.

Readying myself for another blast of Neil's hot air, LOL.

PSacramento

Ann,

I think the part that hit me the most was the re-realization of whatit means for soemthing to become evidence in a secualr manner, the various lines of evidence needed and the lines of THAT evidence that are also needed.

Basically to prove or disprove one date we would need to prove/disprove many others and other lines of evidence.

Carl's book makes that clear in how he uses MULTIPLE lines of evidence to prove the dates, not just one or 2 or 3 but far more and from different sources too, not just astronomical but biblical, historical, archelogical and such.

Of course we can just keep things simple and admit that the WT is bias on the evidence it choose to use for the dates it preaches, the same evidence when used to date the fall of babylon and is accepted by them, is then said to be in error in regards to the time frame of Neb's reign ( just one example).