607, 70 years, 1914 (page 9)

scholar

Jeffro

For a third party perspective you should read Applegate's paper published in 1997 which destroys the Jonsson and your garbage theories.

scholar JW

Jeffro

For a third party perspective you should read Applegate's paper published in 1997 which destroys the Jonsson and your garbage theories.

That is really quite funny. You will clutch at anything that you imagine disagrees with me, yet the very source you espouse doesn't support your own position. It is just rediculous.

You take Applegate's statement that "Zechariah... has signs of Jeremianic influence" and draw the false conclusion that the actual subject of discussion must necessarily be the same.

You are yet to present any evidence at all for secular backing of your flawed dogma. Come back with something real, or don't come back.

In which way does Applegate's essay "destroy" the interpretation advocated by Winkle, Jonsson, Fischer, Lundbom, NJB? Having Applegate's essay at hand, I am not able to see that this essay gives any support for 607 BCE. Perhaps you can help me understand? It seems to me that Applegate contradicts the Watchtower hypothesis.

Best regards

-- Augustin --

scholar

Jeffro

scholar

Jeffro

Applegate;s article is a full exegesis of the principal seventy year texts and their relationship to Jeremiah and his principal text. Such exegesis does not support your whacky nonsense and thos of Jonsson. But you have not read this paper so how can you express any opinion?

scholar JW

scholar

Augustin

Applegate's paper is an exegesis of all of the principal seventy year texts and their relationship to Jeremiah' seventy years. It is the latest study on the subject published in 1997 and refers to all of the previous journal articles on the seventy years, it differs from the earlier studies by examining the Jeremaiac influence upon Chronicles, Daniel and Zechariah. Its interpretation of those texts does not agree with Jonsson's interpretation of those texts. Simple as that.

scholar JW

heathen

OH man I just saw this ....

Heathen
Such views by celebrated WT scholar have already been published in the leading scholarly journal, The Watchtower.
scholar JW

You mean the journal that constantly contradicts itself ? That's not a leading scholarly journal by any stretch of the imagination .

undercover

Such views by celebrated WT scholar have already been published in the leading scholarly journal, The Watchtower.

good one

and to think some of us used to take you seriously. I admit it, I was slow to catch on, but you're a funny guy.

Jeffro

Applegate;s article is a full exegesis of the principal seventy year texts and their relationship to Jeremiah and his principal text. Such exegesis does not support your whacky nonsense and thos of Jonsson. But you have not read this paper so how can you express any opinion?

You have read the article, and yet you have demonstrated that you are in no better position to defend your position than before. You make it obvious that the article does nothing to bolster your argument, so there is little reason for me to spend my valuable time to read it merely at your request.

Augustin

Neil MF,

Applegate is a liberal scholar. He most definitely does not agree with the Watchtower. Thus, if Applegates disproves Jonsson, he most certainly disproves the Watchtower as well. As to the Book of Jeremiah, the new commentaries by Fischer and Lundbom both supports Jonsson! In his commentary on Daniel, the scholar Ch. Aalders made the same observations on Dan 9:1-2 as did Jonsson. No real scholar supports the Watchtower. And, of course, no scholarly commentary on Jeremiah would support the Watchtower. And we all know why! :)

All the best

-- Augustin --

607, 70 years, 1914

Share this