Posts by scholar

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly/Alleymom

This response answers those posts that I have not attended to because of the fact that I am not an expert in ancient astronomy, I do not a astro program and the other relevant technical papers and books to hand. I will outline my intentions in this regard. Many decades ago I commissioned a translation into English of the German article on the VAT 4956 by Weidner which sadly I have lost. This article was translated by a Lecturer in German at the University of Sydney and a copy of which is in a local Theological Library. At the opportune time I will obtain a copy of the Gereman original and the English translation along with other relevant materials so that I can form my own analysis of VAT 4956.

Furuli has done an excellent job in the analysis of this document along with all of the other secular materials in relation to the construction of a so-called Absolute Chronology for the Assyrian, Egyptians and Babylonians which has already caused a major upset for apostates and those who seek to undermine and discredit Bible chronology which hinges on the chronology of the 'seventy years'. That is why Furuli from Chapter One in Volume Two discusses the historical integrity of the seventy years which is comp[letely ignored by all of the other secular documents. It will be interesting to see how other experts view Furuli's hypothesis and his Oslo chronology but at the very least he has challenged the scholarly community that current Babylonian chronology is twenty years too long which accords nicley with Bible chronology.

You both accuse Furuli of making errors and drawing false conclusions but Furuli has chosen a specific methodology, worked with the primary sources and drawn his own conclusions from the data. Others may conclude differently but Furuli has taken a fresh and new appraisal which advances scholarship and research. The real test of the validity of Furuli's interpretation is how in time scholars who are experts in these fields will regard his research. Apostates such as Jonsson are greatly troubled by Firuli's research and Jonsson has already made public feeble attempts to discredit Furuli concerning VAT 4956 and it is probably the case that both of you have beeb guided by him on this forum.

You both accuse Furuli of 'skipping data' but what about the Babylonian scribes who skipped data in relation to key historical events in the life of Nebuchadenezzer? Why is it the case that VAT 4956 is not historically certain in establishing Neb's 37th year for in the interpretation of that tablet that 37 th could be placed also 588 rather than 568 BCE? The crux of this problem is that chronology requires interpretation and that is the case with the astronomical data. Furulu has simply provided an alternative interpretation of the data in which he is entitled to do as a professional Semitic scholar.

I do not wish to be an apologist for Furuli as he is quite capable of looking after himself academically speaking so if you have concerns, worries, criticisms-real or imagined then take these up with the Furuli. This it seems you either refuse to do or are incompetent in so doing. My role is to an apologist for the Bible truth not the meanderings of ancient Babylonian astronomers and their scribes.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Dansk

Post 5760

Your exegesis of Jeremiah 44 :14, 28; 40:11 and Antiquities 10.9.7 is bunkum offering no proof whatsoever that the seventy year began with a Babylonian deportation of Jews in Nebuchadnezzer's 23 rd year and that Judea was not 'desolate...without an inhabitant'.

Jeremiah 40:11 simply states that there a remnant of Jews who remained in Judah soon after the destruction of Jerusalem under the governship of Gedaliah who was killed thus causing those Jews to flee to Egypt. Thus land was desolate and uninhabited by Tishri of 607 BCE.

Jeremiah 44: 14, addresses those exiles in Egypt who also would be punished and thus would not return. Some fugitives may at some future time see Judah but such is a forlorn hope. This oracle was addressed to the entire Judean community which would include previous exilees and those from the time of Jerusalem's destruction.

Jeremiah 44:28, The entire Jewish community would also be punished with only a few escaping that destruction. This rermnant thus could testify to the truth of the prophetic word. In the course of time a Jewish remnant after the expiration of seventy years did in fact return and rebuild Judah as foretold.

Antiquities 10.9.7. confirms the above showing that Nebuchadnezzer invaded Egypt taking Jews back to Babylon. Thus his conquest of Judah left the country 'a desert for seventy years'.

In short, the overwhelming evidence that by the seventh month Tishri, 607 BCE Judah was desolate, uninhabited for seventy years whilst its people were exiled in Babylon serving its king for seventy years until their release and return by the seventh month Tishri, 537 BCE.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1167

You claim that Furuli has skipped over very important data in VAT 4956 well that may be because of the methodology that Furuli employed. Thus you can see the need to take upy your concerns with the author himself. In my view, Furuli provides an excellent summary of the facts as outlined on pages 122-3 showing that this tablet is not infallible.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Dansk

Josephus and the Bible agree as to the fact that the seventy years ran from the Fall of Jerusalem until the Return. Certainly. Nebuchadnezzer took Jewish captives in his 23 rd year but these were not from Judah. Judah was completely destroyed and desolated in the 18th regnal year of Nebuchanezzer which is exactly what the Bible writers depicted.

Josephus does not connect the last deportation with the seventy years as you claim because those Jews were not in Judah at that time but elesewhere. Josephus nowhere begins the seventy years from any other event excepting from the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple. Your claim are simply mistaken and misleading so just stick to the facts.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1164

If these alleged 'errors' are not typos then it comes down to Furuli's research and methodology and therefore Furuli is the person to contact. I cannot help you because I did not do the research or devise the methodology.

You seem to have a good handle on the subject so you should be able to direct specific questions in relation to the critical year of 588 BCE. When you get the answers then do all of us a favour and let us know.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 535

My track record is bery good as I have responded to your nonsense with much vigour. I need not to worry about May/Nisan because the matter is between you and Furuli. If you are to scared to write Furuli then I cannot help you.

If your honesty does not impell you to write to Furuli about the matter and simply prefer to spread your opinion publicly then that is deceit because you do not know whether it is right or wrong.

It seems that you have been brought to sense and are now discussing the matter with Furuli. Very good. Let us know publicly what the story is.

People can read Grabbe's review themselves and make their own judgements.

Alan F's concession is there for all to read. The discussion is public record. The question is who was righ: The Society or Jonsson?

I have not yet contacted Furuli so I have only what he has told me and I believe he is a person of integrity.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1159

You mention recent research that you believe supports current dating of the data for Vat 4956. I cheked Furuli's bibliography and it appears that John Steele is cited but not the others. If you believe that these articles are important then why not forward or convey this information to Furuli for comment. It is probably the case that this recent research is simply based upon older or recent translations of VAT 4956. Furuli based his new research on his own independent transalation of the document hence the data is shown to different. They contacted Hunger and Walker for advice as to the Akkadian so this could be a bit of a problem.

You seem to have a good understanding of the matter so you should take up your criticism with Furuli. I cannot help because I have not done this research. All I can do is read his book and if I have a problem then I would contact Furuli.

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

Alleymom

Post 1158

I take your point that Nisan 1 did not fall in May however Furuli has shown that the data says differently. So, either Furuli has made a typo or the that is what primary data indicates. As I have said before you must take up this matter with Furuli himself and see what is going on. I cannot help and I cannot understand why you do not do whar common sense should impell you to do. Write to Furuli!!!!!!

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 534

I care nought if this is your last post to me on this subject. When you do post on chronology I will be here to trounce on you.

No it is not helpful if your intention is to be malicious and spread deceit. A honest person would check the facts first with the author for that is the decent thing to do. Perhaps you want to 'bignote' yourself, passing yourself as some kind of expert on this subject.

Grabbe indeed is complimentary inasmuch he recognizes some of Furuli's contributions to the dating of the Persian chronology and recognizes that "Gifted amateurs have sometimes recolutionized scholarship" citing M. Ventris and Linear B as ezamples. Grabbe awaits Furuli's second volume to see if it is any more convincing. Grabbe like most if not all modern Jewish historians stumble over the literalness of the seventy years which also has stumbled C.O. Jonsson.

You miscontrue matters concerning Alan F's concession. What he conceded was that on the relevant page in Brown's Eventide that Brown did connect the Lukan passage with the Gentile Times which is exactly what the Society had said but was dogmatically contradicted by Jonsson.

When I get the information from Furuli then I will sit on it until the opportunity arises for it to be made public,

scholar JW

129

587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez in

if the exile wasn't to be 70 years, how is jeremiah 29:10 explained by pro-587 folks?.

10 "for this is what jehovah has said, in accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at babylon i shall turn my attention to you people, and i will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place.. .

also, if it truly was a 70-year period of servitude, and not exile, when was this 70 years served by other nations?.

scholar

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