How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside 282 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  waton

  The generation that does not pass away

  from reddit by sloppyjoe2

  wt prophecy like that would be a false prophecy , because in Math.24 there is no such generation that does not pass away. They all pass away. The generation talked about will pass away after all these things have occurred. These things (listed prior to Math: 24:34) includes a disaster bigger than the flood in noah's day (from the world's beginning).

  Even current wt doctrine about the anointed generation is false, because the wt generation does not pass away after, (as Jesus said), but before the full Great Tribulation i.e. Armageddon.

  Armageddon, the tribulation greater than the Flood, which clearly happened after the worlds beginning, is the biggy, not just a mere "sign". It is a signing out of 99% of all beings. .
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Aggregated data doesn’t actually make AI results magical. The reasons for various sources saying 586 is more traditional than factual, ultimately based on outdated (pre-1950s) assumptions about the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 587 is definitely the correct year--

  ---

  I am fully aware of that for it has only been in the last week or so that the media have given much attention to Chat GTP so I thought it for fun to see how this search engine treated this subject as it uses the latest research and 586 was the winner rather than 587. Thus current scholarship as shown by many reference works that 586 BCE remains the best candidate.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ fallacy: argument from popular opinion, also a straw man argument
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️ fallacy: argument from popular opinion, also a straw man argument

  --

  Bogus. hardly popular opinion but views of current scholars past and present.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  The correct year is definitively 587 BCE based on the Bible and extant contemporary documentation. You like to muddy the waters by saying nonsense like ‘587/586 or 588’ but the reality is that 607 is definitely wrong and that fact wouldn’t be altered even if the correct year were not exactly known.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The correct year is definitively 587 BCE based on the Bible and extant contemporary documentation. You like to muddy the waters by saying nonsense like ‘587/586 or 588’ but the reality is that 607 is definitely wrong and that fact wouldn’t be altered even if the correct year were not exactly known.

  --

  How can 587 BCE be definitively the correct year when there is no consensus within current scholarship as 586/587 or 588 BCE presented by leading Chronologists?

  The simple fact is that 607 BCE is proved correct because of the historical fact of the Jewish Exile which is unaccounted in secular chronologies.

  scholar JW

  Link Dislike Lik
• 

  Jeffro

  🤦‍♂️so… basically… ‘how can it be a year that is universally recognised as one of the possible years? It must instead be a year that is universally rejected by scholars based on an interpretation that isn’t directly stated anywhere’. Do you even listen to yourself? 😂
• 

  TonusOH

  no-zombie: by the time they die ... Jesus would have been ruling invisibly in heaven (doing god knows what) for 200 years.

  Well, he was apparently twiddling his thumbs for almost 2,000 years before ascending to the throne. What's another 200 years?

  The problem for the WTS is that their brand thrives on urgency. If the end is not extremely close, then recruiting slows and the message is not well received. If the end is not upon us, it is also difficult to retain members who waver-- they might hedge their bets and stay in otherwise. They occasionally will explain that 'God is patient and wishes for all to be saved' as a way of explaining why the end has not yet happened. But they cannot change their approach. The end must be very close, always.

  As for 1914/1918/1919, time can help to wipe away a lot of that, though the internet has changed the ease with which they could make old ideas go away. I do think they have an issue with putting that era behind them: both Russell and Rutherford were larger-than-life figures with moments that the organization can still point to (photo-drama of creation, Cedar Point talk, etc). Knorr... not so much. Do they find some way to highlight his time as president? Do they just forget him and focus on Fred Franz? Oh, wait... the most notable moment of Franz's career was the 1975 prediction.

  Yeah, they're screwed.
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Thus current scholarship as shown by many reference works that 586 BCE remains the best candidate.

  The assignment of 586 BCE is based on Thiele from the 1940s. 586 is still frequently parroted, but modern scholarship, particularly after the publication of BM21946, favours 587 BCE.
• 

  Sanchy

  Jeffro to Scholar: "Do you even listen to yourself?"

  Narrator: *He did not listen to himself*