Mr Finkelstein
Your foul language is unnecessary. Just stick to the facts and such facts indicate that the dates 586/587 are impossible for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW emeritus
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Beth Sarim
It's just such a wonder why, most Historians and the Babylonian records/receipts adhere to the 587/586 chronology. Babylonians were excellent record keepers
----
If the Babylonians were such excellent record keepers then why is there no mention of Babylonian domination over Judah, a conquered territory for the period of 70 years?
scholar JW
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Beth Sarim
Jerusalem could not have fallen in either 586 or 587 BCE for such dates do not agree with the Bible and secular history. The date 607 BCE is the only date that fully accounts for the 70 years of Jeremiah as fully ex[plained over many decades by the celebrated WT scholars.
Carl Olaf Jonsson who wrote Gentile Times Reconsidered, the latest is the 4th edn., 2004 and fails to address fully the problem of the 70 years as a period of Exile-Servitude and Desolation and not just Babylonian supremacy or rulership and his date of 587 BCE conflicts with serious scholars who advocate 586 BCE.
scholar JW emeritus
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Anna Marina
Where is the unity Scholar? All except the Watchtower agree that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.There's even a high level of agreement that this was also the 11th year of Zedekiah
==
Unity is not the problem with the regnal data in the OT for we know what years the reigns began and ended and we know the lengths of those reigns for both the kingdom of Judah and Israel. The data for both Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah are clearly stated and we have synchronisms for the reign of Nebuchadnezzer so it easy to construct a Chronology for that period of Jewish history and a united approach to Chronology is seen in WT publications going back to the forties when the celebrated WT scholars began their research into Bible Chronology at greater depth. One such important synchronism is found in the events at Carchemish with the beginning of Neb's reign.
-----
JW's are experts in Bible Chronology and as Bible Students have been doing Chronology since the time of Pastor Russell and have solved problems for other scholars such as Edwin Thiele who struggled to harmonize the data for the Divided Monarchy still a source of many problems even up today.
scholar JW emeritus
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Finkelstein
You have presented an impressive historical summary of events describing the latter days of the Judean monarchy now the problem you have is with all this precise chronological data can you define precisely what years Jerusalem fell? Was it 586 BE the date preferred by scholars or was it 587 BCE the date preferred by Carl Olaf Jonsson?
scholar JW emeritus
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Anna Marina
The silver bullet for the apostates and other WT critics is along with the 70 textual corpus texts is Ezekiel 40:1.
LOL
scholar JW
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Anna Marina
Oh shame about Dan 1:1 being 618BCE. Never mind
-----------
Thus , it was in 618 BCE, or during the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim as a vassal of Babylon, than King Nebuchadnezzer came to Jerusalem, a second time to punish the rebellious Jehoiakim...In 618 BCE his 18 year old son Jehoiachin, succeeded him as king. But Jehoiachin's rule lasted only three months and ten days and he surrended to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 BCE- 2 Kings 24:10-15. refer Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy p.32,par5.
----------
He ruled for 3-11 years from 628 to 618 BCE you know. That's 10 years. They call it about 11.
-------
Jehoiakim reigned for about 11 years from 628-618 BCE. End of story no disunity here
--------
Have you heard this talk on spiritual unity?
-------
Many times. But where is the unity amongst the apostates and other scholars when they cannot agree as to whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BCE?
scholar JW
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Anna Marina
(2 Kings 24:12) . . .At length Je‧hoi′a‧chin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he with his mother and his servants and his princes and his court officials; and the king of Babylon got to take him in the eighth year of his being king. . .
Watchtower knows how. They make out 2 Kings 24:12 is talking about the 8th year of Jehoiachin, who only ruled for 3 months and 10 days.
No, the 8th year herein referred to is to Neb's reign as in his 8th year which events as described in 2Ki. 24:12-16 are the same as those described in Daniel 1:1-3 with all of the princes taken as captives in that year of 617BCE
scholar JW
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Finkelstein
Yes the Bible contains a detailed history of documented events and that is why WT chronology is so accurate as it alone fully accounts for the biblical 70 years of Jeremiah which began with the Fall of Jerusalem beginning the Exile and ending the Exile in 537 BCE. Neo-Babylonian Chronology does not account or document these 70 years which in turn falsifies the dates of 586 0r 587 BCE
scholar JW
-
168
Awesome Video on debunking 1914!!!!! Follow it carefully to the end!!
by Beth Sarim ini don't know if anyone has stumbled across this video, but it just blew may away.
omg!!!
just goes to show why in dubland they adhere to the 2 witness rule so adamantly and are so anal about it.
-
-
scholar
Anna Marina
Well I am certain because I know the Bible and I know that when Dan 1:1 speaks of the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rulership, it means... the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's rulership.
You are sadly mistaken in your inference for Dan.1:1 correctly rendered in the NWT refers not to the third year of Jehoiakim's reign as in most other translations but to the third year of his kingship or as you put it 'rulership' so this understanding has implications for Chronology nicely affixing 607 BCE as the correct date for the Fall of Jerusalem leading to the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 CE.
scholar JW emeritus