Where can a person obtain this "Volume II" that Furuli has authored?
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
just n from bethel
From: Scholar
To: Celebrated WT Scholars
CC: Local elders and circuit overseer of 'said scholar'
Re: Your many teachings and constant reminders and demands to obey you regarding not associating with disfellowshipped ones, not getting into debates, not reading information written by apostates and disgruntled former JWs, and many more rules you have in place regarding the internet.
Dear Fellow Watchtower Scholars:
I realize you base your authority primarily on the date of 607 BCE which I have defended for almost 10 years on this site alone. However, as for your using that authority to tell me not to post here and who I can and can't associate with - well hopefully my years of dismissing your authority with regard to my associating with DFd Witnesses and having thouasands of conversations with apostates for the world to witness - that should speak loud and clear as to what I think of your authority. Now don't get me wrong, I believe the Bible makes a clear and undeniable case that you do have such authority and that God granted you such authority in 1919. I think the entire world should be made aware of this authority as it is so clearly stated in the Bible. But for you to use your authority (and I whole-heartedly agree that it was given to you and confirmed with Bible chronology), for you to use such God given authority to tell me who I can and can't associate with, and what I shouldn't read, and how I should use the internet... well it should be obvious as I AM a scholar too, that well, those teachings and instructions do not apply to me. If you think they do, well, you're wrong. Even if you think you're right though, I will continue doing what I've done for years, and if you don't like it - this is what I think:
-
wobble
"Scholar" asked me if Jesus used circular reasoning as a rhetorical device, I do not believe you can show one instance where Jesus used circular reasoning to establish a fact.
As a teaching method, many of his parables are somewhat circular if you like, but they are not establishing historical truth or prophetic fulfilment.
To use circular reasoning as you do with 1914 proves nothing to the sceptic .
-
isaacaustin
isaac austin
Post 6342
What errant nonsense. Attempts made on this forum to discredit WT Bible Chronology have been legion but everyonse single point made and used has been defeated or addressed by scholar over these past many years. The foresaid 'scholar' has met every challenge and disproved the 586/587 nonsense. Scholar has advance new areas of exegesis in regard to the Gentile Times, the seventy year texts etc. It was scholar that came up first with the 70 year formula that 70 years=DESOLATION+SERVITUDE+EXILE which demolished Jonsson's approach of Babylonian sovereignty. Scholar has drawn up lists of facts concerning the superiority of 607 BCE ove rthe other false dates.
scholar JW
Pseudoscholar, 'WT chronology' has been proven over and over again here to be nothing but a bunch of unrelated texts misinterpreted and strung together...and counted from a false starting point. AlanF really took you to school on this, as has just about everyone. You have never disproved 586/7...you have been shown that 70 years was a period of Babylonian rule over the world...and that 607BCE would be an impossible date.
-
AnnOMaly
Neil,
4. No, I would not say that it is a Svengali influence over certain scholars but simply collusion, a working together to defeat a common enemy. Evidence of collusion was confirmed by my receiving yesterday a reply from Jonsson to a my post, a resposnse to Hunger posted yesterday by means of a third party.
The common enemy, which scholars from both within the professional arena and without are working together to defeat, is misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts. This is particularly disturbing when the WTS, when responding to enquiries about Babylonian chronology and the 607 issue, recommends the book that is dishing out even more misinformation about it than they are. It is also a cause for concern when a book about artifacts in the Pergamum Museum contains an appendix repeating Furuli's erroneous views about VAT 4956. And if my intel is sound, the 'Oslo chronology' is being or, at least, has been promoted on JW Bible tours of the British Museum. This kind of misinformation dupes the unwary (in this case, trusting JWs) into believing something untrue, and that can't be allowed to continue unchallenged - especially when the professionalism of eminent Assyriologists is maligned as well.
Jonsson himself explains the circumstances behind Furuli's review and how and why it was posted on the Internet on a site hosted by Leslie Wiklander and why it was not published in the AFO.
Good. Now you have confirmation of what I already explained to you by email and here.
5.6.7. I am firmly of the view that Hunger's review simply amounts to 'nitpicking' presented in a somewhat technical nature. However, their combined reviews of Jonsson and Hunger fail to measure up to Furuli's technical expertise. For example, their coverage of Furuli's analysis of the VAT4956 is somewhat deficient and weak in comparison to Furuli's arguments.
Yes well, that shows how little you've read or understood.
In respect of the astronomical observations I see that there are three different astro programs involved. Furuli has one, Jonsson uses another and Hunger relies on a source in which I suspect have usen another. In order, to make a proper evaluation of Furuli's data then surely there must be a better way of researching and interpreting the Phases of the Moon and the Planets in order to match Neb's 37 th year with either 588 or 568 BCE!
Furuli has used about 3 astro-programs. He still frequently gets his positions wrong, ignores visibility criteria and makes comparisons at the wrong time, amongst other crazy things. Jonsson's used one program, Hunger another, I've used two, Wrench used a dodgy one, the guy on the Caeno site's used another, Stephenson and Willis another, Neugebauer and Weidner had no program and calculated the hard way and, strangely enough, despite a couple of degrees difference here and there between the different methods, they all lead to the conclusion that on the whole the data on the tablet best fit 568/7 BCE!
But I've told you before, Neil. You can check this for yourself. Download a reputable program, flatten out Vol. 2 on your desk (gently - the binding on the 1st ed. is fragile), and do your own comparisons. I'd be more than happy to help walk you through it.
Furuli was the first scholar to give scientific analysis to VAT 4956,...
Again, that's false.
... he gives a detailed history of its provenance and the history its scholarship. For this, Furuli should have received commendation from Hunger and not criticism.
LOL. You don't get gold stars for screwing up the analysis and conclusions! Nor do you get a pat on the head for making unsubstantiated accusations about it being a forgery.
Further, he gives in a few places a detailed summary of his findings on the tablet in which Hunger ignores and Jonsson trivializes.
Really? List the findings that Hunger ignored and Jonsson trivialized.
Hunger it seems is critical not so much of Furuli's research but his hypothesis that the tablet was subject to modern tampering but he does not address the evidence that Furuli presents as a much plausible hypothesis that cannot and should not be so easily dismissed especially when it is championed to be the 'bees knees' of NB chronology.
But Furuli presents no evidence of modern tampering - only fanciful speculation. As Hunger commented,
"no modern forger would be able to copy cuneiform writing so as to seem original; years of scribal training are required. Besides, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. The tablet would be too hard to produce the neat writing as is preserved on VAT 4956."
[Regarding the year number 38 on the edge of the tablet that Furuli thinks was made with a different tool] "the tool can only have been a reed stylus. A drill or grinding machine would never have produced marks like those of a stylus."
"There exist experts in such matters who could have determined with certainty by which tool the impressions were made. No such experts were consulted by F."
9. Furuli ha snothing to lose in this debate ...
On the contrary, Furuli has much to lose: his reputation and credibility as an academic, as well as a religious world-view he has invested his life in.
... but the likes of Hunger, Jonsson and Gallagher have much to loose if Furuli is only approximately correct.
I don't understand why you're lumping in Gallagher here. All he did was write a review of Jonsson's book 5 years ago. As far as I know Gallagher has no interest in Furuli's ideas. And it's been demonstrated already that Furuli doesn't have a case - not even an approximate one.
His research will move scholarship forward not hinder its progress and this can only be a good thing. Furuli's research is highly technical in nature and no doubt can benefit from criticism and fine tuning especially in areas of translation and the handling of data and if others find errors then such errors should be presented to Furuli.
It doesn't need 'fine-tuning'; it needs abandoning.
Furuli is fully aware of what has been published regarding VAT 4956 and if you dispute his claim that his was the first scientific study then you should pursue that with him. For starters, where has anyone else published extensive photographs of the tablet?
Naughty Neil! It was YOUR claim that Furuli "is the only person who has made a proper 'scientific' study of the tablet" - don't attribute your claim to him. I doubt he himself would make such a claim since he relied on some of the previous scientific studies in his own research and mentions them. Even 'Under One Sky' is in his bibliography where Stephenson and Willis do their scientific analysis. And several extensive photographs (as nice as some of them are!) do not a 'scientific study' make.
-
zoiks
Scholar really is having fun with this. It's obvious to me that he/she is a caricature. Are you all falling for this, or are you just playing along?
-
AnnOMaly
I'm just having a blast
-
Leolaia
But Furuli presents no evidence of modern tampering - only fanciful speculation. As Hunger commented,
"no modern forger would be able to copy cuneiform writing so as to seem original; years of scribal training are required. Besides, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. The tablet would be too hard to produce the neat writing as is preserved on VAT 4956."
[Regarding the year number 38 on the edge of the tablet that Furuli thinks was made with a different tool] "the tool can only have been a reed stylus. A drill or grinding machine would never have produced marks like those of a stylus."
"There exist experts in such matters who could have determined with certainty by which tool the impressions were made. No such experts were consulted by F."Yeah, I've been wondering, if Furuli has been the only one to provide a "scientific analysis" of the tablet on account of his hand inspection, and since he is advancing a claim of forgery, then surely Furuli would have inspected the tablet with an expert in ceramic petrography (someone like Yuval Goren who detected the lack of genuine patina inside the inscription in the James Ossuary) who would have been qualified to detect actual tampering. Or might Furuli possess this qualification too? ;)
-
zoiks
I'm just having a blast
Oh, good! It is fun to read...
-
ProdigalSon
The WT should just admit to the 587 date and invent a way to make 1934 the date of the Kingdom being established. Let's say changing the name to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931 plus a time, times and half a time or something like that..... you know, there's ALWAYS new light...... and that would even buy them another 20 years of "generation".....