‘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.