... and the award for longest subject title for a thread goes to ...
envelope, please ...
Oh, my goodness! I can't believe it!
The winner is SLIMBOYFAT for:
Two mounting proofs for Armageddon in 2034
by slimboyfat 32 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
diamondiiz
What about 1931+120? They could say 2051 as they were given the title of a prophet in 1931 thus 120 years of a witness to the world just a NOAH was a preacher of rightiousness???
Maybe they're use this one after 2034 hope proves false hope once again.
-
Goshawk
Wow long topic title. Maybe the fix for posts being cut off got applied to the topic titles as well. ;-)
C'mon people channel a bit of FF.
Since his enthronement in 1914 and the 3.5 years it took for the examination to determine who could be called the FDS.
We can take the prophetic time, and time-and-a-half, apply it to the preaching work done by Noah to come up with a parallel even realized by the inspection.
1914 + (2.5 x 40) ==> 2014
Isn't it wonderful brothers that we can prove the pagan Mayan long count cycle that ends in 2012 is wrong, therefore it must be Satan's influence we see in the Mayan calendar.
Since the generation that overlapped with the eagle-eyed anointed that saw the enthronement that also overlapped the end of the gentile times.
A generation could be considered 40 years. By putting this value in the parallel equation we get the same result, 2014! There you have two lines of evidence that support the same conclusion. I would seem that things are being revealed at the proper time to encourage the preaching work.
-----
Remember they are inspired but not directed by the active force.
Goshawk of the 'Need another whiskey' class
-
oldseeker
I asked this question (and I received no answer). The wording in the following quotations from the WT is carefully presented so as to obfuscate the real meaning. This way they can simply say that we "read to much" into the explanation given. I tried to use reasoning but it didn't work:
w08 02/15 pg. 22 par. 4
An Extended Period of Time
4 The fact that the word pa-rou-si'a refers to an extended period of time harmonizes with what Jesus said with regard to his presence. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Notice that Jesus did not liken his presence to the relatively short period of time during which the Flood occurred in Noah's day. Rather, he compared his presence to the much longer period of time that led up to the Flood. Included therein were Noah's building of the ark and his preaching work, right up until the time that the Flood finally arrived. Those events occurred over many decades. In a similar way, Christ's presence includes the events leading up to and including the great tribulation. -2 Thess. 1:6-9.
w08 01/01 pg. 8 Footnote:
Jesus’ statement helps to correct the wrong idea conveyed in the way some Bible versions mistranslate the word “presence.” Some translations render it “coming,” “advent,” or “return,” all of which imply a momentary event in time. Notice, though, that Jesus did not liken his presence to the Flood of Noah’s day, an event in time, but to “the days of Noah,” a climatic period of time. Like that ancient era, Christ’s presence would be a period of time during which people would be too caught up in the day-to-day affairs of life to take a note of a warning being given.
Can we be intellectually honest in using this account in Matthew 24: 37-39 to say that it is referring to a period of time rather than an event? The statement in the footnote appears to ignore the parallel account in Luke 17:26-28: “Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building.”
It appears to me that the context of these accounts is clearly focusing on an event (“it occurred” – Luke 17:26) that overtook unwary people. Either that or there is a contradiction between Matthew and Luke on this matter. Rather, it appears that they are both describing the condition, attitude, and behavior of the people prior to an event, with the event being the subject of the sentences. The contextual wording has it emphasis not in the length (period) of time people where involved in this behavior, but in that this behavior caused them to miss the sudden event.
The account in Luke is admittedly much clearer in putting emphasis on the event, “it occurred” rather than the “days of”. The Greek word used in Luke for ‘occurred’ (ginomai) speaks to a happening, and more specifically the context reveals a “happening” within the “days of Noah, the event rather than the days being the primary discussion as is seen in Thayer's Lexicon Definitions:
- To become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
- To become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
- Of events
- To arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
- Of men appearing in public
- To be made, finished
- Of miracles, to be performed, wrought
- To become, be made
Also Strong’s Dictionary Definitions:
A prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):--arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Should we use these accounts in Matthew and Luke to indicate an “extended period of time” of the presence of Jesus Christ? My concern is that placing the emphasis of the discussion on the “days of Noah” might give some the false impression that the Bibles reference to the “days of Noah” would be similar, if not identical, to the “History of Noah” (Genesis 6:9) Because, immediately prior to the reference to the “History of Noah” we have the statement in Genesis 6:3: ‘After that Jehovah said: “My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.”’ So, can it now be reasoned that there is at least some indication that the “presence” of Jesus Christ can now be numbered at 120 years based upon the record of the history of Noah (or the “days of Noah”) in Genesis, making the end now to appear to come in 2034?
Certainly, I am not going to assign any meaning to this at all except to take the clear warning not to be like the people in the days of Noah and Lot and miss the signs leading up to the event that faced them. But, I am fearfully confident that many others will do so and this will be a question many will ask. I am sure that, based on the Watchtower articles I have referred to above, you have no intent of providing a possible means for the calculation of a date for Armageddon. However, there appears to be an opening in these statements for some to do just that.
As I stated earlier about the account in Luke 17:26-28 referring to the occurrence (event) of the end versus the period of time it would seem that clear thinking would prevent us from trying to attach a length of time of any sort to the presence of Jesus Christ based upon the account in Matthew citied in the article. And, since Luke included both Noah and Lot in his discussion, we would now have to calculate the time that Lot was in Sodom and figure this into our calculations, and I have been unable to find any reference to that time period anywhere.
I’m not questioning the argument for the presence being some period of time, it is simply that to use these verses (Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 12:26-28) to definitively do so creates more questions and speculation than it needs to, given all of the other proof texts and reasoning that could be used (to support the parousia being a period of time). Personally, having lived through the 1975 era as an adult, fully aware of the speculation and expectations associated with that time, along with the effect that it had on brothers around me, I am not excited to see the prospect of a similar event occurring as a result of the above statements.
oldseeker
-
dssynergy
WT 15th Sept. 1998, pg 10 para, 10-13.
"It is easy for the established churched of Christendom and other people to criticize JWs because their publications have, at times, stated that certain things could take place on 'certain dates'..........True, some expectations that appeared to be backed up by Bible chronology did not materializee at the anticipated time. But is it not preferrable to make some mistakes because of 'over-eagerness' to see God's purposes accomplished then to be spiritually asleep as to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy ."
ok, so here is MY gripe. How come they can't just say "we've done more research, we think we were mistaken. Here is our best guess at this point in time...blah blah blah." Why do they have to go from one extreme to another? Can't they take the middle ground? It doesn't have to be either/or. Either you are "over-eagar" OR you are "spiritually asleep."
How about just being aware, alert, ready? How about, we live productive, simple lives with good christian character, while being fully aware that this system is temporary and being willing and ready to do what we need to do when the time comes??
Is it just me, or do they swing from one extreme to another?
DS
-
Doubting Bro
The thing is that date setting is the only thing that keeps JWs motivated. I was just a young kid during the 75 debacle but I do remember the energy and excitment thinking that the great trib was going to start any day now (fear too, but that's another story). I also remember the argument about how Adam was created 6000 before 1975 but we didn't know when Eve was created or when they officially sinned. To me, the generation teaching was the primary argument that I (stupidly) believed meant that the world was ending soon. It fit together so nicely.
I recall giving a PT about the last days (early 90s) and even using the argument that we were almost at the 80 year anniversary of 1914 and that generation didn't have many left.
The change in 95 took the wind out of 1) the sails of folks that stuck around after 75 (like my parents that were in their 20s at the time) and 2) the born-ins like me who suddenly realized that we had better plan on getting a real career, get married, have kids and try to live a normal life because there was no longer a end date in sight.
The effects of having no date took a while to manifest but compare the "zeal" of your average JW 20 years ago to the average JW now. There is no comparison! It's obvious to me that leadership needs to fire up the members in some way. The best way to do that is to set a date. While I'm not sure they'll make the same mistake they made before, but I would be willing to put some money on it. After 15 years of dwindling committment levels in first world countries (where the donations come from), I firmly believe the WT leadership is aware of the problem. The berating talks, guilt inducing WT studies, pressure from the CO & DOs, placement of MTS grads, none have really worked.
Sure, they've had growth but its not translated into enough cash to keep the status quo. So, they've cut expenses to the bone (with more cuts on the way I would imagine). They have to figure out a way to motivate the average JW in the developed world to give more. In my opinion, there are 2 ways they can go:
1 - Mainstream - drop shunning, make blood conscious matter, focus less on field service and more on community projects (sort of like the LDS), turn Bethel into the JW version of BYU, push getting a good education instead of vilifying college, etc. Still keep the whole end time thing like others have but make it much more nonspecific, keep the no trinity, no hell, maybe no holidays. Institute tithing at some point so they can reasonably budget and make a go of it. Sure, you'd lose some members but I would bet you'd keep more born-ins who view JWism as just another religion. You would likely increase cash flow.
2 - Set an end date at 2034 and attempt to repeat the amount of growth they got in the 20 years prior to 1975. Sure, 2035 will roll around and the world will still be kicking along and there will be fall out from another false prophesy but if you could increase the numbers from 7 million to 14 million, who cares if you lose even 25%. It's not like they haven't done this before.
If they keep going the way they do, I see a slow death by a thousand cuts. #1 would make the most sense from a business prospective but I don't see them resisting #2. Time will tell.
-
cameo-d
WT just did a publicity thing trumping up Isaac Newton in one of the mags this past autumn. Maybe instead of WT setting their own date, they will fall back on the possibility of Newton's calculations. 2034 was one of the dates Newton determined.
-
Nathan Natas
I'm with Wobble on this.
Armageddon is nonsense.
It will not arrive in my lifetime (I'm part of Wobble's generation), nor will it occur within the lifetime of anyone who ever lives. It will NEVER come.
N-E-V-E-R!
When the planet earth is destroyed, it will be a consequence of militant muslims or tectonic or planetary/solar mechanics and not because of any intervention from the "spirit realm."
-
slimboyfat
When the planet earth is destroyed, it will be a consequence of militant muslims...
Or those determined to fight a "war on terror".
-
Nathan Natas
Choose your side, Slimboyfat, choose your side. Progressive Humanist Civilization or medieval superstitious totalitarianism?
There are no democratic taliban states.
