Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals (page 44)

isaacaustin

Sounds like Ethos method of trying to defend JW BS is not even using canned arguments...its just lying about what others said.

Witness My Fury

I'm smelling hostility and fear, not to mention a whole heap of bullshit.

Ethos you really are terrible at this, unless of course your plan is to appear to be just that in order for eveyone to give up bothering to reply to you at all so that you can then claim ...what exactly, ..victory? If so you are even more deluded than you already appear to be.

Ethos

You can adduce from her statement that the servitude didnt begin UNTIL Neb took captives, which shows she agrees the servitude has a connotation of slavery. Her argument about ebed was a strawman as the context determines what abad and abodah means and the context shows it means slavery and work as the scholars have explicitly said SPECIFICALLY regarding Jeremiah 25:11. I dont know how you can argue with Strong's concordance and then say I've lost all grip of reality. I dont know how you can refute your own chronology by saying the servitude began in 605 and not in 609. And I dont understand how you can use Josephus as the final authority and then not acknowledge his own statements completely debunk your own chronology.

Jeffro and AnnoMaly thank you for making this even easier than it already was by refuting your own chronology. Jeffro should start saying to himself: "Youre really NOT good at this."

never a jw

Ethos,

After your failed attempts to make a strong argument or persuade the feeblest mind, have you considered changing Ethos to a more suitable name, Bathos perhaps. Given your unethical methods of argumentation, Ethos is definitely a misnomer.

jgnat

I am going to waste a post to declare my intention to prepare a summary of this thread.

jgnat

Absent the rhetoric. I might even have a diagram. Original production, no copying or pasting involved.

AnnOMaly

Sounds like Ethos method of trying to defend JW BS is not even using canned arguments...its just lying about what others said.

Yep, isaacaustin. This has become one of Ethos's MOs. What else can he do? He can't engage honestly or reasonably with the rebuttals and refutations of his arguments so he,

1. misconstrues and distorts what posters have said,

2. attributes to posters statements that are his own invention,

3. quote-mines without understanding the authors' intent or how they properly apply the 70 years,

4. avoids providing quality evidence for his position,

5. ignores questions and arguments that counter his assertions,

6. repeatedly shouts about having scholarly support for certain positions when it's already been demonstrated over and over that he doesn't have,

7. imagines himself to have debunked the opposition, vindicating the WTS chronology.

The behavior of a desperate man who has failed, all the way from page one, to present a decent case and who cannot find an honorable way out of his mess.

never a jw - I favor 'Pathos.'

isaacaustin

pathethicos, Your whole 'argument' has been a and paste of apologist sites refuted many times over in the past...your own assertions, and simply lying about what others said. If you want answers I'd suggest you review past threads on this site about this...I doubt you are really looking for answers though.

never a jw

AnnOMaly,

I finished completing the tables for years 588/587 BCE (real Babylonian calendar) and 588/587 (Furulli's fabrication). Since I had disagreements with you and professor Hunger as to the dates to choose for Furulli's calendar, I included your dates, my dates and professor Hunger's dates. Since I am a neophyte in astronomy and neo-Babylonian studies, I have to defer to you and Mr. Hunger. Regardless, the results for any of Furulli's dates or around his suggested dates are abysmal. I will post the results later in the thread where you posted my first table. My calculations using your dates are very similar to your own calculations.

AnnOMaly

I will post the results later in the thread where you posted my first table.

Look forward to viewing them

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

Share this