Posts by Badfish

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

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?

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

Badfish

If I might ask, what Gregorian years do you end up with when you factor in the solstices and the equinoxes to the 360 day-years, when subtracting 607 and 587 years from 2520?

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

Badfish

Ok, so when you add these equinoxes and solstices, does it add up to 1914 again starting from 607?

If so, the 360-day years and lunar calendar arguments are debunked. It would all come down to 587 vs 607.

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

Badfish

revelations was written by some guy on a REALLY bad acid trip.

That is beside the point when you're talking about a false calculation based on a false date.

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

Badfish

Okay, so my initial impression from someone who knows nothing about this subject:

Archaeologists around the world agree with the year 586 BCE as the fall of Babylon based on archaeological and historical evidence, but the Watchtower Society made up the date 607 to coincide with their 1914 date that C.T. Russell predicted based on his measurements of the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

The 2520 number is based on the idea of "seven times" a day for a year (7 x 360 = 2520). The reason why we use the number 360 instead of 365 is because the Bible says 360 days are in a year (thus, 360 x 7 = 2520).

Now if we do the correct math using the starting point of 586 BCE and add 2520 years consisting of 360 days like the Bible uses, we arrive at the date 1908.

If we use the fictional date of 607 BCE, adding the same 2520 years consisting of 360 days each, we arrive at the date 1887.

Am I doing my math right?

74

Here we go again. Dan 4 and 1914

by leaving_quietly in

wtbts published a new article on jw.org (http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/) entitled "what does bible chronology indicate about the year 1914?

" in it, it points to daniel 4 as the prophecy and uses the same leaps of insane logic to get from the first and only fulfillment of that prophecy to 1914, using 607 as the starting point and 2,520 years as doubling the 1,260 years in revelation.

of course, there is no accounting for the difference in our solar years and the bible's lunar years, which makes the math have a very different outcome.

Badfish

I don't know very much at all when it comes to this subject, but did they simply take 2520 and subtract 607 to get 1913 and then add one year to make it 1914?

Doesn't the Bible use 360-day years when it comes to prophecy?

76

Meme competition 2014

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

simple.... .

watchtower + meme !.

anything is acceptable, but make your meme your own, hand written scrawls on microsoft paint are just as funny so don't worry about quality.

Badfish

508

Most-Ignored Scriptures by JWs

by Mad Sweeney in

the watchtower has been known for over 130 years as a great scriptural cherry-picker.

they pick out disparate unrelated verses and combine them to support the wackiest of wacky doctrines.. on the other hand there are many scriptures they almost never address, whether because they contradict wt doctrine or because they simply don't have a clue what they mean or how to spin them to the wt advantage.. one of these is revelation 19:1 that mentions a "great crowd" "in heaven.

" the only time it is ever brought up it is dismissed.

Badfish

I remember one time when I was kid at the KH, some other boys and I were talking about tattoos. An elder pulled us aside and read Leviticus 19:28 about not having tattoos.

It's funny how they pay attention to that scripture but totally ignore the verse right before it (verse 27) that says you're not suppsed to cut your hair short or shave off your beard.

39

Jehovah is the correct uttering of God's name

by mistified in

jw
friends

i heard my witness friend that if the name jehovah is the incorrect pronounciation from the hebrew scriptures, then jeremiah is the incorrect way to say jeremiah's name.

i wonder if this is true, because if it is, that would make jws the true religion.

right?.

Badfish

the first century Christians, who did us the divine name of God, Yahweh.

How do you know they used it when the Tetragrammaton does not appear anywhere in the New Testament?

39

Are Men's Rights Laughable?

by Paralipomenon in

jw
friends

reading over the woody allen thread i noticed a couple things but didn't want to side track the "discussion".

1) woody allen is creepy.

2) nobody really seemed to care that his ex-wife was abusive towards her children.. an example i think is perfect was the release of twilight where you would see lineups of 30-40 year old women making very inappropriate comments about a 16 year old boy.

Badfish

The fathers' rights movement is important not because it benefits men, but because it benefits children. Shared parenting is extremely important for the health and well-being of children vs having a single mother as their primary parent and an estranged father that the children only get to spend time with a little bit out of the year.

Brushing off the importance for children to have equal involvement with their father by saying something to the effect of "oh, men have had better rights in other areas so having little to no rights when it comes to parenting is justified" only serves to hurt children in the long run.