this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
Farkel
Nothing new here boy. Jonsson is simply an accountant. He is not a scholar and has no academic qualifications in the field that he claims to be an expert. He simply has produced a rehash of the work of previous SDA scholars and his hypothesis despite many so called referees has not been peer reviewed. Furulu is a professional scholar and he has informed me that he has submitted his work for review.
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
cynicus
Listen boofhead. Finegans's book on chronology is far superior to the Jonsson drivel in fact in regard to Nt chronology he has moved closer to the WT chronology according to his second rdition. In fact Finegan has had both of his editions peer reviewed so when will Jonsson do the same.
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
hilary_step
If anyone has an agenda it is Jonsson and this is plainly evident in the introduction to his editions of GTR. If you have published then you appreciate the importance of a review so get Jonsson off his backside and get it done.
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
Alan F
So what. I do not claim to have read every book published on chronology, Or have you? One thing is certain my postings on this board always get your attention..
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
hilary_step
You betray an ignorance regarding the nature and substance of peer review. All scholars have their scholarship peer reviewed. When scholars submit and article to a recognized journal for publication, the editor of the journal submits copies to other referees prior to publication. A literature review is part and parcel of the academic process and is the appropriate course especially when such research is new or controversial or seeks to advance the scholarship. Whether the Jonsson hypothesis is favorable or not is besides the point and would not influence my opinion as to its overall aim which is to discredit and disprove 607. But I would like to see what other scholars have to say because it would be of great benefit to the general public.
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
Alan F
You are a clown, In point of fact I know nothing about Faulstich because to date I have not read his research but one day I will buy his book. I only mentioned his name because Jonsson in his review of Furuli had referred to an earlier review of Faulstich. Yet because I mentioned his name you immediately make all kind of stupid comparisons. In point of fact you dummie I only mentioned Faulstich because Jonsson has the hide to review the work of others yet has not got the courage to have his book reviewed. Why do not you along with other members of of the Editorial committee encourage Jonsson to have the book peer reviewed? I have an opinion as to why this has not happened and it is because Jonsson does not want his interpretation of the seventy years challenged or criticized.
scholar
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
Alan F
So are we to assume that Jonsson has contributed nothing to chronology with his hypothesis? Are we to assume that Jonsson has simply done a 'cut and paste' with the work of serious scholars or has he simply borrowed heavily from the work of the Seventh Day Adventists? Why after all these years his work has not been peer reviewed? Jonsson has the gaul to review the work of others namely Furuli and Faulstich but has not had his work peer reviewed and then expects his work to be taken seriously. It is merely a biased distortion of the secular evidence, biblical history and theology.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
hilary_step
Jonsson gives a somewhat amateurish review of Furuli's book which is a piece of serious scholarship unlike the Jonsson hypothesis in GTR. This fellow has the gall to publicly review the work of a well qualified scholar ehen he himself has not bothered to get his work peer reviewed. I contacted Furuli by phone this morning and he informed me that he has submitted his book to fifteen sources/journals for such review. This he has done with only a matter of months of publication. Jonsson has had published his work since 1982 and yet it has not been peer reviewed in the Journals or scholarly literature. This fact undermines any credibility of his views which are purely sectarian and do not manifest careful scholarship. He informs us that a fourth edition is to be released this year hence I submit the following on his criticism of the validated date of 607 BCE:
1982 7 lines of evidence against 607
1998 14 lines of evidence against 607
2004 28 lines of evidence ahainst 607
2008 56 lines of evidence against 607.......ad infinitum Please give me a break
scholar
as we all know, 1914 has been a pivotal date for the jw (although its meaning has changed with the time).. the oldest "calculation" to get to 1914 that i could find comes from thy kingdom come (copyright 1891) (1910 edition -- studies in the scriptures, vol.
3) p.342 (thanks to quotes.watchtower.ca):so, then, if we measure backward down the "first ascending passage" to its junction with the "entrance passage," we shall have a fixed date to mark upon the downward passage.
this measure is 1542 inches, and indicates the year b.c.
indoubt
The subject of the Gentile Times was first discussed by Russell in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner and further discussion on 1914 first appeared in December 1879 issue of the Watchtower.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
this may already have been posted, but if not i am sure that carl jonsson will forgive my linking his review of furuli's book from another site,.
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm .
best regards - hs.
City Fan
I assume you are referring to the charts pp.219-225 which begins with the reign of Cyrus in 539 BC. The reason for this is that Furuli has confined this volume which is the first of two volumes to a study of Persian Chronology onlly as the book's title states - Persian Chronology And The Length Of The Babylonian Exile Of The Jews.
I have Jonsson's Review of the Oslo Hypothesis and again demonstrates a pitiful attempt to refute Furuli's exegesis. I have criticisms of this review and will address these to Jonsson shortly. I have acquired this day two articles which recently appeared in the Journal Of The Study Of The Old Testament JSOT with one by Stern cited by Furuli and Jonsson which nicely supports the desolation of Judah under the subject 'The Babylonian Gap'. The other article by Blenkinsopp discusses the subject of 'The Myth of the Empty Land' wherein the author admits to the fact that the Israelite version of this myth has as its ideology that Judah lay desolate for seventy years and also discredits Jonsson's claims that the seventy years began in 609 with the downnfall of the Assyrian Worls Power according to my opinion. It seems that recent scholarship is favouring the Socierty's interpretation of the seventy years and not that of the Jonsson hypothesis.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
