Yes, I can't imagine they'll jettison 1914 soon. So nothing will save them the awkwardness of living through the 100th year of Jesus' invisible coming. But they did buy some time with that overlapping generation business, after all....
Apognophos
JoinedPosts by Apognophos
-
37
The year 1914
by Kool Jo inok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:.
1. why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?.
2. what would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?.
-
-
-
37
The year 1914
by Kool Jo inok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:.
1. why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?.
2. what would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?.
-
-
Apognophos
DATA-DOG is super correct. 1914 is far from written in stone as long as JWs are being told to accept any direction from the slave and are afraid of getting DFed. Besides, time marches on and so do WT revisionist teachings, and if a few older JWs are left behind in the process, so be it.
Don't forget, this happened:
Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914.
What's to stop them from doing exactly that once again? "We now realize that the year 607 should have been 586, but that providentially takes us to 1935, a year of true significance for God's people."
-
13
1914 change article in the watchtower?
by Joliette inwhen are the witnesses going to study this article?
i wonder how they are gonna feel..
-
-
Apognophos
What's so incredibly amusing to me about this is that we JUST had a talk on the Ministry School about WHY WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RAPTURE. THREE WEEKS AGO. Guess that's old light. Wonder what the sister who gave that talk in our Hall is thinking now.
-
37
The year 1914
by Kool Jo inok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:.
1. why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?.
2. what would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?.
-
-
Apognophos
I saw your thread, but I didn't know what to say because I didn't know exactly what you were referring to. I thought maybe it was an upcoming article, and I haven't been studying ahead But yes, so far nothing has really changed about 1914.
-
37
The year 1914
by Kool Jo inok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:.
1. why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?.
2. what would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?.
-
-
Apognophos
I realize what you're saying about the teaching, even though it gave me a near-headache during the study trying to understand how Jesus could be present but not yet arrived as Judge.
Anyway, I think this is the key point: as you said, how can they stand up 1919 without 1914? Very easily! Wasn't 1919 when Rutherford et al. were released from prison, or when they started emphasizing the preaching work? The Society doesn't need Jesus' presence to start 5 years earlier. It could start at that time of appointment in 1919. It could not start at all!
Since Jesus is 'going away on business' in the parable, he only needs to make an appointment and leave. His presence actually works against this interpretation, not with it. The only thing the Society needs is some important event to serve as the beginning of the appointment. And if they've moved the year in the past, they can change 1919 too, if they need a better anchor year.
A good suggestion from previous posters is that the Society could actually acknowledge 586BCE as the correct date of Jerusalem's destruction, because this bumps 1914 down to 1935. Guess what happened in 1935? The "new light" about the great crowd! Yes, that's right, the distinction between the little flock and the great crowd was made in that year, which is like the distinction between the domestics and the faithful slave that this whole appointment business hinges on*. Get my drift?
*Except that the domestics now include all of the anointed remnant who aren't in the Crazy Eight, which is a detail that the Society can easily overlook when explaining all of this.
-
26
question on resurrection
by Skbj ina bit of background first: my mom's sister died 2 years ago.
she wasn't a jw.
she was far too smart to be one to be honest.
-
-
Apognophos
2+2=5 is correct about the millennial reign, but really, if someone rejected the message continuously, most Witnesses would not expect that person to be resurrected. Keep in mind that there's a difference between the Society saying that we have no way of knowing how Jehovah will read people's hearts (only explicitly ruling out a handful of people from potential resurrection, like Adam, Eve and Judas Iscariot), and how the average JW actually believes. Some JWs will be more liberal in their application of "grace" (my term, not theirs) towards deceased nonbelievers than others. Naturally your mother, knowing that her sister was a good person, expects that God will find her worth resurrecting. That's just how families are. But all in all, this is a gray area and no Witness is supposed to assume they know who God will decide to resurrect.
-
29
"It's Demonic" - What's the stupidest thing you've ever heard a JW say?
by schnare ini was at a amusement park here in calgary today.
my jw mother and my young brother came to visit for a week,so me and my sister thought it would a nice idea to take them to do something fun.
i guess they had a part of it called hallo street and my mom was getting all sketched out from all the halloween decorations around.
-
-
Apognophos
Please consider that this ostensible stupidity is not actual, medical, clinical, cognitive incapacity "stupidity".
Sure, I think that's understood by most of us. Personally, I never malign the intelligence or IQ of JWs because I saw a pretty average bell curve of intelligence in the congregation. I knew JWs who were quite intelligent and yet still believed, because they wanted to believe. Even the JWs like to make the point that when scriptures refer to "stupid ones", the stupidity in question is foolish behavior or willful stubbornness, not cognitive impairment.
-
37
The year 1914
by Kool Jo inok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:.
1. why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?.
2. what would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?.
-
-
Apognophos
If Jesus did not return in 1914, he did not appoint anybody in 1919, and it would be a blow to the Watchtower's authority. Also if the Harvest has not begun, it's a futile effort to seperate wheat from weeds and all denominations would therefore be on equal footing.
Yes, but posters here have pointed out the silliness of Jesus "returning" in 1914, appointing the slave over his domestics in 1919, then leaving and returning again in the GT. Where did he go if he's supposed to be enthroned the whole time?
Instead, what if the WT some day reveals that Jesus was present all along (say, since 33CE), then appointed his slave in 1919, and will return one day in the future? Doesn't this make some things simpler doctrinally?
Of course the big loss in jettisoning 1914 is that many JWs are impressed by the Society's "prediction" for 1914 "coming true".
As far as the harvest, the separation has not begun yet according to the Society since 1995 (?) and reaffirmed in yesterday's study, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.
-
35
There she goes with that "thank Jehovah" again
by ShirleyW injust once after serena williams says "thanks to jehovah god" i would love to hear the commentator ask her "when's the last time you've been out in field service or attended a meeting"?.
.
-
-
Apognophos
Heh, sorry to whichever moderator removed my post, I guess that was uncalled for
-
29
"It's Demonic" - What's the stupidest thing you've ever heard a JW say?
by schnare ini was at a amusement park here in calgary today.
my jw mother and my young brother came to visit for a week,so me and my sister thought it would a nice idea to take them to do something fun.
i guess they had a part of it called hallo street and my mom was getting all sketched out from all the halloween decorations around.
-
-
Apognophos
Ha, wow. That sister was the mentally-challenged one. Obviously a loving God would heal their disability in the new system and then they would have the opportunity to learn the truth during the 1000 years. Then again, I never agreed with the Witness belief that nonbelievers would all be destroyed at Armageddon. How silly, when the Society says that the unrighteous dead from the past will get a resurrection. Does that mean that if someone doesn't hear the good news before Armageddon, they get destroyed, then immediately resurrected?
Anyway, it's nice to meet someone else that was turned off to the truth by superstitious people. Another thing that made me see the superstition was when the friends repeated misinformation mindlessly -- anything that dropped into their email from another Witness or that was said in field service. Did you know that John Denver hated the Witnesses and kicked them out of his concerts, and then when he went on the Tonight Show and Carson told him off because he liked the Witnesses who worked for him, and then he kicked Denver off his show? Did you know that Mr. Rogers was once an Army sniper, and had to wear sweaters to hide his tattoos?