Posts by scholar

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4178

Issue of calendation are issues of methodology because it is on the basic of a specific calendation employed by the chronologist that enables him/her to construct such chronology. There are no good scholarly reasons to prohibit the dating of the reigns for the Kings of Judah by using the Nisan to Nisan system and it makes far better sense to use a consistent dating system for both Judah and Israel. Simple is best.

It is not a matter of some disclaimer about the accuracy of the chart for chronology is not about absolute for there are very few dates that can can be truly viewed as absolute or pivotal. The statement explaining the methodology is simply a straightforward explanation of the method used in tabulating the scheme.

Be careful of Decision Table Analysis as a method forit is simply a "a method of considering all the parameters that affect an outcome or series of outcomes, and of making sure that no combination of conditions is overlooked". Thus such an analysis depends upon a set of pre-suppositions that bedevil all previous attempts to reconcile the data for the Hebrew Kings. Rodger Young as a systems analyst was the first scholar to use use a method and published his research in a paper published in 2003. No doubt you first learnt of this from Ann O Maly who first learnt it from me on one of my earlier posts on this forum whereupon i first drew attention to Rodger Young's methodology.

You should check your chronology with that of Rodger Young an dnot any points of difference.

Yes I do pay lip service to the scholarly literature but at least I note it, have the latest research at my fingertips and become aware of recent trends in scholarly research. Forewarned is forearmed.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4177

The source for the use of Interregnum for the reign of Hoshea is presented in the TABLE of CONTEMPORARY KINGS and PROPHETS and RELATED EVENTS, pp. 161 ff. in THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND, 1944 The chart or table also shows three other Interregnums for the Divided Monarchy.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4175

There is no significance between the two editions, both indicate that Hoshea's reign began in Ahaz' 12th and not ended as your chronology claims. The NWT editions are in agreement with most modern Bibles translations.

Our example is one of history and public record and imparting public information goes without saying. What's your record?

As I said, 'there is no place for dogmatism in chronology', we have simply provided a 'suggested chronology' for the Divided Monarchy.

Your chronology is simply an interpretation of the biblical data, it matters nought as to well it supposedly harmonizes because in the end according to computer jargon: Garbage In =Garbage Out and that is so true with chronology. Pretty charts does not accuracy make. Your translation of 2Kings 17:1 falsifies your chronology based on the reign of Hoshea and if you are wrong here then the rest of your chronology is imperiled. We have no problem with harmonizing the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah as shown by our published lists for the period.

Your original chart id read offline on a printed page could require some magnification, your updated chart is much more user-friendly for I choose to print out rather than reading on screen.

Beware of vassalages as they compromise your chronology for one must be faithful to the historical record. Your scheme is simply contrived to fit your agenda in attempting to debunk WT chronology. Your chart is not historically sound because it does not account for 2Kings 15:30 and is also based on misunderstanding of 2Kings 17:1. You clearly are not smart enough to deal adequately with the history behind these two texts and not demonstrated adequate research for these two texts.

The suggestion about reconciling the Ahaz' 12th and 14 th year is simply doing chronology for even in your chart you list many suppositions in order to reconcile your chronology for all chronologists do this or in other words' 'fiddle the books'. Where we have 'fiddled the books' we are transparent about this by alerting the reader by means of the Latin circa.

WT chronology simply agrees with Ussher on some points of methodology, it is independent of Ussher's scheme.

I was pleased that you 'looked' at the reign of Tilgath Pileser and so have we.

If you argue that interregnums are bogus then you are out of step with Ussher and many other fine chronologists since his day for I can say similarly that your 'co-regencies' are also bogus.

Arithmetic is basic to chronology but those numbers do not just have numerical value for those numbers represent more than a numerical value as shown by how these are used and interpreted in the biblical record. Numbers must be used with caution and do not have have any mystical value unless used in terms of prophecy.

Offering a simplicsic scheme is being smart, honest and prudent but more important it is user=friendly which unfortunately is not the case with most modern-day schemes.

Regarding the data in 2Kings 18:1-10 we do not have any problems with reconciling that data as nicely shown in Aid to Bible Understanding, there is no direct statement in the Bible that supports your interpretation of this matter so it remains your invention and your problem, not ours.

Prophecies are paramount ot chronology for they breathe life into what would simply be 'dead' history, such builds faith in God's purposes. You interpret the 390 year period as 'Israel's years of guilt' running from the beginning of the Divided Monarchy until Fall of Babylon. Our understanding differs on this, because it is more accurate to end the period with the end of the Monarchywith Zedekiah The book of Daniel does not discuss the Ezekiel's prophecy but focussed on the duration of the seventy years beginning in 607 BCE which was the also the ending of Ezekiel's 'years of guilt.

'Making something up' is what all chronologists do in order to make their respective chronologies work because the Bible as far as I know does not have scheme written up in our modern caledation unless on eturns up in some yet to be discovered ancient manuscript. Here is hoping! LOL.

There are no contradictions with the Aid or Insight volumes except in your own imagination but I cannot help you with this problem.

Methodologies are personal, we have ours, you have yours and other scholars such Thiele , Mc Fall, Young have their own an dthat is how chronology is done. I cannot help you here for it is your problem not mine.

Whether or not Interpretation is separate to Methodology or part of it as you prefer the end result is the same for Chronology proper contains both elements and that is all that that I am trying to teach you.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Please be advised that Ihave just accessed your website and noted your updated and revised timeline which now is much more user friendly. I notice many points of difference and I will focus on your tabulation for the reign of Hoshea after next week as I am away for that period'

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4173

Your attempt to refute the methodology in calculating the reigns of the Divided Monarchy according to the principle of the Nisan-based calendation is simply bogus and misleading. Such tabulations of the data misrepresents what the Aid book outlines before the presentation of the Chart for the Divided Monarchy. I suggest you' read the preceding paragraphs most carefully in order not to continue in making a complete fool of yourself. That chart was the basis for my claim we calculate the reigns of the Judean on the Nisan to Nisan basis applying the same methodology to that of the reigns of the Kings of Israel'.

Further, the reader is advised in the introductory paragraphs before the chart that it is not intended to be viewed as an 'absolute chronology, but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms'.

What I suggest is that you use the lsted tabulations of the texts in 2 Kings and see how these are discussed in the scholarly literature as to how these texts can be harmonized with proposed calendations and see if there is some consistency. In short, you prove whether there is any consistency of the texts and what calendation was used for both Kingdoms. the I will check your conclusions with the scholarly literature.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4170

All that you have done is made a comparison of the two editions, one has fewer words with the same meaning. Nothing significant here.

Did not Jesus say that his disciples would be 'celebrated' something about 'letting their light shine' or am I missing something.

You are wrong and we are right and dutiful for I remember that Jesus said something about being 'faithful' and discreet'

The scholarly literature certainly supports the concept of interregnum and its applicability during the reign of Hoshea and the WT literature certainly uses that term in reference to Hoshea's reign. You need to research more. There is no room for dogmatism in chronology so one must make assumptions and interpret the data accordingly. This is what scholars do all the time. Chronology is about 'making things fit' perhaps we are more honest in admitting to this fact so we are condemned by you for a little modesty and humility.

The beginning of Hoshea's reign is problematic for scholars but we have explained this nicely in accord with 2 Kings 17:1 and our scheme sets out the matter simply and fully in accordanc ewith all of the evidence. Be careful about basic arithmetic for it can let you down when doing chronololgy.

Yes you have made a pretty chart but it is simply one amongst hundreds that have been produced over decades and decades but our charts are simple, accurate, and legible, your chart requires a magnifying glass to read it, it is inaccessible.

You ignore vassalage at your own peril thus your chronology is compromised. Remmeber that accurate chronolgy must be historicall sound so when computing reigns then it is smart to know that those reigns could count from different starting points as competent scholars show in their charts.

The '14th 'year of Ahaz is the fact of his vassalge and nicely harmonizes 2Kings 17;1 for after all Ahaz' reign lasted 16 years so his 14th year was no fiction. It simply boils down to methodology, you have yours and we have our own methodology.

Semantics- Yes for now you include 'manufacturing' but to claim that our chronology is 'falsely manipulated to fit preconceived beliefs' is true of all others for was not Thiele a SDA minister?

It could be argued that all modern chronologies begin with Ussher but to for you to make that association pays us the ultimate compliment for this means that the pedigree is sound and there is nothing like being well bred. Methinks a touch of snobbery is present.

You worry me when you confess to not looking at Tilgath pileser for I believe that one must consider all of the history when doing chronology so our chronology harmonizes accurately with the surrounding historical events.

The word interregnum can mean a period between kings where such is unknown and can also mean a period without a king but whatever the case such a period was certainly present after the death of Pekah and which you acknowledge in your chart.

If you cannot work out why the dates for the Judean kings should be more certain than those of Israel then perhaps you should leave chronology alone for a short while and get back to basic Bible study.

To say that the WT chronology is mathematically impossible is an absurdity because any sound chronology is not based on arithmetic but on a careful appraisal of the data, interpreting it in accordance with a methodology. It is not arithmetic.

In chronology simplicity is everything, complexity leads to confusion and muddled thinking and error.

The difference of 'two years' is simply your invention, your interpretation of those texts in 1 Kings ch.18 for theses texts are easily explained on the basis of a sole calendation seen fro differnt viewpoints as set out in the Aid book. No you do need to consult scholarship to understand basic arithmetic but you need to consult scholarship in order to understand what you are doing. Ignorance has no place in chronology and no place for would be amateurs.

We have a different opinion about the relevance or otherwise of the 390 year prophecy of Ezekiel and I cannot help you with that for we must simply agree to disagree on this point.If your chart does not harmonize now with that prophecy then it is baseless and useless. You need to start again.

How do you know that the Ahaz' 14th year is not supported by any secular sources. Have you researched the matter so thoroughly that you can make such a claim? Whatever the case it is a valid argument and interpretation of the matter and consistent with our methodology.

Insight is no embarrassment and that is why you are compelled to use it, to read it, to quote from it

Methodology is personal, you cannot say that because one's methodology differs from another then that methodology is wrong. The chronologist decides the methods, tools, procedures, philosophy that he/she wishes to employ. For example, Rodger Young in discussing the importance of Methodology in chronology has decided to Decision Table analysis in order to make sense of the data. That is his choice.

Semantics aside: Chronology equals Methodology and Interpretation

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Ann O Maly

Post 3755

I am fully aware of the position that Parker, Young and Mc Fall take on chronology but the point that I was making that in connection with the translation of 2 Kings 17:1 there remains difference of opinion about how this verse should be rendered because the Hebrew syntax is neutral on this point. Consistency of usage would favour the common or normal 'became king' rather than 'had reigned'. Both renderings have chronological implications as to the reign of Hoshea and whether there was a interregnum after the death of Pekah. Jeffro's dogmatism as to transaltion is most unwarranted in this case.

I simply raised the matter of Parker because he was the first to raise the subject and in the spirit of my impartiality and fairness in respects to scholarship and in regard to Mc Fall he shows that this verse can be rendered either way which neutralizes Jeffro' argument. The fact of the matter is that this passage remains contentious.

Blessings

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

Jeffro

Post 4168

You have alleged that the NWT 2013 edition provides a better rendering than the previous edition whereas in fact there is no significant difference between both editions with the exception that the former omits the clause 'he ruled' thereby now providing an 'improved rendering' for this verse.LOL.

Celebrated WT scholars have dutifully assigned two dates for the beginning of the reign of Hoshea according to the history of the period as outlined in Chronicles and Kings and on several Bible passages such as 2 Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1. Both of these passages are the subject of much scholarly discussion in the scholarly literature Hoshea began a reign in c.758 BCE according to 2Kings 15;30 which is properly referred to as a interregnum then later in c.748 BCE his reign of nine years was established ending with the Fall of Samaria in 740 BCE. Obviously, a measure of interpretation is involved but that is the nature of doing chronology, it is the way in which all chronologists have to makes sense of the data. Your claim that 'They're just wrong' does not mean that they are wrong for that is simply your opinion, nothing else.LOL

In fact the chart on Chronology presented in Aid to Bible Understanding was not the first chart presenting a schema for the Divided Monarchyin WT publications for the first such chart was published in The Kingdom Is At Hand, 1944,pp.161 ff. The chart in the Aid book has not been discredited but has since been simplified, its presentation of the data is most useful in explaining this most technical subject -Chronology. Even yourself have produced a chart on Chronology subject as with all such charts to revision and correction. The fact of the matter that the Kings of the Divided Monarchy were subject from time to time to various World Powers and the Kings of both Judah and Israel became a vassal to a foreign power thus when computing the reigns of such kings such as Hoshea then this historical fact must be considered by any modern-day competent chronologist. This is done in the case of Hoshea for he was a vassal to Tilgathe -pileser. Perhaps you are unaware of this basic fact. The reference to a possible 14th year for Ahaz is indeed convenient for it is an attempt to explain the data and that is what scholars do, they seek to explain the data and make sense of it and yes it is a 'fabrication' but that is what all Chronology is - a Fabrication. That is chronology at its basic level. James Ussher was the first chronologist to explain the earlier phase of Hoshea' reign as an interregnum and others have followed this methodology and our scholars have made a similar decision of matters.

You raise the matter that we do not assign any specifics for the reign of Tilgath -pileser but that is because there is no data that would make this possible for example the length of his reign is subject to some dispute even though it is the opinion that his reign was 18 years but this is too short. His reign covered the reigns of Menahem-Pekahiah-Pekah-Hoshea which covered a span of far more than 18 years. Yes your chart(fabrication) attempts a harmonization but so does the chart(fabrication) in the Aid book.

There is no inconsistency between the two texts in 2 Kings for our interpretation correctly observes an interregnum following the assassination of Pekah by Hoshea which exact length remains unknown. Even in your chart (fabrication) you show this period as 'Hoshea's disputed reign'.

There are good reasons for suggesting that the list of reigns for the Kings of Judah are more certain than the reigns for the Kings of Israel and that very fact is shown by the use of the symbol 'c' in setting out the reigns for Israel. It is simply being honest about the matter and I would have thought to be self-explanatory or self-evident. The 390 year period was applicable to the line of Judean kings for it was through those kings that the Promised Seed, Jesus Christ would come so the integrity of the Monarchy was essential until the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.

You raised the matter of the translation of 2Kings 17:1 as a point of issue and you are correct in doing so for that is what it is - a point of issue. Your dogmatic claim that this verse describes not the beginning but the end of Hoshea's reign based on syntax is most unwise and foolish because the matter cannot be decided by grammar but by context and that is what WT scholars have done.

In my experience with chronology over many decades has taught me at least one sobre lesson and that is that Simple is Best and that is based upon a sound principle in Philosophy- Ockham's Razor. I need say no more on this point. Your claim that 2 Kings 18:1,9,10 proves Judea and Israel were not both using Nisan-based dating systems because of the impossibility of Hezekiah's and Hosheas's reigns to have a difference of 2 years. Your assertion proves nothing for the chart (fabrication) in the Aid book reconciles the data nicely and not on the basis of different calendation but more on a sole calendation namely counting from Nisan. To prove otherwise you would need to consult with scholarship on this matter.

It is not stupid to limit the requisite of a definite chronology for the Northern Kingdom in order to construct a definite chronology for the Southern kingdom for the chronology of the Northern Kingdom is adduced from the Southern Kingdom for they are not independent chronologies. However, because of the simple fact that the Northern Kingdom was much shorter than the Southern it is simply a fact that the longer chronology would and must take precedence in establishing the 390 year period. The Bible does as you say say provide synchronisms between the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and that is what makes a chronology for both kingdoms possible. There remains a clear superiority of the Southern Kingdom over the Northern Kingdom for both historical and the theological reasons.

Regardless of any coincidence your chart and that of the WT Society are in agreement over the length of the Judean Monarchy which amounts to approx. 390 years which is not the case with most other published tabulations by leading chronologists.

My use of the Aid book is my business for it is a legitimate published work of the WTS and IMHO remains a fine piece of scholarship serving as the basis for the later published Insight On The Scriptures, 1984. Chronology is as I have previously told you on many occasions is about Methodology and Interpretation and these two principles govern any and all schemes of chronology including those proposed by celebrated WT scholars over many decades. You correctly point out the many difficulties with the beginning of the reigns of certain kings but that only confirms what caused Edwin Thiele way back in the forties to seek to harmonize and make sense of those Mysterious Numbers of the Divided Monarchy.

scholar JW

224

Another problem for JW apologists

by Jeffro in

the 2013 edition of the new world translation renders 2 kings 17:1 as:.

in the 12th year of king ahaz of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king over israel in samaria; he ruled for nine years.. this is in fact a better rendering than the previous nwt, which stated:.

in the twelfth year of ahaz the king of judah, hoshea the son of elah became king in samaria over israel for nine years.. despite their improved rendering, the watch tower society still claims that hoshea's reign 'really' began in 758 bce, but that it was 'established' in the 12th year of ahaz.

scholar

There is no fundamental difference between the NWT 2013 edition and the NWT, 1984 edition except that the latter edition states that Hoshea "he ruled" for nine years. Both editions translate the Hebrew as indicating that Hoshea began in the 12th year of Ahaz rather than ending in that year as you mistakenly allege.

The fact of the matter is that the Chart on page 1747 of the NWT, 2013 edn shows that Hoshea became king in c.758 BCE according to 2Kings 15:30 and this in the opinion of chronologists was an Interregnum up to the establishment of his reign in c.748 BCE which was the Ahaz' 12th year of vassalage under Tilgath-Pileser or the 14th year of Ahaz' actual reign.-2Kings 17:1. cf Aid to Bible Understanding,1971,p.344-5,ftn.m

Thus there is no inconsistency between the data of 2Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 17:1. The nine year reign of Hoshea as the last King of Israel ended with the Fall of Samaria in 740 BCE

The chronology for the Northern Kingdom is fraught with difficulties which has created much scholarship since the time of Thiele and that is why celebrated WT scholars have properly made a' suggested' chronology for this period. That is why ii is stated that such a scheme or outline shold not be" viewed as an absolute chronology but rather as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. In examining the chart you will see that nearly all of the reigns for the Northern Kingdom are prefixed with the Latin letter 'c' which means circa-about.

There is much divided opinion as to how the Hebrew of 2Kings 17:1 shoukd be rendered ito English. The first paper which dealt with this problem was that of Edmund Parker in his article 'A Note On The Chronology Of 2Kings 17:1' wherein he claims that Hoshea 'had reigned' rather than the' reign beginning' as NWT and most other translations adopt.

Leslie Mc Fall in his lengthy paper 'A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles' discusses the problem in greater detail and states that "The syntax of the Hebrew is more flexible than the English versions allow for it permits either a terminus a quo or a terminus ad quem". So your criticism on this verse fails.

Further, we calculate the reigns of the Judean on the Nisan to Nisan basis applying the same methodology to that of the reigns of the Kings of Israel rather than your claim and that of other scholars that Judah used the Fall system and Israel used the Spring system. Matters of such calendation are contentious. Simple is always best.

The length of the reigns for the Northern Kingdom have little to do with the 390 year period of Ezekiel because that period is applicable to Judah and provides auseful yardstick in constructing a chronology for the OT. If memory serves me correctly I believe that in your published Chronology Charts- 2004-2009 Jeffro agreed with the WTS position on this matter with a figure for the whole period approximating our position.

Your claim that JW Chronology cannot be reconciled with itself for the following passages in 2 Kings is simply bogus for our publications explain these anomalies for that is what chronologists seek to do to make sense out of the data. That is why for instance Thiele titled his research 'The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'.

scholar JW

There

272

A Video Series about 607 BC vs 587 BC

by Londo111 in

this is the main series playlist:.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=plynx0om_bmgbfmnapjr_v5fe9_pf8sqa1.

this is the accompanying video appendix:.

scholar

Ann OMaly

I choose what specific areas I wish to research not you just as you choose no to divulge your qualifications, if any and choose not to engage with directly my post or email.

You can what the areas are of conflict and agreement by reading ahat such scholars have written for it is called comparison. I do not need to make a comparison bewteen your so-called research and others because I have no confidence in what you say or your interpretation of this most contentious matter, It is best left to the experts. When you post your credentials of you both as Jonsson has referred you as scholars then you both can be taken seriously.

Yes, we call it the traditional chronology or Absolute chronology or Ne0-Babylonian chronology and Albertz simply uses the accepted date with some criticism and review at various points because there are considerable points of disagreement amongst scholars on this chronology.

Furuli is a real scholar with real degrees fully competent in the areas he is dealing with, those areas he not an expert he readily acknowledges. I am aware ofGrabb's criticism and that's fine for it is up to the reader to make a final judgement.

I do not mind being called a fool because I am in good company. If this is the case then why do you respond to my posts?

scholar JW