Watchtower's inconsistent use of "day for a year" principle

by yadda yadda 2 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  The Watchtower applies the "day for a year" principle when calculating the 7 times in Daniel 4: 23,25 for their 607BCE - 1914CE chronology (A time = 360 years based on Rev 11:3, 12:6 and 13:5. 7 times = 2520 years).

  However, they do not use the "day for a year" principle for interpreting Daniel 12:11 (1290 days), Daniel 12:12 (1335 days) and Daniel 8:14 (2300 days). I believe that early on, C T Russell viewed the 1290, 1335 & 2300 days as years and made some predictions based on calculating these periods from starting dates related to the Catholic papacy. Interestingly, Sir Isaac Newton also adopted this interpretative methodology in his life-long studies on bible prophecy (Newton made various date predictions but as he got older he pushed the date further and further out until finally settling on 2060 AD for the earliest date by which Christ would return: this was calculated by simply counting 1260 years from 800 AD when the Holy Roman Empire began.)

  However, the present Watchtower interpretation is that the 1290, 1335 and 2300 days are more or less literal days fulfilled by modern Watchtower organisation events, I think mostly declarations and pronouncements at 'landmark' conventions of the Bible Students in the 1920's (which is preposterous).

  It seems to me that if the Watchtower is to treat the 1260 days in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 as years (not days) when calculating their 1914 chronology, then they should also do the same for interpreting the 1290, 1335 and 2300 days in Daniel. Their inconsistency in treating these similar prophetic time periods is contradictory.

  Yadda
• 

  Narkissos

  ... if the Watchtower is to treat the 1260 days in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 as years (not days) when calculating their 1914 chronology...

  If memory serves, they don't. They only use Revelation as a trick for converting "times" into "days". Then they go back to Daniel, convert the 7 times into 2,520 days, then run to Numbers / Ezekiel to get the "day->year" device and convert the resulting "days" into (solar!) years.

  But afaik they have never applied the "day->year" "principle" to the 1,260 days in Revelation...
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Ok, I may have that a bit wrong. So what is the Watchtower's current interpretation of the 1260 days in Revelation by the way?

  The fact remains that they convert the "seven times" in Daniel 4 into hundreds of years by employing scriptures in Revelation that are referring to "days". So why treat the 1290, 1335 and 2300 days in Daniel as literal days and not years like they do with the seven times? Where's the consistency?

  Although the dates C T Russell predicted by using the "day for the year" principle for the 1290, 1335 and 2300 days turned out to be wrong, I think he was still correct to treat these as years and not days, as Isaac Newton similarly did. The Watchtower Society's present understanding of the 1290, 1335 and 2300 days is a complete mockery.
• 

  Narkissos

  Last reference I can see in the Daniel book (1999, p. 295) seems to identify both the "time, times and half a time" in Daniel 7:25; 12:7 and the 42 months / 1,260 days of Revelation to a "late 1914 / mid 1918" period -- which means the inconsistency you pointed out exists within the WT interpretation of Daniel itself; in chapter 4, each "time" is 360 (solar) years; in chapters 7 and 12, each time is 360 days.
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  Excellent points - thanks for sharing.

  Now that I have been away from this pseudo Bible interpretation indoctrination for almost two years, I probably won't be discussing this subject much anymore, but if ever it comes up, the inconsistency is telling. The Witnesses seem to use whatever interpretations suit them for their own self-congratulatory purposes, and then revise them when the circumstances make it painfully obvious that the initial interpretation is way off...funny, the stuff I just accepted without thinking things through when I was in.
• 

  elder-schmelder

  I want to puke.

  elder-schmelder