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.
Mary
Post 12419
OH! Sweet Mary! The biblical evidence proves 607 BCE, secular evidence proves 586 and 587 but with some 'fine-tuning' it also can prove 607 BCE. Hence, if the Bible alone supports the matter then the confused secular evidence has a lesser role to play. This should not be too hard for you to understand.
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 1513
Indeed Jonsson and Hunger do indeed have some expertise and so does Furuli and the 'said' scholar.
I simply do not have the expertise in examining the minutae of Furul's research and Hunger's review. All of these fellows including Jonsson us e dofferent astro programs and have a different methodologies so the results cannot coincide. What I can and will do is examine the article of Stepheson and Willis and also another article was recently published on the Babylonian months and the Moon. I do not trust your expertise because of your bias against Furuli so your examination is of no interest to me. If you have something worthwhile to say against Furuli then you should take up the matter wuth him directly as I have repeatedly aked you to do so who then is really 'chicken'?
Yes Hunger makes that statement but something is rather odd here for he does not publish or tabulate his results or describe his methodology, cite the program he used nor discuss Furuli's methodology. Why present the data of someone else when he could have presented his own citing support if true from others. I am not simply convinced that Hunger carried out an independent analysis for also in a previous paragraph he was quite happly to rely on Jonsson's
analysis of the lunar data with no further explanation. For me this is evidence of collusion not independent, rigorous scholarship.
The 1915 discussion of VAT 4956 was not a critical/ scientific study but simply a translation into German of which I have a copy and indeed it was I that had a translation of the Gereman into English in the early seventies. Furuli was and is the first!
Then the commentary emanating from Jonsson, Hunger and yourself does not reflect such an examination. because no attention was paid to Furuli's methodology and his summary.
If you cannot Furuli's summary and conclusions then you have not read Furuli so read it! BUT READ CAREFULLY!
scholar JW
c
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
Post1512
Your so-called ' bias for truth' is a meaningless statement. In other words accept what Hunger and Jonsson say without question or criticism.
I am not bemonaning my lack of expertise for no one can be an expert on everything, Jonsson and Hunger only have a limited expertise in some matters. Furuli acknowleges his deficiencies in certain areas so a liitle humility brings you to reality. My expertise lies in the Bible and when I amm confronted with a subject such as ancient scrular chronology then I accepth the Bible over an dabove the theiries of men now that is my reality. The Bible alone is the source of truth because it is God's Word therefore I amm not plaqued by bias.
If I was so chicken then I would not be posting on this board, I would not have read Hunger's article and I would most certainly read and studied Jonsson's books over the last many years. Your accusation merely shows how desperate you ahen someone has the brains and the courage to refute the nonsense that you peddle.
Hunger did nothing of the kind for simply used others such as Stephenson and Willis to make the comparison of the lunations with Furuli. As I stated Furuli was the first to make a scientific study of VAT 4956 there was a study with translation made in 1815 of which I have a copy and there were later studies but Furuli made the first scientific study.
Yes, I repeat the simple observation that any unbiased reader would come to that Hunger and Jonsson have failed to come grips with Furuli's detailed, scientific analysis of VAT 4956 and neither have you!
Furuli's summary and comclusion on Vat 4956 are stated more than once in his book so if you have truly read the book which I now doubt you would have noted these conclusions or findings so should Hunger and Jonsson.
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.
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.
Mary
Post 12402
Yes, Furuli has an agenda and so does Hunger, Jonsson and others of their ilk including yourself.
It does not matter if there is no secular evidence that directly supports 607 BCE because it is well established biblically. However, there is sufficient secular evidence that supports 607 BCE in that all of NB chronology is a scheme that merely falls short a mere twenty years. How about that! Don't you luv it?
How can your Bible Chronology prove that the Fall did not occur in the precise calender year of 607 BCE when it cannot prove whether the Fall occurred in 586 or 587 BCE? Your assertion is meaningless. Unless your Bible chronology can prove what precise calender year Jerusalem fell then you cannot disprove the precise calender year as 607 BCE for the Fall. You are grasping at straws.
When it comes to the tampering matter I cannot comment either way and neither can you, Jonsson or Hunger for it is best left to a panel of scholars trained in such matters.
Wiuth regard to the celebrated WT scholars perhaps you should read Daniel 12:3,4.
What I report on my Field Service Report is my business and not yours for at least I engage in the ministry. Do you? How are you fulfilling Matt 28:19,20?
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 1509
The matter of such published works beings subject to Peer Review and supported by Referrees goes a long way to preserve the integrity of scholarship as well thge necessity of appropriate Bibliography and referencing standards. Nevertheless. misinformation and misrepresentation continue to be an issue for scholars but I would add a further enemy and that is bias which is clearly manifest in the treatment of Furuli by Hunger. the clarification that I received came from Jonsson and not yourself, all that you said I knew instinctively when commparing Jonsson with Hunger.
5.6.7 Well you are no expert either and i wonder if you have truly read Furuli and understood it! You make pretensions about expertise in all of those fields but state my lack of expertise in those areas such as anceinet astronomy, cunieform texts etc.
With all of these people using any number and type of astro programs then confusion and different interpretations abound and you expect me to sort it out. Give me a break. When the experts get it sorted then I may take a look at it. Why did not Hunger use his astro-program rather than relying on others?
I do not want a gold star but a pat on the head would do nicely. Furuli states on p.244 that since 1915 no critical study of VAT 4956 had been published. Such a critical study has been undertaken in connection with this book. In the footnote 270 Furuli cooments that Hunger's work in 1988 was not a critical scientific study. Hence scholar staes that Furuli's was the first scientific study of the tablet. I need that gold star now!
You only need to compare the content of Furuli's research on the VAT 4956 with Hunger's meagre attention to the detail that Hunger wasnot able to come to grips with that material and this is the same with Jonsson. Furuli's hypothesis of tampering has still not been addressed by Hunger or Jonsson it seems that they are only concerned with the identity of the forger, the name and brand of the tool used. Perhaps it was a Makita grinder!
9. I repeat Furuli has nothing to lose because I cannot see in any way that his hypothesis can be disproved because after all the Bible proves that there is a twenty year gap. So, Furuli is on firm ground. The only thing that will change is some fine tuning to technical details if required.
I will check your comments on Stephensen and Willis as to whether it is a scientific study but without detailed photos it may not be in the same leaguq as Furuli.
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.
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.
just n from Bethel
Post 134
Your post does indeed raise some interesting issues but the bottom line is is that we are all individuals and as scholar is a dedicated Christian enjoying the responsibilies of Christian Freedom one must decide for oneself one's conduct. One such imperative or Christian responsibility is that of defending one's faith and this is the sole reason why scholar posts on this forum. Scholar is not interested in rationalizing about such matters for he simply does what needs to be done in order to protect other innocent ones by the deceit and treachery of apostates. Perhaps the time will come when scholar will cease from posting on this forum probably out of sheer boredom or lack of time or interest. Historically, the role of Apologists has always been controversial so the 'difficulty' that you wish to make for scholar is not unexpected but please be assured that loyalty, obedience and integrity are very important to scholar but sometimes one of the major challenges that all Christians have to face is that dilemna of Doing the Right Thing, At the Right Time and in the Right Manner.
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.
Mary
Post 12401
Well Furuli made a 'hands on ' examination accompanied by a detailed translation of the tablet and detailed photography which was enough to convince him of this hypothesis. There may well have been other factors aside from the above that led him to come to that conclusion. In any event Furuli has submitted the evidence so it is for fothers to make their assessment on the worth of the tablet. Furuli, the 'celebrated WT scholars and the said 'scholar' do not need this tablet for the support or non-support of our chronology. Our wondrous Bible chronology can stand on its own and does not need the whimsical interpretations of modern scholarship.
You say that there is no evidence of tampering: well you are not a scholar and your opinion counts for nothing. All that you are doing is simply blindly following your masters, Jonsson, Hunger and others.
Hunger, Jonsson and Gallagher have everything to lose if Furuli is correct and only time and further research will prove the matter one way or the other. Furuli has nothing to lose because as with the rest of the JW community our faith is not dependent on the theories of men but rather on the testimony of God's Word, the Holy Bible. The evidence for 607 BCE is sufficiently based on the Bible so we have nothing at all to worry about.
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.