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

AnnOMaly

Post 1503

Yes, I am inclined to agree with you. Humility therefore is not one of Hunger's strong points one could rightly conclude.

Much of Hunger's review amounts to a 'nitpicking of Furuli or another interpretation of the respective secular materials. Either way it is up to Furuli to respond to Hunger's opinions. I am not competent enough to comment on the technical details of either Furuli or Hunger but there are some specific points in Hunger's review that I am competent in evaluating such points.

Furuli has already 'set the cat amongst the chickens' so I would have no problem in 'raising the bar' with Hunger but that would be a waste of my time.

Hunger does indeed deal with technical issues of Furuli's thesis and ignores the theological issue as you say but that is where Hunger errs. Furuli's thesis is grounded in the Bible for indeed his methodology was to compare the ancient chronologies with the Bible. Hunger's sole use of Jonsson rather than other scholars undermines Hunger's integrity and shows bias on his part in my opinion.

You speak in haste for as yet I have not seen Gallagher's review of Jonsson.

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 15333

I did not intend by my use of 'approach' that it is a synonym for'methodology' in this instance but was merely used to avoid repetition. Whether that can be said of Hunger's use of the word 'approach' is a matter to be put to Hunger.

Yes it is. Because it is a simple fact that the Neo-Babylonian period embraced a period of much writing or scribal activity which included relevant books of the Bible such as Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel etc., Babylonian records and tablets etc. Whatever the prurpose of writing was we still have to deal with the corpus of material available and compare that material where there is some relevance. For example, Jonsson goes to graet lengths to compare secular records pertaining to chronology from a wide variety of sources and styles to that of specific books of the Bible. If it is good enough for Jonsson to make such a comparison then why cannot be the case with Furuli. Furuli clearly staes that his approach to such documents was one of linguistics and philology.

I believe that the Bible is superior to that of secular records and that where unlike Hunger there is a difference of fact then the Bible is deemed to be more credible and trustworthy because the Bible alone is 'Inspired by God' -2Tim.3:16.

I have no problems with the so called 'critical' approach adopted by the likes of Hunger but it comes at a great cost. However, experience in the world of academia has taught me that the Biblical assumption of inerrancy even in predictive oracles has not overidden a priori other secular evidence . For indeed, secular evidence has been forced to play 'catch-up' with the Biblical record. This has well been shown to be the case with that period of the Neo-Babylonians and the Later Judean Period as documented by the Prophets.

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 1981

A full list of Furuli's research is shown at the section Bibliography on Furuli's website.

If you want a copy of my email to Hunger then send me your email address.

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 1980

Furuli also is an expert with cunieform writing

Hunger's review of Furuli is not what one would expect of a scholar for the manner, tone and format has that apostate 'fuzz' all over it. For example, if you compare those reviews of Furuli by Jossson with that of Hunger you see many similarities in kind. I would like to see Hunger's original review before it was posted on that website. Further, the Editorial comment which introduces Hunger's article does not reveal the name of the Editor. So, I ask you, Who is the Editor?

It is all about methodology, if the Reviewer does not consider that then his review is flawed from the outset.

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 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