How, then, about President Knorr's prediction in 1942 - right in the middle of World War II - that the peace organization which had disappeared from the scene at the outbreak of the war in 1939 would "ascend out of the abyss," (Rev. 17:8) again after the end of the war?" 12 At first glance, this seems to be a remarkable prophecy. It was a prediction that clearly was fulfilled. But it was in no way unique.
As was shown above, W.E. Vine, as early as 1919, identified the League of Nations with the "beast" in Revelation, chapter 17. This interpretation was not adopted by the Watch Tower Society until eleven years later, when it was presented in volume 2 of the work Light, published in 1930. In 1919 the Society still held the beast with the woman on its back described in Revelation, chapter 17, to be the pagan Roman empire, with the apostate Church of Rome "on its back." 13 This had been the prevalent Protestant interpretation of these figures ever since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. But in the second volume of Light the League of Nations was associated with this prophetic vision, exactly as Vine had done eleven years earlier. The "scarlet colored beast" (Rev. 17:3) was explained to be "The Hague International Peace Conference," formed in 1899. 14 This organization "functioned until the World War. It then went into the abyss and ceased to function. After the World War it came out of the abyss or pit and began to function again in the form of the League of Nations." 15 This understanding was prevalent until 1942 (see for instance the book Enemies 1937, pp. 283ff.), when it dawned upon the Watch Tower leaders that World War II would not develop into Armageddon either. Another interpretation of Revelation 17, therefore, became necessary.
It came also, in the booklet Peace - Can It Last?, founded upon a speech by the same name delivered by the President of the Society, Nathan H. Knorr, in the autumn of 1942. The Hague International Peace Conference was now completely excluded from the role list. The "beast" was at first the League of Nations. It went "into the abyss" in 1939 at the outbreak of World War II. But it would not remain there. Quoting Revelation 17:8, President Knorr predicted: "The association of worldly nations will rise again." 16
As all know, this prediction was fulfilled. But it was not difficult to make at that time. As Knorr himself pointed out in the same booklet (p. 21), plans of reviving the peace organization after the war were well on the way, the Axis Powers, Japan and Hungary having signed a "new League of Nations" already on November 20, 1940. In fact, the United Nations had already been formed, several months before Knorr's prediction, on January 1, 1942 at Washington D.C., with twenty-six nations signing a joint declaration on that date.17
Besides, Knorr's prediction was neither new nor unique. Other prophetic expositors had predicted the same thing - as much as two years earlier! Dwight Wilson refers, for example, to a prediction by the well known Bible expositor, Harry Rimmer: "Harry Rimmer in 1940 forecast a new League of Nations as a result of the war - and the rise of a universal dictator. The United Nations has arrived, but there is no dictator yet." 18
Thus, the Watch Tower Society can claim no priority on this or other predictions and prophetic applications attached to the League of Nations and the United Nations The same views were held by the millenarian fundamentalists in general at that time, who originated the predictions about the future of these peace organizations years before they were picked up by the Watch Tower Society. Fundamentalist Christians in general did not change their attitude towards the peace organization after World War II. They continued to regard it as the "beast", of Revelation 17 and - like the Watch Tower Society at that and like the "harlot" on its back as corrupt Christendom. 19 Sociologist Louis Gasper explains:
The Fundamentalists literally believed that "the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet" in Revelation 17 prefigures the establishment of a corrupted, though colorful world church which would include the Catholics and Protestants. 20
The attitude of the Watch Tower Society, not only towards the United Nations but also toward "the organized, corrupted Christendom," then, is seen to be shared by fundamentalist Christians in general. Even when it comes to the habit of adopting disapproving resolutions against the United Nations, the Watch Tower Society closely follows the methods of the fundamentalist movement:
Although the fundamentalists were generally opposed to the United Nations and criticized it vehemently, they did not make any organized attempt to place pressure upon Congress to cause the withdrawal of the United States from it. Their opposition was usually expressed in the form of statements and resolutions which were adopted at frequent intervals to indicate their general disapproval of the United Nations. 21
CONCLUSION
The above examination has demonstrated that the views held by the Watch Tower Society about the international peace organizations are more "traditional" than most Jehovah's Witnesses believe. They are views that, more or less, have been shared by practically all fundamentalist Christians. The same holds true of the "predictions" of the future of these peace organizations presented by the Society: They were simply taken over from the fundamentalists. If some of these predictions seem to have been fulfilled, therefore, this does not prove anything as to the Society's ability to prophesy; it just proves that they are able to plagiarize. For this, no divine inspiration is needed. If these predictions were divinely originated, the leaders of the Watch Tower Society should be forced to conclude that God gave them to fundamentalist Christians outside the Watch Tower organization.
One question remains to be answered: Is the vision of the "beast" at Revelation 17 really applicable to the League of Nations and the United Nations of our days? Even if at first glance this application may seem likely, this author feels it has serious problems. He hopes to return to this subject in a future article.
Carl Olof Jonsson
This article written by Carl Olof Jonsson shows that Knor's "prediction" of the return of the League of Nations as the UN was not such an amazing prediction. It was common knowledge that the League was coming back after the war. ALso, others had "predicted" the same thing two years before Knorr did.
Mr. Shakita
Witnesses cannot refute the real "TRUTH"
by integ 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
Shakita
-
under_believer
While I agree with much of what was said in this thread, I do have to point out that the United Nations really was the direct descendent of the League of Nations. This doesn't prove anything about the accuracy of the Society's predictions, as better-informed posters than I have already pointed out. But let's strive for accuracy. From Wikipedia:
The United Nations was founded as a successor to the League of Nations which was considered by many to have been ineffective in its role as an international governing body: it had been formed in response to World War I, on the premise that such wars could be prevented by such an entity, yet had failed to prevent World War II. The biggest advantage the United Nations has over the League of Nations is the ability to maintain and deploy its member nations' armed forces as peace keepers.
...and...
After a number of notable successes and some early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis Powers in the 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its primary purpose—to avoid any future world war. The United Nations replaced it after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.
...and...
After its failure to prevent one war, it was decided to create a new body to fulfill the League's role, but to take it further. This body was to be the United Nations. Many League bodies, for instance the International Labour Organisation, continued to function and eventually became affiliated with the UN. At a meeting of the Assembly in 1946, the League dissolved itself and its services, mandates, and property were transferred to the UN.
-
uninformed
Blondie,
I'll be damned.
the one thing I thought they got right!!!!
Plagerism. (assholes)
Brant
-
NeonMadman
"Did they not predict that either the Soviet Union or the USA would fall by likening one to the king of the north? "
-
A Paduan
Wow, they even get it wrong when it's 50 - 50
-
serendipity
ooops wrong thread.
-
MidwichCuckoo
Wow, they even get it wrong when it's 50 - 50
Lol. The only thing I've (personally) heard recently from a dub, is that the Org predicted World War One!!
-
Nathan Natas
The only thing I've (personally) heard recently from a dub, is that the Org predicted World War One!!
If that is the case, I'm sure they can provide hard copy proof of their "prediction," can't they?
Isn't it PATHETIC that "the only true religion" and "God's Spokesman" have to dig back more than 60 years to come up with even a glimmer of a fulfilled prophecy, and upon examination that glimmer proves to be Fool's Gold!
It is safe to say that if you confronted a WTB&TS apologist with most other items they were teaching in the early 1940s -- like, say, a creative day being 7,000 years long, and the "generation" teaching -- the WTB&TS would back away from it, suggesting that the passage of time had excused them from such nonsense. Yet they'll happily run back to the same dusty archives and try to pawn this obscure "prophecy" off as proof that they are God's people. When baloney gets this old, we call it salami.
-
peacefulpete
Now I'm reaching into the dark crevices of my mind, but didn't they originally say that some economic coalition of European nations was the enemy before shifting to the Leauge of Nations? That they stuck with this identification until after the war started? Leolaia, do you have any idea what I talking about?
-
beautifulisfree
Predictions what predictions? The society never made any...it was just the rank and file or new light If a prophet makes one false prophecy then doesn't that make him a false prophet?