That's an interesting observation, ablebodiedman. I was thinking last night about the purpose of Daniel 4, and how part of the interpretation was: "until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants". I was thinking more along the lines of Romans 13:1, but hadn't really thought it through thoroughly, yet. I'm still giving this one more thought.
Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914
by leaving_quietly 74 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
cha ching
Mathematically, if “X = 360 in the first part of an equation, then one must still use X as still equal yo 360 in the second part..
You cannot switch the value of X in the middle of an equation……
So…………
If 7 times X = 2,520 years, then 2,520 divided by 7 = 360 …
There is NO WAY you can start saying;
“Now that we know 7 x 360 = 2,520, let's divide 2,520 by 365 and find out where the 2,520 years end!"
Unless, of course, you are the Watchtower, then you can use any type of disfunctional math you want to.
-
Badfish
They are not really dividing 2520 by 365 to find out where the 2520 years end.
I don't know very much about this subject, but the way I understand it is:
Basically, they are saying x = 2520 / 7 = 360, where x = the days in a year.
Then they are taking 2520 and subtracting 607 to get 1913. Adjusting for the turn from 1 BCE to 1 CE, they add one year to get 1914.
However, they fail to recognize that the date 1914 is from the Gregorian calendar, which would mean x = 365.24
So even if you were to assume the pivotal date 607 BCE is correct to begin with, the actual numbers you would have to use to arrive at 1914 would be incorrect as well.
Did I get this right?
-
Apognophos
Honestly, I feel that the decision to use Gregorian years when counting 2520 years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE is about as valid as if they counted in 360-day years. Because as AnnOMaly stated, the 360-day years were "prophetic years", not years on an actual calendar that was in use at the time. If the prophecy was really intended to have a meaning in our day, then that means it was inspired by God, and it's certainly plausible in this hypothetical scenario that God may have chosen to place the answer in the calendar system that would be in use by the 20th century.
So I really don't think this is a valid line of attack for the whole concept. Much better to focus on either (1) the historical inaccuracy of "607 BCE", (2) the overall irrationality of cherry-picking scriptures from all over the Bible to create an arcane math formula that ends with 1914, or (3) the failure of the Society to actually predict what was going to happen in 1914, and at what time of year something would happen. There's lots of ways to knock this teaching down without going into how ancient calendars worked.
-
kaik
Yeah, AnnOmally ignore these posts, as he/she/it is mentally challenged and do add anything into the posts.
Heaven, I remember this WT and this is the most synonymous for me as false teaching of JW and confirmation that this religion does not have truth nor are guided by Holy Spirit. Every JW should recieve this old WT. Speaking on my behalf, this WT publication helped me to walk away ten years later after it was published and I had not looked back for 20 years.
Problem with 1914 is that it is invented by JW and they wrap various biblical prophecies around it. In 1914 they believed that the reign started in 1874 or 1878, and time of the end stated in 1799. It was much later, in the 1930's when Rutherford decided to make the 1914 as year of Jesus invisible presence and JW modeled their entire doctrine on that year. There is nowhere in Daniel indication that Jesus would return in that specific year. Russell considered the return to be calculated from the temporarty conquest of Rome by Justinian in 539 and 1260 years later coincided with Napoleon taking a Pope as a prisoner.
-
Phizzy
" Yeah, AnnOmally ignore these posts, as he/she/it is mentally challenged and do add anything into the posts. "
May I ask, is English your first language Kaik ? Because that unwarrented attack on Annomally makes no sense.
I have the utmost respect for "Ann's" erudite and educated input on this Forum, she is highly valued as a resident expert in much that sheds light on the Book of Daniel.
Kindly keep personal attacks off this board, and try to write readable English.
The Book of Daniel was written as a political tract against Antiochus Epiphanes 1V, being written around 164BCE, it is not prophetic as to the events it deals with, these having already happened, it is "Messianic", but if you read it carefully it proposes two Messiahs.
-
kaik
Phizzy, I have not meant AnnOMaly, but billythekid46 who is trolling on this site with various attacks on the posters. I am sorry if you thought that my first sentence was directed to her. English is not my native language.
AnnOMaly, I enjoy reading your posts!
-
donny
What is also interesting about the 1914 date is when Russell realized that there was no year Zero, he changed 1914 to 1915 for a brief period. Then when 1915 proved to be lacking anything significant to hang his "prophecy" on to, he moved his starting point, 606 BCE to 607 BCE and 1914 was reborn.
-
Phizzy
All by direction of the Holy Spirit no doubt, boy that Holy Spirit sure has a sense of humour !
Kaik, thanks for clearing that up ! Billythekid 46 is beyond the pale, and needs chucking off this Forum.
-
cha ching
Yes, I ACTUALLY am sooooooooooo grateful for the posts & calculations, and explanations of AnnOMaly & Leolaia.
I just wanted to mathematically express how mentally frustrating it is to even try and rationalize/ excuse this type of calculating.
Am I wrong here? Please let me ask again....
I don't care if the Jews had 2 or 3 or 4 or any other type of other calendar for adjusting "times"... or if they knew about solar, lunar, whatchabugger... anything. And, if God wanted them to use 365 Gregorian calendar years, why did He make them calculate using 360 day "prophetic years?" Ahhhh!!!
When PEOPLE (the "Society") want to use ONE WAY ("prophetic" years of 360) to calculate "YEARS," then they should keep that "sacred, Bible given, instituted, holy spirit led” way of thinking up. I mean, they do want to "hold true" to the "sacred" writings, hmm?
607 was my breaking point. I thoroughly studied those two WT’s in 2011, and saw all the misquotes, no quotes, half quotes, and misleading statements. I did the calculations…
I saw them discount tablets and historians at the drop of a hat, then use them quicker than a wink of an eye if they needed them.
I read the small little footnote at the bottom of the page regarding the Egibi business tablets (that cover every single year of Babylonian rule during Nebuchadnezzar) that ‘When the years that these kings ruled, and are totaled, and a calculation is made back from th last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E.” (WT Nov 1, 2011 pg. 24 In THE smallest font possible)
In the paragraph to the left, what does the WTBS use for “evidence”? Questions… Doubt…
“Why are there discrepancies? … Could others have ruled? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo Babylonian period. Therefore, neither the Babylonian chronicles nor the business tablets provide a basis to establish with certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.
THEREFORE? That “therefore” was built upon assumptions….
And don’t forget their “disclaimer” to the right… regarding those Egibi business tablets. Yep, those little business accounting tablets prove it was more like 586/ 587. But you have to read the fine print.
Great for a “legal corporation,” right?