Dear THEKINGS,
Welcome. Let me get this straight.. You said your Mom admitted 607 was NOT the date of Jerusalems destruction right?? And that she agreed it was destroyed in 587, correct? But her response when cornered was that it didn't matter??
Well, I hate to break it to her, but you cannot have 1914, if you don't have 607 as being the date of Jerusalems destruction. It is critical to the organizations teachings. The date 607 is critical to getting to their date of 1914. The Society teaches the destruction was in 607..not 587. Why is that?? Why don't they teach it like it really is?? Because if they take away 607 and replace it with the real date of 587, they have no foundation for thier 1914 teaching. (And as I will show you below, even withtheir dates, it still doesn't add up to 1914 if you figure it out).
She is using the seven times explanation, which by the way makes NO sence. The organization teaches, ( I hope I get this straight, correct me if I am wrong someone ) that you take the formula from several scriptures, and you don't use a 365 day year but a 360 day year..( and why is that?? Because you don't get 2,520 years with using a 365 day a year formula.) So you take 7 times... times that by 360 days in a year and you get 2,520 years. (Go figure, I could barely understand it, even using a publication, that's why I am foggy on it now). So you supposedly take 607 and somehow get to 1914 using 2,520 years.
HOWEVER...... Just a while ago Leolaia posted this on a whole thread about 2,520 years. Here is what she pointed out:
There was no such thing as a "prophetic calendar". The texts in Daniel (e.g. 7:25, 10:4, 12:11-12; note that 4:16, 32 makes no allusion to calendrical details like the other texts) and Revelation (11:2-3, 12:6, 14) instead reflect the priestly solar calendar which was followed by the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the authors of the Book of Luminaries of 1 Enoch and Jubilees. It had twelve months of 30 days each, which were arranged in four seasons of equal length; thus Revelation 11:2-3 correctly states that 1,260 days equalled 42 months. The actual length of the year however was 364 days (instead of 360 days) since in between the seasons were the intercalary markers of the seasons: the two equinoxes and the two solstices. It was only in the latter history of the calendar that these epigomenal days became counted within the months. We know that the year was not literally 360 days in length because it was sabbatical in nature (with the festivals and sabbaths falling on the same day of the week each year), and 364 is evenly divisible by 7, producing 52 weeks a year. Moreover, sabbatical years would also have an intercalary week to make good the extra day omitted by the 364-day scheme, making it essentially the same length as the Julian calendar.
Ignorant of the actual mechanics of the calendar, the Society is actually correct that the 1,260 days of Revelation (and by extension their 2,520 days) include extra days when reckoned sequentially, for this time period does indeed skip over the non-monthly epagomenal days. That is to say, 2,520 years would not consist of 907,200 days as if the epagomenal days did not exist. They do exist -- they are necessary for the sabbatical compenent of the calendar to work. The Society's error instead (aside from the blatant misinterpretation of Daniel 4) is that in computing the "seven times" as a period of consecutive day-years, they failed to take these epagomenal days into account. A seven-year period in the solar calendar amounted to 2,548 consecutive days when reckoned yearly (while only 2,520 of those would be monthly days), and the seventh year -- being sabbatical -- would add an extra week, hence a total of 2,555 days. So instead of 1878 or 1879, and instead of 1914, the Society should have instead calculated a consecutive period of day-years as leading to the date 1949.
Here is the link to the entire thread..it may be of help to you:http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/121279/1.ashx
So..even using their own dates, their formula DOES NOT put them at 1914, but 1949! Crazy hugh!! If your Mom still says what does it matter, then tell her for truth to be truth, it has to be 100% true. Are they not representing God??? (what a joke) Either the things they are teaching people is truthful, or it isn't. We all know it's not, but how could she teach someone at the door, say in a Bible study, the Societys teaching of 607, if she knows in her heart it is not accurate or truthful??
This very issue is what got my husband and I out. It is deep, but VERY powerful. Please take the time and effort to understand what they teach, and how it cannot withstand honest reasoning. Please ask Leolia, or Alan F for help, they are awesome on this issue!! They will help you!!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
