by Little Bo Peep 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Little Bo Peep
    Little Bo Peep

    In reading over drew sagan's post this am, we were discussing how often the WT says SOON. It is really brought to the fore when you read his post. It's now been over 92 years since their 1914 date. It occurred to me that the WT usually refers to the scripture that "one day with Jehovah is a thousand years", etc., yet Jesus, in speaking of the "end", wasn't talking about Jehovah, his view of things. He was talking to humans, who would not equate the "end" as being thousands of years off. Human thinking would tell them "soon", would really mean "soon". The "last days" Paul spoke about were then, not thousands of years later. The Wt acknowledges there were "last days" for Jerusalem, but as other futuristic religions do also, they give second and even third meanings to the prophecy. In our research, we have come to the conclusion that all these prophecys were for the Jewish nation's end. Even Revelation, when you examine the facts, you'll find out many scholars believe it was written before Jerusalem's destruction. I think most of Revelation (I say most because there are numerous things in question as to how they would be fulfilled) has been fulfilled, centuries ago, not for the future.

    Nothing to scholarly, but just a thought!


  • xjwms

    Its a good word

    Just overworked by JW's


  • Will Power
    Will Power

    That is going to be my new years resolution...... whenever I'm in the same room with a JW and the issue of time comes up - what time do we have to be there? how long before dinner? when is this bill due? when are the kids going to be home? SOON!

  • AlmostAtheist

    See, there are several flavors of "soon":

    Christ's return: soon = 2-3 millenia

    Turn in your time: soon = tonight, or sunday at the latest

    Start that "family study": soon = pretty much never


  • uriah

    Basically, there is no definition in Theo-speak to "soon", "soon!". It is one of the 'roundabout' words that are used in sequence on the cover of the mags. These are, and by no means in this order or an exhaustive list as, no doubt, I have missed some (feel free to add at will, if that is not too thread hijacking) ....Soon ....At Hand ....No More..... ....Will xxx ever end?... and the like. I reckon, in the end, all mags will say the same with blanks for the publisher to fill in as they see the need. Oh My, you have no legs, this mag is for you,(scribbles in the space) "Will Disability End Soon?"

  • lfcviking
    I think most of Revelation (I say most because there are numerous things in question as to how they would be fulfilled) has been fulfilled, centuries ago, not for the future.

    Just curious 'Little Bo Peep' what things are you refering to when you say most of the Revelation prophecies have already been fullfilled?


  • Narkissos

    It is interesting to note how Revelation diverges from its major primary source, Daniel, in this respect.

    And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
    "See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone's work." -- Revelation 22:10ff.
    I heard but could not understand; so I said, "My lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?" He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are to remain secret and sealeduntil the time of the end. any shall be purified, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked shall continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand." -- Daniel 12:8ff.

    The narrative (and fictitious imo) setting of Daniel implied a prophet of the 6th century BC foretelling events of the 2nd century BC. Neither he nor the next generations could understand what he was writing about, until "the time of the end". Hence the prophecy would be "sealed" in the meantime.

    Let's assume that the writer of Revelation had lost sight of the original 2nd-century setting of Daniel and expected it to be fulfilled in his own time, say, the late 1st century AD: the "prophet Daniel" would then have been foretelling events 6 to 7 centuries in advance.

    Now the spokesman of Revelation is not some ancient character. John of Patmos is a recent, if not contemporary figure. Hisprophecy is not expected to suffer a delay such as Daniel's. His words are not to be "sealed". They are to be fulfilled soon, i.e. not in some remote future "time of the end".

    Isn't it ironical that John's prophecy which clearly presents itself as short-range in contrast to Daniel's, would actually imply at least thrice the delay involved in Daniel, by the WT and other modern sectarian interpretations?

  • proplog2


    Wasn't John under the delusion of the rumor that he would NOT die but would be alive when Christ arrived?

    John 21:22 "If it is my will for him to remain until I come of what concern is that to you...In consequence this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die"

    When John says it's the last hour - he offers his own definition of antichrist which is at odds with the general idea that it is a single individual. If you take John's definition of anti-christ its anyone who strays from the flock.

    Is there any doubt that the Bible is riddled with the opinions of individual writers.

  • sspo

    If the bible is god's word, (SOON).......... it took 4000 years for Jesus to show up and provide the ransom

    It's already been 2000 years since his death............. ( SOON ) could also be another 2000 years

    Can anyone dispute that?

  • Narkissos


    Your interesting suggestion assumes that the "beloved disciple" of the Fourth Gospel is to be identified with the "John" of Revelation, as a part of later tradition holds but is unclear from the NT texts... GJohn and Revelation have some vocabulary in common but completely different ideas imo.

    Ironically the (second) conclusion of the Fourth Gospel which presents the "beloved disciple" as its writer suspiciously adds "and we know that his testimony is true" -- which actually posits him as the first source of its tradition rather than its (final?) writer/redactor.

    The Johannine epistles may imply (yet) another, or two other writer(s), since 2 and 3 John are ascribed to "the Elder," and Papias distinguishes between "John the Elder" and the apostle.

    1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7 actually acknowledge the tradition about "an (or the, according to other manuscripts) antichrist" coming; what the epistles seem to suggest is that the one antichrist is (partially?) fulfilled through the plural antichrists which the author discerns within the Christian ranks. Revelation, otoh, doesn't use the word but seems to apply the apocalyptical tradition underlying the notion of "antichrist" (Daniel etc.) to a non-Christian figure (the beast).

    So any "clarification" of Revelation by the (rest of) "Johannine literature" is highly dubious to me. Anyway your conclusion stands:

    the Bible is riddled with the opinions of individual writers.

Share this