#PARODY_MODE ON
Non-scholar said:
: So are we to assume that Jonsson has contributed nothing to chronology with his hypothesis?
This he has done with only a matter of months of publication.
: Are we to assume that Jonsson has simply done a 'cut and paste' with the work of serious scholars
1998 14 lines of evidence against 607
: or has he simply borrowed heavily from the work of the Seventh Day Adventists?
I have Furuli's Review of Jonsson's Exegesis and again demonstrates a pitiful attempt to refute Jonsson's Exegesis.
: Why after all these years his work has not been peer reviewed?
I already explained this, you twit.
: Jonsson has the gaul
Charles De Gaulle was a Gaul, but Jonsson is Swedish.
#PARODY_MODE OFF
: to review the work of others namely Furuli and Faulstich
Faulstich is wrong about Bible chronology, just as Furuli is wrong. Jonsson writes: "I have thoroughly refuted Faulstich?s thesis in the unpublished article, "A critique of E.W. Faulstich?s Neo-Babylonian chronology" (1999), available from me upon request."
Not only is Faulstich wrong, but his chronology contradicts Furuli's and the Watchtower's chronologies at every point. For example, Faulstich's chronology places the fall of Babylon in 540, not 539 B.C. ( http://www.mashiach6000.org/Mashiach6000/Mashiach6000.html ) -- a date that everyone but Faulstich agrees on. Faulstich's only point of agreement with Furuli is that the astronomical diary VAT 4956 is somehow messed up. But they don't seem to agree on how it's supposed to be messed up.
Faulstich is, in fact, a young-earth creationist crackpot whose "Bible chronology" differs from Furuli's at every point in time. So your invoking Faulstich as an authority in support of Furuli is absurd.
Here are some examples of Faulstich's crazy chronology:
From Faulstich's own website:
http://www.mashiach6000.org/Mashiach6000/Mashiach6000.html
If we add up the recorded years in the Bible, we find that the world was 3413 years old when the First Temple was destroyed in 588 B.C.E. 588 B.C.E. can be validated through astronomy, an exact science. By adding 588 B.C.E. to 3413, we can determine that the universe on April 5 of 2000 C.E. will be 6000 years (588 + 3413 - 1 + 2000 = 6000).
Note how this differs from Furuli's and the Watchtower's claim that the First Temple was destroyed in 607 B.C. and that 6000 years of human history ended in 1975 A.D.
Next note Faulstich's date for the creation of the earth:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/wwwofcreationism,%20Some%20Creationist%20Characters.htm
Besides the geocentrists, there are geobiblical chronologists. One of these is E. W. Faulstich, the proprietor of the Chronology History Research Institute in Rossie, Iowa. A computer expert Faulstich has calculated that the Earth was created in 4,001 B C. -- not 4,004 B.C. as calculated by Archbishop Ussher. Sunday, March 17, to be precise.
The creation of man would have been five days later, in 4001 B.C. -- not in 4026 B.C. as the Watchtower (and I'm sure Furuli) holds.
Next we find that Faulstich and the Watchtower disagree about the date of Noah's Flood (2370 B.C. by WTS reckoning) by 25 years:
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/noah/kav.html
Recently Gene Faulstich, from the Iowa Research Institute, proved the exact date of the flood to have been 2,345 B.C.E. Using methods from astronomy, he dated the onset of the flood precisely to the 14th of May in that year.
Finally we note that Faulstich's date for the Exodus differs from the Watchtower's (1513 B.C.) by 52 years:
http://www.triumphpro.com/bible_chronology_and_prophecy!.htm
History itself is the greatest arbiter to evaluate chronology. If a chronological system doesn't fit the facts, then it must be corrected. The essential idea may be sound, but errors in data throw off the results. Then again, the essential idea sometimes may need reworking. Faulstich is off on the date of the Passover during the Exodus and the death of Christ as well as the year for both. He places the Exodus in 1461 B.C., thirty years later than the received chronology, and the birth of Christ in 6 B.C., two years before His actual birth. He also erroneously places the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan, instead of the 14th, and says it was a Friday, instead of Thursday. These errors prove his program is faulty.
In summary, non-scholar, you mention Faulstich not because his chronology agrees with Furuli's, but merely because on one small point the two agree that there is a problem with one point of evidence in favor of the standard secular chronology. As usual, your invocation of a supposed scholar is thoroughly dishonest and actually disproves your claims.
: but has not had his work peer reviewed and then expects his work to be taken seriously.
I already explained this, you twit.
: It is merely a biased distortion of the secular evidence,
What evidence?
: biblical history
What history?
: and theology.
What theology?
AlanF
