Longlivetherenegades:
Where in the Bible can you show me word for word Chislev 1st 607 BCE. Where?đ
No need to go that far. He canât even show the verse that say â70 years of exileâ đ
i'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 .
Longlivetherenegades:
Where in the Bible can you show me word for word Chislev 1st 607 BCE. Where?đ
No need to go that far. He canât even show the verse that say â70 years of exileâ đ
i'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 .
I owe you no explanations. Several threads on this forum are awaiting responses from you. You previously repeatedly refused to address them.
I have already provided information confirming 587 BCE is the correct year based on details in the Bible and the known chronology of Nebuchadnezzarâs reign.
i'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 .
đ¤Śââď¸
âscholarâ:
Prove it. I have a copy of BM 21946 so list the reasons for your stupid claim and I will argue that this tablet proves 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE
Huh? The tablet confirms the placement of the first siege in early 597 BCE, and other additional information from the Bible confirms the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. BM 21946 does not itself confirm the year of Jerusalemâs destruction at all. But feel free to present your trite case for this idiotic claim that you can prove 607 from BM 21946. đ
And the tablet also contradicts the Watch Tower Societyâs interpretation of the events in the early part of Nebuchadnezzarâs reign.
i'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 .
âscholarâ:
Thus current scholarship as shown by many reference works that 586 BCE remains the best candidate.
The assignment of 586 BCE is based on Thiele from the 1940s. 586 is still frequently parroted, but modern scholarship, particularly after the publication of BM21946, favours 587 BCE.
i'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 .
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
i'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 .
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.
i'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 .
đ¤Śââď¸ fallacy: argument from popular opinion, also a straw man argument
i'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 .
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.
i'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 .
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
i'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 .
Poor âscholarâ. Always on the back foot and spouting unsupported drivel.