What I have learned about Rolf Furuli

by Faraon 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Room 215

  Scholar,

  There may well be ``robust debate and criticism" in the world of academia, but it's anathema in the intellectually arid world of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you know it.

  If you sincerely believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have a monopoly on decency, morality, integrity and nobility of intent, I won't attempt to disabuse you; whether or not you live out the rest of your days in the service of the Watchtower is a matter of utter indifference to me. Have a nice life.

  ``I'd much rather go through life with questions I can't answer than with those I can't ask:" Cervantes.
• 

  Euphemism

  Unfortunately, the posters on this board are deceived by Jonsson in that they believe that he has all the answers and that his critique of WT chronology is Absolute Truth.

  *in my best Fiddler on the Roof voice* Projeeection... projection!
• 

  simwitness

  scholar,

  You make many assertions without any proof to back them up.

  For starters, Jonnson's "bias"... prove that his research was biased against the WTBS chronology... More importantly, prove where his puported bias had an affect on the results of his research. Prove that he intentionally ignored evidence that would have supported the WTBS chronology. Remember, just because the result of the research inevitibly proves something wrong, does not mean that the researcher was biased against that something.

  Also, remember, that ignoring the WTBS research is required for it to be unbiased. If the WTBS chronology was correct and founded in "abundant secular evidence", then Jonnson's research would have presented that case as well.

  (for the record, my recollection of Jonnson's GTR preface was that he was in fact trying to prove the WTBS Chronology correct, and found that the wieght of secular evidence proved it wrong.)

  You continually call Jonnson's work a "hypothises", this is incorrect. Jonnson's work is a "proof" of a hypothesis. Surely you can see the difference. Furthermore, it is up to the reader to determine wether or not Jonnson's proof is accurate. Since you are so adamant that Jonnson's work is incorrect, perhaps you can show some bit of evidence to that affect?

  Have a pleasant day.
• 

  TD

  Scholar said:

  When you have the academic qualifications that Furuli has achieved then you are in position to be critical of his scholarship. Furuli has done a magnificant jog in elevating the NWT, defending our blood issue and deconstructing the Jonsson hypothesis.

  I wonder if scholar has even an inkling of the damage Furuli's attempt at "defending our blood issue" did.
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  How many times has it been explained to you why there is uncertainty about 587 or 586 being the year for the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet here you bring it up yet again!

  The fact of the matter is that scholars are divided as to whether the Fall of Jerusalem applies to 586 or 587 and both sides have their own reasons for supporting their particular position.

  The fact of the matter is that scholars definately agree that Jerusalem fell in one of those years, and the descrepancy occurs because the bible does not say which calendar, the Jewish or Babylonian, was being used when dating the destruction.

  Furuli presents his research in a unbiased way which contrasts markedly with Jonsson's handling of the evidence.

  From page 14 or Furuli's latest book, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews:

  'This study is somewhat biased in the opposite direction; nothing is taken for granted of the accepted chronology.'

  He also goes on to say: 'My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeo-astronomer nor a historian. If you are not an expert in a field, you are likely to commit errors.' As far as I can see from the book, his 'Oslo Chronology' does not mention dates before 539BC (see table 36, p219). His book focusses on contrary evidence only, which of course is biased. But Furuli is right, in that contrary problems need to be published so that they can be studied and solved.
• 

  hillary_step

  As I have often pointed out to Scholar, Furuli approaches his research with much more humility than our self-proclaimed Scholar. Scholar misrepresents Furili by giving the impression that his latest book is filled with damning certainties, whereas Furuli is happy to publish it as an hypothesis recognizing its flaws. I suspect that he well knows that time and history are not on his side and has built within his 'Oslo Chronology' an academic bolt-hole through which he can escape at any time.

  What must be understood here is that this chronological issue is not one of Rolf Furuli vs. Carl Jonsson, as Scholar often misrepresents the scenario, but one of the WTS vs. accepted history, archaeology and astronomy. That is the real issue and it is one over which Scholar consistently founders. In this he shows himself to be merely another WTS propaganda tool.

  We must however be thankful for small mercies and it is clear that after an avalanche of posts and months of focus on this issue that eventually, like a sloth in Winter, Scholar begins to see the light. I cite two examples of this :

  1) Scholar eventually admitted that the WTS were going beyond their 'authority' to shun and otherwise punish those who do not agree with their 607BCE hypothesis, though he falls short of having the courage to admit this to his elders.

  2) After repeatedely claiming that reams of Secular evidence exists supporting the year 607BCE, he was unable to produce even one line of secular evidence to back up his claim and eventually reversed his claim

  I am reminded of Brights comments regarding Disraeli when he noted, 'He is a self-made man and worships his creator'.

  HS