Posts by scholar

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOmaly

Post 745

Jonsson's book is not research pure and simple but as Gallagher correctly states that it is simply an overview and from my standpoint a bit of 'sult bashing'. Furuli's books are research based raising new questions and seeking a fresh look into current chronologies combined with a radical new hypothesis, oslo chronology.

I telephoned Rolf at his home and asked whether he had received any communication from an Ann O Maly and he said that he hadn't. Further, he will email me a copy of the SDA complimentary letter as soon as he can find it. Further, he informed that his second volume has been reprinted with some corrections and additions expecially in reply to Jonsson's recent critique and he will forward also tho me that attachment. Further, there is published new research on the beginning of the Babylonian New Year which has been a subject of some controversy. This new journal article should be most interesting with regard to Furuli's data have the year beginning in some years early May.

I thank you for the update of Gallagher and now I know who and what I am dealing with.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 744

I can only quote what Furuli has actually stated and he is quite clear about his qualifications, motivation and methodology and such are fully expalined very clearly in the Introductions in both volumes. Just read what he says. Jonsson has no qualifications or methodology but as the 'reviewer' says "finest overview of NB chronology available...meaningful for the general public". This therefore, is not research. The book is designed to tear down and not build up.

If there is no need for an intermediary then don't complain about any perceived delay but be patient.

Furuli has simply informed me of a written reply from an SDA scholar and so to date I have not received a copy but no doubt this will be forthcoming as he has also informed me that his book has been sent for review by other prominent scholars. All will be revealed in due course. Perhaps you could enlighten all about the status of W. Gallagher? There seems to be a physicist floating around the University of Vienna or Wien. Is he the authority? If so, How is it the case that a scientist did this unusual Review?

Let us see if you can answer these relevant questions seeing that it was you who first promoted this Review.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 743

Furuli was upfront and honest about his credentials and he acknowlwdges those areas where he lacks expertise as he outlines in his first volume, page 14. His approach has always been linguistical and does not seek to challenge the findings of archaeo-astronomers but is critical of some of their applications on the basis of his linguistic examination of the primary documents. For this he is more than competent. Jonsson on the hand can do none of these things but simply engage in'cult-bashing'.

He outlines his methodology in both volumes and seeks to ask new questions by revisiting old terrain which is the very essence of good scholarship.

It is good that you have asked him questions and you must be patient for the answers for I am confident that he will look after you. If you have any problems then email a list of questions to me so that I can take the matter up with Furuli. Keep your questions short and specific with specific references would help.

Gallagher whoever he or she is, is a 'mystery' person as despite my best efforts I can find any academic position for this person. It has been observed that apostates are noted for conspiracy and the use of writing under a false names and this applies particularly to Jonsson's closest colleagues.

This journal AfO is only published annually and is German so it would be easy to miss out on that Review. The University whereupon I obtained my copy has only recently acquired this volume and it is the latest copy in its holdings even though it is for 2005/1006. Besides how is it then that it has taken you so long to post a refernce to it on this forum?

Methinks that it is you who have lost the plot but unlike you I am far from done.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 742

One thing is certain is that Jonsson wasn't worried about photographs because all that he needed were the opinions of others. Second-hand research is amateurish and unscholarly at best and only 'meaningful for the broader public'. LOL.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 741

Furuli in his Introduction makes no false claims about his credentials and openly admits where his expertise lies and where it does not. Jonsson on the other hand makes no such admissions but pretends that he is some 'expert.' in all areas and that what he has written must be correct even though his research is secondary in nature offering no fresh insights. In short, he is simply a disgruntled ex-Witness with an agenda.

If you have a problem with Furuli's methodology then you write to him about and seek an explanation for his claimed use of a secondary source rather than primary source for perhaps there is a very simple explanation. By and large Furuli uses primary sources wherever possible something which Jonsson cannot do.

I believe that the Reviewer is somehow suspect because I found it impossible to find anu information on Gallagher so is this a pseudonym for someone else because the Review is somewhat suspect in content. If you have information about the Reviewer then please enlighten us.

Scholar for many years requested that a Literature Review by a respected scholarly journal be made and for the first time this has now happened at scholar's request and yet what is said is rather odd and elevates 607 BCE to the international scholarly community. Bravo!!!!!

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

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

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

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

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

digderido

Celebrated WT scholars have certainly got it right about 607 BCE being the only possible calcuable date for the Fall of Jerusalem, The other pretenders promoted by wordly scholars and apostates simply either ignore the biblical 'seventy years' or have developed a chronology for that period that lacks a common consensus. In short, this amounts to a pandering to the 'higher critic'. Further, our understanding of the seventy years agrees totally with that of Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian who also interpreted the period as one of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return.

The methodology used by our 'celebrated' scholars conforms to the KISS principle and is faithful to the Bible.

scholar JW

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

scholar

beavis

Post 23

The date 607 BCE is not impossible as you claim for in fact it is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem that is in harmony with the Bible, ancient history and secular evidence. It is correct that modern scholars and historians do not support this date but such authorities also do not believe the Bible and herein lies the problem. It is either the Bible or the theories of men. One poster has suggested that you comsult the research of Carl Jonsson who argues against 607 but I suggest that you read the research of Rolf Furuli who has published two volumes on ancient chronologies and the Bible so that you have a complete picture of the conflict.

scholar JW

221

Watchtower Comments THE GENERATION CHANGE Featuring LEOLAIA

by V in

scholar

boyzone

Post 53

My response:

Request for a Sign; The fact that a Sign was asked could show that the disciples understood that the Parousia would be invisible because it was a state of affairs that could not be observed. Earlier, Jesus had told the them the the coming of the Kingdom of God would not be with striking observablenesss. Luke 17:20 Therefore having this statement in the back of their minds they used parousia instead of coming as the question. Jesus' reply indicates that that presence would need to be discerned and was likened to the Days of Noah. You cite Acts 1:6 but this was to do with another completely different question as to whether Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel which has nothing at all to do with His parousia.

Presence over a period of time. Jesus did in fact compare His parousia to the Days of Noah leading right up to and including the Deluge. This confirmation is in the beginning and end of that pericoipe on the Flood. Just slowly ever so slowly read the text out aloud. He does not compare it to the Flood alone for that is simply false. The next verse opens with tote'then' so his mention of the two men and women pertain to an event at the conclusion of the parousia.

Preseence required discernment. Jesus provides clear markers that indicate that the parousia was something that had to be discerned. First, he likened to the flashings of lightnings from East to West that indicate the comprehensiveness of the parousia and second that it was compared to the Days of Noah. Finally, the exhortation to his disciplles to Keep on the watch. Further, contextual proofs could be provided but these three facts should be sufficient.

The quotation of Adolf Deismann's comment on Parousia or Parusia does not help your argument in fact the opposite is true for there is no evidence anywhere in the literature both Ancient and Modern that would any other meaning for parousia than 'presence'.

scholar JW