dannywarm

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 2 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dannywarm

• 
  10

  How 539 BCE is calculated

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the wts accepts the date 539 bce for the fall of babylon.

  but they do not accept the absolute date that is used to calculate the date of the fall.. here is a picture that illustrates the wtss problem.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/why_historians_know_babylon_fell_in_539_bce.pdf.

  if you have difficulties with the colours i use in my drawings and my colour combinations, i apologise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dannywarm

  Dear Doug: You have invested a lot of time in order to explain me your argument. I appreciate that... But with a lot of respect I think you get to a point where you can't see the wood for the trees. I mean you are loosing the big true for little details. So, from your point of view if the WTS does not have the True where is that?? Sincerly Danny
• 
  10

  How 539 BCE is calculated

  by Doug Mason in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the wts accepts the date 539 bce for the fall of babylon.

  but they do not accept the absolute date that is used to calculate the date of the fall.. here is a picture that illustrates the wtss problem.. http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/why_historians_know_babylon_fell_in_539_bce.pdf.

  if you have difficulties with the colours i use in my drawings and my colour combinations, i apologise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dannywarm

  Dear Doug:

  It is the most simple way that anyone can understand that...but why did you write "Here is a picture that illustrates the WTS’s problem" in a forum?. I think you should have written "Historians´s problem", should not you?

  Best Regards

  Danny