by The Quiet One 179 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Putting aside the question of whether they have made false predictions or not there is another aspect to what they have done.
They declare themselves as God's only true spokesman (or 'prophet'). What they have done in speculating is to set dates yet the Jesus taught that no-one knows the day or the hour. Even if it is their over-enthusiasm they have gone beyond what the bible teaches.
WASBLIND said: "Again, the apostles , unlike the Jehovah's witnesses, did not go out teaching things they had to retract there is no comparision" -- (John 21:22,23 is an example of a false expectation based on an incorrect understanding of Jesus' words) Here we have perhaps the crux of this whole apostles versus WT matter.. Jw's publicly taught a false expectation that they had, based on a wrong understanding.. whereas the apostles, as far as we know from what we are told, didn't tell the public about their false expectations (another example in Luke 19:11), they talked about these things amongst themselves. They didn't have what they felt was the date for Armageddon, though, and they had not seen any sign of the last days at that point, so the situation wasn't the same.. Jw's at least promoted a sense of urgency about the concept that the system of things could be about to end, as the Bible clearly says it will, even if the date turned out to be false.
The Quiet One, should I be expected to believe that the 7 trumpet blasts of Revelation are International Assemblies denouncing Christianity?
If this interpretation be proven false, would they qualify as false prophets? Why should I listen to their interpretation to begin with, if it's only an interpretation?
BANDONTHERUN said: "A false prophet is what a reputable dictionary defines. You showed nothing that indicates that some odd verse in Deuteromony controls the discussion." -- The 'odd verse' is the Biblical definition that people such as jwfacts use to convince Bible believers that the WT claims to be a prophet+they made false predictions=they're a false prophet according to the definition given in the 'odd verse' in Deuteronomy. If this scripture cannot be applied, and I've shown that it cannot because the WT didn't make a false prediction of the future 'in Gods name' (which means the person saying 'God WILL do such-a-thing on this date' in a definite sense, such as Harold Camping did, not 'we think He might but He may not'..), then the WT is not scripturally a 'false prophet' in any provable sense, and the argument that 'this scripture proves undeniably that they are a false prophet not guided by God' is rendered invalid.. If anyone wants to apply the label of false prophet, without any SCRIPTURAL basis, that's up to them..
OUTSMART said: " Do you really think that 50 years from now.....when the overlapping generation explanation proves to be false.....that will be it? Do you really think the society will say"well.....we were wrong. " -- Is there another definition of the word generation that could include a third overlapping group? No.. so they would lose all credibility with any jw.
OUTSMART said: "If the society can chalk past failures of their predictions up to old light.......then can't anyone?" -- As I've already explained, the other predictions were not said in a definite sense, as in 'God will do this' without any disclaimer saying that it might not happen, they were at worst over-hyped theories. As I've said, the 'generation of 1914' prophecy has not been proven to have failed yet..
OUTSMART said: "If I use the same reasoning that you allow the society to use.....then I've never been wrong in my life." -- Yes, you could in theory have kept changing what you meant when you predicted something, but nobody would believe you/care what you predict by now..because you have no other evidence to show that you could be worth trusting, but that is beyond the scope of this topic. Whether a person could hypothetically keep changing what their predictions meant as each one fails to come true, indefinitely and with no time limit, is irrelevant to this discussion.. The WT have made only one prophecy in Gods name, and they have a time limit. Only the understanding of the word 'generation', which affects the length of time from 1914, but only in a finite sense, has been refined, or altered if you like,..This can't go on indefinitely.. If you predict something that has never happened before will happen within a specific time-frame, as the WT has with the anchor point being 1914, you will eventually be proven right/wrong. The 1914 generation prophecy is based on something specific (Armageddon) happening before the generation (of contemporaries) runs out.. Whether they are false prophets will be resolved. There can be no further interpretations of the word generation, and the one future prediction in Gods name that they have undeniably made ('Gods promise') will bring about either the end of the world or the end of the WT. Unless anyone can prove that it could go on indefinitely with a credible definition.. We know that 'contemporaries' is the breaking point, a generation can't be stretched any further. KNOWSNOTHING -- You don't have to believe it, nor do you have to be a jw. What is your point? I'm merely trying to show that the WT can't just be easily dismissed as a false prophet. There's no Biblical basis for it up to now..
Actually they've already been dismissed. You just refuse to see it. Your problem, not ours but thanks for pointing it out for the lurkers. You done a great job Quiet One!
The Quiet One, it's relevant because Revelation is a book of prophecies and they claim to have the answers. When the pivotal 1914 date is proven wrong, they have to yet again revise Revelations fullfilment. It's really absurd.
I honestly can't believe you are defending them. It really is about semantics with you. They said it would happen. It didn't happen. I don't see why you have to obfuscate the obvious. They are false prophets.
If a prophet says something of God is going to happen, and it doesn't happen, then they are false prophets. Can we agree with that basic definition?
If not, please define more clearly what a "prophet" is to you.
Phizzy -- If you believe that the main doctrines taught by jw's today make sense with what the Bible says, and not in the Trinity..hellfire..satan not being a person.. Immortal soul..Gods name not to be spoken..and all the 'false' doctrines that jw's have never changed from refuting.. It is a unique combination of beliefs when you put it all together , so if they seem to make sense despite the Bibles complexity, you could view that as evidence.. Or the great distribution of Bibles worldwide, giving people that speak languages that no other religion has printed anything in, the chance to learn about God.. Fantastic coincidences in the Yearbooks etc. But evidence is subjective, decide for yourself.
