đ¤Śââď¸so⌠basically⌠âhow can it be a year that is universally recognised as one of the possible years? It must instead be a year that is universally rejected by scholars based on an interpretation that isnât directly stated anywhereâ. Do you even listen to yourself? đ
Posts by Jeffro
-
282How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
The correct year is definitively 587 BCE based on the Bible and extant contemporary documentation. You like to muddy the waters by saying nonsense like â587/586 or 588â but the reality is that 607 is definitely wrong and that fact wouldnât be altered even if the correct year were not exactly known.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
đ¤Śââď¸ fallacy: argument from popular opinion, also a straw man argument
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
âscholarâ:
According to Open AI the date 586 triumphs over 587
đ¤Śââď¸ Aggregated data doesnât actually make AI results magical. The reasons for various sources saying 586 is more traditional than factual, ultimately based on outdated (pre-1950s) assumptions about the years of Nebuchadnezzarâs reign. 587 is definitely the correct year.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
âscholarâ:
Nonsense. Jer.52: 28 refers to the first deportation and not the 2nd deportation of Jews in Neb's 7th year in agreement with BM 21946.
Jer. 52:29 refers to a later deportation of Jews or second deportation of Jews in Neb's 18th year which formed part of Neb's final siege of Jerusalem ending in 607 BCE
This means rather than there being three deportations of Jews taken into Exile according to COJ there were only two deportations of Jews into Exile according to the Biblical record of 2 Ki.24.How can you be so completely wrong at every turn? đ Firstly, yes verse 28 refers to the first deportation and 29 refers to the second, which is plainly stated in the passage. đ¤Śââď¸ And, as I correctly stated, these verses confirm the placement of the end of the second siege relative to the first. đ Secondly, 607 is hopelessly wrong no matter how many times you say it, as clearly evidenced by the fact that there are contemporary records for every single year, explicitly including every transition of the known kings. Thirdly, BM 21946 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar collected tributes throughout Palestine in early 604BCE, which could have included captives (though because Daniel is fictitious it isnât strictly necessary that captives were included). Fourthly, though it isnât strictly necessary that there was a âdeportationâ in Nebuchadnezzarâs accession year, Jeremiah 52:30 does indicate a later third deportation in 582 BCE so youâre wrong anyway. đ
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
Poor âscholarâ. Always on the back foot and spouting unsupported drivel.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
Phizzy:
I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.
Well, yeah. It is only âbased on the Bibleâ in the most superficial sense. In reality, their âreasoningâ is a jumbled mess of unrelated passages without regard to the actual context of any of them.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
đ¤Śââď¸
1914 is just one of many dates proposed by Adventists following the great disappointment. It is complete nonsense, and the convoluted selection of â2520 yearsâ doesnât even have any direct biblical basis.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
âscholarâ:
The problem with your opinion and charts comes down to Methodology and that has now been recognized by Chronologists such as Rodger Young who first introduced the term into scholarly journals in his advocacy of 587 BCE by means of the use of Decision Tables Analysis. But again Young fails to account for the Jewish Exile even though he has produced studies on the Jewish Sabbaths and Jubille.
Irrelevant misdirection. Though Youngâs method is sound, BM21946 definitively identifies the placement of the first siege relative to Nebuchadnezzarâs reign. Jeremiah 52:28-29 definitively identifies the placement of the final siege relative to the first siege.
The period of 49 years from the destruction of Jerusalem until the Jewsâ return does indeed fit very well with the concept of jubilee years and paying off sabbaths from Leviticus though.
-
282
How Will They End 1914 Teaching?
by EmptyInside ini'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
-
-
Jeffro
âscholarâ:
The jokes on you as you do not recognize the fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years which falsifies your laughable 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem
đ Yes, the âjokesâ is âon meâ and the entire scholarly community because a minor Adventist sect insists on an alternative date for a historical event đ¤Śââď¸. This is called delusion.
And letâs not pretend that there is any source mentioning 70 years of exile. The Jews were exiled from early 597BCE and some returned in 538 BCE. Many never left Babylon at all.