i 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.
Finkelstein
Interesting that the WTS takes only certain writings in the bible (Daniel's vision 70 years) to support their claim of 607 BCE but reject or dismiss all other pertaining scriptures
---
What a stupid statement to make for one only has to read WT publications in relation to the 70 years to see that we refer To Chronicles, Daniel. Jeremiah and Zechariah all these texts support fully our interpretation of the 70 years as a period of servitude-exile and desolation.
scholar JW
i 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.
Johnamos
if you are looking at the perspective of the 70 years then that could only have applied in Zedekiah's time ending his reign in 607 BCE.
If you discount the 70 years then Babylonish domination would have begun according to Dan 1:1 in the third year of his kingship during the reign of Jehoiakim when his vassalage to Neb would have commenced in 617 BCE.
Nice and easy
scholar JW
announcement:.
the following outlines should be presented in the christian life and ministry meeting during the dates specified below.
please assign a qualified elder to apply the material locally.
Atlantis
Please forward same to my pm inbox
Thanks
scholar
2020-july-s-147-announcements and reminders.. english and german.. those on the email list have already received this.
if your not on the email list, reply below that you would like a link sent to your pm box.. petra!.
Atlantis
Please forward same to my pm inbox
Thanks
scholar
i 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.
johnamos
587
===
The majority opinion is 586?
====
How was Babylon dominating in 538 & 537 if it fell in 539?
====
Simple, because Babylonish domination over Judah only lasted until the Jews were released from servitude to Babylon under the new King of Babylon, King Cyrus in 537 BCE
-----
When did the 70 years for Tyre begin/end?
====
The history of Tyre in respects to this matter in unknown but it most likely occurred during the period from 607/606 BCE to 537/536 BCE.
scholar JW
i 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.
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
i 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.
notsurewheretogo
Oh scholar...that is where you are going wrong.
Better be wrong with the Bible than right with false NB Chronology
scholar JW
i 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.
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
i 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.
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
i 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.
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
