Neil,
Thanks for the correction. My papers are boxed so I am quoting from Memory. Well he mentioned 537 so it is given some credibility but his silence on 538 speaks volomes. Why don't you nail your colours to the mast and say what date you prefer. What is more important is your opinion of his conclusions which certainly dont support 538?
He doesn't support 537 either. He supports a different date - 533 BCE. He has his reasons. As Jeffro has pointed out, many reputable scholars support 538.
[Later post] I checked Andrew Steinmann's artcile on the JETS website and he gave his comment on 537 beginning on the last sentence on the first page and concluding on the first line on the second page so I was right after all from memory. Also you did not quote him correctly for he says"the date is usually given as 537BC by those who accept Ezra's chronological statement as accurate but the date is usually offered with some reservation.3".
It's fascinating to see how you manage to twist things around so that even when you are proven wrong on something you convince yourself that you were right.
You said: "Steinmann does mention 537BCE as a credible date in the footnote on the first page of his article ." As I indicated to you and as you have just confirmed, you remembered incorrectly.
Also you did not quote him correctly
I did not quote him at all.
As an aside Steinmann has recently a new book on Bible chronology endorsed by Rodger Young.
I know. You told me about it, remember?
(Don't you dare use that as another opportunity for boasting! >:-( Just act like normal person for a change. "Oh that's right, I did, Ann" will suffice.)
[Earlier post again] WTS are dogmatic about their chronology. ...
But you had said, "There is no room for dogma in chronology." Again, you appear to be disagreeing with the WTS's position. (Now I look forward to watching you harmonize your two contradictory statements to calm the cog diss in your head.)
... They propose certain dates, advocate and promote such dates but this is not dogmatism it is simply promoting a belief system.
Oh. They are not dogmatic now. In the space of two sentences, the WTS are both dogmatic and not dogmatic with their chronology. Are you so rattled that your brain is struggling to function properly?
I am having no difficulty with the article so no need to write. Its your problem not mine.
So you accept the WT's statement now? You accept that, for the WT's statement to be true, your initial statement must be false?
Methinks the watch illustration is brilliant because it shows how the twenty hap is removed by factoring the seventy years which are missing from the NB chronology and history. Touche!
I see that, again, you cannot cope psychologically with being shown up to be mistaken and you have to withdraw into your own fantasies.
Thanks for the link to his second review for at that earlier time it was not posted. I will check my files to see if in fact I did have it. I will now look at it and save it if needed for later printing. ...
You're welcome. I find it hard to imagine that it passed you by at the time.
... Although at the time he seemed to be supporting the paper by Doug Mason. ...
Doug Mason also supports COJ's critiques and refers to them in his paper.
... Some mystery here but I will sort it out eventually and let you know. After all it is bout two years ago.
No need to let me know and no mystery. I already know when both Doug's and Carl's articles were put online. You knock yourself out, though :-)
You ask about the tables I do not have the tools nor the competence to use them for I only have a copy of Oppolzer's Canon of Ecliposes and the Parker and Dubberstein's Babylonian chronology. I am more than happy to defer to other experts.
I've told you, I'll help you. You can get free, good quality, user-friendly astronomy programs online. You already have P&D. You can find historical lunar eclipses on the NASA site. You can find the transliteration and translation of VAT 4956 online - both the ones found in ADT Vol. I and Neugebauer and Weidner's 1915 one - heck, the latter has even been translated into English and is online now! All you are doing is making lame excuses because you are too scared of what you will find.
But by the way have you written to Furuli and engaged with him so his alleged errors as I have requested of you over many years. I do know that Furuli does engage with Hunger so I must contact Furuli for a update.
Until you engage with Furuli directly then your criticisms of his work amounts to humbug!
You know I have done so! You know that he never got back to me on some outstanding questions. You also know that his books and the criticisms of them are in the public domain. You probably do not know that his latest edition includes some revision that no doubt was influenced - at least in part - by those online criticisms, e.g. it's interesting that his "night of" Addaru 2 discussion, where previously he had tagged the 567 BCE crescent Moon's position as 'bad' even though he bizarrely took its postion the following morning in broad daylight, is now tagged as 'excellent.' Incredibly, he still takes the lunar position the following morning in broad daylight but that's Furuli for you - he tries to put right something, yet in doing so drops another brick on his foot.
[A different later post] Jonsson says in his second article that he had confirmation of the programs from two competent scholars Ann OMaly and Marjorie Alley. As you are now considered to be scholars according to Jonsson would please inform me as to both of your qualifications What are your degrees and where did you both study?
Can you please tell me what degrees the 'celebrated WT scholars' have and where they studied for them to be esteemed by you as 'scholars' and 'celebrated'?
Jonsson believes that the researchers who checked the astro programs were in fact singular -one person Furuli not plural of many persons as stated in the WT. Furuli assuired me that this was the case and he was hesitant about their identification. Hence a mystery and scholar loves the mysterious. .
Of course Furuli was hesitant about their identification! They are HIM! It is telling that the WT article also refused to name 'them'! Wake up! The WT articles were Furulian through and through - for anyone familiar with Furuli's works, it's as plain as the nose on your face. And, as has been pointed out to you already, the articles' use of scholarly sources was ATROCIOUS! Very bad form for an organization that alleges to champion truth and accuracy! For shame.
