An elder said to me that it wouldn't make a difference if it was 1934.
I'm not aware of God's Chariot rolling up and commissioning anyone in 1939 to speak in His name.
1914 or 1934 ?
by Chris Tann 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
The Searcher
It's almost certain that something "notable" took place in virtually EVERY year of the 20th century which could be perverted by the Org to be the fulfillment of some Bible statement - prime example, Cedar Point, Ohio convention in the early 1920's!!! :) Millions believe it!
-
AnnOMaly
The point Iam making is that the year 1933 and 34 is just as significant, if not more,as 1914. Especially if Witnesses consider that it was in World War 2 when Jehovah's Witnesses were extremely persecuted in Nazi camps.
The 1934 year has been proposed before - even going way, way back to Rutherford's day*.
If the new starting point was 587 BCE and the 7 times/2520 years were kept intact, it has to be 1934. If 586 BCE etc. (remember, 586 is the year after 587 in BCE years and there is no year 0†), it would be 1935.
All the JW prophetic interpretations tied to 1914 cannot be transposed onto those years, most significantly those to do with God's choosing of the Org. to be His special people - 'judgment of the house of God,' the killing and revival of the 'two witnesses,' appointment of the 'slave,' 'Babylonish captivity' in Atlanta State Penitentiary, spiritual cleansing, 'wheat and weeds,' etc., etc.
---
* Watchtower 1922, May 1, 'The Gentile Times,' p. 133.
---
† 587 BCE to 1 BCE = 586
1 CE to 1935 CE = 1934
586 + 1934 = 2520 years
586 BCE to 1 BCE = 585
1 CE to 1936 = 1935
585 + 1935 = 2520 years
-
OnTheWayOut
WTS is married to 1914. They revised everything to point to all kinds of significance to 1914. They used to have invisible presence starting "a generation" before 1914 (1874) and the end coming by 1914. They revised everything and made that the hugely significant year, hugely because World War broke out that year.
Changing to another date would be likened to divorce. The pain and separation, the people hurt by the change, the wishy-washy substitute explanation for how Satan being cast out started the World War, all that would be such a transition for WTS.
They may do that one day down the road, maybe when the "overlap generation" thing is expiring. But they are still married to 1914 for now.
-
DATA-DOG
They picked 1914 as the END, and then back peddled, changing their expectations of that year. They did not pick 1934 because they cannot really predict the future. Sure the could say, " Evidently, Jesus began his invisible presence in 1934.", and the dubs would believe it. That would actually look better on paper as they move toward 2034.
DD
-
DATA-DOG
They could also cite Boozerfords speeches as GOD bringing forth a prophet. Remember, according to nu-light, Rutherfraud is now the original FDS. THATS BIG.
DD
-
Heaven
Maybe, just Maybe the Witnesses are correct.
That would be no, they are not.
Conclusion: 1914 is not such a unique fingerprint for Christ coming into power and for the sign of the last days to begin.
And for 100 years, he's done sweet f*@k all.
-
thedepressedsoul
Honestly, 1914 should not matter to a Christian. Christians are supposed to live by the bible until his second coming, no matter what date or time frame. All dates do is get people excited.
Imagine if 1914 is 100% not correct? That means The JW had millions of people worship a date that does not exist and celebrate its 100 year birthday. To make it even worse, is that it is a pagan date that Russell helped to base off of Pagan Egyptians.
Now that will be a heavy load for these men to carry and answer for if Jesus does come a second time...
-
jgnat
I'd vote for the period between 1333-1337 where a famine wiped out untold population in China, and the Black Death decimated Europe.
-
TD
I agree with your conclusion, Chris, but I think that allowing the Witnesses to stipulate the thought below is granting them too much leeway:
But every now and then I wonder how ironic it is that World War 1 did start in that year, also pestilence and famine perused.
"World War I" was only called that by journalists in retrospect. In terms of human casualties, it was not the biggest or bloodiest war that had been fought up until that point. Neither was it really the first "World War" using the exact same yardstick that journalists used to coin the term in the first place.
The Spanish Influenza in its most virulent form had about a 4% mortality rate, which in raw numbers, added up to a lot of deaths globally, but that doesn't even begin to compare to the 98%+ mortality rate of Bubonic plague once it jumps to its airborne form. That has happened more than once in human history and it wiped out damn near half of the world's population.
As you say, there is nothing unique about the JW's alleged, "Time of the End."