1914: Alive and Well in 2012
If the WT dumped 1914 tommorow ...?
by faithfulslavedriver 70 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
thetrueone
Its easy to see that 1914 is anchored in lot of the WTS doctrines, remove this date or year and much of the proceeding theology falls over on itself.
Is the 1935 doctrine going to collapse as well ?
What spin will the WTS. make is only known to them.
The future GB have the inevitable task of smoothing out the organization's past theological bullshit.
-
diamondiiz
Mass exodus, I don't think so, but a large number would wake up and began to research and leave. Maybe 20-30% would leave. There are a lot of mentally deficient witnesses that wouldn't care what shit rolled down from the tower - they would follow it no matter what. Then, there are the apologist who delude themselves to the point they will twist the truth to make their lie look good to mentally incapable JWs which will only feed their ego.
I also thought wts was pushing the 1914 off the wt publications until the last fall when they came out with Oct and Nov wt rag which used out of context sources and hid important data to support their bogus 607! This tells me that the people who write the shit know what their doing, including the GB. They're feeding JWs lies because I doubt the entire department and the 7 stooges in power are all as deluded as Rolf Furuli, which only means they are lying and they know it.
Honestly, IMO wts has peaked in recruitment numbers as percentages go and their growth is more internal and will depend on uneducated kids who will obey the leaders no matter what. Those who have any independent thinking will began to research and leave. The developing nations are starting to use internet more and more, the third world nations may have more ignorant but no money which is also not a good business model for wts with cash flowing out of developed into third world is a good way to starve themselves which may be why they're getting rid of missionaries. It appears the cult will only become more radical and focus on the internal members to be more and more obedient to the GB - we've seen GB-like worship articles in the last several years already.
-
moshe
if they dumped it in such a fashion as to call attention to the mistake- bad for the org- but they won't . They proved that incremental changes don't stampede the JWs, when they removed the , 1914 promise box, from the inside front cover of the Awake almost 20 years ago. Yawn--, at the KH
-
Larsinger58
Welcome to the board!
The 1914 issue is complicated. That's because even though it is not connected to 607 BCE, it still is the first sign noted to begin the "last generation."
That is, the last generation that would see all these signs and the coming of the messiah begins with a world war! The first sign that begins that generation is "nation vs. nation and kingdom vs. kingdom." So without any chronology connected here, 1914 still must begin the 'last generation' since it is the year WWI occurred.
-
thetrueone
So without any chronology connected here, 1914 still must begin the 'last generation' since it is the year WWI occurred.
Another bit of misinformation.
If one throughly studies world history back to lets say 2000 years, the world was at war all throughout the varied human habitations,
during those two millenniums. The only difference with WW1 was the number of people involved due to population growth.
Since most religionists aren't well studied in human history, its not surprising that they would over look this bit of factual information.
-
Larsinger58
Welcome to the board!
1914 is a complex topic. That's because while it clearly does not work in terms of 607 BCE and the 2520-year prophecy, it still must begin the "last generation" which begins with a world war.
The first sign of the last generation given was "nation vs. nation and kingdom vs. kingdom" which is a reference to a world conflict, that is, a war involving several nations. That was WWI and that is when we must begin the last generation of 80 years: 1914-1994. Per Christ's promise, all the signs were to occur within this generation, including the second coming. So 1914 is a legitimate date for beginning the "last generation", regardless.
But you are correct about 607 BCE and its link to 1914--that's a failure But it is a contextual failure anyway. Clearly, the Bible presents the second coming as occurring at the very end of that generation, not at the beginning. So the second coming was wrong to be placed at the beginning of that last generation in the first place. If you follow scripture, the second coming occurs even after the "great tribulation" and after the State of Israel is set up (represented by the budding of the fig tree). So 1914 never worked for the second coming.
But what the WTS would face if it dismisses 607 BCE, is the dating of the second coming in 1992. Why so? Because the original dating for the 1st of Cyrus is 455 BCE. Add 70 years of exile to that and you get 525 BCE as the "last deportation" date in year 23 of Neb-II. That means year 19, the fall of Jerusalem, per the Bible and the corrected timeline is dated to 529 BCE which in turn dates the 2nd coming to 1992.
In other words, there is the issue of the "70 weeks" prophecy being fulfilled in 455 BCE in the 1st of Cyrus bs. 587 BCE following secular chronology for the fall of Jerusalem. There has always been that contradiction between the Bible and secular history. Martin Anstey in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" noted long ago that per the Bible 455 BCE should date the 1st of Cyrus and in which case, apparently there is an 82-year discrepancy between the Bible's dating and secular dating. He put that out in 1913. Well now, with the advent of the internet and much available research, it is easy to dismiss the extra fake 82 years from the Persian Period and correct the timeline so that 455 BCE dates the 1st of Cyrus. This is where the WTS would have to go for credibililty.
BUT, they are clearly adamant about maintaining the false 607 BCE chronology. That is apparent by their most recent rementioning of 607 BCE in an article about the dating of the fall of Jerusalem!! So they are going into the opposite direction. They even had the audacity to try and mention the VAT4956 in which there are some references they feel match 588 BCE better than 568 BCE!!! But that is a huge joke! Of note, they boldly pointed out that Line 3 of that text which recorded the position of the moon 1 cubit in front of "sigma Leonis" on the 9th of Nisan is a match folr 588 BCE. The text is dated to 568 BCE generally, except for Lines 3 and 14, which don't match. Unfortunately, it does turn out that using the common astro program that on the 9th of Nisan in 588 BCE the moon, indeed, is about 1 cubit in front of "beta Virginis." So they think in their own minds this helps to confirm that year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar might have originally been in 588 BCE. The WTS thinks the fall of Jerusalem occurs 20 years earlier than the common timeline, thus 588 vs 568 BCE. This is based on the misguided trust in Rolf Furuli's desperate rescue of 607 BCE in the context of the astronomical texts out there. Problem is, the WTS must not have done their usual thorough research since Line 3 has been reassigned to the star "sigma Leonis" rather than beta Virginis. That is, the translator, Hermann Hunger, admitted he made an error in that star assignment. Beta-Virginis in this text is called the "bright star behind the Lion's foot" and is a match for Lines 14 and 18. Hunger has admitted to the error and others have published on it, but Hunger did not officially correct his false statement for this text. Thus if you didn't know about the correction of Line 3 from "beta Virginis" to "sigma Leonis" then you would presume it was the correct star assignment. That is, Line 3 is a rerference not to beta-Virginis, but to the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A), which is sigma-Leonis. Lines 14 and 18 are references references to beta-Virginis, which is called the "bright star at the end (behind) of the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A).
Meaning? Meaning that the excitement of the WTS in finding this coincidental "match" for Line 3 is matched to the wrong star, a mistake that has been publically acknowledge by the translator, Herman Hunger. Thus it is not a match in the least. For even a coincidental match, Line 3 must be matched to sigma-Leonis as the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (which it is!) rather than beta-Virginis, as incorrectly noted in Hunger's original translation, which he later had to correct.
Now the WTS is good at finding their own evidence. I have to hand that to them. Some of it is legit--like the co-rulership between Darius I and Xerxes. That's legit, even though that co-rulership was just 4 years and not 10. Or, they found two texts dated to year 51 (vs. 41) of Artaxerxes I! That's amazing. Presumed to be errors or special calculation with the clear rule being just 41 years, it still works for them. They subtract 10 years from Xerxes and then add the tens years back to Artaxerxes which makes his rule 51 years rather than 41. But there is nothing you can do about those kinds of arguments. But Line 3 in the VAT4956 is different. The match to beta-Virginis is just a coincidental match to the wrong star, a correction that has been made by the translator. So everybody else knows that Line 3 should be a match for sigma-Leonis except the WTS!! They didn't do their research and now have egg in their face, thinking they have some spurious evidence supporting 588 BCE when it's just an embarrassing error.
But pertinent to your position that they are going to be forced to give up 607 BCE is actually just the opposite. They think they found some spurious evidence that makes 607 BCE seem legit via Line 3 of the VAT4956 and so they are running with it! But its a match to the wrong star!!
The only thing I think that might happen is that the academic world, or someone in the academic world will present evidence of the correct timeline and that will force the WTS to give up the "539 BCE" fall of Babylon pivotal date fixation. In a closer look, Line 3 of the VAT4956 will be seen as an erroneous miscalculation. Then they will be faced with explaining the significance of 1992 as the date of the second coming. But to the Bible's credit, if 1914 begins the last generation of 80 years that would see the second coming before 1994, that prophecy is still fuflilled for the elect. That is, 1992 and Passover of 1993 do occur prior to 1994! So there is nothing wrong with that prophecy and nothing wrong with 1914, as long as you use 1914 as the beginning of the last generation and not the date of the second coming.
Also, they use 1914 as the "end of the gentile times" which clearly occurred when the Jews ended their official exile on November 30, 1947.
So in conclusion:
1. 1914 is still a very good and obvious date to begin the last generation 1914-1994 since that event begins with a world war. So 1914 is still a good date for that and can't be dismissed.
2. It is a bad date for the fulfillment of the "7 times' prophecy, 2520 years after the fall of Jerusalem, which must be corrected to 529 BCE to be accurate now.
3. It is a bad date for the "end of the gentile times" since the official date the Jews were restored to their homeland was November 30, 1947.
Even so, this has little to do with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Just because the WTS got it wrong doesn't mean Jesus' prophecy was not fulfilled. So since the date for the fall of Jerusalem is corrected now to 529 BCE, that dates the 2nd coming in 1992, which is before the end of that generation ending in 1994. So all is well as far as the correct understanding and application which is now held by the elect. 1914 is a good date for the last generation. That can't change.
607 BCE has to be dumped, though, obviously.
LS
-
Poztate
No major doctrine is ever killed off on the spot. Like trusty but ageing work horses, they are retired gracefully, put out to pasture and when they finally die, the rank and file stifle their yawns by saying, "1914? What was that ever about?"
And the aging work horses do nothing when retired but eat(at our expense) and shit (food at the proper time for the slaves of WT)
When the rank and file get tired of the shit a group might try to reform and change such as happened at the Church of God
I can see a spit up coming. It has happened in the past but there will always be a bunch of core believers
-
chigaimasmaro
The Organizational heads have the ability to jettison any teaching they want at this point. Earlier in the organizations history letting go of 1914 might have been a problem, but over time the Governing Body has created pegs of persuasion that keep you held down like a well spiked tent and you'll be able to stay in your congnitive dissonant state.
An example is the phrase "A perfect, God lead, organization run by imperfect humans." - Quite a few Governing body members said this phrase at Circuit and District assemblies that I've attended to shore up the reasons why the information has changed over the years. This removes all kinds of psychological responsibility. Since no one claims responsibility as an author for the Watchtower articles, if they dumped the teaching, who would you claim to be responsible? You wouldn't say its God, because He's perfect and you can't blame the Governing Body because they "say" their imperfect slaves just like you, following Jehovah's will. So the change is simply just a correction in our thinking.
Another peg that'll keep a lot of people in is that Watchtower Organization will reference only what they've said to prove their point and then tell you what to specifically research. This creates a phantom "Ah ha! I see" moment for a lot of people. When they look into the older articles, they feel that they're doing DEEP meditative research and it lets them feel good that they're "discovering" this information on their own. So when they read it, its almost automatic that they'll find a justification for themselves for the dropping of 1914.
One other thing is the threat of "Not keeping pace with the Organization and Jehovah's chariot." This is a big one in my opinion, because this one is seemingly based on scripture, the vision of God's chariot that Ezekiel sees. This chariot, explained by the Watchtower organization, sees and changes directions quickly and easily. They have frequently asked the question, "Are you keeping pace with Jehovah's chariot?" , "How does being independent cause people to not keep pace?" and so on. The fear of being "left behind", not only in knowing whats going or or even fearing that being "left behind" might mean your death at Armageddon will keep a lot of people in the Organization.
There are a lot more pegs that keep people pinned into the Organization. So i dont think they'll be a mass exodus, they'll bleed a couple thousand people and families will split up. But all the Organization will have to do is relate it to a biblical incident and boom, those that left are now apostates ready for destruction and those that stay can smile tomorrow because they have a clean, dignified and closer position to Jehovah and salvation.
Thats my opinion
-
AllTimeJeff
Interesting thread, and one that I think shows that not only will JW's limp into their next version of themselves (like they did in 1919), but it is futile to try and bring them down.
Since 1975, the leadership has been about two things: Not serving with a date in mind, and making sure that you understand that their authority is bible based.
From the GB's point of view, if they can convince you that their leadership is from God, they can change whatever teachings they want, because they speak for God to you.
The doctrines never mean anything. How do you think they can change so often and this cult still be in existence? In any cult, the teachings don't matter as much as the authority.
Gilead is all about that. A 6 month effort to blow sunshine and Watchtowers up your @$$. If you believe it, than the GB has loyal surrogates all over the world to keep watch and consolidate their power base world wide.
I promise you, their teachings will change, but their interpretations that they are still the one voice of God will keep the majority in, long after 2014 has passed.