How Will They End 1914 Teaching? (page 15)

scholar

Jeffro

😂 You claim to understand this subject but you need every little thing explained. 🤦‍♂️ Parroting the number of lines on the tablet is pointless when it is obvious that you don’t understand the content or how publication of the tablet aided with establishing the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar. I have sufficiently shown other readers the depth of your cognitive dissonance for now. You may go.

----

No . What I require from you is an explanation or the entering into a respectful dialogue. I have a copy of a translation into English of this clay tablet. You have made certain claims about this tablet that in some way supports 587 BCE and I have said that this document supports 607 BCE. So, we have a 'Mexican standoff' and that is fine with me. The document clearly identifies events and regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar but it is open to a historical reconstruction relating it to parallel events of the biblical record. Plain and simple. So the challenge is for you to provide clear instruction as to how this document supports 587 BCE. Can you or will you do this and help the said scholar?

scholar JW

Jeffro

I don’t care what you ‘require’, nor about your tedious misrepresentation of what I said. Your nutty 607 doctrine is thoroughly wrong from every angle. You’re clearly beyond help, as recently demonstrated by your pitifully sad ‘interpretation’ of Babylon’s 70 years at Jeremiah 25:11. This isn’t some balanced difference of opinion open for ‘dialogue’. Your unfounded position is thoroughly wrong. You can go away until I feel like trouncing you at another juncture.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

You have made certain claims about this tablet that in some way supports 587 BCE and I have said that this document supports 607 BCE.

Poor ‘scholar’ seems oblivious to the fact that asserting BM 21946 supports 607 BCE (without any possibility of 606 or 608) only reinforces the fact that there is no ambiguity regarding the correct identification of 587 when the erroneous 20-year gap in JW chronology is removed. 😂

Of course, on its own BM 21946 doesn’t say anything about Jerusalem’s destruction at all. But when the biblical chronology is considered in light of the dating of the first siege identified in BM 21946 (not to mention all the other contemporary records of the neo-Babylonian period), 587 BCE is confirmed as the correct year.

When dealing with someone who thinks ‘all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years’ really means ‘70 years of Jewish exile’, there is no point trying to engage that person logically. But other readers can see the JW nonsense for what it is.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Go away and play with your pretty charts and lose yourself in a tangled web of fantasy.

Notice how ‘scholar’ dismissively refers to ‘pretty charts’ and (in other posts) ambiguous complaints about ‘methodology’ but does not rebut any specific content. If he were confident in his position, or at least sincere, he could instead go through point by point, indicating specific problems. 586 or 587?

But at the crux of every debate with ‘scholar’, you’ll always end up at ‘that doesn’t account for the 70 years of exile [that isn’t mentioned anywhere]’.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

No problem for its an explanation of the servitude of Judah principally for 70 years commensurate with other nations which at that time Babylon was the World Power inaugurated in 607 BCE.

Ah yes, the JW (Adventist) doctrine of the ‘march of the World Powers’. Except, in their own doctrine, the World Power immediately before Babylon was… Assyria. And Babylon’s final conquest of Assyria was in… 609 BCE. This is completely consistent with all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years until it was conquered by Persia in 539 BCE. Even though this could be presented as some remarkable ‘fulfilment of Bible prophecy’ (though the texts were heavily edited after the events), this is not convenient for JW dogma. What a tangled web of fantasy indeed. 😂

scholar

Jeffro

I don’t care what you ‘require’, nor about your tedious misrepresentation of what I said. Your nutty 607 doctrine is thoroughly wrong from every angle. You’re clearly beyond help, as recently demonstrated by your pitifully sad ‘interpretation’ of Babylon’s 70 years at Jeremiah 25:11. This isn’t some balanced difference of opinion open for ‘dialogue’. Your unfounded position is thoroughly wrong. You can go away until I feel like trouncing you at another juncture.

--

The only thing that I require from you is 'put up or shut up'. Your nutty repetition of the viewpoint of 587 BCE is biblically false. Your interpretation of Jer. 25:11 is simply that and does not accurately represent the context of the text, the other 70 year textual corpus and the fact of the Exile for starters. Your position conflicts with the Bible and is simply a repetition of COJ's thesis and that of 7th Day Adventist scholars from the fifties.

scholar JW

scholar

Jeffro

Poor ‘scholar’ seems oblivious to the fact that asserting BM 21946 supports 607 BCE (without any possibility of 606 or 608) only reinforces the fact that there is no ambiguity regarding the correct identification of 587 when the erroneous 20-year gap in JW chronology is removed. 😂

---

The military campaigns of Neb which are set out in BM 21946 do not support 587 BCE directly but simply provide a background for Neb's campaigns into Judah which are described in the Bible. Such synchronisms enable a Chronologist to construct a scheme of dates that reflects both historical narratives. Thus, by comparison, one can establish the fact of a 20-year difference between Bible Chronology and NB Chronology when fine-tuned results in 607 rather than 587 BCE.

----

Of course, on its own BM 21946 doesn’t say anything about Jerusalem’s destruction at all. But when the biblical chronology is considered in light of the dating of the first siege identified in BM 21946 (not to mention all the other contemporary records of the neo-Babylonian period), 587 BCE is confirmed as the correct year.

---

Correct! This is where you err in making invalid claims about Neb's first siege described in this tablet. For such a description supports 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE as a proper understanding of events described in the tablet itself proves.

---

When dealing with someone who thinks ‘all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years’ really means ‘70 years of Jewish exile’, there is no point trying to engage that person logically. But other readers can see the JW nonsense for what it is.

---

The fact that nations are brought into servitude to a foreign, invading power namely Babylon and conducts deportations of its citizenry to another land would mean Exile which is in fact what happened to the Judahites. Thus the term 'Jewish Exile' or 'Babylonian Exile' is a perfect descriptor of that event and period of history so we can properly label the 70 years as a period of servitude and Exile as described in Jer. 25:11.

scholar JW

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️ just go away. 607 is complete nonsense. Completely debunked with no historical or biblical support whatsoever. You’re dogged efforts at defending the belief are laughable and embarrassing.

This is where you err in making invalid claims about Neb's first siege described in this tablet. For such a description supports 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE as a proper understanding of events described in the tablet itself proves.

Complete nonsense. The erroneous 20-year gap in JW dogma isn’t in any way supported or addressed in BM 21946 as most of the events are simply pushed back 20 years and the tablet doesn’t reference absolute years, only events relative to years of reign. But the erroneous JW interpretation of ‘kingship’ as ‘vassalage’ does conflict with events of Nebuchadnezzar’s 5th year as indicated in the tablet. But this seems to beyond your ability to comprehend. You are hopeless at this.

scholar

Jeffro

Notice how ‘scholar’ dismissively refers to ‘pretty charts’ and (in other posts) ambiguous complaints about ‘methodology’ but does not rebut any specific content. If he were confident in his position, or at least sincere, he could instead go through point by point, indicating specific problems.

---

Notice how Jeffro ignores 'scholars' requests for detail and proof when he makes assertions by means of pretty coloured charts and dismisses the role that methodology plays in Chronology maintaining a rather dogmatic position rather than weighing up other alternatives.

---

But at the crux of every debate with ‘scholar’, you’ll always end up at ‘that doesn’t account for the 70 years of exile [that isn’t mentioned anywhere]’.

--

This is plain and utter nonsense for one of the themes of the OT is the fact of the Exile. Has not Jeffro heard or read a Bible concordance that uses the word and lists its many locations throughout the OT, especially in the book Jeremiah.

scholar JW

scholar

Jeffro

Ah yes, the JW (Adventist) doctrine of the ‘march of the World Powers’. Except, in their own doctrine, the World Power immediately before Babylon was… Assyria. And Babylon’s final conquest of Assyria was in… 609 BCE. This is completely consistent with all the nations serving Babylon for 70 years until it was conquered by Persia in 539 BCE. Even though this could be presented as some remarkable ‘fulfilment of Bible prophecy’ (though the texts were heavily edited after the events), this is not convenient for JW dogma. What a tangled web of fantasy indeed. 😂

---

So, it seems that you are arguing for 609 BCE? as the beginning of the 70 years with the Fall of Assyria. This is plain and utter nonsense because Jeremiah the prophet who prophesied about a future 70 years was uttered after the Fall of Assyria in fact it was in Jehoiakim, King of Judah in his 4th year and in Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon in his 1st year calculated as 625/624 BCE according to Bible Chronology. It was not until Neb invaded Judah and dethroned the reigning monarch, King Zedekiah, the last king of Judah with the Fall of Jerusalem causing the Exile that that prophecy began to be fulfilled in 607 BCE.

---

scholar JW

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

Share this