leolaia
Post 15343
'Celebtate' means to proclaim or make known publicly not to worship.
scholar JW
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
OUTLAW
It does not matter if there is no secular evidence that directly supports 607 BCE because it is well established biblically.
However, there is sufficient secular evidence that supports 607 BCE in that all of NB chronology is a scheme that merely falls
short a mere twenty years. How about that! Don't you luv it?.....Scholar
So..Your right because..Nothing supports 607BCE?..
Did you and Furuli go to the Same School?..
..........................
...OUTLAW -
OUTLAW
'
Celebtate' means to proclaim or make known publicly not to worship.
scholar JW
You Probably mean Celebrate..Eh Genius?..LOL!!..
The word you continually use is Celebrated..Celebrate does not have the same meaning..
Bait and Switch isn`t honest..LOL!!..
But..
What else would you expect from someone who can`t find 20 years?..
cel·e·brat·edcelebrated / 's?l
??bre?t?d / Show Spelled [ sel - uh -brey-tid ] Show IPA–adjective renowned; well-known: the celebrated authors of best-selling books. None of the Clowns that Write WBT$ Crap.. Are Well Known.. Nobody knows who they are.. WBT$ Literature is Written by UnKnown Clowns
.......................... ...OUTLAW -
AnnOMaly
Hi Leolaia
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? ;)
LOL Yes, you'd think he'd want to have some expert backing before publishing so serious an allegation. But you know, I think if his approach had been properly consistent and 'scientific,' he wouldn't have had a book.
Neil,
I see from your post #1922 that you are becoming increasingly inattentive to the points raised and as a result you're disconnecting more from reality. Please read this reply slowly and carefully; allow an hour or so to pass for your mouth to stop frothing in irritation; then you can give a more coherent response.
If the word 'bias' is to be applied at all to Hunger and Jonsson, it is a 'bias' for truth.
And I have to ask, don't you think you are being a little duplicitous when you express your thrill at Jonsson sending you (through your mutual friend) those two reviews, and when you boast that he has given you the inside scoop on how Hunger's review came to be on the web, but you trash anything else he does or says?
As for bemoaning your 'lack of expertise'; you just use that as a lame excuse to shy away from any fair appraisal of Furuli's claims. Contrary to your assertion, I make no pretensions about expertise in any of the fields you mention. Where you and I differ is that I want to know the truth of the matter and I will go to great lengths to find out, learning much in the process. Remember that other thread I started for your benefit and invited you to prove my findings wrong? You refused to do so, making silly excuses, tap-dancing around and repeating your default position. In essence, you are too chicken. In your heart of hearts you know where any honest examination will lead. Experts (and amateurs alike) have already sorted out which year VAT 4956 belongs to - its match with 568/7 BCE can be demonstrated beyond question over and over and over again. Rather than at least try to verify those conclusions for yourself, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and loudly chant 'Furuli and the celebrated WT scholars are right!' How pitiful.
Hunger used his own program to calculate the Lunar Threes for the three tables and thus confirm 568/7 BCE while ruling out both the P&D and Furulian scenarios for 588/7 BCE. And I said in my previous post he used a program. Again, you need to read more carefully before shooting your mouth off.
Yes, you go and check out Stephenson and Willis' scientific analysis. And quit perpetuating your mistaken view that Furuli's was the first scientific (you've now changed the word to 'critical') study of the tablet. You are not reading Furuli's words carefully and saying dumb things as a result. He says on p.244 (1st ed.),
"As for VAT 4956, a study of 60 pages was published in 1915, and since then no critical study of the diary has been published."
He was still mistaken about that but he at least acknowledges the 1915 one was a critical study! Ergo, Furuli was not the first 'scientific'/'critical'/however-you-want-to-word-it study, Neil you muppet! And before you try to wriggle round and say, 'Furuli didn't say the 1915 one was a critical study but just a study' - anybody who has read Neugebauer and Weidner's work knows it is indeed a very detailed critical/scientific evaluation.
And this is just precious:
You only need to compare the content of Furuli's research on the VAT 4956 with Hunger's meagre attention to the detail that Hunger wasnot able to come to grips with that material and this is the same with Jonsson.
Let me understand this correctly. You aver that (perhaps) THE leading authority on Babylonian astronomical cuneiform texts could not 'come to grips' with the content of Furuli's research on this Babylonian astronomical cuneiform text which has been studied, translated, dated and published in a key reference source that bears Hunger's name. This is what you are saying. ROFL! You've definitely lost the plot now!
The rest of your post is pretty much a repeat of your assertions that have already been rebutted.
I would like to draw your attention back to this from post #1915:
Further, he gives in a few places a detailed summary of his findings on the tablet in which Hunger ignores and Jonsson trivializes.
I asked (#1509):
Really? List the findings that Hunger ignored and Jonsson trivialized.
Are you going itemize them, or is your contention just some more smoke-blowing? ;-)
-
isaacaustin
Pseudoscholar said:
It does not matter if there is no secular evidence that directly supports 607 BCE because it is well established biblically. However, there is sufficient secular evidence that supports 607 BCE in that all of NB chronology is a scheme that merely falls short a mere twenty years. How about that! Don't you luv it?
My reply: In other words, it does not matter that there is NO evidence to support the WT date of 1914, since it is well established as WT chronology- which in the mind of the brainwashed cultmember= the Biblie says so. Ok, gotcha.
Pseudoscholar said:
How can your Bible Chronology prove that the Fall did not occur in the precise calender year of 607 BCE when it cannot prove whether the Fall occurred in 586 or 587 BCE? Your assertion is meaningless. Unless your Bible chronology can prove what precise calender year Jerusalem fell then you cannot disprove the precise calender year as 607 BCE for the Fall. You are grasping at straws.
My reply: You know quite well the question of 586 or 587...depending on whether it was regnal or ascension year dating used. Either way, it is simply an academic qeustion...with no further prophetic ramifications. Daniel's account of Neb was fulfilled in Neb...has nothing to do with Zedekiah handing the turban to its correct owner...the Gentile TImes of Luke 21, or the time, times and time and a half of Rev. That is all WT nonsense.
Well, ya certainly ain't a scholar of any sorts...but you are a false prophet!
-
isaacaustin
Pseudoscholar said:
What I report on my Field Service Report is my business and not yours for at least I engage in the ministry. Do you? How are you fulfilling Matt 28:19,20?
My reply:
LOL I am not so sure that the org would approve of your ministry as going to exJW websites. LOL Neither are you fulfilling Matt 28:19 and 20...as the good news Jesus spoke of was the same one Paul preached....it wasn't 1914, or 607BCE as the upcoming fall of Jerusalem.
Pseudoscholar, if and when the WT acknowledges the correct year that Jerusalem fell as 586/7 BCE what will you do with all your time? Go start a cult?
-
thetrueone
it does not matter that there is NO evidence to support the WT date of 1914
Irregardless of the c orrect date of Jerusalem's destruction, there is no viable evidence in the bible that suggests Jesus would
leave or give his FDSL a calculable date of his supposed earthly return, so the 7 times calculation is unscriptural,
maligning and deviously corrupt information at best.
Something though a book peddler might calculate on his own to bring attention to himself and his published works.
The end times doctrine by the WTS has always been a calculated nonfactual farce that was created to draw attention to is literature
and to formulate a sense of power to the WTS leaders as they have evolved.
-
isaacaustin
Exactly thetrueone,
This simply becomes an academic issue and nothing more..because even IF Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE it would mean nothing else. The 7 Gentile Times bs is nothing short of ridiculous.
-
reslight2
C.T. Russell was the leading pyramidology scholarly genius of all time. He was also the world's leading authority on Miracle Wheat.
Sadly, H. Hunger doesn't appreciate the importance of supporting the flawed and outdated beliefs on a 19th century Adventist sect that has somehow managed to survive into the 21st century.
Charles Taze Russell wrote comparatively very little about the Great Pyramid. Out of the tens of thousands of pages that have been produced from his works, comparatively less than a handful are related to the Great Pyramid, and even then what he presented was mostly that which had been presented earlier by N. H. Barbour.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=14
Russell disclaimed any firsthand knowledge regarding Stoner's "Miracle Wheat"; all he did is present the comments of Stoner and some farmers who had used Stoner's Miracle Wheat, as well as some newspaper articles pertaining to "Miracle Wheat."
Indeed, the world's most leading authority on Miracle Wheat at that time would have been Stoner himself. More recently, the world's most leading authority on a more recent strain of Miracle Wheat was Norman Boulaug.
-
wobble
What I see here is some Apologists' attempt to prove that 1914 has some significance in bible prophecy.
I totally agree with the above that there is no 2520 days/years in scripture. but let us indulge "scholar" and pretend that there is.
For us to end up at 1914 we need to start at 607BCE. To get to that date we need to have 539 BCE as the date for the taking of Babylon by the Persians.
539BCE is established by Ptolomy's work ,and backed up by VAT4956.
For "scholar" and his celebrated WT lap-dog Furuli to rubbish the tablet and the canon surely means they have no way of establishing 539 BCE ?
Or am I missing something ?
??bre?
..........................