MemberPost
587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by patio34 on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Nocturne on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Sunspot on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by wednesday on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by minimus on

FarkelRe: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads


wednesday,

: the jews were in bondage to babylon 70 yrs. he says if u go form 539 -(using ancient rule) u get 609-or thereabouts. being off 2 yrs is not bad.

: so he says all the other stiff does not matter.

Because of the specific claims made by the Watchtower, "being close" only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes. Being off by "only" 2 years trashes the 1914 "invisible reign" doctrine, the 1918 "invisible resurrection" doctrine and most importantly, the 1919 invisible "only we speak for God" doctrine which is the cornerstone of the Watchtower's claim to spiritual knowledge and authority.

Besides, that the WTS itself uses that same Kingly assession reasoning to "prove" the 607 B.C. date. The only difference is they claim that "Evil Duck" began reigning in 581 B.C., not 562 B.C. as their very own literature shows. This "pushes" back the date of Jerusalem's destruction to make it fit with WTS dogma.

Your hubby is using a logical fallacy called "special pleading," where he wants us to ignore some faked evidence put forward by the WTS and accept other faked evidence put forward by the WTS.

A classic example of special pleading is this statement: "Please don't convict me for killing my parents, your Honor. After all, I'm an orphan now."

Farkel
IP: PwvQlwW6iePQRl36 by Farkel: Correct formatting
by Farkel: Correct formatting

Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by XQsThaiPoes on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by mustang on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Sunspot on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by johnny cip on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ohiocowboy on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by bjc2read on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by finallyspringlol on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ros on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by scholar on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by XQsThaiPoes on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by peacefulpete on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Carmel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Atilla on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ros on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by VM44 on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by boa on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by stillajwexelder on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Alleymom on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Alleymom on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by toreador on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ros on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Thirdson on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Sunspot on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by link on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by gumby on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Mac on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by scholar on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by gumby on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by confusedjw on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Sunspot on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by confusedjw on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by iiz2cool on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by undercover on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by confusedjw on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by confusedjw on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by scholar on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by confusedjw on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by undercover on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ros on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by toreador on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Alleymom on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by gumby on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by City Fan on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ellderwho on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Dansk on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by ros on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Celia on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by gumby on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by JCanon on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Farkel on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by nicolaou on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by GetBusyLiving on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by apologist on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by AlanF on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by Lady Liberty on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by under_believer on
Re: 587 BC for Total Dunderheads by NanaR on