Corrupting historical facts

by Hellrider 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  At the University of Oslo, Norway, there is a professor, who is also a JW. He DOES NOT even have a degree in history, he is a professor in semittic languages, still he has now published a book (in norwegian and english, and it`s going to be translated into lots of other languages also):

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm

  ...in which he is "challenging" the accepted view of Babylonian chronology. This is done in attempt to discredit serious historians, and spread doubts about their work on Babylonian chronology. The whole purpose of this is of course to make the 607bc-date more plausible. The unfortunate part of this, is that he nowhere reveals that he is a JW, and it`s not even common knowledge in the academic environment, and there is a danger that some will see his book and work as "real" scientific work. This is one of the reasons for me posting this: People must be aware, if they come across this book, that the author is a JW, with a clear "religious-political" agenda! It sickens me that he is allowed to do this, though, I don`t know if he has been given state funds, but he probably has. This is what happens when science goes bad!
• 

  scholar

  Hellrider

  What you do not like is an alternate viewpoint on matters, do you really think that biblical chronology is something static and cannot benefit by further research? Are you claiming that there is no need for scholarship in matters of history and chronology?

  No what you resent is that a Jehovah's Witness is able to engage in pure research and challenge current orthodoxy because Furuli has the necessary academic qualifications. Perhaps you should be more concerned with the Jonsson hypothesis because it originates from someone who is not a scholar and lacks university qualifications. Jonsson's theories on chronology are absurd and simp;y are the work of an amateur who clearly reveals his biased agenda against the superior Watchtower chronology. Scholars are well pleased that new research known as the Oslo chronology will result in a proper appraisal of Babylonian chronology and its relevance to the biblical data.

  The date of 607 can only be the best possible candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem and for the Gentile Times doctrine leading to the epochal year of 1914. I recommend that all lovers of God's Word read Rolf Furuli's book on Babylonian chronology.

  scholar
• 

  Pole

  Here we go again...
  
  Scholar has been summonned up.
  
  How about refuting the idea of prophecies at a different level? If God has indeed inspired 'prophecies' and set dates, then future is predictable in its entire complexity. That means there's no free will, especially if you apply thi logic to predictions concerning people's moral choices. Which in turn renders our lives pretty useless.
  
  Pole
• 

  Euphemism

  Hellrider... have you read Furuli's work? I haven't read his books, but judging from his 'net postings, I don't think there's a danger of anyone with any scholarly knowledge taking it for a serious work.
• 

  Hellrider

  No what you resent is that a Jehovah's Witness is able to engage in pure research and challenge current orthodoxy because Furuli has the necessary academic qualifications

  
  

  
  He does NOT have the necessary academic qualifications. He has a degree, and teaches in semittic languages! He is NOT a historian! The only reasons for him to even engage in historical research, is his agenda in trying to create doubts about the (by the entire rest of the world) accepted historical knowledge on Babylonian chronology! And WHY would he want to do this? What OTHER motive could a professor in semittic languages, which also just happens to be a Jehovahs Witness have, than to make his religion more plausible? And doing THAT, is corrupting his profession, and undermining the integrity of the academic institutions (I`m an academic myself btw, and am therefore personally outraged by this).

  Jonsson's theories on chronology are absurd and simp;y are the work of an amateur who clearly reveals his biased agenda against the superior Watchtower chronology.

  You can NOT say that Furuli is unbiased. If any of these two has an agenda, it is Furuli, because HE is the one trying to challenge decades of historical research and knowledge, only to make his own (insane) biblical beliefs more plausible. Of course, I don`t expect you to understand this. In my opinion, mr. Furuli should be kicked out of UIO on his ass, for making a mockery of the institution.
• 

  Hellrider

  Hellrider... have you read Furuli's work? I haven't read his books, but judging from his 'net postings, I don't think there's a danger of anyone with any scholarly knowledge taking it for a serious work.

  No, I think actually reading it would be a waste of time. Anyway, Furuli probably knows he is wrong, in the (I don`t know, I think it`s the preface that has been posted on the ad for the book), he writes:

  A word of caution

  Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. And any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, Steel, and Brack-Bernsen, but it asks about the origin and quality of the tablets in question, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal years of real kings. Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much more numerous and much more complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established "the only true chronology", but that it has demonstrated that neither the accepted chronology which is based on P&D is "the only true chronology" .

  ...so he even admits, in a way, that he could be wrong. And when a JW actually does that, you just know he`s full of shit.
• 

  Euphemism

  Hellrider wrote:
  Unlike Furuli (!!!), Jonsson is a respected and wellknown (now retired) professor of religious HISTORY! He is a HISTORIAN!

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you confusing Jonsson with Jim Penton? Dr. Penton taught history for many years at the University of Toronto. Jonsson, however, was not a professional academic.

  Unlike Furuli, however, Jonsson wrote an accessible layman's summary of the existing research. He did not claim to be doing new research or challenging existing findings.

  BTW, I'm not engaging scholar on this topic; he has been told all this many times before. I'm only posting this for the sake of Hellrider or others who may not know. You will find quite a bit on this topic in the archives.

  (BTW, Hellrider, are you by any chance from the town of Hell?)
• 

  Honesty

  The date of 607 can only be the best possible candidate for the Fall of Jerusalem and for the Gentile Times doctrine leading to the epochal year of 1914. I recommend that all lovers of God's Word read Rolf Furuli's book on Babylonian chronology.

  scholar

  So good of you to crawl back into the limelight, scholar.

  Read Zechariah 7:1-5

  *** Rbi8 Zechariah 7:1-5 ***
  7 Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Da·ri'us the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zech·a·ri'ah, on the fourth [day] of the ninth month, [that is,] in Chis'lev. 2 And Beth'el proceeded to send Shar·e'zer and Re'gem-mel'ech and his men to soften the face of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests who belonged to the house of Jehovah of armies, and to the prophets, even saying: “Shall I weep in the fifth month, practicing an abstinence, the way I have done these O how many years?”
  4 And the word of Jehovah of armies continued to occur to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When YOU fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month], and this for seventy years, did YOU really fast to me, even me?

  Read the following:

  *** it-1 583 Darius ***
  Darius was faced with an empire in revolt upon assuming the kingship and is considered to have spent the next two years subduing the insurrectionary elements throughout the realm. Egypt, which had thrown off the Persian yoke, was reconquered by Darius about 519-518 B.C.E. Thereafter he extended the imperial borders into India in the E and into Thrace and Macedonia in the W.

  *** it-1 583 Darius ***
  It is particularly with regard to the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem that Darius Hystaspis figures in the Bible record. The temple foundation was laid in 536 B.C.E., but rebuilding work came under ban in 522 B.C.E. and “continued stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius” (520 B.C.E.)

  *** it-1 584 Darius ***
  With this official cooperation and with continued prophetic encouragement (Zec 7:1; 8:1-9, 20-23), the temple work went on to successful completion “by the third day of the lunar month Adar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius” (Ezr 6:13-15; by March 6 of 515 B.C.E.).
  

  As you will notice, the WTBTS's own references place the destruction of Jerusalem at a different date than the 607 B.C.E. date you so adamantly defend. The 4th year of Darius' reign mentioned at Zech. 7:1 was 517 B.C.E.

  Note Zech. 7:5:

  70 years earlier was 587 B.C.E. which is when all secular and biblical evidence proves Jerusalem was destroyed.

  Scholar, it's time for you crawl back under your rock and contemplate your next appearance on this apostate website.

  Bye,
• 

  Hellrider

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you confusing Jonsson with Jim Penton? Dr. Penton taught history for many years at the University of Toronto. Jonsson, however, was not a professional academic

  ...you`re right (), I did (I have edited that post now, to cover up my mistake...not unlike our friends at the WTb&ts).... My apologies for that. However, Furuli is not a historian either, I`m right about that part, he`s a scholar in semittic languages.

  BTW, Hellrider, are you by any chance from the town of Hell?)

  LoL, no, but you`re right, there is a small town (very small) in Norway called Hell, yes, I grew up about an hour by car from it.
• 

  JCanon

  Furuli, unfortunately, is loyal to the witnesses but not scripture.

  Biblically speaking, the 70 years he introduces to get 607BCE for the fall of Jerusalem does not acknowledge that the complete desolation of the land was not accomplished until the last deportees were deported in year 23. If you date the return in 537BCE, then you must date year 23 to 607BCE. The fall of Jerusalem would have occurred 4 years earlier in 611BCE. So 6907BCE is wrong, wrong, wrong Biblically speaking. This was pointed out t Furuli who ignored it. Therefore, he's between the Bible and the organization.

  Academically speaking, the VAT4956 has two errors in it. One in Line 3 and one in Line 14 that was noted by two different experts, A. Sachs and V. Neugebaur to be an error for the previous day, they thought. Modern astronomy programs comparing the two "errors" discovered they belong to the same lunar cycle and can be matched to 511BCE. The question becomes, were these coordinated lunar references an "error" that the scribes made up? Some have argued about the reliability of the VAT4956 copyists because when they came to a broken part they noted it. Right. If they did and didn't understand the text, why did they "guess"? And how could they guess twice the precise lunar location for another year? On the other hand, if the chronology of the Babylonians and Persians is what was revised which is why the Bible and the pagan records for this period don't match up well, one theory is this is a secret reference by the revisionists to the original chronology. That explains "double dating" in a text with over 100 references to 568BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. If the diary was actually created to hide some secret reference to the original chronology then there is no choice but to presume the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar falls in 511BCE. It then becomes interesting that when you test this dating with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, it redates year 19 for the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE. Josephus dates the 70 years beginning with the last deportation from year 23 as does the Bible. Therefore, you can date year 23 to 525BCE and 70 years later the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Now isn't that a coincidence!!! Martin Anstey was more Bilical than either Furuli or the witnesses. It was clear to him that there were 82 years too many in the Persian Period because he believed firmly that only Cyrus could fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy which establishes the 483-year interval from the "going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem" to the baptism of Christ. In that case, the 1st of Cyrus would be dated to 455BCE and the last deportation 70 years earlier to 525BCE, the exact same dating you can get from the 511BCE references in the VAT4956.

  Furuli falls short of the Biblically specific chronology but its still great to see someone shaking the bushes and keeping the topic of revisionism and the Biblical timeline for this period alive. Lots of people want to set 587BCE as the real and only credible date and then quickly close the subject, but it's not happening.

  Furuli posts around and will answer your direct questions though he had been ill and was working on his thesis for his doctorate. If you want to challenge him directly, you need only mention that the 70 years of "desolation" did not begin until the last deportation and point out that the Jews who had ran down to Egypt were to return there before being exported to Babylon (Jer. 44:14,28). JWs have had this pointed out to them but they refuse to revise which means their priorities are not scritural. Unfortunately, Furuli likewise, seems to be so fixated on challening the NB chronology he can't face the reality of scripture. As a result, as with the witnesses, he loses credible respect for being completely honest, unfortunately.

  JC