21 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneTo your way of thinking, which was the more devastating disaster for humanity: the Black Death of 1346–53 or the Spanish Flu of 1919?
And I already said that percentages are a statistical whitewash.
The sheer actual number difference is staggering and I do not see why you ignore it. Oh, yeah, you want it to appear that you "won" the argument.
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by Suzianneend of the davidic era, what are you havering about?
The least you could do is square the math.
2520 years - 607 B.C.E. (supposedly the end of the Davidic era) = 1914 A.D.
This pre-supposes that your 607 B.C.E. date is correct, which it is not.
It also pre-supposes that Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of "till seven times pass over him" means 7 years or 2520 days, times 100, equaling 2520 years, is correct.
Explain that, please.
I have provided the link,
you may want to consider counting from the time that the word went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (in the twentieth year of Artarxes)
and the fact that after a literal 2520 days absolutely nothing happened.
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMFThis is not the same thing as the previous question.
To your way of thinking, which was the more devastating disaster for humanity: the Black Death of 1346–53 or the Spanish Flu of 1919?
Estimates of death from the Black Death are varied, anywhere from 75-200 million, and affected mainly Eurasia, while deaths from the so-called Spanish Flu numbered 50-100 million, although more people got this flu, up to 500 million, it was less deadly even though its affects were felt worldwide.
I'm not a student of history, but it appears to me that the Black Death had more of an impact on humanity, coming as it did in an age of exploration and migration. The Spanish Flu was minimized in its reporting and taking place when it did, near the end of World War I, many people in areas not affected grouped it together with the horrors of war in a general sense. Many have called it "the forgotten pandemic".
But as I said, I'm not a historian.
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat in the world are YOU talking about. I gathered my data directly from the jw.org website. God only knows where you got yours.
you may want to consider counting from the time that the word went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (in the twentieth year of Artarxes)
WHY would "word went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" in 607 B.C.E., when the First Temple period did not end until 586 B.C.E. when Judah and Jerusalem were conquered and the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, and Cyrus the Great did not allow the Jews to return home to rebuild their Temple until 538 B.C.E.?
21 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre my numbers right (according to you) or not??
end of the davidic era, what are you havering about?
I have provided the link,
you may want to consider counting from the time that the word went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (in the twentieth year of Artarxes)
and the fact that after a literal 2520 days absolutely nothing happened.
They came from *your* corporation's website.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/1914-a-significant-year-in-bible-prophecy/#?insight[search_id]=777f35cd-fde0-4319-867a-511f3c6d0363&insight[search_result_index]=0
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneAn example of why what?
Of course, and this thread is a great example why.
You say "the Black Death had more of an impact on humanity" than the Spanish Flu. Why? Because of percentages?
Let me understand: did you reject the 11% aspect of the 2% v 11% thing earlier?
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMFI haven't researched it, but it was recorded as something like "1 out of 10" or thereabouts. I don't doubt 11%. What I doubt is the whole line of thinking that creates "Oooooooh, 11% is so much more than 2%." In this case, that is wildly incorrect.
An example of why what?
You say "the Black Death had more of an impact on humanity" than the Spanish Flu. Why? Because of percentages?
Let me understand: did you reject the 11% aspect of the 2% v 11% thing earlier?
And I *told* you my reasoning. And it has even less to do with percentages than you imply.
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI am asking you about your statement "And I already said that percentages are a statistical whitewash."
And I *told* you my reasoning. And it has even less to do with percentages than you imply.
That statement of yours has "less to do with percentages" than what?
I don't understand what you are saying.
21 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFProbably not, because it doesn't promote your ends.
I am asking you about your statement "And I already said that percentages are a statistical whitewash."
That statement of yours has "less to do with percentages" than what?
I don't understand what you are saying.
Let's just forget it.
(You might have better luck if you treat our "back and forth" as an actual conversation.)
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI have been trying to to understand what you mean ~ because to me you seem to have contradicted yourself ~ and have therefore asked you about it. One cannot really get a more basic and genuine attempt at conversation than that.
Probably not, because it doesn't promote your ends.
Let's just forget it.
(You might have better luck if you treat our "back and forth" as an actual conversation.)
21 Jul 14
Okay, to the people who pride themselves on their powers of "logic" and yet cannot understand plain English, here it is again.
"The loss of 2% of the world population in 1945 is far worse than the loss of 11% of the world's population in 1220."
"Why don't you research the raw numbers and see for yourself?
Then you can ask yourself if you really think the smaller number is worse."
"And I already said that percentages are a statistical whitewash.
The sheer actual number difference is staggering and I do not see why you ignore it. Oh, yeah, you want it to appear that you "won" the argument."
And finally, "I don't doubt 11%. What I doubt is the whole line of thinking that creates "Oooooooh, 11% is so much more than 2%." In this case, that is wildly incorrect."
Those who rely ONLY on percentages are trying to promote their own agenda, not the truth. That is why, in a lot of conversations, percentages are a statistical whitewash. What is being compared is often apples and oranges.
21 Jul 14
Originally posted by SuzianneDoes this mean that you perhaps see the Great Flood as not being so bad because 'virtually 100%' of people getting annihilated deliberately is not as bad as it sounds when you hear it in "the raw numbers" and compare it to, say, the 20thC population of the world?
Okay, to the people who pride themselves on their powers of "logic" and yet cannot understand plain English, here it is again.
"The loss of 2% of the world population in 1945 is far worse than the loss of 11% of the world's population in 1220."
"Why don't you research the raw numbers and see for yourself?
Then you can ask yourself if you really thi ...[text shortened]... s, percentages are a statistical whitewash. What is being compared is often apples and oranges.