Posts by scholar

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 15332

I only put one question to Hunger and that was whether he would publish his Review on Furuli's Vol.2 in a respected academic journal. He gave no answer. I further made some observations on his review but his only comment to my email was simply that his field of expertise was Assyriology.

That is a question that you should put to Furuli but Furuli must have had good reasons for his alleged tampering of the tablet. Furuli told me by phone that he had inspected the tablet first hand and had made detailed photos of the tablet. H emust have been very suspicious in order for him to make according to some including Hunger such a outrageous accusation.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

bohm

Post 1971

Both Furuli and Hunger are respected scholars but both have different fields of expertise.

Furuli like Hunger have published their research. It is a matter for Hunger as to why and whether he will publish his review of Furuli in a respected academic journal. I have inquired of him about the matter and he was not forthcoming but chose to have his review posted on a apostate website.

Reviews by the very nature will find problems so if there are genuine criticisms then no doubt Furuli can 'fine tune' his research in another edition as he has already in the process of doing for his Volume 1 to published soon. My concern with Hunger is that it amounts to 'nit picking' overlooking Furuli's overall objective and his 'laying down' with Jonsson.

The problem that Furuli had with the VAT 4956 amongst many others is that there is sufficient evidence that the tablet has been tampered with, a possible circumstance that Hunger chooses to ignore.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

Leolaia

Post 15327

No, Hunger ignores utterly Furuli's methodology. There is not trace of even the word 'methodology' in his review which is alarming for Furuli in the Introductions to both volumes goes to graet pains to explain his approach. So much for Hunger's scholarship!

Your comment about Hunger's comment on Furuli (p,26) are both mistaken. Furuli states in that concluding paragraph:"They are simply compared on a philological and linguistic base, which also includes an attempt to find the meaning of the text. The question is whether the data can be harmonized, And when that is not the case, the question is which source probably tells the truth". What Hunger overlooks is the simple fact the Bible at that time, cunieform tablets and relevant historical data although consisting of different genres are none the less contemporaneous documents suitable for purposes of comparison in relation to issues of chronology.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1502

My pleasure

Hunger's reply to me was a 'one liner': 'My field of expertise is in Assyriology'. Hunger simply ignored my questions and observations so he leaves me with a firm impression of 'bias'. So much for scholarly independence and fairness.

I am dismissive of your claim that Hunger pays close attention to Furuli's work for in fact that is not what I see when reading Hunger and I also believe that Hunger did not recognize Furuli's methodology at all. For example, Hunger's comments on Furuli's hypothesis that someone tampered with the Vat 4956 tablet was ludricous simply avoids Furuli's circumstantial evidence by means of detailed photographs and comparison of the letters on both sides of the tablet. Furuli had made a visual and tactile inspection of the tablet but has Hunger done this before lampooning Furuli? Jonsson wrote to Hunger about this matter and Hunger replied to Jonsson but no details of this corresspondence has been offered by either party.

One wonders if the circumstances surrounding the VAT 4968 amounts to some shenanigans on the part of some. Is such an example of one of the Devil's 'crafty' acts (Ephesians 6:11)? You should put this to Hunger!

Further, Hunger relies heavily and solely on Jonsson for a rebuttal of Furuli's exegesis of the 70 years which is pivotal to Furuli's methodology and thesis. Was not Hunger himself competent enough to make an assessment of Furuli on this most vital matter? By doing so Hunger gives the impression of collusion between himself and Jonsson in response to Furuli's research.

You waffle much on Hunger's qualifications but Hunger himself simply says that his field is Assyriogy so is competent in giving a proper assessment of Furuli's thesis. That will be for others including Furuli to judge. Perhaps it would be for everyone's benefit for Hunger to have his Review published in a respectable academic journal.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1500

Hunger's review is most interesting and merits close examination and should be compared with the 5 part review by Carl Jonsson with both reviews featured on the same website. It is my expectation that Hunger's review whatever format is presented should be published in a respected academic journal in order to give his Review a measure of respectability and integrity.

It is my intention to advise Furuli of both these Reviews so that he can respond to these when and how he sees fit for really it is Furuli who is best able to either benefit from such critiques one way or the other. For scholars indeed benefit greatly when their work is examined by such scholars as Hunger one of his peers.

My overall criticism of Hunher's approach to Furuli is that of Methodology for Hunger fails to appreciate the simple fact that the whole purpose of Furuli's thesis was to compare Ancient Chronologies with that of the Bible which indded is the very title of Furuli's book. I have already written to Hunger pointing out to him this obvious flaw in his approach.

Hunger fails to appreciate the issue of the integrity of the VAT 4956 raised by Furuli in a somewhat technical manner at the end of his critique. Hunger it seems fails to pay close attention to the evidence presented by Furuli. Readers of these articles need to appreciate that we have a dispute between two experts, Furuli, an expert on ancient languages and Hunger, an expert on archeo-astronomy. Therefore, it is not surprising that different sets of eyes will differ as to interpretation of the same evidence under examination.

scholar JW

106

Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

by thraxer68 in

ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

can someone maybe explain that a little?

if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1443

Not so. By accepting 539 BCE and using the biblical data then one can easily determine that 537 BCE is the only realistic date for the Return and this is also agreed by most scholars. Garyneal, Balck Sheep and Alan F had various theories but nothing that was stated by them undermined the certainty of 537 BCE.

I do not argue in circles for it it is unnecessary for me to do so. To be precise it is the latter because Jeremiah specifically stated that the judgement on Babylon only began after the seventy years whnich was 537 BCE but the spirit of Jerrmiah's prophec y was that Babylon would be punished and its Fall in 539 BCE was certainly punishment.

scholar JW

106

Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

by thraxer68 in

ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

can someone maybe explain that a little?

if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1400

The referred passages follow on from after the seventy years because in context Ezra 36: 22 immediately follows on after the fulfilling of the seventy years as described in verse 21.

It is impossible for the seventy years to end in 539 BCE because in that year the Jews were still in Babylon and you are quite incorrect in claiming that secular historical information and scripture support this viewpoint. Celebrated WT scholars and myself would argue to the contrary.

There is nothing 'fuzzy' about 537 BCE ending the seventy years for it is confirmed by Scripture and secular historical evidence.

The King of Babylon was punished in 539 BCE but Jeremiah also foretold in that same text that Babylonia would be made desolate and that did not happen in 539 BCE.

Celebrated WT scholars have shown a differend date for Neb's acc and first regnal year and does not agree with 605 BCE.

scholar JW

106

Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

by thraxer68 in

ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

can someone maybe explain that a little?

if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1391

Details of the Return are found at 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:6. Such narrative gives a complete account of the history and chronology for the return to Jerusalem from Babylon.

That is a matter of opinion that 609 BCE began the dominance of the Babylonian World Power for other scholars would prefer 605 BCE.Both dates of 609 and 605 BCE are unsuitable candidates for the beginning of the seventy years because these dates are simply too 'fuzzy' to be of any value historically.

scholar JW

100

Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze in

okay so we've obviously established on this board that 607 is not the correct date that babylon destroyed jerusalem.

even before 1914 came around, the bible students still thought 1914 would be a pivital date.

the only way they can gain that info is from the 7 times or w/e.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1401

'Bunkum' well describes your pitiful efforts in discrediting the validity of 607 BCE.

No, I did not learn of Young's article from COJ but found it from my own research.

Chronology is after all a product of Methodology and Interpretation so any chronology does indeed 'suit a purpose' whatever that may be and that is what all scholars do.

Russell's chronology also included material concerning the Life and Death of our Lord and this chronology has been widely accepted within scholarship. His chronology has not been proved wrong at all but has been confirmed with a little 'fine tuning' to be a correct chronology of both the OT and the NT. Any chronology must be a'work in progress' as is true of all scientiofic knowledge.

scholar JW

106

Help with another 607 vs 587 question............

by thraxer68 in

ok, this is driving me nuts for whatever reason i cant get past the bolded part.

can someone maybe explain that a little?

if this even makes sense, im usually not t his dense, i've been reading this for ever and for some reason i keep getting thrown off track at that part.

scholar

garyneal

Post 1383

The only indication of this is contained in the context of the previous verses, the reference made later in 29:10 but more importantly it is indicated by the phrase'when the seventy years have been fulfilled".

Nowhere does the Bible state the length of time of the journey home but it certainly indicates that it took some months and that they had returned home by the seventh month of 537 BCE which is also endorsed by scholarship.

The circumstances of the return are more described in the last chapter of 2 Chronicles and the earlier chapters of Ezra and this serves as the basis for the chronology of the Return.

The problem of 609 BCE is that nothing happened in that year, it does not enjoy wide support by scholars for the start of the seventy years and for many other reasons it must be rejected accept for its accuracy as to arithmetic. If you add 539 to 70 then you get a sum of 609.

scholar JW