scholar JW

Ann O Maly Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story. Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess. No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time" scholar JW ,..

Alan F Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all. You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian. This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible? Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate. It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship. So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you. n 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. 1 Jeremiah linked the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years. When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that. To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best, I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy' and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years. The date 587BCE is also problematic as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'. The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'. Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period. The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone. Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile. So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile. T here is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'. Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10 and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon. That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology. The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked. You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE. scholar JW emeritus

Nana Fofana Yes, this outlines for the first time within scholarship sound methodology relating to the determination of a precise date for the return of the Jewish Exiles however 538 is an unlikely candidate for the reasons we have explained as to the journey's length and time of travel amongst other unknown specifics which would make 537 BCE the most likely candidate. scholar JW

Alan F The quote in the Proclaimers book was simply recognized that Brown was the first scholar to connect the seven times with the Gentile Times. The quote does not 'equate' the two periods but 'connects' them only. We have and do equate the periods but Browns' reference and the Society's reference is not to equation but connection. Plain and simple! This first paragraph is correct, the second is false for you are making the implication that the Society is equating both periods but that is your reading of it and not mine. Just leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves. GTR, 1986, Second Edition, p.21. That is your interpretation of the quotation and its context. There is a big difference between an equation and a connection for these are not identical. Simple just read the two paragraphs on page 208 for this is self-explanatory. There is no room for such in Chronology except in the minds and hearts of our opposers. scholar JW

Alan F No, the pivotal date for 1914 chronology is not 537 BCE but 539 BCE which is our 'anchor date' for OT Chronology and dates that are derived from that form the basis for our prophetic interpretation. The date 537 BCE is simply the beginning of the calculation for 1914 CE. There is no room for speculation in Chronology for it is a science and as such it must be testable or falsifiable and based on evidence and methodology. The date 537 BCE falls within these parameters. There is no evidence for 538 BCE in the scholarly literature just an assertion or opinion also unlike our publications there is no methodology disclosed either in determining a date for the Return only assumptions which can have its place for Chronology not only demands a methodology but equally it demands interpretation. Jeremiah's seventy years are clearly stated as one of desolation and this can be ignored for nowhere does Jeremiah disassociate the period of servitude from desolation for the two are linked together as in Jer. 25:11. Yes, a measure of contingency was involved for Jeremiah urged the populace to repent but the outcome was foretold and rest is history. Correct ! So What?. Chronology has and always be a 'work in progress' There is no 'perfect' Chronology. How many scholarly papers have been written over the this and the last century in trying to resolve problems and issues in Chronology. That was the motivation of Edwin Thiele and others so likewise WT scholars have in harmony with the latest scholarship have had to make adjustments and there is no need to be embarrassed or apologetic about it. Move forward Alan, Move Forward. See the Chariot! Don't live in the past. For starters, Josephus did not, as far as I know, assign past events into our modern calender thus such events relating to the rebuilding of the Temple require interpretation and it is highly unlikely that his description of matters could upset 537 BCE for the Return. Now if you have worked out some thesis that refutes 537 BCE and confirms 538 BCE once for all, I am quite sure that scholars and historians the world over would appreciate such illumination. Also, now that you take notice of Josephus' testimony in order to disprove 537 BCE then Why do you not accept Josephus regarding the 'seventy years'? What these terms prove is called 'intellectual honesty' for such terms demonstrate that scholarship recognizes the limits of history and of the historical records so when constructing any scheme of Chronology one is forced or compelled to deal with Methodolgy and Interpretation. If you cannot grasp these concepts then you should drop the subject altogether. Now you are being childish or girlish for you know that WT scholars in their publications have always explained matters for we do not pluck a figure out of the ether. The date 537 BCE is endorsed by scholars and historians, others prefer 538 or even the late figure 536 BCE. This is simply your opinion and proves nothing for if 538 BCE is such a certainty then how is it the case that I do not find in any of the literature such explanation. COJ although preferring 538 over 537 did not make an issue other than quoting two sources so you will need to come up with not opinion but sound, reasoned scholarship, my lad. If there was really such an issue then COJ would have been all over it for all that he has done is simply footnoted it. At last. Honesty prevails for your statement acknowledged that there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology but that it requires sound methodology and interpretation. Well done! Present your evidence with scholarship. Simple. Just do the online course sponsored by the Tel Aviv University under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits and his course team- The Fall and Rise Of Jerusalem which plainly explains the political reality of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. scholar JW

Alan F No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE. This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE. According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths' which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo. Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah. He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired. Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon. Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate. During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others. All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon with a desolated land running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus. scholar JW

Nana Fontana Thank you for the source but is typical of how this subject is treated in the literature. You should note that there is no specific date given for the Return despite the clear historical facts presented by the Chronicler. scholar JW

Alan F Again you misrepresent the facts for nowhere did the Society in the quotation on page 134 of the Proclaimers book use the word 'equate' but used the word 'connect' which is not synonymic. Brown simply connects these two time periods simply on the basis that the 'seven times' would be the 'Gentile Times' as part of the signs of his second coming which also would include his second judgement etc..(Eventide , 1823, vol.2.p.208) The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary. How then as you claim that Brown equated the two periods when in fact he interprets both periods differently throughout his treatise and the Society did not 'equate' these either but simply affirmed the connection which is clearly understood by any unbiased reader. The Society in its publication did not explain the connection but simply affirmed it, Brown, on the other hand, connected the two contextually by means of two successive paragraphs, one with the former 'seven times' and in the next, by a quotation of Lule 21;24. Further, the link between the two time periods is part of the' signs of his second coming'. There you have it in a 'nutshell'. No need for 'gobble-de-goop'. scholar JW

Alan F Yes Alan, let's get some facts. I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense. As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that! No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7. The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles. The date 537 BCE is well established historically, biblically and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology. The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here. In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return. Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature. Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context. scholar JW

Ann O Maly Well, what took you so long? 2 hours from my old sparring partner on JWD, Alan F who incidentally was forced to concede that there is, in fact, a 'connection' established from the context on page 208. I hope it takes you much less time to discern the nature of the 'connection'! Read that paragraph again on p. 367 in Franz's COC , 2nd edn, Sept, 1994 which clearly shows Franz' s agreement with the Society's later published statement in the Proclaimer's book that Brown did, in fact, connect Daniel's 'seven times' with Lukes' Gentile Times in Luke 21:24. That is correct, Franz was forced to withdraw his earlier view in harmony with Carl Jonsson's original dogmatic claim, however, this was no doubt due to the fact that I had written to Franz to seek the reason for his change of mind. He had none but simply acknowledged Jonsson's work but it left the impression in my mind that the reason for this change was the simple fact that the said 'scholar' by means of that email had compromised him. scholar JW

Ann I have made clear my position so the ball is in your court. scholar JW

Ann It is all very simple. Carl Jonsson in his early editions of his GTR, 1983/86 p. 21 stated that John Aquila Brown "He did not associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". Jonsson provided no support for this opinion and in his later editions, 3rd in 1998 and the 4th edn. in 2004 he stated: "Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2520 years with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24". So, I would have thought with this history of matters the onus of proof lies not with the Society because they had simply made a correct observation based on a careful reading of Brown's entire work and possibly in refutation of Jonsson's original claim but with Jonsson himself to 'set matters straight'. In view of this, you can either write to Bethel for the specific page as I had done or you can write to Jonsson for a copy. The very fact that you have sat on your hands for the last two decades and not satisfied yourself as to the integrity of the matter is quite telling thus it is left to others on this forum to make a judgement about your own motivation and bias. scholar JW

Ann You have known about this matter for many years as I had a lengthy discussion about this on the JWD forum and yet during all that time you never bothered to obtain that particular page so I am wondering Why this is so? Anna like any Witness can write to Bethel for a copy of the page or obtain a copy through an appropriate library in the country in which she lives. However,t is always preferable to read the entire book in order to get a complete picture and this where COJ got unstuck for he simply confined his reading to selected portions of the book and made a serious historical blunder. scholar JW

Anna The simple answer is that 539 and 537 BCE are not controversial as there is no contradictory evidence against these two dates whereas 587 is very controversial within scholarship for the following reasons: 1. Does not account for the biblical 'seventy years' creating a gap of 20 years in the NB Period 2. Rolf Furuli's research based on VAT 4956 that the Fall of Jerusalem can be adjusted to 607 and not 586/7BCE 3. Scholars cannot precisely determine whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 586 BCE 4. WT scholars as with all other Chronologists use different Methodologies in order to construct a scheme of Chronology so that means that WT scholars looking at all of the available evidence can exercise academic discretion exercising priority/interpretation to the data. 5. I stand corrected but it is my opinion that it was Christine Tetley, a NZ scholar who did her Ph.D on the Divided Monarchy or as she terms it the Divided Kingdom-DK, made good use of Methodology in her thesis perhaps the first scholar to introduce such a term into Chronology. I had introduced the term before her or about the same time on a online forum soon after Rodger Young used the term as well. Tetley's thesis is titled The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, 2005, Eisenbraums. So in very simple terms the answer in one good word essential in all academic work: METHODOLOGY scholar JW

Ann O Maly You are free to believe in error but that is not scholarship. I can assure you with utmost certainty that page 208 does exist and you will have to try harder to find it perhaps you can write to Bethel and they will provide a copy. According to the table of Contents for Brown's Eventide , vol 2 covers 416 pages. Methinks some apostate conspiracy is at work in order to hide the truth from the little sheep. scholar JW

Ann O Maly To all thus interested: Would someone please post page 208 of Brown's Eventide and give Ann some peace. I could but am not disposed to at this moment because I am concerned about Ann's postings on this subject and her apparent bias against the WT scholars not wishing to add 'fuel to the fire'. scholar JW

Anna Yes, I do realize that most do not have the opportunity and resources to study Chronology in-depth. However, the Society has published much on the subject over the decades sufficient for most needs. WT Chronology, unlike all other schemes, has the distinct advantage of simplicity so it does lie within the reach of all the brotherhood. Indeed, Gertoux does not support 607 this but this in itself should not reflect on his status as a Witness for he is entitled to have a personal opinion on most matters. and he should not be adversely judged because of this. He may or may not be an active Witness but that is a matter for him and him alone. scholar JW

Ann O Maly My second letter to the Society, Jan. 26, 1998 asked two questions: The first related to Cain offering up 'the firstfruits of the ground' in Gen 4:4 and the second asked for the source of the statement in the Proclaimer's book on p.134 regarding John Aquila Brown. In their reply, April 13, 1998 they admitted an adjustment would be made in future editions of Insight based on the research that I had submitted Regarding the second question, the title of Brown's work was given and reference to pp. 130 and 135. Your sarcastic comment about me asking for 'a quotation regarding the seven times' is not what I was seeking but simply the source or as most people would understand that I was seeking the reference which was given in the WT response as dated above. However, during that period I had received from Carl Jonsson by means of a letter dated Jan. 12, 1998, selected copies of Brown's Eventide numbering 43 double-sided pages from both volumes.I then checked the pages 130 and 135 but could not find support for a connection between the 'seven times' of Daniel and the 'Gentile Times' of Luke. This meant another letter to the Society which was that second letter dated Jan, 26, 1998 which only concerned the matter of Brown, and not that regarding Cain which was dated 4 Jan, 1996 but was finally answered by the Society in a letter dated April 13, 1998.which finally addressed the two initial issues together. Rather than rewriting this I hope this clarifies matters somewhat at any rate the Society answered my Jan 26th letter and a following up letter, January 9, 1999 with a letter dated March 11, 1999 which provided three photocopies including pp, 135 and 208. It is, in fact, page 208 that finally presents the connection of Luke's 'Gentile Times' and Daniel's 'seven times' as shown by the context on the same page which the reader can judge himself if such is the case.I cannot understand Ann, Why you have not accessed this page and posted it? You say it is not available online now this tells me that in order to settle this controversy first raised by Jonsson not the Society in his GTR, 2nd edn.1986, p.21 and no doubt in his first edn.,1983 one would need to read the entire book of Brown not just selected portions thereof as provided to me by Jonsson and the Society I am of the view and it is admittedly tentative as I have not read both volumes that Brown connected both times thematic through his thesis for much of it centred upon events of Jerusalem and the four ruling monarchies so theologically his position is well established with the seven times ending in 1917 . I see no reference to any revision of Brown's thinking on the matter but the problem is due to Jonsson not understanding Brown's thesis properly by looking at minute details rather than seeing the big picture. Raymond Franz initially agreed with the Society on this matter but when the dispute arose side with Jonsson as shown by his emails to me concerning this dispute. scholar JW

Anne O Maly Let us be perfectly clear on this matter. I have to hand a large red manilla folder which contains my correspondence both by mail and email to the WT Society in Brooklyn, Carl Jonsson and Raymond Franz all to do with the italicized statement made in the Proclaimers book. I wrote twice to Bethel seeking clarification of this dispute, the first letter, ECE:ECP April 13, 1998 which gave me the source for the quotation and the second letter , ECM:ECH March 11, 1999 came with 2 photocopied pages, p, 135 and 208 from Brown's book along with a photocopy of the title page showing the vol. number and date of publication; vol.2, 1823. It was noted that the connection is found on page 208 wherein the connection is clearly and easily identified. This page contains 2 paragraphs in portion, the first par. mentions the 'seven times' of Daniel and the very next par. contains the quotation of Luke 21:24 so a connection between the two is plain. Previously, I had received from COJ copies of some pages from Brown's book which purported to show the Society's error but these revealed no such thing and that is why I wrote to Bethel. The letter from COJ is dated Jan. 12,1998. Subsequent emails from COJ on this matter showed COJ trying to defend his position quibbling over the nature of the connection but this too was foolishness and I was left wondering about COJ's level of comprehension. Further, I had written to both James Penton and Raymond Franz about the matter because they were part of the group of editors who wrote the Foreword to the Gentile Times Reconsidered, first published in 1983. Penton did not reply but Franz did and he simply referred the matter to COJ for comment. Franz had in fact supported the Society's position as shown in his Crisis Of Conscience, 1994, 2nd edn.p.367 yet he in a email dated September 24, 2003 he chastised me and the Society for sloppy research and failing to properly understand Brown's description of the prophetic periods. In short, whatever the nature of the connection it is left up to the reader to decide its relationship and I believe that COJ made a serious error in accusing the Society in such a dogmatic way for plainly on that same page 208 .a connection of sorts is plainly evident. scholar JW

Anna My previous comments on Chronology must be read in context. The subject is complex but beneficial for all as anyone can at least know the dates and how these are determined without being bogged down with technicalities so it is adaptable to one's level of understanding. Dates are not essential for salvation but accurate knowledge leading to Wisdom is a most worthy spiritual pursuit.as I am sure you appreciate. I omitted Gerard Gertoux not because he is a competent Chronologist but because his Witness status is uncertain and he has been publicly vague on this point. If I remember correctly he stated that as he was a PhD candidate he did not want his Thesis compromised in any way so has minimized his activity. Perhaps I should have mentioned his name as follows: Gerard Gertoux? scholar JW

Anna Well, I did say that Chronology is 'extremely complex subject so it is not surprising that only a very few Witnesses would be competent in explaining 607 and 1914. In fact, amongst the entire worldwide brotherhood there are possibly only two brothers who have publicly demonstrated competence in Chronology and these brothers are Rolf Furuli in Norway and Neil Mc Fadzen from Australia. scholar JW

Anna I appreciate your comments in your last post on Chronology and particular the attitude of the present day Witnesses to the End. However, I disagree with your comment about the relevance of dates particularly such as the 607/ 587-86BCE controversy and 1914 CE. Although, Chronology should not become an ' Article of Faith' as part of some Creed or as primary doctrine nevertheless there are several good reasons for Christians or Bible Students to be interested and challenged by such an "extremely complex and almost esoteric field" of study(Finegan, Handbook Of Biblical Chronology , 1964, p.v). Jack Finegan lists several reasons for the importance of Dates and Chronology as: 1. To address the concern to comprehend the whole sweep of God's administration of the world and the world's end. 2, To demonstrate the high antiquity of biblical traditions over against pagan ones or in short the Sacred versus the Profane. 3. To show the fulfilment of Bible Prophecy 4. To determine the date of Church festivals and in our case the date of the Memorial These key four points are sourced as follows (op.cit.p.139, pars.230-233) scholar JW University of Sydney

JW Insider Ppst 1789 It is not false to claim that evidence supports 607 BCE. The calculation is simple, derived from the biblical data with a well recognized pivotal date and is consistent with the NB period by the simple insertion of 20 years to bring reconcile both schemes of chronology.. You do not like this to be the case because you do not like this methodology but that is your problem not mine. There is inconsistency in WT Chronology just your misreading the WT publications. The Gentile Times is a valid prophetic period long recognized by many Bible Students. ------- The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest. --------- Bible Chronology can only fit NB Chronology if the Gap of 20 years is identified and inserted into the period in order to harmonize both systems. There is abundant evidence for 607 BCE and to say otherwise is simply displays ignorance or hubris. The pivotal date or anchor date is essential for any Chronology so we have wisely selected 539 BCE and we have every right to make such a choice because of the Methodology adopted by WT scholars.The matter of 'cherry-picking' dates is your problem, not mine for we have no need for such nonsense.Yes we can all make claims but one must be honest and follow the evidence where it leads, I have done just that and I have determined by means of an examination of all of the facts that 607 BCE is on the money. ---- WT Chronology is indeed anchored to 539 BCE just read our publications. The biblical data makes mention of Neb's 18th and 19th year in connection of the Fall of Jerusalem and we have no difficulty with using both in calculating 607 BCE. In contrast, our critics simply cannot reconcile the 18/19th years thus cannot determine the precise date for the Fall with the vague 586/587 BCE scenario. What a joke!!! Simplicity is everything in science otherwise you have gobblygook. The WT publications have explained to its readers the different dating systems, counting methodology, time units, different calenders etc.which any half decent work on Chronology would do. There is no need to bluster as all of these matters are explained in full and simply so that the reader can work out the matters himself. It is a matter of competence and by means of our tabulation of the Divided Monarchy, we can prove that we have used the biblical data correctly for most other scholars present widely different schemes for the Divided Monarchy. If a scholar cannot get this right then how can one be trusted with a much shorter period =NB Period which in fact overlaps the latter phase of the Divided Monarchy. Also problematic is a simple fact that there is a missing 20 years found when one compares both periods of history. The date 607 is well established despite your protestations to the contrary. The evidence has long been presented simply in our publications easily understood by the reader. The Gentile Times was mentioned by Jesus and its period expired in 1914 and was recognized by leading clergy who equated the fact of the matter to the events of Jerusalem in 1917. However, Bible Students correctly applied those 'times' to the Kingdom of Heaven when in fact about that time of 1914, German theologians had casted the Kingdom in an eschatological context which of course can be associated with 1914 and its significance both to modern history but to Bible Prophecy as discussed by Daniel and later cited by our Lord Jesus. Interestingly, John Aquila Brown had first linked the words of our Master and Saviour in Luke 21;24 with the 'seven times' of Daniel ch.4.which is the basis of our doctrine today. You are correct the Bible does not refer to 'seven Gentile Times' but to the Lukan 'Gentile Times' which is equated to the Danielic 'seven times'. The capture of Jerusalem in 1917 had nothing to do with the outworking of the Gentile Times for it had expired three years earlier but it was the interpretation of many prominent clergy is that it was recognized by some clergy the validity of the Gentile Times doctrine even if not fully understood as was the case of the early Bible Students. Jesu s' words make it perfectly that the Gentile Times had begun much earlier according to Daniel's prophecy as shown by the Greek tense of the verb used by Him. The date 607 BCE does not represent pseudo archaeology but in fact harmonizes well with modern biblical archaeology especially in reference to the 'Myth of the Empty Land' hypothesis. Our wondrous Cable of Chronology is valid and accurate well supported in the fulfilment of Bible Prophecy. It anchors the Parousia which began in 1914 CE as we patiently heed the coming of sweet Jesus our beloved Lord and Master who during His Parousia beginning in the celebrated year of 1914 has overseen the work of the true Church during the time of Harvest. scholar JW Please pardon any scripting or posting errors

JW Insider Post 1786 There is much in what you say that I believe to be utter nonsense. Your views on how the FDS treats 607 BCE and its importance generally are eccentric, to say the least. WT Chronology has been consistent with its value not only in Bible Chronology but also in terms of its significance to Bible Prophecy and Theology.for after all, it introduced the 'Gentile Times'. The evidence for 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile is well established not only from the biblical perspective and its chronological data but also from NB Chronology with a little 'fine tuning'because of a shortfall or 'Gap' of twenty years. There have over many decades attempts made by our critics, some have become apostates to discredit our wondrous Chronology for such attempts began in the early sixties culminating in COJ's Gentile Times Reconsidered first published in 1983. I have examined all of these materials over the years and found these to be wanting, failing to properly recognize the 'seventy years of Jeremiah as a definite historic period of desolation of Judah, exile in/for Babylon and servitude to Babylon. Further, our Chronology is suitably anchored to the well established pivotal date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon thus giving this scheme much scholarly credence whereas most other schemes are based on Absolute Dates that lie outside the NB Period. This Chronology facilitates the counting backwards to Adam in 4026 BCE whereas other schemes fail to address these matters for various reasons with the exception mainly of James Ussher who provided a traditional base for our Chronology. WT Chronology has the added strength of its simplicity and avoids much of the technical issues of Calendation that prevents many schemes from positing fixed dates for various biblical events, the best example of such confusion is the 587/86 BCE controversy which remains unresolved to this day. Also, there are many different dates assigned to the reigns of the Divided Monarchy which Edwin Thiele devoted much of his scholarship to resolve which again highlights the importance of Methodology. In contrast, our Chronology has a scheme for the Divided Monarchy that is workable and intelligible, first published in 1944 in The Kingdom Is At Hand . The well-established date 607 BCE secures the modern date 1914 CE as the time of the birth of God's Kingdom which contextualizes the subject eschatologically in harmony with the view of prominent German Theologians in the earlier part of the 20th century who pioneered scholarship about the Kingdom. The date 1914 according to historians is the most celebrated date in our modern history and providentially it marked the end of the Gentile times again a subject on which Christendom's most prominent Clergy fixated on especially with the capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 CE. The 'eschatological hope' of Jehovah's Witnesses is well amplified in Early Christian Historiography especially pertaining to the Lukan writings of Luke and Acts as according to Prof. Gary Trompf who writes much on Retributive Justice discussed throughout the biblical narrative. Such recent studies in Historiography, in my opinion, undergird our interpretation of the Danielic and Lukan descriptions of the 'seven times'-'Gentile Times' beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 1914 CE. In short, our Chronology has no 'dead ends' it is prophetic, build faith, adds life and flesh to biblical history. It alone works whereas all other schemes fail. scholar JW

JW Insider COJ most certainly advocates that the whole Neo-Babylonian Period is one of an Absolute Chronology discussing 17 lines of evidence in support of his thesis. His treatment of 597 BCE does not instil any confidence that this date should be treated as a pivotal date in comparison to that of 539 BCE. In the General Index under the heading 'Dates, specific'597BCE he simply states:'deportation of Jehoiachin, 293,294'. Now, when one reads these two pages have little comment on 597 BCE simply stating another's opinion that this date was one of the very few secure dates. the footnote 15 on p. 293 refers the reader elsewhere in GTR to Appendix 5, pp.335-49. It is in this section that complexity reigns regarding 597 BCE.regarding the synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles at this point: In particular Jonsson only introduces BM 21946 which pertain to Neb's 'seventh year during the reign of Jehoiachin' on page 342 and attempts to reconcile this Dan 1:1 with the 'third year of Jehoiakim' based on his own interpretation of Jehoiakim's vassalage as discussed in par.3, p.343. By introducing Dan 1;1 Into the mix raises much complexity concerning the reign of Jehoiakim and his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar thus making 597BCE as a pivotal date ridiculous and unwise. scholar JW