VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?
by I_love_Jeff 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
Bobcat
Try this web page. This is a review of one of Furuli's works were he refers to "backward calculations."
http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review2.htm
Incidentally, if you are researching 607bce, I would like to mention two books worth investigating. One is "Gentile Time Reconsidered." (Carl Olaf Jonsson, 400 pages) The other is "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings." (Edwin R. Thiele, 250 pages)
The first book focues on 607 vs 587. The second one focuses on the timelime of the kings of Israel and Judah from the split in the kingdom (931/930bce) down to the destruction of Jerusalem (587). Regarding 587, both arrive at the same conclusion but from different angles. These two together really convinced me. In fact it was Thiele's book that got me interested enough to purchase Jonsson's book. And then Jonsson's book was like WOW! Thiele's book is difficult reading, but worth the effort if you are interested in this subject.
My personal take on Rolf Furuli: He seems to be well credentialed, he is a Witness and thus, holds to 607bce as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. His method of arguing appears (to me) to try to cast doubt on the evidence supporting 587bce, leaving 607 correct by default.
Take care.
-
I_love_Jeff
Thank you BobCat and what about this quote from Carl Olof Jonsson:
"Finally, Furuli's hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions "represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II," and if it were true that "the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87," which Furuli argues was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary".
I am not clear on this and I did read the article. It's very interesting indeed.
-
Bobcat
I see there is a second thread with this question. I'll let more qualified people answer.