Earthquakes and rumors of war or whatever ;o)

by Hellrider 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • diamondblue1974

    I was reading an article over the weekend which suggested their was a horrendous amount of earthquakes and so forth in the 14th doubt we were living in the time of the end there too!!!

    600/700 years on and we still are living in the time of the end....I wish the so called end would begin its getting a bit tedious lol


  • thirdwitness

    Ok, I will use your greatly exaggerated figures for earthquakes before 1914 and your under exaggerated figures for after 1914. What do we find.

    Pre1914--4 million deaths.

    Post1914 1.5 million deaths.

    Pre1914--A little over 2000 deaths per year.

    Post1914--over 16,000 deaths per year.

    So even using your figures earthquakes have effected more people since 1914 than ever before. Jesus was right after all. And so are JWs.

    Now since most will say, 'No fair. Not all earthquakes are recorded before 1900". Lets just for no reason double your figure for earthquake deaths before 1914 to 8 million. (which is really a ridiculous thing to do as you have already exaggerated the figure but just for arguments sake lets do it.)

    Now what do we have:

    Pre1914--8 million (exaggerated) deaths.

    Post1914 1.5 million deaths.

    Pre1914--A little over 4000 (exaggerated) deaths per year.

    Post1914--over 16,000 deaths per year.

    Wow, Jesus and JWs are still right even at that.

    By the way, here are some of your exaggerations:

    1201, upper Egypt: 1.100 000 deaths. Very unsubstantiated.

    1737, India, Calcutta: 300 000 deaths. A typhoon, not an earthquake.

    1976 China 255,000. Some estimate 655,000 deaths. I bet if this was before 1914 you would have used the larger figure.

    Now lets just put that whole 'JWs are wrong about earthquakes' theory to rest.

  • monkeyshine

    If an 7.0 earthquake happened in New York city today 2006, how many would die?

    What if it happened in 1006? How many would die?

    And CNN wouldn't be there to broadcast it. (obviously)

    To say the 'JW's wrong about earthquakes' THEORY is to be put to rest is pretty scary. When obvious science and common sense tells you something and you argue it to the bone, maybe something is wrong. Maybe your info is biased. Just consider MAYBE.

    If you grew up in The Middle East, you'd be arguing for their beliefs.

    I am not picking on anyone, but as a friend and fellow imperfect man I am only saying that there is always maybe. That's all--maybe

  • thirdwitness

    It doesn't matter the reason why more people die from earthquakes. Jesus probably knew that there would be more people alive on earth when he said, 'There will be great earthquakes in one place after another.' The fact is that there are great earthquakes in one place after another. If there were earthquakes occuring in uninhabited places all over the world right now reaching 10 on the richter scale but killing no one would you consider that to be fulfilling Jesus' words? I don't think so.

    Even using the biased figures presented above there are over 16,000 per year dying from earthquakes since 1914 as compared to 2000 per year before 1914. The earthquakes are indeed greater than ever before as regards the toll on human life. I know most of you don't want that to be true because you want JWs to be wrong. But sorry. JWs are right and it would probably be good to face up to the facts.

  • monkeyshine

    They weren't recorded like they are now. In the middle ages they didn't know if there was an earthquake outside of there immediate area.

    American Indians didn't record earthquake statistics.

    The Vikings didn't record earthquake statistics.

    The FACT is, now, EVERY earthquake is recorded. If it happens in Timbuktu, we know. If it happens at the South Pole, we know.

    It is SO obvious there will be more earthquakes on record because now there IS a record.

    Before 1914 how many earthquakes went unrecorded?

    How about from 1914 to 2006?

    Would it not be an honest opinion that with the new technology, way less go undetected?

    It is very simple. Let me say that I am not a JW basher. I respect anyone's beliefs. I was born and raised a JW and have no need to shoot down anything. I'm fine. I'm not laying in an alley with a whiskey bottle shouting anti JW sentiments. The fact is, when researching a scientific fact, one must seek info from a wide array of sources. Researching material given out by an organization who's ideas are pointed in one direction is not enough. Just like if you only researched so called 'Apostate' sources. It works both ways. Research EVERYTHING and EVERY scenario. The 'blinders' MUST be removed to observe the surroundings. Only then can the truth be found.

  • under_believer

    Hello thirdwitness the apostate dabbler, did you not see the Society's latest word on earthquakes, quoted in this very thread? It said:

    Note, though, that the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy does not require an increase in the number or power of earthquakes. All Jesus said was that there would be great earthquakes in one place after another. Furthermore, he stated that these events would mark the "beginning of pangs of distress." (Matthew 24:8) Distress is measured, not by the number of earthquakes or how they rate on the Richter scale, but by the effect that they have upon people.

    Fact: There have always been earthquakes in one place after another. Not even the Society denies this. Nor should you.
    They now seem to be interpreting that the amount of distress caused by the earthquakes is what makes them a prophetic sign. Then they proceed to say that earthquakes have left millions dead or homeless, and the shoddy construction practices in the Third World, signs of humans being "self-centered, lovers of money", and "callous" (they had to go to the Amplified Bible for that particular out-of-context citation) are a major reason why.
    So are you seriously contending that it's not the number of earthquakes in one place after another, but the amount of human misery that they cause (precipitated by the fact that humans are now somehow shittier than they used to be before 1914), that indicates the end times? Because the account in Matthew doesn't say that.
    Next week, if the Society changes the interpretation back to an actual increase in earthquakes, will you change your thinking back to that?

  • Hellrider


    Monkeyshine and Underbeliever pretty much covered it, but just let me add:

    You say that the figures are exxagerated: What is your source for that? The earthquake in Egypt is verified by science. That the estimated death toll is to high, is only your claim. You have offered no evidence, sources or arguments to support your claim. The quake in Calcutta 1737 is listed by the 2002 Encyclopedica Britannica, so I would think that is substantiated too...

    As for the rest of your aguments: They have all been covered. If we use your numbers (or we can even use lower numbers than that), then the fact that there were an estimated 4000 deaths by earthquake a year before 1914, and an estimated 16000 deaths by earthquake each year before 1914, pretty shocking. Shocking in the sense that before 1914, the highest number of people living on the planet (just before 1914), was around 3 billion. In 1800, the number was 1 billion. So, if we count back from the 1800s, although there were only 1/6 of the population of 2006, living on the planet, the number of deaths due to earthquake pr year was 1/4 of what it is today. That means that in relation to the population of the world, at all times in history up to 1914, more people (percentagewise, in relation to the population at any give time) died from earthquakes than after 1914. I find that to be pretty shocking. I guess the reason why fewer people (percentagewise, in relation to the overall population at any given time) dies from earthquakes from 1914 and up until today, must be that we are better at constructing stronger buildings that doesn`t collapse that easily, we are better at getting medical help, food and water in, after the earthquakes happen, etc. Thank God we have made this progress.

  • AlanF

    Very good points, folks.

    Thirdwitness continues to fail to deal with the fact that the Society's older methods of calculating the severity of the effect of earthquakes on mankind -- which the Sociey has given up on but he still uses -- result in exactly the same bogus result for any year at all in an era of increasing population. In fact, you can take any phenomenon whatsoever and make the same bogus conclusion.

    By those methods, Jehovah's Witnesses today have a problem with gross sexual immorality that is some 130 times worse than 70 years ago.


  • Hellrider

    The point is, Thirdwitness, that you and I both stand a much lesser chanse (statistically, in relation to the world population) of dying in an earthquake today, than if we had been alive at any time before 1914! Let me give you an example: In the 800s, the world population was about 200 million people (or less). When the earthquakes hit Iran twice and India once, they killed in a total 530 000 people. That means that in that century alone, 530 000 (out of a stabile worldwide population of 200 000 000) died from earthquakes. That means that in the 800s, 2/1000 (2 promille) died from earthquakes. In comparison, since 1914, 1,474 361 people have died in earthquakes (including the earthquake-related tsunami in Sumatra 2004). In 1900, there were around 3 billion people on the planet. Today, there are 6.5 billion people. Let`s then use the number 4 billions as an average for the 20th century. That means that of 4000 000 000 there has been 1474361 casualties due to earthquakes. Do you mind doing the math for me?

  • stevenyc

    While it's nice to be an armchair seismologist or a protector of cult statements, in the end it's good to get the info from the people who know.

    The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is part of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) led by the National Insititute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It is one of the central repositories and research and data from Earthquakes on the planet.

    Here is what they say:

    Common Myths about Earthquakes

    Q: Why are we having so many earthquakes? Has earthquake activity been increasing? Does this mean a big one is going to hit? OR We haven't had any earthquakes in a long time; does this mean that the pressure is building up?

    A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years. A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications.

    In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 4,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by telex, computer and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years, and we are able to locate earthquakes more rapidly.

    The NEIC now locates about 12,000 to 14,000 earthquakes each year or approximately 35 per day. Also, because of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about more earthquakes. According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 18 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year. However, let's take a look at what has happened in the past 32 years, from 1969 through 2001, so far. Our records show that 1992, and 1995-1997 were the only years that we have reached or exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes since 1971. In 1970 and in 1971 we had 20 and 19 major earthquakes, respectively, but in other years the total was in many cases well below the 18 per year which we may expect based on the long-term average.

    A temporal increase in earthquake activity does not mean that a large earthquake is about to happen. Similarly, quiescence, or the lack of seismicity, does not mean a large earthquake is going to happen.


Share this