Gregorian Calendar

by NeverKnew 39 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Regarding the formula in Rev. 12, here's the inconsistency. First, there is nothing to suggest it is a one-size-fits-all prophetic formula that has application to Dan. 4. Second, why is the WTS inconsistent in Rev. 12's application, i.e. why aren't the 1260 days/3.5 times converted to years like with Dan. 4's 'times'?

  And whatever way you cut it, 360 day years fall short of the Julian and Gregorian calendars of 365/6 days - the ones used for counting the years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. A 360 day year can never be equated with a 365/6 day year.
• 

  mP

  Ann:

  And whatever way you cut it, 360 day years fall short of the Julian and Gregorian calendars of 365/6 days - the ones used for counting the years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. A 360 day year can never be equated with a 365/6 day year.

  MP:

  It wold appear scientific Jehovah doesnt know there are 365 days in a year but is using hte pagan 360 from the Babylonians because they loved multiples of 60.
• 

  Quendi

  Let it also be noted that while John is explicitly told that “a time, times, and half a time” equal 1,260 days, Daniel is never given the understanding that seven times equals 2,520 days. Daniel and John were separated by centuries in time and John came afterwards. Applying his measure to the earlier Daniel prophecy is a logical fallacy at best and downright dishonest at worst. The interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy is an example of “going beyond the things that are written” Paul warned against at 1 Corinthians 4:6.

  What I’ve done to shut Witnesses up is to toss them a copy of their own Comprehensive Concordance to the New World Translation and ask this question. Show me any place where the number 2520 occurs in the Bible. Given that the Book of Daniel uses some very explicit figures in its contents: viz; 7; 62; 70; 1290; 1335 and 2300, it is strange that this number would be passed over in silence.

  I also ask Witnesses this question. If this prophecy is so critical to Bible understanding, why is it that no other writer quotes, alludes to, or references it? Why did Jesus Christ never talk about it in connection with his kingdom and his return? The silence which follows my asking these questions is deafening. The looks of fear, frustration and consternation that crosses Witnesses faces when confronted with this question are priceless!

  Quendi
• 

  Sulla

  Quick question: who ever said 606 or 607? Surely, Russell read that from somewhere, right? He didn't invent that himself, did he? Is that an old sort of date that was commonly thought to be true in the 19th century?
• 

  mP

  Q:

  Daniel and John were separated by centuries in time and John came afterwards. Applying his measure to the earlier Daniel prophecy is a logical fallacy at best and downright dishonest at worst.

  MP:

  Perhaps its downright dishonest to take Daniels wishy washy text and pretend its prophecy.
• 

  NeverKnew

  OMG! Information overload and lots to chew on! The more information, the better since I don't know which of these paths he's going to follow. I'm going to look at each one and absorb as much as my little brain can handle.

  If this prophecy is so critical to Bible understanding, why is it that no other writer quotes, alludes to, or references it? Why did Jesus Christ never talk about it in connection with his kingdom and his return?

  Quendi - I absolutely LOVE your question and it will get incorporated at the appropriate time.

  Can anyone answer Sully's question? I can't believe I hadn't thought of that! Originally, Russell/Rutherford declared 606 BC as the Destruction of the Temple which made the math easy (-606+2520=1914). Did either ever say where this "accurate" information came from?
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Sulla, NeverKnew,

  Russell got 606 BCE from Barbour.

  606 BCE results from what was believed to be Cyrus' 1st year when he gave the edict for the exiles to return, namely, 536 BCE.

  606 - 536 = 70 years.

  A key area, though, where Barbour's/Russell's chronology parted company with other Bible-number-crunchers was that the latter counted 606 BCE as the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Barbour/Russell, on the other hand, INSISTED that 606 BCE was when Zedekiah was dethroned and Jerusalem destroyed (Neb's 18th year) because the land had to be 'a desolate waste, without an inhabitant' for 70 years.

  mP,

  It wold appear scientific Jehovah doesnt know there are 365 days in a year but is using hte pagan 360 from the Babylonians because they loved multiples of 60.

  Of course, this has nothing to do with God and everything to do with people's interpretation of prophecy. The Babylonians did not have a 360-day year either. The reason the Babylonians liked multiples of 60 was to do with mathematics and how many degrees there are in circles.
• 

  Sulla

  Ah, so it was a straight-up application of 70 years back from Cyrus' edict allowing the Jews to go back. So it was never an historical result -- I wondered if ancient history books back in the 19th century had a chapter where Jerusalem was said to have fallen in 606; turns out, the particular interpretive choice is prior to everything else.

  On a different note, I've long thought that sixes and twelves make much better sense for a numerical system. Look what you can do with 12: halves, thirds, quarters, sixths -- it's amazing. Base 10 is stupid: you've got halves and fifths. That's it. Pointless.

  All we need is a new single-digit numeral for "10" and "11" and we're good to go.
• 

  Phizzy

  I have in my library a Biblical snd Thological Dictionary by the Rev. J Farrar, the 1889 edition. In the preface it states that current scholarly opinion was that Jerusalem's destruction took place in 588-586 B.C.E

  So Barbour and Russell had to ignore the current experts in the field, and say, as JW Apologists still do, that their calculation is right, and all the experts in the fields of expertise concerned, are wrong.

  Experts whose careers depend on being as accurate as possible, and who have no axe to grind, they wouldn't care if Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE, they just know that all the evidence says it wasn't. The experts of today have not changed their view, they still go along with that of 1889.

  Interesting too is that this dictionary speaks of King Neb's madness lasting seven years, many translations use the word years, not "times", now what length would those years be ? the length of either the either Babylonian or Jewish year. Not the totally fictitious and unsupportable non-existent year of 360 days.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  So it was never an historical result --

  Nope.

  I wondered if ancient history books back in the 19th century had a chapter where Jerusalem was said to have fallen in 606; turns out, the particular interpretive choice is prior to everything else.

  In addition to Phizzy's Farrar 1889 reference, we have Albert Barnes' Notes on Daniel, Vol. I (1851) which has Jehoiakim's 3rd year, when Neb. took Daniel, as either 607 BC or 606 BC. He refers to Johann Jahn's chronology (History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, translated from the German in 1828, p. 134-135) who favors 607 BC as Jehoiakim's 3rd year and dates Jerusalem's destruction to 588 BC. Barnes also refers to Bishop Usher's chronology (1650s!), the standard of the day. Usher dates Jehoiakim's 3rd year to 606 BC and Jerusalem's destruction to 588 BC.

  When the correspondent (quoted at the top of this page) brings Usher's chronology to Russell's attention, Russell counters by saying,

  1. We see no reason to change - it'll mess everything up;

  2. We've dealt with the objections already in Studies II;

  3. Ancient histories are unreliable, however, Cyrus' 1st year is well-established and generally agreed to be 536 BC;

  4. Usher made a mistake in associating the 70 years with captivity when the Lord/Bible expressly associated the 70 years with the period of desolation, 'without inhabitant' which only happened after Zedekiah was dethroned;

  5. Did I mention that if we changed anything, it would mess everything up - and I mean everything - the Jubilees, the parallels, the whole bally lot?