Will we see the GB replace 1914 with a new date in the next 30 years?

by nvrgnbk 55 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  I would say that from the perspective of their inner consistency 1935 is way more embarrassing than 1914. It already makes the "exception" more frequent than the "rule" in the current GB membership.

  The (quietly forgotten) doctrine of the 7,000-year "creative day" rested on the apparent coincidence of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years and a strict interpretation of the 1914 generation, which has already been discarded out of necessity (plus, the implicit assumption that Jehovah is fond of round figures). Even if they modified the chronology (to have the "day" end somewhere in the 21st century, for instance), it would never work nearly as well as it did in the 60's.

  Whatever the rationale, 1914 is globally a good argument for JWs. In the average JW (or prospective convert) mind, it is simplified to "the Watchtower could tell the date of World War I 40 years in advance, and this date-event is the sign of a 'spiritual' change of era". Pseudo-historical as it is, it still works as a "sign" that the Watchtower is God's organisation for the present time.

  Christianity as a whole was perfectly able to survive its early short-term expectations through reinterpretation. They are still in the NT but no one really cares. If the Watchtower keeps on providing an otherwise attractive offer on the future religious market (that is the question), I really don't see why 1914 should be a problem.
• 

  Pubsinger

  Definitely.

  The reasoning will be ridiculous. But so was the "Generation" change in '95 and they all swallowed that.

  They've no choice. It'll look stupid to hold to it
• 

  jayhawk1

  It would be shocking it they changed 1914 to a new date.

  But if they did change the date, there would be people to believe the new date is just an adjustment by Jehovah to a newer light.
• 

  onacruse

  So let me see if I have the "chronology" about right:

  1) 1914 was going to be Armageddon, done deal! (Russel)

  2) 1914 was the beginning of the end (Armageddon began, but was interrupted by Jehovah for the sake of the chosen ones). (Rutherford)

  3) Actually, Armageddon did not begin in 1914, but the great tribulation did, and that was what was interrupted...Armageddon awaits (Franz)

  4) Actually, even the GT did not begin in 1914...just that the "times of the Gentiles" had ended. (Franz, circa 1970)

  5) However, the "generation" that saw (and understood) the events of 1914 would not die off before Armageddon. (Franz)

  6) Redefine "generation." (Franz, circa 1995)

  7) We are now in the end-times, of indefinable duration. And thus (as Narkissos mentions above) the SDAs "salvaged" 1844. In that way, 1914 becomes an anchor without a chain.

  And lest we forget, Rutherford's introduction of "THE FINAL END," (as capitalized in the Watchtowers from the early 40s), during WW2.

  Man, I can't believe how stupid I was to not see the "creep."
• 

  stillajwexelder

  4) Actually, even the GT did not begin in 1914...just that the "times of the Gentiles" had ended. (Franz, circa 1970)

  Actually 1966 - Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Son of God

  6) Redefine "generation." (Franz, circa 1995) No actually this would be Henschell et al- Franz died before 1995
• 

  Narkissos

  I would even think that the WT might quietly drop 607 BC while keeping 1914 without any other rationale. Just as it dropped the Great Pyramid and the former 606 BC figure which were its real calculation bases. And 1914 would just float on by being (1) the date of WWI and (2) "predicted 40 years in advance".

  Isn't it wonderful, brothers and sisters, that in spite of the errors of his well-meaning servants, Jehovah led his organisation to such an amazing knowledge?

  I'm not kidding. Should the WT do it tomorrow it would keep 99 % of its members. And the other 1 % it doesn't really care for.
• 

  greendawn

  They know how to play fast and loose with dates but as long as they can persuade the dubs that the end is just round the corner, even with the current understanding of the figurative 1914 generation, they will leave it at that. Otherwise if the proximity of the end effect wears out they may well come up with a different date in the near future to boost expectations and fear, it is these that keep the org ticking.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Man, I can't believe how stupid I was to not see the "creep."

  I'm right there with you ona! I'm overwhelmed with the intelligence of the replys.(Esp. OTWO and Nark-not to exclude anyone else's, they're all phenomenal.)

  P.S.- I was at the BIG HOUSE when Franz died, succeeded by Henschel (1992/1993)
• 

  onacruse

  stilla, how the years blend together! I discounted Henschel. And Franz died in 1992.

  I hate it when people correct me! roflmao

  Craig
• 

  OUTLAW

  At some point the date 1914 won`t exsist..The prediction of 1914 won`t have happened..Sure,some Jehovah`s Witness`s that ran ahead of the organization may have talked about it back in the old days..But it was never WBT$ policy to preach the 1914 doctrine at any time...OUTLAW