Fisherman

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 5,295 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Fisherman

• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  607-70= 537
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Some people live in a construct where fact is subjective

  Which fact?
  
  
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  If you accept 539 then you believe the conclusions of others.

  539 is a verifiable, historical fact. It is indisputable.

  If you accept WT doctrines then you believe the conclusions of others.

  Bravo!

  Now go back an re-read my first post on this thread. Isn't that what I posted?
  
  
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  Yes they have. Repeatedly

  No, they haven't.

  and you said:............

  Yes, I said I was guessing -for the last time.

  So - answer my question.

  Jan 1st 2018.

  Will you post on this forum and be man enough to admit the the JW 1914 doctrine was crap?

  For the second and final time on this thread, if my guesses turn out to be wrong, so what, it was only a guess. But show me how if I guess wrong, WT douctrines are invalid.
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  No - that's what the evidence proves.

  No it don't. That is an opinion, an interpretaion, a conclusion from the evidence.

  Tax receipts.

  You believe the conclusions of others but you don't know.

  Stop being so angry that others disagree with you.
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  And I guess it still doesn't add up to you.

  You can guess too.
  
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  So - answer my question.Jan 1st 2018.Will you post on this forum and be man enough to admit the the JW 1914 doctrine was crap?

  This thread aint about generation. That is another topic. But I already told you that I was posting guesses and my guesses are not wt doctrines. If you don like it, too bad.

  If nothing happens in 2017 and my guesses turn out to be wrong; so what? But it would not invalidate WT 's 1914 or Wt's generation or WT's interpretation of 607.
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  the copious amounts of evidence from the Neo Babylonian era does.

  That's what you and others think. Cofty already posted that 587 is agreed upon. But, WT interpretation of the Bible does not. And WT views on 607 have not been disproven.
  

  
  
  
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  @wzstick "just guessing" means what it says.

  How about you? What do you think you know? However, GTR does not prove 587.

  In another thread, "scholar" debated 587, but I see you dont like it and you get very upset when people don't agree with you, and express what they think.

  POI, relax, have a cup of tea, the world ain't coming to an end -or is it?
• 
  82

  the-question (607 BCE explained and proved)

  by pleaseresearch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Fisherman

  "silly"

  GTR is mostly commentary. However, on page 403 of the latest revision of said book, the author concedes that there is controversy disputing 587: RR Newton and scholarly support for his belief that challenges Ptolemy's observation as fabricated. - See Scientific American Oct 1977 issue page 80.