2520-607 = 1913 (page 3)

btlc

CT Russell about zero-year in The Watchtower 01.12.1912:

schnell

@btlc, Correction accepted! It still doesn't work. :)

scratchme1010

I love math, I love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.
2520 - 607 = 1913
Not 1914.
2520 - 606 = 1914
From what I understand, Russell realized this. He had previously used 606 BC, of course, but then he switched it to 607 BC. I know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?
2520 - 607 - 1 = 1912
???
Okay, so 2520 years after NOTHING HAPPENED, the Titanic sank. *shrug*
Am I wrong here? What am I missing? If anything else, let's explain it for posterity.

I don't know if you know this, schnell, but the JWs are the only people who claim that Babylon was destroyed in 607. Of course, the WT claims like with the 1914 thing, that "it depends on your definition of destruction". Historians place the destruction of Babylon at different years, none of them even close to 607 (or 606) BC.

But most importantly to me is this: REALLY? You need such convoluted, contrived set of history, prophecies, visions, revelations happening through long periods of time to communicate such important message that is supposed to save lives today? To me, using those 7 times tied up with the history of Babylon, the revelation of John and World War 1 is the most ridiculously ineffective way of revealing events that affect the entire planet. it's all a load of --it.

slimboyfat

As I understand it, they switched from 606 to 607 in order to make it still fit with 1914 and for no other reason. A bit like the two years before Cyrus told the Jews to go home. There's no actual reason why it's two years other than to make 1914 fit. How anyone can defend any of it is a complete mystery to me.

Crazyguy

It's also interesting that originally the destruction of Jerusalem wasn't even in the mix, 606 was about the Jewish king being removed from his throne. ( they should of stuck with that) . Not sure when they first taught the destruction of Jerusalem in 607?

Magnum

slimboyfat: "A bit like the two years before Cyrus told the Jews to go home. There's no actual reason why it's two years other than to make 1914 fit."

I never was satisfied with their explanation of the two year Cyrus thing. I never could prove it. It does seem that they chose it to make 1914 work.

schnell

I don't know if you know this, schnell, but the JWs are the only people who claim that Babylon was destroyed in 607. Of course, the WT claims like with the 1914 thing, that "it depends on your definition of destruction". Historians place the destruction of Babylon at different years, none of them even close to 607 (or 606) BC.

Oh, for sure. I just love how this convoluted philosophy of history completely fails. It does not work.

shepherdless

I thought I would set it out for lurkers, but more for my own understanding.

Quite simply, there was no zero A.D. The year after 1 B.C., is 1 A.D. Add 2520 years to 607 B.C. and you get 1914 A.D.

There are so many other issues with this calculation, however. www.jwfacts.com does a good job covering them. Issues include:

1. Two types of year in the one calculation

As mentioned above, Russell used a 360 day year to convert "seven times" in Daniel 4:16 to 2520. (ie "seven times" = 7 x 360 = 2520 days) Then when applying Ezekiel 4:6 (day for a year) he in effect relied on a Gregorian claendar year (365.25 day year) to get from 606 BC to 1914 AD.

2. Whoops! no zero AD

That was fixed by simply moving the date of the fall of Jerusalem back one year, to 607 BC.

3. Whoops! Babylon fell in 539 BC

This is SBF's point above. 539 BC doesn't work with Watchtower theology. If Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years beforehand, then 607 BC becomes 609 BC, and 1914 AD becomes 1912 AD. Solution: Fudge it. Make up some stuff to add a couple of years; ie say it would have taken a couple of years for the release to have happened and/or Jews to return. And just ignore that the bible explicitly says the 70 years ended with the fall of Babylon (see Jerimiah 25:11-12) not when a release or return occurs.

4. Whoops! Bible says Jerusalem destroyed 22 years after 70 years commenced

Jerimiah 25:11 says a large group of nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. Jerimiah 27:1-6 makes it clear that this period had already commenced by the first year of the reign of Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36). The next king was Jehoiachin, who only reigned 3 months. Zedekiah was the third king and reigned for 11 years (see 2 Kings 24:18), before Jerusalem destroyed.

The problem for Watchtower is that this means the bible is in complete agreement with secular history; ie Jerusalem fell in 587 BC. (The Jews also believe that Jerusalem fell in 587 BC, but what would they know about the Hebrew Scriptures.)

Watchtower's solution: ignore what the bible says; never mention those passages; just make broad statements saying the bible with Watchtower (which is an outrageous lie).

Splash

From 607 BCE I understand how the 2520 years can add up to 1914, but I don't understand the arguments against the WT years calculation.

The WT say there are 2520 years from 607 BCE (forget that this isn't a correct date to start with).
It doesn't mention months or gregorian or lunar or anything, just "years".

If I were to ask a Jewish person "what year will it be in 15 years time?" they would look at their calendar, do their sums, and tell us the year. They wouldn't convert to lunar, misplace the leap-months, start adding days etc, they would just add 15 Jewish years to get a result.

The 2520 years is the same.
To my mind this is a non-argument that any JW can demolish just by adding 2520 years to 607 BCE.

The Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, is always in autumn. This is in the month of Tishri and corresponds typically to some time in September but occasionally October. It was instituted as a celebration in Lev 23:24-25.
Add 2520 autumns (Jewish years) to any Gregorian date, and you get the date 2520 years later.

To conflate this with all the lunar, leap, Jewish, Gregorian stuff is exactly what WT do to prove a point.

The fatal error in WT calculations is 607 BCE, not the 2520 year calculation.

shepherdless

Hi Splash,

You are right. It is not the best argument. However, it is a big issue.

Just to be clear, the type of year is not the issue. The issue is that they are using two different types of year in the one equation. They use a 360 day year (which is arguably wrong, btw), multiplied by a 365 and 1/4 day year.

ie: "seven times" = No of days between 607 BC to 1914 AD = 7 x 360 x 365.25.

2520-607 = 1913

Share this