scholar:
the simple fact of the matter is that the concept of Exile is problematic for your hypothesis on this key portion of biblical history.
It's really not. As is clearly shown in the timeline I've already provided, I don't have any problems with the period whatsever.
Jeremiah 27 and 29 both were directly addressed to the exiled people of the first deportation and as subsequent events as described by Jeremiah later included a much larger group of detainees or exiles who were all part of the EXILE. There was then a composite group residing in Babylon from shortly after the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE right through until the Return to Judah in 537 BCE. Therefore this proves that the seventy years was indeed a period of Exile.
If you really believe that, you're an idiot. It simply isn't what the Bible says. Claiming that the 70 years at Jeremiah 29:10 refers to people not yet in Babylon makes no sense, and is even more stupid in view of the fact that there were two later deportations to Babylon (587 and 582BCE), both of which the Bible says were significantly smaller than the one in 597BCE (Jeremiah 52:28-30). The date you assert for the Jews' return is also wrong; based on the Bible, the correct year is 538BCE.
Insults do not trouble me at all but merely reflect your character and desperation in trying to enforce your interpretations onto gullible minds. LOL
If you say stupid things, I will say that they are stupid. If you don't want to be 'insulted', stop saying stupid things. I have provided detailed information for readers to discern that you are indeed wrong.
The very fact of Judah' serving' nebuchadnezzer is the very proof that in accord with both Jeremiah ch 27 and ch 29 of the Exile in Babylon for both go' hand to hand' together.
Your claim bears no resemblance at all to the context of nations serving Babylon as explitly provided in Jeremiah 25:8-11 and Jermiah 27:6-11.
All scholars have acertain bias and I did not say that Albertz or the Society of Biblical Literature supports WT chronology but what Albertz has written for he is a specialist on the subject of the Exile, bases his discussion on the Exile proper from the Fall not from the first golah.
Your habit of quoting any source that disagrees with the correct chronology even though it contradicts your own is an extremely poor technique. I have already clearly shown how the Bible indicates that nations serving Babylon does not mean exile, so Albertz is wrong. But even if he were right, you would still be wrong.
I leave it others to imagine about my motives, methodology or quality of argument for I simply care nought but what I do know that I keep you on your toes.
No one needs to imagine those things. Your motive is to cling to JW doctrines, your methodology is to report whatever seems consistent with what the Watch Tower Society says, and your quality of argument is very very poor. You don't 'keep me on my toes'. Your trite irrational posts are a mild annoyance, but they do help me demonstrate to people just how ridiculous your position is.
Also I checked Martin Anstey's Romance of Bible Chronology and his outline of Hoshea's reign and the Interregnum agres with that of WT scholars.
It's not surprising that the 'Reverend' Martin Anstey supported an old Protestant chronology (you clearly don't understand the historical development of your own religion), and 1913 is hardly modern scholarship. Anstey is wrong, but because he wasn't infected by the Watch Tower Society's spurious '20-year gap' during the Neo-Babylonian period, he wasn't as wrong as you. Because he doesn't properly account for the four years of rivalry between Jotham and Ahaz (hence Jotham's 20th year), Anstey instead makes silly claims about what the "Holy Ghost" 'chose' to record. Anstey also makes several other (incorrect) 'corrections' to the scriptures that are not consistent with Watch Tower Society chronology. I have resolved all the inconsistencies that Anstey failed to deal with.
