Gentile Times

by Masterji 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aChristian

  Sleepy,

  You wrote: It is not logical to concluded that you can change an ancient year of 360 days for one of 365 1/4 without any solid reason to do so.

  Maybe you misspoke. Because as you probably know, no ancient calendar ever had 360 days. The Jews used a lunar calendar containing 354 days. This calendar of theirs contained six 29 day months and six 30 day months. The Jews adjusted their lunar calendar by adding a thirteenth month to it every several years to prevent their lunar years from falling too far out of sync with the solar year. But the fact remains, the Jews never used a solar calendar, always a lunar one. So a "year" to the Jews always meant a lunar year, not a solar year.
• 

  Englishman

  Remember Belshazzars feast when the finger on the wall wrote "Mene mene tekel, upharsin"?

  I seem to remember that the WT claimed that a mene = 1000 shekels, a tekel = 500 shekels and a pharsin = 20 shekels, total of 2 mene's, 1 tekel and 1 pharsin = 2520 shekels.

  Weird, eh?

  Englishman.

  Bring on the dancing girls!
• 

  Farkel

  I don't know why you have questions about 607 and 1914. The whole matter is so simple! You take 7 "times" which aren't "times" but "days" which are really "years", not "days" and multiply them by 360 "lunar" months to get 2,250 "days", which aren't "days" at all, but "solar years." Simple! I wrote "1914 For Dummies" years ago to show you how simple it really is.

  (I also wrote a piece for the old H20 which I cannot now locate about another prophecy of Fred Franz where he actually used "lunar" months to count between two time periods to come up with some "prophecy" that ended somewhere in this Century. I actually took the time to calculated between the exact day and month of the start of his prophecy and its "fulfillment" according to his numbers and even then he was off by weeks! Perhaps someone saved that one, and will here it. If there was anything consistent about Fred Franz it was the fact that he was inconsistent.

  1914 For Dummies

  "1914" A.D. - the single most important date in JW doctrine, and is the result of using 607 B.C as an "anchor date", using the book of Daniel, Chapter 4, as proof.

  This is based upon the following, simple reasoning:

  7 "times" doesn't mean "7 times". It means "7 years".

  But,"7 years" doesn't really mean 7 "years", either. It means "7 years of days".

  But, the "days" in "years of days" doesn't really mean "years of days, in which the days actually mean "days", but means "years of days, in which the "days" actually mean "years".

  Therefore, it is easy for even a fool to see that "7 times" REALLY means "7 years" but which really means "7 years of days", but which then really means "7 years of days which aren't really days, but years", or simply stated "7 years of days of which days are really years". To put it even so a child can understand it, it means that the "times" aren't "times" at all, but are "years", which aren't "years" at all, but are "years of days", which aren't "days" at all, but are "years" AFTER all, even though they were originally CALLED "times"!

  Got all that? There's more.

  Strangely, however, for all of this to work, this fulfillment, based upon an ANCIENT text, still requires the use of the ANCIENT calendar for the MODERN fulfillment to work out to 1914. Therefore, ancient text + ancient calendar = modern date in modern calendar.

  When doing your calculations, don't forget that there is no "zero year" from B.C to A.D. C.T. Russell forgot that and was quite embarrassed about it. The official WTBS explanation in later, revised, editions of his books was that "the battery was very low in his calculator at that time" and he wasn't aware of it until after the material was printed.

  Lastly, the book of Daniel was prophesied to remain "sealed" until the "last days", which, as we know, began in 1914, according to the simple reasoning just presented. So, Russell had to figure out a way to, somehow "unseal" Daniel before it was prophesied that Daniel WOULD be "unsealed" so he could then put forth a prophecy which pointed to exactly when Daniel WAS to be "unsealed", namely at the start of the "last days", in 1914. Russell, therefore, successfully used a "sealed" book to calculate the exact date it was to be "unsealed", which at that time it was officially, "unsealed", but Russell "unsealed" it before that, because he wanted to know beforehand when it WOULD be "unsealed", because only THEN would he know when the "last days" were to start, which was, of course, when Daniel actually WAS to be "unsealed". Got all that?

  I apologize to the reader for using so many words, but, this stuff is so, well, "DEEP"!

  Farkel

  "I didn't mean what I meant."
• 

  Room 215

  Masterj,

  The connection to your thesis is perhaps oblique, but no less germane. It's this: howeer impressive the legerdemain and mental gymnastics of Russell's chronology appears on the surface, if it fails in its primary purpose, i.e. forewardns and prepares us for an epoch of woes so unprecedented as to preclude the possibility of any continuance of human life on earth, and that as a precursor to divine inervention and thence to the Kingdom's establishment, then it deserves our utmost respect.

  BUT.... if the time period it isolates fails to measure up in terms of unprecedented turmoil, and actually by several objective parameters can be identifiedf as a sort of Golden Age, then that invalidates the entire premise, no?
• 

  sleepy

  A Christian

  "Sleepy,
  You wrote: It is not logical to concluded that you can change an ancient year of 360 days for one of 365 1/4 without any solid reason to do so.

  Maybe you misspoke. Because as you probably know, no ancient calendar ever had 360 days. "

  The sumerians and ancient Babylonians used a 360 day year.
  Thats were we get our 360 degree division of a circle from.
• 

  Fredhall

  AlanF,

  If you think that WT is fooling us; then who is fooling you? Is it Carol Jonsson?
• 

  Francois

  Never mind all the speculation about how the Gentile Times were timed. Remember the statement in the original "Truth" book from, I think, Dean Acheson, that he could say that by 1975 the world would be too "dangerous a place to live"?

  Frankly, I think we've pretty much proven that the WTBTS and all it's teachings are bullshit. And the more you stir shit the more it stinks.

  Congratulations on being out! Thank God we are! Let's help each other get over the anger at ourselves for being so gullible for so long and get on with loving the life we've got - and the freedom that does with it!

  Francois
• 

  aChristian

  Sleepy,

  Thanks for the info. "The sumerians and ancient Babylonians used a 360 day year. Thats were we get our 360 degree division of a circle from."

  Many JWs are under the impression that the ancient Jewish calendar contained 360 days. That is of course what is incorrect.
• 

  Dino

  Welcome to the board Masterji.

  I cant add much to the fine comments made, especially by AlanF and Islandwoman.

  I just wanted to underline a point made by Alan. I too really began to take note of the incongruousness of the WT's view of Matthew 24 around 1993.

  Something else that intrigued me is that even though Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott was published before the enlarged understanding of koine greek, he was aware of the nuances of the word parousia. In 1 Corinthians 15:23 note how Wilson renders parousia:

  "But each one in his own rank; Christ a firstfruit; afterwards, those who are Christ's at his APPEARING." (caps Benjamin Wilson's)

  The NWT dogmatically renders parousia, you guessed it, presence.
  This of course, to shore up their creaky 1914 invisible presence doctrine.

  Excellent thread and again, welcome.

  Dino