Gamaliel
You have posted two rather lenghty posts concerning my earlier and present comments on chronology and the subject to hand. Let me make some points respecting chronology and my reponses to the past dialoque. I have no intention of running away fro such issues as these will all resurface from time to time and I will be taking a more powerful assault against the attempts to invalidate the Society's chronology. At present I have been having a discussion with Carl Jonsson concerning a issue which I will believe completely disredits the Jonsson hypothesis, once this is finished then I have a responsibility to the Readers of that hypothesis to fully inform them so that they can make an informed judgement about the credibility of the treatise that you speak of and in published form known as GTR
Upon researching the facts of the matter I am of the considered view that anyone who has read the treatise and the GTR and has been caused to convert to it is weak minded. I do not believe for a moment that the greatest Bible scholar who has ever lived namely Frederick William Franz was affected by it. Like myself he would have regarded such revisionist chronology as simply rubbish saying nothing more than what scholars have said abot chronology over the last century being influenced by higher criticism.
No evidence biblical or secular can discredit the date 607 and the prophetic significance with 1914. The whole Jonsson hypothesis rests upon one scripture and the translation of a preposition. I for one am not prepared to base my faith on such a slim proposition. I want to base my faith on a chronology that has substance, nourishes theology, and prophecy. The true chronology is ALIVE not dead and moribund.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion