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

Foreigner
The facts are that Raymond Franz had already carried out research in WT Chronology and this published in the Aid book 1969, 1971, later Carl Jonsson in Sweden conducted his own independent research and submitted his treatise to Brooklyn in 1977. Long before this,  Max Hatton in Australia conducted his own research during the sixties and was probably influenced by the research of a G. Rogerson in Australia who produced a treatise on the subject of some 60 pages. It would seem that the  first or earliest criticisms of WT Chronology originated in Australia influenced by at that time scholarly research beginning in the forties carried out by the Seventh Day Adventist Church.scholars.in the USA.
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

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

Insider JW
You have posted in three parts so I will respond accordingly:
A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.
There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology. The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138. Rol Furuli in recent times has published extensively on the Chronologies of the Ancient World and his thesis is that the Babylonian Empire should be expanded some 20 Years. In view of these viewpoints and because the NB Period and its appended Chronology omits any mention of the Jeremiah's 70 years a Prophett who was contemporaneous with the NB  Period, a eyewitness 'to boot', I have classified the difference between the two systems as the 'Babylonian Gap'. The 'missing 20 years' I propose could properly be inserted at either two points: Neb's 18th year or his 37 th years and that will harmonize the two dating systems and all is well!!
Your claim that the methodology used by WT in connection with 537 BCE for the Return of the Exiles is 'fuzzy' is simply nonsense. Our explanation of all of the relevant data and its sources is well discussed in our publications and 537 BCE is well established. You accuse WT of being fuzzy with dates and cite 537 BCE as an example of this but I must remind you that Historians and Scholars are very fuzzy about this event for you cannot find a specific date for the event in the scholarly literature for this is a fact plain and simple. You quibble over the use of language or terms used in the WT publications which express uncertainty or a lack of finality but history is imperfect and there is no room for dogmatism in either history or chronology. Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised but this not mean that a Chronology in harmony with certain facts cannot be constructed. The question you should be asking yourself is: 'what then is the precise date for the Return of the Jews?' 
You seem to 'hung up' on the Zero Year problem which is often raised by apostates but not by serious scholars. The WT has simply explained the anomaly and back then some chronologists possible misunderstood the difference between the Astronomical Year and the Years in the Gregorian Calendar and perhaps many reference works at that time made a similar error but once the error was noted then an adjustment was made fortunately or providentially the integrity of the 1914 CE date was preserved as the beginning of the Gentile Times. End of Part One.
scholar JW

JW Insider.
Now I am off the throne and in a relieved state I am ready for battle.. 
Nebuchadnezzer reigned for 43 years and not 63 years as shown by NB Chronology.Methodology allows one to insert 20 years into the scheme in order to harmonize NB Chronology with Biblical history via the seventy years of Jeremiah unaccounted for in NB Chronology..i have suggested that in Neb's 18th regnal years which of course would expand the the NB Period by 20 years. Now , I hear a very loud voice of protest about such an intrusion but that is not my problem it a problem for those scholars or scribes who compiled the list of reigns in the first place. they should have exercised greater diligence and not been sloppy or careless. They were very naughty.
Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data. If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU. Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.
If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.
scholar JW
 

JW Insider.
Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..
If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.
Chronology is personal because most if not all schemes of Chronology are written up by individuals beginning with James Ussher also such is based on Methodology, personally selected and Interpretation again personally selected.
If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?
You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy! Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE. Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.
Chronology is not an exact science for it is always a 'work in progress' and is simply a scheme or device that relates history into our modern  day calendation. It is based on  Methodology and Interpretation for these are the 'tools' of the Chronologist and explains why our dates in the past have been adjusted, a feature common to all modern-day chronologies. You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.
One thing can be said about our wondrous Bible Chronology there is no room for 'fuzziness' or dogmatism.
scholar JW
 

Ann
Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.
At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.
scholar JW
 
 
 
scholar JW

Ann OMaly
An update on Jer.25:11: I do not withdraw my comment that nowhere in the OT does the seventy years refers to the nation's servitude to Babylon and in the context of all of the seventy years of Jeremiah's corpus for this applies to Judah alone. However, Jer. 25:11 can be interpreted as it is read so in accordance with the insightful comment in Keil & Delitzch's Commentary On the Old Testament, Vol.8.p.374 it offers this interesting observation on 'these nations'. In short, these peop[es or nations which surrounded Judah would also be desolated and along with Judah would have to serve Babylon. So it could well be argued at the time of Judah' servitude, desolation and exile other nations also experienced that same fury whether at that time or later is unknown so the Babylonish intervention during that time may well have  extended beyond the borders of Judah which raise some additional questions of research. The text in view has a number of interpretations regarding its application to 'these nation's.in the context of the entire chapter. Rolf Furuli has discussed the linguistics of this verse with alternative translations.
Another interpretation concerns these nations viewed metaphorically or theologically namely with the downfall of Jehovah;s kingship at Jerusalem with the end of the Davidic Monarchy it could be said that all other nations were now subject to Babylonian sovereignty. These are just short comments but nothing obscures the simple fact that Judah served Babylon for 70 years whilst exiled at Babylon leaving behind a devastated and depopulated land of Judah and perhaps beyond its borders. It is amazing how one simple expression opens many other doors for further reflection and research and I thank you for quoting that text.
scholar JW
 
 
 
 
 

Ann O Maly
I brought Rainer Albertz up because his view on the timing and nature of the Exile agrees with us in many respects but not all
 
. He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon.  In that same paragraph on p.2 He begins the Exilic Era from that same event, the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 and ends it in 520 BCE which is OK with me. Also, he dates the seventy years from 587 BCE until 517 and not 609 BCE which supports our view but differs on the endpoint based on his interpretation of the two texts in Zechariah.
I repeat nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 according to NB Chronology. If there is something then state it but remember it must be of such significance that warrants the beginning of the 70 years.  
 
Jere. 25;11 is problematic for all exegetes because ' these nations are not identified. This could refer to the inhabitants of Judah or it could refer to the peoples of the Babylonian Empire. There are a number of linguistic possibilities and the immediate context which targets Judah alone is the determinant factor.
No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?
scholar JW

JW Insider
After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.
See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.
scholar JW

Ann
Sitting on the throne gives time to review  another's foolishness and to refute nonsense.
At least we agree on one thing-It is impressive.
scholar JW
 
 
 
scholar JW

Another very helpful non-JW/Bible-believing discussion from a respected journal for @Anna:
JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART I: THE SCRIPTURAL DATA
JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART II: THE HISTORICAL DATA
 

JW Insider
The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
scholar JW

Hi Anna and JW Insider
Let us be perfectly clear. The 70 years of Jeremiah cannot refer to Babylonish domination alone as dating from either 609 or 695 BCE for the simple reason that the geopolitical world at that time did not favour Babylon but rather Egypt as all good historians know. The geopolitical situation at the Dawn of the 6th Century had Babylon in its infancy with no hegemony respecting the land of Judah. This major historical point reality was made very clear to me when I was presented with a number of slides of maps for the region and time period prepared by the team led by Prof. Obed Lipschits at Tel Aviv University.less than two years ago. The online University program which I received a Certificate of Completion with a Academic Grade is called 'The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem'. Such a program of study proved to me that the 70 years could not have  begun in either 609 or 605 BCE because no event of any significance occurred at these dates to warrant the beginning of the most important event in Biblical and Jewish history namely the beginning of the Exile- a Catastrophe.
Therefore, the only  possible event in history which could begin the 70 years is the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE which is exactly as the Bible describes In Jeremiah, Daniel, Chronicles, Isaiah and Zechariah.
scholar JW

JW Insider
I have several issues with your post: Firstly, the dating of the commencement of the seventy years from 609 BCE is problematic for the simple reason nothing of historical significance occurred in that year further its ending in 539 BCE is also absurd because the Jews were still in Babylon after that date. So both the beginning and the end of the seventy years simply does not work. Carl Jonsson failed to resolve these problems especially the first objection as he wavered between 609 BCE and 605 BCE.
Further, the seventy years of Zechariah are also problematic if we simply ignore the fact that Zechariah was referring to those seventy years that began with Jerusalem's destruction in 607 BCE until their end in 537 BCE. Again, Jonsson who discussed these seventy years in some detail could come with a coherent chronology.
One can only conclude that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the seventy years and with some fine tuning well harmonizes with the secular evidence. The date 587 BCE is unacceptable as it has to compete with 586 and other dates.
scholar JW