587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

AnnOMaly

Open-minded people should read his research and if errors of whatever type are found or believed to be found then these should be communicated to the author.
Perhaps in due course. As you say these things take time. Meanwhile, it's in order to discuss any findings so far in public.
Experts believe that Babylonian chronology is infallible or correct but it disagrees with Bible chronology with at least a twenty gap between these two conflicting chronologies. Experts have made numerous assumptions about the interpretations of the astronomical data and this is what Furuli is examining by taking a fresh approach at the primary sources. Scholarship is advanced when serious scholars push the boundaries of knowledge by reexamining conventional theories and hypotheses.
Yet if he really wanted to make a fresh, scientific approach, he wouldn't start his new years in May - not only in 588, the alternate year for lunar observations on VAT 4956, but also in 563 when discussing LBAT 1421 (p.126) - and he would be consistent with his 588 Nisan 1sts, new moon crescent visibilities and dates of lunar eclipses (compare p.126 with p. 317). As you said, this is a highly technical field and if someone doesn't give attention to basic details like these, he/she has shot him/herself in the foot!
Besides, as you well know, because it has been explained and explained to you over the years, that Babylonian chronology DOES NOT disagree with the biblical testimony. It only disagrees with a particular interpretation of the biblical testimony.
I have read Grabbe's review on Furuli's first volume which is short and unkind.
What I sense with Grabbe's review is, *Roll eyes* "Where does one start? Let's cut to the chase. He's an amateur."
It will be interesting to see what he thinks of the second volume. Furuli has received a complimentary from an American SDA scholar who reviewed his first volume.
Interesting. Please produce this. I ask because, after your recent misleading comment about what Alan F conceded to on the John Aquila Brown issue, I don't trust you!
In contrast, Jonsson has not had a Literature Review published as yet to my knowledge even though his opinion has been published for twenty years.
But Jonsson has summarized/corroborated/restated the current, established views that have been around for a long time. The WTS/Oslo view is a controversial one that would warrant fresh attention.
My comment was not to say that the community of scholars are apostates but rather my comment was a response to your previous post whereby you claimed that there were scholars or experts who had already reviwed Furuli's second volume. Perhaps you meant his first not his second volume. If your contacts whoever they are have examined Furuli's second volume then you should be upfront and provide it. Methinks you bluff.
I am claiming that many of Furuli's arguments have already been thrashed out and settled long before his book went to print.
scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 533
There should be no perhaps or maybes but if definite criticism is warranted then this should be done as Furuli himself encourages. If it is oK to discuss such claims or opinions in public then it is appropriate to dismiss these in public also.
Again you make claims about Furuli's methodology concerning the begiining of the New Year in certain calendrical years. These are either typos or in fact that is what the raw data says which raises serious questions as to the integrity of these documents. Furuli has certainly given attention to detail but nothing is infallible and that is why it is incumbent upon the reader to seek answers from the author not from the public. The public cannot help you but merely give sympathy. The ball is in your court.
It has been explained to you and others over many years that Babylonian chronology does not agree with biblical chronology because there exists a problematic 'twenty year' gap between the two. Also, Babylonian chronology. its scribes and historians give no account what so ever of the seventy years of Jewish exile in Babylon for starters and no historical account or placement of the Nebuchadnezzer's madness when he was absent from the throne for seven years. Further, there is no account of the forty year desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzer. So much for accurate history and chronology. These are not problems of interpretation but examples of poor history and poor history means poor chronology.
Even so-called amateurs have taught the experts, the history of science is full of such brilliant men and women who have advanced knowledge. Perhaps Grabbe is paying Furuli the ultimate compliment as he anticipates his second volume.
There is no misleading comment about Alan F and the Brown incident for he had to concede that there was a connection but getting Alan F to admit to this was like pulling teeth. You should read all of the post on this matter. Better still why do you not investigate the issue yourself and see who is right: Jonsson orthe Society that would be a far more honest approach than trawling through past conversations? The facts are plainly set out for any researcher to examine.
When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it.
Your excuse that because Jonsson has simply rehashed current knowledge and therefore is unworthy of a Literature Review is utter nonsense. Literature Reviews do in fact review revisions of earlier works. Besides Jonsson introduces a subject that is not commented on much in the public arena and that is the Gentile Times and Luke 21:24 so it needs to have some Review.
The apostates did a desperate job on Furuli's first volume and no doubt they are burning the midnight oil for snow job on Furuli's second volume.
scholar JW
AnnOMaly

I can see that you have slipped into your parallel universe with your default responses (surprised you've omitted the 'celebrated WT scholars' phrase - are you ill?) so it serves no purpose continuing our discussion.
A couple of short and sweet responses:
If it is oK to discuss such claims or opinions in public then it is appropriate to dismiss these in public also.
It's helpful to actually engage with the claims before dismissing them. But I guess your blustering above suggests you are not equipped to do so.
Perhaps Grabbe is paying Furuli the ultimate compliment as he anticipates his second volume.
ROFL! Only you could twist that around!
There is no misleading comment about Alan F and the Brown incident for he had to concede that there was a connection but getting Alan F to admit to this was like pulling teeth. You should read all of the post on this matter. Better still why do you not investigate the issue yourself and see who is right: Jonsson orthe Society that would be a far more honest approach than trawling through past conversations?
You brought up the past conversation. Please quote the part where Alan F conceded that Jonsson had erred in his statements about Brown. Provide the link too.
The facts are plainly set out for any researcher to examine.
Indeed they are!
When I next contact Furuli I will obtain either a copy of the review or details of it.
Excellent. Please post or PM me the information. I won't hold my breath however.
scholar

AnnOMaly
Post 534
I care nought if this is your last post to me on this subject. When you do post on chronology I will be here to trounce on you.
No it is not helpful if your intention is to be malicious and spread deceit. A honest person would check the facts first with the author for that is the decent thing to do. Perhaps you want to 'bignote' yourself, passing yourself as some kind of expert on this subject.
Grabbe indeed is complimentary inasmuch he recognizes some of Furuli's contributions to the dating of the Persian chronology and recognizes that "Gifted amateurs have sometimes recolutionized scholarship" citing M. Ventris and Linear B as ezamples. Grabbe awaits Furuli's second volume to see if it is any more convincing. Grabbe like most if not all modern Jewish historians stumble over the literalness of the seventy years which also has stumbled C.O. Jonsson.
You miscontrue matters concerning Alan F's concession. What he conceded was that on the relevant page in Brown's Eventide that Brown did connect the Lukan passage with the Gentile Times which is exactly what the Society had said but was dogmatically contradicted by Jonsson.
When I get the information from Furuli then I will sit on it until the opportunity arises for it to be made public,
scholar JW
Alleymom

Hi, Neil --
Could we please take another look at one of the points I made in my message #1148?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/2643289/post.ashx#2643289.
I was responding to the following statement ---
Scholar: I have consulted the charts in Babylonian Chronology by Parker and Dubberstein and I note that there is no fixed date in the Julian Calender with the Babylonian Calender for Nisanu 1.
I don't know whether you looked through all of the charts, but if you go back and look at pages 27-47, you'll find that Parker and Dubberstein give the dates on which Nisanu 1 fell for 700 years, from 626 BCE to 75 CE.
And you will see that not even once in those 700 years did Nisanu 1 fall in May.
The Babylonian New Year's festival, the "Akitu" festival, was a very elaborate ceremony involving the king and the temple priests. The Babylonian creation myth was read and re-enacted. It goes back in history to the Sumerians, and one of its names is the Festival of the Sowing of Barley. It was a springtime ritual, Neil. It took place close to the vernal equinox.
In his (unsuccessful) attempt to make the astronomical data on VAT 4956 fit some year other than 568/567 BCE, Furuli proposes a calendar year like no other in history, in which Nisanu 1 fell in May. This finds no scholarly support. The charts which you consulted are referenced by all scholars in the field, and they show that Nisanu 1 always fell in March or April, never in May.
Regards,
Marjorie
Alleymom

A further note ---
The data in astronomical diary VAT 4956 was analyzed and verified by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis. Their paper on VAT 4956 was presented at a conference on "Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East," held in June 2001 at the British Museum. The research papers from the conference were published in 2002 in a book edited by Dr. John Steele, an archeo-astronomer in the Department of Physics at Durham University.
The title of the book is Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. The name of the article is "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428.
They discussed VAT 4956 again in an article with the same title, published in December 2004 in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 45, issue 6, pages 6.15 - 6.17: "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis."
I have read (and have copies of) both articles.
The authors "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data found in VAT 4956.
They especially emphasize that the results of the "lunar threes" observations in VAT 4956 are not observations that would have been repeated at Metonic-cycle intervals. They give a very clear explanation of the "lunar threes" --- briefly, these were three time-intervals which were tracked and recorded each month: 1) the interval from sunset to moonset (on the first of the month); 2) sunrise to moonset (middle of the month); moonrise to sunrise (near the end of the month) --- and they explain that these usually enable one to arrive at the exact date by comparing the observed time-intervals with computer calculations. The authors conclude that "the various lunar threes in the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1[degree] - no mean achievement." p. 424
The authors corresponded with Christopher Walker of the British Museum and Assyriologist Hermann Hunger (who published a translation and analysis of VAT 4956 in 1988 in volume 1 of Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia) on points regarding the Akkadian.
The charts and diagrams present the data very clearly and succinctly. The authors give three examples of conjunctions of the moon with 3 of the 31 "normal stars" appearing in Babylonian observations. The three figures illustrating these conjunctions are very well done and I think they make the situation quite clear, even to those readers who may not be astronomy buffs.
Furuli himself acknowledges (p. 308) that "in all the instances, the [planetary] positions are approximately correct" [for the year 568/567 BCE.] Anyone who merely looks at the charts, particularly Table C3 on pp. 308-309, without reading the explanation in the text, would never know that Furuli has chosen to label planetary positions as "Wrong" even though they are -- "in all instances" (!) --- "approximately correct." He explains that he calls them "wrong" if they do not fit exactly. [emphasis his] He omits his own proposed year from chart C3 entirely; a reader who is bogged down with the mass of detail in the text will never realize by looking at Chart C3 that the planetary positions for 588 don't fit at all.
Furuli's argument ultimately devolves into a two-pronged conspiracy theory:
1) He posits (p. 105) the existence of a Seleucid-era scribe who fudged the numbers because of an unspecified, mysterious chronological agenda.
2) He believes the tablet was tampered with in modern times by someone who had a grinding tool or drill.
Marjorie
AnnOMaly

Thanks, Alleymom for your very informative posts!
'Scholar'
I care nought if this is your last post to me on this subject.
LOL! Who are you trying to kid? You thrive on this!
When you do post on chronology I will be here to trounce on you.
Well your track record hasn't been good. But if you really want to 'trounce on me' you can start with proving why May 1 and 2 and 3 should each be the new year in 588 and why P&D's dates are off instead of hiding behind a 'my scholarly gang is better than your scholarly gang' diversionary tactic.
No it is not helpful if your intention is to be malicious and spread deceit.
Show me where I have been malicious and deceitful in the criticisms I've made. Go ahead: 'trounce me.'
A honest person would check the facts first with the author for that is the decent thing to do. Perhaps you want to 'bignote' yourself, passing yourself as some kind of expert on this subject.
Oh please! I think we know who it is around here who really wants to 'bignote' himself. Anyway, the author and I are currently having a nice little discussion.
(Grabbe's dismay is evident. No more comments about that are needed.)
You miscontrue matters concerning Alan F's concession.
Prove it.
When I get the information from Furuli then I will sit on it until the opportunity arises for it to be made public
ROFL! It doesn't exist, does it?
scholar

Alleymom
Post 1158
I take your point that Nisan 1 did not fall in May however Furuli has shown that the data says differently. So, either Furuli has made a typo or the that is what primary data indicates. As I have said before you must take up this matter with Furuli himself and see what is going on. I cannot help and I cannot understand why you do not do whar common sense should impell you to do. Write to Furuli!!!!!!
scholar JW
KW13

back it up with jeremiah 25:12
scholar

Alleymom
Post 1159
You mention recent research that you believe supports current dating of the data for Vat 4956. I cheked Furuli's bibliography and it appears that John Steele is cited but not the others. If you believe that these articles are important then why not forward or convey this information to Furuli for comment. It is probably the case that this recent research is simply based upon older or recent translations of VAT 4956. Furuli based his new research on his own independent transalation of the document hence the data is shown to different. They contacted Hunger and Walker for advice as to the Akkadian so this could be a bit of a problem.
You seem to have a good understanding of the matter so you should take up your criticism with Furuli. I cannot help because I have not done this research. All I can do is read his book and if I have a problem then I would contact Furuli.
scholar JW

587/607 Question...

Share this