What is this 1914 that you speak of?
What exactly IS 1914 these days?
by Halcon 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
TonusOH
I guess they may be able to get away with keeping the 1914 date and 1919 confirmation if they drop the 'generations' part. Which they were on the way to doing after 1995. Bringing it back with the overlapping generations explanation was a dumb thing to do.
After all, there is so much that has been forgotten and left behind, including the fact that the 1914 calculations were for the start/end of Armageddon, not the beginning of the last days. Or how Russell used 1799 and 1874 as dates for the return of Christ and the beginning of the last days. Or how Rutherford started his tenure as WT president by making one failed prediction after another. And so on, right through 1975 and the 1995 change that invalidated so many of their 'time is short' warnings.
Stop talking about it, and it goes away. The rank-and-file don't know anything about the predictions for 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1954, and 1975. They aren't aware of the change in 1995, and probably wouldn't know anything about the 'generation' teaching if not for the 2010 update. All they know is that 'some people may have gotten carried away in the past and read more into the WTS's words than was warranted'. The worst stuff has already been memory-holed. It wouldn't be that difficult to do the same with 1914, perhaps.
-
stan livedeath
1914 ? Just stop all reference to it...just like the 7000 year creative day, 1975, and so on.
WT INC needs to focus on positive future events--like resurrection, new world, and other myths like those.
-
Halcon
Mikejw-Yes it would mean no more sense of urgency. The end is right around the corner. We are in the final part of the final part shortly before the day and all that.
If they do away with 1914 then how do they keep the sense of urgency
I believe that sense of urgency has been greatly undermined by the new 'box check' rule regarding time reporting. The beard rule and sisters in pants simply reinforced the idea that things are far more relaxed than ever before. Then there's the relaxed rules regarding expelled ones.
Was this intentional on the part of the GB? It's hard to argue it wasn't in my opinion. Like in any organization, you don't get to the top without being shrewd and clever. And if this is the case, they've set up the abandoning of the generation teaching perfectly.
-
Phizzy
It, the 1914 rubbish, is still an Albatross around their necks, no doubt the only way they can deal with this is to let the details of their laughable, in fact quite mad, 1914 Doctrine fade, as they did with 1925 and 1975.
But it will still be problematic, they tried to bolster it in quite recent times, and going on about "the "End" is SO near" has no power without any way to "prove" we are living in the "End Times", which of course cannot be backed by Scripture without using Eisegesis and the blatant, quite shameless, taking of Scriptures entirely out of context.
-
Jeffro
Halcon:
It's no longer a year tying to the present (the old pre-1995 generation belief). Realistically, that's the only reason why it mattered.
Indeed, 1914 is itself tied to their past, which some people imagine to be less relevant for JWs because it is so long ago (often in relation to the very broken teaching about the 'generation'). But their beliefs about 1914 underpin their supposed claim of authority. To abandon their '1914' doctrine, they also need to reinvent their 'faithful slave' teaching as the basis for the 'Governing Body' or the Watch Tower Society or Jehovah's Witnesses having any 'divine backing'.
For more information, see Jehovah Witnesses and 1914—'Faithful Slave' class.
-
BluesBrother
It is still officiall teaching but rarely mentioned. The numerical formula that we knew is now only known by old timers with memory. It is just by observation of the World war and looking at the world today , that they say ...” This is the time” .
-
TonusOH
Letting 1914 fade away also means they no longer have to deal with the 607BC date. Granted, this is not something the rank and file pay much attention to. But not having to try to explain it anymore (or even accepting the 587/586 date) would be one less annoying detail to have to deal with (for the leadership).
-
Rattigan350
1914 is needed because that is what ties Nathan's prophesy to David about his seed being kings to time indefinite leading to jesus being king. But Jesus lived and died and did not become king. What gives? Did the prophesy fail?
No. Dan 4 tells us of 7 times or 2520 years that will pass when the kingdom was paused.
That started in 607 when the king lost sovereignty. That ended in 1914 with Jesus being installed as king.
Simple as that.
-
Jeffro
It would be funny watching JW devotees (such as the one above) flounder about if 607 BCE and 1914 were to get dropped though. 🤣
Especially when they so doggedly cling to an obviously false chronology just because they’re told to.