scholar JW

Alan F

1 minute ago, AlanF said:

Then why did you challenge me about it? You're well aware that I'm fully cognizant of most details.

I do not need to challenge you on anything because all that you have written is just a rehash of COJ'S GTR.

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Deny, deny, deny the facts; that's all you can manage.

Of course, you never offer any evidence.

What problems have real scholars not solved that "WT scholars" have?

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.

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

As I have already proved, they have not solved the problems -- they have ignored them.
That's easy to see by looking at the special problems tackled by Edwin Thiele, and tackled and solved by COJ and Rodger Young. Do you need help with this?

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.

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Right. And I've gone over this timetable and arguments carefully, and found that they indeed correspond with the Bible and solve the problems. You merely look at the final result and cry, "NO!

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!'

34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

For reasons that I've clearly explained, and you ignore

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?

38 minutes ago, AlanF said:

It took nearly a century for the scholarly community to absorb the information from cuneiform tablets brought to light in the 19th century that Nebuchadnezzar had his accession year in 605 BCE.

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.

40 minutes ago, AlanF said:

So it's all about "authority", eh?

Wrong -- it's about evidence and valid arguments. Which you never engage in

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.

45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's because you rarely actually engage. Rather, you run away, hollering bare denials of facts known to all scholars. Just as you'll never engage with Rodger Young's arguments.

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.

51 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Not a long time in scholarly circles. And as I showed, more and more scholars have taken notice.

Nothing much has changed for if you examine the scholarly literature since 2004 the date 586 continues to have wide support.

53 minutes ago, AlanF said:

What's bunkum? Everything I said above is a fact. Josephus dated the Temple reconstruction to Cyrus' 2nd year. Do you deny that? Ezra dated the reconstruction to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Do you deny that? Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple was desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Do you deny that? Josephus stated that the Temple lay in obscurity for 50 years. Do you deny that?

No, you can't deny those things, because they're right there in black and white in the Bible and Josephus' writings, and even Mommy Watch Tower agrees with them.

You simply don't like that these facts combine to disprove Watch Tower chronology.

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?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

That was not the point. The point was that Josephus proves 587 by simple calculation: 537 + 50 = 587

No. It should be 537 + 70= 607

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Argument from authority again, eh? Try using evidence

Just read SDA scholarly literature published since 151 and read Steinmann.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Following COJ and Young, yes, I can solve the problems.

Of course, neither you nor "Celebrated WT scholars" can even state them.

There is no problem for WT scholars to solve because we simply prioritize the Bible as stated in our publications.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I already told you: I have, and they don't

Look harder! Do I have to hold your hand and give you the specific reference?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Mostly nonsense. Watch Tower leaders claim, and have always claimed, to be guided by God. They've even claimed that some of their mistakes were due to divine providence. Obviously, they're no more guided by God than you or I. My table proves that correct chronological information has existed since the 1850s -- well before Russell or any of his sources began their prophetic speculations. If God failed to guide them to correct chronological dates and conclusions, then the best that can be said is that God does not care.

And of course, it's easy to demonstrate, simply by quoting the appropriate WTS literature from the 1940s and 1950s, that the "reasoning" used to change from 606 to 607 BCE was completely bogus.

1

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!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

"Alluded to"? Such a liar! You stated:

<< 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. >>

This clearly implies that this reference was the basis for what "WT scholars" did

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

And

Context, Alan, Context. Get it?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I suppose you're alluding Fred Franz beginning his translation work for the NWT

Correct

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL at the hyperbol

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

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

have to agree. It's very clear that @scholar JW has been dishonest.

Based on a long record of his dishonesty, it does not look promising that he will come clean any time soon. Yet it is clear, too, that he is merely trying to express the Watch Tower Society's position. I think this makes it clear why the WTS has nearly always avoided the evidence, misrepresented the evidence, but usually just ignores the evidence. The WTS makes similar bald assertions without ever allowing the evidence to be close enough or clear enough to make a true comparison.

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.

49 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year?

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.

57 minutes ago, AlanF said:

And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmH

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21

Bunkum. Scholars prefer 537 as shown in research by Steinmann cited by you above. SDA scholars prefer 536 and again Steinmann suggests 535 BCE

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year?
This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems.

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 186

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article.

.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!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944

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

2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Yes and no. If the writers were honest and interested in telling the truth to their readers, yes, there would be no need. But because a good deal of WTS teaching is built on its own tradition and on many falsehoods, the writers understand that they MUST lie to their readers by quote mining and various other dishonest scholastic practices. Just as you do.

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.

5 minutes ago, AlanF said:

In principle they can, but hardly any JW readers do. Rather, they assume -- wrongly -- that WTS writers are giving them fair quote

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?

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "By your own mouth you are condemned." What do you think substituting "[1776]" for "1876" is? Honest quoting? Or "[607]" for "587"? Honest quoting?

Some twenty five years ago I carefully analyzed the 1985 "Creation" book. I found upward of 100 instances of quote-mining, flat out lies, misrepresentations, misunderstandings of science, and just about every scholastic sin that exists. By 1992 the book was already infamous in scientific Usenet circles as a laughingstock, a standard creationist parody of science. See "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution":

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

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! Seventeen lines of evidence from COJ (and of course, from the dozens of recognized scholars he got it from) against Watch Tower quote mining of the Bible! Amazing anyone but a JW could buy this

Thus scholars despite this, still are unable to determine a precise date for Jerusalem's Fall. Which is it, 586 or 587 BCE?

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That old fallacy for the thousandth time.

The fact is that the Bible itself provides the grist for that mill, by being quite ambiguous about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. Some scholars have decided on 586, others on 587, with modern secular scholarship generally preferring 587.

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?

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Rodger Young did. Carl Olof Jonsson did. Again you lie in God's name.

If that is true then how is it then that 586 BCE still remains even up today in the scholarly literature?

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Totally misleading on all counts. All that happened was that during 1943-1944, Fred Franz decided that 607 should be the date, finally accepting what C. T. Russell and other Bible Students had known as far back as 1912. And of course, the correct dates that Franz used to manufacture 606/607 were well known to proper scholars well back in the 19th century.

Until 1943, the WTS claimed 606 BCE for Jerusalem's fall and the start of the Gentile times. In the middle of the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free" the WTS moved the date for the start of the Gentile times back by one year, leaving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE intact throughout the entire book. In a thoroughly dishonest exposition on pages 238-239 the book made this change. The result was that the Gentile times began in October, 607 BCE, while Jerusalem was destroyed ten months later in August, 606 BCE! The date for Jerusalem's fall was changed, in a dishonest footnote, on page 171 of the 1944 book "The Kingdom Is At Hand".

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'.

15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

When a religious doctrine like "1914" is founded on a false date like 606 BCE, its entire exposition of biblical chronology will be wrong. And when the doctrine becomes fully set, and historical sources demand some revision but the doctrine must remain intact by adjusting the calculations leading to it, you KNOW the whole structure is built on fantasy.

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

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

The 607 date is disproved by copious amounts of evidence. All told, 587 for Jerusalem's destruction stands up to all tests, secular and biblical.

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

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Not always. Which is why you will often see phrases like "brackets ours" "brackets theirs" "brackets in the original" "brackets not in the original." It is fairly consistent, and I have no problem with the specific use of brackets in a quotation that are added and will assume they were not part of the origina

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

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added

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

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The identity of Darius the Mede is immaterial to the question of the date of the return of the Jews to Judah. Sufficient information is given in Ezra and Josephus.

AlanF

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

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its 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 prior to Adar or Nisan 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 the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?

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

2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Those 'greater minds' haven't benefited you any as far as scholastic honesty and integrity are concerned, unfortunately, even when your face is repeatedly slammed with the scriptural and historical evidence

Your opinion is simply bluster lacking substance.

3 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Well, that was a success story, lol.

Neil's heart-warming experience of how JWs helped an educated, professional couple convert to Judaism will doubtlessly be included in a forthcoming JWdotOrg Broadcasting production. You read it here first, folks

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.

8 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The rest of your post is even sillier than your first paragraph so isn't worthy of comment

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

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

:: did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

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.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain

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!

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephu

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.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically

Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.

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?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.

Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!

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?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

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.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.

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?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.

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

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again

So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.

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.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date

If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.

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!

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yet another weasel word.

I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used

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.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

: It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history

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.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

ewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.

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.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.

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

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. I wrote about this back in the mid-1990s, shortly after I got hold of photocopies from microfilm of both volumes of "The Even-Tide

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.

50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Once again you're trying to mislead readers. Only saying that there was a "connection" is meaningless. What connection? The context is that the Society is trying to justify an equation between the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", and is supposedly giving a history of that equation, so the reader will automatically understand "connect" to mean "equate", especially since the actual connection is nowhere explained

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.

55 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I've been saying all along. You're finally forced to admit that Jonsson was correct in his criticism and so was I.

:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

You've contradicted what you wrote above. You're so accustomed to lying that you no longer know the difference between truth and falsehood, and switch between the two from paragraph to paragraph. LOL!

:: Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.

It was written to make difficult for the likes of Alan F and to disprove Jonsson's claim about the 'Brown connection' LOL.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Except that the context shows that "connect" is implied to mean "equate". Again, the author's use of italics to emphasize his statement proves his intent, and that intent was to contradict what someone else had already written. Read it again

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'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

magine a test of reading comprehension which asks:

What connection did John A. Brown make between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times"?

The natural and automatic answer is: He equated them

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?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

: Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it

Quote

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Keep in mind that Jonsson published GTR 2nd edition in 1986, long before the Proclaimers book was published, and that some of the material in GTR 3rd edition (1998) was a response to the misinformation in the Proclaimers book

I would not call it out as 'misinformation' at all but as historical 'correction' which exposed Jonsson's misreading of Brown's book.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then are demonstrably false

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Clearly, when Jonsson used "connect" in the above, he used it in the sense "equate". Obviously he understood the Proclaimers book to mean "equate". Obviously, as I pointed out, Jonsson used "associate" in the sense "equate" in GTR 2nd edition

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.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

As I continue to say, that research was done 14 years ago and a summary is available: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

The fact that you refuse to deal with that research says a great deal about your scholastic honesty.

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!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation

Correct! but not in the case of 'Brown's connection' reference.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're making after-the-fact excuses, now that the false implication has been clearly pointed out.
 
:: How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim

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.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

And here I'd think that you'd love to demonstrate your scholarly prowess by carefully showing exactly what Brown meant

I have already done just that.

scholar JW 

Alan F

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

:::: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book

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.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement

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.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

nce again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection".

1

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.

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

onsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it

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.

12 hours ago, AlanF said:

I happen to have excellent reading comprehension, and am not prone to misinterpreting subtle cues in Watch Tower literature. Once again, the overall context of the Proclaimers book here is how the "seven times" came to be equated with the "Gentile Times". With that context in mind, the statement that Brown "did connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" clearly implies that Brown equated the two periods. This is especially so because the book gives no information about how the periods were "connected" apart from the implication that they were equated.

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.

12 hours ago, AlanF said:

How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim

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