A Review By Carl Jonsson Of Rolf Furuli'sBook On Chronology.

hillary_step

Hello,

This may already have been posted, but if not I am sure that Carl Jonsson will forgive my linking his review of Furuli's book from another site,

http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm

Best regards - HS

City Fan

Thank you very much for posting that link hillary_step.

I was recently given this book by a brother in my old congregation after I told my mother about the 587/586 problems. I read the first four chapters and have to agree with the statement from the link:

Furuli quotes this statement on page 67, but on the next page he mentions some of the mythological material and errors in Berossus' discussion of earlier Babylonian periods. The obvious purpose of this is to call into question Berossus' statements about Neo-Babylonian chronology. This is a form of ad hominem argument called "poisoning the well," in which someone presents unfavorable information (true or false) about an opponent to suggest that any claim he makes is probably false. In other words, it is an attempt to bias the audience.

I thought when I read Furuli's arguments about ignoring Berossus that he was wrong. He dismisses Berossus for writing about myths and legends when all Berossus was doing was translating older documents and tablets from Babylon. Berossus would have got his chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period from more historical documents such as the Babylonian Chronicle.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

CF.

City Fan

There's also a good refutation of Furuli's linguistic juggling of Jeremiah 25:11. When I read Furuli I thought it was obvious that the "these nations" was the grammatical subject of the verse simply because of the context of Jeremiah 25:9 and 27:7. Furuli thinks otherwise.

I also thought it interesting that Furuli's own chronological chart at the end of the book goes no further back in time than 539 BC. This is almost an admission that any chronological reconstruction of dates before this year to arrive at 607BC is impossible.

bavman

hi,

i never got the chance to read jonsson's book. could someone pls tell me a synopsis? thanks.

bavman

stillajwexelder

I will give you a synosis in about 2 sentences. C.O.Jonsson produces mounds of evidence which thoroughly refutes the Date 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Since 607 BCE is false so is 1914 -- but he also produces much evidence to refute 1914 seperately such as supposedly increassing earthquake frequency.

BTW the WTBTS finally admitted the earthquake nonsense in Awake March 22nd 2002

scholar

bavman

A simple synopsis of this debate is that the Jonsson hypothesis is a desperate attempt to to discredit a biblically based chronology simply upon one interpretation of a Hebrew preposition in Jeremiah 29:10, The Oslo Chronology demonstrates the superiority of a biblically based chronology which determines the exact beginning of the seventy years as its foundation.

It seems that Jonsson by means of his review of Furuli's research simply repeats his tired assertions and stumbles into the mire of poor exgesis of the seventy years.

scholar

BA MA Studies in Religion

City Fan

Scholar,

Just wondered if you had an answer to explain why Furuli's chronological chart at the end of the book doesn't go further back in time than 539BC? If he was so confident over the 607BC date then why not include that?

I'm presuming you've actually read the Furuli book.

CF.

boa

hello bavman.....

a simple synopsis as you can see may involve people giving you reasonable conclusions (see ajwexelder) or silly hollow fluff (see 'scholar'). The fact that scholar is extremely deceitful in saying his synopsis of jonssons understanding is based on a word in a scripture immediately discredits him/her irrepairably for me. Uhhh, bullsh*t is another word for what he suggested.

If you want to be informed...order carl olaf jonsson's books and read up! They are very well written, have the 'ring of truth' and show very conclusively that the 'oppositions' pitiful reasoning regarding 607, 1914, or any other jw 'chronology' is very messed up like virtually all other apocalyptic sects. You KNOW this is true when the SOCIETY itself does not refute the EVIDENCE but resorts to trying to discredit ALL secular sources for ancient dating (see appendix 14 of 'Let Your Kingdom Come', EXCEPT those which seem to support SOME of their dates EXCEPT these sources also bring much great SUPPORT to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadzezzars 18/19th year of rule.

The above ALONE is all that is needed for the 'rank & file', and all the other NON-scholars (like me) to reason for themselves that the jw understanding is seriously flawed and is cascading towards total failure in the future! However, I still continue to read and learn the whole picture to be better informed so I can consider all the relevant information.

boa

richard

BA MA Studies in Religion

Scholar - what's the relevance of this addition?

hillary_step

Richard,

BA MA Studies in Religion ...........Scholar - what's the relevance of this addition?

He thinks that by doing so we all ignore his long-term failures in attending to the issues at hand. In recent times Scholar seems to have read "The Do It Yourself Book Of Repetitive Ad Hominem's", and has actually become rather practiced at the art - perhaps he has found his educational vocation after all. What he has never been able to do is to refute Carl Jonsson's collation of the historical and secular evidence that clearly indicates that the WTS is sitting precariously on this issue, with one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. HS

A Review By Carl Jonsson Of Rolf Furuli'sBook On Chronology.

Share this