by EmptyInside 282 Replies latest watchtower bible
None of the above contains a verse -70 years of Babylon's domination as requested.
scholar JW
Huh???? Full on Cognitive Dissonance right there folks.
these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.
Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination
But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
‘scholar’:
You first made the claim that BM 21946 supports 587 BCE rather than 607 BCE
I never actually said that at all, and I initially thought the inept ‘scholar’ was simply lying. But it occurs to me that he was just confused about my correct statement that modern scholarship (as opposed to modern parroting of older scholarship) favours 587BCE because I included a parenthetical clause that this is particularly since the publication of BM 21946 established dating for earlier events in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. He really is quite tedious. 🤦♂️
Jeffro
I never actually said that at all, and I initially thought the inept ‘scholar’ was simply lying. But it occurs to me that he was just confused about my correct statement that modern scholarship (as opposed to modern parroting of older scholarship) favours 587BCE because I included a parenthetical clause that this is particularly since the publication of BM 21946 established dating for earlier events in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. He really is quite tedious. 🤦♂️
--
It is like this. You make a claim about the BM 21946 that it supports 587 CE which I reject because I claim that the Babylonian Chronicle supports 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE. Scholarship whether modern or older has no consensus regarding a specific date for the Fall of Jerusalem with such proposed dates as 586, 587 or 588 BCE. Now is that simple for you?
scholar JW
Jeffro
Poor ‘scholar’, addled by years of the Watch Tower Society misrepresenting the Bible, can’t understand what ‘all the nations serving Babylon’ means. The context of 70 years of all the nations serving Babylon is quite clear, and Jeremiah’s description of the ‘yoke’ even more so.
Even the Watch Tower Society’s own Isaiah commentary recognises that it is 70 years of Babylon’s dominance. 😂
Poor pitiful ‘scholar’.
---
The said scholar has never denied the fact of Jewish servitude to Babylon and that of other nations. and that in the case of Tyre (domination), it was for 70 years as it was for the Jews which period of servitude was in fact the Exile- Babylonian Exile. In fact, the said scholar has long argued that the 70 years were of three elements: Servitude to Babylon-Exile in Babylon- Desolation of Judah by Babylon.
scholar JW
how will wt end the 1914 mess?
the way they started it, by false prophecies.
‘scholar’:
It is like this. You make a claim about the BM 21946 that it supports 587 CE which I reject because I claim that the Babylonian Chronicle supports 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE.
You’re seriously doubling down on this nonsense? I didn’t make any such claim. BM21946 does not directly support Jerusalem’s destruction in 587BCE, because it doesn’t mention that siege at all. Because 607 is definitely wrong, the tablet naturally doesn’t support that year either.
The correct year is 587BCE. Repetition of Thiele’s dating from the 1940s does not trump the fact that the source material, including the Bible, BM21946 and thousands of contemporary cuneiform records, only allows for the event occurring in 587BCE.
‘scholar’:
In fact, the said scholar has long argued that the 70 years were of three elements: Servitude to Babylon-Exile in Babylon- Desolation of Judah by Babylon.
Yes, we’re painfully aware of your frequently repeated parroting of Adventist nonsense that distorts the clearly stated application of the Bible’s references to all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years until it was conquered by the Persians. 🤦♂️ 🙄
Jeffro
You’re seriously doubling down on this nonsense? I didn’t make any such claim. BM21946 does not directly support Jerusalem’s destruction in 587BCE, because it doesn’t mention that siege at all. Because 607 is definitely wrong, the tablet naturally doesn’t support that year either.
--
I know that and I am fully aware of the significance of this document to the dating of the Fall of Jerusalem whether it is 587 or 607 BCE.
--
The correct year is 587BCE. Repetition of Thiele’s dating from the 1940s does not trump the fact that the source material, including the Bible, BM21946 and thousands of contemporary cuneiform records, only allows for the event occurring in 587BCE.
---
The correct year is 607 BCE and not 587 or any other year. Thiele, even today is the 'go-to man' in respect of Bible Chronology and he advocated 586 BCE which remains widely accepted even today. So do not make your problem my problem. And again, BM 21946 does not support 587 but supports the biblical date of 607 BCE as its historical outline of Neb's foray into the Hattu land clearly proves.
scholar JW
Jeffro
Yes, we’re painfully aware of your frequently repeated parroting of Adventist nonsense that distorts the clearly stated application of the Bible’s references to all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years until it was conquered by the Persians. 🤦♂️ 🙄
--
Adventists do not have this belief of the '70 years' but share an identical belief to that of COJ and yourself. Further, the text does not mean that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years but Judah alone would serve Babylon for 70 years along with the other nations who would be in servitude to Babylon concurrently.
scholar JW
Some people like Scholar it's best they quit while they're ahead.
Clearly outnumbered, without a leg to stand on and repeating themselves.
