by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
Scholar wake up and smell the coffee , Nebuchadnezzar didn't come into power until 605 BCE.
By the way you didn't show where in the bible its says that the FDSL would be given a calculable
date of Christ's return.
I sure hope you haven't go beyond what it is written and posed yourself as a commercialized
fraudulent false prophet.
Are you an elder and just psychologically scared of losing your acquired power as a spiritual
seer for the Watchtower Corporation Inc. ?
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!!!
Ya, you're right numb-nuts. There's just no evidence at all that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE........Unless of course, you just use the bible........
Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE
Nabonidus -- 17 years
Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
Neil,
I have just as much right as you as in giving or making any observation or comment that I have competence in making.
But you have no expertise in the matters under discussion, therefore how can you have competence in making any observation or comment on something that you have no expertise in - by your own admission?
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.
If Hunger thought you had a point to make, I'm sure he would have given you the time of day. If your 'detailed observation' is on this board, I must have missed it. Please give me the post no. where you detailed your observations and I'll check it out. All I saw was a lot of smoke and no real substance.
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.
Then you are blindly trusting in something that you haven't researched for yourself. Those that have researched know that Furuli's claims are false.
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.
Sure. We can look forward to more of your hot air. Or will you come up with the goods next time? I can hope, I guess.
I will conduct my own examination as I have outlined.
Please do. I'll await your results (but I won't hold my breath).
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.
LOL. You're saying that Furuli has not heard of the person he had a brief exchange with. Do you ever think when you write?
You do not know what I said to Hunger in that email however that would have been the decent thing for Hunger to do?
Huh? Try that again?
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?
UraniaStar 1995 - a local Vienna planetarium program which uses Chapront-Touzé & Chapront 1991 and Meeus' algorithms.
I repeat that Furuli was the first scientfic/critical of VAT 4956 ...
You think that merely repeating this is going to magically make it true?
... 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.
Thus it was a scientific, critical study, you muppet.
AnnOMaly
Post 1518
My expertise lies with the Bible. My observations on related matters has kept this subject on this form going for at least 8 pages. Not bad, HUH!
You should be able to find it easily if you try hard enough or are you only interested in things superficial not anything of substance?
I do not, have not depended on Furuli for my belief in the gap of 20 years is based on the Bible, Furuli has simply found secular support for it.
It seems that whatever the contact you hace had with Furuli it would appear that you need to do better if you really believe Furuli is in error.
Furuli's first scientific/critical research is a vast improvement on what had been done before.
scholar JW
Mary
Post 12421
Sweet Mary, producing a long list of supposed list of regnal data for the NB period proves nothing for many other reputable authorities give different data so your list is uselless. Sorry, hav e another go!
scholar JW
My expertise lies with the Bible. My observations on related matters has kept this subject on this form going for at least 8 pages. Not bad, HUH!....Scholar
I simply do not have the expertise in examining the minutae of Furul's research and Hunger's review.....Scholar
Debating for 8 pages..
On a Subject..You Admit..You Don`t Understand..Makes you a Retard..
Or in your case,a WatchTard..
......................
...OUTLAW
Neil,
My expertise lies with the Bible. My observations on related matters has kept this subject on this form going for at least 8 pages. Not bad, HUH!
Your clowning around has kept this thread going, certainly. Observations? Well, as you said, you are not qualified to make any meaningful ones on the linguistic and astronomical technicalities of Hunger's Review.
You should be able to find it easily if you try hard enough or are you only interested in things superficial not anything of substance?
I would love you to post something of substance for a change. 8 pages in, and you've yet to get to any nuts and bolts of the Review.
I do not, have not depended on Furuli for my belief in the gap of 20 years is based on the Bible, Furuli has simply found secular support for it.
You admitted that you haven't done the research on Furuli's supposed secular support for a 20 year gap and that the technical arguments are beyond you, so you are again talking from a position of ignorance.
Furuli's first scientific/critical research is a vast improvement on what had been done before.
As you said, you lack the expertise to make this kind of assessment so you wouldn't know whether it was an improvement or otherwise.
Do you think you'll soon have anything of value to bring to the table or should we just fast-forward through your future comments? It'll save us all a lot of time if you tell us now. 8 pages on and we're getting a little restless.
Scholar says - My expertise lies with the Bible.
Well then you should know then that the bible clearly does not state that the FDSL will be given a calculable date of Christ earthly return.
Disregarding altogether the date of ancient Jerusalem's overthrow by Babylon.
This false pretensions dating calculation by the WTS. was clearly unscriptural and going beyond what is written in god's word the bible.
It was made up though to draw attention to the WTS. and its published works.
The WTS has always been a commercial fraud in a religious flavour. ( devious , corrupt, coercive, exploitive charlatans )
You do believe in the bible don't you Scholar ?
I still would like to know where to obtasin Vol. 2.
Hi VM44
Here:
https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_32L0WD3XR.HTM
or you could go direct (it might be a little cheaper?) - http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm - and specify it's Vol. II you want.
And to answer another question you(?) asked - no, he doesn't really deal with the Egibi business tablets.
