Stupid dumb ass changes yet blood and 1914 no change???wtfge???

by Witness 007 33 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  ThomasMore

  Witness 007 - you could be right about the importance of 607 BCE and 1914 - it's hard to predict how indelibly indoctrinated people will react to fundamental changes. I suspect that nothing will shake most diehards since they feel that there is nowhere to go. WTC has demonized ALL other religions, and these diehards need something to believe in. The question is how many are there???

  As for blood transfusions, Hospital Information Services (HIS) has softened over the years and HLCs are on a tighter leash than previously, but Sea Breeze makes a good case about their occasional need for martyrs. I am aware that HIS has waffled on hemoglobin containing products. Most HLC members don't even understand why hb is problematic for them, but HIS knows why.

  As for 1914, it is laughable that they cling to a 120 year old pivot date. Some relatively recent changes are the understanding of when war broke out in heaven. Now they say "about 1914" because WW1 started in July but the Kingdom was not established until October (according to WTC). If Satan was ousted from the heavens when the Kingdom was established, he was late to the scene of WW1 which had been underway for 3 months. So, WTC amended the explanation to say that war in heaven happened BEFORE the Kingdom was established, giving Satan time to get tempers flaring on mother earth. Hmmmmmm......

  607 BCE - WTC ignores the mounting evidence that it was 586-587 instead. I don't personally care, as the generation would be 100 years old still. Splane's nonsensical "overlapping generation" gymnastic exercise seems to be unraveling. It is seldom mentioned anymore. I know of not one single JW who can prove why it can be relied on.

  Blondie is spot on with her side by side of what they have said and what they now "CLAIM" to have said. My question is: How did she create the side by side columns in this app????? Hats off to her !!!!!!!!

  1925 - many IBSA left the organization when 1925 came and went without incident. Many left in 1975 as well. Again many left in 2014 when the 100 yr anniversary of the kingdom passed. Covid ended without the appearance of Armageddon and folks are still leaving/fading/DAing/ghosting meetings. The average age of JWs continues to climb. Young ones still leave when they are old enough to leave home. It's hard to deny that they are evaporating before our eyes, even if slowly.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  607 BCE just cant go away for the Borg.

  Its the same as if alien disclosure ever took place.

  If the above two ever took place,,, it is the borgs death blow.
• 

  FragrantAddendum

  the gb are "aliens"

  they are not "true israelites"

  they are not "true christians"

  they are not "jehovah's witnesses"

  they are alien to holy spirit

  they have "the mark of the beast" aka "the spirit of the world"
• 

  NotFormer

  I've been looking up the Russell stuff in light of the "something happened in 1914, so Russell was right" assertion. Quotes are from this article:

  https://www.thearda.com/us-religion/history/timelines/entry?etype=5&eid=120

  "In 1870, he heard an Adventist preacher named Jonas Wendell, who impressed the young Russell with his application of logical thinking to the Bible. Wendell, a former follower of millenarian preacher William Miller, predicted the bodily return of Christ in 1873 or 1874. Inspired, Russell started a Bible study in Pittsburgh and eagerly awaited the second coming. Rather than being disheartened by Christ's failure physically to return by 1874, Russell believed that Christ had indeed spiritually manifested himself in the hearts of those waiting for him that year, inspiring Russell to write his first book, The Object and Manner of the Lord's Return."

  So Russell did the "invisible return" move to explain away 1874.

  "Barbour and Russell believed that Christ's invisible return in 1874 would be followed by 40 years of evangelism and then, in 1914, the Age of Gentiles would end and God's Kingdom on earth would begin."

  1914 becomes the new "THE" date.

  "When 1914 arrived, and with it World War I, some Russellites began to question Russell's chronology. Mass, industrial warfare did not strike them as the proper fulfillment of the millennial kingdom."

  Even Russell's followers at the time weren't convinced that WWI amounted to anything in the prophetic scheme of things!

  As we know, 1914 later became the new "invisible return" and, presumably*, the start date for the generation that would not pass away. Good luck finding anyone still alive who could have read Russell's predictions about 1914 before 1914. 🙄

  * To any apologists who might argue that I've got this date, or that term, or the other assumption wrong: I don't care. That stuff changes all the time, as it did back then. If I've got something wrong, I'm probably in good company with many people who have tried to get a bead on JW end times doctrine. It's very hard to precisely hit a target that is forever moving and changing.
• 

  FragrantAddendum

  yeah, they change doctrines like it's nobody's business

  in 1920s Rutherford was saying "the Gospel age ends in 1925"

  whatever that meant😜

  freakin wt liars just makin crap up - I hate it!!!

  stinkin gb does the same today
• 

  Vidiot

  FragrantAddendum - “… the gb are ‘aliens’…”

  
  

  “Toldja.”
• 

  FragrantAddendum

  😆
• 

  Beth Sarim

  And,,,,Shout out to Ancient Aliens..

  Love that show. They do an outstanding job!!
• 

  Rattigan350

  "Russell's first prediction was for 1874"

  Why does it matter what Russell said and did prior to then?

  The only thing that matters is when the banding of the tree ended and the kingdom was established. Russell had nothing to do with that.
• 

  NotFormer

  "Why does it matter what Russell said and did prior to then?"

  It matters because he changed the date to a new one. The flawed vessel that postulated the first wrong date was the same flawed vessel that postulated the second wrong date. As a bad interpreter of prophetic literature, Russell had form. If he got his first date wrong, there's nothing to say that the second date wasn't wrong. He demonstrated that he wasn't a source of any special insight into the prophetic literature by championing a false first date.

  James 3: "11 A spring does not cause the fresh* water and the bitter water to bubble out of the same opening, does it? 12 My brothers, a fig tree cannot produce olives, or a grapevine figs, can it? Neither can salt water produce fresh water." (NWT)

  By getting the first date wrong, Russell proved himself to be a spring of flawed prophetic interpretation. His second date, coming from the same flawed source, is no more reliable.