scholar JW

Alan F He is clearly an evolutionist but he uses theistic language in his writings as does many other evolutionists such as Dawkins and Darwin. True, he writes about the appearance of design in organisms and puts this also in the context of 19th century scientists in the introductory section. His goal was to provide a much more improved view of the adaptation of those organisms as opposed to the earlier view of natural selection. Yes he did for one only has to read that quote and its context. Contextually that is correct but the reader could also form the impression that this was his statement of matters but not necessarily his personal viewpoint. Nowhere does he refer to a 'false appearance for in the last sentence in that section he refers to a 'divine artificer'. False, the book simply makes a direct quote which HE stated. You are the master of the 'rationale'. The later revision simply reversed any implication that this was Lewontin's personal view but it was his statement of fact shown by the retention of that source. False. The Creation book reproduced Lewontin's comment or statement correctly that is that lewontin stated the fact of the matter. If the quotation correctly reproduces the words and references that quotation then a writer can use that quotation even in a different context. Lewontin made a comment and the Creation book simply used that comment. Quote mining by itself is not wrong as it is part of academic practice but it is usually the case that the reader is given or alerted to the ideological position of the source so for example it would be preferable to say that Lewontin was an evolutionist etc. The context of that paragraph in the Creation book begins with "Stephen Jay Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say...Zoologist Richard lewontin" as an example. Lewontin then should not use theistic language so he cannot complain about so-called 'quote mining'. He should write more clearly and avoid terms that could be used in a different context. This is the major problem with modern day evolutionists for they cannot write on this subject without using theistic language or terminology for a good example of this is found in Richard Dawkins. The title 'Blind Watchmaker' is both theistic and ambiguous. You have proved nothing and I will continue to torment you especially with regard to Neo-Babylonian Chronology. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Yes, indeed the entire thrust of his article was not of Design or the appearance of Design but that organisms only exist because of continuity and quasi-independence as the most fundamental characteristics of the evolutionary process. However. he stated in his introductory paragraphs that organisms appear to have been designed and that their marvellous fit to their environment was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. The expression 'appearance of design' can be another way of expressing the reality of Design for if something has an appearance then that can also be an expression of its reality, that 'conscious design took place'. The Creation correctly quoted Lewontin's passage and says that Lewontin views this as such: namely that organisms have the appearance of Design...being evidence of a Supreme Designer. The fact of the matter is that HE, Lewontin made a statement, a observation which does not accord with his personal beliefs as shown by the rest of the SA article. The Creation book later amended this quotation by omitting 'He views them' to "that some scientists viewed them" but regardless of the change, the original quotation in the Creation book remains correct because that is what Lewontin stated. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Lewontin simply stated that "Organisms...have morphologies, physiologies and behaviours that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvellous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer". Well stated and correctly used in the marvellous and very scientific 'Creation' book. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Nutting of da sort. Lewontin made a simple admission and this was simply picked and quoted by the WT writer for the Creation book. Lewontin should not have made that statement if he did not wish that statement to be quoted. It is too late when the horse has bolted or was he caught with his pants down? scholar JW emeritus

Alan F You would not know the difference between the two just as you don understand Lewontin's quotation used properly in the Creation book. Outsmarted once again!!!!! scholar JW emeritus

Alan F You are all smoke and mirrors for you have not understood Young's articles by posing some nonsense challenge which proves your childish behaviour. When I try to respond you run away with your tail between your legs. Good riddance!!! scholar JW emeritus

Alan F All that you are doing is trying to make your problem or that of current scholarship regarding the controversy about 586 or 587 BCE for the date for the Fall, my problem. It is no problem for me or for other WT scholars because we have carefully determined or fixed 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem. Rodger Young in his paper 'WHEN DID JERUSALEM FALL? in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2004, pp.21-38 used Decision Tables to resolve the scholarly dispute over 586 or 587 BCE? Using this Methodology, Young concluded incorrectly that 587 was the correct date. In the Introduction to his study on p. 21 he reminds the reader that "all dates for that event must be derived from the scriptural record" but then continues that such must be tied to the last events not of the Biblical record as such but rather to the prior events described in the Babylonian archives which are the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE? and the initial capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiachin in 597 BCE? Both dates for these events are also problematic. So already,Young begins his solution on a 'slippery slope' of at least two dates. Young should have adhered to that earlier rule "derived form the scriptural record" which is exactly what WT scholars have done and avoided his later nonsense. In order to respond to your challenge, the focus of Young's argument or solution is described in the first paragraph on p.22 wherein he describes a 'methodology' based not on the data itself but on various presuppositions and interpretation of the data in association with principles of calendation described in the previous paragraph on p.21. Then he applies this methodology to Ezekiel 40:1which in a later paper, 2006 in the AUSS, vol.44, No.2, pp. 265-283 'EZEKIEL 40:1 AS A CORRECTIVE FOR SEVEN WRONG IDEAS IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION' discusses this text in some depth. (Scholar suspects that Young is a SDA) For Young, this one verse is highly significant in resolving a number of OT chronological issues but is he correct and is his Methodology correct? I would argue that the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah is the true biblical corrective and not Ezek.40:1. He further argues in the use of Decision Analysis that all possible combinations or scenarios should be used and that argument can be well applied to the 607 BCE hypothesis and to others such as the 586 or 587 BCE hypothesis. Next, he describes the difference between a 'ladder' chart favoured by some chronologists and the 'horizontal' chart favoured by others introducing a new method of the use of 'simple formulas'. The crux of the his article is the date for the captivity of Jehoiakim which he gives the traditional date of 597 BCE which again is problematic because WT Chronology assigns the date 617 BCE and the date Nisan/Tishri 593 BCE. Further, in his pursuit of 587 BCE for the Fall much is made as to whether in Ezek. 40:1 the 'start or the beginning of the year' was counted from Nisan or Tishri but by means of his Table 1a, he decides on Tishri years. But this is ambiguous according to one scholar and that is why WT scholars have been neutral on this point for it is one of theology not of chronology. I could write much more about this matter but Young's paper is informative and useful to those supporters of 607 BCE because it challenges our critics to reconsider their hypotheses and to reconsider other alternative viewpoints. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F I am glad that I amuse you. How can I increase the sins per post? Does not matter for I will always get their attention. Been doing the same with you over the last 15 years. We both have a shared history. It is rather curious how you showed up on this forum after being sacked from the JWD forum. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Looks like scholar JW has you rattled. I care nought for your appraisal of my scholarship because you have offered nothing but a lot of blustering and 'hot air'. I will continue to respond to your efforts to discredit WT Chronology and whether or how you respond to my rebuttals is of little concern to me. Bring it on. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F It is you that is being stupid not Jeremiah. Jeremiah simply used preposition or construct that in English can mean 'at' for', 'to', 'of' 'against'. NWT with References, 1984, App.3B, p.1571. Modern scholarship is one thing, Bible Scholarship is more important. The fact is that modern scholarship says no such thing for anyone who can read Biblical Hebrew would not find this to be a issue. Most modern translations render the 'le' as 'for' but the older traditional ones including the Versions do not. Either way, scholar on the grounds of exegesis has accommodated both renderings in proof of the fact that the seventy years are of Judah and not Babylon. Scholar has outsmarted you all and you do not like to be beaten. What modern scholarship says on this matter is interesting but is also very misleading because there is no consensus on many matters pertaining to the seventy years so your claim here is nonsense. The seventy years was a full period of seventy years with zero months. Your claim of four exiles is rather bogus as well. No because you do present any scholarship only making wild claims about what scholars say about these matters and I do not have to work hard at all because I am abreast of the scholarly literature. Seventy years for both questions to the very month. Yes please. Be that as it may, for the Bible account cannot have the 70 years ending at Babylon's Fall because the Jews remained captive to and in Babylon until their release under Cyrus'Decree. The Bible most certainly provides a starting point for the 70 years at the Fall of Jerusalem when the land became totally desolated. I thank you for the reference I will consult same for my research paper on 537 BCE. No, the Fall of Babylon marked the closing phase or conclusion of the 70 years with its final end with the Return in 537 BCE There is a difference between a 'conclusion' and an 'end'. Got it? Not mostly, but definitely. Well, heed it! Read Daniel 9: 2. No need for speculation, just read the text and obey! The Hebrew word chorbah does not describe the totality of the destruction but there are many texts in Jeremiah that do describe the totality of the destruction such as 'without an inhabitant'. Jerusalem only experienced one desolation and that was the time accompanied by servitude and exile from the fall lasting for 70 years. Plurality of devastations is simply idiomatic of emphasis or totality and not of number. It seems that you do not like Daniel because he discredits your nonsense for Daniel received the angelic vision prior to the release of the captives, after Babylon's fall in Darius' first year. This is simply your exegesis of matters for Jer. 25:11-12, 27; 2 Chron. 36:21 were only fulfilled after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE with the Return of the Exiles in 537 BCE. Dan. 5 deals with the events of Babylon's Fall whereas Dan.9 deals with later events with the Return and the coming of the Messiah. Dan. 9 by means of v2. connects the seventy years of Jeremiah with the exile's returning home to restore true worship. Not really and scholar loves a trap. There is no 70 years and 8 months but a full number of 70 years. What challenge? Not gobble-de-goop but history. No for you only have to read the extent of the exile and deportation leaving behind a totally devastated land. So you now believe what the Bible actually says. Good. 'le' in Jer. 29:10 is subject to exegesis for it can mean either 'for' or 'at. No, Judah and Judah alone were to serve Babylon, 70 years but other nations would also be brought under servitude as Jeremiah foretold. The statement 'for Babylon' is a rendering in English and can be easily translated with a locative meaning 'at', therefore in view of this fact there is no text that assigns the 70 years to Babylon but only to Judah and Judah alone. Not at all. The 70 were only completed or fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. The period in question is exactly seventy years. Your extra months are imaginary, a piece of fiction. Be that it is. We now have the celebrated NWT and that is the one to use. I am aware of the debate and Jenni's opinion. Yes, I demand that you continue to do research as scholar does. Now you are a professional scholar so let us see what you can do with your 538 novelty and harness such scholarship. It is simply your opinion and that of others regarding the 'Myth of the Empty land' and whether Biblical references to the 'desolated land' are hyperbole. Yet, you claim to take the Bible seriously, talk about' scripture-text mining'. Debunking Alan F's Higher Criticism of the Bible Done scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider Indeed You have explained your position. I am going to make a brief summary of facts now. You will be held to that. I don't have any scholarly issues and your posts indicate a lack of research. You should talk to Alan F about gibberish. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider Nonsense. You would not know anything about scholarship and what qualifies one as a 'scholar'. Further when it comes to honesty perhaps you should examine yourself. Are you a genuine Witness? I ask this question because you promote views that could be regarded as apostate especially in the field of Chronology. You call yourself 'JW Insider' perhaps it should be JW Outsider'. There are 'celebrated WT scholars' but you cannot understand or deal with this concept. Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow! I am very much on top of the Jer.29:10 debate and already I have a Witness Hebrew scholar that has informed me of certain facts relating to this matter and I will be mentioning these in due course. Whether you think my posts are a parody of scholarship means nothing to me because I will match your arguments anytime, anywhere. No. my opinion is based on a careful examination of the evidence. I have found WT publications invaluable and accurate in relation to Chronology but in addition I also pay careful attention to scholarship as well. Do you? You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one. You talk gibberish. I believe in context, exegesis and linguistic analysis and apply these to the interpretation of Jer. 29:10 which you do not. Go away! Respond as you wish and I will respond in kind but do some research and do not follow the nonsense of apostates. scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider I am not into dishonesty which as an insult is easily thrown around by those who resist sound argument, provide no evidence for their claims and are unable to accept opposing views. I discussed Jer. 29:10 many times on another forum many years ago and I stated my opinion on the matter. I am not concerned about the criticism of others but what what I am interested in is the pursuit of scholarship especially in the field of Chronology. Further, I am not a Troll but the real deal. Scholar, however is mysterious I grant you that! The matter is simple. Jer. 29;10 with its distinct preposition has a range of meanings and it is up to the translator to decide which meaning is to be used. For me, I agree with 'at' but I am equally comfortable with 'for'. No problem but that really ignores our critics because scholar has stumped them. The said scholar has provided reasons for his acceptance of either word not only on this forum but on the other many years ago. No. I simply appeal to facts and reason. There is no room for dogmatism in Chronology but if my language is considered to be dogmatic then I withdraw that comment.My position on the seventy years as outlined is correct and remains my considered opinion if that sounds dogmatic then it should not be taken as such but simply a considered or firm opinion. I am certainly not going to pander niceties or engage in girly talk so as not to offend others all because i have formed a view. What I write here is not what I would write in a scholarly paper where the language must be tempered and unemotional. There is always a need for alternate views and that is what drives scholarship forward and your above quote is out of context. Not interested in your silly observation for I care nought for the opinions of others but only good, sound scholarship. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F All that you post is simply assertions, without evidence with no source references unless scholar cites an authority. More excuses! Well what date then figures in the literature? Not 538 but 537. Lewontin's article was correctly quoted by the Creation book. Lewontin made an admission picked up by the Creation book. Totally false. Lewontin referred to the "Supreme Designer" and Darwin did the same in the last paragraph of his Origin wherein he refers to the "Creator". In short, you have done no such thing for if you had you would have said something. There is nothing to understand for it is bunkum. That depends on how you count the Cyrus' second year. Was it from Spring or Autumn? Further, Ezra makes no such mention of the 2nd year of Cyrus but only the 2nd year after they came to the house of the true God. Biiiig difference!!! WT literature does not require a peer review but your novelty does. NWT is a brilliant translation of God's Word because scholar says so. Excuses. Just do the research and stop whinging. Scholar does not like whiners and whingers. You are making me warm and fuzzy. Baloney, Repost your sources. Are SDA scholars crackpots? The only accepted scholarship favors 537 and not 538. Meaningless to you but not so for Ezra. You have to go back to basics and get such right. It will be far better not just in content but also in style. You would not know what constitutes a scholarly paper as you have never written one and yes it will be peer reviewed. I do not bother to edit my posts. In writing a scholarly paper a number of drafts are usually necessary and then proof read which is a common practice with all authors and scholars. Try answering my questions to you. So can I take this as an admission that some speculation or assumptions are necessary in order to posit a date for the Return? Combining Ezra and Josephus can be tricky because they do not share a common chronological datum which of itself negates 538. The first one. Not so. I ignore nothing. More substance is required from you. Your argument is sloppy without scholarship. Yes the onus is on me and I will respond with my paper. You have already admitted to some speculation. There can be no 11 months for 538 nor can there be no 20 months for 537 either. Such assumptions are simply nonsense. Not to me. His paper is a significant piece of scholarship that should not be ignored. I will not ignore it. No. Your theory about extra months for journey preparation is nonsense for Ezra gives no account of this historically or theologically. It fails on these two grounds. Wow! What an admission. Let us deal with facts and not too much speculation which has little place in Chronology. You are not writing fiction are you Alan? No. Ezra's account gives no room for such fiction for it deals with reality and that began with an official Decree which only then gave the Jews reason for prep. and departure. Daniel was rather old at that time and his role is totally absent having nothing to do with the Return. Next, you will have convinced yourself that Daniel led the Exiles back as a mighty Prince. Yes we know of Cyrus but we also know something of Darius' reign according to Daniel. It is you who raised it. Be careful in combining Ezra with Josephus. I have debunked your thesis. My paper will not be released in part but in full and will not be posted on this forum but will be available upon request. I am sure that it will not be of interest to you as you have already noted that I have not produced a 537 timeline which incidentally neither have you and that my comprehension skills are rather lacking because I do not share your view of the alleged misrepresentation of the SA article in the Creation book. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Your point? The writer makes his or her point and the reader will react accordingly to his/her comprehension or emotions-making own interpretations. Nope, have always presented both views in the main, The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'. The matter is open to the opinion of the translator and interpretation of the 70 years so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble. No. It does not for the simple reason that the 70 years was also tied to the land and that remained desolate until the Return thus ending the 70 years or fulfilling the period. This means that all of the conditions of the 70 years had to be met for there are three: Servitude-Exile- Desolation. Yu got it? The Bible says so and I have argued accordingly. Yes but the problem for critics is how to interpret the seventy years not being able to distinguish the Fall of Babylon and the actual Return which were two distinct events, the former brought the 70 years to its conclusion with the Return as the actual end or 'fulfillment' of the period. Daniel was not known for ambiguity for he presents a precise history and chronology. He lived at that time and had first-hand experience. Daniel clearly wrote at the time of the unfolding of dramatic events. He does not refer to the end of the 70 years but of its near fulfillment, the desolations of Jerusalem and not the end of Babylon. In ch. 5 he describes the end of Babylon and in combination with the prophecies of Jeremiah later in ch.9 describes the end of the 70 years linked not to Babylon but to Jerusalem thus ending later with the Return. This statement is meaningless. You have the dates wrong but I accept the narrative as quoted as scholar believes the Bible. Do you? Nope for scholar works with facts. The 'le' prefixed to Babylon can mean either 'for' or 'at' and both can be exegetically accounted for as I have explained. Nope. The 70 years ended with the Return in 537 brought to close with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. Is that clear? No just the political reality which you choose to ignore. No, 'these nations' in my opinion were non-Jews but of those of surrounding nations. The 70 years were for Judah not Babylon but they were in servitude to Babylon, the 70 years was fulfilled whilst in Babylon but actually ended at their Return. We may have the same chronology but the interpretation is different. It is you who has introduced the bogus 70 years plus not scholar. Yep! So sayeth the fool. If that is the case why are there translations that have 'at' rather than 'for'? The greatest translation ever, NWT says differently. Will do later. Your post are long and stuff gets lost so repost for my attention. So when something does not suit you or your argument you dismiss such facts as 'hyperbole' because it conflicts with your Poppa's hypothesis. I say bring it on. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F A word can indeed have two or more meanings simultaneously depending on the viewpoint of the writer or narrator. Yes indeed both have different meanings. No, I have always embraced both meanings but my preference is for 'at Babylon'. The simple fact of the matter is that 'at Babylon' is the traditional meaning and has lexical support. The sequence of events is quite clear that when the 70 years had actually ended then the Jews had returned home which proves the fulfillment or completion of the 70 years. The 70 years belonged to Judah and not to Babylon and this is where our critics are so mistaken in trying to conflate being in Judah and in Babylon for the end of the 70 years. The tie breaker is Dan.9:1,2 which clearly shows that whilst the Jews were still in Babylon even after its Fall to Cyrus the 70 years had not then expired. In view of this Jer. 29:10 simply locates the place of Exile-Babylon having to remain there until the 70 years had almost expired or fulfilled, that is when they had returned home in 537 BCE. The 70 years ended at Judah. There is no need to ignore the other minor exile or deportation because this showed the menacing threat of Babylonish domination which took on a greater effect in 607 BCE with the Fall. No the exile or deportation with the Fall was much larger than the one ten years earlier under Jehoiakim. Yes the context clearly indicates the dominant, locative aspect in this chapter and the reader can make their own judgement on this. Further, 'to Babylon' can also have a locative meaning. That is reassuring. Indeed, but it is only with Judah that a prescribed time of servitude-exile-desolation was prescribed beginning with the Fall in 607 BCE. Correct, we have no Chronology for the other nations only for Judah. Tyre had to serve Babylon for 70 years as foretold by Isaiah but we have no Chronology on this prophecy. The time of the beginning of Babylon's supremacy is debatable because Egypt had dominance in the region during the earliest years of Neb's reign. Babylon lost its power in 539 BCE as the Bible attests. No. Read more carefully what I have written. Therefore you cannot have a beginning of the 70 years. But the Bible and Josephus pinpoint the event, the Fall and the Bible pinpoints the date as 607 BCE. Your comment. The quotation or reference is simply stating the obvious. No. All of the 70 year corpus reinforces and supports our interpretation and chronology of the 70 years. Wrong the 70 years were for Babylon because the Jews had to serve and were in Babylon for 70 years instrumentally speaking. There is no nonsense here for it is the only interpretation that works and is consistent with all of the 70 year corpus. The period was a full 70 years with zero months. See above! Those reasons are based on the opinions of men and not God's Word. No. The ancient documents do not discuss the seventy years of Babylon's domination for it is only the Bible that discusses such issues and Josephus. Scholars do not accept that the land was totally devastated as described in the bible regarding it as a myth. The Bible clearly indicates that the land was totally destroyed, devoid of habitation for the term of seventy years. Debunking nonsense has my tick of approval. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F I also have debunked your nonsense, your bald assertions. Well that may be true of some but not of the said scholar. Our thorough explanation of the Return in 537 has the support of scholarship whereas your nonsense does not. I have the article and it is quite technical and not written for the layman. Lewontin does not define the word 'appear' so the reader would have to interpret Lewontin's thesis.I believe that the Creation book did use the material correctly as he does admit to the role of a Designer in the development of the species just as Darwin did. You do not know what commentaries say about such specific verses as Ezra 1:1-2; 3:1; 3;8 because you display no evidence that you have consulted not only these but other scholarly journals. This new material of yours is simply your opinion that shows a lack of scholarship. You base your theory on certain assumptions such as the timing of events and the calendar use by Ezra further you conflate Ezra and Josephus regarding the Temple foundation. Do not you think that the same date of Josephus can also be used with our methodology: Temple foundation laid in the second month of the 2nd year of Cyrus in 536 BCE ? So what? It says something when the WTS can not only produce the most accurate Bible in the world but also the most accurate Bible Chronology based on sound biblical scholarship. You have had plenty of time to write up a decent article on the subject so hop to it! I am an independent thinker otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Peer review Alan, Peer review. You pontificate much about yourself and yet when I give you some information you are unable to do research and yet you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously. Thiele's writings are publicly available so you need to try a little harder, if you were a person that is a little kinder, more respectful of others then I would qive you the specific source. Manners goes a long way when dealing with others especially those with whom you disagree. I have not seen such a list. If there is one then that is fine but have you also provided a list for 537, 536 BCE? Not really. One just needs to read the text for it is a 'stand alone' comment. If you believe that there is need for an argument then provide it with scholarship. I wish to inform you that I am in the process of writing a scholarly paper on this subject and I will be examining all aspects of the Return: Title Abstract Introduction Decree of Cyrus Ezra 1;1-2; 3:1; 3:8; Josephus 537 Methodology 538 Methodology 536 Methodology Conclusion Bibliography You need to pay more careful attention to what the text says and its meaning! I disagree for one must pay close attention to what the texts say and do not say and canvas different interpretations on those texts. Specifically we are dealing with the date of the Return not the laying of the temple foundation or rebuilding. Simply an observation. Nonsense. Ezra uses dating formulas throughout his book and his methodology must be carefully examined when one is trying to determine the date for the Return. You need to argue the case about what he meant by 'the year of the Return' and how this expression can determine the date of their Return for it is a most important ? You have not demonstrated careful background reading or research depth so it is you that is 'blowing in the wind'. It is not speculation but a reasonable opinion of matters especially when such details are lacking. Allowing more than six months which would include the proclamation of the Decree would favor 537 rather than 538. Not quite because you have not factored in your novelty the circumstances of the Decree which after all is the background for the Return. No. For Steinmann's thesis develops the argument about the length of time for preparations etc in connection with the Return, he does not favor an immediate Return a suggested by your 538 novelty. At any rate I will be considering Steinmann's thesis in my paper. The problem is that you now include the preparations for the Return much earlier, preceding the time of the actual Decree. There are some problems with this viewpoint for one can equally argue that the exiled Jews would not known precisely when the Decree would be given so any talk of preparations is nonsense. They would have had to wait for an official decree in order to do get everything in order as detailed in Ezra 1-2. Besides if you are now going to be so pedantic then why not throw the first year of Darius into the mix? It was not intended to be so but simply a statement of fact. Not speculation but simply trying to fill the gaps in history. Such a line of reasoning crushes the nonsense of 538 BCE. The facts are those that are found in Ezra 1:1-3:1. I will and I am by researching this topic, covering all angles with scholarship. Fine with me because I like to play, HARD!!!! scholar JW emeritus

Alan F 'Le' the Hebrew preposition can have either meaning and in the case of Jer.29:10 both contextually and logically. 70 years at Babylon simply locates the place of Exile which was in Babylon and had to remain therein for a pre-determined period of 70 years. which was the time period experienced by the Jewish Exiles. Contextually, Babylon occurs eleven times in this chapter and eight times it is connected with a preposition of location such as 'at', 'in', 'to' and only once is 'for' used. 70 years for Babylon shows that Babylon was indeed supreme and had domination not only of those exiled Jews in Babylon but those Jews at Jerusalem and in Judah who would in time be brought to Babylon as capitves. Thus the entire Jewish nation would be made to serve, be subject to Babylon for the period of 70 years.from the Fall until the Return. We know from secular and biblical history that Babylon was supreme in the Near East as respects Judah for a period of 70 years from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE. Other periods can be reckoned which of course exceeds the 70 years and scholars cannot agree as to a beginning of the Babylonian domination whether it should be 609 or 605 BCE An exaggeration to boot! It is simply a direct reference to Dan.9:2 and supports all of the other Quotes from the Chronicler and Jer. 25:11-12. WT scholars interpret the 70 years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile in and for Babylon. Such a holistic interpretation of all of the 70 year corpus is the only logical, compatible view that is consistent with biblical history. The 70 years was indeed a precise length period running from the Fall in 607 until the Fall in the Return-right down to the very day and month. Jehovah God is indeed the Great Timekeeper!. You need to reset your watch. Nothing misleading about translating the phrase 'at Babylon' for later discoveries have simply vindicated the former traditional view of matters. It could be argued under the influence of Higher Criticism that scholars have only adopted the view that the 70 years alone referred to Babylonian supremacy excluding the 70 year textual corpus. In short, scholars cannot believe that such an event could have occurred thus leading to the 'Myth of the Empty land' hypothesis first developed by Hans Barstad in 1996. Logically possible, biblically and historically correct. Scholars cannot agree as to the precise date. WT scholars have determined precisely 607 BCE WT scholars have provided evidence based on Ezra's account that 537 BCE is the only date for the Return. The date 538 is rejected by scholarship and is impossible. Correct, as shown above in my rebuttal. Glad to have an admission. Alan does not like to be corrected or to think' outside the square' scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider It does not matter whether Jer. 29:10 is translated either 'for Babylon or 'at Babylon' because both renderings of the Hebrew preposition le can have either meaning. Further, the 'seventy years' was a period of Servitude-Exile-Desolation beginning in 607 BCE with the Fall and ending in 537 BCE with the Return. Thus, the rendering 'at' simply shows the captive Jews exiled in Babylon as the location of their captivity-Exile whereas the rendering 'for' demonstrates the purpose of their Exile as being subject to Babylon- Servitude. scholar JW

Alan F Grandstanding again, Alan? Good. Bring it on. No. Simply affirming the obvious, giving credit where credit is due. Simply assertion. You do not like it when someone else goes 'toe to toe' with you. No. Just a simple recognition that I have unlike yourself, have paid close attention to SDA scholarship Fine. Bring it on. I must remind you that this is SDA scholarship! If you wish to discuss 'these nations' then let us proceed..Methodology of whatever type can be valid and even Rodger Young used a methodology based on Decision Analysis in order to resolve the 586/7 debate. WT scholars have always had a well-defined methodology and this stated in our publications.for it nicely harmonizes both the scriptural and secular data.in a well defined linear argument. No it does not. It does not need to misrepresent it because it does not wholly rely on it but rather relies on the biblical evidence. How can I acknowledge something that does not exist? Yes, Please for scholar loves lists. I have and do not ignore anything because I value and respect all of the Bible. Indeed, Is it not wonderful that the world's best scholarship has been debunked by WT Chronology. That's irony No. It is wrong because it contradicts the many plain statements of the seventy years. Nonsense. You would not what a critical commentary is. Did you consult such commentaries when devising your 538 thesis? Rubbish. List those texts that we have ignored. Perhaps but that does not mean that such interpretations are correct. An argument based on authority is fallacious. Far better to base interpretation on God's Word rather than the opinions of men. Both schemes have their own merits. WT scholars have developed a Bible based Chronology and it is a 'stand-alone' Chronology. It seems this point eludes you so it comes down to authenticity or credibility. Our Chronology works because it makes historical sense of OT history going back to Adam. In short, it works! No, with the exception of your novelty you have provided no evidence just a rehash of COJ. I do believe that I put some words down on paper about your novelty. No I do not think so but if that is your opinion then that is fine. Remember it took COJ, 400 pages to go through such a fine piece of long-argued scholarship. Yes it must be supported by good evidence and I find that in our 537 thesis and you have some good evidence in your 538 thesis but both have assumptions or speculation. Yes you have some evidence for your theory but so do we. WT scholars have published much on this subject going as far back as 1949 and have explained the evidence and assumptions required to arrive at a date for the Return. Correct and not too early either. False, Josephus only discusses the foundations of the Temple in Cyrus' second year not the Return. The calculation is false because the beginning of that year is not established. Did Josephus count from the Spring or the Fall? I know and I accept that harsh reality so scholar just plods along.No we both do not agree that 538 could be the year of the Return for that was impossible and yes Ezra did give a specific year but only the month of the Return. Common sense proves on the facts as given Ezra the only possible year must have been 537. The only scenario that we mutually agreed excluded the nature, timing of events of Cyrus' Decree and was only limited to the preparations and the journey. Scholar loves pretty pictures, charts and diagrams. What is your point? No for it is a very relevant historical factor when you consider Ezra 2:7-3:1. You have no basis for combining Ezra with Josephus because although the subject is similar the time factors are different thus both wrote from a different perspective. Such texts do not establish the year of the Return for this can only be established from Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. The disqualifying assumption relates to the content of Ezra 1:1-3:1 which proves the impossibility of all events occurring in 12 months of Cyrus' first year. Scholar has debunked for he is the great debunker. I have already highlighted the three major problems with your thesis. Does it matter whether they are stated or not for the reader using discernment can identify such as is also indicated in our explanation of the Return in our publications over many years. 1. Yes 2. Yes Did I pass? Simple: Literature Review indicating the scope and depth of your research and whether you have consulted Journals and views from Bible Commentaries on Ezra relating to Ezra 3;1 and 3:8 inclusive and Ezra 1;1-3:1 inclusive. Are you really sure? Scholarship means what has been published within the worldwide community of biblical scholars and presented in a academic format. Research means the accessing of such published materials. That is your problem for it is based on its own merits. It has to be tested alongside other competing views and established facts, clearly identifying any underlying assumptions. You do not know what I will think but you need to do more work, get it peer reviewed. False. Do the research! You really cannot be taken seriously. Why should I do your work for you. Are you lazy? Well you have now gained admittance into the club of scholars engaging in speculation. Welcome. At least 537 is in the scholarly literature whereas 538 is missing in action. So what for it simply agrees in part with Ezra 3:8 but you still fix the year of the Return and this cannot be done with these two texts. Plain and simple. Your argument is flawed because they both have a different chronological datum and do not indicating any beginning of the specified year in each text. Both texts have value and meaning but are irrelevant to assigning a date for the Return. It is up to you to prove any connection for I can disprove your claim by simply saying 'what does the text actually say'. No it is not decisive at all and that is your problem for one must have a degree of certainty as to which calendrical method Ezra used throughout his book so it when assigning a Chronology to Ezra one has to adopt a certain methodology. You need to display an awareness of the issues raised. WT scholars have approached the Chronology quite differently to not so much Thiele but his contemporary, Siegfried Horn. These matters are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion and I am not a Chronologist so lack some competence in this area. Within the confines of year 538 or 537 then the Return would be possible but this excludes all of the other circumstances that occurred prior to their four month journey which makes on year far more likely than the other. The timing and nature of the Decree with its proclamation renders 538 impossible as also noted by Steinmann with regard not to the date but to the substance of things. Well this is another factor that gives one extra month for the returnees in order to make the journey and to be nicely resettled in their cities or homes so it takes the rush out of things and makes it comfortable for the oldies and the young-uns. Simple, the temple foundation was laid in the second month of the following year, 536 BCE You should not associate with dummies otherwise it may rub off. Perhaps I am already there because of my human failures. The truth of an argument is not based on a personality or group but rather should be based on following the evidence where it leads and unfortunately it leads directly to 607 BCE. Well the matter of the zero year is troubling to you but I simply wave my hands and it disappears in the pursuit of sound biblical scholarship that began in 1944. No problem! It seems you give me no credit at all. All that I am requesting of you is to improve, raise the bar, dress it up a little. True, but it lacks scholarship, displays no research and is simply an opinion-a novelty. Have not WT scholars inferred this? The problem lies in the equating an expectation with actual time of preparation and the unknowing precisely when Cyrus' decree would be promulgated. Such a scenario sounds good on paper but does not harmonize with the facts as described by Ezra and it these facts that must take priority when assigning a precise date for the Return. Meanderings are helpful but have little place in Chronology. One could argue that with such tumultuous events after Babylon's Fall the last thing on the minds of the Jewish exile was a sudden trip home. I would if I could At least I am aware of such. That is your opinion scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements. I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship. It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand. No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential. WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'. We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele. Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand. 'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year. No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated. Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment. Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return. My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context. A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice. Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously. I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy. This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval. Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review. Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return. True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE. Correct but the time periods are not identical were they? We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!! So this fact should temper your criticism. Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship. I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully. Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him. Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ. Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area. Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself. I agree so let us crank up the scholarship! Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle. I would if I could. No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please. I have. You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled from both sides. Opinion not fact scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship. Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you? Now this is a more refreshing attitude. Chronology requires an open mind and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply showing.stupidity and ignorance. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof. An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis. You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records. Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book. You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems! You have not given me a full set of evidence but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems; 1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use? 2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point. 3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best. Peer review is reserved only for those in academia and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it? I have many times. See my above list of three. Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts. SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please! Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark. I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond. JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F Have you taken flight, Alan? You do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say. You preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver. I have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis, it lacks peer review, based on assumptions and uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research. In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism. The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case. scholar JW emeritus University of Sydney

JW Insider A fool. scholar JW emeritus

Alan F We both challenge each other. Sorry, the overwhelming evidence demands 607 BCE . Period. Nonsense, Scholars favour 537 BCE. Your date of 538 BCE is impossible. The end date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel, and Josephus. The start date is pegged by Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel and Josephus. Your Daddy, COJ has developed a theory that does not honour the Bible as God's Word. It is nice to see that your start date is fuzzy just as the said scholar has maintained for sometime. Methodology is not gibberish for it is the basis of both Thiele and Young's research. I can well imagine how thorough your checking was. I have done no such thing because I simply believe that Young is totally wrong in regards to the precise date for the Fall. So now you use such delay as an excuse but it simply does not wash for it does not explain the continued debate in scholarship regarding 58/587 BCE. How can Young's arguments be demonstrably correct when it conflicts with the plain statements regarding the seventy years and his thesis about 587 has not been universally accepted? That is simply a 'red herring'. Are you changing the subject Alan? In relation to Chronology, history of its development is instructive for it makes us cautious and humble. A consideration of older materials can be instructive for one cannot know where one is going unless he knows where he has been. That is commendable. You should be pleased that scholar is around to push you a bit. I would not have thought that our argument for the seventy years is circular for it works nicely as a linear model. That is impossible because the seventy years were still continuing right up to the first year of Darius who reigned post 539 BCE- Daniel 9:1,2; Jeremiah 25:11,12. Reading your bio does not give me confidence that you respect evidence perhaps evidence like beauty lies with the mind of the beholder. If I am truly a liar then why do you continue to dance with me? Do you want me to write a book or publish a thesis on WT Chronology? I have thought about it or even a scholarly article on the 'seventy years'. Perhaps one day, who knows! Likewise. Quote the scholars that have pointed out the same thing. Name them. Nonsense. Ezra and Josephus simply describe when the Temple foundation was laid from a different perspective and different dating/regnal formula. Sigh. The presence of a closed mind here at work. No, the Return occurred before Tishri 1, 537 BCE which would have been in the Cyrus' 2nd year if we use spring to spring dating or in his first year if we use the fall to fall dating system. The second month wherein the Temple foundation was laid was in the year following which would have been in 536 BCE. Your use of a second or third year of the Return is rather ambiguous because it must be established first, the precise year in which the Return occurred then from this one can then proceed with interpreting Ezra 3:8 and the text from Josephus. My timetable is what has been published in our literature from 1949, The second month of the 2nd year of the Return is not mentioned by Ezra nor is the 2nd month of the 2nd year of Cyrus. You are simply deluding yourself, concocting a fiction without any scholarly support. SDA scholars have laboured over this matter since 1953 and they have determined that 536 is the date with all of their scholarship to boot so they would not missed your nonsense. Your reference to a 'first year of the Return' or a second year of the Return is misleading for the first year of their Return could just as easily have begun in Tishri 1, 537 BCE but Ezra does not use this terminology nor is it clear what calendar he used. You assume that Ezra used the Fall to Fall system and base your opinion on that method but is this wise. Scholarship remains uncertain about this subject but WT scholars have selected much simpler methodology which harmonizes with Ezra's stated data thus fixing the seventh month, 537 BCE for the Return. You have to very careful with these issues of Calendation because scholars have not proved the matter. The Chronology of Ezra is very problematic and many of the issues raised center on what calendar Ezra used. A much simpler methodology must be sought. A diagram on paper can simply be a contrivance, designed to conform to some view or opinion based on certain assumptions. Years ago you produced a chart purporting to prove absolutely 538 for the Return but again it was based on assumptions, so-called facts without evidence such as stating the precise month of Cyrus's decree and the exact month of their Return. This is simply plain and utter nonsense. What is your specific objection to the methodology that WT scholars have used in their publications? What is wrong with 537 BCE and how come COJ has not attended to this matter properly? Nonsense. You claim to have 'excellent reading and comprehension skills' so do just that. Josephus simply states that the Temple lay in obscurity for fifty years' What did he mean? Could he have meant that he was simply making an observation about the condition of the Temple within his previously and often stated 'seventy years' about the Temple and the Land? Could not this also be a valid interpretation considering his previous comments? Now we are embarking on a course of historical revisionism. Josephus' comments on the seventy years is a major difficulty for scholars because it deconstructs the accepted Chronology but nicely supports WT Chronology with its straightforward understanding of the seventy years as a period of servitude-desolation-exile from the Fall to the Return. If the facts do not suit your views then it becomes the stuff of legends and then you dare to accuse WT of scholastic dishonesty!!!!!! Get real. If you want to debate Chronology with me then do some research. To say that WT does not follow the Bible is an absurdity and this is coming from a person who does not even believe in the Bible. You need to be more specific about 'these nations', perhaps you are referring to Jer. 25:11. If so, you have history with this and scholar can help you unlike many others who have failed. Childish! You are the one that possess excellent reading and comprehension skills so why ask for my help. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE and the Gentile Times began in that year from October. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but the proof is in the pudding but the WTS must have God's blessings because they have produced a superior Bible Chronology and translation of the Bible and that is not accidental but providential. Thanks but no thanks for I am to busy with Chronology. Perhaps later! I do not know exactly but what I do know is that WT scholars used the 1942 material in 1949 and as this related to significant changes in Chronology it must have been a resource on hand during the mid-forties whereupon our Chronology was adjusted/corrected in 1944. Indeed and well utilized by the Bible Students and WTS. Like you Alan I am here to entertain. scholar JW emeritus