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

by hillary_step 80 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  toreador

  What say you Scholar,

  You squirt in here and other threads and drop a line of propaganda and then run off like a wounded duck. Stand your ground and give us some meat. Something we can sink our teeth into, that makes sense.

  You know as well as I do that this chronology stuff is really hard to understand for the average person, like me. Answer me this, why would a loving God kill everyone who does not cower to the WTS interpretation of chronology and give our undying devotion to them thanking God daily for the "Faithful and discreet slave" who gives us the food at the proper time?

  I heard that mentioned in almost every prayer we had at every meeting in our hall. When looking at the food provided us over the last hundred years can you honestly say ALL of it was food at the proper time. How are we to know what we are reading is spiritual food at the proper time and which is not since obviously some of what we were taught and we taught others later turned out to be false? Most of what we were taught was just speculation and they thought it sounded good at the time, only to be proven wrong with the passage of time. At the time we recieved this information we were all to look at it as if it was blinding flashes of light provided by Jehovah. What it ended up to be was blinding flashes of pure human speculation.

  Toreador
• 

  AlanF

  I think that non-scholar's credentials are fake. I suspect he figured out how to post them by reading Scholars for Dummies, like Firpo Carr did.

  AlanF
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  I assume you are referring to the charts pp.219-225 which begins with the reign of Cyrus in 539 BC. The reason for this is that Furuli has confined this volume which is the first of two volumes to a study of Persian Chronology onlly as the book's title states - Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews.

  I have Jonsson's Review of the Oslo Hypothesis and again demonstrates a pitiful attempt to refute Furuli's exegesis. I have criticisms of this review and will address these to Jonsson shortly. I have acquired this day two articles which recently appeared in the Journal Of The Study Of The Old Testament JSOT with one by Stern cited by Furuli and Jonsson which nicely supports the desolation of Judah under the subject 'The Babylonian Gap'. The other article by Blenkinsopp discusses the subject of 'The Myth of the Empty Land' wherein the author admits to the fact that the Israelite version of this myth has as its ideology that Judah lay desolate for seventy years and also discredits Jonsson's claims that the seventy years began in 609 with the downnfall of the Assyrian Worls Power according to my opinion. It seems that recent scholarship is favouring the Socierty's interpretation of the seventy years and not that of the Jonsson hypothesis.

  scholar

  BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  Narkissos

  The other article by Blenkinsopp discusses the subject of 'The Myth of the Empty Land' wherein the author admits to the fact that the Israelite version of this myth has as its ideology that Judah lay desolate for seventy years.

  "Scholar", do you realize what you're saying? Yes, the "empty land" is a fictitious construction, as well as the "70 years". Ponder over that. And don't think you can get away with anything of it to confirm your "Bible-only", i.e. "history-free" chronology. It's a lost case.
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar

  The reason for this is that Furuli has confined this volume which is the first of two volumes to a study of Persian Chronology onlly as the book's title states - Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews.

  So it isn't a study of Persian chronology only is it? It's also a discussion of the length of the Jewish exile. So it would have been a good oportunity for Furuli to have constructed a chronological chart that included 607 BC as the destruction of the temple. But of course that is impossible so all we have is a small list of so-called problems which can easily be explained. Now if Furuli had also given evidence for 607 and constructed a chart with that date in it, I would have been more impressed. Instead it shows me that just arguing that some of the evidence is problematic is not enough. In fact it falls far short of proving 607.

  Anyway, maybe the second volume will rectify this. But I don't think Furuli would dare to print a chronological chart with 607 in it.

  CF.
• 

  Mary

  BA MA Studies in Religion

  AlanF said: I think that non-scholar's credentials are fake. I suspect he figured out how to post them by reading Scholars for Dummies

  LMAO Alan!! I agree..........anyone can add credentials after their name for the obvious purpose of trying to sound intelligent.

  Mary

  MA, Religious Studies

  PhD, Religious Studies, History, Archaeology

  DSc Biology, Chemistry, Kinesiology and any other "ology" you can think of.
• 

  joenobody

  Bump....

  I don't want scholar to lose sight of this thread. Are those articles you referred to posted on-line anywhere?
• 

  scholar

  hilary_step

  Jonsson gives a somewhat amateurish review of Furuli's book which is a piece of serious scholarship unlike the Jonsson hypothesis in GTR. This fellow has the gall to publicly review the work of a well qualified scholar ehen he himself has not bothered to get his work peer reviewed. I contacted Furuli by phone this morning and he informed me that he has submitted his book to fifteen sources/journals for such review. This he has done with only a matter of months of publication. Jonsson has had published his work since 1982 and yet it has not been peer reviewed in the Journals or scholarly literature. This fact undermines any credibility of his views which are purely sectarian and do not manifest careful scholarship. He informs us that a fourth edition is to be released this year hence I submit the following on his criticism of the validated date of 607 BCE:

  1982 7 lines of evidence against 607

  1998 14 lines of evidence against 607

  2004 28 lines of evidence ahainst 607

  2008 56 lines of evidence against 607.......ad infinitum Please give me a break

  scholar
• 

  AlanF

  Non-scholar, you provide a good deal of entertainment for this board. Do keep it up!

  : Jonsson gives a somewhat amateurish review of Furuli's book

  All that anyone has to do is read Jonsson's review to see how stupid this statement is. All anyone has to do to see the absurdity of Furuli's attempt to trash modern scholarship and to reinterpret simple Bible passages to support Watchtower claims is to read Furuli's book.

  : which is a piece of serious scholarship

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  : unlike the Jonsson hypothesis in GTR.

  But Jonsson's material is taken entirely from peer-reviewed scholarly material available to everyone who bothers to look for it. So it's certainly not in any sense the "Jonsson hypothesis", any more than my comments showing how the Watchtower Society lies about all sorts of things are "the Feuerbacher hypothesis".

  : This fellow has the gall to publicly review the work of a well qualified scholar

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Even so-called Watchtower scholars refuse to endorse Furuli's claims.

  : ehen he himself has not bothered to get his work peer reviewed.

  Since its all taken from previously published, peer-reviewed literature, it doesn't need to be.

  : I contacted Furuli by phone this morning and he informed me that he has submitted his book to fifteen sources/journals for such review.

  Submitting and getting approval are rather different things. I'd be surprised if he got even one slightly positive response.

  : This he has done with only a matter of months of publication.

  Are you attempting to write in English? The words are English, but the combination of words is nonsensical.

  : Jonsson has had published his work since 1982 and yet it has not been peer reviewed in the Journals or scholarly literature.

  Again, it's as unnecessary as culling articles from Nature magazine and reproducing the meat of them.

  : This fact undermines any credibility of his views which are purely sectarian

  What sect?

  In truth, it is Furuli's claims that are entirely sectarian. They have no support from any scholars -- not even JW ones. They bend and break even the very Bible passages that Furuli claims to cherish. The hypocrisy of the two of you is amazing.

  : and do not manifest careful scholarship.

  Coming from someone who can't even write English, that's rich! Who are you to judge?

  : He informs us that a fourth edition is to be released this year hence I submit the following on his criticism of the validated date of 607 BCE:

  Yet another bit of imagination.

  Yes, non-scholar, please do keep posting your silliness. It really helps the cause of JW critics.

  AlanF
• 

  onacruse

  Furuli is indeed a "scholar."

  So many (just on this db) have thoroughly eviscerated the "607 theory."

  One of my favorites:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/64436/1.ashx