Jeffro
đ¤Śââď¸ Given his ineptness, Iâm not really surprised that âscholarâ is waiting for something that was never suggested and isnât the purpose of BM 21946, while glossing over the fact that it contradicts JW chronology during the actual period that the tablet addresses. He probably doesnât even understand what the contradiction is. Pathetic.
---
It was you not me that introduced BM 21946 into this discussion on the understanding that in some way this clay tablet contains information in support of 587 BCE. Conversely, I would argue on the basis of this tablet which by the way is one of the 17 lines of evidence used by COJ to disprove 607 BCE in favour of 587 BCE that the 23 lines on the front side and the 25 lines on its reverse side favour 607 BCE rather than 597 BCE. Yet you talk about me being pathetic, Go away and play with your pretty charts and lose yourself in a tangled web of fantasy.
scholar JW