I'm not sure if this subject has been touched before but I noticed that since the turn of the millennium, The Watchtower has paid less attention to "1914". That is to say, when checking the frequency of the term '1914' in The Watchtower from 1970-2003 through the WT-Library 2003, there is a notable decrease after 1999. See the attached graph. Would that be a significant development or just statistical coincidence?
Less emphasis on 1914?
Since details of the graph are badly visible: the horizontal time-line is from 1970 through 2003. The peak in the middle is 1984 (!). The vertical axis indicates the frequency: top is about 180 (in 1984), after 1999 the amount drops to less than 20.
Why would they pour salt on their wounds by continuing to bring the subject up. They're wrong, they know it, if they keep harping on about it, perhaps the ordinary JW's will clue in too. Out of sight out of mind, you know what I mean? Because the R & F don't do any independant thinking, if the WTS doesn't mention it, the R & F don't think about it.
There are definite peaks at 1974 and 1984, one would be expected at 1994 but it's nothing out of the ordinary. There is a sharp drop at 1995, the year the generation passed away, a brief rally and after 1998 it goes into what looks like a terminal decline. The shape of the graph is way too clear to suggest a "statistical coincidence". It's an embarrassing doctrine and they're now trying to phase it out
I wish someone could host a larger and clearer view of that pic. It looks very
If I recall correctly, the year 1984 has way more occurrences than other years because they were 'celebrating' the 70th anniversary of 1914 with a four-part series on 1914.
Checking my most recent Watchtower coaster, 1914 was mentioned 108 times in just four WT issues during 1984 -- April 1, April 15, May 1, and May 15. This series sported titles such as "1914 a Marked Year", "1914 A Focal Point", "1914--It Changed Your Life", "What 1914 Could Mean for You", and "1914--The Generation that WILL NOT Pass Away." (what a joke, esp that last one)
Looking at their CD, it seems to me that mentions of 1914 dropped off in the WT mag around 1995 - which (surprise!) is the year they changed the meaning of a 'generation'. Oh they still talk about 1914, they just don't talk about the 1914 generation any more.
The WT is actually pushing 1914 more than ever. The newest video they put out, intended for teens and young adults, tells 'em to study 1914 and firmly believe it so they can teach it to their Bible studies. Of course that info never shows up in the statistics.
Unfortunately for them, they have so much of their belief system tied up in 1914 that they would require a complete doctrinal overhaul to drop it.
LOL at the idea that they actually believe teens have Bible studies.
The newest video they put out, intended for teens and young adults, tells 'em to study 1914 and firmly believe it so they can teach it to their Bible studies.
Really? How do you "firmly believe" a ficticious chronology?
<<<Really? How do you "firmly believe" a ficticious chronology?
Good question, Kwin...
You already answered it in your other post though...
<<<Because the R & F don't do any independant (sic) thinking
Amen to that.
Old news is no news, why read yesterday paper, specially if the news is "invented", unreal.
GB is realizing their 1914 good news, is approaching the critical 100 days, I mean 100 years and rank and file are "cronological" much younger (but obviously as senile as their "mother").
I think the peak in '74 has to do with 6,000 years of mankind, the generation and the end in 1975.
The peak in 1984 could have to do with Ray Franz's and C.O.Jonsson's books.