I wonder how many ordinary, rank & file, going-out-in-service JWs even know about the 607bce date, or how it relates to 1914?
Wouldn't it be ironic if only ex-JWs (and JW apologist trolls) are still even actively aware of this nonsense?
Question for '607' apologists
by Jeffro 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Finkelstein
They know it to be true because the WTS said it was.
By nature JWS are not analytical thinkers by a far margin, that why they are JWS.
And if the WTS. drops 607 and the set calculation deriving to 1914, the R & F will just say thank you for this New Light, we are so grateful.
The GB may even be thinking about how to do this right now !
-
Londo111
Sometimes it looks as if they are posturing for a “signs” based explanation of 1914, while dropping the chronology. Of course, if anyone examines the “signs”, such as famine and pestilence, these have only decreased after 1914. Earthquakes remain the same as they always have. And World War I was not the worst war up to that date and time and was not really a true world war. While Word War II was probably one of the worst conflicts in history, the death toll of the Mongolian invasions equaled or even surpassed it.
-
Finkelstein
I would imagine that they would still use we must be living in the End Times, just as means to create a
semblance of urgency toward the service work, just as they have for so many years/decades.
But then again one shouldn't under estimate the illogical proficiency of the GB, they may to themselves think
they have taken care of the 1914 date by creating the This generation to generation(s)
-
Phizzy
They have painted themselves in to a corner with the 607/1914 thing, as the 1919 "choosing" and therefore the GB's authority and reason for existence is linked to it.
Having said that, they have proved with the overlapping generation doctrine, and the Noo Lite about the FDS that the R&F JW's will swallow any old s**t without a murmer, not even a burp, and they will say thank you for this wonderful "food".
So, no matter how preposterous, how unrelated to the Bible, and to reality. the thing they come up with, they cannot lose. Maybe a few more will wake up. but lets face it, if they haven't by now it is doubtful.
I believe they will come out with some more "Noo Lite" later this year, perhaps AGM again ? to stave off the questions raised by 2014, 100 years and .......nothing.
But, it cannot be sensible or clever, they don't do sensible, or clever.
-
james_woods
I think it is very possible that the whole 1914 date itself will be minimized probably starting this year, certainly by the 100 year anniversary of 2014.
It could easily be done by just not mentioning it any more in the current literature - much like they put an end to the 7,000 year creative days.
Then, the emphasis could be a "signs based" eschatology, as was mentioned above.
Really, a 100 year old "sign/time of the end" is pretty long in the tooth to keep on hammering into the next century.
-
AnnOMaly
What the hell is the point of it all? The only thing the JWs use it for is to mysteriously derive the date 1914 from it.
It, to me, is one of the biggest keys in unlocking minds. It's 'ground zero.' It not only shows that nothing of eschatological significance happened in 1914, but of greater consequence, it shows that no divine authority was given to any 'slave class' in 1919 - the whole basis for Bible Students'/JWs' exclusivity claims is bogus. While fixed interpretations of Bible prophecy can be harder to overturn, the starting point - 607 - can be refuted using more objective evidence. The Bible interpretation part tends to follow and the mind is unshackled from the BS/JW-created myth. To me, it's almost like seeing 4 moons orbiting Jupiter and realizing that the geocentric idea cannot be right despite what certain interpretations of Bible passages might suggest.
-
Finkelstein
One important reason, at least in my opinion, is that since the WTS. recently reworked the Generation meaning which is connected to 1914
they might be compelled to hang on to 1914 longer than one might expect, even past 2014.
Fidgeting with staid core doctrines is like playing with fire for religious organizations like this one.
-
Jeffro
AnnOMaly:
I don't follow. Gregorian as opposed to Julian?
Gregorian, as in January to December. As opposed to Nisan or Tishri based years. Distinction from Julian here is immaterial. Sorry for any confusion.
-
Jeffro
AnnOMaly:
If they went for the conventional years (assuming 587 BCE as Jerusalem's fall), P&D has Tebeth 10 fall on January 15/16, 588 BCE (18-month siege) or January 27/28, 589 BCE (2½ year siege).
If one relies on the Bible, the siege went for about 18 months, from the 10th month of Zedekiah's 9th year until the 4th month of his 11th year.
If January 589 is to be considered the 10th month of his 9th year, the 4th month of his 11th year should also be moved back to 588, however, this throws other things out of sync.