Another reason why 1914 is WRONG

by EdenOne 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • EdenOne

    Even if 607 had been the actual date of the destruction of Jerusalem .... 1914 would still be wrong. Why?

    When the WTS says that "7 times" equals 2 x 3,5 times of Revelation = 2 x 1260 days = 2520 days > one day / one year rule = 2520 years.

    Now, 2520 / 7 times means that one "time" has 360 "days". This corresponds to the LUNAR year. So, to calculate the lenght of the "7 times", the WTS used LUNAR years (360 days on each). However, to apply those 7 times into the actual calendar to determine on what year they would finish, the WTS used SOLAR years of 365 days! Do you see the inconsistency?

    Now, what would happen if we would be CONSISTENT and calculate the time interval using the same rule, using LUNAR years? Would we arrive to 1914? No, we wouldn't.

    Indulge me on this one. If we were to convert lunar years in solar years, how much would that be? A lunar year = 360 days. A solar year = 365,25 days (the added 0,25 is to cover the leap years). That means that, for every LUNAR year in the calendar there's a difference of -5,25 days in relation to the SOLAR year. Now how much difference is that after 2520 LUNAR years? 2520 x 5,25 = -13230 days. if you then divide this number by 365,25 you get the difference in SOLAR years towards the LUNAR years. The result is -36,221, or minus 36 years, 2 months and 20 days, give or take.

    This means that instead of calculating 2520 LUNAR years into a SOLAR year calendar, the WTS should have converted lunar years into solar years first. Then 2520 would effectively become 2483 years, 7 months and 10 days, give or take. Let's just assume the 10 days as an interval of tolerance.

    Now, lets re-calculate (WTS style): From Tammuz (June/July) 607 AEC to December 31st 1 AEC = 605 years and 5/6 months. Now 2483 years and 7 months minus 605 years and 5/6 months = July / August 1878. So, even assuming that the WTS had the date of 607 BCE as the correct date for the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the correct "end of the gentile times" would have been 1878 and not 1914.

    [For the sake of comparison, let's make the same calculation having as sarting point the date generally accepted by scholars as the accurate date for the destruction of Jerulalem: 587 BCE. And let's do the same calculation. From Tammuz (June/July) 587 BCE to 31st December 1 BCE: 586 years and 5/6 months; Now, 2483 years and 7 months minus 587 years and 5/6 months. = July / August 1896.]

    So, has anything relevant thing happened in 1878? Or in 1896? [By the way, just on a curious note, if you would consider the year zero as one extra year, you would arrive to ... July 1879, the month when Zion's Watchtower began to be published.]


  • J. Hofer
    J. Hofer

    good catch bro. thought about the very same thing not too long ago.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer



    You have a long, long road ahead of you. Hope you make it.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • EdenOne


    The wrongness of 1914 is and has been a no-brainer for me since quite a long time. This is simply one angle that is hardly ever mentioned (if ever).


  • insearchoftruth4

    Eden One, William Miller, George Storrs, and others especially Nelson Barbour. Russell borrowed most if not all their stuff. Try wikipedia on russell

  • EdenOne

    I know that Barbour expected the resurrection of the saints to happen in April 1878. Naturally nothing happened. But I don't know what was on the basis of his calculations. However, the above is (I think) crystal clear evidence that even IF 607 BCE was a correct date, then even by the WTS own calculation method, 1914 would STILL be wrong.


  • suavojr

    It is so much easier to simply understand the end times began after Jesus left and he will return when ever he has determined.

    WHY DO WE INDULGE OURSELVES with so much guess work? I am asking from a JW POV

  • garyneal

    Keep in mind that the Watchtower use to publish the year of Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 606 BCE until they discovered their own oversight of there being no year zero. Why move the date back to 607 upon this discovery instead of moving Christ's invisible return up to 1915?

  • EdenOne

    Because they just can't possibly ever be wrong ...?


  • Pterist

    Thanks Eden, great details


Share this