by hillary_step 80 Replies latest jw friends
hilay_step
Wiseman and Cagni have simply provided a reference for Jonsson;s work, Why have they not produced a somple literature review. These scholars simply do not like Witnesses and have climbed into bed with Jonsson and his SDA cronies. I have stated earlier Jonsson has simply rehashed the scholarship of the SDA's because the community of scholars do not suppory his views on the seventy years. Is Carl Jonsson a SDA?
scholar
Is anyone concerned that Furuli will be too embarrassed to produce Volume II?
Perhaps he's too committed to the cause, and it's too late to turn back now. But Furuli's methods have already been exposed very well by Jonsson. In addition I think that many others even with less knowledge of chronology, but a fair amount of experience with false logic and argumentation can already see through a lot of his bluster.
I also noticed that Kent's Watchtower Observer site appears to have exposed some weaknesses in his implied claims about his position with respect to the University of Oslo having no "professor" by that name (only a student).
I wonder if he really thinks it's all worth it. Especially if he isn't even sure that the Watchtower won't finally admit all this was a mistake. Sometime between 2014 and 2034?
Gamaliel
Scholar
These scholars simply do not like Witnesses and have climbed into bed with Jonsson and his SDA cronies.
I only have one book by Wiseman, 'Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, The Schweich Lectures'. On the back it says that Donald Wiseman, FBA, is Emeritus Professor of Assyriology in the University of London. His many publications include Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626 - 556 BC) in the British Museum (1956); The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (1958); Peoples of Old Testament Times (1973).
Looking at the dates of these publications I'm sure rather than 'jumping in bed' with Jonsson, Wiseman came to his own conclusions many years before Jonsson did. Are there any other scholars you'd like to include on your hate-list? Joan Oates? Bickerman maybe? What about A. K. Grayson? Aaboe? Or how about Robert R Newton?
I'm sure compared to yourself, these so-called scholars just don't make the grade.
Listen boofhead. Finegans's book on chronology is far superior to the Jonsson drivel in fact in regard to Nt chronology he has moved closer to the WT chronology according to his second rdition. In fact Finegan has had both of his editions peer reviewed so when will Jonsson do the same.
I challenged you to indicate exactly where Carl's work deviates from the generally accepted timeframe for the neo-Babylonian chronology and as I expected you didn't come near to answering the challenge. Apparently you do get inspired by my description of your own verbal diarrhea you spout here, notwithstanding the fact that what you designate as 'drivel' appears to be in close harmony with the opinion and writings of what generally acknowledged and peer-reviewed scholars have produced. To illustrate that point I've taken the liberty to pull a few publications of my shelves, some of which have been referred to earlier, and just made a little comparison between the 'drivel' of Carl O. Jonsson, as found on page 235 of the 3rd ed. of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Even people who are not well versed in scholastic chronology can see that there's virtually no difference between these various learned sources. Oh, and they do recognize the foul stench of the rotten pack of red herrings that you keep dragging around.
Therefore, please enlighten us: what exactly would be the purpose of reviewing this chronology for the neo-Babylonian kings as published in the work of Carl O. Jonsson? Why would any scholar spend more than 0.7 seconds of brain energy to review what is commonly considered as well established facts? Exactly where does the chronology as presented in GTR deviate from what is common acknowledged? If you really want and dare to challenge the scholarly works of Kugler, Thiele, Sachs, Hunger, Wiseman, Walker, Finegan, and many others --- indeed including a mr. Jonsson --- please do so. Don't lie to us by giving the impression that the work of mr. Jonsson is in any way dissonant with all these recognized scholars. You know very well you can not and you dare not either, and therefore resolve to name calling. Is that really the best you can do? I guess it is, since it is exactly what your mindcontrolling cultleaders in Brooklyn have done to those that eventually distinguished the lie from truth.
(c)
| GTR-3 | HdO-44 | HBC | CAH-III | EB2K4 | EWP2K4 | |||||||
| Nabopolassar | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 625 | c. 626 | 626 | |||||||||
| first regnal year | 625 | -624 | 625 | |||||||||
| last regnal year | 605 | -604 | 605 | c. 605 | 605 | |||||||
| Nebuchadnezzar | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 605 | c. 605 | 605 | |||||||||
| first regnal year | 604 | -603 | 604 | |||||||||
| last regnal year | 562 | -561 | 562 | c. 561 | 562 | |||||||
| Awel-Marduk | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 562 | c. 561 | ||||||||||
| first regnal year | 561 | -560 | 561 | |||||||||
| last regnal year | 560 | -559 | 560 | c. 560 | ||||||||
| Neriglissar | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 560 | c. 559 | ||||||||||
| first regnal year | 559 | -558 | ||||||||||
| last regnal year | 556 | -555 | c. 556 | |||||||||
| Labashi-Marduk | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 556 | |||||||||||
| first regnal year | 556 | -555 | ||||||||||
| last regnal year | 556 | -555 | ||||||||||
| Nabonidus | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 556 | c. 556 | 555 | |||||||||
| first regnal year | 555 | -554 | ||||||||||
| last regnal year | 539 | -538 | 539 | 539 | ||||||||
| Cyrus of Persia | ||||||||||||
| accession year | 539 | 539 | 539 | |||||||||
| first regnal year | 538 | -537 | 538 | |||||||||
| last regnal year | 530 | -529 | c. 529 | |||||||||
| GTR-3 | The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 3rd revised and expanded edition, Carl O. Jonsson, 1998, p 235. | |||||||||||
HdO-44 | Handbuch der Orientalistik: Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, vol. 44, Hermann Hunger and David Pingree, 1999, p. x, xii. | |||||||||||
HBC | Handbook of Biblical Chronology, revised edition, 2nd printing, Jack Finegan, 1999, ยง 429-454. | |||||||||||
CAH-III | The Cambridge Ancient History: The Assyrian Empire, vol. III, J.B. Bury, S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock (ed.), 1960. | |||||||||||
EB2K4 | The Encyclopaedia Britannica, DVD Ultimate Reference Edition, 2004. | |||||||||||
EWP2K4 | Encarta Encyclopedie Winkler Prins, 2004. | |||||||||||
I want to point out the disgustingly hypocritical nature of non-scholar's response to Hillary_Step's pointing out precisely what he has been demanding -- endorsements from recognized scholars:
: These scholars simply do not like Witnesses and have climbed into bed with Jonsson and his SDA cronies.
We know very well that no matter which recognized scholars might endorse Jonsson's work, non-scholar would pull out the same bullshit excuse. So his demand that Jonsson's work, in order to be valid, must be endorsed by recognized scholars is obviously nothing more than a hypocritical excuse for him to dismiss Jonsson's work.
: I have stated earlier Jonsson has simply rehashed the scholarship of the SDA's
And various posters have proved you wrong. Jonsson has relatively little to do with SDA scholarship; most of his work is "rehashing" the work of the world's best scholars. Of course, he's added his own unique perspective, and pulled together in one book a huge amount of material that's spread out over thousands of publications and 150 years.
: because the community of scholars do not suppory his views on the seventy years.
A stereotypically misleading statement by a pathological JW liar. The entire community of scholars don't necessarily go along with the view that the 70 years began in 609 and ended in 539 B.C., but some do, such as Jack Finegan. But they all go along with the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C. -- and for purposes of this forum, that's all that's needed to prove that the Watchtower's claims are false. The precise details of the beginning of the 70 years are simply irrelevant to this. But I have little doubt that within a few years most scholars will accept the conclusions of Finegan, Jonsson and a few others, that the 70 years ended in 539 B.C. (since the Bible itself is solid on this date) and therefore must have begun in 609 B.C.
AlanF
The precise details of the beginning of the 70 years are simply irrelevant to this.
Someone enlighten me, why are the 70 years so important to Scholar? Why do you feel that this changes the date for the fall of jerusalem?
Tor
Just putting this in the mix in case some have not read up and/ or seen 'him' (Kent's site has some pretty good gems that should not go unnoticed):
http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040412/JWANDSOCIETY10/40412007
The alleged "professor" Rolf Furuli
|
Room 4209, Georg Sverdrups Hus, University of Oslo.
PHONE: (+47) 22 84 42 23.
FAX: (+47) 22 85 41 40
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Born 19 December 1942, magister artium, 1995. University of Oslo.
The religion of the Bible and its text in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, Bible translation, the verbal systems of classical Hebrew and the other Semitic languages, Accadian/Sumerian texts and grammar.
|
--- Kent Steinhaug <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rding http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/furuli.htm
>
> You write:
>
> Professor Rolf Furuli's book is now available for purchase
>
> Since when was Furuli a professor? As far as I know, this simply isn't
> true.
>
> Regards
>
> Kent
That is not the impression made elsewhere, and in the attached letter.
The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation:
With a special ...
... World Translation of Jehovahs Witnesses by
Authors: Rolf Furuli , Rolf. Furuli Released:
15 February, 1999 ISBN ... be truly indebted to Professor Furuli for taking ...
www.earth-religions.com/
The_Role_of_Theology_and_Bias_in_Bible_Translation_With_a_special_look_at_the_New...
- 14k - Cached - Similar pages
lol....You have to give it to Kent, he boldly goes where no man has gone before.
Thanks Skally - HS
Scholar,
These scholars simply do not like Witnesses and have climbed into bed with Jonsson and his SDA cronies.
And your evidence for this would be?....Oh, sorry I almost forgot, cultists do not need evidence, they just need mindless conviction.
HS
Hillary --
Thanks for posting this link to the review of Furuli's book.
What I noticed when I read Furuli's book was that it seems not to have been proofread or edited very well. There are many sloppy errors. Particularly irksome was the apparent disregard for correct spelling of the names of the scholars he cites. I noticed so many of these that I started keeping a list. There are even names which are correct on one page but incorrect on the facing page. Very sloppy indeed. He gives credit to his assistants, and I am sure they did their best, but the overall result is less than satisfactory for a book which is presented as a scholarly work.
Additionally, no one seems to have double-checked the footnote citations and bibliography and list of authors quoted. Again, I noticed a lot of errors.
The book contains numerous illustrations and photographs obtained from previously published sources which are reprinted here without credit. I believe many of these are from the 19th century and are therefore in the public domain, but AFAIK the usual scholarly practice is to give credit underneath the picture and also in the bibliography. A few of the pictures do have cryptic abbreviations in the caption, and I suspect that many of them are taken from Rawlinson, but he is not listed in the bibliography. Credit for the illustrations on the front cover of the book is given on page 2, but in the credit Behistun is spelled incorrectly as "Bahistun". (It is spelled correctly on pages 137, 140, 150, and 238 --- but the "list of authors quoted" incorrectly gives references to pp. 141 and 151 instead of pp. 140 and 150. I noticed several other errors of that sort in the list.)
Leaving aside the question of content, it is a shame to see so many mistakes in details of spelling and bibliographic references and captions. Perhaps this was rushed to press too quickly, or perhaps Furuli delegated too much of the proofreading and editing to assistants.
I had started keeping a list of such errors, thinking that the author might want to make corrections in a second edition, but I had to put my serious work aside when my best friend was diagnosed with ovarian cancer last fall. Since her death I have had trouble getting my mind back to what I was working on, but coming across this thread tonight has sparked my interest.
Greetings to all of you who gave me such a warm welcome last summer!
Marjorie Alley
