@TD:
Hello DJ
Hi, @TD.
@djeggnog wrote:
What makes you mention the Islamic Hijri calendar?
@TD wrote:
Because it was the only true lunar calendar with zero synchronization with the seasonal year I could think of at the moment. Although its years are not 360 days in length, it probably comes closest to the notion of static 360 day years.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
You point out that there are no "Jewish, Roman, Julian, Gregorian or ... Hijri" calendars that correspond to a 360-day year, but isn't it true, @TD, that when someone refers to a 360-day lunar year, that each month averages 30 days?
@TD wrote:
It's true that 360/12 equals 30, but that is neither here nor there given the fact that a lunar year is not 360 days in length.
To whom do you think you're speaking? If you do not wish to answer the question I have asked you here, just don't answer it. An significant portion of my question was whether or not a 360-day lunar year averages 30 days per month. You clear did not miss the thrust of the words "that each month averages 30 days," for you go on to say:
A lunar year is 354.37 days giving an average of slightly more than 29.5 days per month, That's the whole point of interspersing 29 and 30 day months throughout the year. When someone refers to "a 360-day lunar year" they are either repeating the sloppy, incorrect terminology of 19th century Protestant Bible expositors and/or they have become confused themselves.
@djeggnog wrote:
When I read something like this --
The orbital period of the moon is 27.321582 days. The movement of the Earth during that time adds about 2.2 additional days to a syzygial period making a synodic month 29.530589 days in length (29 days, 12 hours 44 minutes 2.8 seconds)
-- I infer that you wish to argue that technically no month in any calendaring system is exactly 30 days in length. Is that it? Do you intend to be intentionally argumentative as to why one can reckon the months in a lunar year on the Hebrew calendar as consisting of 30 days? I'm just asking, because this seems off topic and a ridiculous thing for you to be doing.
@TD wrote:
At issue is the number of days in a year, specifically in regard to whether a static 360 year finds any support whatsoever from the Jewish calendar
No; at issue is whether your desire in engaging me here is to be intentionally argumentative. You don't get to evade my questions by talking about things that are first of all, off topic, and secondly, pretending you didn't quite understand the question. I thought it funny that you should be here telling me what is "at issue" while posting a non-definitive response to my question, @TD.
In that regard, despite the remonstrative tone taken with PSacramento, your statement to him below was mathematically incorrect:
"You are evidently not familiar with the world of calendars, such as the Jewish lunar calendar, which consists of 360 days, which calendar is about 11 days shorter than the Julian or Gregorian solar calendars of 365-1/4 days."
A calendar year 11 days shorter than the Gregorian would not be 360 days. ---365-1/4 minus 11 is not 360.
So, you're twisting what I wrote in my post to @PSacramento to say what now? That a calendar that is some 11 days shorter than 365-1/4 days is equal to 360 days? My purpose in mentioning to @Psacramento that the Jewish lunar calendar was "about 11 days shorter than the Julian or Gregorian solar calendars" was more to point out to him that his mention of "leap years" was immaterial since the Jewish calendar is not as long as the Julian or Gregorian calendars. I felt no need to explain to @PSacramento that these "360 days" was based on average number of days in a calendar month on the Hebrew calendar. Seeing you as someone having more intelligence, or, maybe greater educational prowess than most of the folks on this board, I would have expected you to realize that 360 days was based on a mean of 30 days per month. Here's the "skinny":
@djeggnog wrote:
Those "seven times," or 7 x 360 days amount to adding 2,520 prophetic years to 607 BC, or 1914 AD.... Do the math yourself!
@PSacramento wrote:
Math, really?, in 2520 years not even ONE leap year ?? 360 days per year? based on who's calender?
@djeggnog wrote:
You are evidently not familiar with the world of calendars, such as the Jewish lunar calendar, which consists of 360 days, which calendar is about 11 days shorter than the Julian or Gregorian solar calendars of 365-1/4 days.
#1, I indicate here that the Jewish lunar calendar consists of 360 days. If this 360-day number should be based on an average of 30 days per month, does the Jewish calendar average 360 days in a calendar year? Yes or no?
#2, I indicate also that the Jewish lunar calendar is about 11 days shorter than the Julian or Gregorian solar calendar. If I were to take 29.51 as the average number of days per month and multiply this number by 12, would you say that the Jewish calendar is about 11 days shorter than the Julian or Gregorian calendars, especially is one were to round up the number 10.84? Yes or no?
I can see that you've done further research since then into the Jewish calendar and I do appreciate the effort you've put into it. You're head and shoulders above the average internet JW.
Thank you for saying all of this. I really do appreciate it, @TD. Now where exactly do you want me to send the check? <:-J>
However your analysis of years 5770, 71 and 72 is incorrect. As you observed, year 5770 is a Jewish leap year with a second Adar. In 13 month years, you divide by 13 instead of 12 to get the average number of days per month. This would give you an average of 29.62 instead of 32.08. Combining that figure with your averages for the next two years yields a figure of 29.513, which is very close to the synodic month and as I've pointed out, is incompatible with a 360 day year any way you approach it.
You're correct that in my analysis of years 5770, I divided by the same constant (12) as I used for 5771 and 5772, since I performed the calculations, not using a calculator, but using a spreadsheet. Had I not relied upon my having set up things on the spreadsheet in such a way that I could just plug in the numbers and note the results, I would have caught my error and would not have used a constant at all. In that case, the true numbers for 5770, 5771 and 5772 are:
Jewish Year 5770 (2009-2010)
385-day year
(29*5) + (30*8) / 13 = 29.62 32.08
Jewish Year 5771 (2010-2011)
355-day year 384-day year
(29*5) + (30*7) / 12 = 29.42
Jewish Year 5772 (2011-2012)
354-day year
(29*6) + (30*6) / 12 = 29.5
29.62 32.08 + 29.42 + 29.5 = 29.51 30.33 avg.
But you're lying here and I'm sure you know that I know you know this, @TD. In view of the now revised average of 29.51 days per month over the three Jewish years, 5770-5772, since the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendaring system based on the new moon, why would you say that "a lunar month is not 30 days" when you know that (a) 29.51 days is 30 days when rounded, and (b) by any measure, a lunar month has always been reckoned as being 30 days in length?
A further problem exists in statements like: "..the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendaring system based on the new moon." The Jewish calendar is actually a lunisolar calendaring system based on both the new moon and the equinoxes and always has been. --Big difference.
Yes, the nation of Israel did use such a lunisolar calendar (also called a bound solar calendar), and which stands to reason since with the month of Nisan (Abib) their sacred year began with the requirement laid upon the nation to celebrate certain seasonal festivals, which celebrations required their compensating for the differences between lunar years and solar years, but so what? Why would you be here describing the Jewish calendar as being "a lunisolar calendaring system" at all, when this has nothing to do with a Jewish month being equal to an average of 360 days?
What's the point of your mentioning "the new moon and the [Spring] equinox" anyway? If you want to show off your book knowledge, please answer my questions, please: Why would you say that "a lunar month is not 30 days" when you know that (a) 29.51 days is 30 days when rounded, and (b) by any measure, a lunar month has always been reckoned as being 30 days in length?
How many times have you heard the expression "...new moon closest to the spring equinox" in connection with the first of Nisan at the JW Memorial commemoration?
You're both wrong here and off-topic. On the same Hebrew calendar, the month of Nisan is the first month no the sacred calendar while being the seventh month on the secular calendar, and there is no "high" day associated with "the first of Nisan." There is a celebration of the Memorial of Christ's death that Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate annually. Not just Jehovah's Witnesses, but during the second century AD, the Quartodecimans determined to celebrate the Lord's supper on Nisan 14 based on the lunisolar calendar, which the Living Church of God today (under Roderick C. Meredith with the Worldwide Church of God [Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong's group]) also celebrates annually.
There is no such thing as a "JW Memorial commemoration." You're discussing this topic with someone that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I know more about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe than do most Jehovah's Witnesses, and certainly non-Jehovah's Witnesses like you, so just ask me and I'll answer. There's no need for you to be throwing about guesses as to what you think Jehovah's Witnesses believe, especially since I suppose you could just as your wife, couldn't you, @TD?
A much more accurate convention when it comes to the 2520 years is to acknowledge that the 360 day figure is arrived at solely by dividing 1260 days (Revelation 12:6) by 3.5 "times" (Revelation 12:14) and simply refer to the 360 day periods as "Prophetic years." (c.f. The Watchtower, February, 1, 1985 p.12; September 15, 1974 p. 557; December 1, 1971 p. 29)
What's that you say there, "pardner"? Hold on a second: I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you're not, and yet you are here citing articles from the Watchtower that were designed to explain to Jehovah's Witnesses the meaning of the "even times" (Daniel 4:25) to which I refer earlier in this thread? Do you think you could cite, quote and even read from a statute, such as from California Civil Code ยง 2924, and explain to me when a purchaser of real property at a foreclosure sale is a bona fide purchaser for value?
Look: Just as I have studied this particular Civil Code statute and related statutes that pertain to BFPs, and have learned when such purchases made at foreclosure sales have been duly perfected, I have studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses for years well before these 1971, 1974 and 1985 Watchtowers were even written, so please understand, you're in no position to teach me anything about what things Jehovah's Witnesses believe.
You cannot possibly know what I believe until you either me what I believe or you ask someone else, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses (maybe, your wife) to tell you what we believe, because in this very thread, I'm hearing nonsense from former Jehovah's Witnesses that make the false accusation that we were making predictions as to when the end of the world when we were touting "1914-the generation that will not pass away," which is not true, and is conjecture on their part since their knowledge of the Bible was incomplete and they evidently thought that they could scheme their way to salvation by pretending to love God. Those that know Jehovah would never think that he or she would actually fool the Almighty. Only a fool would think that he or she would be successful in such an endeavor.
For those here that think people making statements based upon their understanding that something was true before discovering whether or not what they believed to be true was, in fact, true, I bring you a few quotes from what political leaders here in the US and elsewhere had stated before the US declared war on Iraq, people that had wrongly understood something to be true that turned out not to have been true, and had persuaded not just US citizens that what they were about to do was "payback for 9/11" when Iraq had nothing to do with what occurred to us here in the US in 2001, but which no one has characterized as a prediction. Our nation's leaders were just flat wrong and mistakenly spent national treasure and human lives in pursuit of something that didn't exist.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry ,among others, on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos, among others.
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
No, "1914-the generation that will not pass away" was the hope of Jehovah's Witnesses based on our wrong understanding of what Jesus said at Matthew 24:34, but Jehovah's Witnesses would never pretend that we could predict the date when Armageddon will arrive, for Jesus said at Matthew 24:36 that "nobody knows" [that day and hour] ... only the Father." Also, we have yet to hear anyone declare that "peace and security" has been achieved, which event was foretold to occur before "sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them." (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
We mistakenly believed that Jesus had given us a hint by his use of the word "generation," and while it was logical to conclude that the 1914 generation would not pass away before the end of this system of things arrived, we know the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ will come at God's appointed time, whenever it is. I mentioned the 2,520 years to @PSacramento only because he retorted to my reply to a post put up by @thetrueone in which he had asked me:
(@Thetrueone)
Are you going to concede that the WTS. prophecy regarding 1914 forward was fictitiously false, nothing but a pretentiously made up date to heighten interest to the publishing corporation's literature ?
My point was simply to say that the year 1914 is not a "made up date," but is based on the number of years that had elapsed between 607 BC and 1914 AD. Really, all of the rest of the discussion in this thread has really been off topic, and, quite frankly, @TD, I'd like an answer to my question as to whether your intent here is to be intentionally argumentative with me.
Again: Why would you say that "a lunar month is not 30 days" when you know that (a) 29.51 days is 30 days when rounded, and (b) by any measure, a lunar month has always been reckoned as being 30 days in length?
@djeggnog
