by FaceTheFacts 259 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Note also that JW literature assigns 609 for the beginning of the siege that they have ending in 607, though the real beginning was Januay 598BCE. They do correctly state that it was an 18-month siege, and they have it ending in July 607, but they start it in 609BCE anyway. I haven't worked out their logic there.
598 above is a typo. Should be 588. Sorry for any confusion.
Regarding previous post, on closer consideration, dating does allow for late December 589 rather than January 588 for the beginning of the siege. That paragraph (the one that had the typo) can therefore be ignored. This has no impact on the other information provided.
Amended image:
One has to wonder why an individual would continue arguing his case and even introducing new arguments when the opponent is obviously unable to write a defense of it? Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. The only one you're trying to convince is yourself.
@DDog
@FTF
check your inbox for PM
QC, back at ya..
I knew he wouldn't be able to keep away.
The opening post on this thread and the thread that was started to gauge interest was an invitation to discuss a book and its contents. Jeffro is stiil discussing the book and its contents, as are others. If you as FaceTheFacts left the discussion, that is your decision. As far as I am aware Jeffro and anyone else is allowed to continue a discussion. Maybe keep that in mind next time you start another thread and are outlining the rules for the discussion. Maybe something like "When I as the Opening Poster leave the discussion, this means the discussion is at an end and no more discussion can take place."
C'mon man, are you still trying to convince people you are a new user? As I asked before, please show us your first 5 posts.
EVIDENTLY Jeffro is not the one having trouble with reality.
This one is for disillusioned ULWT.
I debated with this guy as "ThirdWitness" some years ago on the surviving H2O forum (which by then was mainly JWs) under my old moniker "Ros." I refuted his chronology arguments straight from scripture, and he ignored those points while trying to flood the discussion with so much that it would take hours and hours and hours to respond to one of his posts, so long that most would not bother to read it. That's his technique for claiming to win the debate.
I maintained then and now: You do not change a person's mind by proving them wrong.
Debating with JWs or any other ideology a person has committed to "belief" (including Christian or atheism) is a waste of valuable time imo.
In this guy's case, the shear volume of stuff he puts out there in a single post for you to refute is your first clue. But . . . he get's to claim a lot of time in the service. :-)
~Binadub
UnapologeticLWT:
One has to wonder why an individual would continue arguing his case and even introducing new arguments when the opponent is obviously unable to write a defense of it? Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. The only one you're trying to convince is yourself.
What a retarded response.
It would be amusing to hear your attempts at debunking BM21946, which will basically consist of, "well... it must just be wrong... so there."
Winston Smith:
Jeffro is stiil discussing the book and its contents,
In fairness, I can't really say I'm discussing the book, because I've never read it. I am only presenting my own research on the matter, based on direct study of the source material (i.e. the Bible, Babylonian chronicles, etc). However, as the book is somewhat authoritative on the matter, it's quite unlikely that there would many points I would raise that are not covered in the book.
