scholar JW

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

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

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

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

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

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

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

JW Insider
Where are those pages from pp.506 onwards from GTR. online ? I cannot locate such a section of 130 pages. There is a supplement on Luke 21:24 which I have had already'.
scholar JW

JW Insider
It is you who is guilty of 'sleight of hand'. The  acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The issue of the date for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th years come down to the same methodology, one recognizes the acc. year principle and the other, the regnal year principle. WT  Scholars have no problem with applying this principle to the regnal data for Neb's reign so as to fix a precise date as 607 BCE and not 586, 587, 588 etc. Why???
scholar JW 

Anna
I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
scholar JW

Anna
You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.. The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate. Thus a different Methodology must be used by the Chronologist. The simple fact is that 539 BCE is universally accepted by scholars for the Fall of Babylon but there is no such consensus for a date for the Fall of Jerusalem so obviously, both events must be treated differently according to all available evidence. Therefore, this means that even 607 BCE cannot be treated as a Pivotal Date for it does not enjoy the same status as 539 BCE. It all comes down to simplicity and honesty and for this reason, 607 BCE is the only accurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW

Anna
I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
scholar JW

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

Anna
The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.
scholar JW

Ann
Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
scholar JW

Ann
Indeed! I had forgotten about ChannelC.  I believe I posted there for  a time and I think it was the  only site that COJ  posted but I cannot recall Young's articles coming up for discussion but I surrender to your recall on these matters.
scholar JW

Foreigner
You ask for my opinion about the book Why The Bible Is Historically Accurate , 2006, 2nd edn. by a Darren Thompson. I have not heard of this  book and I would have to read it entirely rather than comment on a single page however interesting it may appear, I sourced the book from Amazon Books and I am not impressed by it at this stage. from how it is promoted.. I would question its scholarship and that of the Author.
scholar JW.

JW Insider
I believed I fared very well on the JWD forum over a period of many years but if you do not share my opinion then that is fine because I am not interested in convincing anyone about WT chronology just simply to defend it and in that regard, I have been successful. Don't you think?
You misread things perhaps due to your anxiety to be right and overzealous in trying to discredit WT Chronology. Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a  term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature. However, the said 'scholar' first applied the term to Chronology in his defence of WT Chronology published on the JWD forum. Rodger Young does not support 607 but 587 as a revision to Thielean Chronology. What you fail to mention is Young's use Of Decision Tables or Analysis  in order to solve the problems associated with 587 and 586. Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!
You talk utter nonsense when you seek to superimpose WT  Chronology onto Youg's conclusion 6. on p. 38 in his 2004 study. What he is talking about here concerns a summary of his findings regarding the calendrical issues surrounding the resolution of the 586/7 BCE dilemma and has absolutely nothing to do with our Chronology and 607 BCE. Honesty would compel you to post conclusion 7 on p.38 and also the very first paragraph on p.21 which sets out the purpose and conclusion of his study.. You should be ashamed of yourself.
In fact one of the reasons why  I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004 was the fact that Carl Jonsson in his initial treatise stumbled over the WTS use of 539 BCE and not then using secular data to establish their OT chronology. Prior to 2000, I was in the process of doing a thesis for my Honours Degree and one of the compulsory Units was on Methodology so at that time I knew of its importance in academic research so I realized that this was the solution to Jonsson's problem along with many other inquirers so I adopted the formula that Chronology was about Methodology and Interpretation as the two essentials tools for the constructing a scheme of Chronology.. So, do not come with the nonsense about 539 BCE!!
scholar JW
 

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
The sources that you list a part of a Chronologist's toolkit and were and continue to be used by WT scholars and all other scholars who wish to interpret or construct a scheme of Chronology which Thiele and Mc Fall.
scholar JW

J W Insider
Thiele's scholarship on the Divided Monarchy is weakened by the simple fact that he overlooked the 70 years or believed that this period had no bearing on his thesis. This is my personal opinion of matters. Common sense would dictate that if you are trying to harmonize the regnal years of the Divided Monarchy both in the case of Israel and then Judah any historic period that was synchronized to any of  the reigns of the Monarchy and NB Chronology would be very important..
The 70 years of Tyre come within the scope or province of Jer. 25:9,11, 22. For Tyre the 70 years represented a undetermined period of  domination or servitude to Babylon as also prophesied by Isaiah in ch. 23.
Edwin Thiele is regarded by Christendom's Chronologists as the Chronologist par excellence . However, what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE which is the preferred of apostates following on the heels of Carl Jonsson and others of his ilk. In contrast WT Chronologists have thoughtfully determined 607 BCE as the precise date for that epochal event. 
scholar JW

JW Insider
Max Hatton became a Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventists, he is rather aged now and not sure whether he is still alive. He last resided in Newcastle, NSW and if alive possibly blind. Max Hatton wrote several articles on Chronology which I have in my files and one thing that struck me was his independent dating of the 70 years from normal Adventist orthodoxy. My conclusion was and still is that Scholarship broadly speaking is all at sea when it comes to the seventy years. They do not have a clue!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7
scholar JW

Anne
I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
scholar JW

Anne
I agree with you. There is no evidence that Max Hatton had any influence on either Raymond Franz' research or that of Carl Jonsson for both carried out their own independent research.
scholar JW