What exactly are Furuli's qualifications, and do those qualifications preclude his having a bias toward proving the W.T chronology, rather than looking at the evidence with an open mind ?
Love
Wobble
Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar')
by AnnOMaly 38 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AnnOMaly
Furuli is an Hebraist and Semitic linguist. He certainly isn't a specialist in astronomy - historical or otherwise.
-
Narkissos
I confess that I never succeeded in gathering any measure of interest for chronological debates, especially when the whole discussion starts from what I believe to be an exegetical mistake (in this case, connecting the start of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 with the reconstruction of Jerusalem's walls under Artaxerxes' rule). But (to wobble's question) I found looking at Furuli's personal chronology (he's got a Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli) quite instructive. For some reason (maybe because of his position as "lecturer" and the fact he apparently hadn't got a PhD until recently; I still don't know if he has) I pictured him as a relatively young scholar and I really wondered how he could corner himself at an early stage of his career with often desperate WT apologetics within (e.g. Hebrew verbal syntax) or outside (e.g. Persian chronology) of his own academic field. The dates in his bio- and bibliography, if correct, suggest that he is first of all a JW, whose "career" was mainly within the WT organization (travelling overseer in the 70s) before he engaged in scholarship (first publication in 1995 is his MA dissertation, at 53; he's 67 now); also that the defense of WT chronology was actually his first interest (1984, after Jonsson I suppose), prior to his academic training in a different field (Semitic languages).
Disclaimer: this is admittedly off the main topic of this thread, hence not an (ad hominem) argument at all. As a complete outsider to the field of Persian chronology I would rather watch the reception (or lack thereof) of Furuli's thesis by specialists of that field (I vaguely remember one such review has been posted before, and it was mostly negative). This is not a personal attack either. I don't know Furuli, and from what I read he comes across as a bright, sincere and comparatively reasonable JW. But still a (nearly) 100 % committed JW.
-
Leolaia
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.
That is why you're the perfect person to give the program a spin, as you are the last person that you would regard as being an apostate, right? All she is asking you to do is to see if you can replicate Furuli's observations. If you say that an "apostate agenda" is making AnnOMaly go offtrack, then it shouldn't be an issue for you.
And BTW I get exactly the results AnnOMaly did when I checked a number of features.
AnnOMaly....Does Furuli discuss or mention how he came up with his observations in terms of what program he used or what assumptions he was making? I experimented a little with different time zones, different years, etc. but I still cannot see how he came up with the claimed positions.
What Yahoo forum is the discussion with Furuli taking place?
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 13665
I submitted a reasonable proposal to Ann in regard to the comparison of Furuli's thesis with an accepted astro-program but she refused to cooperate with me preferring to simply make a lot of noise anout the matter on this forum. If Ann accepts my proposal or we agree on a different proposal then I am quite happy to engage in research and debate on this subject. Perhaps you can persuade her to cooperate with me.
scholar JW
-
Leolaia
What is your reasonable proposal you submitted?
BTW, you don't need to reach an agreement with somebody before you allow yourself to use an astro-program to check out her claims. You can do so out of curiosity without even having any obligation to report on your findings.
-
AnnOMaly
Does Furuli discuss or mention how he came up with his observations in terms of what program he used or what assumptions he was making?
I can't see a mention of what program he's using in the article. But in his Vol. II (1st edition, p.295) he says he used TheSky6 and had SkyMap Lite 2005 for comparison. In his 2nd edition (p.300), he says he also used CyberSky 4 and TheSkyX (for Mac) but "the positions [for VAT 4956] are in all cases based on TheSky6." I take it he is using the same program(s) for his analysis of BM 33478.
He summarizes his assumptions on p. 37 of his article. He assumes that the intercalary Addaru for Cambyses 7 is genuine (rather than predictive); he assumes that Bardiya reigned 18 months (which creates a break between the XII 2 of year 7 and the XII 2 of Darius I's accession year instead of having two intercalary years in succession); he assumes an 11 year co-regency between Darius I and Xerxes I (as discussed in his Vol. I); and in his note 37 on p.39 he says he "used the same intercalary months as did Parker and Dubberstein." It is important to mention that this was specifically relating to his reconstructing the years between Cambyses and year 21 of Xerxes I.
However, when I followed through into Artaxerxes I's reign, continuing to use PD's intercalaries (and cross-checking his alternative time-line in Vol. I) a pattern emerges that puts new year Nisannus in either April or May - there are no March ones at all. So that's why it came as a surprise to read, when he examined BM 33478 that "Month I of the year could have started on the 24th/25th or 25th/26th March." (p. 34)
Does that help any, Leo?
I experimented a little with different time zones, different years, etc. but I still cannot see how he came up with the claimed positions.
Neither do I. I also check with Alcyone Ephemeris (based on JPL Horizons) - not very user-friendly, but recommended by archaeo-astronomers. I can't see where he gets some of his figures from.
What Yahoo forum is the discussion with Furuli taking place?
Oh this was a brief exchange nearly 2 years ago on David Rohl's 'New Chronology' site.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Leo,
I submitted this proposal to "scholar" on another thread. I haven't gotten a response from either "scholar" or Ann. Do you think this proposal sounds equitable?
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.
B the X
-
Farkel
scholar,
If you insist someone cannot make an argument questioning Furuli without first interviewing him, then that poses a sticky little problem for you:
Furuli cannot make any arguments using the Bible unless he personally interviews all the Bible authors. To have it be any other way is special pleading.
Furuli must have made pretty crappy arguments in writing if one needs to be forced to contact him for clarification. Either that, or his work was so sloppy that he didn't cover all the bases in his writing and needs to be asked about issues he didn't bother to address in his writing.
So run along now and ask Jehovah personally for Biblical clarification about the issues here, since Jehovah is the ultimate author of the Bible in the first place. I cannot continue any further discussion with you until you return with a personal answer from Jehovah.
It must be notarized with two witnesses, too.
BA, MA in Bullshit Argumentation Studies, Aristotle University
Farkel
-
Leolaia
AnnOMaly....I don't have a copy of the recent back-and-forth....does Furuli give Julian dates or Babylonian dates that must be converted to Julian dates in mentioning his observations? Since the astronomy programs give Julian dates, I don't see how the discrepency would arise through such things as varying intercalation if the dates are those from the astronomy programs he used.
Billy....I would love to see pseudo-scholar mention just one name.