NeverKnew, 1914 depends on the 2,520 years prophecy being a real prophecy to begin with. One has to believe that Daniel 4 connects to Luke 21:24 and that Daniel 4 has a secondary, far distant future fulfillment, when Daniel himself said the vision was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar. You can worry about the 607 date if you want, but, at least for me, this is only real if the 2,520 years prophecy is real. The Insight book speaks about this prophecy and basically says that since much of the book of Daniel is about future fulfillment, Daniel 4 must have a future fulfillment, too. However, there is no hard evidence to say this is so. It may interest you to find out where the 2,520 years prophecy came from to begin with (research that... you may be surprised.) Once you decide for yourself whether this is a made-up prophecy or not, only then can other pieces either fit into place or fall apart completely. It all depends on what you want to believe. I, for one, do not believe there is a 2,520 years prophecy. It's not stated in the Bible, not even indirectly. I can find no connection at all between Jesus' words at Luke 21:24 to Daniel's "seven times" except for the word "times", which is not a strong connection at all. And, I take Daniel at face value when he said the interpretation applies to Nebuchadnezzar himself. To me, there is no reason to think this has a second fulfillment. Just because some of Daniel's writings have a distant future fulfillment does not mean all of them do. For example, the writing on the wall had an immediate fulfillment, not a distant future one.
Gregorian Calendar
by NeverKnew 39 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
St George of England
Calendars, prophesies, times and fulfillments are all meaningless anyway if you start from the erroneous date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.
George
-
NeverKnew
Ann: Stop being a scholar! LOL You're too smart for him right now!
Leaving Quietly: TOTALLY with you. Handled that. When I attempted to present that to him, I was WAY over his head. Not because he's not bright, but, like many of you I'm sure, he had been unquestioningly loyal to that formula and had never thought it through. As an outsider, when I was presenting formulas, scriptural texts, and logic, the wall was up - the books came out.
He won't rely on his own logic - the poor guy keep attempting to leverage their convoluted crap. I'm trying to get there.
-
NeverKnew
George: I presented this page I made a year ago and asked he AND an elder (two separate occasions) to provide me with ONE other source that supported 607 BC. The crickets are speaking louder than their words...
-
BluesBrother
Almost every J W will shy away from trying to explain the meaning and calculation of the "seven times", finding it difficult. The greatest difficulty is that is fatally flawed reasoning although appearing complex and clever . When I tried to read a detailed book on the study of calendars I found that the J W explanation was overly simplistic compared to the complex calculations and mathematical formulae needed to really convert dates from one calendar to another.
The WTS is confident enough to pinpoint the exact day on which the Gentile Times ended:
All Scripture Is Inspired and Beneficial p282
"...since we are counting, not from December 31, 607 B.C.E., but from October 1, 607 B.C.E., we must add to 606 the three months at the end of 607 B.C.E. Now subtract 606 1/4 from 2,520 years. The remainder is 1,913 3/4. That means that 2,520 years from October 1, 607 B.C.E., takes us 1,913 3/4 years into the Common Era—1,913 full years brings us to the beginning of 1914 C.E., and three fourths of a year in addition brings us to October 1, 1914 C.E."
I have never seen a mention of the fact that the 2520 days (years) span calendars of some 360 annual days lunar variety, and some 365 days solar variety. Also, In 1752 in Britain and the then American colony eleven days were lost when they changed from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar...Would that not make a difference to the day on which the times ended?
As a Witness I was never comfortable with their calculation and just went along with it passively.. I soon saw that it was just nonsense.
It all came from the Adventists anyway.
-
NeverKnew
Total nonsense...
Here's how I verbally inform (educate) with my non-JW ignorance... "you know... I get the math that Russell and Rutherford used 606BC +2520 = 1914. It was all so simple then. (lower voice and look concerned) Too bad they forgot the zero year. Doesn't seem right to change the date of the destruction of the temple to make the formula work. That's like changing the date of the destruction of the World Trade Center to me. I dunno... do you get it? Maybe you can explain it to me..."
I already know he's at a disadvantage (clueless) so I'm trying to educate while leveraging my "confusion". Does he give answers? Absolutely not! Does this mean he isn't researching? He's looking. I'm sure of it. :)
-
AnnOMaly
some 360 annual days lunar variety, and some 365 days solar variety
To nitpick ...
A straight lunar year is 354 days long (12 x 29.5 days) which leaves it 11 days short of the solar year. This shortfall accumulates with every year so every 3 years or so, an intercalary month has to be inserted to bump it into sync with the solar year and seasons. An intercalary/leap lunar year will be 383 or 384 days long. This sync-ing of the lunar and solar calendars, therefore, results in a lunisolar calendar system.
Leolaia pointed out that a year of 360 days (12 x 30 days, a 'schematic/ideal/full month) - mistakenly called a 'prophetic' year (she illustrates why it's mistaken) - is actually 364 days long because the 360-day year routinely had 4 'epagomenal' (leap) days added to it, namely, the 2 equinox days and 2 solstice days.
One can get bogged down with calendar systems. I'd just get the JW friend to provide a Babylonian king list from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus. He can refer to the WTS's own literature. If he agrees with 539 BCE being a 'pivotal,' anchored point in time, he can count back to the year of Jerusalem's destruction. No 607 BCE starting point, *poof* goes the WT calculation to 1914.
-
NeverKnew
Great! Given what you're saying, I'm good. One day's disparity means the calculation is years off.
About a year ago, I presented him with the WT rulership quotes as well as a blank pre-tickmarked sheet to count out the years (you can't imagine how hard it was to get all those darn tickmarks on even a legal sized sheet). I sat while he counted the rulerships out. When all was said and done, I have to wonder if he believed the quotes had been made up. He suggested later that pdf files couldn't be trusted for you never knew the intentions of those who created them...
You would be blown away at the freedom I've had to challenge his thoughts. Many days I feel like I've gotten nowhere.
Thanks for sticking beside me. I need everyone's help.
-
Quendi
This is an interesting question and I’ll throw this in for your friend to ponder as well. There are seven different ways to measure a year, and none of them can be reconciled with the others. Of the seven, only the lunar and sidereal years do not depend on the apparent movement of the sun across the sky. You can learn more about this in David Ewing Duncan’s wonderful book, The Calendar, which also gives rich historical details about the Gregorian Calendar that has been in use since 1582. There has never been a calendar devised by man that is completely accurate. All of them have errors and there are different ways employed to correct them.
As others have pointed out, Charles Russell used contrived measurements of the Great Pyramid at Giza for his initial calculations for the Gentile Times. The notion of counting 2,520 days did not originate with him, but with other millennialist thinkers of the nineteenth century. Russell’s movement was but an offshoot of older more established ones of his time.
One other point to keep in mind is that even in Charles Russell’s day, most historians had placed Jerusalem’s destruction at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar in 587/586 BC. Charles Russell knew this but since that date did not agree with his determination of 1914 as the year the world would end, he conveniently ignored it. One must wonder how Russell’s followers felt about this because if he knew what historians and archeologists believed, then some of them must have as well.
Quendi
-
mP
As others have pointed out, Charles Russell used contrived measurements of the Great Pyramid at Giza for his initial calculations for the Gentile Times. The notion of counting 2,520 days did not originate with him, but with other millennialist thinkers of the nineteenth century. Russell’s movement was but an offshoot of older more established ones of his time.
Russel was right xianity is nothing more than a rehash of other solar worshipping religions. Pyramid = mountain of fire i think pyra = fire. The temple in Jerusalem was of course facing east, all jewish holidays are celebrations of the seasons, easter = spring equinox etc. The obsession with 7 and 12 is of course because of hte planets and months.
