"New Light!” (Looking for opinions on this line of reasoning)
The basis for doing away with the 1914 doctrine may have been laid in this new book. I believe this is the first time, at least in one of the WTS “teaching books,” where credit has been given to a named source for the calculation of the year 1914. It says in the body of the book and in the appendix dealing with 1914 that “Bible students” and “sincere Bible students” calculated 1914. Predecessors to the Bible Teach book such as the Knowledge book, PE book, and the Truth book have never indicated who calculated 1914. Typically, when Bible Students are discussed in WTS literature it is given with a capital B and S (i.e., Bible Students referring to the International Bible Students Association). However, in this instance notice the use of a lower case s for students. I believe this is an attempt to lay the ground work for a future ‘new light’ by down playing the WTS ownership of 1914. This is accomplished by indicating that it was “sincere Bible students” that made this calculation. Perhaps they are referred to as “sincere” since they meant well even though they were ‘wrong.’ In keeping with the WTS trend that the 'faithful and discrete slave' can never be wrong they would choose to give ownership to "sincere Bible students" since “sincere Bible students” certainly could be wrong whereas the WTS could never admit to being wrong. More than half of the JW’s today have entered the WTS organization after the release of the Knowledge book (i.e., the pervious new bible student teach book). At least more than half of the JW’s today have not staked their expectations of when Armageddon might occur to the death of the generation that saw the events of 1914, since that concept was not taught in the Knowledge book. So the importance of 1914 must be of less significance in the mind of the Knowledge book inductees as compared to anyone coming into the JW organization prior the new understanding on generations from Matt. 24:36. A new teaching book seems to be released every ten years or so. So when a new teaching book comes out, by that time more than three quarters of JW’s will not have ever placed as much importance on the year 1914 as JW’s have prior to the new understanding on generations. In the next ten years or so the year 1914 will not have much other meaning than any other supposed historical date. So then, a new understanding of 1914 doctrine would not be ‘earth shattering’ to the JW faithful. This usage of “sincere Bible students” in the new Bible Teach book is readying the minds of the JW faithful for that kind of understanding or ‘new light.’ This kind of new light my never come about, but I suggest that the ground work for its acceptance by the JW faithful has been laid. This would allow the WTS to reconcile the count of 2520 years as starting from 607 B.C.E. to 587, 588, or 589 B.C.E.
The expression “sincere Bible students” as tied to a discussion of 1914 was used at least two times before by the WTS. These were in the Watchtower and Awake magazines one dating back to 1975. In both of those articles Bible students (note the use of the lower case ‘s’ for students) were identified as Jehovah’s Witnesses. So if the use of “sincere Bible students” in the new Bible Teach book is a prelude to a new understanding of the 2520 years doctrine, then this may create a slight SNAFU.
New Release: Bible Teach book and new light on 1914
by JoeGeneration 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Thegoodgirl
Good catch. Ah, how they love their new light (ie: rewriting history)
-
logansrun
Hmmm...Reading between the lines with a touch of delusions of grandeur?
B.
-
AlanF
I don't think you're really on to something here. In the 1993 Proclaimers book (look around page 135) the Society said that about four other commentators had said something about 1914 before Nelson Barbour and Charles Russell did. The overall tone of the discussion was like, "Wow! Look at this! Others besides Russell confirm that 1914 was going to be big!" Of course, the basis for the speculations of these other commentators was completely different from what Barbour and Russell had, so the fact that others said something about 1914 is irrelevant. Plenty of commentators said plenty about virtually every year that was ahead of them, engaging in the wild prophetic speculation so rampant in the 19th century.
Nevertheless, I think the Society will eventually drop 1914. But the way they do it will probably surprise all observers.
AlanF
-
foreword
There is no doubt in my mind that this is the direction they will be forced to take. The use of the 607 / 1914 / 1994 was put into place by people who wished to speed up the coming of the kingdom and they were wrong, it is obvious now since 1994 has come and gone.
Going along with common historical and scientific understanding would have saved them a lot of grief. Using the 587 date along with their dating system of 2520 years we'd get the dates 587 / 1934 / 2014. We'd still be 9 years away from the end of this generation.
Why they tip toe around the issue is beyond me?
-
VM44
When October 2014 comes around, the Watchtower will print the article "1914-2014...100 Years of Faithfully Waiting by the Generation that did not Pass Away!" --VM44
-
logansrun
I don't think the Society will ever change it's 1914 date. The vast majority of JWs have no clue when it comes to Babylonian history. Seventh day adventists still think dates from the 1840's are spriitually significant. As long as the the significance of the date can be "spritualized" there will be no compelling reason to change it.
B.
-
foreword
And another 20 to go....LOL...just as in Noah's days.....preaching to a generation facing judgement is 120 years.
We still got a long way to go...
-
metatron
I'd like to believe you - but where's the necessity? Why change anything at all?
Has the existence of internet exposure proved that the organization has little to fear from facts about history or science?
You just repeat the same dates over and over. You deny evolution over and over. The rank and file believe it and no change is needed.
Is this 'consensus reality' Witness-style? Please prove me wrong, I'd appreciate it!
metatron
-
VM44
In the current bookstudy book, "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy", no attempt to justify the year 607BCE is made. Even though that year is the starting point for the 1914 calculation, the book just states the year as fact whenever it is mentioned in the book. --VM44