bohm
Post 1988
I am not avoiding you for I have already answered your question. The information you request is on Furuli's home page if you are not satisfied then contact Furuli. I cannot help you any further.
scholar JW
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.
bohm
Post 1988
I am not avoiding you for I have already answered your question. The information you request is on Furuli's home page if you are not satisfied then contact Furuli. I cannot help you any further.
scholar JW
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.
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Post 3169
I think you are lost in that big Pyramid. You need to escape out of and see the Light. Why not exit from the Grand Gallery?
scholar JW
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.
diamondiiz
Post 566
Not at all. What you say is preposterous. The world which lies in the power of the wicked one is most certainly trying to hide the truth about 607 BCE, the ending of the Gentile Times and the events and significance of 1914 established evidentially by 607 BCE. One does not need to be delusional because the said 'scholar' is very much abreast of all the facts regarding the establishing in a most secure manner this most sacred date. So there!
scholar JW
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.
AnnOMaly
Post 1506
My tentative review of Hunger is constrained by the following; followed by my personal observations:
1. Hunger based his review on Furuli's 2nd edition 2008 whereas my copy of Furuli is his 1st edition 2007 which causes a little difficulty in using Hunger's page numbering of Furuli.
2. Furuli's work is of a technical nature thus Hunger's review should be the same but for the layman this poses a problem if one has no indepth knowledge of these areas such as linguistics, Semitic languages, philology and ancient astronomy. I can only comment on what I perceive and understand and by comparison of both scholarly responses. Where reference is made to the Bible then I can most certainly comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the argument.
3. Any reviewer of these works, Hunger and Furuli would need to consult the Bibliographies for both in order to examine for error, interpretation and context.
4. Hunger's use of Carl Jonsson's earlier Reviews (5 Parts) is for me somewhat problematic. What influence did Jonsson have on Hunger? Is Hunger's review of Furuli truly independent and scholarly? Is there evidence of collusion on the part of Hunger, Jonsson and Gallagher? Why did Hunger post his review of Furuli on the same website hosted by Jonsson which contains numerous articles against Furuli and Watchtower chronology? Why did not Hunger publish his review of Furuli in a academic journal? How and Why are the reviews of Furuli by Hunger and Jonsson similar in format and substance? Who is the Editor who wrote the Editorial comment prefacing Hunger's review of Furuli and Why is he/she not identified?
5. Such questions go to the heart of the integrity of Hunger's Review on Furuli for it gives the appearance of 'nit-picking' rather than examining the Furuli's thesis-approach-methodology. None of these three areas are touched upon by Hunger.
6. Furuli's thesis was to compare the Ancient Chronologies- Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian with the Bible a comparison in which Hunger ignores entirely.
7. Hunger's overall Review albeit technical in nature, is superficial in substance, relying or drawing heavily on Jonsson's previous Reviews. He demonstrates his preference of Higher Criticism by elevating Assyrian Chronology above that of the Biblical Record.
8. Any further assessment of Hunger's review of Furuli can only be done by a careful consideration of Jonsson's Reviews and now vice versa.
9. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Furuli can benefit from the Reviews of Hunger and Jonsson. Furuli has indeed welcomed such criticisms and suggestions which can only strenghten his overall thesis in my view. This is because Furuli's thesis is based on the biblical seventy years which proves a 20 year Gap between Bible Chronology and Neo-Babylonian Chronology.
Much of Furuli's research involves interpretation of the secular evidence and other scholars do and would have differing opinions but Furuli has the advantage in that he has nothing to lose but everything to gain for afterall his thesis is grounded on the Biblical record. Hunger and Jonsson have everything to loose even if Furuli has only mounted a plausible argument in support of his thesis and at least in this respect Furuli has succeeded.
10. On the whole Furuli presented to the scholarly community a formidable thesis and argument which takes much courage and boldness, his methodology is very technical and detailed and Hunger and Jonsson have much more work to do if they wish to diminish Furuli's argument. I have forwarded such links to Furuli so that he can respond to Hunger and Jonsson as he sees fit.
In conclusion, this is only a tentative analysis of this most interesting and complex debate and I will have more to say when I get to some details on VAT 4956 for which I have some personal attachment going back at least 40 years.
scholar JW
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.
isaac austin
Posts 6336-6337
Furuli is a scholar, he is an expert in Semitic languages. Hunger is a scholar also, an expert in Assyriology.
scholar JW
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.
isaac austin
Post 6335
Neither is Carl Jonsson and Herman Hunger
scholar JW
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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