I had no chance of learning social skills from my parents and I was put through home school on and off. It was garbage.
Hopefully those kids will get jobs and go to college ASAP... Right?
schnell
JoinedPosts by schnell
-
40
The popularity fad of home-schooling!
by stuckinarut2 ini know this has been discussed over the years on this forum, but i just had to post this again!.
it seems that the popular fad amongst the "spiritual" ones in the local circuits is to home school their children instead of sending them to school.. now to clarify, we are in a very nice area of semi rural australia .
one with very community minded, and strong family values.
-
-
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
I don't know if you know this, schnell, but the JWs are the only people who claim that Babylon was destroyed in 607. Of course, the WT claims like with the 1914 thing, that "it depends on your definition of destruction". Historians place the destruction of Babylon at different years, none of them even close to 607 (or 606) BC.
Oh, for sure. I just love how this convoluted philosophy of history completely fails. It does not work.
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
@btlc, Correction accepted! It still doesn't work. :)
-
14
THE AGEING OF STILL-ACTIVE WITNESSES
by steve2 inseveral years ago i started a thread on this forum in which i asserted i had not seen witnesses door-knocking in my village for at least two or so years.
years before that - in pre-trolley times - in going about my business (or pleasure), i'd catch sight of them on the streets as they shuffled in their groups from door-to-door: sometimes there'd be contingents of witnesses, including young couples, parents and their kids and middle-aged and older ones.
in other words, a good cross-section of ages and stages in life.. in fact, i can remember times when witnesses were so visible in numbers when going out in their car groups, you literally couldn't escape them.. then, in more recent years, i've seen very, very little...if not anything (and i count myself sensitive to noting whether jws are out and about).
-
-
schnell
I certainly get their competition from time to time.
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
Because 1 CE is included in the 1913 years? Okay, I can accept that.
... Except that it is said to have terminated well into 1914, in October.
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
Also...
From Year 607 BCE to 1 CE is 607 years
From Year 1 CE to 1914 CE is 1913 years607-1 = 606(Ooops! Forgot the zero year!)607 - 1 -1 = 6051914 - 1 = 19131913 + 605 = 2518CORRECTION:
607 - 607 = 01914 - 1 = 1913
1913 + 607 = 2520
There we go, that's better. Now we still have it leading to... 1913.
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
@OnTheWayOut, and as I pointed out in the other thread to "the-question" about 607 BC, the 2520 years is entirely astrological, which makes their demonization of astrology quite duplicitous.
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
@steve2, how about this. 1914 was a year of the Tiger in the Chinese calendar. So were 1974 ("Stay alive till 75!"), 1986 ("Peace and security!"), and 2010 ("Overlapping generations? Wth?").
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
@Outlaw, Bingo! :P
-
43
2520-607 = 1913
by schnell ini love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
-
-
schnell
I love math, I love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.
2520 - 607 = 1913
Not 1914.
2520 - 606 = 1914
From what I understand, Russell realized this. He had previously used 606 BC, of course, but then he switched it to 607 BC. I know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?
2520 - 607 - 1 = 1912
???
Okay, so 2520 years after NOTHING HAPPENED, the Titanic sank. *shrug*
Am I wrong here? What am I missing? If anything else, let's explain it for posterity.