I think I made a mistake by trying to explain my thoughts using a mathematical equation. It's apparently confusing, and I apologize. When we get to writing things down, we often know what we intend to say, but we don't always communicate it effectively. It frequently takes other people reviewing our own work to point out where it's unclear. I should have expressed my thoughts a little more clearly so that discussion did not evolve into mathematical arguments. However, let's not lose the forest for the trees.
I know algebra. Believe me, I sat through many torturous hours in school learning higher math. In pure mathematical terms, you are all right. The equation is solvable. You can use simple algebra to find out what the unknown variable is. Obviously, the variable z in that equation can only be a 2. You can use elementary algebra to figure that out. That, however, wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that you must verify each element before you can say that you've reached an accurate conclusion. If there is any step in the process of forming a conclusion which cannot be proven, you can never say that your conclusion is without a doubt accurate. That the point. Please understand that you can't use algebra to verify any of the Society's six assumptions listed above.
In developing the 1914 doctrine, the Society begins by assuming that Daniel Chapter 4 has a second fulfillment, and they build upon that assumption with several other unverifiable assumptions. They take all of these steps and claim to have arrived upon an accurate Bible truth. Using the Bible, you can't prove whether or not Daniel Chapter 4 does or does not have a second application. You can't definitely prove any of the other assumptions that they make along the way either. To undergo that process and conclude that you’ve arrived at an irrefutable Bible truth is illogical and goes against all good reason.
Maybe this example will help. I come home late in the day to realize that my house has been broken into. I start with the assumption that my neighbor, Fred, must have done it because he and I don't get along very well. I look at my watch and realize its 7:00 p.m. I conclude that Fred must have broken into my house no more than an hour ago because he gets off of work at 6:00 p.m. I then assume that he must have driven away in his grey Toyota Camry that he uses for work because he only owns two cars and his wife always uses the other one. I also know that Fred drives down the main interstate that passes through our hometown every day on his way to work, so I assume that he must have driven away on the same interstate that's he so intimately familiar with. Therefore, I conclude that Fred broke into my house between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and then drove away on the interstate in his grey Toyota Camry. I've arrived at a perfectly valid conclusion, right? I should call the cops and have them stop all grey Toyota Camry's on the interstate that are no further than an hour's drive from my home, shouldn’t I? Obviously, the answer to both questions is NO!
What I've come up with is a hypothesis. I haven't verified any of the elements that I used to arrive at my conclusion. Again, the point is that the Society has no reason to treat their 1914 doctrine as being undeniably correct. They treat the doctrine as truth and expect their followers to do the same. They demand that they make life’s most important decisions under the assumption that the end times began in 1914. This is dishonest and illogical. That's the point that I was attempting to get across. Sorry for the confusion.
