ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

[JW Insider]

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.

All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.

Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)

But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.

The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.

However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:

• All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13)
• Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25)
• Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5)
• Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26)
• Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42)
• Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case)
• The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20)
• Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14)
• Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18)
• The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27)
• The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26)
• The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3)
• The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14)
• The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

[ComfortMyPeople]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:

Lately I've been too busy to post anything. But these last ideas put forward by JWI fit so well with what I've been thinking for years that I wish to express my totally agree. I hope that those on charge, have the humility to recognize their mistakes and the courage to explain it openly, no matter what happens and whoever falls, however sad it may be. The truth can not, it should not be covered more time. The servant must be prudent, true, but first he must be faithful.

[Anna]

"So.....what we gonna do"?? 

(Vultures from jungle book- in case someone is not familiar with the scene)

[ComfortMyPeople]

27 minutes ago, Anna said:

"So.....what we gonna do"?? 

(Vultures from jungle book- in case someone is not familiar with the scene)

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
 

Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)

So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.

• Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act.
• Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All evidence shows the 1914 date

If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything. Certainly, science is fraught with accounts of one view coming into vogue, and then crushing the opposition for as long as possible.

My understanding is that some scholarly type has written a defense of 607. That's all you need. Not one Witness teaching is the majority view today; should we insist this one must be? For all the hype about 'critical thinking' today, the pattern remains what it has always been; in fact, it intensifies: choose your belief (largely based on 'heart') then go find some 'experts' to back you up.

Will 1914 fall? If it does, it does. But I am far from burying it just yet. Nor do I feel I should encourage the GB to have the wisdom and courage to do whatever is right. If I drop dead tomorrow, they will do just fine.

 I have grown used to explaining that 'if the greatest war in history, the ONLY time until then that the entire world went to war at the same time (China & region excepted, as it was isolated at the time), AND if the greatest pestilence in history does not constitute fulfillment of Matt 24:7 and Luke 21:10, 11, what does? Vs 8 of Matt indicates it starts off with a bang, but continues for some time.

Will I have to change my tune on this?

On the vs 8 'you ain't seen nothin' yet' front, terrorist knife or vehicle attacks, unheard of not long ago, are now just 'one of those things.' The gay revolution took decades; whereas the transgendered revolution has taken mere months, and a 9 year old girl can be, on National Geographic, not just transgendered, but a transgendered activist. 'Fake news,' absolutely unheard of just 3 years ago, is now a staple of life, one more of many pitfalls to mess with us.

Perhaps 1914 will suffice to get us through to the end. Maybe that won't be so far off after all.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

Yes. Partly 607, and partly the inconsistent views and inconsistencies in translation and explanations surrounding the 70 years desolation and captivities, the 70 years of Babylonian hegemony. Each of these bullet points could probably be expanded into 10 more bullet points, and a lot more scriptures than the ones listed. I'll give just a few examples which would all be included in the first bullet point:

1. The NWT has a fairly obvious mistranslation in Jeremiah 29:10. It has been discussed ad nauseum, but the general view from Hebrew scholars is that we have chosen the word "at" instead of "for" because the more obvious translation would lead people to notice that the verse is directly about Babylon and only indirectly about Judah. Our current doctrine requires the opposite.
2. There was a time when the entire NWT was only translated into a dozen additional languages, and in order to say that these were actual "Bible translations" and not just translations from the English into another language, brothers in a couple countries with Biblical language skills translated directly from Hebrew. Two of these translations came out with the dreaded "for" instead of "at" and had to be changed back to match the NWT English.
3. After many consistent denials of the validity of "for" here, the Isaiah's Prophecy book made use of the exact same point about Babylonian hegemony in the discussion of Tyre.
4. The Insight Book admits that Zechariah 1:12 and 7:4 must have been written almost 90 years after 607 BCE, which would be 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if it had happened in 607. Ten different independent "witnesses" and literally thousands of dated contract documents all combine to provide evidence that it was only 70 years earlier that Jerusalem was destroyed, not 90. Yet, Zechariah 7:4 also indicates that it was only 70 years earlier, showing that Bible history is confirmed by archaeology. This is something that we would normally get excited about, whenever archaeology confirms the Bible record. But in this case we don't say anything because we have a doctrine that has forced us to add 20 years to every date prior to 539, all the way back to the creation of Adam.
5. [edited to add:] Also I had included the reference to Ezra 3 in that initial bullet point because it says that the sound of those who must have been 70-plus-year-olds (per Zechariah) wept with such a loud voice that some people couldn't distinguish the shouts of joy from the weeping. This is far from definitive, but in the Watchtower's theory of events, this would have referred to the sound of the 90-plus-year-olds. If we accept the history from Zechariah 1 & 7, they would have been within the range of the expected life-span, 70-plus.

   (Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . .

   (Ezra 3:12,13) Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
    

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc.

As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below:

Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book.

I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities.

By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.

[JW Insider]

On 6/25/2017 at 9:16 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

accounts of one view coming into vogue, and then crushing the opposition for as long as possible.

The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I'm sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the "foundation" for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.)

On 6/25/2017 at 9:16 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

My understanding is that some scholarly type has written a defense of 607. That's all you need.

If it were only true. What this "scholarly type," R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn't even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956.

VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it's the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it's just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the "secular" chronology -- which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society.

But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don't even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society's preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the "37" onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it's a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn't originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings.

He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist's error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors.

But as you said: "That's all you need." Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It's a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase "Russia hacked our 2016 election." Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong.

I'm glad you edited out the reference to born again, Baptist clergymen which was far too specific. And I agree. Such prejudicial stereotyping is indefensible. 

[ARchiv@L]

15 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, what can we do? Wait

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061137?q=waiting+attitude&p=par

[JW Insider]

On 6/25/2017 at 4:45 PM, ARchiv@L said:

On 6/25/2017 at 1:33 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, what can we do? Wait

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061137?q=waiting+attitude&p=par

I think the content of the verse in Micah about having a "waiting attitude" is good, but the context might seem a bit harsh in that the verse applies to waiting on Jehovah when it's an enemy we are up against. I don't think of the Governing Body as an enemy here, and I don't think you do either.

In fact, the only issue I see is that a long-standing tradition made sense for many years, but has turned out to cause more problems than it solved at this point. Still, I don't think it is even that big of a problem when it comes to the day-to-day life of an average Witness.

After all, whether 1914 is a necessary doctrine or not:

• We still know that we are living in the time of the end, or the "last days" even if that phrase had the same meaning to Christians in the first century.
• We still know that Satan has been cast down and walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone, because his time is short. This is also true even if it had the same meaning in the first century. We also wait for his final abyss and subsequent final demise.
• We still have a preaching work that is just as important as ever.
• Jesus is still "King of Kings" and ruler of those who rule the earth.
• The kingdom is still our focus, and continues to be the theme of our hopes and prayers.
• We still know that we must overcome critical times, hard to deal with, just as Paul warned Timothy that he would meet up with.
• We still know that Jesus is present, wherever even two or three are gathered in his name.
• We know that Jesus will be with us right up until the conclusion of the system of things.
• We don't live for a date, or serve for a date anyway, so whether or not the end comes in our lifetime or we find out about it after a moment of "sleep" in death, the important thing is still our love for God and neighbor, and "what sort of persons we ought to be."

So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. This, ironically, is the only prediction that we ever said we got right about 1914 in the first place. So it might end up requiring a bit of humility, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility, either.

[TrueTomHarley]

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 

So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. 

If you move the day back 20 years, does that fit with any verses? Should it be expected to?