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 --
outoftheorg
Sorry, I have chastized the said scholar for not attending to your plaintive appeal sooner. You ask about the 'celebrated WT scholars' as to their existence and their knowability. Scholar will not divulge any information concerning this illustrious group used by the Lord in conjunction with the faithful and discret slave and its Governing Body.
scholar JW
BA Deakin MA Sydney
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 --
greendawn
Such an amazing circumstance occurs because the said scholar hibernates in a dark and deep cave and like some mysterious oracle he appears to defend sacred things. The only sacred thing that motivates this fellow is chronology and he grasps every opportunity to defend and proclaim its truth and beauty. After that, he retreats back into that place of darkness.
scholar JW
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 --
Dansk
I have revealed my identity so if you are so curious then read my posting history.
I am glad you are enjoying the debate so keep reading and you will learn much. No I do not accept defeat because the evidence supports our Theology and Chronology and that is why I continue argue the truth about the Truth. Yes if you are learning from the posts by the more prominent apostates and if these attempts reinforce your prejudice and bias against the Lord's people then so be it. If you are impressed by flowery speech and the trickery of men then so be it because the Bible recognizes the simple fact that people would rather' believe the lie'.
scholar JW
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 --
hilary_step
I do not believe I overate Furuli because he has just recently completed his doctoral dissertation and has completed all necessary requirements to be considered as a bona fide scholar in his own right. I simply present the facts just as he has done about himself on his own website.
What makes something true is whether it is supported by evidence and not the opinions or theories of multitude of scholars. The scholars in Jesus day despite their number and impressive weithy failed to discern the truth about Jesus as the promised Messiah. Similarly. present day scholars reject Jesus as the now reigning King installed in heaven in 1914 but the evidence proves conclusively that this is a fact.
There is no evidence for the flip flop dates of 586 or 587 that mitigates against the biblical evidence for the year 607, our chronology is simple, base upon secular evidence and biblical history. The very fact that Jonsson and his cronies cannot determine a precise year for the Fall shows that the methodology used is faulty or is running to slow like an unwound clock. Jonsson's theories need to be taken to a clock repairer for some fine tuning wheras the timepiece of God used by celebrated WT scholars has been ticking from 607 through to 1914 and continues...tick...tock...tick..tock!
scholar JW
BA Deakin MA Sydney
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 --
Forscher
What you forget is that Furuli is a Semitic scholar and linguist and is full competent in studying the original documents. In other words he is able to work with the primary sources so he is able to examine transalations of such materials. Jonsson on the other hand cannot work with the original materials so he has to rely on other experts. Furuli unlike Jonsson is such an expert and that is why is research is now relevant.
scholar JW
if you can acccurately disprove the mathematics in the following i will be at the local kingdom hall first thing in the morning and ask the elders if i may rejoin them in worship.. here is some information i have compiled regarding what the watchtower has printed in regards to the babylonian kings and how the lengths of their reigns can be calculated to arrive at the date of the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar.
if you're like me you've probably remained totally clueless whenever the subject of the chronology leading to back 607 b.c.
as the date for the destruction of jerusalem by nebuchadnezzar comes up.
Honesty
Your arithmetic is breathtaking and your argument is really sound so now we have it firmly established that Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BCE but we still do not know the precise year. But of course that is of no importance for chronology because exact or precise dates are unimportant. By the way what year were you born? Was it this or was it that or was it somewhere between.
Your methodology based upon the pagan Babylonians is torpedoed by a much simpler biblical calculation . The year 537 was the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon where they were exiled for 70 years. Therefore adding 537 +70=607 BCE for the beginning of the exile with the fall of Jeusalem. This calculation is simpler than yours and foolproof. Irrefutable!
scholar JW
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 --
Jeffro
There is nothing wrong with an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship because many contributions to science have been made by amateurs. Furuli is in good company.
Furuli states his qualifications and limitations which shows modesty and humility which are lacking with many scholars and apostates.
Grabbe makes no explicit connection of Furuli with other gifted amateurs.
If a literal interpretation of the seventy years is naive then perhaps Grabbe can reveal what is the 'true interpretation' of this period.
Grabbe was not convinced but he saw fit to review it and expressed the hope that the next volume would be more convincing. Fair enough.
scholar JW
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 --
Dansk
Glad that you are enjoying the debate but I do not accept defeat because no evidence has been presented that refutes the plain statements of Scripture which can only support Watchtower biblical chronology. The matter of being made to appear foolish on this board by the supposed arguments of clever apostates does not faze me at all because the True Religion was made up of those who were and are considered to be foolish in the eyes of worldlings according to the writer of the New Testament.
scholar JW
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 --
Alan F
4466
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. A score of one out of twenty is a vast improvement over Jonsson who scores a zero. What the prominent SDA scholar had to say will be revealed when I receive further in formation from Furuli but if you cannot get Jonsson moving then I do not see why I have to reveal other opinions of Furuli's momentous contribution.
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'.
Grabbe's review of Furuli was hardly sarcastic but simply expressed a different opinion in fact he paid Furuli a compliment in stating that Furuli's thesis was a rewriting of scholarship. You pay Furuli a giant compliment when you compare Furuli's thesis with that of the gravitation theory. The so called masses of data supporting the Neo-Babylonian chronology is yet to be fully tested and Furuli unlike Jonsson has the academic credentials to subject current thinking to the blowtorch. 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.
Regardless of how many lines of evidence used to support current Neo-Babylonian chronology it still conflicts with the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah and the reference work that you have cited endorses 586 rather than Jonsson's 587 date and does not endorse ant precise ending of the Assyrian World Power which is pivotal to the Jonsson hypothesis. So your qoutation from DOTHB simply illustrates current thinking on chronology but methinks Furuli 's research will shake such thinking to its core.
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". Such a paradigm shift has already begun with the researching of Babylonian and Egyptian chronology in Furuli's forthcoming second volume.
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.
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 and falls short of some twenty years without mentioning the other problems of incomplete Babylonian and Egyptian history.
Bible Students from the time of Russell have been well served by a carefully crafted biblical chronology that with some fine tuning over many decades has contributed in somme small to the faith in the prophetic word. 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.
scholar JW
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 --
hilary_step
All that you have said merely amounts to apostates agreeing with other and posing his nonsense as 'proof of argument'. Such back-slapping shows that content on this forum is empty and futile. Apostates hate Furuli because he is different, he obtained academic qualifications, holds an academic position whilst an active member of his faith. He has written books, journal articles that challenge current scholarly thinking which drives the aposates mad. Jonsson is the opposite who has no qualifications, no academic position and has contributed nothing to further the cause of scholarship except in becoming lauded, praised and worshipped by poztates.
I have never been trounced by anyone on this board and have met all arguments 'head on' and will continue to do so despite the cultish propaganda from the 'wiley poztates'. One thing is for sure that 'scholar' gets the attention and concern from senior members of this forum which indicates that they are very fearful and worried about what I say and what I will say.
Yes. a loyal and faithful Christian always holds the 'faith card' which frustrates apostates because they have left the faith and are without faith such as Alan F and yet these are the people who pretend to offer something of substance but in reality have no Church, Brotherhood, Ministry or the True Religion. All they have are bitter and sweet memories. They live in the past.
scholar JW
