scholar JW

Alan F I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR. Neither do you. For starters a precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem, a precise date of 607 rather than the fuzzy dates of 586, 587, 588....a precise date for the Return, 537 rather than 538, 536, 535? all also fuzzy. A precise chronology of the seventy years and its description etc. Well if they have provided a solid date, 607 and it must be solid because why did your guru COJ devote much of his life and his GTR of nearly 400 pages to the subject. Only a fool would devote so much for something so little. Thiele and Young have tackled issues that only arose because of the methodology they have employed. So now you are an expert in Decision Analysis and indeed if such an analysis has the solution then how come it has made little impact on scholarship over the last 14 years? We had the final result in 1944 and cried 'Prais Jah!' You have explained the reasons but as I have said before nothing has changed within scholarship so the debates continues to rage. I do not ignore the matter because I have had a longtime interest in these debates and try to keep pace with biblical scholarship. Do you? Neb's acc year is falsified by the 'seventy years' so must be adjusted some twenty years in order to harmonize with the Bible Chronology. It is authority rather than evidence that has always impressed you as shown in your Bio. Evidence and valid arguments can be simplistic because both sides claim to champion such tools rather it comes down to methodology and interpretation. How do then do you engage? Have you written to Young and Steinmann about some validation of your 538 BCE thesis? What commentaries have you consulted in relation to your thesis? I have no need to engage with Young at this point in time but I could if necessary. Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support. Really, Josephus simply states the Temple's foundation was laid in Cyrus' second year which would have been 536 BCE. Ezra dates the Temple's foundation in the second month not in Cyrus' second year but 'after they came to the house of the true God' which can be interpreted as the year of the Return. You assume that both are synonymous but all that can be said is that both give different time formulas from different perspectives of the same event-foundation of the Temple. We accept the regnal data supplied by Josephus relating to the Fall including the Temple laying in obscurity for fifty years but do you except the many references by Josephus about the nature and timing of the seventy years? Or do you 'cherry pick' Josephus? No. It should be 537 + 70= 607 Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann. There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications. Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference? Nonsense. You are quite prepared to acknowledge that scholarship evolves albeit slowly and even those early chronologies that you have tabulated and compare with current knowledge proves this and yet you are not prepared to give WT scholars the same benefit or courtesy. You chided WT on your website Bio for scholastic dishonesty but refuse to look at yourself in the mirror. Give me a break! No it does not. I am simply providing a context for the basis of a revised scheme of Chronology published in 1944. The fact is that there was scholarship emerging in relation to Bible Chronology first in 1942 and later in 1944 with Thiele's paper and continued into the fifties. Context, Alan, Context. Get it? Correct A little rhetorical flourish to entertain the reader. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider Notice this:"If the common reckoning be correct" and that statement underscores the perennial problem in Chronology dealt with most satisfactorily in 1944. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider Nonsense. The Watch Tower Society does not need dishonesty to advance Bible truth and to accuse me also of this is most insulting. Over the decades WT scholars have plainly defended their Chronology and they have every right to have their own scheme of Chronology as other scholars have going right back to James Ussher. Chronology is not an exact science and there will always a variety of interpretations and methods in trying to put the Chronology in the Bible into our modern Calendar. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Could you have tried a much longer post? Methinks a touch of desperation is on the horizon. I am fully aware of the 586/7BCE controversy within scholarship so I do not need information about it from you. The simple fact of the matter is whatever the reasons scholars have not solved the problem. WT scholars have solved the problem since 1944 using the same regnal data albeit with a different methodology. Neb's 18/19th year is well accommodated within our scheme of Chronology. No. Such discrepancies may have been resolved to Rodger Young's satisfaction but as his study was published in 2004 with his endorsement of 587 BCE for the Fall the question remains: Has this caused a change in OT Chronology? The answer is clearly NO! for the simple reason that the scholarly literature published since then also endorses 586 BCE. It is pointless providing sources that favour 587 when I could equally cite sources that prefer 586 so we end up running around in circles for as far as I am concerned the debate continues. You say that biblical scholarship is glacial, moving slowly and I agree however it is some fourteen years since Young's thesis and nothing really has shifted. Bunkum. Scholars prefer 537 as shown in research by Steinmann cited by you above. SDA scholars prefer 536 and again Steinmann suggests 535 BCE Can't you solve it? I thought you had the 'smarts'. Perhaps you should research WT publications to see how the problem has been solved. What this table demonstrates and your comments preceding your table is the simple fact that Bible Chronology was in a state of flux and remained thus until 1994 when WT Chronology became more solidly based no doubt due to the pioneering work by Parker and Dubberstein in 1942. .Correct and that was the scholarship that I alluded to and it is possibly the case that WT scholars were amongst the first to use such research. Edwin Thiele published his seminal thesis on the Divided Monarchy in 1944 and that was the same year that WT Chronology was established. I must access that article and check it out sometime for a matter of historical interest to examine the parallels between SDA Chronology originating in the fifties and WT Chronology over a similar period. Enough meandering! Well he did just that for the events in 1944 were most providential in not just in terms of the development of Bible Chronology but also in other areas that bore fruit with the production of the NWT first published in 1950. That decade was most fruitful for Scholarship as WT scholars had now turned Christendom's scholars upside down. Marvellous!!!! scholar JW emeritus

Alan F In the final analysis it is up to the readers to judge the matter whether scholastic dishonesty is present in WT publications. My experience over many decades in reading and studying such materials finds no evidence at all. I have always found that the quotes are fair and reasonable but if you find such writings abominable then why are you obsessed with WT literature? Such insertions are simply an insertion- a corrective, in order to explain to the reader the truth of the matter. Yes I am familiar with your bragging about the Creation book but really you obviously writing with a biased mind so you will find problems everywhere. I read the Creation book and had no problems and still use it to this day and by the way even Richard Dawkins found no problem with it even though he disagreed. If this publication was so notorious as you claim then Dawkins would not have cited it. Go figure! scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Thus scholars despite this, still are unable to determine a precise date for Jerusalem's Fall. Which is it, 586 or 587 BCE? No fallacy here for one only has to look at the scholarly literature to see that there is this uncertainty, a product of their own making when a failure to listen to God's Word is present.Now you blame the Bible for the ambiguity but how is it that WT scholars are confronted with this alleged 'ambiguity' and yet are able to precisely determine 607 BCE? If that is true then how is it then that 586 BCE still remains even up today in the scholarly literature? Sound Methodology and recent scholarship that began in 1942 were the causes for the change and such adjustments were made in 1944 as you correctly state. You seem to be troubled by the progress of scholarship but that is the 'nature of the beast'. No. Your opinion is delusional it is simply a fantasy that Bible Prophecy could be attached to dead-end dates such as 576 or 587 but rather 607 attached to 1914 breathes life into our modern history because we are still feeling the consequences today from the Great War. A belief in the Holy Bible as God's Inspired Word is not fantasy. Further, WT Chronology has proved itself in so many ways and has pushed Biblical Scholarship to greater heights. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F WT Publications do not need to engage in the practice of 'Quote Mining' for it is simply the use of another's thoughts, idea or opinion in support of a point that the writer wishes to make. Now some may call this 'quote mining' but for others can read both the context of the Quote and how it is then used. 'Quote mining' is dishonest and has no place in Christian publications so your claim of scholastic dishonesty is bogus and simply your opinion. The reason why Thiele's quotation was not used in the Insight reference work was because Thiele in an article published in a SDA periodical, February, 1976 objected to that comment in his MNHK but his reason for his objection are unfounded as any reader can see. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Nonsense. Despite the so-called 17 lines of evidence used by COJ the simple fact remains that scholarship is divided as to whether Jerusalem fell in either 586 or 587 BCE. Scholars cannot offer a precise date for this event and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider Many critics of WT publications claim that these publications are scholarly dishonest and such ones as Alan F have gone to great lengths to prove this by claiming misquotes etc. Such critics fail to appreciate the simple fact that as long as you quote or cite the source then if you find a comment that supports your argument even though the author of that reference may have an entirely different viewpoint then it is a legitimate academic practice to use that point accordingly. It is fair game as long as you cite or reference the source or you can state the nature of source's position such as he or she is an atheist, higher critic, evolutionist etc. Some years ago Edwin Thiele objected to a quotation in the Aid book from his MNHK but the fact was that the quote was entirely appropriate and in context. He later changed the wording but the statement remained unchanged. Sadly, the WTS dropped it from the Insight volume but Thiele's observation remains sound even up today. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider The matter at hand is simply a matter of style and this is determined by whatever Style Manual the author or writer wishes to use. The WTS has produced its own style manual whereas other institutions either produce their own or if in the USA use the Chicago Manual of Style or its equivalent. However, such brackets should be squared rather than curved which automatically suggests to an informed reader that an 'insertion' is being made. scholar JW

JW Insider Thank you. As I have said previously my computer skills are average and can you explain to me that when I write a paragraph for posting on this forum that when I hit the Enter key in order to commence a new line, the text that I have just written is deleted. How can I avoid this? scholar JW

JW Insider What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning. scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28 This is nonsense. Dan. 9:1,2 refers to the 'first year of Darius' and the 'first year of his reign' which either preceded Cyrus's 'first year' or concurrent with it. This is an important chronological datum which should not be ignored because it is located in that immediate historical context for the dating of the Return. The later texts of Ezra and Josephus are superfluous to the dating of the Return which should only be confined to Ezra 1:1-3:6 which is the historical context. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other. However, the 538 scenario in order to work Cyrus' Decree must have been given in the first month in his 'first year' but the Chronicler does not state what month it was. Further, 2 Chron. 36: 22 and Ezra 1:1 refers to this Decree as a proclamation to be made throughout the kingdom which required the use of heralds making known the Edict which would require time even before journey preparations could be made. The other problem is the first year of the reign of Darius which either preceded the reign of Cyrus or concurrent with it so this would mean that the Decree could only have been made either late in 538 or before the spring of 537BCE scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28 Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE. The 538 BCE scenario perhaps first developed by Jeffro on his colourful website then later copied by Alan F is ridiculous, stupid and impossible unless Cyrus had the Internet, publish, circulate by email to all Jews waiting at the door with their Go- bags packed waiting for the air-conditioned coach to take them to the airport where they could travel cattle class by jet travel from Babylon to Jerusalem in a matter of a couple of hours and days. Frankly, this scenario is garbage. The very fact that COJ remains silent or indifferent on this matter is quite telling for COJ is their hero, their Poppa and these two characters will simply whatever nonsense without any evidence. There is simply no evidence for the many assumptions Alan F and Jeffro make such as: 1. Cyrus issued his Decree in Month 1, 538 BCE 2. That the Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6, 538 BCE This is just for starters. scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28 Further, what must be born in mind that Chronology is not just a set of numbers on paper that can be made to fit any argument according to one's bias or opinion and this why biblical chronology varies so much between scholars. Chronology simply charters history so must be built on a solid historical base and history is about people and their lives so one must not only look at a pretty colourful chart but see beyond the page and comprehend whether such a scheme can relate to human experience. In this case, a period of six months based on two calenders that already have a floating six month difference can be very problematic. Also, one should further consider that within scholarship there are numerous scholarly papers in reputable journals that try to resolve the Nisan-Tishri problem and that is a very complex field of study for we simply do not know with certainty what Calender, Ezra used in dating the first year of Cyrus. scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28 Alan F first raised his hypothesis on the JWD forum about August 2006 presented with a tabulation of events from Tishri, 539 BCE to Iyyar, 536 BCE. This tabulation would cover those events around the return of the Jews. He states the following: 1. Cyrus issued his Decree in his 1st year, Nisan 538 BCE counting from Month 1 2. The Jews arrived in Judah in Month 6 in Cyrus' 1st year, Elul, 538 BCE 3. The Jews are settled in their cities in Month 7, in Cyrus', Tishri, 538 BCE What this shows that within a period of 6 full months all of the events as described in Ezra 1:1-3:1 which of course is plain and utter nonsense. Alan F has already admitted that the journey would have taken at a minimum, 4 months so one can that this is simply a 'contrivance' designed to mislead the reader. Now, COJ is no fool and he has had plenty of time to deal with this issue and even now he could easily post an ADDENDUM in support of Alan F's hypothesis but to date Jonsson has simply confined this issue to a footnote with two scholarly references and does not share Alan's dogmatism that 538 BCE is the only possible date for the Return or wording thus similar. scholar JW emeritus

allensmith28 Alan F's hypothesis concerning 538 BCE for the date of the Return needs to be tested and examined carefully. There are three questions one should ask: 1. Has it been peer reviewed? 2. Has it been endorsed by Carl Jonsson? 3. Why has not Alan F published this thesis in a respected scholarly journal because the subject of this date would be of great interest to scholars and historians. Further, one could also ask is his scheme simply a 'contrivance' based upon problematics associated with the calenders used at that time. Also, how does it differ from WT methodology on this subject, the similarities between the two and the assumptions used. scholar JW emeritus

Ann O Maly Your opinion is simply bluster lacking substance. Yes and No. Their conversion had nothing to do with me for they related to us their experience in Hobart, Tasmania but the Hasofer's had always a deep and profound respect for the Witnesses. Regrettably, it was later after their deaths that we learnt that the wife had in fact been a baptised Witness which was never revealed to us. That is your problem. I can only state the facts of the matter the rest is up to you. scholar JW emeritus

True Tom Harley Thank you for your advice. I have waited for the quote button and it does appear as required but when I post below it and wish to finish the section by pressing the Enter key it sometimes becomes altered. It is rather frustrating when you are dealing with a lengthy post especially when tired. I have a computer friend who I can arrange to come over and show him the problem shortly. scholar JW

Scholar requires some computer advice. As you have noticed I have had a lengthy discussion with Alan F which I have thoroughly enjoyed for nothing excites me more than a robust discussion on Chronology especially 607 BCE. My frustration has been that when I quote a section which is boxed, I type below my response and press the Enter key which sometimes causes my entry to either disappear or is partially removed which is most frustrating. Therefore, I have to repost what I have written. I have Grammarly installed and wondering if this is the problem. Thanks scholar JW

Alan F Was it going to tough for you? Please come again for I am always ready for battle. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F This is simply your opinion. The Jews remained in Babylon after 539, remained in captivity to Babylon even though there was a new rulership in Babylon until their release under Cyrus in537 BCE thus ending their captivity. The Bible clearly states that the Jewish nation would serve Babylon and describes in detail the fact of their deportation, exile in Babylon and the desolation of Judah. It was Ezra that also described the end of the captivity-exile-servitude as ending with Persian rulership ending the Babylonian dynasty-'Nebuchadnezzer and his sons' and the release of the captives in 537 BCE. How can it be that you are now virtually certain of 538 whilst admitting to the possibility of 537? Make up your mind! Says you. We are not talking about Temple rebuilding at all but the fact of the Return before they began rebuilding the Temple. I am now starting to worry that you are conflating Josephus' building of the temple with the building of the Altar at the time of their Return. tThere is no way that the Jews could have returned in 538 BCE for it is too long a stretch and my imagination has a limit. Best stick to the more comfortable 537 date. Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed? Have you not dreamt of being an astronaut?. Please do not crush my fancies or dreams for life is painful enough. I must amount to something to attract your attention over the many years and to be so rigorous in having to denounce my scholarship. Am I a worry to you? Not really just a simple request to reveal to the scholarly community a solution to a piece of neglected Jewish history- the date of the Return. I am sure that post Exilic scholars would love to know of some scholarship that would prove beyond any doubt that 538 is the correct date. Jack Finegan and Rodger Young which you reference at the end of your online article would be most grateful for such enlightenment. Has it been peer reviewed yet? Wrong. Jeremiah most certainly prophesied about the land paying of its sabbaths according to Ezra and Ezra most certainly associated this with the seventy years as described in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Perhaps you Alan have a different Bible which omits this passage. I would have thought that a careful reading of this text is clear enough but I forgot that you have excellent reading comprehension so that explains your contradictory statement as above.There is nothing that can associate the 70 years with 609 or any such claim to Babylonian supremacy for such is utter nonsense for the simple fact that the Jewish nation and its internal problems were not in the frame as it were. Babylon was not even a World Power at that time so you need to get a grip on the political reality of the region. Wrong. The link is Lev.26:34. The WBC- 2 Chronicles, 1987, vol.15, p.301 states on this text:"The Chronicler has conjoined his citation of Jer.25:11-12; 29:10 with a citation of Lev.26:34-35, 43".Now that was not difficult was it? COJ along with many others have failed abysmally. The seventy years indeed can only be a period of servitude-exile-desolation for no other paradigm fits all of the facts. Besides this proves that I am not a WT drone because this formula is of my own origination for nowhere in any WT publication is the matter thus so simply defined. Ah! creative genius at last So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years. My beliefs are relevant to me because such are personal. I have a copy of Finegan's books both editions if you please and widely used by me. If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years? Nonsense. The date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria in 609? is meaningless in its relation to the seventy years because Egypt was a menacing threat to this new invader so the politics at that time was in a state of flux with rival world powers jostling for supremacy. What is certain is that your beginning of the seventy years is fuzzy for there can be no uncertainty about the beginning of the seventy years for it is well described by Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The only certain statement that you have made is that Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE upon which we agree. Your uncertain statement about the nature of the seventy years is a bit of a worry. Methinks! I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587. Remember this it was I that introduced Rodger Young's research onto the online forums because of his use of Methodology in order to resolve the 586/87 conflict. The date 586 remains even today the widely accepted date amongst most serious scholars. The 70 years can only be defined as a period of servitude or Babylonish supremacy, a period of exile in Babylon or for Babylon in recognition of its supremacy and period of a desolated land of Judah. the role of Babylonian supremacy is only part of the picture, a necessity in order to actualize the seventy years. There were deportations of the Jews to Babylon before the seventy years began, at its onset and soon thereafter. The captives remained in Babylon even after its Fall in 539 even though the Dynasty of Neb. had come to an end all within the 70 years as foretold. Their identity is not disclosed but Jeremiah addressed those nations in Jer. 25;15ff and this pericope is described as the OAN in the literature. Whatever the case if it refers to surrounding nations as you state they would have had to serve Babylon during that period of supremacy from 607 until its demise in 539 BCE but for Judah, their servitude was specifically tied to the land and exile which proved in their case a little longer in Babylon in order to fulfill their sentence of seventy years. I disagree for in the case of the outworking of the seventy years it proved that their captivity, servitude or exile all amounted the same. Yes, they could have chosen to serve Babylon and remain in their land but they ignored the prophets and paid the price- 70 years of enslavement to a foreign power just as Jehovah foretold. I do address it and have done so many times in the past. I am perfectly happy with the rendering 'for Babylon' as it proves the reality that for a period of seventy years the Jews served Babylon because they were under Babylonian supremacy right up to its end and until Babylon under new rulership released the captives in 537. That is an interesting argument but it fails because despite the fact that Babylonian dynasty by means of Neb. and his descendants ended in 539. the Jews remained captive at Babylon even under a new rulership proving that the seventy years had not expired. Jeremiah specifically addressed Judah for the seventy years applied to Judah and its land and by consequence other nations suffered similarly for they too were caught up in the maelstrom. Yes, servitude was generic, common to many nations during that period but seventy years of servitude =exile-desolation was assigned to Judah. That is a subject of exegesis and there a number of explanations and I have my own independent of others. Simply put, whilst Judah served Babylon under its supremacy which dominated the entire region other nations were made to serve similarly as to their respective lengths it is unknown but as Babylon as respects to Judah was the dominant force for 70 years then they too had to serve for the period of its sovereignty. No, you should research this matter more thoroughly try the leading Bible commentaries for starters. If you require guidance, scholar will help you because scholar likes to hel I have lost some data so will exit now. scholar JW

Alan F What I was referring to was the online discussion on the JWD forum between ourselves and you conceded that there was indeed a connection as quoted in Proclaimers. I do not need to mislead the readers for they can work it out themselves by reading the quotation on p.134 in Proclaimers and p. 208 in Eventide. Any connection is meaningless without a context and the context is there for all to see. There is no equation mentioned in either source but simply a connection as I have explained. The Society's equating of the two periods has always been part of tradition which Jonsson acknowledges but the point at issue is not the equating of the periods which has always been a 'given' but the simple historical fact that Brown was the first expositor to connect both periods which from later times equated thus disproving Jonsson's false claim re. Brown's connection'. The Proclaimers book does not equate the two periods based on Brown's thesis but on our own interpretation of Dan.4 and Luke 21. It was written to make difficult for the likes of Alan F and to disprove Jonsson's claim about the 'Brown connection' LOL. The context does not anywhere discuss the words 'connect' or 'equate' for the connection is established and the equation of the times underpins the whole discussion . The use of italics conveys emphasis in order to show the fact of the 'Brown connection'. I have sat this simple test and my considered response is: These two periods are connected by means of the fulfilment of the sign of Jesus second coming as stated by Brown. Sir, did I pass the test? The simple fact of the matter is that Jonsson was incorrect in not recognizing that on page 208 of Brown's Eventide that both periods are connected and the fact that Brown was the first expositor to make such a connection. There can be no confusion about this matter. I would not call it out as 'misinformation' at all but as historical 'correction' which exposed Jonsson's misreading of Brown's book. Brown most certainly connected both periods as proved by his comments on page 208 even though he interpreted both times differently as you correctly present. The point at issue is not the nature of both periods but whether Brown made a connection and he did despite Jonsson's contrary opinion. We do not know what was in Jonsson's mind at the time of composition for if he intended to mean 'equate' then that is what he should have said. The choice of 'associate' is to vague in meaning and 'connect' is quite specific so we have the matter of some ambiguity herein which in turn has no place in sound scholarship. Perhaps I did not address that issue to your satisfaction but I did make some comment about it. Now that you have a much improved website and that matter is presented by means of some pretty tabulation concluded with scholarly references it is now worthy of my examination. Firstly, has your thesis of 538 BCE been Peer reviewed? If so, by whom? After all, peer review is essential in any serious academic work! Correct! but not in the case of 'Brown's connection' reference. I do not need excuses just stating the obvious. Implications whatever the case lies in the mind of the reader and besides implications are part of one's comprehension of the written text. The reader can make an assessment of Brown and the Proclaimer's reference to it and draw his/her own conclusion. I have already done just that. scholar JW

Alan F Yes, you were forced by me during the original discussion on this topic on the other forum years ago that a connection was made by Brown and this is simply what the Proclaimers recognizes the connection as proved by the contents of page 208. The Society makes no equation of the two time periods by means of Brown's reference but simply a connection but the context of p.134 in the Proclaimers certainly implies the equating of these two periods as part of our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times. No, you are misreading the Proclaimers book because even though it upholds our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times equating these with the seven times it simply uses Brown's reference on page 208 to a connection of the two periods to show that he was the first Expositor to do so. The Proclaimers book as far as I know was not written to satisfy the needs of Alan F or to meet his criteria of how the Gentile Times should be discussed. This book simply used a reference from Brown that he was the first expositor to connect both time periods. The context of the Society's book certainly supports our traditional understanding that both time periods are equated. Yes, on page 21 of COJ's GTR he used the verb 'associate' but in his next edition, p. 69 he used the verb "connect". Now, the word 'associate' has a range of meanings as you say and context is everything so it could be argued that COJ was thinking of an equation but when he later uses the word 'connect' then that lowers the bar somewhat saying something now quite specific and this contradicts what Brown simply acknowledged as pointed out in the Society's book. Self praise is no recommendation but I am happy for you that you have excellent reading comprehension so I will look forward to your scholarly research on 538BCE. The overall context of the Proclaimers book equates the Gentile Times with the seven times. The fact that Brown connected or linked these times does not infer any equation of the two but can simply be connected by means of other reasons such as context, similar words, or thoughts or the historical fulfilment etc. You are inferring something that is absent and this is just plain nonsense. That is not necessary because you possess excellent reading comprehension but the reader can make up his/her own mind and read the two paragraphs on page 208. scholar JW emeritus