1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Phizzy

  On the matter of 1914 or WW1 being a true "Turning Point" , for it to be so there would have to be a real sea change afterward that would not have happened anyway, which is not exactly the case, as noted above.

  It is difficult to determine exactly what is a Turning Point, and even if one happened at a particular time, what was the actual turning point ?

  I have just read Tom Holland's excellent book "Rubicon" - about the founding of the Roman Republic, but was the real turning point, which undoubtedly happened, when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon ? or later ?

  On these sort of questions I like former Chinese Premier Zhou En-Lai’s quip about the signiicance of the French revolution: "it is too early to tell."
• 

  kepler

  Bobcat:

  Much in the spirit of discussion over coffee, I respond.

  Even as I write, on the radio they are debating this winter's US weather in the context of climate or environmental change. Admittedly, climate change or global warming are beyond the scope of this topic - save for one point: Did Russell, Rutherford or the Bible Students even suggest that that was on the table? I remember them writing of anarchy, socialists and destruction of churches, and somewhere of Russell claiming that the Earth was warming in advent of it becoming a more habitable paradaisical place... And I'm not sure if it even comes up now in the roll of doom enumerated each year. But let's consider it for a moment.

  CO2 is a marker for Greenhouse capabilities of the atmosphere. I have a circa 1978 text which had the trends from Hawaii and Antarctica with seasonal variations - you can straight line it to the present 400ppm concentration in the atmosphere - and do the same back way into the 19th century. Beside that we have ice sample atmospheric concentrations from all over the world and back millenia.

  There is no sudden discontinuity in 1914.

  At the turn of the century (19th to 20th) in the US the Passenger Pigeon and the bison were just about wiped out.

  The last passenger pigeon died off in 1913.

  The buffalo recovered enough that you can buy a burger for a little more than one made from beef cattle.

  Global and local variations of climate and environment vary. The Cuyahuga River in Cleveland hasn't caught fire from emissions since the early 1970s if I remember right or spelled it correctly. A lot of other rivers have been cleaned up under a Clean Water Act. We don't use fluorocarbons for spray cans anymore...And that seems to help on ozone. On the other hand, moving all our smokestack industries to China or elsewhere helps local environment here but not there and global environment not at all. But it does give Chinese an opportunity to live better than they do in the countryside. So are things just getting worse, or perhaps they are not getting as bad as they could be?

  But saying that, and if I were Chinese liking in Peking and in any measure aware of my own nation's history, how would I greet the news of someone knocking on my door with a pamphlet "What the Bible Really Teaches"? Had the pioneer heard of the year 1912, or the year of the end of the Dynasty and the establishment of the Republic? The Rape of Nanking? The year 1949 and the end of the Long March? Events since the death of Mao? All these events affected a quarter of the population of the world directly.

  What's the proposition in this derivative little red book, riding on claims of interpreting the works of others?

  I second Phizzy's notion about Tom Holland's (or others ) books. I had read not read Rubicon, but I did read "In the Shadow of the Sword". In its pages recounting the reverses and struggles of the 4th to 7th centuries, there is plenty of room to reflect on how the prophecies we re-cycle today were used to justify or predict events then. The plague of Justinian (circa 580 AD - bubonic) is just about forgotten. A third of the civilized Mediterranean, Christian world died. Just after it was all united ( pushed back the Zoroastrian Persians, suppressed Samaritans and Jews) under an absolute, orthodox THEOCRACY, the Arab invasions swept it all away.

  Makes you really want to worship a runaway Brooklyn printing press.

  Best regards,

  Kepler
• 

  Bobcat

  Kepler:

  I'm have to head off to 'make brick for the Egyptians.' But just to address a possible mis-understanding, I wasn't trying to imply that 1914 somehow marked a "turning point" in the ecology. One could point to certain aspects of the ecology and say, 'See, this is worse than it was before 1914!" And it is possible that it was true. But as you pointed out, graphing of the problem would very likely show that the year 1914 had little to do with it. In the case of the enviroment, the start of the industrial revolution might be somewhat of a marker in time, although if it were, it would be hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint an exact year.

  Just supposing for a minute WWI were a "turning point" in history. The war went on from 1914 - 1918. Why would 1914 have to be the turning point? Early in the war I think Germany's side had the advantage. Yet the English side eventually came out as the winners. I think (and this is off the top of my head), but I think 1917 might possibly be considered the "turning point" in the war. So if the post-war world was dominated by the winners, then, 1917 would be better recognized as the larger historical "turning point."

  In reality, the start of WWI only serves to give sanction to the Society's 607-1914 chronological calculation. (By the way, I was consulting previous posts of yours to see if you mentioned anything about a turning point in WWI. See here and several posts on down in the thread.)

  Well, got a go.

  Take Care till next time.
• 

  wantingtruth

  Hi Bobcat,

  I understand time is precious for everybody so I try to be short

  I firstly would rebuild my thought: the "1914" wasn't a "turrning point" even for the world history . It was more precisely an "accelerating point" for the unfolding of the 20th century' (humankind's ) history events ... (Im not sure how "english" sounds my expression , but I hope you readers understand )

  I repeat the fact that the 1914' thing has no relevance for the "worshiper with spirit" of God , simply because all the theories around it have nothing to do with the "teaching of Christ" ! - it it beyound the limits of Jesus teachings / see 2John 1:9.

  I mean, both the expectances believed to take place that year , as also the methods and reasons used for the calculation of that year were NOT biblical, and beyound of "Christ's teaching", so they were absolutely wrong, and worse than that, theirs believing in that idea (regarding 1914) has imprimed a bad course of God's people before their God.

  If you will read this (my) post , what do you understand ?

  wt.
• 

  kaik

  Germany never had advantage on WWI. Its military doctrine was build on assumption that it can repeat the war of 1870-1871 in quick invasion of France throughout Belgium, defeat it and turn eastward against Russia. Both assumption were utter failure. First of all, Germany did not expect that UK will honor its obligation to defent Belgium neutrality. Germany also did not expect that Belgians would put a big fight, which they did. Secondarily, any hope on quick victory on the battlefield was dashed by miracle of Marne. From that point, it was undecisive war and Germans never had superirority on the Western front. On the Eastern front, Russia mobilized much quickly than expected and overrun Austro-Hungarian position in Galicia. Prussia was almost invided and Germany was from that point on fighting two wars at the same time. The combined economic and industrial potential of Russia, UK, and France with all its colonies were much larger than German's economic ouput. Italy and Romania which were bounded to Germany and Austria-Hungary switched the alliances and went against Germany. It was lost war for Germany, and German's only achieved superiority against Russia which economically and politically disintegrated in 1917 and withdrew from war by signing armistance with Germany. USA entrance to the war was an additional drawback for Germans (USA did not declared war against Austria-Hungary).

  Nonetheless, 1914 was no turning point of humanity. France continued uninterrupted as III. Republic until the defeat of 1940. Germany was still a major European player even after 1918 and 1945. Austria-Hungary disintegrated, but much of the inner politics survived well until communist takeover in Central Europe in the 1940's. Austrian criminal laws from 1851 was not replaced in descending countries until 1950-1960! So did political parties, civic organization, judicial system, tax structure, and local politics. Again, 1914 did not interrupted any of these by sudden turning point. On the larger scale, each country that was built upon the ruin of Austrian Empire, developed own poltical system. Czechoslovakia democracy, Hungary fascism, Yugoslavia and Romania were monarchies, Poland and Austria as right wing dictatorship. World changed much more in 1945 with the end of the European supremacy.
• 

  JWdaughter

  Dramatic long ranging turning points in human history:

  Invention of Printing Press

  Invention of Electricity

  Al Gores invention of the Internet :) Seriously, These things have all impacted humanity in very dramatic and incredible ways-if one has a "but for the printing press"or "but for electricity" conversation-the entire civilization changes. The internet? How has that impacted the entire world? I knew of an attack in Afghanistan before it made even the internet news because a friend who saw it, put it on her facebook page and I happened to be on it when she posted. That kind of thing changes EVERYTHING. We are no longer subject to ANYONE's version of 'truth'. It is out there for us to access if we have the time and energy to seek it.
• 

  Bobcat

  Kaik:

  Thanks much for the military and political synopsis involving WWI. Very interesting! And as you pointed out, there is no discernible turning point from those perspectives involving WWI/1914.

  Take Care
• 

  designs

  WWI Weapons

  Poison gas- Mustard gas, chlorine gas, Phosgene gas

  Airships- Fokker and Sopwith Camel, Zeppelin

  Grenades

  Tanks

  Canons- Big Bertha firing range 120km, rotation of the earth had to be calculated into target.

  Britian fired 170million rounds of ammunition

  10,000,000 horses died

  Maxim machine gun was used to kill 60,000 British on the first day of the Battle of Somme
• 

  Bobcat

  WantingTruth:

  A lot of interesting points that coincide with the discussion here in your linked writeup:

  • God telling Jesus at his baptism, "This is my Son . . ." (and later, as in Mt 17:5) ties back to Psalm 2:7. Both Psalm 2 and 110 are regarded as Davidic inauguration psalms. And thus, their application to Jesus has overtones of him having been made king. (See also here.)

  • Hebrews 1:1,2

    (Hebrews 1:1, 2 NWT) . . .God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. . .

    The NWT greatly softens the impact of what the writer of Hebrews is saying by the rendering, "at the end of these days." (See here for how others render the phrase.) The WT holds to the idea that 1914 marks the start of the "last days."

    The NAC-Hebrews commentary (David L. Allen, pp. 102-03) has this to say about "in these last days" (NIV rendering):

    The expression "in these last days" contrasts with "in the past" [NIV; "long ago" NWT] of v. 1 and is descriptive of the time when the readers of the epistle lived. The phrase "in these last days" (ep' eschatou ton hemeron) is found in the Septuagint (with various inflections) and translates a Hebrew temporal idiom for the future as distinct from the past. The Jewish perspective of two ages - this age and the coming eshatalogical age - is well known [except among those taught by the WT - Bobcat]. The rabbis debated in which age the Messiah would appear, finding Old Testament evidence both ways. It is probably best to link the two at the appearance of Jesus: the closing out of "this age" and the inauguration of "the coming age." The phrase had come to have a technical eschatalogical significance in Jewish thought, and this was incorporated into the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, like the other New Testament writers, viewed the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus as the inauguration of "the last days." [See two other quoted references that have the same idea here. - Bobcat] The present time in which the readers [of Hebrews] are living is "the last days" in contrast to the palai ["long ago" NWT - Bobcat] of v. 1. It is not only that the appearance of Jesus occurred during the last days, but that his appearance initiated the last days.

    Also concerning the NWT rendering "at the end of these days," a footnote in the commentary says:

    Lunemann (Hebrews, 393) correctly noted that ton hemeron touton [literally "the days these" - Bobcat] should not be taken in apposition to ep eschaton with the meaning "at the period's close" ["at the end of these days" NWT - Bobcat], which these days form.

    The NIGTC-Hebrews commentary (Paul Ellingworth, p. 93) also comments about "in these last days":

    . . . [the phrase] is Septuagintal, used in echatalogical contexts such as Numbers 24:14 and Daniel 10:14 LXX, pasages which have other points of contact with Hebrews. Esxatou ["last"] is neuter, meaning not "on the last of the days," but "in the last days," or more idiomatically "in the end time." . . . Hebrews distinctive (not Septuagintal) addition of toutwn ["these"] indicates that the last days have begun. Toutwn should be taken with the whole phrase: "in these days which are the last days," not "at the end of these days."

    It appears to me that the NWT rendering, "at the end of these days," is likely motivated by existing WT doctrine about "the last days."

  I have some other comments in line with your writeup, but will stop here for the sake of brevity.

  Take Care
• 

  Bobcat

  WantingTruth:

  Continuing what I saw in your linked writeup from the previous post:

  • Your linked writeup has a thought about "the kingdom of the heavens/God has drawn near." See here for some additional reference material about this phrase.

  • (John 18:37 NWT) . . .Therefore Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. . . .

    This was a good reference in your writeup. I'm adding it here for future reference. The "you yourself are saying . . ." phrasing is widely understood to be a qualified affirmative answer. The BECNT-Luke commentary (Vol II, p. 1811) says regarding the same phrase used by Jesus to Pilate in Luke 23:3:

    In Luke, as in the other Synoptics, Jesus' reply is enigmatic: "You have said so" (sy legeis; cf. [Luke 22:67c-68, 70). This appears to be a tacit affirmation, but it is expressed with a qualification about the way the question is perceived. Jesus is a king, but he is not out to overthrow Rome.

    This allows the possibility that Jesus viewed the start of his kingship from perhaps his baptism, when he was anointed with holy spirit. (Compare Daniel 9:25, which in the NWT reads "Messiah the Leader." But see the link for how others render it.)

  Take Care