The year 1914

by Kool Jo 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  "I posted about this but no one knew what I was talking about."

  It is horribly confusing and difficult to keep track of, even for seasoned "apostates."

  They could ditch 1914. They could write up an article about "new" discoveries in archaeology that prove 586/87. No JW would question it. These people will let their children die on the operating table for the GB! Why would they question anything?!? They won't, unless something or someone makes an effort to wake them up!!

  They can ditch 1914, adopt 586/87, glorify Rutherford and downplay CTR in one move! The chariot will keep moving and the "END" is still SOON!! Add 120 years [ days of Noah ] to 1935 and...presto-change-o, rearrange-o!!! All the old GB are dead, along with anyone who remembers any " old light." I will be in my 80's, my parents long gone, like every generation before us. Sanderson, now close to 90, and his rat-pack will be running the show! The rest are DF'd for apostasy or " brazen conduct " aka, not trusting the FDS, or blindly obeying the Elders!! They will be left with a much smaller and ignorant [ mostly 3rd world/no internet ] group of sheeple who have no idea what was thrown down the memory hole, and who are all too willing to give of their time, effort, and valuable things!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Think about it!! Think of all the people that you know. How many will be gone in 10,20,30 years?!! The WTBTS could pull this off!! The groundwork is laid, the obey or die mentality is very real, especially for those with the MOST time invested! That usually consists of the ones in positions of authority! They will transfer their fears and expectations on the sheeple. Any who resist can be DF'd!! Those who leave or DA won't be more than apostate helpers in Satan's kitchen!!

  SNARE AND A RACKET!!!!! SO, ANGRY RIGHT NOW!!!!!! AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHGHGHGH!!!!!!!!

  Getting a drink...
• 

  Jeffro

  The recent changes in JW doctrine regarding the so-called 'faithful and discreet slave' have no bearing on the significance of 1914 in their numerological beliefs. Because of the amount of time that has passed since 1914, they don't mention it nearly as often as they used to, but it is still the starting point for their calculations about 1919.
• 

  Apognophos

  DATA-DOG is super correct. 1914 is far from written in stone as long as JWs are being told to accept any direction from the slave and are afraid of getting DFed. Besides, time marches on and so do WT revisionist teachings, and if a few older JWs are left behind in the process, so be it.

  Don't forget, this happened:

  Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914.

  What's to stop them from doing exactly that once again? "We now realize that the year 607 should have been 586, but that providentially takes us to 1935, a year of true significance for God's people."
• 

  mouthy

  I was DF because I didnt believe 1914.The invisable return of Christ
• 

  Julia Orwell

  They'll have to reinstate you then , mouthy.

  I did a search for 1914 in the CD Rom, and found it is far less mentioned recently than ever before. Remember what Franz said in C of C, that to make a change to something they just stop talking about it for a few years and people forget the old teaching. Then, they bring in the new teaching. So if 1914 is going to change, it's going to be marginalised in the literature for a couple of years.

  On the upside, if they change 1914 it's gonna get a lot of jws thinking. And the ones that don't stop and think, you can still ask them questions that might get them thinking. No, they can't change 1914 imo because they'll lose too many of their constituents.
• 

  Jeffro

  Julia Orwell:

  They'll have to reinstate you then , mouthy.

  Unfortunately, they won't be able to reinstate mouthy just yet (I know how disappointed you'll be). You still have to believe in 1914. You're just not supposed to talk about it.

  I did a search for 1914 in the CD Rom

  See here.

  I think it would be a mistake for them to give up on 1914 so soon after their (very poor) attempts to defend 607 in 2011 and 2012.
• 

  Fencing

  I think it would be a mistake for them to give up on 1914 so soon after their (very poor) attempts to defend 607 in 2011 and 2012.

  I thought the same initially, but then I remembered that neither of those two articles in 2011 made a single mention of 1914, or even why the 607 date was so important that they had to write a two-part article on it. I don't remember the one from 2012.
• 

  Jeffro

  Fencing:

  I thought the same initially, but then I remembered that neither of those two articles in 2011 made a single mention of 1914, or even why the 607 date was so important that they had to write a two-part article on it.

  Yeah, I know they didn't mention 1914 in any of those articles (because it would make their purpose for supporting 607 far too obvious). But it's too easy for someone to remind a JW about those articles, and the connection between 607 and 1914 is made in What Does the Bible 'Really' Teach?, which any JW who conducts a Bible Study with someone would still come across.

  I don't remember the one from 2012.

  The magazine is available here (article is on pages 12-14). My response is available here.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Whats to stop them from just stop mentioning or teaching about 1914, just let it fade as old light teaching.

  From there they could still say we are living in last days based from signs of the end times or the overlapping generation doctrine.

  Quite honestly when this doctrine (1914) was created from such men as J Rutherford it was assuming and taken

  for their own generation/life span and it did fulfill what it was intended to accomplish.

  A weak doctrine that had great marketing potential.

  Now the leaders of the WTS. have a problem on their hands as 100 years have since passed with nothing to show

  any semblance of viability toward that year.

  My guess they'll make a quiet retraction or just let the whole date/year fade from the consciousness of the established

  doctrinal teaching.

  As Dana Carvey's Church Lady would say " How convenient "
• 

  Apognophos

  Yes, I can't imagine they'll jettison 1914 soon. So nothing will save them the awkwardness of living through the 100th year of Jesus' invisible coming. But they did buy some time with that overlapping generation business, after all....