The 1914 generation is still going strong 100 years later - 2014 study article.

by THE GLADIATOR 443 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  flipper

  FISHERMAN- I didn't say or insinuate " I think people are stupid ". Stupidity has nothing to do with it. What I DO believe is that most if not all Jehovah's Witnesses are kept controlled through use of FEAR and GUILT by high control manipulation by WT leaders which keeps them scared to exit the organization as even you mentioned. Which is unethical manipulation by the WT Society and it's leaders.

  Your statement, " Even if you let go by not associating, you can't let go mentally. " I disagree with that statement. There are about 20,000 JWN board members that might disagree as well. Many of us have educated ourselves concerning WT Society fallacies and failed promises on the Internet by informing ourselves through unhindered research. Some may not have let go mentally- but many of us have. We have access to information that you as a Jehovah's Witness are not allowed to have access to. That's not a judgmental statement- it's just a fact. You are already having doubts yourself about the 2014 thing or the overlapping generation thing- I sincerely recommend that you do the research on the Internet even more fully so as to satisfy your own mind and observations. You have everything to gain with freedom of mind by doing thisresearch and possibly bolting to freedom away from enslavement to the superstitions of the WT Society. Just my 2 cents
• 

  coffee_black

  Why cling to an organization? They are just men. They can't give you salvation...and they can't take it away. There is no security to be found there. None.

  Coffee
• 

  Fisherman

  fisherman, the Watchtower's 1914, seven gentile times, invisible presence doctrine is thoroughly and logically debunked here

  Thats a conclusion believe it if you like it.

  fisherman, how can you say that? WTS chronology is provably bogus! There's tons of historical evidence proving that 607 BCE is a bogus date! WTS is behaving with 607 BCE, in the same way young earth creationists behave with their 6000 year old earth. 1914 is rooted in speculations and eisegesis!

  That is your view. You can believe it.

  Fisherman where did you post about how WTS chronology has merit? I would like to read it.

  I never said that. This is what a scholar posted. Take it up with him. I am not qualified to choose.

  rem

  Sorry, you are wrong; The facts of secular history require a certain amount of interpretation. This is shown by the fact that there are very few dates in biblical chronology that are universally accepted. History is not just facts but requires interpretation.in order to create history. Jonssonn's hypothesis although is based on secular evidence also contains much theory and exegesis. Similarly, WT chronology is based on certain accepted historical evidence and scriptural exegesis. For this reason, I believe that 607 is triumphant over the strained dates of 586/587 and frankly I do not give two hoots whether you you agree with me.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion

  I respect all of the views expressed here. I also expressed some personal feelings to show my compassioon for Flipper's heartfelt entreaty. Lets get back on topic.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Part of being a devout JWS is believing they aren't been duped by a disingenuous publishing organization.

  For many of these ones accepting reality would be too bitter of a pill to swallow, much worse than actually

  accepting " The Truth ".
• 

  Fisherman

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/44076/1/Oslo-hypothesis-vs-Jonsson-hypothesis

  Here is the link if you want to debate about 1914 chronology with a scholar.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Start a new topic about 1914 on another thread if you like. It will be a great discussion. We can approach it from the premise that GOD authorized men to set dates, and that Jesus said we could know the day and the hour! We can have a "what if " thread?

  DD
• 

  Finkelstein

  There has been even more archaeological findings in recent years to support 587BCE. not 607BCE.

  One of the biggest problems with the WTS. is that it was started by idealistic amateurish bible theologians

  ( C. T. Russell and J. Rutherford to name a few ) who did have control over their own publishing house .

  The real problem with the WTS and its 1914 doctrine will actually come into effect after 2014 by 20 years or more,

  then people will realize even more that this was really a false doctrine.

  Who knows what the men and WTS. will do by then, drop 1914 all together, I think so.

  There seems to be a start of a reformation happening with this organization right now.

  Don't be overly surprised if the WTS. takes on a new identity in the coming years, dropping the Watchtower naming

  altogether.
• 

  Fisherman

  Fin, I agree. This generation stretch has affected a lot of people and yes there is more than one school of thought on 607. 20 more years is from 2014 is the limit. If nothing happens by then who knows but they will probably think of something and things will keep going
• 

  Fisherman

  DD, I do not understnad what you mean and if you are serious about having me start a new thread. Right now, it is about generation because when it can be established that it is gone then the date 1914 will be in question. There are 2 opposibng views here that it is and that it is't.

  There is ONLY one way to prove which view is a fact and that is if it happens or if it doesnt happen. But, lets say that 1914 is the date then, for crying out loud were streching it over 100 years no matter how you cut it would seem that God would not strech it out to the limit of the interlappers too.

  Why are you so angry with the WTS?
• 

  Fisherman

  Anyone that can refute or defend the new 1914 WTS definition kindly post or anyone that can refute or defend TD's definition on the Great Crrowd's life span please post. In a recent article, the WTS has "invited" world rulers to submit to the God's Kingdom. Does that mean SURRENDER or ELSE???

  They are also "inviting" its subjects to to submit. That means YOU. Do they mean: TAKE SIDES!?