Foreigner

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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

I believe we can start the criticism of time chronology just a little earlier than Max Hatton with AARON NYMAN. I can also see where others doing research would come across such evidence to attempt to disprove the WT Chronology.

THE PROPHETIC MESSAGE OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF PASTOR C. T. RUSSELL IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY AND BIBLE KNOWLEDGE

Those who have written on this subject have begun their calculations at various times: B. C. 536, 519, 457, 454 and 444.The Adventists say that it is "one" message, thereby meaning that the beginning can be anywhere between B. C. 536 and 444. There is a difference of 92 years between 536 and 444. The word of the Lord says that the seventy weeks shall begin at the time the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem went forth, not from those "times." The time of the angel cannot be counted from more than one starting point. Therefore only one can be right of those who have started from five various points.

But, you are correct. Rodger C. Young fairs no better with bible understanding than those other critics of the WT Chronology.

As we can read, even encyclopedia’s like Britannica is vague in its interpretation of events with this “the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest” Are they referring to the first encounter King Jehoiakim’s of Judah had with Nebuchadnezzar? Even if the stipulation was with the secular chronology of 605 BC, the WT chronology would only be off 2 years. If the same stipulation is made to the end of the desolation period, then the WT chronology would be off 1 year. A total of 3 years by secular reckoning.

As in everything. It boils down to interpretation. Those 3 years can be explained. Even if we use Furuli’s account that Nebuchadnezzar reign started in 625 BC? It has certain attainable elements through past writings.

Babylonian Exile, also called Babylonian Captivity, the forced detention of Jews in Babylonia following the latter’s conquest of the kingdom of Judah in 598/7 and 587/6 bce. The exile formally ended in 538 bce, when the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus the Great, gave the Jews permission to return to Palestine. Historians agree that several deportations took place (each the result of uprisings in Palestine), that not all Jews were forced to leave their homeland, that returning Jews left Babylonia at various times, and that some Jews chose to remain in Babylonia—thus constituting the first of numerous Jewish communities living permanently in the Diaspora.

40 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:

               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."

Correct. I’m basing myself on the calendar year as ascribed by the ancients. to 610/609 BCE

42 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

On what basis do you

Rightfully so. There were other sources other than Max Hatton that could have contributed to sound research.

SAOC 24. Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein 1942

CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS D.J. Wiseman 1956

For the works of Edwin R. Thiele, you would certainly consider Leslie McFall, which also gave an opinion on the BOOK: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75

Therefore, any references to a subject, even if it was difficult to acquire? It could have been obtained.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.

?

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You mean, BEFORE Josiah died?

Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was

This would be a matter of interpretation just like the first part. However, my statement included the phrase “I don’t doubt” which can lead to scrutiny.

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

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

Rightfully so. However, I find it, coincidental that none of the previously published treatises would, not have been available or known to others. Especially, when that research is part of a subject matter.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I thank you for your colourful diagram and ii wish I had your computer skills.You mention 609 BCE but is this an error? Perhaps you meant 607 BCE instead. Like Ann O Maly I too am a little confused.

Scholar JW

Correct. 607 BC would be the determined year. After the death of King Josiah. His son took over. Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC. Then Jehoiakim became the puppet king to Babylon in 609 BC. Scripture relates to what happened next. This is why that period ran concurrently without no accession year attached

Max Hatton wrote a treatise in 1965 or book. Most of what is quoted come from there. I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim

This is correct. King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian. The crossover was King Jehoiakim. That in effect makes it easier to explain secular chronology with their own timeline.

On 12/10/2017 at 8:30 PM, scholar JW said:

. 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. 

Scholar JW

This is an honest assessment for the year 609BC. 2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

In my opinion, certain people are having a hard time grappling with secular chronology, and how the Watchtower is interpreting it. Honestly, there is enough information to support both theories. The easier chronology to explain would be, secular chronology with the date 609BC.

If one seizes the moment, we can see that every generation has the opportunity to pass on the knowledge of Jehovah until the time of the end…

⁷ “I have taken an oath today in the presence of God and my countrymen, to uphold and to defend the Constitution of the United States. To that oath, I now add this sacred commitment: I shall consecrate my office, my energies and all the wisdom I can summon to the cause of peace. . . . The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. This honor now beckons America—the chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and on to that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. If we succeed generations to come will say of us now living that we mastered our moment, that we helped make the world safe for mankind. . . . Our destiny offers not the cup of despair, but the chalice of opportunity. So let us seize it, not in fear, but in gladness—and ‘riders on the earth together,’ let us go forward, firm in our faith, steadfast in our purpose, cautious of the dangers, but sustained by our confidence in the will of God and the promise of man.”—New York Times, January 21, 1969.

On 11/27/2017 at 6:50 AM, JW Insider said:

Curiously, the nation of Israel was also asked to celebrate the harvest with its attendant rites, offering up the first sheaf of wheat to Jehovah.

Hi JWinsider

Quick question. What would be the difference between keeping a commandment versus keeping a tradition?  Did the Israelites force, kill, and infect with diseases native Americans by their traditions? Native American is rhetorical of course.