Maths Virus 1914

by Anna Marina 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Anna Marina

  Hi Shepherdless - sorry I misunderstood.

  Hi Jeffro - you are missing the point - you have no need to go into any accession years. The entire thing is covered by 7 scriptures and at the end you realise - the date of the fall of Jerusalem is whatever you want it to be by whatever calendar you want. And providing that is consistent with the 41st year of Jeremiah's preaching - you are good to go. Oh and consistent with the 23rd year of Jeremiah's preaching...and.. oh I wont spoil the video series for you. :)
  

  Someone else will be having a go at the dates on this thing - I will point you to the website at some point during the series of videos. But the dates wont be there immediately because it is work in progress and I can only do so much.

  The key point you need to know about the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's rulership is that it is preceeeded by his 17th year of rulership and is followed by his 19th year of rulership. Also that the count to get to his 19th year of rulership starts with his 1st year of rulership, which is followed by 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.

  Its not difficult. Honest.
  
• 

  Harry

  One thing the WTS refuses to admit for obvious reasons is that archaeological findings do support the bible's chronological dating of events, which makes 607 BCE an impossibility.

  Since this dating was deeply rooted in the organization's doctrinal teaching to create 1914, it was forcefully protected which even caused many questioning people to get booted out of the religion or muzzled as a participating member..

  People just seeking the truth.

  The GB today has come out and said that their early members went ahead with anticipation and speculation to Christ's return and the following end times but stopped short in saying that the calculative dating of 1914 was wrong.
• 

  Jeffro

  Anna Marina:

  The key point you need to know about the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's rulership is that it is preceeeded by his 17th year of rulership and is followed by his 19th year of rulership.

  Thanks for that ‘revelation’ 😂. I’m not missing any point at all. I’m well aware of the relative and absolute chronology of the period. I think there may be some merit in your simplified approach as a starting point or for those who only want to know the basics. The ‘just wait to be amazed” rhetoric is a little bit tedious though.

  If someone offered a chemistry class and said, “You don’t need to know all that complex chemistry stuff. You just need to know that water has two simple ingredients. Stay tuned for when I tell you one of them next week”, I’m just not sure I’d be getting much value from the class.
• 

  Anna Marina

  Jeffro - it is all very simple. Ok maybe you wont be amazed. Personally I was. The matter does not rest on the reign of kings so much as an unspecified year. Then the numbers 19 and 14.
  

  Nebuchadnezzar's reign is thereafter rendered irrelevant. The only things that really matter are the kings of Judah but even more than the kings, the prophets themselves. And the prophets have no ascension-year.