The WT knew in 1922 that 1914 was wrong !
In the May 1922 edition of the WT, page 133, Rutherford is writing defending the work of Russell and the 1914 doctrine, he quotes what some have said to prove Russell was wrong :
" "Zedekiah was taken captive and Jerusalem fell in the year 587 B. C.; thus showing that the full end of the gentile times and the fall of gentile governments is indicated to take place in 1934".
He goes on, in his own inimitable style, to disprove the above, but note, he is aware of the 587BCE date for Jerusalem's destruction.
If you are interested, you can read the whole mag here*, just click on PDF to read.
Great find Phizzy
They knew back in 1922 that 1914. And they kept on preaching about it. LOL!! And did no attempt to fix it, but keep drumming it.
Great read! Thanks
They knew back in 1922 that 1914. And they kept on preaching about it.
Thanks again Beth -
Wouldn't it be more helpful if they knew about 1914 in 1900? Russell based the end of the whole world on 1914 based on measurements of pyramids (money donations to the Watchtower). Oops World didn't end. Russell claimed a "false" measurement was to blaim - World will certainly end in 1915. God got fed up with the false prophet and just offed him him 2016. Well, he had to let 2015 run out just to make Russell look like more of an ass.
Why? Please tell my why? People listen to this group that has promised the absolute end of the world a dozen times and it never happens? They very bible they preach from says false prophets must die.
Are these just propaganda for magazine subscription drives?
From the WT mentioned in the OP:
There can be no more question about 1925 than. there was about 1914 Page 150. In other words, as convinced he was about the "proof" for 1914, it is similar to 1925 proof. Therefore, if 1925 (millions alive now will never die) was wrong despite the so-called proof, what about 1914???
Wow, that article is dizzying.
On page 136, second column, there's a paragraph that quotes Daniel 2:1.
It goes on to describe how Daniel was brought in before the king to interpret the dreams. The very next paragraph says this is impossible.
So, here you have J.F. Rutherford saying the Biblical account is not possible. On the next page, he writes this:
Ah, so he's saying all the other renderings regarding Daniel 2:1 is incorrect and Variorium is correct because it fits the circumstances. Yet, the NWT and the RNWT both say, "the second year."
Just astonishing. It's understandable how there was a move to ''reconsider the Last Days'' by some of the governing body in the 1970's.