The easiest refutation of Witness Chronology

by CunningMan 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  CunningMan

  Whenever the prophetic chronology of Jehovah's Witnesses is criticized, it begins with their commitment to 607 B.C.E as beginning of the seventy weeks and the relevant archaeological evidence. However, it seems to me that there is an easier way to debate the issue. Why not show them that the so-called day-for-a-year-rule is unwarranted. The society's literature only gives Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5,6 as proof of this rule, but we could easily show how this is bogus and how this really originates with the Seventh-Day Adventist tradition.

  Their commitment to this rule is just as important as their historical claims, but it's easier to disprove. The problem with debating about 607 B.C.E. and the archaeological is that most of that information is too inaccessible for the average Witness, who is usually not in the position to understand such evidence. I think refuting the day-year rule would be easier and once you see that you can't get 2520 years ending in 1914, that would undermine their need to commit to 607.

  What do you think? Don't you think it's easier?
• 

  CunningMan

  bump....
• 

  watson

  It's funny to me that the "day for a year" idea was one of the things that got me thinking critically about what I had been taught. When you read those two scriptures and the context, it just makes no sense to base this "super prophecy doctrine" on it.
• 

  Shawn10538

  Great post! I have always felt the same about that point. What they lack is exactly what you said, WARRANT, or permission, to use Numbers XX:XX in their arguments. The Bible doesn't say, "OK aster you use this scripture, go over to Numbers xx:xx and apply what it sayd there to this other scripture. All manipulation of that kind, (by all who do that) is falacious because it lacks the necessary element of WARRANT. Did I say warrant? I feel like rapping it.
• 

  james_woods

  Actually, the easiest refutation of it is that not one single date they ever prophesied about has ever come true.

  The only one they try to pathetically point to is 1914, but a review of what was written about that date says nothing about World War One, in fact - they said that the end of this system of things would occur then. They later made up the "invisible presence" idea to cover over the fact that the world did in fact not end. Duh.

  And, they further damaged the 1914 date by claiming for many years that the generation old enough to understand world events in 1914 would not pass away before the end of the world. That has now been changed out of obvious necessity.
• 

  Eyes Open

  Because the numbers (supposedly) match up the day for a year rule fits. A normal, tunnel-visioned JW probably won't be capable of critically thinking about whether or not the rule has any application outside of its context.
• 

  sir82

  And why does "day for a year" only apply to the 607 - 1914 teaching?

  In Daniel, there's periods of 1260, 1290 and 1335 days. The Society's current official explanations of those time periods don't use "day for a year".

  In Revelation, there is "silence for about an hour". Wouldn't that translate into 1/24 of a year?

  In Russell's time, the "day for a year, 606 - 1914" teaching was just one of many "lines of evidence" used to point to 1914. All those other "lines of evidence" were eventually dropped, but not the "day for a year" one.

  Also in Russell's time, "day for a year" was used for other calculations, using the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days spoken of in Daniel. That's how they came up with 1799 as the original "start of the last days", 1874 as the original year of Christ's parousia, etc.
• 

  Awakened at Gilead

  I don't think its easier... JWs think that God guided the FDS to realize that the scriptures all matched together...

  Been there, done that... brainwashed dubs can't realize this...
• 

  Farkel

  I wrote an article about the day for a year scam.

  A Day For a Year - I Need a Beer:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/18573/1.ashx

  Farkel
• 

  james_woods

  There is also the concept that a day is like a thousand years, too - so I guess it is pretty much dealer's choice.

  I used to wonder where in the world they got the idea that the creative "days" were seven thousand years - I don't think there is any kind of clear reference to seven thousand years you can come up with anywhere in the bible.