Wobble- you mean 537, right? 539 is established. 537 is not an established date that the Jews returned to Jerusalem...and 538 is more likely.
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
reslight2
You really should continue looking about the Great Pyramid of Giza. That seems to be the only place you would be able to find any non-JW scholars that believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.
Does the name Morton Edgar ring a bell? I'm sure he would have written a favorable review for Furuli's laughable "broken, tampered tablet theory". Perhaps we could recall some of the other celebrated scholars that agree with your revisionist history?
I do not have Furuli's book, but from what I have read, I could say that he might be in partial agreement with Furuli. Most of Edgar's works may be found online:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Treatises.htm
(Scroll Down to the Section Marked "Edgars")
Nevertheless, Bible Students have always been free to present variant views on chronology and the Great Pyramid. Even Edgar did not agree with everything that Barbour or Russell presented, and yet Russell recommended the Edgars' books.
For a few of the variant views amongst Bible Students on chronology, check the "Chronology" section at:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Doctrine.htm
Overall, however, I believe that the basic cross confirmation of the chronology and time prophecies as originally presented by Barbour, and which was built upon by Russell and the Edgars, serves in itself the greatest evidence that it is true. So far this system of prophecy and time prophecy is the only system that I found that has such an abundant amount of corroboration within itself. Just as the Bible itself, once understood in its related features, is found to be harmious, and thus gives abundant evidence of its validity by such harmony, likewise this system of chronology and time prophecy also displays the same harmony within itself. We know that there are thousands who seek to find fault with the Bible itself with claims that its history does not agree with secular history, that it is self-contradictory, etc. I believe both Russell and Edgar demonstrated the harmony of this system of chronology and time prophecy abundantly. But even so, I would not wish to adopt a sectarian view of the matter, so as claim that others who hold to other viewpoints are "not in the truth," etc.
http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism
Ronald
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post1512
Your so-called ' bias for truth' is a meaningless statement. In other words accept what Hunger and Jonsson say without question or criticism.
I am not bemonaning my lack of expertise for no one can be an expert on everything, Jonsson and Hunger only have a limited expertise in some matters. Furuli acknowleges his deficiencies in certain areas so a liitle humility brings you to reality. My expertise lies in the Bible and when I amm confronted with a subject such as ancient scrular chronology then I accepth the Bible over an dabove the theiries of men now that is my reality. The Bible alone is the source of truth because it is God's Word therefore I amm not plaqued by bias.
If I was so chicken then I would not be posting on this board, I would not have read Hunger's article and I would most certainly read and studied Jonsson's books over the last many years. Your accusation merely shows how desperate you ahen someone has the brains and the courage to refute the nonsense that you peddle.
Hunger did nothing of the kind for simply used others such as Stephenson and Willis to make the comparison of the lunations with Furuli. As I stated Furuli was the first to make a scientific study of VAT 4956 there was a study with translation made in 1815 of which I have a copy and there were later studies but Furuli made the first scientific study.
Yes, I repeat the simple observation that any unbiased reader would come to that Hunger and Jonsson have failed to come grips with Furuli's detailed, scientific analysis of VAT 4956 and neither have you!
Furuli's summary and comclusion on Vat 4956 are stated more than once in his book so if you have truly read the book which I now doubt you would have noted these conclusions or findings so should Hunger and Jonsson.
scholar JW
-
OUTLAW
My expertise lies in the Bible and when I amm confronted with a subject such as ancient scrular chronology
then I accepth the Bible over an ;dabove the theiries of men now that is my reality.
The Bible alone is the source of truth because it is God's Word therefore I amm not plaqued by bias......Scholar
Translation:
Scholar does not let Facts,get in the way of his Beliefs..
Nor does he need a Dictionary..
So people can Understand what he`s Babbling about..
"This is the Only Way"..
"You can Truly Understand 607 BCE"..
.......................
...OUTLAW -
AnnOMaly
Neil,
I am not bemonaning my lack of expertise for no one can be an expert on everything, Jonsson and Hunger only have a limited expertise in some matters.
Ahh, you graciously credit Jonsson and Hunger with some expertise, then? That's big of you. LOL
On the other hand, you find any excuse to avoid examining the facts - in that respect you are chicken; you balk at making a scholarly assessment. Have you walked through Furuli's analysis of VAT 4956 and/or checked through his astronomical computations, comparing them with the traditional year? No you have not. You don't dare. I have. Hunger has. Jonsson has. Even Wrench has. When you have done so, then you'll be able to speak from a position of knowledge instead of blowing off hot air.
Hunger did nothing of the kind for simply used others such as Stephenson and Willis to make the comparison of the lunations with Furuli.
Wrong. Look again at what Hunger says, you muppet:
"I have repeated their [Stephenson and Willis'] computations for 568/7 BC, and I agree with their results. In the following, I do the same computations for the year 588/7 BC, both for the dates given by Parker & Dubberstein, and for those claimed by F., which are shifted by about one month."
As I stated Furuli was the first to make a scientific study of VAT 4956 there was a study with translation made in 1815 of which I have a copy and there were later studies but Furuli made the first scientific study.
Wrong again. You have already been shown why. If you really have the 1915 copy (and have understood the German) you will know that it is the first extensive scientific/critical study of the tablet. Some intellectual honesty and humility on your part would go a long way.
Furuli's summary and comclusion on Vat 4956 are stated more than once in his book so if you have truly read the book which I now doubt you would have noted these conclusions or findings so should Hunger and Jonsson.
Helloooo. They did. I did. We found that Furuli was grossly mistaken in his findings and consequently he was grossly mistaken in his conclusions.
Now, all this banter and ping-pong is fun but I would like to draw your attention back again 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 to itemize them, or is your contention just some more smoke-blowing?
-
Mary
scholar blubbered: It does not matter if there is no secular evidence that directly supports 607 BCE because it is well established biblically.
Ya. I noticed you had no rebuttal to the link proving that the bible does not support the 607 BCE date, but the 587 BCE date. Gee, why is that not a surprise?
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?
I think this statement reveals the depths of your delusions as well as the state of your mind. You stated above that "it does not matter if there is no secular evidence that directly supports 607 BCE" and then in the next breath you say "there is sufficient secular evidence that supports 607 BCE." Did you forget your meds this morning or do you have some sort of mental problem? Actually, the more of your bullshit I read, the more I'm convinced that you are probably schizophrenic as your behaviour seems to fit the bill:
"Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of the process of thinking and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction."
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?
Well, I spent quite a bit of time putting together a project that exposes many of the Organization's false doctrines. over a thousand copies have been downloaded and I sent out over 400 hard copies all free of charge so yep......I think I've done a good share of preaching the evils of this cult that claims they have a monopoly on 'truth'. LOL!!!
-
isaacaustin
Pseudoscholar said:
I am not bemonaning my lack of expertise for no one can be an expert on everything, Jonsson and Hunger only have a limited expertise in some matters. Furuli acknowleges his deficiencies in certain areas so a liitle humility brings you to reality. My expertise lies in the Bible and when I amm confronted with a subject such as ancient scrular chronology then I accepth the Bible over an dabove the theiries of men now that is my reality. The Bible alone is the source of truth because it is God's Word therefore I amm not plaqued by bias.
My reply: You have expertise in the Bible? No, you don't. Your expertise lies in your memrizing WT rhetoric. You are certainly not an expert at defending WT chronology- as it is indefensible lies. You then give your fallacious argument that you ttrust the Bible over man- equating the WT's date of 607 to being Biblical, when it is not. The only bias is by WT adherents in clinging to straws to uphold their 7 gentile times teaching.
-
wobble
Sorry Isaac,
I have only just got back on this thread. I know that JW's have to have the Jews wandering around until 537BCE to try to make their ridiculous calculations fit.
But as you said, 539BCE is established, JW's do not argue with it, and use it to hang everything else from.
How is 539BCE established, surely by the stuff that Scholar and Furuli are trying to cast doubt upon.
I saw another site where they tried to say that the King Lists, VAT4956 etc. were all doubtful, my question was, what do they, the 607ites, have to get them to 539BCE then ,apart from these "doubtful" proofs ?
How do they "establish" 539BCE ?
It looks as though they did it all backwards, "1914 is the year we want to make look significant, as Russell seemed to point to it, so, minus 2520 gives us 607, minus 70 for the captivity gives us 537, lets make these fit with just a nod to 539 as that seems pretty certain."
Is that how they did it ?
But as I say, if they disparage the proofs for 539 how do they work out their "chronology" ?
-
isaacaustin
Wobble, hypocritically the WT uses sources to establish 539BCE, then discredits the 587 that those same sources advocate. They never prove their points, only try to discredit all secular sources and then claim they have it right.
-
Dutch-scientist
The WT uses Strm.Kambys.400 to get to 539BCE indirectly. If someone says VAT4956 is wrong how on earth they can use Strm.Kambys.400?!?
Strm.Kambys.400 pointed out in 1903 by F. X. Kugler that a part is a true copy an a other part the copiest made an mess of it. However it support the 539BCE.
BTW I am new here.
DS
