scholar JW

Imagine a time when people no longer treat one another like animals. I know, it’s hard to fathom. After all, religion herself is the cause for many wars, causing strife and hatred that permeates mankind, but not for much longer. These manifestations will soon reveal themselves all over the world and is also known as the revealing of the Son of Man. This phase is the third and final phase known as the revelation phase of the Presence of Christ.
One would think that all of mankind would welcome such a wonderful environment but the majority of earth’s inhabitants will actually reject and fight against this revelation tooth and nail, for mankind’s inhabitants as a whole have become wicked and godless. We read:
But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) After reading this scripture, you may have gained discernment that we could already have come into this period of critical times and you will have assumed correctly. This time period has been prophesied about in the Bible to give righteous ones a heads up. This time period is also called a time of distress, a time of anxiety, the last days, or the last days of wickedness. We entered this time period in 1914 and we were warned about it from faithful men. One of those Biblical accounts is (Daniel 12:1) which reads:
During that time Michael will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. Notice this period is a time of distress which means this period does not go on and on with the no end to them. They in fact do come and will come to an end. But a work would need to be done first. A warning and a witness would need to be given out on a global basis. A heads up as you will. “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
The end that comes about is not the end of the earth, but rather then end of wickedness. This system of things is on its way out! Jesus Christ calmly stated, “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the Presence of the Son of man will be.” (Matthew 24:36-37)
If you appreciated this witness about the Good News about God’s Kingdom, then I ask you to fill out this form for a Free Bible Study. The scriptures state, “And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.” (Daniel 12:1)
That time is Now, the book which is also known as the Book of Life is the Bible. We invite you and your family to come into our interior rooms until the denunciation passes as the days of wickedness come to their end. Get the Answers you seek to keep on living into Christ Millennial Reign.
2034 and its significance…

Screcko Sostar
The 'celebrated' WT scholars wish to remain anonymous and that is also the stated policy of the NWT Committee by way of comparison. Their origin remains unknown but they no doubt have been chosen by means of the Holy Spirit and were originally of the Anointed. Their qualifications also is unknown at this time suffice to say they both as a class and as individuals champion the Bible as God's Inspired Word. I hope this helps!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
That is correct. WT Bible Chronology has indeed adjusted dates before the NB Period using a 20-year gap manifest when comparing WT Chronology with that of NB Chronology and that is what Chronologists do as a matter of course. Such scholars look at the available evidence- secular and biblical evidence combining this with an interpretation and methodology to construct a scheme of Chronology.
This is false. There is no excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE as it ignores the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile. 'So-called' excellent evidence is simply a reference to COJ's 'seventeen lines of evidence' which attempts to disprove 607 BCE which has not settled the dilemma of the 586 or 587 BCE as dates for the Fall of Jerusalem. If there is such a body of evidence which disproves 607 BCE then why is it the case that no one can provide one single line of evidence disproving 607 BCE for this has not and cannot be done?
The simple fact is that COJ's research over seven years ending in 1975 was simply a rehash of previous research carried out by SDA scholars in Australia from the fifties so it was nothing new for the WT Society from the time of  Charles Russell and the early Bible Students had published much material on Chronology which dealt with many of the issues covered by COJ especially regarding the Gentile Times and the nature and chronology of Jeremiah's '70 years'.
COJ simply followed the existing interpretation of Chronology accepted by most if not all scholars prior to 1977 and afterwards up to the present day. It can be argued that the 'preponderance of existing evidence can just as easily support 607 BCE simply using 'fine tuning' using the missing 20 years to align secular NB Chronology with Bible Chronology. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown competence in Bible Chronology as demonstrated in WT publications since Russell's time as not only have they determined the precise year for the Fall of Jerusalem as 607 BCE but also produced a chronology for all of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy something which COJ never attempted and is necessary to provide and historical context for any dates with that period of Jewish history.
Correct! Such evidence in the construction of a scheme of Chronology requires two things: Methodology and Interpretation. WT scholars have a discreet methodology and a biblical interpretation viz. the 70 years and the Exile which proves the validity of 607 BCE for the Fall and thus far has not been disproved by any other scheme of Chronology.
scholar JW 
 

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

I hadn't talked about 1914 in a while, and although I have been critical of the teaching, I was trying to think of scriptural reasons that one might accept it as correct.
Just a couple days before the Memorial, I heard a dumb theory on a local station that tried to make a rationale for why Christianity has an Easter bunny and colorful eggs. It was crazy but it reminded me that I had also vaguely remembered something like this with the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" so I looked up the lyrics on Google to see if the lyrics actually could lend themselves to some kind of religious rationale. Google provides a section called "People Also Ask:"
 

 


I didn't bother to look up the rest. But this got me to thinking that maybe this song is nearly as old as the KJV (1611) and I wondered whether the KJV Bible had even translated the birds of Genesis 15 correctly calling them "a turtledove and a pigeon." The NWT uses the same language, so I figured there was probably a good basis.
(Genesis 15:9, KJV) And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
So what's that got to do with 1914, you might be wondering?
So, my mind wandered again, and I realized that I might have been wrong about doubting 1914. It was just too much of a coincidence that Genesis 15:9 actually points to the year 1914 in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant - through a dream - just as 1914 is pointed to in the context of the Davidic Covenant according to our understanding of Daniel 4, also through a dream.
I think this is pretty amazing, maybe more than just coincidence. So I'll explain why in the next post. But first the context of Genesis 15 for anyone who might not remember:
(Genesis 15:5-16) 5 He now brought him outside and said: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars, . . . “So your offspring will become.” . . .7 Then he added: “I am Jehovah, who brought you out of Ur of the Chal·deʹans to give you this land as your possession.” 8 To this he said: “Sovereign Lord Jehovah, how will I know that I will take possession of it?” 9 He replied to him: “Take for me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” . . . 12 ... a deep sleep fell upon Aʹbram and a great and frightening darkness descended on him. 13 Then He said to Aʹbram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. 16 But they will return here in the fourth generation . . .

So here in Genesis 15 we have a verse of the Bible, which in context is about the Abrahamic Covenant and is also a very clear discussion of chronology. It points out the time, the actual number of years, when the heirs of Abraham would inherit the land promised to him and his seed. It not only speaks to the chronology in years, but mentions the number of generations that would overlap until the time had reached its full measure!
Note first of all that the number of years of age of each animal is mentioned, so it must be important. 3 years + 3 years + 3 years. The age of the birds is not so specified, but the word "young" is mentioned indicating that they are about 1 year old each. So we have 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 11 years of age total. 11 times 360 prophetic days in each year is a total of 3,960 days, therefore 3,960 years.
So when did this covenant with Abraham's go into effect? The Insight book gives us the starting point:
*** it-1 p. 29 Abraham ***
Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.
So we start with the year 1943 BCE. But we also make a necessary adjustment, the same one made by C.T.Russell, as mentioned in our book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached!" (ka):
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 206-208 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
THE CORRECTING OF A MISUNDERSTANDING
…  The above chronology followed the suggestion that was made in Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, in its footnote on Acts 13:20, which verse read: “And after these things, he gave Judges about four hundred and fifty years, till Samuel the prophet.” The footnote on this reading of the verse said:
A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Biblical chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one which seems entirely satisfactory, i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted, by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5) which is very similar in form. This would make 580 years (instead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul’s chronology.
51 Accordingly, on page 53 of the book entitled “The Time Is at Hand,” author C. T. Russell wrote, referring to 1 Kings 6:1:
It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon’s four years we add David’s forty, and Saul’s space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character “daleth” (4) very much resembles the character “hay” (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. I Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements.
Thus, by inserting 100 years into the Bible chronology during the period of the Judges, man’s creation was pushed back 100 years . . .
So there we have it: 1945 BCE + 100 years = 2045 BCE. 3,960 years from 2045 = 1915 and since there was no zero year, that brings us exactly to 1914.
Please let me know what you think. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or false assumptions.

I assume that Norway might have similarities to Denmark where religion is not taken all that seriously. (It took my sister about 12 years to finally get Danish citizenship after marrying a Dane and living in the country. Now that their kids are grown, she and her husband are working in the US, where he has to keep getting his papers renewed.)
Denmark subsidizes religions so that there is a place to have birth celebrations, baptisms, weddings and funerals. And for many citizens, the churches are a good avenue for both socializing and organizing charity. But churches in Denmark mirror the growing secularity of the people in the country. I've done some door-to-door work there and met almost no one who took religious teachings seriously. It was good for traditional reasons only.
I think that there is an argument, then, that the Witnesses lose out because they take religion too seriously. There are probably others, especially individuals who might take their religion seriously enough to completely disengage from a former member who rejects the teachings. But these other religions, from what I have seen, do not make shunning an imposed policy. It's effectively only a matter of individual conscience. 
If Denmark is any example, there was a Witness we knew in Copenhagen who tells us that they completely cut off their son who had a thriving construction and HVAC business, but mostly contracting with other Witnesses as clients or with the businesses of those other Witnesses. If his son had been disfellowshipped for adultery there would have been no problem, but instead he was disfellowshipped for disagreement with teachings (unspecified), and gave no indication that he would ever recant. I got the feeling that son has become agnostic or atheist. What bothered me was the pride that this brother (the father) had in the fact that by cutting off his son, he was also able to get most people in the congregation(s) to boycott his business and was pushing him toward financial ruin. He was sure that this would either serve as appropriate punishment or could even be the "tough love" that might make him rethink and recant.
I really find it hard to imagine that other religions in Denmark (or possibly Norway) take their religious teachings so seriously. But the whole issue might also have been avoided if shunning was always brought up as a matter of conscience, and Biblical examples were used to help indicate why some Witnesses might choose to shun (for certain circumstances) and others might not.

https://jw.support/disfellowshipping/    This is interesting reading. 
Lets start from those early Christians in the 1st century.  When did they become known as Christians ?  Was it whilst Jesus was still alive or was it after his resurrection ?
Who was it that called those early 'disciples' Christians ?  Did they call themselves by that name ? 
And now an important question. Did any human have the authority to tell another human, "You are no longer a Christian". 
Was being a 1st century Christian, being a part of a human Organisation ?  So was it possible to turn a person out from it ?  
Did a 1st century person need permission to preach the word of God ? 
At this point we should remember the account whereby the disciples complained to Jesus that some 'outsiders' were preaching and healing in the name of Christ. 
Mark 9:38-41    Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us   Jesus allowed others to do good deeds in His name.  Just the opposite of disfellowshipping or shunning. So, when the JW Org / Elders disfellowship someone, what exactly are they disfellowshipping them from ?  What scriptures and what authority do those Elders use to give themselves permission to disfellowship someone ?  Do the Elders presume they have authority to judge a person and to say that such a person in 'no longer a Christian' ?  Do JWs presume that only they are Christians, therefore anyone who is not a JW cannot be a Christian ?  Jesus used the Samaritan man as an example of a Non Jew that did the will of God by showing kindness / mercy to a Jew that needed help. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who at that time hated the Samaritans. They were almost 'at war' with each other.  But Jesus was showing that a Non Jew could be pleasing to God. Unfortunately the true meaning of that parable has been lost because people do not understand the hatred that was there.  BUT, there is a message there for JWs. If only JWs would seek it and find it.  So what about a person that leaves the JW org ? In the eyes of the GB, Elders et al, a congregant that leaves the Org is a deliberate sinner. So does the GB / leaders / Elders et al, think that the congregant that has left, is automatically 'no longer a Christian' ?  And what about the congregation memebers where one has left ? Do ALL the congregation really want to SHUN the one that has left ? Exactly what scriptures do congregation memebers use to give themselves reason to SHUN a person that has left the Org ?  I've been reading Watchtower quotes which say that each congregant must make up their own mind through their own conscience, to SHUN or not.  But what action would be taken against a congregant that did not SHUN someone that had left the Org ?  I suppose an important question here would be. Do JWs here honestly think that every person that leaves the JW Org, is 'no longer a Christian' ? If that is so then it would seem that JWs believe that only the people in the JW Org are able to serve God.  So then JWs become anti-'non-JWs'.  That would be in line with the Jews being anti-Samaritan, whereas Jesus was not. 

Good analogy. But if you shot yourself in the foot once, would you not be extra careful from then on so you don't shoot yourself in the foot again? I mean if you shot yourself in the foot at least three times after that.....well.....I think you would get called all kinds of names, and most probably everyone would want to take that gun from you! The Generation theory has been expounded on at least three times since that Awake article, and with similar assuredness. It's the assuredness every time that is the problem, not the revision of an opinion. I have nothing against progressive knowledge, and don't expect us to get everything right the first time around, or the second time or third.....however long it takes.
Except for the fundamental truths, the rest is like a jigsaw puzzle and we are still trying to fit the pieces together, in my opinion we have not put together the whole picture yet, although many think we have. 
Studying the pure worship book right now reminds me a little of a silly series on Netflix called Manifest (I'm not saying the pure worship book is silly). It is quite entertaining though, and I like watching it. The characters survived a plane incident but landed 5 years later. Now some of the main characters get "callings" which are usually very vague (like a voice saying "save her" ) and they have no idea what it means. They get some really obscure clues and have to figure it out. Eventually after a series of misinterpretations they get it right by saving the right person. We are trying to interpret Ezekiels prophecy, and I don't think we will really know if we got it all right until  after Armageddon. The holy spirit can keep giving us clues, but we may misinterpret them, and we have misinterpreted them in the past, we just keep moving forward, in the right direction hopefully. My main disappointment is not the mistakes, but stating as fact what are mere interpretations and opinions......

I already said that I have learned not to trust statements made in such a manner. It seems that those who write them have not learned from the past, because they write them in the same way today.
Regardless of historical time frame and differing values etc. saying "we really don't know, but this is our opinion" is never out of fashion. Making bold statements as if they are 100% correct and infallible is neither wise nor discreet.....at any time.

I think all you guys on here who live in the past - without context-  have something missing from your thinking processes - to state it bluntly.  History mongers - looking through past actions and words with a fine tooth and judging it by today's standards. To look to the past without a historical context.  I did many things in the past which embarrasses me thinking of it today because it was done in a different time frame when values and many more things were different etc.
I look at Rutherford and realize he understood that the last world government will be fascistic.  I see he made the right conclusion but for the wrong time period.  I can learn something from that.  Do you learn something from the past or are you just embarrassed?  
 

A masterful refutation of the 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem calling it out as a lie, a distraction from the correct date of 607 BCE championed by Jehovah's Witnesses. A recognition of the simple facts that there was the Exile  and that it was of 70 years all based on a simple direct reading of key biblical texts.
This young guy shows critical thinking at its best on this most contentious issue.
scholar JW emeritus

A masterful refutation of the 586/587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem calling it out as a lie, a distraction from the correct date of 607 BCE championed by Jehovah's Witnesses. A recognition of the simple facts that there was the Exile  and that it was of 70 years all based on a simple direct reading of key biblical texts.
This young guy shows critical thinking at its best on this most contentious issue.
scholar JW emeritus

Such folly sort reminds one of the words of the wise contained in Proverbs 18:13 "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating".
scholar JW

JW Insider
No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology.
You are the one being deceived by apostate propaganda!!
scholar JW

JW Insider/Outsider
As long as you understand the difference between these two disciplines.
You have just started so finish reading the entire book.
I know what it is as I have studied it at University as one of the post-graduate Units. COJ's treatise is not historiography as it simply a criticism of WT Chronology and the Gentile Times. COJ is not a scholar and has not undertaken academic work at a University therefor his treatise must be judged on its own merit and has not committed to any proper exegeis of the 70 year textual corpus.
I can see this by your lack of faith and belief in our Chronology preferring the views of modern critics and apostates. You show a failure of what Chronology is as  a discipline being ignorant of its principles and its methodology. You have not got a clue about Chronology whatever its source or form.
The date 607 is well established as part of Biblical Theology and History and it works being calcuable to 1914 which is the poster boy for us living in the last days. Unlike 586 or 587 which are simply 'dead ends' we have a date that is rock solid giving faith in our Heavenly Father who knows the times and the seasons and reveals such matters alone to His servants.
scholar JW

JW Insider/Outsider
Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek.
That strong cable of WT Chronology based on 4 prophetic witnesses is not reliant on such ancient artifacts susceptible to interpretation and fail to properly account for Neb's missing 7 years of regnal vacancy and the notorious 20 year gap and Jeremiah's 70 years.
Yes, you need imagination when trying to interpret the so-called 17 lines of secular evidence and trying to harmonize secular chronology with that strong cable of WT Chronology.
The gap is an historical reality when trying to sort out the muddle of NB Chronology and is well supported by the biblical evidence of 70 years along with the other three witnesses unlike the muddle of secular chronology.
Finally, some honesty appears on the horizon so you better stick to the Bible and not to COJ's deception- the Devil's work.
scholar JW

JW Insider
My suggestion, plain and simple is just read Albertz and form your own opinion of his historiography just as i have done!!!
Really i could not less about what you think.
No, it is not . Historical writing of history is not the same thing as historiography
I have done a post graduate course in Historiography and COJ does not present any such historiography in his tratise, GTR.
I do not care if you mistrust me for you have deviated from the true faith by your endorsement of NB Chronology, a mere string of beads over that strong cable of WT Bible Chronology..
scholar JW

JW Insider/Outsider
Furuli showed otherwise and has provided the explanation that you seek.
That strong cable of WT Chronology based on 4 prophetic witnesses is not reliant on such ancient artifacts susceptible to interpretation and fail to properly account for Neb's missing 7 years of regnal vacancy and the notorious 20 year gap and Jeremiah's 70 years.
Yes, you need imagination when trying to interpret the so-called 17 lines of secular evidence and trying to harmonize secular chronology with that strong cable of WT Chronology.
The gap is an historical reality when trying to sort out the muddle of NB Chronology and is well supported by the biblical evidence of 70 years along with the other three witnesses unlike the muddle of secular chronology.
Finally, some honesty appears on the horizon so you better stick to the Bible and not to COJ's deception- the Devil's work.
scholar JW

JW Insider
No this is the case with Exilic scholars. I rest my case because it is well established on the facts of the case and on OT Historiography , a term not found in COJ' s hypothesis nor found in other critics of WT chronology.
You are the one being deceived by apostate propaganda!!
scholar JW

Alan de Fool
Just remember how much the said scholar has taught and instructed you over many matters of Chronology over  these last 20 years and the contributions that the said scholar has made to the scholarship of Chronology and to the simple fact of referring you to the latest information from scholarship on this subject. You feed and are nourished by the teat of scholar.
scholar JW

Ann O'Maly
NO. Read the entire verse 12 because it refers to the fact that the King, is nation and the land would be become ' a desolated wasteland for all time'-NWT Such a process was not just a one off but would come into effect after the 70 years had expired which was 537 BCE  so exegesis cannot permit that such a prophecy was fulfilled with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This interpretation of these words of Jeremiah were fulfilled with the Return in the 'first year of Cyrus' according to the Chronicler which was after 539 BCE in 537 BCE.
Unnecessary because Young simply employed a methodology to resolve the 586/7 BCE dilemma and his opinion favoured 587 BCE. Nothing to see here!!
scholar JW

Alan de Fool
The said scholar stands for integrity and truth, qualities that are not of your character!!!
scholar JW

Alan de Fool
Nope for our Chronology is in harmony with secular chronology albeit a little 'fine tuning' of a corrective of some twenty years. The 70 years is a major piece of Jewish history and those that choose to ignore it do so at expense of sound scholarship.
The 586/7 dilemma continues to haunt modern scholarship from the days of Edwin Thiele which was heightened as real conundrum of secular chronology by Rodger Young who has not yet solved the problem and has not yet been solved. Young  of course , ignores the 70 years as does Edwin Thiele and others.
scholar JW
 

Alan de Fool
The said scholar stands for integrity and truth, qualities that are not of your character!!!
scholar JW