by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
Welcome, Dutch-scientist!
It's true that the tablet the WTS (and Furuli) has little problem with, so that 539 BCE can be derived from it, is a very problematic tablet. I think the latest scholarly research on this tablet is that it contains a mix of observations and predictions (and the predictions are a bit off). However, the WTS rejects numerous tablets that are certain or don't have nearly as many difficulties as Strm. Kambys. 400! Go figure.
AnnOMaly
Post 1513
Indeed Jonsson and Hunger do indeed have some expertise and so does Furuli and the 'said' scholar.
I simply do not have the expertise in examining the minutae of Furul's research and Hunger's review. All of these fellows including Jonsson us e dofferent astro programs and have a different methodologies so the results cannot coincide. What I can and will do is examine the article of Stepheson and Willis and also another article was recently published on the Babylonian months and the Moon. I do not trust your expertise because of your bias against Furuli so your examination is of no interest to me. If you have something worthwhile to say against Furuli then you should take up the matter wuth him directly as I have repeatedly aked you to do so who then is really 'chicken'?
Yes Hunger makes that statement but something is rather odd here for he does not publish or tabulate his results or describe his methodology, cite the program he used nor discuss Furuli's methodology. Why present the data of someone else when he could have presented his own citing support if true from others. I am not simply convinced that Hunger carried out an independent analysis for also in a previous paragraph he was quite happly to rely on Jonsson's
analysis of the lunar data with no further explanation. For me this is evidence of collusion not independent, rigorous scholarship.
The 1915 discussion of VAT 4956 was not a critical/ scientific study but simply a translation into German of which I have a copy and indeed it was I that had a translation of the Gereman into English in the early seventies. Furuli was and is the first!
Then the commentary emanating from Jonsson, Hunger and yourself does not reflect such an examination. because no attention was paid to Furuli's methodology and his summary.
If you cannot Furuli's summary and conclusions then you have not read Furuli so read it! BUT READ CAREFULLY!
scholar JW
c
Mary
Post 12419
OH! Sweet Mary! The biblical evidence proves 607 BCE, secular evidence proves 586 and 587 but with some 'fine-tuning' it also can prove 607 BCE. Hence, if the Bible alone supports the matter then the confused secular evidence has a lesser role to play. This should not be too hard for you to understand.
scholar JW
I simply do not have the expertise in examining the minutae of Furul's research and Hunger's review.....Scholar
So..
Furuli is Right..Because..
You don`t have the Education to Understand him..
And..
H.Hunger is wrong..Because..
You don`t have the Education to Understand him..
LOL!!!!!!..
............................
...OUTLAW
celebrated delusional scholar said: OH! Sweet Mary! The biblical evidence proves 607 BCE, secular evidence proves 586 and 587 but with some 'fine-tuning' it also can prove 607 BCE. Hence, if the Bible alone supports the matter then the confused secular evidence has a lesser role to play. This should not be too hard for you to understand
Ah poor, poor scholar. No matter how hard you try, you cannot provide any biblical evidence that supports 607 BCE, nor does any of the secular evidence. And unlike the Craptower Society that you worship and are constantly drooling over, historians and archaeologists have no desire to 'fine-tune' the evidence to support their own pre-conceived biases. Unless of course, your name is "Furuli" and your entire existence is based on this date.
Neil,
I simply do not have the expertise in examining the minutae of Furul's research and Hunger's review.
Then you have no business pontificating on matters you know nothing about, e.g.,
"Further, he gives in a few places a detailed summary of his findings on the tablet in which Hunger ignores and Jonsson trivializes." (post #1915)
Since you admit that you do not have the expertise to examine the minutiae of Furuli's research and Hunger's review, you have no clue whether or not Hunger ignores (and Jonsson trivializes) what Furuli has written. Therefore, as I (and no doubt we all here) suspected, and as has been your MO from the beginning of your posting history, you were indeed again just blowing smoke.
All of these fellows including Jonsson us e dofferent astro programs and have a different methodologies so the results cannot coincide.
How would you know one way or the other? You have no expertise or even amateur experience in this. Those who have experience and have tested this diary - both amateurs and professionals - can tell you with confidence that, despite minor differences between astro-programs, the diary fits 568/7 BCE. Those who have taken the trouble to test Furuli's results can tell you with confidence that the diary does not fit 588/7 BCE (neither do the lunar positions when taken on their own!). But you cannot make any pronouncements on different programs or 'methodologies' or whether or not results coincide because you refuse to do any research.
What I can and will do is examine the article of Stepheson and Willis and also another article was recently published on the Babylonian months and the Moon. I do not trust your expertise because of your bias against Furuli so your examination is of no interest to me.
I've told you before. Do your own examination. Please, do not take my word for it. Go and put in the work yourself. Quit carping on about how you have no expertise and GET some! Then come back and try and prove Furuli's results right and everyone else's results wrong.
If you have something worthwhile to say against Furuli then you should take up the matter wuth him directly as I have repeatedly aked you to do so who then is really 'chicken'?
Been there, done that. I notice that you don't criticize Hunger for not going to Furuli directly ;-)
Yes Hunger makes that statement but something is rather odd here for he does not publish or tabulate his results or describe his methodology, cite the program he used nor discuss Furuli's methodology. Why present the data of someone else when he could have presented his own citing support if true from others. I am not simply convinced that Hunger carried out an independent analysis for also in a previous paragraph he was quite happly to rely on Jonsson's analysis of the lunar data with no further explanation. For me this is evidence of collusion not independent, rigorous scholarship.
Don't be dense! Hunger reproduces Stephenson and Willis' table but he says he did his own calculations and the results agree. Jonsson has already examined Furuli's lunar data in detail so it's a waste of time and energy repeating those same findings in an already long and detailed review. Hunger therefore uses the tablet's Lunar Three data (which Jonsson does not discuss since Furuli doesn't) to decide which year is the better match. His two tables for 588/7 BCE contain the results of his own independent analysis! As a consequence of his own independent analysis, he finds that both scenarios for 588/7 BCE's lunar cycle do not match that of VAT 4956. No he doesn't mention the program he used, but I went through each of his results and they are very close to the ones on the program I used. Because you have no expertise in this matter, your imagination is concocting tales of unprofessionalism on Hunger's part!
The 1915 discussion of VAT 4956 was not a critical/ scientific study but simply a translation into German of which I have a copy and indeed it was I that had a translation of the Gereman into English in the early seventies. Furuli was and is the first!
You buffoon, Neil! LOL. The 1915 ‘discussion' was not ‘simply a translation into German,' it was a DISCUSSION. After their transliteration and translation, N/W spent the next 50+ pages critically and scientifically examining, in minute linguistic detail, the text and its stated astronomical positions! If you really had the full study, you wouldn't have made so idiotic a statement. Your assertion about Furuli being the 'first' or 'only' remains FALSE!
Then the commentary emanating from Jonsson, Hunger and yourself does not reflect such an examination. because no attention was paid to Furuli's methodology and his summary.
As you stated above, you haven't the expertise in examining the minutiae of Furuli's research or Hunger's review; you are unqualified to make such an assessment. Your words are therefore valueless.
In addition, so far on this thread you have misrepresented Hunger, you have misrepresented Neugebauer and Weidner, you've continued to malign Jonsson, and you have even misrepresented Furuli. When your errors are exposed, you refuse to change your position. You resist doing any real scholarly research for yourself to find out the facts, using your 'lack of expertise' as an excuse, and yet this doesn't curb your compulsion to sound off on things you are ignorant of. Every thread, it seems, you further demonstrate what a misnomer your online name is!
Outlaw - you nailed it! LOL
Help me out please, how does biblical evidence prove 607 BCE? ...
I am no scholar ... and I understand that to find truth from the Bible one shouldn't have to be. What I find is that Watchtower both approves and contradicts secular history. If you count back from 539 BCE using the length of rule of the Babylonian kings provided in Watchtower publications, it agrees with secular history when you use the two-year rule of Evil-Merodach - if you use the eighteen-year rule, it seems to be off by 3 or 4 years between Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus.
Didn't Josephus later refer to the 2 year instead of 18 year rule?
***it-2p.457Nabonidus***
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.)
***it-2p.458Nabonidus***
Nabonidus' ascension to the throne followed the assassination of Labashi-Marduk.
***w651/1p.29TheRejoicingoftheWickedIsShort-lived***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.
***it-1p.773Evil-merodach***
Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E.
Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar
***it-2p.480Nebuchadnezzar***
Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach), who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.)
Calculations based on the above Watchtower information ....
Nabonidus - 17 years (556-539 BCE)
*Labashi-Marduk - 9 months (556 BCE ?) (576 ?) (560 ?)
*Neriglissar - 4 years (559-556 ?) (579-576 ?) (563-560 ?)
Evil-Merodach - 2 yrs (581-580)/18 yrs (581-564)
Nebuchadnezzar - 43 years (624-582 BCE)
*dates based on length of rule provided in Watchtower publications
Below are dates from Encyclopedia Britannica
Nabonidus (556-539)
Labashi-Marduk (556)
Neriglissar (559-556)
Evil-Merodach [Awil-Marduk] (561-560)
Nebuchadnezzar (605-561)
Its apparent that Scholar is a light weight intellectual who swallowed the WTS dating system with faithful devotion,
only to realizes their self devised dating system was a made up nonsensical farce,
very much like Pyramidology that the WTS held on to for so many years.
Now Scholar did you buy all of the WTS books ?
There's quite a few you know, you may have missed one or two.
As its plain to see, a scholar of the Watchtower is no credible scholar at all.
Mary
Post 12420
Oh sweet Mary nn matter how hard you try you cannot disprove 607 BCE as the precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem. You cannot even prove any precise calender year for this event whether it is 586 or 587 BCE!!!
scholar JW
AnnOMaly
Post 1517
I have just as much right as you as in giving or making any observation or comment that I have competence in making.
I simply give my observations on both Hunger and Jonsson what they have written in respect to Furuli. Whether I am 'blowing smoke' is a matter for others but that can hardly be the case when I emailed Hunger and posted my dtailed observation on this board.
I simply do not trust your opinion or that of your cronies with repect to whether the lunar data fits 568/587 BCE for Furuli has published research that proves that 588/587 BCE is much better fit and this agrees with the Bible. My research has been and will continue to be ongoing and for me this is not the end of the matter but simply the beginning so I will have more to say over time.
I will conduct my own examination as I have outlined.
Furuli has not heard of you so you need to make contact with Furuli directly if you have any critisms not simply respond on a Yahoo site. Last time I looked at a Yahoo site where I thiink you were having exchanges with Furuli I remeber that Furuli responded to you with solid answers.
You do not know what I said to Hunger in that email however that would have been the decent thing for Hunger to do?
Your explanation of Hunger's use of Jonsson, Stephensen & Willis and his own research of the lunar data looks very contrived to me and I do not accept your rationalization. I will make my own judgement when I access the cited refernce. Besides what astro program did Hunger personally use if you are so smart?
I repeat that Furuli was the first scientfic/critical of VAT 4956 in fact on page 99 in his first edition Furuli states that he used two astro programa, produces a drawing, photographs and a comparison of the translations from previous studies along with his own. Weidner and Neugebauer simply produced a lengthy tdiscussion consisting of transliteration, translation and calculations.
Your concluding assessment of me can easily be applied to yourself and frankly I care nought for your opinion of me.
scholar JW
