Posts by AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:

: So where and why not has Jonsson's muddle been reviewed as a Book Review which is the case with Furuli's latest tome.? Please no excuses just get the job done if you have any intellectual spine.

Already answered.

: A score of one out of twenty is a vast improvement over Jonsson who scores a zero.

I'd bet good money that the scholars who refused to give reviews did so for obvious reasons: they didn't want to deal with a crackpot, they didn't want to lend credence to the crackpot's ideas by writing about them, they didn't want to take time away from their real research by dealing with a crackpot.

: What the prominent SDA scholar had to say will be revealed when I receive further in formation from Furuli

In other words, Furuli has told you that he received a positive review from one SDA scholar, but you have no idea what is in the review. Given your and Furuli's track record, I suspect that the review is largely negative, and Furuli has, like you've done with Grabbe's short review, managed to glean out what is not there.

: but if you cannot get Jonsson moving then I do not see why I have to reveal other opinions of Furuli's momentous contribution.

Already dealt with. Let me repeat: (1) good scholars do not solicit favorable reviews; (2) Book reviews of works for laymen that merely summarize technical literature are unnecessary for the evaluation of the technical literature; (3) Your demand for a review is a smokescreen designed to focus attention on Jonsson rather than the data; (4) Even if 100 scholars positively reviewed Jonsson's book, you'd still reject their conclusions.

: When you say Jonsson's work does not need a review then what you are admitting that his work is simply amateurish with no scholarly merit, a piece of worthless 'cult bashing'.

Utter nonsense. Jonsson's work has a very specific purpose: to bring together in one place information about the history of the Watchtower Society's ridiculous claims that buttress the foundation of its most important doctrine, i.e., the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses (what essentially amounts to worship of the Governing Body), and to use solid technical data to refute it. Isaac Asimov wrote hundreds of popular books on science and other subjects, and these generally needed no reviews because they were popularized summaries of the technical literature.

: Grabbe's review of Furuli was hardly sarcastic

LOL! How can anyone be this stupid?

: but simply expressed a different opinion in fact he paid Furuli a compliment in stating that Furuli's thesis was a rewriting of scholarship.

Jeffro pointed out the correct interpretation: "Oh dear... not another one!"

: You pay Furuli a giant compliment when you compare Furuli's thesis with that of the gravitation theory.

I did no such thing, you moron. In fact, I implied the opposite. What I said is "that what Furuli is doing is like trying to rewrite gravitational theory." I directly compared modern Neo-Babylonian chronology with gravitational theory.

Again, how can anyone possibly be this stupid?

: The so called masses of data supporting the Neo-Babylonian chronology is yet to be fully tested

Translation: "My Mommy the Society doesn't go along and so I don't either."

: and Furuli unlike Jonsson has the academic credentials to subject current thinking to the blowtorch.

I think not. Furuli is much like that very model of a crank, Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky attempted to rewrite history based on his theory that Jupiter forcibly ejected the planet Venus, which then whizzed around the sun and passed the earth, producing all sorts of havoc including the Plagues of Egypt. Although his ideas have been thoroughly trashed by all manner of scientists and historians, today he has quite a following among people who, for whatever reason, like to question all standard scholarship on any subject. Velikovsky had some very good credentials, but that didn't stop him from writing utter nonsense or from, like Furuli, being extremely selective in his sources, often misrepresenting them, and ignoring the masses of evidence against this theories.

: There must be something drastically wrong with such secular chronology because the Bible proves there is a twenty year gap between the sacred and secular chronologies.

Nonsense. The "gap" exists only in the minds of JW apologists.

Good lord! You can't explain away the fact that Josephus clobbers your claim that the Jews returned to Judah in 537 B.C. That alone kills the whole corpus of Watchtower chronology. Nor can you explain away the simple fact that 2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly and unambiguously states that the Jews were no longer servants to the Babylonians after Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, which fact removes all ambiguity from some of the biblical passages that vaguely refer to Jeremiah's 70 years, namely, that these years were ones of servitude to the then world power Babylon.

: Regardless of how many lines of evidence used to support current Neo-Babylonian chronology it still conflicts with the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah

Translation: "Regardless of how much evidence exists against the Watchtower's interpretation, I will still go with my Mommy."

: and the reference work that you have cited endorses 586 rather than Jonsson's 587 date

Wrong. Here are some references from the Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books:

p.554, article "Jerusalem" by C. Meyers:
. . . Jerusalem . . . reached its zenith and probably remained that way until the Babylonian conquest of 587 BCE.
p. 623, article "Kings, Books of", by J. G. McConville:
The books of Kings tell the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah from the accession of Solomon (970 BCE) to the fall of Judah (587 BCE).
p. 481-82, article "History of Israel 6: Babylonian Period" by P.-A. Beaulieu:
[In 597 BCE,] the new king appinted by Nebuchadnezzar was Zedekiah (Mattaniah), Jehoiakin's uncle. . . At first, Zedekiah remained subservient to Nebuchadnezzar, but soon Egypt began maneuvering to regain a foothold in the Levant. Zedekiah tried to gather a coalition of neighboring states under his aegis around the year 594 BCE, and open rebellion finally broke out in the year 589/588 BCE. At this point the Babylonian Chronicle is no longer extant. The second conquest of of Jerusalem is known mainly from 2 Kings 25, parts of which are repeated with a number of modifications in Jeremiah 39 and 52. The siege extended over a period of one or two years (588 to 587 or 586 BCE, the year of Jerusalem's capture being uncertain) and resulted in a second deportation of the Judean population and the plunder of the remaining vessels and furnishings of the temple of Jerusalem.
p. 285, article "Ezra and Nehemiah, Books of" by E. M. Yamauchi:
Although we have no extrabiblical evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's assault against Jerusalem in 605 BCE (Dan 1:1), we do have confirmation of his attack upon Jerusalem in 597 BCE from the Babylonian Chronicles. After the Jews rebelled again, Nebuchadnezzar attacked in 587 or 586 BCE, destroying the Solomonic temple.
p. 802, article "Postexilic Temple" by P. R. Bedford:
The first temple (see Solomon's Temple), proposed by David (2 Sam 7:1-3) and constructed by Solomon (1 Kings 5-6), was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BCE at the demise of the kingdom of Judah.

What you seem to forget is that this book is a compendium of articles by various authors, and unlike the uniformity imposed upon Watchtower writers by the JW Governing Body, these authors are free to express their own views and their reasons for them.

I will also point out that your constant harping on the fact that the Bible is ambiguous about the date of Jerusalem's destruction, and that this somehow brings into question the whole of standard Neo-Babylonian dating, ignores the fact that truly key dates in that chronology are confirmed both by secular evidence and the Bible. Such dates include Nebuchadnezzar's accession in 605 and the capture of Jerusalem in 597 B.C.

: and does not endorse ant precise ending of the Assyrian World Power

Wrong.

p. 478, article "History of Israel 6: Babylonian Period", by P.-A. Beaulieu:
The Babylonian period in the history of Israel covers the year 609 to 539 BCE. . . In 539 BCE the Persian ruler Cyrus II (the Great) put an end to the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
p. 458, article "History of Israel 5: Assyrian Period", by B. E. Kelle and B. A. Strawn:
The Assyrian period of Israelite history extends from the mid-ninth century BCE to the late-seventh century BCE. In terms of Assyrian political history, this period extends from the reign of Shalmaneser III 858-824 BCE) to that of Ashur-uballit II (612-609 BCE).

: which is pivotal to the Jonsson hypothesis.

Obviously, Jonsson has his pivots right.

: So your qoutation from DOTHB simply illustrates current thinking on chronology

Precisely the point. And Jonsson's works are entirely consistent with the best of that current thinking.

: but methinks Furuli 's research will shake such thinking to its core.

Not likely. Grabbe's sarcasm is but a tiny taste of what Furuli will experience if he manages to get some good scholars to carefully analyze his crackpot claims.

: Your quotation from the article by Depuydt indicates apart from sourcing Jonsson's work that there is now a need to prove Ptolemy's canon and that a "shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead".

As usual, you've completely missed the point. Go to the Dictionary and read the background material. Perhaps then you'll see the error of your ways.

: Such a paradigm shift has already begun with the researching of Babylonian and Egyptian chronology in Furuli's forthcoming second volume.

LOL!

Here comes another gibberish English sentence:

: In regard to your support of Cagni that he himself is not cited in the article ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS in the same reference and of course neither is Jonsson.

I gave no support of Cagni. Indeed, I explicitly stated, "I know nothing of Cagni."

Again, how can anyone be this stupid?

: Your claim that Neo-Babylonian chronology solidly nails down the coffin lid on Watchtower chronology is simply wishful thinking because such chronology cannot account for the bib lical seventy years

In reality, it is Watchtower chronology that has invented a particular notion of the 70 years that is entirely at odds with all other data. Nor can it explain away this data. All it can do is hope that new data will come along that will somehow blow away all that has come before. Ain't gonna happen.

: and falls short of some twenty years without mentioning the other problems of incomplete Babylonian and Egyptian history.

The only other "problems" are extremely minor ones. As Furuli points them out, various scholars will solve them, and Furuli will have to go back to the drawing board.

: Bible Students from the time of Russell have been well served by a carefully crafted biblical chronology that with some fine tuning

I love it. Russell's claim about "Gods dates" that he merely discovered lying within the Bible turns out to need "fine tuning". God's dates don't need fine tuning, you moron. Russell's dates did, which proved him wrong.

: over many decades has contributed in somme small to the faith in the prophetic word.

LOL! Sure, faith by those already awestruck by the awesome record of prediction by the "celebrated Watchtower scholars"!

: This contrasts well with secular chronologies base upon the theories of higher critics and poztates who have lost their faith in the truths and beauty of God's Word.

Again, scholar pretendus, you show yourself to be a complete idiot. Jonsson is an extremely dedicated Christian who views the Bible as God's directly dictated Word. Various people on this board are also dedicated Christians. Jeffro has shown that it is quite possible to come to a good harmony between Scripture and standard Neo-Babylonian chronology. Your argument is deliberately false and shows that you're no Christian.

AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:

: I have never been trounced by anyone on this board and have met all arguments 'head on'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Head on to you is obviously shoving your head hard into the sand.

You have yet to refute Josephus' proof that the Jews returned in 538 B.C., even though you've claimed a number of times that you were about to. We know from your past performance that eventually you'll forget about it, except that somehow you'll 'remember' refuting Josephus, and then crow how smartly you've defeated those wiley apostates on yet another front. Of course, you won't remember where or how you did it.

AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

Still no references from scholar pretendus as to who has supposedly peer reviewed Furuli's work, despite repeated requests. It's obvious either that no such reviews exist, or that the ones that do are severely critical and an embarassment to Furuli and his cheerleaders.

scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:

: Lester Grabbe did not peer review Furuli's work but simply a critique listed as a Book Review in a leading scholarly journal something of which Jonsson has not bothered to do.

Can't you write intelligible English? Obviously not.

Furthermore, you moron, no author can "bother" to get a critique of his book listed somewhere. It is the reviewers and magazine editors who must "bother" to do this. Indeed, it would be a violation of professional ethics to solicit favorable reviews.

: Furuli has long sent out at least twenty copies of his work to various scholars and institutions during the short time it has been published and has already received feedback from a prominent SDA scholar.

Really. One out of twenty. A good score. And of course, nothing has actually been published, most likely because the reviews are scathing and the reviewers know they're dealing with a nut.

And just what did this "prominent SDA scholar" have to say? Are you brave enough to post the entire content of the comments, along with who this scholar is?

: Jonsson has had his work published for more than twenty years and over this time there is still no Book Review.

Like I and others have explained till we're blue in the face: Jonsson has not come up with new material but only collated existing and well accepted scholarly data and conclusions. There is no need for a review.

: Grabbe was not poking fun at Furuli but rather paid him a compliment for his attempt to rewrite scholarship

My, my. You really are stupid. Grabbe's review is dripping with sarcasm. Do you really need it explained line by line?

: and really this is what contributes to advances in scholarship where a scholar breaks new ground or submits current thinking to testing.

True in general, but you should realize that what Furuli is doing is like trying to rewrite gravitational theory. Both gravitational theory and Neo-Babylonian chronology are backed up by massive amounts of data, and so potential minor problems such as Furuli raises in his book -- most of which have already been solved by various authors including Carl Jonsson -- don't cast doubt on the overall correctness of the theories. You and Furuli would throw out the 99.99% of data that establishes the chronology and retain the 0.01% that you claim bolsters Watchtower claims. This is not only scholastically dishonest but just plain stupid.

: Grabbe reminds the reader that "gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship"

That's part of his sarcasm.

: and he looks forwardto Furuli's next volume.

Nonsense. How you manage to glean such a stupid claim from Grabbe's words is frightening. Indeed, after characterizing Furuli's ideas as amateurish and naive, and commenting that he is obviously unwilling to put his ideas to the test with recognized scholars, by which he clearly indicates his disapproval of Furuli's claims, he sarcastically says: "A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing."

: Jonsson's nonsense has not been subject to a peer review or a Book Review but on the back cover of his last two editions there are two endorsements by two scholars who express a favourable opinion about Jonsson's work. Wiseman promises to notify a number of correspondents of the work but since 1998 the date of the third edition where is there any mention of Jonsson's work in the scholarly literature?

You make this so easy. Like I said, you're the best shill I've ever seen. I'll expand a bit on the theme of why Neo-Babylonian chronology is so well established and why Jonsson's work simply reflects the best of modern scholarship.

Various scholars, including Carl Jonsson, have shown conclusively that the entirety of Neo-Babylonian chronology can be established on a variety of bases, most particularly with the help of Babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets. Other sources such as the tens of thousands of dated business documents and Ptolemy's Canon are also extremely useful. In the article "Egypt, Egyptians" The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books (Editors: Bill T Arnold & H.G.M. Williamson, 2005, InterVarsity Press: Illinois.) describes the time frame of Egyptian history as it relates to Jewish history. Concerning the basis for this time frame author L. Depuydt states (p. 239):

The ultimate foundation of first-millennium BCE chronology is the longest sustained research project of all time: Babylonian astronomy. At Babylon, celestial events were recorded continuously in astronomical diaries from the eighth century BCE to the first century CE (Sachs and Hunger). Sophisticated theories rooted in these observations were formulated in the third and second centuries BCE (recently Brack-Bernsen). Babylonian astronomy first surfaced not in the original cuneiform tablets, but in Greek works on astronomy, especially those of Ptolemy of Alexandra (second century CE). Ptolemy's Royal Canon is antiquity's single most important chronological document (Depuydt 1995b). Manuscripts of the Royal Canon came to light in the early seventeenth century CE. The Royal Canon lists three types of data: (1) the successive rulers earlier of Babylon and later of Alexandria, including Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians, Macedonians and Egyptians, beginning with the Babylonian king Nabonassar; (2) the lengths of their reigns converted into multiples of Egyptian 365-day years, with day 1 being February 26, 747 BCE; (3) the cumulative count of years from Nabonassar, the so-called Era of Nabonassar. The Royal Canon's veracity has never been doubted, but neither has it ever been positively proven. Paradoxically, proving the Royal Canon will also render it superfluous. Thus a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead (Depuydt, in press [b]; Jonsson). Proof of the Royal Canon is to be found in Babylonian astronomical texts. These sources emerged at the end of the nineteenth century CE. The decipherment of Babylonian astronomy soon followed. Some principal sources have become more easily accessible to historians only recently. Babylonian astronomy takes us back to 747 BCE. Then Assyrian limu lists take over. In Assyria, each year was named after an official called the limu. Lists of limus have survived (Millard). These lists make Near Eastern chronology reasonably solid back to about 910 BCE.

Everything stated in the above paragraph is consistent with Carl Jonsson's work. Indeed, over a period of time I learned about all of the above from his various editions of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. This proves that Jonsson's work accurately reflects the best of modern scholarship and is in no sense Jonsson's own creation, although ex-JWs owe him a debt of gratitude to have put all the right information to refute Watchtower chronological lies in one place. Also note that not a single word in the above supports scholar pretendus' pretentions.

Note that Jonsson is cited above (The Gentile Times Reconsidered) as just another scholarly source reference, along with such noteworthy scholars as W. F. Albright, L. Depuydt, Jack Finegan, K. A. Kitchen, F. X. Kugler, A. R. Millard, Ronald A. Parker, Waldo H. Dubberstein, Abraham Sachs, Hermann Hunger and Edwin R. Thiele.

: Regarding Cagni's claim that this work is a serious study for the field of Assyriology then again where in the scholarly literature since 1998 have serious scholars used or benefited from this so called 'serious study'?

Once again, you moron, academic scholars generally cite each other when writing for a technical audience. They don't cite anyone, scholar or amateur, writing for a lay audience. It would be like the famous theoretical physicist Richard Feynman citing a popular book by Isaac Asimov to support some idea he wrote in a physics journal.

: One cannot but feel that there is an agenda against the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses manifested by these two fellows.

Nonsense. Wiseman is an old and respected scholar. I know nothing of Cagni. But all good modern scholars will, of course, support the general run of standard Neo-Babylonian chronology, and so every one of them will be "against the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses" in the sense that they would not hesitate to refute it.

: If the endorsements are of any value why does not Jonsson make public the full content of such letters of admiration?

Unlike you, Jonsson lets the facts he presents speak for themselves.

: Alan F, you boast that Jonsson's work mainly consists of summarizing the cream of modern scholarship but if this is truly the case How is it that Jonsson's views clearly are a minority view and does not represent the majority of scholars as to the date for the Fall and the exegesis of the seventy years.

We've been through this plenty of times before, but I'll summarize: there is virtually no disagreement on anything of importance in Neo-Babylonian chronology. The reigns of the kings are securely established. In this sense, Jonsson summarizes the best of modern scholarship. However, on minor details like Jeremiah's 70 years, we have only the Bible as a guide. Josephus gives contradictory information and cannot be trusted on his own. Since the Bible is open to much interpretation -- you have only to look at the history of Watchtower teachings to see this, where all current teachings are claimed to be the result of divine direction, even when they've changed -- often only secular material can clear up what the biblical writings mean. And in some cases, nothing will clear it up. Of course, your worship of the Watchtower Society means that you accept all current Watchtower claims, but this is irrelevant to how proper scholars go about their business.

Furthermore, majority vote really doesn't count for much in good scholarship. You yourself really believe this, because even though by far the majority of modern biblical scholars accept some notion of the trinity, you reject their scholarship. Thus, your charge against Jonsson is dishonest and self-serving. And I've already explained that because the majority of modern biblical scholars tend to follow the fundamentalist Edwin Thiele, whereas secular scholars follow their own kind, and there are a lot more biblical than secular scholars, that's why a majority accepts 586 over 587. But once again, I have yet to read dogmatic statements on the matter, and most scholars have no problem accepting either date. And yet again, the date is of no real importance. It's only important to JWs since it's part of the Watchtower tradition used to justify the authority of Watchtower leaders over the rest of the cult.

: If the book does not need a review of any sort then its significance for the serious student is somewhat diminished as it merely amounts as I have reminded Augustin that it is a piece of 'cult bashing'.

Nonsense. The book is of great value to anyone who wants a good summary of ancient Middle Eastern chronology. The fact that Jonsson rightly attacks the Watchtower Society's basis for disfellowshipping people for rejecting Watchtower nonsense is irrelevant to the excellent chronological summary. People would have to do years of difficult searching to find that material, and many could not because they don't have the academic resources at hand.

: If serious scholars do not regard the Jonsson hypothesis as a piece of 'cult bashing' then one could infer that it is a serious study of Neo- Babylonian chronology and the biblical seventy years but where then is a Book Review?

You're going in circles again and I won't follow.

: Where has this 'serious study' been utilized by scholars in discussions of chronology and biblical history?

I gave one example above, and I explained why serious academic scholars don't usually cite works written for laymen.

: Augustin claims that a quotation by some Norwegian scholar of Jonsson in his book on the Witnesses is proof of something. Proof of what?

Augustin already explained, you moron. Why do you have to have things repeated to you? Do you think that your denial will change the fact that all modern scholars reject Watchtower chronology?

: Even James Penton in his history of the Witness sources Jonsson as does Raymonf Franz but this is irrelevant in this discussion of the merits of Jonsson's alleged scholarship because fellow sympathizers will always find comfort in the arms of each other.

This is irrelevant to everything.

: The scholars mentioned by you such as Lundbon etc do not endorse the Jonsson hypothesis,

Of course not, because there is no such thing. You cannot even state what you think it is, because as soon as you try, your nonsense is so evident that even you can't stomach it.

: they have not quoted from Jonsson's work

L. Depuydt cited Jonsson, as shown above, for his statement that "a shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead."

: and their published writings and commentary on the seventy years differ greatly from Jonsson.

Greatly? No. At most by a few years, and they always explain why they differ.

But again, you're using a dishonest argument here because you reject any and all scholarly ideas that contradict Watchtower teaching. Good scholarship is entirely irrelevant to you; only the pronouncements of your cult leaders hold any weight. You use scholarship as a way to fool naive potential converts into thinking that "Watchtower scholarship" has a basis in anything other than the self-proclaimed spiritual authority of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

: There would be a few facts of common agreement just as would also be the case with celebrated WT scholars and Furuli but the substance is very much of wide dispute.

Once again, the chronology is undisputed. Only minor details are disputed.

And once again, the undisputed Neo-Babylonian chronology solidly nails down the coffin lid on Watchtower chronology, and we all know that once that's done, all other Watchtowerish details are irrelevant.

: In this repect, Grabbe admits that with Furuli that "some biblical passages make such a statement" What was that statement? It was that ' seventy years desolation of the land' which is against Jonsson's opinions.

So what? I already explained why this is immaterial, since that claim takes a small number of ambiguous biblical passages in isolation and neglects the overall context.

: Grabbe nowhere in his Book Review gives any indication that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian servitude or domination but he recognizes that some texts can if read literally refer to desolation even if he himself has a different view of matters, a view which is left unstated.

So what? Some biblical texts, read literally and in isolation, say that the universe was created in six literal days.

: Typically apostates are desperate people with nowhere to turn and nowhere to hide for they a re exposed for the deceivers they are: haters of God's Word, his people and his organization.

A typical diatribe from a desperate cultist. I fart in your general direction!

: The chronology published by the Society, developed by celebrated WT scholars has shown itself superior to the empty theories of secular scholars who cannot amongst themselves cannot produce a simple and coherent chronology.

Of course they can, because they have. It can be found in books such as The Cambridge Ancient History. Your real beef with them is that they unanimously reject Watchtower chronology. That's all.

And we all know how badly the Society has mucked up chronology during its history. Russell borrowed all of his chronology from the Second Adventists, and especially from Nelson Barbour. Barbour in turn got some of it from people heavily influenced by the discredited Millerites. Russell taught that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 B.C. and was so ignorant of real scholarship that he didn't know that there was no "zero year" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. Even when P.S.L. Johnsson pointed this out to him around 1913, he failed to do anything about it. And even when C. J. Woodworth and George Fisher used the 607 date in the 1917 book The Finished Mystery, Joseph Rutherford and Fred Franz failed to pick up on the 'correct' date and so the Society used 606 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction until 1944, when Franz finally changed it by fiat in the book The Kingdom Is At Hand. And of course, we all know that most everything the Society now claims happened in or around 1914 was taught for about half its history to have occurred in or around 1874. So do we see a history of good scholarship here? No. We see a history of bungling. Rather than "celebrated WT scholars" we find celebrated Watchtower bunglers. And I do mean celebrated. And in Rutherford's case, an inebriated WT bungler. LOL!

AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

Let's take a closer look at the total nonsense disgorged in several posts in this thread by our most valuable JW apologist shill, scholar pretendus goatus buggerus:

: Furuli has had his work peer reviewed which the apostate Jonsson with his amateurish hypothesis has not.

Of course, we are not informed by just who has "peer reviewed" Furuli's 'work'. Perhaps scholar pretendus thinks that the scholar Lester Grabbe, who wrote the mini-book review that is the subject introduced by Augustin in this thread, has peer-reviewed Furuli's work. If so, then he has missed the fact that Grabbe's full comments are clearly poking fun at Furuli's amateurish attempt to rewrite Persian chronology. If not, then as usual, scholar pretendus has failed to provide his source references -- something that even in this thread he has (stupidly and incorrectly, as usual) taken others to task for not doing.

: Furuli has already submitted his research for peer review

Where? And with what results?

: but why has not Jonsson done this after a lengthy period of twenty-three years?

He has. For example, on the back cover of The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th edition of 2004, Jonsson submits:

A "most valuable [work] . . . . I have already drawn the attention of a number of correspondents to it." -- Donald J. Wiseman, Emeritus Professor of Assyriology in the University of London, England
"An original and thoroughly serious study. . . . Time and again during my reading I was overcome by feelings of admiration for, and deep satisfaction at, the way in which the author deals with arguments related to the field of Assyriology. . . Jonsson demonstrates, with the aid of irrefutable arguments, the invalidity of Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that 607 B.C. was the year when Nebuchadnezzar II, in the eighteenth regnal year, desolated Jerusalem." -- Luigi Cagni, Professor of Assyriology at the University of Naples, Italy (in his Foreword to the Italian edition).

Furthermore, since Jonsson's work mainly consists of summarizing the cream of modern scholarship concerning Neo-Babylonian and related chronologies -- which cream has already been thoroughly peer-reviewed -- there is simply no need for further review. Demanding further review would be like my writing a book that summarizes the best writings of real scholars on, say, modern ideas about gravity, and then demanding peer review. The only possible outcome would be whether my book was a fair summary of modern scholarship or not -- not whether modern ideas on gravity are valid or not. In the same way, scholar pretendus' demand for peer review of Jonsson's work is a mere smokescreen, a transparent device designed to fool himself into believing that there might be some serious questions remaining about modern Neo-Babylonian chronology. No one else is fooled.

Note the further tones of self-deception:

: Where is there a Book Review for the Gentile Times Reconsidered published? If such is indeed lacking does that not raise questions about the validity of Jonsson's juvenile scholarship in the mind of truly qualified academics and scholars because his work is simply seen as 'cult bashing'?

No serious scholar sees Jonsson's work as mere "cult bashing". The Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed a destructive and dangerous cult, but that has no bearing on the simple fact that virtually everything the Watchtower Society has written since the 1880s supporting the dates 606/607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem is complete nonsense. Scholar pretendus actually seems to think that the fact that most people view the JWs as a destructive cult is somehow supportive of his claim that Jonsson's summary of modern scholarship is invalid merely because most people rightly view the JWs as a destructive cult! A better example of the complete braindeadness produced by a cult can hardly be found.

Furthermore, Augustin produced a reference by the Norwegian scholar Reidar Hvalvik in his book on Jehovah's Witnesses, which uses Jonsson's work as a scholarly reference.

: Furuli on the other hand has had his work examined by his peers

Again, which ones?

:The mere quotation by scholars of Jonsson's hypothesis in order to refute Jehovh'a Witnesses is meaningless.

Hardly. When good scholars quote other good scholars, they implicitly give their imprimateur to the other's work. If they did not support it, they would be scholastically dishonest -- a thing that Watchtower writers demonstrably have no problem with, but true academics most certainly do. Or at a minimum, they acknowledge that the other is more knowledgeable than they.

: What is required is that there is a Book Review or scholarly critique of Jonsson's work by means of a peer review and this has not been done.

It most certainly has. See above. And since scholar pretendus possesses Jonsson's 4th edition of GTR, it is dishonest of him to make such a claim. So what else is new?

: and that makes the difference between Furuli, the scholar and academic and Jonsson, a non-scholar and amateur.

The only reviewers' comments we've seen on this thread have been thoroughly critical of Furuli's work, and thoroughly supportive of Jonsson's.

Scholar pretendus said to Hellrider:

: Have you read all of the peer reviews of Furuli's research?

Of course, at no time are readers informed of the whereabouts of 'all these peer reviews'. Obviously the reason is that they do not exist.

: Or are you only interested in opinions from apostates in relation to Furuli?

The usual defense of the cultist who has no workable options.

: Why not address the issue as to why Jonsson's nonsense has not been peer reviewed by serious scholars?

Hellrider knows very well that, one way or another, it has already been done.

: Furuli is a linguist and semitic scholar

Well, he managed to get some degrees. What he's done after that is quite another story.

: whereas Jonsson is a nobody, an apostate who does not like 607 but prefers 587 which is rejected by serious scholars who prefer 586.

The usual dishonest distortion. Virtually all modern scholars acknowledge the Bible-based ambiguity between the dates, and are almost never dogmatic about either date. When they write that they prefer a date, they usually give their reasons. And that is the difference between real academics and cultists like Furuli, scholar pretendus and Watchtower writers -- the latter are dogmatic for cult reasons and therefore cannot tolerate dissent.

Furthermore, scholar pretendus' comments ignore the fact that most fundamentalist oriented scholars follow the arguments of Edwin Thiele (who advocated 586), who was most certainly a Christian fundamentalist, whereas most non-fundamentalist scholars accept the 587 date. Because Thiele was so highly and rightly respected, many scholars followed his arguments without much scrutiny, and so their writings on chronology were essentially followings of Thiele rather than independent studies. The point: in rigorous academic studies, the game goes to the one with the best arguments rather than the most cheerleaders.

: Furuli is highly repected in academia

Riiiight. And there is such a thing as "celebrated WT scholars". LOL!

: whereas Jonsson is simply an unknown 'cult basher' with an 'axe to grind'.

The usual ad hominem from this fake scholar.

Now let's take a quick look on the side at how scholar pretendus misrepresents a simple statement by one poster. Augustin rightly said:

: What really matters is that several scholars hold the same view as Jonsson (just take a look at celebrated scholars like Lundbom, Fischer, Winkle, Finegan). No scholar shares the views presented by Furuli in his amateur study. I guess you just have to be a pseudo-scholar for accepting Furuli's views.

But scholar pretendus thoroughly misrepresented this:

: You are quite mistaken in claiming that Lundbom, Winkle, Finegan have adopted Jonsson's views because clearly there are considerable difference of opinions.

Augustin certainly did not say or imply that the scholars mentioned had "adopted Jonsson's views", but that these scholars "hold the same view as Jonsson". Since these scholars are entirely independent of Jonsson (indeed, Finegan's views have remained essentially the same since his 1946 publishing of Light from the Ancient Past), and reflect the best of modern scholarship, and Jonsson clearly acknowledges that his sources are these very same scholars, it is evident that Jonsson's views follow those of these scholars -- and not the other way round as implied by this thoroughly dishonest scholar pretendus.

Furthermore, the differences among these scholars' views are trivial -- 586 or 587 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction, who cares?

What they are unanimous on is that the Watchtower Society's views are complete nonsense.

Finally, scholar pretendus said to Augustin:

: I have this day a copy of the Book Review of Furuli's brilliant research by Lester Grabbe and as usual none of the posters on this forum have bothered to pursue further your rather abbreviated introductory comment on Furuli. Apostates go only for the sensational and are not interested in exploring the issues at any length.

The usual nonsense, disproved by the material above and below.

I have here Lester Grabbe's thoroughly critical book review (courtesy of one of our posters) and here present it in full:

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28.5 (2004)
FURULI, ROLF, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, 1 (Oslo: R. Furuli A/S [[email protected]], 2003), pp. 251. n.p. ISBN 82-994633-3-5.)
Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. F.’s expertise is admittedly in Semitic languages, and his PhD (in progress) is on the Hebrew verbal system. He notes, ‘My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian’. This has not deterred him from making some radical re-interpretations of Achaemenid-period chronology and putting it forward boldly as an ‘Oslo chronology’. Part of his redating is fairly modest: he accepts the beginning and end of Achaemenid rule according to the standard dating, and puts the beginning of Darius I’s reign only one year later than is conventional. He argues, however, that the first 11 years of Xerxes’ reign overlap with the last 11 of Darius, and that Artaxerxes I came to the throne in 475 BCE and ruled 51 years. (F. has indeed found the interesting fact that a couple of tablets have the years ‘50’ and ‘51’ for Artaxerxes, but he admits that overwhelmingly tablets make 41 his last year and none is found between 41 and 50, suggesting the obvious: a scribal error.) Gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship, notably M. Ventris and Linear B. But Ventris was willing to work with specialists such as J. Chadwick whereas F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history. Perhaps the most telling point is his rather naive argument that the 70 years of Judaean captivity must be a literal 70 years of desolation of the land because some biblical passages make such a statement. A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing.
L.L. GRABBE

Given the full text, let's see if scholar pretendus' claims hold water.

: What you fail to mention is that Grabble acknowledges Furuli's scholarship

Grabbe merely acknowledges what Furuli has claimed: that Furuli has a degree in Semitic languages and is working on a Ph.D. on the Hebrew verbal system. This acknowledgement in no way endorses Furuli's scholarship or his claims.

: and seemingly credits him as a 'gifted amateur'.

LOL! On the contrary, Grabbe has, tongue-in-cheek, contrasted Furuli's ridiculous claims with those of truly gifted amateurs who have actually produced accepted results. Grabbe makes this contrast explicit by stating that the gifted amateur Ventris was willing to work with certain specialists, whereas Furuli has shown little evidence (in actuality, none) of wanting to put his theories to the test with such specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history.

In other words, Grabbe is not aware of any good modern scholars who endorse Furuli's claims. Nor is scholar pretendus able to produce any.

: Also, Grabbe confirms the fact that the some scriptures confirm that the 70 years was a period of desolation which very nicely overturns the Jonsson apostate noinsense.

Nonsense. What Grabbe actually acknowledges is that some scriptures can be understood, in isolation, as claiming that, but we've already dealt extensively with the fact that when all scriptures are considered, they form a whole that shows that the 70 years are a period of domination of the Babylonian empire over the Mesopotamian region. Even the Watchtower Society acknowledges this point in a general way.

Finally we see another example of complete insanity:

: By the way when are apostates going to urge Jonsson to have work peer reviewed

Already done, as shown above.

: as Furuli as appropriately done?

Not done at all, as shown above.

: I fear that cowardice is the nature and spirit of apostates.

Not hardly, as shown above.

What characterizes Jehovah's Witnesses, as scholar pretendus goatus buggerus so amply illustrates, is a complete aversion to the facts when the facts are opposed to Watchtower tradition. When book reviews laugh at JW apologists, the latter are so stupid that they cannot see the humor. When all the facts are against them, and all the opinions of recognized scholars are against them, they simply march on as if nothing were wrong. They've managed to muck things up, chronologically speaking, so many times that it's not even funny. For half their history they taught that Christ returned invisibly to the earth in 1874; they only jettisoned that silly claim around 1943 and moved the silly claim forward 40 years to 1914. They've claimed secure dates for Armageddon many times: by 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, the early 1950s, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2000, and of course, the old standby: Real Soon Now!

AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

scholar pretendus goatus buggerus wrote:

: You forgot to add 'it is only scholar that always, without fail gets my immediate attention'.

LOL! Only because you're the best JW shill I've ever seen! You truly are the very best advertisement of how badly a cult can infect and make coddled cream of a person's mind.

The simple fact is that you often contradict yourself in the very same post, and more often in the same thread. You're simply too stupid morally (i.e., stubborn) to admit it.

When are you going to come up with your, um, 'devastating' rebuttal of my 'misuse' of Josephus? Cat still got hold of your brain?

AlanF

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

AlanF

Leolaia said:

: LOL, pseudo-scholar, last month you were saying that Applegate was a leading commentator whose scholarship was "wise", "thoughtful", "refreshing", who "vindicates" your views on the 70 years. Now he is not even a "serious scholar"!!! Scholar pretendus goatus buggerus is nothing if not consistent. Consistent in displaying massive, militant, wilfull moral stupidity. AlanF

146

Extra training ... so you know that shooting babies is WRONG ?!?

by Simon in

how dumb and pathetic.. no extra training should be necessary for even slightly trained and disciplined soldiers.

i guess it is for some of the rabble that the us call "troops" though.. of course the real problem is not just those on the ground that have committed the latest attrocity.

it is the chain of command that tried to cover it up and all the way up to the president who sanctions bombing of civilian targets with nothing more than rumour for "intelligence".. from now on america, you are on your own.

AlanF

Simon said:

: Your own desire to misinterpret and distort what I say is proof of nothing and demonstrates that you are wrong - I did not say what you accused me of.

Really. Prove it. Blanket dismissals like this prove only one thing, but I'll leave you to figure out what that is.

: Isn't it time you threw your toys out the pram again and stormed off? It's your usual m.o.

Engaging in your usual, um, distortions again, I see.

I have to be real careful about using words that express the unadorned truth.

:: Understand my resentment? Or will you let pride keep blinding you?

: By "You" do you mean me personally, everyone else on the forum or everyone on the planet in general? You haven't been cery specific which is astonishing given what a fuss you made when I used "you".

You really take the cake, Simon.

Do you understand "you" in the above sentence and in this one, or must I explain?

: The thing is oh incredible one Alan, most people seem to understand and be able to comprehend who is being referred to without each sentence becoming some sort of online census of the population.

Really. You've ignored the fact that you've offended other posters with your ill-conceived remarks.

Why did you kill a million Irish in the 19th century? Why did you kill up to 100,000 Kenyans in the 1950s, including women and babies? Why did you kill tens of thousands of Indians and Afghanis over the course of several centuries? Why have you killed hundreds of Iraqis recently, including civilians, and tortured Iraqi prisoners? Why did you allow the Royal Warwickshire Regiment in 1940 to use dum-dum bullets against the Germans in violation of the Geneva Convention? Why did you kill thousands in the Boer War of 1899-1902 and even kill women and children in concentration camps? Why did you kill thousands in the Crimean War of 1854-1856? Why did you kill millions of people while establishing and maintaining your world empire? Why do you have laws that punish people who defend themselves against crime?

Would you like me to go on?

Would you like to defend yourself?

: I think you are just a nitpicker. And by "you" I mean the poster who uses the alias AlanF.

I think you are just a nit. . .

Naah, I'd best not say it, lest I get punished again.

: Funny, you seem to be more incensed at me expressing my feelings about this than you are over the actual thing itself - women, children and babies being murdered by undisciplined 'troops' and a government admitting it needs to train its soldiers specifically to know that this is a WRONG thing to do!

I don't usually get involved in political discussions, for obvious reasons. Just so you know, I'm pissed as hell at what happened, but this is not the proper forum to express it.

: I don't know why we are surprised at what American troops do though. After all, look what a knife edge American civilisation in general is!

Yeah, wow, that's so true! I just hate having to drive to work every day in my armored Hummer, with my wife riding shotgun with her AK-47! And I hate that when we go walking around the neighborhood, we usually have to kill two or three gradeschoolers who come at us with machetes!

: BTW: Alan. I think there are real similarities between the knee jerk and religious defense of a country and the conditioned response that people exhibit when they are JWs and the WTS is criticised.

True. But if you're trying to insinuate that my remarks to you are in any way a defense of baby-killing, or of the Bush administration, well, let me just say that you're way off base.

The fact that even now, after I've clearly expressed myself on these things, and you apparently refuse to see it, says a great deal.

: It's usually just the result of ignorance and lack of all the facts (through control of the media) and an unwillingness of people to even consider that the powers that be can be wrong.

True. Much like being a football/soccer fan who roots for the home team just because it's the home team.

AlanF

146

Extra training ... so you know that shooting babies is WRONG ?!?

by Simon in

how dumb and pathetic.. no extra training should be necessary for even slightly trained and disciplined soldiers.

i guess it is for some of the rabble that the us call "troops" though.. of course the real problem is not just those on the ground that have committed the latest attrocity.

it is the chain of command that tried to cover it up and all the way up to the president who sanctions bombing of civilian targets with nothing more than rumour for "intelligence".. from now on america, you are on your own.

AlanF

Simon said:

:: I highly resent your ridiculous hyperbole that suggests that all Americans support those criminals.

: Really? Wow ... I'd be really interested to see where I have said that.

Alright, here you go:

The title of your thread is:

"Extra training ... so you know that shooting babies is WRONG ?!?"

Just who is "you" here? Just the soldiers? Or all Americans? Since almost all American soldiers are Americans and are more or less raised with American values, your implication is clear: Americans are raised such that they don't know that shooting babies is wrong.

You're well known for bashing Americans as a people, not just the government. Others on this thread have so alluded, as shown below. That, in combination with your general tone of lumping all Americans together, is what I resent.

Note how you keep saying "you", as if all Americans completely support what the government does, and are as lacking in moral values as the most heinous members of the Bush administration.

You said: "From now on America, you are on your own. Who knows which sides people will be on next time you want to start a war."

Language like that is addressing all Americans. If you're not addressing all Americans, then use a different form of address.

I sarcastically said: "Like most Americans, I and my family enjoy eating baby on special occasions. It's unfortunate that the meat is so expensive. We should petition the Bush administration to start an industry to cater to us."

Abaddon rightly said: "Just because Simon is a bit hyperbolic and over-states his point doesn't mean the fair part of his criticism can be laughed off."

What do you think he means by "a bit hyperbolic" and about over-stating your point?

You said to me: "However ashamed I am of my own government, at least I don't have yours. And that's what galls you doesn't it AlanF et al - YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU HAVE NO ANSWER "

As if I'm guilty of supporting baby-killers. And as if I need to answer you about why some soldiers have killed babies. And as if I support the Bush administration and its policies.

As RubaDub said: "Please don't lump 'Americans' together."

Here's more "lumping" language that uses "you" to do the lumping:

You said to Gregor: "Lets get something straight. You faught the war for your own ends. You proffited from the war because we bought arms from you. You didn't enter when you were needed, only when attacked. We stood alone against Nazi Germany and protected you."

Who is "you" and "we" here? I doubt Gregor had anything to do with fighting the War, or profiting from it. You certainly had nothing to do with fighting Nazis. Yet you address Gregor as if he were the American government.

Understand my resentment? Or will you let pride keep blinding you?

AlanF

146

Extra training ... so you know that shooting babies is WRONG ?!?

by Simon in

how dumb and pathetic.. no extra training should be necessary for even slightly trained and disciplined soldiers.

i guess it is for some of the rabble that the us call "troops" though.. of course the real problem is not just those on the ground that have committed the latest attrocity.

it is the chain of command that tried to cover it up and all the way up to the president who sanctions bombing of civilian targets with nothing more than rumour for "intelligence".. from now on america, you are on your own.

AlanF

Simon said:

: I dislike the American administration and all those who support it or try to excuse it's criminal and inhuman actions.

I completely agree.

: However ashamed I am of my own government, at least I don't have yours.

True. You have one that historically has committed major atrocities all over the world. The sun once never set on the British empire, and that empire was built on the blood of the conquered. No government is free from blame in these things. I have no doubt that if the Empire still existed, similar atrocities would still be committed.

: And that's what galls you doesn't it AlanF et al - YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT AND YOU HAVE NO ANSWER

Yes, yes, Simon, we all know you're right that it's wrong to kill or eat babies.

But that wasn't the point of my post. I welcome the day when the Bush administration is called to account for its criminal actions, and I highly resent your ridiculous hyperbole that suggests that all Americans support those criminals.

AlanF

146

Extra training ... so you know that shooting babies is WRONG ?!?

by Simon in

how dumb and pathetic.. no extra training should be necessary for even slightly trained and disciplined soldiers.

i guess it is for some of the rabble that the us call "troops" though.. of course the real problem is not just those on the ground that have committed the latest attrocity.

it is the chain of command that tried to cover it up and all the way up to the president who sanctions bombing of civilian targets with nothing more than rumour for "intelligence".. from now on america, you are on your own.

AlanF

Like most Americans, I and my family enjoy eating baby on special occasions. It's unfortunate that the meat is so expensive. We should petition the Bush administration to start an industry to cater to us.

AlanF