Sunday's public talk about 1914 mentioned 586

by GBSJG 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Mary

  He said that some say the Jerusalem fell in 586 instead of 607. But then you would not get to 1914 but 1934 and nothing special happened then.

  This is what kills me and what proves that their "research" is not done with an open mind, but with a preconceived idea. "Nothing special happened" in 1934, therefore, every reputable scholar, historian and the bible itself must be wrong, because it doesn't jive with our doctrine that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914. Makes perfect sense.

  The other point he tried to make was that WW I was proof of the 1914 date calculation quoting some historians who said that it was a turning point in history.

  Big deal. There have been many other "turning points" in history. That doesn't mean anything.

  The WT study afterwards had a paragraph about apostates. So one sister gave an answer that some apostates fiddle with the date calculation for 1914 and we should not listen to them.

  Well golly gee......how does this sister know that 'apostates' fiddle with this date if she hasn't been researching it or been told herself? If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, she, and every other Witness should be able to defend it without any problem whatsoever.
• 

  GBSJG

  Well golly gee......how does this sister know that 'apostates' fiddle with this date if she hasn't been researching it or been told herself? If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, she, and every other Witness should be able to defend it without any problem whatsoever.

  Probably because she heard about it in the public talk before the WT. I don't think she already knew it before the meeting.

  The real problem is the blind trust that most witnesses have in the WTS. When they are told that the WTS has published convincing evidence that 607 is the correct date, how many wil take the trouble to look it up for themselves?
• 

  sir82

  My best guess is that the speaker did his own "research" into the Society's publications, and added his own comments. In an appendix to the "Let Your Kingdom Come" book (released in the late 70's or early 80's) there is the Society's only semi-serious attempt to refute 586/587 BC and support 607 BC. There would certainly never be anyhing in an outline mentioning the date 586 BC.

  However, why would he go into such detail? He may have talked to an "apostate" in the door-to-door ministry, and wanted to share his own "research". Or he may know o someone in the congregation who has approached him with such "apostate talk", and wanted to "clear it up" in front of the whole congregation.
• 

  Terry

  SALIENT POINTS ABOUT 1914

  1.C.T. Russell (the faithful and wise servant) as the mouthpiece of God believed 1914 was Armageddon and not anything else. So, he was WRONG by current doctrinal standards.

  2.If Jesus set up his Kingdom to rule in 1914 we've had 90 years to determine what kind of King he is and what a difference having HIM as ruler makes. Apparently there is no difference! His New World Society is shot full of error, flip-flops, wrong ideas and even confused about bedrock definitions of Jesus' "signs" such as the "last generation". World events blow hot and cold as always. JW's have been waiting for their toast to pop up almost a century now and the butter has melted.

  3. 1975 came and went and nothing changed although Jesus (ruling from heaven as King) gave his word that it was a signficiant event. Jesus is invisible, his kingdom is invisible, his facts are invisible and his connection to JW's is invisible. Perhaps that is why the Watchtower can cling to their bedrock doctrine so easily: they don't have to show us anything but black words on white paper.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>If Jesus set up his Kingdom to rule in 1914 we've had 90 years to determine what kind of King he is and what a difference having HIM as ruler makes. Apparently there is no difference! His New World Society is shot full of error, flip-flops, wrong ideas and even confused about bedrock definitions of Jesus' "signs" such as the "last generation". World events blow hot and cold as always. JW's have been waiting for their toast to pop up almost a century now and the butter has melted.

  Terry, this is ths same guy that said, "I am coming quickly" twenty centuries ago. A hundred years more here or there isn't going to faze his followers!

  Dave
• 

  AuldSoul

  Some cults have latched onto 1934. The thousand year reign began in 1934, and the Messiah was slain again (not in that year, but not long after). This time, those who tried to hide the Messiah's identity demonized him as a war criminal and a butcher.

  Just ask the cultists who believe Hitler was the second advent.

  I doubt there have been many years of human history that have been spared desecration (defecation?) by some cult or another.
• 

  Woodsman

  WWI started before the WTS says Jesus began ruling. So it was not a result of Jesus' invisible presence.

  Alot of Witnesses think that WWI is a result of the devil being cast down from heaven and being very angry. They need to check their dates.
• 

  A Paduan

  But then you would not get to 1914 but 1934 and nothing special happened then.

  ------------------------------------------

  It's a wonder he didn't say. "Hang on, I'll just push a red hot poker into my brain..........there, that's better, now where was I"
• 

  booker-t

  I agree with "AlmostAtheist" didn't Jesus Christ say many times over in the book of Revelations I am coming "quickly" and Rev 1:1 says for the things that will "shortly" take place. How long are we to wait for "quickly" and "shortly" to materalize? In the year 3000 what will "believers" be saying about Revelations? Armaggeddon/Rapture is around the corner.
• 

  eby

  Possibly the speaker got his information here:

  ***

  w8611/1p.6ADreamRevealsHowLateItIs***

  [Box

  onpage6]

  When

  Didthe"SevenTimes"ReallyEnd?

  Some people argue that even if the "seven times" are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of "the time of the end" by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. ("LetYourKingdomCome," pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or any other year for that matter—has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?