Polls

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

Articles & Posts

Was Pastor Russell wrong about 1914?

After 1948, Hal Lindsey and many fundamentalists, on the basis of Israel and the generation of Luke 21:29-31, predicted that Jesus would return within 40 years of 1948.  Excited over the new state of Israel, Billy Graham in 1950 told a rally in Los Angeles, “Two years and it’s all going to be over.”  For several years before 1994, Harold Camping of Family Radio fame vigorously predicted on radio and by printed page the return of Jesus in 1994.  All of these 20th Century theologians were wrong, but they were never accused of being false prophets.

In 1920 Rutherford predicted that “1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old”  (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, pp. 89-90).

Pastor Russell was the only Christian teacher to accurately predict the date of a major future event (WWI), and he is accused of being a false prophet.  Can anyone out there tell me of a Christian Leader who accurately predicted a future date and event based on scriptural evidence and got it right?  I will be anxious to hear from you.

In a 1909 Watchtower, page 371, Pastor Russell said, ” While our faith and hopes would be equally clear and logical whether this age ends in October, 1914, or a century later, nevertheless our expectation that “Gentile Times” will conclude October, 1914, undoubtedly has a stimulating effect upon our hearts and influences all of life’s interests and helps to “wean” us from earthly joys and ambitions and to set our affections on things above!”

Notice that Pastor Russell did not say that “this age” would end in 1914, but that he expected the Times of the Gentiles to end in 1914.  He indicated our faith would be equally clear even if this Gospel Age continued another hundred years.

In the 1916 forward of “The Time is at Hand,” Pastor Russell said the following.

This Volume sets forth, what its author has been preaching for over forty years, that the “Times of the Gentiles” chronologically ended in the fall of A.D. 1914. The expression, “Times of the Gentiles,” in Bible usage signifies the years, or period of time, in which the Gentile nations of the world were to be permitted to have control, following the taking away of the typical kingdom from natural Israel, and filling the hiatus between that event and the establishment of God’s Kingdom in the hands of Messiah– “whose right it is.” Ezekiel 21:27

We could not, of course, know in 1889, whether the date 1914, so clearly marked in the Bible as the end of the Gentile lease of power or permission to rule the world, would mean that they would be fully out of power at that time, or whether, their lease expiring, their eviction would begin. The latter we perceive to be the Lord’s program; and promptly in August, 1914, the Gentile kingdoms referred to in the prophecy began the present great struggle, which, according to the Bible, will culminate in the complete overthrow of all human government, opening the way for the full establishment of the Kingdom of God’s dear Son…


The author acknowledges that in this book he presents the thought that the Lord’s saints might expect to be with Him in glory at the ending of the Gentile Times. This was a natural mistake to fall into…


Our mistake was evidently not in respect to the ending of the Times of the Gentiles; we drew a false conclusion, however, not authorized by the Word of the Lord. We saw in the Bible certain parallels between the Jewish Age and the Gospel Age. We should have noted that these parallels follow the nominal systems to destruction in both cases, and do not indicate the time of the glorification of the New Creation. This explanation will help the reader as he studies “THE TIME IS AT HAND.”

In the September 1916 Watchtower, Pastor Russell said the following: (R5950, p263)

It still seems clear to us that the prophetic period known as the Times of the Gentiles ended chronologically in October, 1914. The fact that the Great Day of Wrath upon the nations began there marks a good fulfilment of our expectations. The Gentile nations were guaranteed a certain amount of possession and control for a certain period of time. That time having expired, dispossession proceedings are now in process. The winds of strife, winds of war, are let loose with great damage to the whole world, weakening the kingdoms of Europe in respect to their best blood and their financial strength.

81 comments to Was Pastor Russell wrong about 1914?

  • sidgi

    peter,

    thank you for your reply. I admit to being a bit hasty. I also admit to being aware of the other positions taken, that make viewing it the way you do, more agreeable to your organization. While I don’t know them intimately, as you do, I do see the possibility for circular reasoning on the matter. I didn’t say all of that regarding yourself and Russel’s influence, so I think perhaps you are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of, namely a diversionary tactic. While what I said might have had that impact, it wasn’t my intent. My intent was to say that men tend to get comfortable with their beliefs, and that old wine is nice. So it’s easy to believe things you’ve already grown accustomed to; and things that support that comfort are readily accepted. Things that don’t, are easily rejected. I apologize for making it seem personal. The validation I spoke of was organizational positions, not you personally, although you do support their positions.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi –Thanks for more thought provoking discussion. We both agree it is wrong to follow an organization or person, other than the scriptures and Jesus Christ himself. When I post the article on the Wheat and Tares, if you find circular reasoning, please bring it to my attention.

  • sidgi

    peter,

    I personally don’t see the application of that particular parable that way. The only reason I can see for doing so, is to try and validate other positions taken regarding the end times. this is the explanation of the parable by Jesus, himself……(Matthew 13:36-43) 36 Then after dismissing the crowds he went into the house. And his disciples came to him and said: “Explain to us the illustration of the weeds in the field.” 37 In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world; as for the fine seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy that sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where [their] weeping and the gnashing of [their] teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen.

    Notice that the whole world was the field, not the nation of Israel. Also notice that the World’s end is what is discussed, not the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Notice also that the angels were doing the separating work, and surely there were wicked individuals in the army of Rome that destroyed Jerusalem, and they weren’t gathered by the angels.

    I believe that being caught up in the ideas of men, clouds the bibles message. If you just let those prophecies and illustrations be what they are, instead of trying to make it fit some pattern, as Charles Russel and other have, it becomes much more clear and useful. To be sure, I value the work Charles Russel did, I have learned to think clearly about what the bible say’s because of him. It’s too bad that he didn’t always take his own advice.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – Your point of view and your scriptural support for it are quite welcome on our site. However, I take exception to your response that “The only reason… is to try and validate other positions taken regarding the end times [i.e. Charles Russell]… I believe that being caught up in the ideas of men clouds the bibles message. “ etc.

      Ouch! Sidgi, this is totally unfair of you. I indicated that this is a very involved topic and that I planned on providing a more in depth article on it soon. So far, you have only gotten from me the briefest of introductory comments on the subject and you have already passed judgment on the idea.

      To take the position that I am influenced by a man is a great emotional argument to win your case and end the discussion in the minds of readers who rightly only want to see what can be proven by scriptures alone. And certainly we all bring biases with us. However Sidgi, let’s stick to scriptures, not to the diversionary tactic of saying I am just believing it because Charles Russell said it. If that is true, it will become evident, when I make my case.

      I agree with you that Matt 13 is not referring to the end of the Jewish age and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. Matt 13 is about the end times Gospel Harvest. In the upcoming article, I will share various scriptures that talk about the Jewish Harvest and how I interpret them. I suggest that once the scriptural case is made, it will be very difficult to disagree that there was a distinct Jewish Harvest that ended with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Armies. As sharp as you are, I know you can find these passages on your own. The Jewish Harvest has a “winnowing fork” and “chaff.” The Gospel Harvest has a “sickle” and “tares.”

      By the way, the Greek and Hebrew words for messengers don’t always refer to angels. For example Ephesians 1:1-2 – speaks of “Paul, messenger of Jesus Christ.”

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – It took longer than I thought, but we have finally posted an in depth article on the Harvest covering many of the issues we lightly touched on in greater detail. Here is the link: http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2012/01/15/the-harvest-is-a-conclusion-of-a-system-of-things-the-end-of-the-age/

  • sidgi

    peter,

    in your consideration of what’s been called the reformation, how do you fit that in with Jesus parable with the wheat and tares? This parable seems to deal with the entire flow of time from start to finish, regarding God’s Kingdom here on the earth. Both groups seem to be growing together right up till the harvest.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – The Matt 13 parable is quite an involved study, so I hope to post an article on it (in the next few days) that you can read if you are interested.

      In a nutshell, I do not believe that the Gospel Harvest can be understood, without first clearly understanding the Jewish Harvest, then comparing and contrasting. In the Jewish Harvest, Jesus as the Chief Reaper, separating the wheat (faithful Jews who accepted Christ) from the tares (the nominal Jewish Nation) burned that nation with unquenchable fire (destroyed AD 68-70 by Roman armies). The barn represented the association of Early Christian brethren together in the Early Church under the direct guidance of the Apostles.

      I believe a similar separation took place with the early Watchtower (the Gospel Harvest). The call was to “come out of her my people” Rev 18:1 and into the “barn” of association together in Truth (Ransom for ALL, Paradise on Earth, False doctrines = hell, trinity and immortal soul). Yet just as the Early Church became corrupted (the devil sowed tares among the wheat), so in this Gospel Harvest, errors crept back in, but the Lord’s Anointed chose to stay faithful to Jehovah’s word, rather than to an earthly organization that sought to remove the very Christian liberty that had drawn the brethren together to such an increase understanding.

      The reformation and reforms that followed were stepping stones, getting the Truths in place to be gathered up, understood and taught by the early Watchtower.

      There is so much more to be said, as this is an involved subject which can be more fully understood in volumes 2-4 of Studies in the scriptures.

  • sidgi

    Peter,

    you’ve missed my point. You haven’t been unkind in your evaluation of me, but you seem to assume that I don’t weigh other men’s words. I do, sort of like the Bereans, as you suggest. On sites like these, in person, by reading, etc. I measure what is said, taught, believed, held sacred, etc. with what the bible actually says. I try very hard, not to have a private interpretation. I am an imperfect human, so it is difficult. My method is to let it be what it is. I don’t try and make it fit my view of the world. If a man tries to find what God thinks, instead of believing that God sees things the way he does, he will get further in his study.

    I’ve found no magic. I’ve found no codes. I’ve found that sometimes it takes the reality at hand, to see clearly the message given in prophecy. You speak of the different reformations down through the years. That shows that men were, and are, aware that the apostasy Paul spoke about was a general apostasy. That means that there is no true church, tracing it’s roots to Jesus. You say the light is getting brighter, so to speak, but it was totally bright in the beginning, and since the apostolic times has gotten dimmer. The effects of the apostasy are tainting everything taught.

    the description Jesus gave of the gradual clearing of the perception of his return doesn’t seem to cover a hundred years or more. If, as some believe, his description is of the dawn, it only covers the relatively short period till full day appears, an hour or two at most till vision is clear. If he is describing the lightning in a storm, that occurrence is even quicker.

    There are many things that can be learned from others’ attempts to understand the bibles message, and I have learned from them. Proverbs shows the value of a multitude of counselors. Sometimes, though, what you learn is what not to do. By that, I mean, it is the unintended message that is picked up on. “Prove all things, hold on to that which is good.” Just believing something because it sounds good, or makes you feel good, is foolishness. That’s what “collecting teachers to have their ears tickled” is about. Most times the truth of an important bible matter doesn’t present itself that way. Our own imperfections make it hard to accept. Our fear of being rejected by others. Our fear of ridicule. The spirit of God doesn’t take those things away, it just gives the insight necessary to see it clearly. A man has to accept it on his own.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I was more trying to lay out my own thinking and am glad we are in such close agreement. Yes the light got dimmer after the Apostles, to pitch black in the Dark Ages. The reformation began to turn things around and although there is darkness available, the light can be found as you have experienced yourself. The Greek word for lightning can be translated bright shining as in Luke 11:36.

      Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

      Lu 17:24 For as the lightning , that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

      Translator bias can make it difficult to find the true meaning. The sun is what “shines” from the “east” to the “west.” The dawning of a new day is gradual and only those awake early in the darkness can see the sun slowly beginning to rise over the horizon.

      You are really right about the dangers of fear and so we remember that “perfect love casts out fear.” 1 Jn 4:18

  • sidgi

    I honestly admit, that I don’t know much about the Catholic and Protestant views on these things. Their approach to the scriptures, for the most part revolves around a non biblical trinity doctrine. As I must have stated somewhere on this site, I limit my discussion to something I am familiar with, the bible. That is why I am more familiar with bible students, and Jehovah’s witnesses. Their approach to the scriptures is one that each and every member should be conversant with the bible to some degree. I also remember that Herbert W, and Garner Ted Armstrong were supportive of “bible first” type doctrine. The Worldwide Church of God eventually sold out to the trinitarian dogma, and got rid of Garner Ted. Because I am biblically driven, I am sensitive to those, adding men’s thoughts to bible contents, and furthering their own ideas at God’s expense. Whether God can afford it or not, I tend to reject it, and them.

    Let’s face it, the end hasn’t occurred yet. It appears that day is just about upon us. It is getting brighter and brighter, as the saying goes. While those milk like doctrines were valuable to keep people in search of truth, I think the opportunity to see things as they are is here. It would not hurt you, or anyone else to take a fresh look at world conditions through the filter of Daniel and Ezekiel (38,39) and revelation prayerfully, and see if anything reaches out to you. I enjoy discussion, but I don’t want to gather followers for anyone, including myself, even in a minor way, I’ve noticed a few things in my study of the end-time prophecies, based on current events, and am just recommending others look too, with a religiously unfiltered view. I don’t need to tell you or anyone what I’ve noticed. If I am correct, you will see them too. If I am not, you won’t see anything of consequence, and I will just be a bad memory.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – You said, “I don’t need to tell you or anyone what I’ve noticed. If I am correct, you will see them too. If I am not, you won’t see anything of consequence, and I will just be a bad memory.” — Sidgi, you are a friend. You will never be a bad memory. I can see your heart is heavy with concerns about what you are seeing in the scriptures as shedding light on what is going on in the world. I’ll bet this is one of your favorite scriptures: Rom 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” NASV

      You say, “I am biblically drive.” You are pointing out that you want to follow the Bible, not men. You are expressing the spirit of the Berean’s who studied scriptures to verify what the Apostle Paul was saying was true (Acts 17:11). Jesus said we are to be like “little children” ready to learn (Matt 19:14). So we are to study and prove all things, but be open to learn at the same time. Eph 4:11,12 says, “11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” So none of us are an Island unto ourselves. I have found brothers and sisters of great wisdom and knowledge and am happy to have learned from them. 2 Pet 1:20 says, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” In other word’s, none of us can figure out all these scriptures privately on our own and in our study, we are to use scripture to interpret scripture.

      It took centuries for the Sanctuary to be cleansed –Daniel 8 — and to get to the point where the early Watchtower understood hell, trinity and immortality of the soul were wrong and that there would be a Paradise on earth. Various reformers rose up and brought some new light.

      * Martin Luther discovered justification by faith (rather than through the Mass and indulgences) and denied Hell fire
      * The Anabaptists focused on Bible study and prophecy, and studied the tabernacle recognizing that its ordinances foreshadowed Christ. They took strong exception to any church-state union, maintaining that this was whoredom.
      * Calvin, Knox and others discovered that God’s foreknowledge of transpiring events had been largely lost sight
      * The Wesleys endeavored to cast out some of the cold formalism naturally resulting from the union of church and state, and to show the necessity of individual holiness through personal faith in and union with Christ–teaching that the fact of being born under a so-called Christian government, and reckoned from birth a member of such state-church organization, is not Christianity.
      * William Penn criticized Trinitarian belief as unscriptural and illogical:
      * Baptists denied that the sprinkling of an unbelieving infant is the baptism of a believer, or that sprinkling in any manner even symbolizes any doctrine of Christ.
      * A later reform is known by the name of “The Christian Church” or “The Disciples.” This sect was organized in 1827 by Alexander Campbell. They advocated Apostolic simplicity in church government; the Bible only for a creed; the equality of all members of Christ under Him as the head of all; and, consequently, the abrogation of ecclesiastical titles, such as Reverend, Doctor of Divinity, etc., as Romish, and contrary to the spirit of Christ and pure Christianity, which says: “All ye are brethren, and one is your master, even Christ.”

      In the 1800s
      Henry Grew
      • No “immortal soul.” No “hell-fire.”
      • No trinity.
      • All men will be resurrected to judgment
      George Storrs
      • “Two salvations”
      • Church’s part in the instructing of men in righteousness during the Millennium.
      Henry Dunn
      • Restoration of both the nation of Israel and mankind.
      • Church will judge men and angels in Millennium.

      So many reformers arose since the reformation, each bringing some new light, but many still holding on to old errors. Through this reformation movement, Jehovah set the stage for the brighter Truth we have today, closer to what the Apostles taught in the early Church.

  • sidgi

    peter,

    the 3.5 times attributed to the little horn, and the 3.5 times in Daniel 12, I think they are the same time period. They seem to be attributed directly to the time of the end, so I see them as literal years. the things that the little horn is described as doing, if this is the end time, should be discernible now, if I am correct. I think I am. I am not sure about the 1290 days. I don’t have any reason to believe there is any formula that can be used to determine whether the designated time periods are literal or figurative, other than the fulfillment of the prophecies, and the both instances being discussed are end time prophecies.

    as to the knowledge being increased, I can’t see it being knowledge of useless things, from God’s standpoint, like men’s achievements. It was tied to the statement that Daniels prophecies were to be sealed up till the time of the end. So to me it seems that the prophecies were to be understood at that time period.

    As to travel increase,(going to and fro, roving about) I think that merely describes the means of understanding the prophecies. Men would have to search the different books of the bible to get a clear understanding, Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, Zechariah, etc.

    the potential for trouble on the world at this time period is much greater than it ever was before. Not that at present there is something greater than WW1 or WW2 going on, but right now the potential for something much greater is at hand.

    as to your reliance on someone else doing the understanding for you, (studies in the scriptures) it would be better for you, if you used it as a starting point, and studied further. Not to understand the studies in the scriptures better, but to increase in your own knowledge of the prophecies and their fulfillment.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – I agree with you that where ever we find the 3 ½ times, it is all the same period. The Protestant Reformers agreed that the Papacy was the antichrist and that the days of Daniel covered the long years (Dark Ages) of Papal persecution. As part of the anti-reformation movement, the Catholic Church proposed that the anti-Christ was a literal man coming in the future and that these were literal days, not a day for a year as established in the 70 weeks prophecy. It seems that in the past hundred years, the Protestant movement has largely switched over to the Catholic view as part of an ecumenical effort.

      So it looks like now we are saying that the Reformers and old Protestant teachers were wrong (i.e. Wycliffe, Luther, Newton, etc.) – these days are actually future, not historical as these brillian expositors had concluded. And it is only an amazing coincidence, that in these end times that knowledge, travel and trouble has increased and Israel is back in their land, because this wasn’t what Daniels was talking about at all.

      I think the purpose of the increase of knowledge and travel is to have the technology in place to feed, house and care for the masses of humanity soon to be resurrected in the near coming Kingdom. “They will beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks” Isa 2:2-4. In other words, technology now used for weapons will be diverted to agriculture on Paradise Earth.

      Just some thoughts… Thanks for yours.

  • sidgi

    Peter,

    3.53 is close enough to 3 1/2 for me. for some reason 360 is close enough to 365.25 for you. you seem to think that because someone has applied the 360 day formula to prophecy in Daniel, it must be so, evidently. I guess then the scriptures lied, or were misapplied when they stated Jesus was to spend 3 days in sheol. As far as whether 3 1/2 times is calculated as 1260 in revelation, or 1290 in daniel I see no great stretch. both are far enough passed 3 to be considered 3 1/2 in rough count. And since Jesus said no one could know the day and hour, there is no need to approach it with such dogmatism. there is no way to prove it till it happens, and since the world is still going on, it couldn’t have happened yet. Michael hasn’t stood up yet, or things would be much clearer for everyone, including the Jew’s, and they haven’t a clue.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Glad to hear your thoughts again. I do not mean to be dogmatic. Different points of view are welcome on this site. I am simply sharing my point of view. Yes Jesus spent parts of three days in sheol, however I look to the Daniel 9 – 70 weeks prophecy as setting the standard for time prophecy interpretation. It is precise to the exact year. However, let’s assume that you are correct. To what then are you applying the 1290 years? Perhaps you can persuade me. Refuting a point of view will be strengthened when a better point of view can be presented in its place.

      Yes, Jesus said, not even he knew the day or the hour of his return. However, obviously Jesus would know the day and hour before his return. The point of watching for the signs is so that we will know when he is invisibly present, the world, at the same time, being unaware of the impending flood (corresponding to Armageddon), as in the days of Noah’s presence.

      I think the people make a mistake with end time prophecies, thinking that everything happens quickly, however most parables and historical prophecies play out over centuries, as in the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, which was fulfilled in stages taking several centuries till all the prophetic declarations were fulfilled.

      In Daniel 12 – When Michael Stands up in the time of the end:
      * Knowledge increases -One source claims the world’s knowledge is doubling every two years now – http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2011/06/worlds_data_more_than_doubling.ph)
      * Travel increases – Trains, planes and automobiles, not to mention the space shuttle.
      * Great Time of Trouble – World wars, nuclear threat, unstable nations, terrorism, etc.
      * Daniel’s people delivered – Already Israel is a nation again
      * Book of Daniel finally unsealed – Has Daniel’s books not yet been unsealed. If not, we cannot understand it. If unsealed, where is it explained? If not Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, where are these Daniel prophcies explained (unsealed)?

      Again, I am not trying to be dogmatic. I am just sharing my thoughts, as I hope do others.

  • sidgi

    Peter,

    I’m not a mathematician, but if you divide 1290 by 365, you get 3.534etc. I doubt the prophecy was to the minute, so to speak.

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – Thanks.

      3.5 x 365 = 1277.50 (not a match), yet 3.5 x 360 = 1260 (a match). If 1,277.50 is close enough to 1290 to satisfy you, then that is fine. I am not comfortable with the margin of error myself.

      Also note that 42 mos x 30 = 1260. This agrees to 30 days in a prophetic month.

      I am not comforatble with a Solar year calculation. We know that there are 365.25 Solar days in a year, yet if we divide 1290 by 42 mos then multiply by 12 mos in a year, we get 368.57 days in a year, not 365.25.

      Consequently, for myself, I am most comfortable with 30 days in a prophetic month and 360 days in a prophetic year.

  • sidgi

    peter,

    I see that you are equating the 3 1/2 times to 1260 days, claiming, I assume that the Jewish month was 30 days, and so a year to them in the outworking of their formal worship was 360 days, amended every so often by the addition of an extra month. My question then, is why use that method of accounting, when the 1290 days in Daniel 12 equals 3 1/2 years of 365 days each, and may very well apply to the same time period?

    sidgi

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Sidgi – For centuries, many students of prophecy have accepted 360 days as a prophetic year simply becase this is the only way that the 3 1/2 times, 42 months and 1260 days are all in agreement. The 1290 days is not used since 1290 divided by 3 1/2 times is 368.57 days, not 365 days. Therefore, I agree with others that the 1260 days is equal to the 42 mos and 3 1/2 times, not the 1290 days.

  • sidgi

    peter,

    for a bit of clarification, I am aware of the prophecies in Daniel, dealing with the 1290 days, and the 1335 days, but not the ones dealing with the 1260 days and the 2300 days. Would you explain these to me?

    thank you,
    sidgi

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>