Making 607 crumble (page 10)

City Fan

Deleted - I did try and post something from Word but most of it disappeared.

City Fan

elderwho,

he threw me a curveball that I wasnt expecting it was the " 20th year of Artaxerxes" and the "70 weeks" of Daniel.

It sounds like he was trying to get the discussion away from 607.

Here's a link to Jonsson's arguments on Artaxerxes 11th year and the 70 weeks:

http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm

CF.

simwitness

simwitness
I challenge you to provide secular and biblical evidence for 586 or 587 and I do not want round about computation but direct evidence for either of those years marking in your opinion the Fall of Jerusalem.

firstly, I would ask you to pre-define exactly what you mean by "direct evidence", since any evidence I would provide would most likely not meet your loaded definition. If no "direct evidence" exists, where does the weight of the "abundant secular evidence" point?

Secondly, Plenty of evidence, both secular and biblical, has been presented to you regaurding these dates.

You have seen this evidence because you have participated in several recent threads regaurding them.

Do you need assistance with these links, or can you find the threads on your own?

I will not play this game with you... you were challenged to back up your statements about 607 and failed, even you realize that at this point with your other recent post. My challenge is easy, since the evidence has already been posted time and time again.

Have a pleasant day.

City Fan

Just as Scholar finally admits that there is no secular evidence for 607, along comes JCanon...

Gamaliel

CityFan seems to have scholar's modus operandi:

Scholar posts an assertion without any facts to back him up.

CHECK: scholar says: "There is abundant secular and biblical evidence in support of 607 as a calcuable and credible date for the Fall of Jerusalem."

Someone will then ask him to prove his assertion.

CHECK: City Fan says: "Once again, for the record, name ONE piece of secular evidence to support 607."

He then wants you to post evidence for your arguments before he will answer your question.

CHECK: scholar says: "I challenge you to provide secular and biblical evidence for 586 or 587 and I do not want round about computation but direct evidence for either of those years marking in your opinion the Fall of Jerusalem."

You post evidence for your arguments which Scholar then refutes without backing up his arguments with evidence.

Hopefully, he'll break his pattern now that the sham is up.

You then ask him again to prove his assertion.

It's a big word game with scholar. He uses every typical form of ad hominem, fallacious and specious reasoning, various diversions -- and then pretends we can't remember his 100% failure rate.

He then refuses because he says he hasn't had a satisfactory answer to his question!

I guess I should have let this one play out. Now that he's exposed again, he might have reason to change his tactics somewhat. But you are so right City Fan, this is so typical when the facts get too tough for him.

And this goes on and on and on. I've seen the same thing happen on too many threads. The best way to disprove 607 is to print off any thread where Scholar gets involved.

Absolutely true. Just click on scholar and then his Post History. You'll find 15 pages of posts so far wherein his incredible lack of scholarship and lack of honesty is displayed clearly in the majority of his 280-some-odd posts to date. The Society deserves people like him.

Gamaliel

City Fan

Gamaliel

and then pretends we can't remember his 100% failure rate.

LOL.

hillary_step

Euph,

Can we please put scholar and JCanon in a cage and make them fight it out? Please?

JCanon would spend the time measuring the distance between the bars and disagreeing with his tape measure, and Scholar would spend the time fractionally adjusting JCanons beautiful blond wig, then denying he had touched it at all. HS

LittleToe

ROFL @ Hillary
You really are on form, at the moment - ~chuckles~

ellderwho

hey LT

how you been?

Making 607 crumble

Share this