AnnOMaly
Post 533
There should be no perhaps or maybes but if definite criticism is warranted then this should be done as Furuli himself encourages. If it is oK to discuss such claims or opinions in public then it is appropriate to dismiss these in public also.
Again you make claims about Furuli's methodology concerning the begiining of the New Year in certain calendrical years. These are either typos or in fact that is what the raw data says which raises serious questions as to the integrity of these documents. Furuli has certainly given attention to detail but nothing is infallible and that is why it is incumbent upon the reader to seek answers from the author not from the public. The public cannot help you but merely give sympathy. The ball is in your court.
It has been explained to you and others over many years that Babylonian chronology does not agree with biblical chronology because there exists a problematic 'twenty year' gap between the two. Also, Babylonian chronology. its scribes and historians give no account what so ever of the seventy years of Jewish exile in Babylon for starters and no historical account or placement of the Nebuchadnezzer's madness when he was absent from the throne for seven years. Further, there is no account of the forty year desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzer. So much for accurate history and chronology. These are not problems of interpretation but examples of poor history and poor history means poor chronology.
Even so-called amateurs have taught the experts, the history of science is full of such brilliant men and women who have advanced knowledge. Perhaps Grabbe is paying Furuli the ultimate compliment as he anticipates his second volume.
There is no misleading comment about Alan F and the Brown incident for he had to concede that there was a connection but getting Alan F to admit to this was like pulling teeth. You should read all of the post on this matter. Better still why do you not investigate the issue yourself and see who is right: Jonsson orthe Society that would be a far more honest approach than trawling through past conversations? The facts are plainly set out for any researcher to examine.
When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it.
Your excuse that because Jonsson has simply rehashed current knowledge and therefore is unworthy of a Literature Review is utter nonsense. Literature Reviews do in fact review revisions of earlier works. Besides Jonsson introduces a subject that is not commented on much in the public arena and that is the Gentile Times and Luke 21:24 so it needs to have some Review.
The apostates did a desperate job on Furuli's first volume and no doubt they are burning the midnight oil for snow job on Furuli's second volume.
scholar JW