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 1531
At long last you have had your memory refreshed concerning my comments on the English transalation of VAT 4956. Such astonishment on your part is simply apostate desperation, the clutching of straws. There was and remains no need for me to do anything. The Bible alone disproves the chronology based on this document but as research moves ever so slowly then I will continue to do what and when it pleases me not you.
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 1527
I have not forgotten that our debate is with Hunger but Hunger's issue is with Furuli and is yours and that is why you should pursue the matter directly with Furuli.
I have for many years proven the reality of the Babylonian Gap by means of Bible Chronology.
My assessment is similar to yours so your assessment of me =my assessment of yours.
You have no knowledge of my English translation of the VAT 4956 so your comment merely demonstrates your stupidity and desperation.
Through the eyes of apostates everything is distorted so I am not concerned about 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.
AnnOMaly
Post 1523
It is said that 'a little knowledge is dangerous' so I believe that you are well advised to take up your concerns with Furuli directly. If I have some concerns then I will most certainly communicate such with Furuli directly.
My conviction of Furuli's proof of the Babylobian Gap is well established by Bible chronology so I can quite ably defend the matter.
No I can make an assessment of not only Hunger's review but also Jonsson's 5 part series. My assessment is one of collusion and desperation.
Your stupidity lies not in the fact of the matter but that of rashly ignoring what I had originally said about VAT 4956 and my activities surrounding it.
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 1521
I think you should take your own medicine by satnding aside, observe and understand before commenting on matters in which you have no expertise.
I believe that I can say with conviction that Furuli has proved the existence of the 'Babylonian Gap' but it is for other independent scholars who must have sufficient technical expertise to test Furuli's hypothesis. To date this has not been done.
Yes I can. I am fully competent in making an assessment bringing to the debate matters which lie within my area of competence. Comparing Furuli's study with earlier ones is rather easy for me to do. You mention in your stupidity that the earliest study by Weidner and Neugebauer is in German. That is correct but what you forget in your muddleheadness is that I informed this forum some years ago that it was 'scholar' in conjunction with a SDA theological library in Australia way back in the seventies a transllation from German to English by a Lecturer in Gerrman from the University of Sydney.
I will bring matters to this forum on my terms, manner and timing and not yours.
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
Posy 1519
And neither are able to make any meaningful observations of Jonsson ot Hunger for we are only spectators. Let the experts, Hunger and Furuli 'joust' it out.
One day I may well meet your expaectations of 'substance'.
I repeat my understanding of the Babylonian Gap is not and was not based on the research by Furuli, it is based on the Bible. Furuli simply has provided evidence for this and what he has written simply confirms the matter.
Such previous studies are in English so I can make a sufficient comparison to form an opinion.
I do things according to my own timetable not yours.
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
