Logic and the fallacy of 1914 (page 2)

neverendingjourney

Regarding the WTS's perceived "secondary fulfillment" of Neb's dream of the tree. They acknowledge that the dream had its fulfillment on Nebuchadnezzar. I wonder if they say that the dream had a secondary fulfillment, or if they say that what happened to Neb was in itself the prophecy.

I'm going to have to get my Reasoning book out of the attic later today and get back to you on. I haven't studied WT publications in over 2 years, but my recollection seems to be that they acknowledge that Neb's dream was fulfilled in his own lifetime, but that there is a second, "greater" application with respect to Jehovah's sovereignty. They take words from the chapter such as "so they might know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom's of man" to mean that Daniel was suggesting that the prophecy was about all of mankind recognizing Jehovah's right to rule. In other words, they read into Chapter 2 of Daniel words that they interpret as giving it a second application that supposedly ties into the "appointed times of the nations" that Jesus spoke about. This is supposed to be a time when God's people lacked a direct ruler over them. Therefore, they start applying the 2,520 years in 607 B.C., when the Judean line of kings supposedly came to an end, and end it in 1914, when Jesus supposedly was enthroned in heaven.

There is nothing specific in the text indicating that there is a second fulfillment, just a wishful and imaginative reading of the text. This is true of their entire foundation for their 1914 doctrine. Maybe somebody with WT publications handy can clarify this for me if I'm wrong.

Edit: I wrote "Daniel Chapter 2," but I meant to say Daniel Chapter 4

Gopher

Neverendingjourney,

Your explanation of the way the WTS understands the second fulfillment is exactly right. They take the "seven times" of Daniel, and marry it to the "Gentile Times" prophecy attributed to Jesus.

They say that the main reason those prophecies (such as in Daniel) were preserved through the centuries is because they had a later fulfillment. It's just reasoning pulled out of thin air. The Bible itself never alludes to there being multiple fulfillments of one prophecy.

Homerovah the Almighty

Good post neverending ... thank you It is extremely difficult to put the term applied logic and religion in the same sentence isn't, they both contravene one and another

in most cases, perhaps it's because religion is such an emotional entity for most people and void of any subjective reasoning.

Farkel

:However, I would be unable to prove that 2+z-1+10=13. Why? Because one of the elements, z-1, is unverifiable.

: But if the number represented in my equation by the letter z turns out to be any other number but 2, my conclusion is false. We will never know for sure whether my conclusion is accurate or not without knowing exactly what number z represents. 2+z-1+10=13 is simply unverifiable and can never be said to be an unquestionably true and accurate statement.

This looks like gibberish to me. How can you say it is "unverifiable?" It is easy to discover that 2 is the only answer using elementary algebra. It would be simpler to say that in the equation 2+2-1+10=13 we will never know for sure if that equation is accurate if we didn't know any math.

Add 1 to each side. The equation is still valid.

2+z+10=13+1, therefore 2+z+10=14

Subtract 10 from each side. The equation stays valid.

2+z=14-10, therefore 2+z=4

Subtract 2 from each side. Still valid.

z=4-2, therefore z=2

2+2-1+10=13

Farkel

Leolaia

Here is a big absurdity:

The incapacitation of "God's kingdom" (i.e. in 607 BC in the end of non-Gentile rule) during the times of the Gentiles is supposed to be represented by cutting down a tree that also represents the incapacitation of Nebuchadnezzar, a Gentile king, but not just any Gentile king, but the very king who incapacitated God's kingdom in 607 BC. That's one twisted Mobius strip of absurdity there!

stillajwexelder

That is why I love logic - math of course is the purest science

neverendingjourney

Farkel,

I'm not teaching math here. That should be readily apparent, but perhaps I didn't make that point clearly enough. I am using the concept of a math formula to represent how we go about reaching conclusions in every day life. For instance: There's a pot of boiling water on my stove. Boiling water has a very high temperature. Having my skin come in contact with surfaces that have a temperature approximating that of boiling water can lead to severe burns. All of these elements are verifiable. Conclusion: If I stick my finger in the water, I will burn my skin. In other words, a+b+c=d, a, b, and c being the elements, and d being my conclusion. I wasn't attempting to make a mathematical argument here. I wasn't teaching algebra. I was using the equation as a visual tool to get my point across.

Now that that's out of the way, would you like to share some constructive criticism or properly defend the JWs' 1914 doctrine, or are you content with making your point by attacking the form of my argument instead of its substance?

daniel-p

The Society have, through over a century of religious dogma, produced their own brand of logic. FOr instance, it is taken as fact that almost every incident involving Old Testament prophets includes a "modern day fulfillment" for us. This satisfies the "intrigue quotient" of apocalyptic Bible-readers, as it reassures them that they have an inside understanding, that they are privy to some sort of secret knowledge, while everyone else is blind. Thus, there are "Greater Elijahs, Greater Abrahams, Greater Moses, Greater [insert almost any old prohet]."

Farkel

neverendingjourney,

You said:

:Now that that's out of the way, would you like to share some constructive criticism or properly defend the JWs' 1914 doctrine, or are you content with making your point by attacking the form of my argument instead of its substance?

ME defend the JW's 1914 doctrine? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I don't disagree with your approach to trashing the 1914 doctrine.

Here are a few things I've done in the 1914/logic area:

587 BC For Total Dunderheads
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74549/1.ashx

A House Built on Fallacies
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74031/1.ashx

And here is an excerpt from my JW Glossary that deals with 1914 I wrote over TEN years ago:

"607 B.C." - the fundamental date critical to supporting the entire JW framework of prophetic chronology. This date, unique to only JWs, has been rejected by virtually EVERY other Bible historian and archeologist.

"1914" A.D. - the single most important date in JW doctrine, and is the result of using 607 B.C as an "anchor date", using the book of Daniel, Chapter 4, as proof.

This is based upon the following, simple reasoning:

7 "times" doesn't mean "7 times". It means "7 years".

But,"7 years" doesn't really mean 7 "years", either. It means "7 years of days".

But, the "days" in "years of days" doesn't really mean "years of days, in which the days actually mean "days", but means "years of days, in which the "days" actually mean "years".

Therefore, it is easy for even a fool to see that "7 times" REALLY means "7 years" but which really means "7 years of days", but which then really means "7 years of days which aren't really days, but years", or simply stated "7 years of days of which days are really years". To put it even so a child can understand it, it means that the "times" aren't "times" at all, but are "years", which aren't "years" at all, but are "years of days", which aren't "days" at all, but are "years" AFTER all, even though they were originally CALLED "times"!

Got all that? There's more.

Strangely, however, for all of this to work, this fulfillment, based upon an ANCIENT text, still requires the use of the ANCIENT calendar for the MODERN fulfillment to work out to 1914. Therefore, ancient text + ancient calendar = modern date in modern calendar.

When doing your calculations, don't forget that there is no "zero year" from B.C to A.D. C.T. Russell forgot that and was quite embarrassed about it. The official WTBS explanation in later, revised, editions of his books was that "the battery was very low in his calculator at that time" and he wasn't aware of it until after the material was printed.

Lastly, the book of Daniel was prophesied to remain "sealed" until the "last days", which, as we know, began in 1914, according to the simple reasoning just presented. So, Russell had to figure out a way to, somehow "unseal" Daniel before it was prophesied that Daniel WOULD be "unsealed" so he could then put forth a prophecy which pointed to exactly when Daniel WAS to be "unsealed", namely at the start of the "last days", in 1914. Russell, therefore, successfully used a "sealed" book to calculate the exact date it was to be "unsealed", which at that time it was officially, "unsealed", but Russell "unsealed" it before that, because he wanted to know beforehand when it WOULD be "unsealed", because only THEN would he know when the "last days" were to start, which was, of course, when Daniel actually WAS to be "unsealed". Got all that?

Farkel

neverendingjourney

Farkel,

Given that you agree with my approach, I find your abrasive tone a bit perplexing, but perhaps I need to develop a thicker skin. I appreciate your work in showing JW doctrine for what it is: illogical nonsene. Thanks for taking the time to read and repond to my post.

NEJ

Logic and the fallacy of 1914

Share this