Myth of 1914

by peacefulpete 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  peacefulpete

  The SDA example is perhaps suggestive of what the result would be if they altered their doctrine. I found an article from 1989 that 'resolved' the failure of the end to appear in the "generation" of the 1833 falling stars etc. Many SDA's had found ways to reinterpret the word 'generation' through the years without arriving at a satisfying permanent solution. The 1989 article simply offered that prophecy was "dynamic" and God, while remaining unchanged in his determination, can alter his specific plan at will. They used "seeming" failed prophecies in the OT as examples of this. In this way the prediction remains on the books but becomes unfalsifiable/undisprovable. Their growth since then hasn't been unusually good nor any worse than the decades before 1989. They presently claim to have about 21 million members.

  The WT overlapping generations approach to resolve the same issue seems less efficient. It is similarly unfalsifiable in that it can perpetuate indefinitely, but it awkwardly strains the wording of that one passage and leaves one feeling unsatisfied and confused. The SDA approach IMO is functionally superior, in that it appears to be taking a 'rational' flexible approach to prophecy as a whole. Much harder to argue against.

  I don't see much really changing no matter what they eventually do. I know I've said it many times, but IMO doctrine just differentiates one church group from other churches it's less important for recruitment or retention of membership. That is the result of a welcoming sense of community and group identity. True sometimes specific unusual doctrine becomes inseparable from identity, (like Armstrong's WWC of God with Sabbath and faith healing) and a change would precipitates a serious loss of membership. For the WT it might be their 'earth paradise' doctrine or their ant-trinitarianism. But peripheral stuff like this can be accommodated easily as the numerous previous changes in the WT teaching about 1914/18 over the years has shown.

  Again, IMO, they need to address this festering wound. Either the approach of the SDA would work or some other open ended rational sounding way to diminish the importance of the 607/1914 dates is necessary.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I don’t think comparisons with past performance are necessary the most relevant when considering the growth of religious groups. I find it more interesting to compare religious groups with each other at any given time because all religious groups are subject to the same society-wide forces of secularisation in the modern on age.

  That being so, in western countries such as the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the growth of Seventh-day Adventists could fairly be described as very good in recent decades; the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses as good; the growth of Mormons as poor; and the growth (actually decline) of many other religious groups (ranging from Presbyterians to Unitarians to Anglicans) as very poor, or extremely poor.

  The growth of Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses may be down from the past, but both groups are doing very well in terms of growth compared with other groups. In a situation where many religious groups are shrinking by between 1 and 5% per year, should a 1 or 2% average annual growth really be viewed as a failure or any cause for alarm?
• 

  peacefulpete

  Slimboy...If you were responding to my comment, I was just mentioning the SDA growth as a response to the doctrinal stance. It didn't make a whit of difference. These churches have survived the vulnerable stages and are here to stay. Those who envision a collapse of the WT over 1914 do not have history in their favor. These groups plod along making slight adjustments but have essentially created their own subcultures within the societies they exist. I know ancient religions have passed but usually because the societies they existed in were erased or subsumed by political means. If America and it's allies were conquered by Russia for a modern example, the WT, SDA and LDS would likely disappear, not really wishing for that to happen. lol
• 

  Beth Sarim

  With the doubling-down of the Borg"s unsubstantiated 607-1914 dogma, the more and more the Borg will paint itself into a corner. They can't get out of it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  OK, the comments I made a few posts before should be clarified for the sake of accuracy. I had too many tabs open and conflated some of what I was reading. i guess the SDA have dropped the whole sign of the end thing and see it as referring to only Jerusalem. according to this article,

  (https://adventist.news/news/expert-explains-about-plagues-armageddon-and-jesus-return?searchsite=www.adventist.org&ref=on-site-search&searchterm=matthew+24%3A34&_gl=1*n7mx5y*_ga*MjA0Nzk1ODA2MS4xNjcxMTMxMjA5*_ga_2VBYH6KEBQ*MTY3MTEzMTIwOC4xLjEuMTY3MTEzMTg4My4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.135503864.855966133.1671131210-2047958061.1671131209)

  they see only the sign of the son of man as the sole sign of the end days. That makes the 'generation' declaration seem as fulfilled in entirety. A tidy solution.
• 

  Fisherman

  Hello SBF!

  Thanks for your insightful posts.

  As 1914 recedes into the distant past it could remain as technical teaching, and chronological curiosity,

  “By what authority do you these things?” 1914

  In 1914 the kingdom was established and thereafter the FDS became Jesus’s agency on earth, not to mention the miraculous evidence experienced by FDS AND all the prophecies that have been fulfilled all tethered to 1914. The foundation of JW religion is 1914. “ God kingdom rules.” The kingdom is in place.” —What do you say now with no gt after 108 years? JW were wrong about 1914? 1914 is another 1975? The Horsemen of the apocalypse never rode? FDS never received authority, etc? It is not falsifiable that God’s kingdom was established in 1914 because that happened in the heavens according to JW and how are you going to debunk that? And to JW it is validated with empirical evidence experienced by FDS. At this time there is zero plans to jettison 1914. JW will never ever ever ever discard 1914 because JW are true believers and are in expectation of the gt as long as it takes. Unlike bro Russel’s beliefs that although wrong (as TD points out) can be reconciled because CTR was not an inspired prophet but nonetheless was right about Christ returning in that era.

  I remember 1914 was in every paragraph in every publication and wt study but now as you point out—it’s gone. But although the date is not mentioned anymore as in the old days, everything JW does stands on 1914. Without 1914 JW have no standing. The establishment of the messianic kingdom in the heavens in 1914 giving FDS the authority that JW practice is well established in the minds of JW. The one and only one single issue is length of generation which even if nothing happens in the next 100 years would not affect 1914 as the year God’s kingdom was established in the heavens. It is unreasonable though that a generation linked to 1914 should last such a long time without the climaxing gt, which is part of the sign of the last days. That is the dilemma. As TD so eloquently put it once: “When do the wheels touch the ground?” And cofty observed in one of his posts that the meetings and JW are about Christian living nowdays as if the WT is no longer concerned with eschatology like in the old days. I don’t see any logical explanation that disintegrates generation from 1914 without disintegrating 1914 and 1914 is well established. There are 2 positions, looking at 1914 so far away from generation that falsifies 1914 and the way JW look at 1914 that God’s word will come true even if it seems delayed.

  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  Fish...take some time reviewing the SDA solution. They clung to 1833 and 1844 and still do but they invented a new period of judgement to fill the void. The still hold the judgment began in 1844 and that those that were alive then have been irrevocably judged. They simply say the judgement period continues on till closed at some point in near future. They decoupled the mini apocalypse of the Gospels from their Daniel and Revelation interpretations. Dates are not that important , it just takes some creativity to move forward after failure. It's an interesting sociological study learning how churches have adapted from their own short sighted beginnings.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Fisherman

  It's quite simple.

  There are no dates in the Bible.

  Therefore 1914 is not biblical.

  1914 is based by a series of eisegetical assumptions. Consequently making 1914 or any unbiblical date a requirement for salvation or for Christian baptism is illegitimate.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thank you Van !

  "Fisherman" offered the old False Dichotomy Fallacy, just two ways to look at 1914 according to Fish, but you have shown a Third Way, and a correct way, without painful eisegesis stretching incredulity to the limit, you cannot come up with any dates for events to happen, i.e Bible prophecy. The various Works we find in the Bible were not written with that intention, or vision, they did not look forward thousands of years, even when predicting "End Times" the writers thought they were almost upon them !

  "Bible" predictions were deliberately vague, and if you analyse them just briefly, they all failed.
• 

  TD

  Veering back to peacefulpete's original point:

  Americans in general and JW's in particular have a vague idea who Franz Ferdinand was, but if you mention the assassination of Sisi 16 years prior to the Great War, they will have no idea what you're talking about.

  Political tensions had been strained for decades. The Franco-Prussian War, The Russo-Japanese War, The Austro-Hungarian campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Moroccan Crisis, The Balkan Wars, The Italo-Turkish War all set the stage for the Great War.

  The idea of a, "Shot heard 'round the world" which shattered the "peace and calm" and plunged the world into chaos is utter nonsense.