Johnamos
I wish you well in trying to, harmonize the regnal data by means of arithmetic. When you have finished this exercise then perhaps you can enlighten as to whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BCE?
scholar JW
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
notsurewheretogo
Oh scholar...that is where you are going wrong.
Better be wrong with the Bible than right with false NB Chronology
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
Johnamos
Does the WTS claim that Babylon fell in 539?
Yes indeed.
Does the WTS claim that the 70 years mentioned at Jere 25:11,12 represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination ?
Again, Yes indeed
When was that 70 year period of Babylon's greatest domination?
From 607 BCE to 537 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
Finkelstein
There has been some debate as to when Nebuchadnezzar's second siege of Jerusalem took place. There is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), but William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BC, but Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[2]
Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which he asserts was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year that Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, that would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.
------
Big problem here. please explain
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
Mr. Finkelstein
The apostate Scholar has put biased blinders on his head and rebuked all or any information that doesn't fall inline with the WTS's dating of 607 and the dating of 1914
---
False. Scholar has studied this subject in depth over many decades and has read all opposing arguments to the contrary unlike yourself, Beth Sarim and others. It seems that when the chips are down you run off like scared rabbits.
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
I am big on seriousness, seriously. The said scholar has viewed your nonsense via video and I should inform you that I have studied Koine Greek with leading International Greek scholars so this has given me a broad perspective when it comes to such a matter of the meaning and theology of the Parousia nicely grounded in Eschatology properly beginning with the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 CE.
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
Mr. Finkelstein, Anna Marina, Beth Sarim and others
Please be aware that I have debated subjects such as 607, Gentile Times, 1914 on this forum for many years and unlike other JW apologists I consult and use not just WT publications but leading Bible Commentaries and as an Alumni have free access to leading academic institutions all over the world which means I have access to theses, dissertations, and more important scholarly journals.
Further, the matter of 607 was first argued against in Australia and not Sweden where C.O. Jonsson resides and such debates first originated with SDA apologists here in Australia going back to the fifties and I acknowledge the work of my acquaintance Doug Mason who has kindly provided access to some of these resources.
Also, a couple of years ago I completed and obtained a Certificate of completion for the online course 'The Rise and Fall of Jerusalem' by Tel Aviv University so such a course based on the textbook by Obed Lipschits gave me insights into the history and archaeology of that late Judean period.
Enjoy!!
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
Mr. Finkelstein
The debate is about what year did Jerusalem fall or was destroyed the WTS says 607 BCE, the facts and accumulative evidence say 586 BCE.
Nebuchadnezzar's annexation over Judea lasted approximately 68 years close to 70
----
What facts? The only relevant facts are contained in the Biblical record and the facts do not support 586 or 587 but only 607 BCE for the Fall because this date is the only one that fully accounts for the biblically, factual period of 70 years.
If Neb's annexation was as you say 68 years then that is not 70 years so clearly you have a BIG problem so you should alter your viewpoint.
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
Beth Sarim
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?
--
Why don't you buy it?
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
"Nice intellectually dishonest assertion there Scholar but we already heard that from the notably lying and corrupt men of the WTS/JWorg
----
Please explain.
scholar JW