To "Scholar"

by Farkel 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • unclebruce

    Geez Farkelmeiser,

    Since when have there been 365 1/4 days in a year? Maybe in Blather Franz day the Sun was revolving a bit faster. .. Oh what fun it must have been having 'millions now living' worship ones every mad thought and utterance

    warm regards, unclebruce

  • setfreefinally
  • setfreefinally

    Is this your article Farkel?

  • Gamaliel


    I couldn't tell if anyone directed you to the thread:

    I think that's the one Farkel has in mind with ref to scholar. It's a pretty good thread.

    You may have already commented on Daniel's 7 times, 70 weeks, 1290, 1260, 1335 days, etc, but I'd like to know if you have anything written on it. You seem to have given a lot of thought to it, and I saw a good thread of yours on the 70 years desolation.


  • rocketman

    Maybe scholar has gone to the privy.

  • JCanon

    Hi Farkel-guy....

    This was pretty simple, I thought. Only Fred Franz tried to muddle it all up. ANY calendar in the world that worked on only 360 days per year would eventually have summer months end up being winter months and vice versa. With a five and a quarter day loss each year it doesn't take a dummy to figure out that in just four or five months, October would be September and four or five months later September would be August.

    This statement MISREPRESENTS what the WTS teaches. That's because they use 360-day year to CALCULATE the number of years but when APPLIED, they use regular solar years or the luni-solar years which is the same calendar the Jews use. The Jews use a lunisolar calendar.

    Or in other words, when calculating for years in prophecy, the Bible rounds off each month to 30 days and each year to 360 days to calculate a "time". So that 7 times is 2520 days which is then converted to 2520 years. But when you actually start to apply those years, they are applied to LUNISOLAR years, that is, basically regular years of 365-1/4 days.

    Now you might not like this application, but that's not the point here. The point here is that the WTS teaches this conversion to the lunisolar year when applying the 2520 years, which is something you're not addressing. You're finding fault with the calculation pre-conversion, which is a valid criticism IF they did not themselves understand they must make the conversion to regular years.

    You're missing a step the society uses in making the application. Franz is not confused about this, he understands the 360-day year has to be converted to a regular solar year.

    You're criticizing the WTS for something they do not teach in this case.

    Again, feel free to disagree with it, but you're misrepresenting what they actually teach, so your argument is a "straw man" argument. You're knocking down a straw man that you've invented yourself that is not relevant to what the WTS actually teaches/practices with the chronology.


  • Farkel


    Yep. I wrote that. Years ago. Maybe 6 or so years ago.


Share this