scholar JW

Ann O'Maly
Nonsense. WT Chronology unlike secular NB Chronology is a strong cable of Bible Chronology whereas the latter is simply a chain of events- a string of beads. WT Chronology falsifies secular chronology by means of the 70 years. Further, it shows a twenty year gap between the two chronologies and highlights Neb's missing 'seven years' for starters and shows that the methodology for secular chronology is flawed because of the 586/7 BCE dilemma. Not a pretty picture!!!!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
The difference is because of interpretation for there is a clear distinction made in the Jer. 25 where Judah is first addressed from vs. 1-11 then later the Oracle to the nations commences from verse 12-26 specifically.
No, broadly speaking but here is a chronology based on Ezek.29:12, 17-18;30:10. Neb. attacks Egypt in his 37 th year-588 BCE and Ezekiel makes his final prophecy against Egypt in his 27th year of his exile in 590 BCE.
No. No historical information available which is more of a problem for you than for WT scholars. No evasion just a working with what the Bible tells us in the absence of secular history.
scholar JW
 

JW Insider
Too easy. The simple fact is that in 607 BCE, Babylon became the new World Power as foretold by Daniel the Prophet and it exercised complete domination over all those nations from that time forward. During Neb's reign he subjugated Tyre shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE- Ezek.26:1.
Yes this is the problem as to how to  translate the passage from Hebrew into English and how to interpret the passage . Rolf Furuli discusses the linguistic issues with this verse and I recommend that you consult leading Bible commentaries on this passage including the LXX. The said scholar unlike most Witnesses loves Bible commentaries and has the leading or major  commentaries of Jeremiah to hand and i would be happy to supply a reading list of such for you.
scholar JW

JW Insider
The fact of the Great War along with after signs proved that the gentile times had ended and that the Kingdom was born and modern history a long with prominent members of clergy in 1917 attested to this fact.
scholar JW

JW Insider
Nope. it works therefore it is that strong cable as it led to the ending of the Gentile Times in 1914 CE a reality proved by the outbreak of the Great War with the birth of God's Heavenly Kingdom . You need not only to properly understand History and Chronology but Biblical Theology namely Salvation History.
scholar JW

JW Insider
The fact of the Great War along with after signs proved that the gentile times had ended and that the Kingdom was born and modern history a long with prominent members of clergy in 1917 attested to this fact.
scholar JW

JW Insider
The fact of the Great War along with after signs proved that the gentile times had ended and that the Kingdom was born and modern history a long with prominent members of clergy in 1917 attested to this fact.
scholar JW

JW Insider
Nope. it works therefore it is that strong cable as it led to the ending of the Gentile Times in 1914 CE a reality proved by the outbreak of the Great War with the birth of God's Heavenly Kingdom . You need not only to properly understand History and Chronology but Biblical Theology namely Salvation History.
scholar JW

JW Insider
WT Chronology is 'strong' because it works, it alone is functional allowing the honest-hearted to understand where one lays in the stream of time, seeing modern day fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Chronology is simply a mode of interpretation, it is not an absolute but simply relative relying on the history presented albeit not perfect. 'Likely' is good enough for me for if it works then that is all that I require for it is far superior to 'dead-end' NB Chronology which also is imperfect and contains many 'gaps' despite the preponderance of astronomical data also subject to interpretation.
Chronology is always going to be problematic in some areas and that is why Jehovah God has given to his people four prophetic witnesses even at the hands of an Angel, a strong Cable of sacred Bible Chronology corevealed in his Word.
scholar JW

Ann O' Maly
Just what I expected. You can't be bothered because you cannot perform such a simple task therefore how can anyone take you seriously when you post on subjects that you lack any expertise especially any criticisms of Furuli's scholarship. Furuli  has done WT chronology a great service in proving that NB Chronology is unreliable for at least three reasons:
1. Missing 20 years- 568/588 BCE dilemma
2. Missing 7 years regnal vacancy of Neb's Kingship
3. Failure to provide any historicity for the 70 years of Jeremiah
5. Missing 1 Year/s of Darius ' reign prior or commensurate with the 1st year of Cyrus
NB Chronology i as with all other secular chronologies are likened to simply a chain or a string of beads, each date being a link or unit in a whole. Whereas, WT Bible Chronology is likened to a cable of interwoven strands of four  events each of which lay between two key events in biblical and modern history providing irrefutable proof/ evidence for this scheme of Chronology.
scholar JW

Alan F
Agreed but let us not confuse the exile/deportation of the few with the EXILE of the greater number in order to be historically correct.
No it is not and i checked a number of reference works which state similarly. But speaking of dictionarys, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines 'exilic'-"to that of the Jews in Babylon'.
So if the population was so small or minimal in number why did Neb bother? And was not king Zedekiah present in the city at that time?
Only ONE Exile in the OT and recognized by historian for that it is why it is described as catastrohe  and Jeremiah wrote the book of Lamentations as a consequence thereof.
scholar JW
scholar JW

JW Insider
Your presentation of NB Chronology is excellent with lovely coloured charts and it appears infallible. How does one test or falsify this scheme of Chronology. Can it now be viewed as an Absolute Chronology and can it now be used to construct a OT Chronology which are legitimate questions?
scholar JW

Hi Ann
How are you and I hope you are well. I received from Rolf a free copy of his latest book yesterday morning and I replied to him forthwith with some of my own observations over the last few decades. Like Rolf I share his scholarly endorsement of 607 BCE and the doctrine of the Gentile Times based on Daniel 4 and the Lukan text- Luke 21:24 his now public position certainly adds some validity to the authenticity of the 607 BCE Chronology despite the criticism of current scholarship.
Since our many online discussions of 607 BCE in relation to the chronology and nature of the 'seventy years' of Jeremiah a recent published article adds some weight to our current and traditional interpretation of the 70 years as opposed to view of our many critics. The article is titled 'The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' by Steven M Ruse in the Journal Of Biblical Literature, 2018 Vol.137,No.1, pp.107-126. This article is the most recent published article on this subject and has much emphasis on the exilic aspect of the seventy years as opposed to the view of a solely Babylonish servitude or domination of Judah. Enjoy!!!!
scholar JW emeritus

JW Insider
Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell for his views on WT Biblical  Chronology are firm and well established as is mine thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth.
scholar JW emeritus

Nana Fofana
Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter.
scholar JW emeritus

Nana Fofana
Despite Alan F's protestations to the contrary I agree with you that Lewontin, an evolutionary zoologist was correctly quoted in both the earlier and recent editions of the marvellous Creation book. He made a simple admission/statement that has come back to haunt him and then he protests about being misquoted. One thing I have found common in all atheistic/evolutionary writings that such cannot igore either theistic or metaphysical terms or language in trying to explain the subject matter.
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
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
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

JW Insider
A fool.
scholar JW emeritus

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

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

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

Hi Ann
I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.
scholar JW

Foreigner
Yes the distribution of those earlier treatises was restricted or limited to a few as this was pre-Internet. However, during those decades a Pastor Bruce Price again in Australia and a SDA waged a war if you like against WT Chronology and circulated the magazine Witness which was for SDA scholars, pastors and ministers again a limited distribution. Further, he published a fictional account centred in a rural setting which narrated the conversion of a Witness couple to Adventism through the prism of Chronology.
scholar JW