scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,119 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1506

  I have some time this morning so I should have something of a preliminary nature to say but you must be a good girl.

  I found my copy of the article which was on one sheet ot paper with my underlining in red of some of the points that I raised in response to Gallagher on this forum. Carl Jonsson through my friend provided me with some details of Gallagher's academic qualifications just this morning. On the reverse side of my copy which was in fact in my Jonsson file was the Call Number for its holding in the Fisher Library at the University of Sydney. I had simply forgotten all about that Review but when I received another copy I knew immediately that I had it somewhere. Eureka!

  Truly, scholar indeed is a 'muddle-headed' wombat to use and Aussie colloquialism.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1505

  A correction to my last post. I have just opened my Inbox for my emails and a friend of mine has just forwarded to me the copy of the Review in the AFO journal and I recognized it straight away. Yes, imust have a copy in my files because I had read and made as you comments on it. I have filed in another file somewhere so when you brought it up I consulted my Jonsson file and it was not there. So, the problem is now resolved and I have not lied to you or to others. Further , my friend also sent a copy of another Review of Jonsson's GTR in the Bibliotheca Orientalis. Now I am very happy to have Reviews by scholars on Jonsson's thesis.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ultimate Reality

  Post 183

  At last we concur that the seventy years was a period of desolation-servitude and exile. All that you need to change now isarethe events from Babylon to Judah and the two dates. Congratulations you are nearly there!

  scholar JW
• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1505

  You and I have a different definition of humility.

  A comparison of both Hunger and Furuli in my opinion shows Hunger's 'nitpicking', Furuli is simply presenting his thesis in a careful manner. It is for the reader to make his /her assessment on this matter.

  Yes, I will comment on those points in which I am competent to do so. You are right; 'raising the bar' with Hunger would be useless as shown by his reply by email to me. After all it is not my dispute but Furuli can respong as he sees fit.

  Hunger' s 'nitpicking' is the consequence of his ignoring Furuli's methodology.

  Frankly, I cannot recall the matter but it well have been that I acted on the basis that a copy was at hand or perhaps I indeed do have a copy somewhere in my files. Anyway, you were not prepared to post a copy of the Review if indeed you have it and can read German. A lie hardly but perhaps a innocent mistake. Can you forgive me?

  scholar JW
• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Ultimate Reality

  Post 182

  That is merely your opinion as to how the seventy years should be interpreted. The fact of the mattter is that scholars do not have a common view as to the interpretation of the seventy years so your opinion simply mirrors that of Carl Jonsson. The Bible sttes quite clearly that the seventy years wasa period of desolation-servitude and exile running from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.

  scholar JW
• 
  248

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

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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