But has the Watchtower ever actually explained the reason behind the changes?
And as Alan F answers to his question, "Of course not" I concur completely. True explanations for changes never come out of WT Land.
They argued strongly that well-attested geological events like multiple ice ages never happened.
I have been hoping for a long time that the WTS would try addressing the matter of multiple ice ages.....seems lately all they use to defend their understanding of events recorded in Genesis is flood "legends" - hardly compelling evidence.
: If anyone were to make a good argument against Jonsson's presentation, would you acknowledge it?
Of course. They key concept is: good argument.
The problem that morons like "scholar", Furuli and other Watchtower apologists have is multi-fold. First, if Watchtower chronology is correct, it would overthrow a tremendous amount of good scholarship and invalidate much of what we know about ancient history. That ain't gonna happen, any more than Newton's Laws are going to be overthrown. Second, the Bible itself clearly kills the basics of Watchtower chronology.
First you say, you would acknowledge a "good argument" then you say a good argument is impossible.
I am not that good at recognizing all the debating tactics that are bandied about here, but would your post be considered circular reasoning?
It would be interesting to see what the WTS apologists would have to say if the WTS ever abandoned their chronology. Seems as though the Society has tried to back away from a lot of it, so it's possible it could drop 1914 some day. After all, it's gotta be harder and harder to still claim Jesus came and has been ruling for the past (almost) 90 years.
And here's all these JW-loyalists out there, desperately trying to lend credibility to the WTS. Portraying themselves as an outside, independent source, who happened to come to these conclusions through scholarly research. And they just "happen to" be the same as what the JWs believe.
After putting their reputiations on the line, on paper, to support a JW position, what happens if the WTS changes their position? Do they stand by their books? Do they quickly rewrite them? Do they discover more research material?
I'm sure the Watchtower Society would gladly back off from their 1914 doctrine, and probably wish they could, if they could just figure out one thing: How to EVER explain how the "apostates" knew and preached "The Truth" about it (including the past few years on the Internet) before Jehovah revealed it to the JWs. When you consider all the people who were DF'd for doubting 1914, how would they ever explain it. Probably if Carl had never published his book on the subject, the WTS would have had all that "new light" by now. :D)))
I don't think the WTS will ever surrender about 1914. The entire "theocratic" structure of the org hinges on that date (and, of course, the inextricably connected 1918 and 1922 "fulfillments").
Take away 1914, and away goes the "remnant," away goes the "great crowd," away goes the "fall of Babylon the Great," away goes the specially chosen "faithful and discreet slave," etc. If they take away 1914, then we all end up being on the same level...and that will never happen.
: First you say, you would acknowledge a "good argument" then you say a good argument is impossible.
I have seen an attemp at a "good argument" on this subject, and yes, it is impossbible. Not to say that there could be an argument and one that could support the theory of 70 years of destruction that could lead up to 1914 as a date for something that happened to a small group of JW's, but it would have to overcome a mountain of evedence.
If a "good argument" for a flat earth could be made would Alan or anyone with half a brain accept it? I think so. Is it likely that such an argument is even possible? Hardly.
