very interesting topic, thank you slim. too bad he did not reply to you. It could be that your e-mail ended up in the bin as you are not in his address book (quite a few people use this feature as anti-spam).
welcome scottie!
Posts by jeanV
-
20Any more info on Nicholas Kip? (Witness apologist)
by slimboyfat inremember he was the witness who wrote a life story for the awake!
magazine where it explains that he taught greek and he was impressed by the new world translation and that is why he became a witness.
("how knowing greek led me to know god") well, like lots of apostates i have always found his story interesting because of course there are many problems with the translation of the greek that you might expect someone knowledgeable in the language to spot.
-
-
-
2
1934? 1914? What was the date and I need some info here for proof
by NotaNess insorry everyone, i haven't read up on some posts here and outside sources that debunks the wts claim of christ's heavenly kingdom being setup already.
i'm compiling some info for the "witness-release" program.
i know i just saw a thread recently about it, and have heard others here mention it.
-
-
jeanV
some on this board have very extensive knowledge on the subject (you can read some old threads that run for several pages...).
IMO the best is that you read Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson. It is a very well researched work.
-
89
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter inhistorians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.
the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.
the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).
-
-
jeanV
being scholar in something does not qualify you to be it in something else. I hope at least on these basics you agree.
Maybe you should spend more time on ANE boards, you can meet a lot of experienced people there that are simply passionate about history, astronomy, ecc.. but not scholars.
Dealing is one thing, devoting 60 pages or more (as he does in his 2nd volume for VAT 4956) is quite another. Furuli simply assumes that Strm. Kambys 400 is correct. If he examined it with the same critical eye as he does for the documents that contradict his chronology, it would not stand.
-
89
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter inhistorians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.
the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.
the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).
-
-
jeanV
sorry Scholar but Furuli is not a scholar in ANE history.
I know people that are a lot more experienced than him that do not claim to be scholars.
Does Furuli examine the cornerstones of his Oslo chronology with the same critical eye he uses in examinig VAT 4956? How does he explain the observations that do not match? How does he explain that Kugler said that of all the diaries Strm. Kambys 400 (BM33066) is one of the worst being affected with many errors?
-
1
Insight on the Scriptures: Chronology ; a few questions
by drew sagan init was over a year ago that i read through much of the information dealing with chronology in the 'gentile times' book.
i thought i remember coming to a part in the book where he basically goes over the entire insight on the scriptures article on 'chronology' bit by bit.
i could be wrong though, it may have been scattered.
-
-
jeanV
Drew, I am working on it (and it may take a while, given my little spare time).
Some information is available in Carl's book as he commented extensively on the Aid book (a good portion of the Insight book on chronology is the same as in the Aid book).
-
89
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter inhistorians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.
the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.
the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).
-
-
jeanV
Scholar,
I have GTR4 by COJ. I have not listed it as Carl is not a scholar but a researcher. what I cited are the reference works based on which one can make a research and build an opinion.
as the calendrical issues surrounding this event continuously plague scholarship as recent studies show.
the issues relate only to 587 or 586. I have not found any other issues, unless you can show some. My comment was related to the fact that scholars do not have hidden interests in proving a date rather than another one. They study the evidence and present a chronology. There is no debate among scholars on the neo-Babylonian chronology (if you have contrary evidence, I'll gladly consider it).
I am afraid that when it comes to a toss-up between the Bible and ancient history I will adhere to the superiority of the Bible rather than profane secular history every time and I am sure that Furuli as a honest scholar would agree.
the controversy is only between WTS (and its interpretation of the Bible) and ancient history. WTS discards 90% of ancient history. does it make sense to you?
-
28
New Light Coming?
by dontomas inhi - i have jw friends (really!
) and have gone to kh for some talks and study every couple of weeks.
things like the new watchtower policy, selling buildings (i am from nyc and know the heights well - that will make a boatload of money), the sex abuse settlements, drop in membership and donations, and some of the changes i have seen in the magazine (the annointed qfr, for example).
-
-
jeanV
1914 and blood policy. but it will take a while.
I agree. It will be a long while...
-
89
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter inhistorians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.
the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.
the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).
-
-
jeanV
Scholar,
Here is the list of books I have:
Sachs/Hunger: Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 1 & 5
Grayson: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
Glassner: Mesopotamian Chronicles
Dandamaev: Slavery in Babylonia
Lipschits: The fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule
Thiele: Mysterious numbers of Hebrew Kings
Finegan: Handbook of Biblical Chronology
Van Mieroop: Cuneiform texts and the writing of history
Van Mieroop: A history of the Ancient Near East
Vanderhooft: The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the latter prophetsI recommend also looking at www.caeno.org and www.livius.org
With regard to Furuli, I have followed his comments on the web for quite a while and I cannot say to be impressed. To me, doing a research means trying to establish the truth about something.
His approach is totally different. He believes 607 to be correct and works from there. This is not a scholarly way of operating. I do not question his knowledge of Semitic languages. This does not automatically make him an expert in ANE history and chronology.
He is totally biased and therefore he loses out on credibility.
One comment that he made struck my attention, when he stated that the whole Neo Babylonian Chronology hangs on VAT4956 you find it here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-October/008691.html even myself, an ignorant on the subject, know that this is not the case.
That was the time when he was trying to prove VAT4956 wrong.
As you probably know, he now accepts the astronomy of the diary, but believes it was the mix-up of two diaries (one planetary & one lunar, referring to different years). When they were “merged” into one diary, the wrong date was assigned to it. You can find his comments, reported by thirdwitness on this link: http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=311102&startcat=501&start=101&CategoryID=2967&ThreadID=2402573
I am curious at how he will justify it, reason why I said I might purchase his second book.
I am still interested in the chart you mentioned, because I assume that to be from other sources and not to be made up by him. If you are unable to provide it, I’ll try with someone else.
You probably have noticed that researching the period on the internet you mostly come across information from JW or ex-JW, because they are the only two groups that are interested in 607 or 587. Scholars do not care whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, 586, 607, 551 or any other date. They just try to be objective and transmit accurate history. If they have to reconsider something they will. If tablets seem to contradict the accepted chronology they will not discard them, they will try to understand why.
So to me, they are a lot more trustworthy than Furuli.
Ancient history is not a perfect science. Neither is the Bible, I am afraid. If Furuli examined the Bible and the cornerstones of his Oslo Chronology with the same criticism he uses to examine the accepted Neo Babylonian chronology, I doubt any of the two would stand. You’ll always find loopholes and contradictions, no matter what you examine.
-
5
Any Pro JW forums?
by ThomasCovenant incould someone point out if there are any pro jw discussion forums available.
.
thomas covenant.
-
-
jeanV
http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/
http://www.scripturaltruths.com/forum/index.php
http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl
not 100% sure as I never registered there and only bumped into them in my search on 587/607.
-
89
Is WTS chronology flawed?
by cultswatter inhistorians agree that jerusalem was invaded by babylon in 586/587bce.
the wts discredits most historical records and says that jerusalem was invaded in 607bce.
the wts start with 587 and add the 70 years that jerusalem lay desolate to obtain the 607 date.. if jerusalem was invaded in 587 then it lay desolate for only 50 years (587-537=50).
-
-
jeanV
scholar,
do you want me to post a list of books you should read before discussing the matter further? I do not see what your problem is in sending a couple of pages by e-mail. As I said, I will reply separately about my views on Rolf Furuli (which does not mean that I will not purchase his book/s).