Mary
Post 12421
Sweet Mary, producing a long list of supposed list of regnal data for the NB period proves nothing for many other reputable authorities give different data so your list is uselless. Sorry, hav e another go!
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 12421
Sweet Mary, producing a long list of supposed list of regnal data for the NB period proves nothing for many other reputable authorities give different data so your list is uselless. Sorry, hav e another go!
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 1518
My expertise lies with the Bible. My observations on related matters has kept this subject on this form going for at least 8 pages. Not bad, HUH!
You should be able to find it easily if you try hard enough or are you only interested in things superficial not anything of substance?
I do not, have not depended on Furuli for my belief in the gap of 20 years is based on the Bible, Furuli has simply found secular support for it.
It seems that whatever the contact you hace had with Furuli it would appear that you need to do better if you really believe Furuli is in error.
Furuli's first scientific/critical research is a vast improvement on what had been done before.
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 1517
I have just as much right as you as in giving or making any observation or comment that I have competence in making.
I simply give my observations on both Hunger and Jonsson what they have written in respect to Furuli. Whether I am 'blowing smoke' is a matter for others but that can hardly be the case when I emailed Hunger and posted my dtailed observation on this board.
I simply do not trust your opinion or that of your cronies with repect to whether the lunar data fits 568/587 BCE for Furuli has published research that proves that 588/587 BCE is much better fit and this agrees with the Bible. My research has been and will continue to be ongoing and for me this is not the end of the matter but simply the beginning so I will have more to say over time.
I will conduct my own examination as I have outlined.
Furuli has not heard of you so you need to make contact with Furuli directly if you have any critisms not simply respond on a Yahoo site. Last time I looked at a Yahoo site where I thiink you were having exchanges with Furuli I remeber that Furuli responded to you with solid answers.
You do not know what I said to Hunger in that email however that would have been the decent thing for Hunger to do?
Your explanation of Hunger's use of Jonsson, Stephensen & Willis and his own research of the lunar data looks very contrived to me and I do not accept your rationalization. I will make my own judgement when I access the cited refernce. Besides what astro program did Hunger personally use if you are so smart?
I repeat that Furuli was the first scientfic/critical of VAT 4956 in fact on page 99 in his first edition Furuli states that he used two astro programa, produces a drawing, photographs and a comparison of the translations from previous studies along with his own. Weidner and Neugebauer simply produced a lengthy tdiscussion consisting of transliteration, translation and calculations.
Your concluding assessment of me can easily be applied to yourself and frankly I care nought for your opinion of me.
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 12420
Oh sweet Mary nn matter how hard you try you cannot disprove 607 BCE as the precise calender date for the Fall of Jerusalem. You cannot even prove any precise calender year for this event whether it is 586 or 587 BCE!!!
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 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.
leolaia
Post 15343
'Celebtate' means to proclaim or make known publicly not to worship.
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 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