On second thoughts, it looks as though i am going to take that last post back. Looking at the KISS approach it would seem that the WT quotations show that the baton has been passed along.
Paul
Questions concerning 607
by beavis 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
hamilcarr
If Furuli applied the same standards he uses to discard 607, he would as well need to do away with 539. And that's in fact what he admits in this quote:
The year 539 B.C.E. is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertainty with that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539 and not 49 or 50, which is what P&D allows for). This means that both the Bible and the Oslo chronology of the Persian Empire argues against the traditional New Babylonian chronology.
The circular reasoning is obvious: "we have few evidence for 539, but still if we blindly accept this irrefutable date, 607 is untenable". You need unsupported faith to accept the presuppositions of Furuli's reasoning: only if you already believe the unproven correctness of 539 and the doubtful unambiguity of the Bible, the Oslo Chronology makes sense.
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 731
Yes I noticed the endorsement of Jonsson's work by a scholarly journal but you were very selective in your use of this Review so why do not you post the entire review so that would make the matter fully transparent. I noticed that the reviewer correctly observed that Jonsson is no specialist and therefore he cannot work with the primary sources. Furuli, on the other hand is competent in this respect and so it will be interesting to see if a review of Furuli's research will be published in this journal.
scholar JW
-
AnnOMaly
'Scholar'
I noticed that the reviewer correctly observed that Jonsson is no specialist and therefore he cannot work with the primary sources.
The reviewer correctly noted that despite his not being a specialist, his use of the literature written by specialists who do work with the primary sources, is 'nearly impeccable.'
Furuli, on the other hand is competent in this respect and so it will be interesting to see if a review of Furuli's research will be published in this journal.
Yes it will be interesting to see what the specialists make of Furuli's 2nd offering, remembering that one specialist wasn't impressed with the first one. But we'll wait and see.
Finally,
why do not you post the entire review
Back in November last year you said:
Furuli has received a complimentary from an American SDA scholar who reviewed his first volume.
and
When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it.
When I get the information from Furuli then I will sit on it until the opportunity arises for it to be made public,
(posts 1498, 1499, 1500 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/3.ashx)
I'll make you a deal. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 735
As a non-specialist Jonsson cannot deal directly with primary sources so he is reliant on those that can, this means his research is second-hand in nature thus merely continuing the views of others. His so-called research is thus limited, opinionated and does not push scholarship forward. Furuli on the other hand is an authority and can deal with the primary sources which is the hallmark of a 'true scholar' for his latest research is challenging conventional wisdom and invites a fresh appraisal of Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Furuli has informed me of an upcoming review in a leading academic journal by a scholar of great repute so this will be of much interest alongside a pevious view of dubious note.
I have already a copy of the Review in that leading journal by W. Gallagher. That journal in publishing this Review has paid celebrated WT scholars the ultimate compliment because it draws attention to 607 BCE, the Gentile times and 1914. Jonsson has done us a big favour by producing criticism of our chronology which in turn has now acheived academic notoriety by being debated in this journal.
I shall write to Gallagher when I can locate him and the Editor of the Journal giving my views on this Review as soon as practicable.
scholar JW
-
AnnOMaly
'Scholar'
As a non-specialist Jonsson cannot deal directly with primary sources so he is reliant on those that can, this means his research is second-hand in nature thus merely continuing the views of others. His so-called research is thus limited, opinionated and does not push scholarship forward. Furuli on the other hand is an authority and can deal with the primary sources which is the hallmark of a 'true scholar' for his latest research is challenging conventional wisdom and invites a fresh appraisal of Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Come on! Don't spin me that line.
Furuli is at best an authority on Semitic languages, but he is no authority on archeo-astronomy, ANE historiography, chronology, etc. and it shows.
Although he says he personally examined VAT 4956, he admits he hasn't collated NBC 4896 (only studied pictures), BM 32312 (I expect he relied on ADT) or the Kandalanu Saturn tablet (he used Walker's drawing). He used ADT for the LBATs in ch.7, and has personally seen none of the so-called anomalous tablets in ch.3, as his footnotes make plain. Therefore Furuli's research relies heavily on second-hand information.
Furuli has informed me of an upcoming review in a leading academic journal by a scholar of great repute so this will be of much interest alongside a pevious view of dubious note.
Much interest - yes! I'm sure that if and when it comes out, you'll label that reviewer as 'dubious' too LOL.
I have already a copy of the Review in that leading journal by W. Gallagher. That journal in publishing this Review has paid celebrated WT scholars the ultimate compliment because it draws attention to 607 BCE, the Gentile times and 1914. Jonsson has done us a big favour by producing criticism of our chronology which in turn has now acheived academic notoriety by being debated in this journal.
Only you, 'scholar,' can twist the negative comments directed at the WTS' spurious chronological scheme into a glowing affirmation of it! "Black is white" - Orwell.
I shall write to Gallagher when I can locate him and the Editor of the Journal giving my views on this Review as soon as practicable.
Well, good luck with that!
-
freydi
The wt isn't wrong about everything, only their methodology and honesty about where they got the facts regarding where they got them from, namely Br Russell and not some mythological fds group. Do the math yourself, from Adam to the Exodus then 1Kings 6 and you have to come up with 2513 + 580 + 429 + 606 +1872 = 6000. Case closed - Br Russell, God and the Bible are right. The historians, revisionists, and anti-christians are wrong.
-
VM44
Is there any advantage to viewing a tablet in person over viewing a detailed photograph of it?
I believe most scholars have not see in person most of the tablets that they have studied, even ones with which they are quite familiar with.
-
83501nwahs
Why don't you just read "Gentile Times Reconsidered?" It's as simple as that. I'll send you my copy if you want. It is very easy to understand. A well written and exhaustive study of the subject.
-
AnnOMaly
Hi VM44
Is there any advantage to viewing a tablet in person over viewing a detailed photograph of it?
I believe most scholars have not see in person most of the tablets that they have studied, even ones with which they are quite familiar with.
OK, that's a fair question. But surely, photographs aren't as good as the naked eye - especially when it comes to analyzing questionable signs. Any shadows or imperfections are fixed in the photo, whereas you can change the lighting, move in for a closer look and make certain of what you see with the real thing. If the tablet has been published and its reading generally accepted, I wouldn't think it necessary to go to the trouble of physically seeing the tablet in order to write about it. However, if a scholar disputes a colleague's reading/interpretation of the signs, one would think he would personally double-check the tablet itself - or at least get an expert to do it for him - rather than trust a 2D image.