Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Generation teaching...

Do we agree that the generation teaching occured over the lifetime I've specified in the table? What is it specifically you object to about the extra row?

I don't agree with the 70-80 year span being a hard and fast rule. I think if it had of been, people would have been talking about 1995 with more fervour (as opposed to, not at all)

Thank you for inserting the extra info about 1935 incidently. I haven't looked at the content yet, but its nice to have it there to discuss. joshbuddy 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left the extra line, although I don't think it is necessary. The 80 year limit is important as it was one of the large pressure factors in making the "1914 generation" to be a literal one of clearly limited length, and they emphasised that the 80 years was taken from the Bible (God's infallible word) as they reminded the readers. Remember that 80 years was the maximum limit, not the minimum: The Watchtower 15 December 1967 p.751 said: "The expression 'this generation' was used by Jesus to mark a very limited period of time, the life-span of members of a generation of people living during the time that certain epoch-making events occurred. According to Psalm 90:10, that life-span could be of seventy years or even of eighty years."

I know Witnesses who were convinced that Armageddon would come before the mid 1990s (this was back in the mid 1980s) due to the clear calculation that 1914 + a limited 80 year max "biblical" generation = 1994. Just the same with the 4024 BC + 6000 years = 1975. The same numbers game and limited prophecy was put forward. Even as late as 1992, this was emphasised over and over:

"Before the 1914 generation passes away, the Kingdom-preaching work will have accomplished its purpose. Then, foretold Jesus, 'there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short'. . .Do not make the mistake that the pre-1914 generation made. Things will not always continue as they are now. Astounding changes lie ahead. But for those who act wisely. . ." Watchtower 1 May 1992 pp.6-7. The same message of doom throughout the 1980s also: "The Sign-What Does It Mean? Millions, after examining the sign in the light of 20th-century history, have become convinced of its fulfillment. (See also Matthew, chapter 24 and Mark, chapter 13.) The 1914 generation is indeed a marked one. It is the one involved in the second fulfillment of Jesus' words: 'This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur.’ (Luke 21:32) The 'all things' include deliverance from mankind's perplexing problems." Watchtower 1 October 1988 p.7

The 80 years was never abandoned after the failure of the 1975 farce, but it was held in place and re-emphasised over with the nearing of the 80-year limit. As we all know, when this prophecy failed in 1994, it was changed in 1995 and the literal 80 years buried and changed to an unspecific length, that is why it's so important to have it mentioned, because the 80 year maximum lifespan was key to the emotional and literal impact of the "1914 last generation" prophecy. Central 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the 80 year limit. It was certainly implied, and as you say re-emphasized as 1994 drew close. I think its intriguing the timing of the generation article did coincide with the generation limit. My concern is around suggesting that the 80 year limit was a hard and fast rule. I think I would prefer the wording was a little more ambigious, as the original statements themselves were. I will change the wording to match the original statement more. Please review at your convenience. joshbuddy 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, one more note. When did the generation teaching officially start? joshbuddy 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Central, how do you expect to be an editor if you don't respond to discussion? joshbuddy 17:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep your hair on! I will respond when I please to. And there is often no point discussing with certain editors here as you can discuss all your like but certain biased unstable JWs will ignore it all and act like no-one has said as word, and they will carry on spewing out the same crap over and over, or just wait a few weeks and then bring up the same points all over again ad nauseum, even though they lost the argument the first time about fifty times over. I'm sure you know whom I'm referring to. I have given up with fools like that, as they are just time-wasters and could not care less what the facts are, they only want their religion promoted no matter what, and that includes compulsive lies or any other devious method to get the PR publicity for their religion. Central 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is some discussion before we start stepping on each other's toes. Thank you for responding. joshbuddy 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pyramid

Why is there no mention of the pyramid (though it is in the diagram) that was an intrinsic part of their early eschatology??--Jeffro77 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold! :) George 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to start that combining info that was already in the article with a new subsection. Dtbrown 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Franz and 1975

George, here is the text of that talk: http://www.freeminds.org/history/franztalk.htm I think it fits in the article. What is your objection? Dtbrown 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Distorting facts

It is intellectually dishonest and poor authorship to blame 'critics' for pointing out the Society's claims of being "unqualifiedly correct". It was the Society who made those claims, no-one else. That they also made comments about not claiming infallibility - that is their own inconsistency, not the fault of 'critics'.

It is one thing to note that 'critics' disagree with a particular doctrine, but trying to skew the article by attributing 'claims' to 'critics', when they were the Society's claims in black-and-white is inappropriate.

And it is laughable to attribute the change of the length of the passageway of the pyramid to 'math errors' or 'language translations'. The probability of such corrections just happening to support their new eschatology when the 'errors' had previously suited their old eschatology is infinitesimal. It is like changing 606 to 607 to compensate for learning there was no year 0 (duh). Also, the revised publication just changes the figures, without any annotation or reference to why they had changed, or even indeed that they had been changed at all.--Jeffro77 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure it would have been good to inform the readers of any changes. Are you sure they did not else where? 1)there is no need for a "interpertation" of why they did it, we can just present facts, that it was done. 2) My reply was to your statement that "Unless a passageway in the pyramid actually grew 41 inches, they lied." This seems to indicates a prejudice and closed mind. There are other possibilits which you will not and have not considered. Is it possible that some how that their source information was wrong? Is it possible that they made a mistake? Regardless interpertation of why they may of done it is not necessary and probally not apporiate. In addition, "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." Johanneum 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What alternative situation do you imagine could possibly occur that would give a measurement suiting their old chronology, and then conveniently change completely by co-incidence to a different length that exactly matched their new chronology. Should someone open their mind so much that their brain falls out?--Jeffro77 08:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro as already stated above their are numerous possibilites. It seems you are set on the latest change. Who says the first one was not in error? Have you checked to see which is correct? Regardless, your interpertation does not belong. Let the reader decide. I would appreciate it if you would removed your conclusion and let the facts stand.

It would be particularly naive for someone to believe that the convenient change could simply be a coincidence explained away by a completely innocent and accidental error. The Proclaimers book says that Witnesses candidly admit the faults of their past. Why are you doggedly denying something that has no other rational explanation? Anyone who can get numbers to accidentally fall into place like that should go and buy a lotter ticket... oh sorry, not allowed.--Jeffro77 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will deleted your interpertation since you have not. As Joshbuddy said below and has policy goes, we should not make sure "conclusions aren't drawn for the reader". Johanneum 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment "chronology is"of God" interpertations of that chronology is of man. There is a big difference!" (left in a edit comment) is invalid. The quote from the publication to which it refers obviously suggests that it is the Society's interpretation of the chronology that were 'unqualifiedly correct'. It would be redundant and meaningless to say "the chronology is of God, but we're just giving our interpretation". Of what benefit is it to state that God's chronology is correct if it remains an unknown, and it is only an interpretation that is given? The context indicates that they meant that their interpretation of the chronology was correct.--Jeffro77 12:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I dislike weasel words. What critics said this? Many critics have pointed it out, but I'm aware, based on Watchtower quotes, but I'm not aware of any critics who said it as their unique claim. joshbuddy, talk 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The "society" did not claim to be "unqualifiedly correct"! It is critics who misinterpert what was stated. They stated, "This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct." This applys not to their interpertation of chronology but to that which is " NOT OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." They firmily beleive that the Bible and it's chronology is correct. At the same time there are some many quotes to show that their interpetations are not always correct. IT is very misleading and not approperiate to imply that Witnesses interpertation of Chronology is "unqualifiedly correct". The evedience seems so overwhelming. For them the Bible is the undeniable true source and thus anything (chronology) that comes from it is reliable. Witnesses understanding of what comes from it is "interpertation" and subjuct to error which is not the case with that "Of God" as opposed to "of Man". Jeff77 please do not deleted quotes that make it clear how the "soceity" beleives about their interpertations. again why is this pertiant fact deleted? "The Watch Tower stated, “We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence January 1908 “Views From the Watchtower” Not likely, or not fitting in with one's ideas is not a valid reason to delete something which helps claify a point. Johanneum 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated previously, it is nonsensical to state that they were merely claiming the (unpublished) chronology is "unqualifiedly correct" apart from their interpretation, as it removes any context for saying just what it is that is correct. 'Present-truth chronology' obviously and unequivocally refers specifically to what they believed at the time, not an unchanging chronology of God.

If you were paying attention, you would note that I didn't delete any quotes, but simply moved the quote further down to give it a better logical flow.--Jeffro77 08:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will read the articles in question and get back. However, I do not appreciate your tone- eg "If you were paying attention" This also is not appropriate. Mistakes happen which I am fully aware of. On the other hand, I am glad to see you did not impute that I was lying to you, which at times some are to quick to do.-Johanneum 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you take offence at "If you were paying attention", but since I actually did not delete anything, I could only assume that either you had not paid attention, or that you were making unnecessarily inflammatory remarks, so in good faith, I assumed that it was the more polite of the two. Of course I could not imply that you were lying, since you phrased it as a request. I do agree with your earlier point though that "Not [liking], or not fitting in with one's ideas is not a valid reason to delete something which helps cla[r]ify a point" hence I am sure you will have no problem with keeping the Society's quotes regarding their assurance of their "'present-truth' chronology".--Jeffro77 11:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one said anything about “"unqualifiedly correct" apart from their interpretation”. The point is chronology since it is “of God” and not “of man” can be rely on. That which is of God is correct. Witnesses interpretations of “that which is correct” may not be accurate. It seems you miss the whole point that the Bible is the foundation for chronology and not secular history! As a religious order they accept the Bible’s chronology as fact and as “of God”. The way the article reads is misleading. It would be better to quote an example of where they have "spoken with assurance of their prophetic interpretations" instead of a quote that highlights how the feel about the Bible and have the article here apply it to their own interpretations. For example it could say: “The Scriptures show that his second presence was due in 1874." <ref. Loyalty the Test The Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence March 1 1923, p.67 par. 5 </ref> and/or “Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874 A. D according to the testimony of the prophets...”

You admit that the article is misleading, but it appears that you do not want the article to reveal that the Watchtower misled its readership, with statements that certainly suggest that the Society's interpretation were "unqualifiedly correct". I will be putting the quote back in to add balance. (Of course the scriptures do not at all show that anything would happen in 1874 either, so that was also 'misleading'.--Jeffro77 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The WT article is not misleading. It appears that is how you understood my point above, but I was referring to the way this article on Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses was/is misleading. What is misleading is the interpretation that you are forcing(the implications you are giving it). It is fine in the context that it was written. However the application you are forcing is misleading. When it is stated, as the article does, "The Watch Tower Society has spoken with assurance of their prophetic interpretations of divine prophecies," an example is most appropriate. However you continue to use that which can and is misunderstood. Jeffro77 what does it mean that "THIS chronology is not of man, but OF GOD"? (please answer) You seem to be forcing YOUR interpretation when so much evidence points to the contrary. by the way I hope you will not claim I am misleading and lying if I make a mistake? Can you give me the benefit of the doubt or do all errors in your mind = lying/misleading or is it just the errors of JW's? Johanneum 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I have already answered this question, I'll go through it again... The only context for what is intended by the article is that "this chronology", specifically their "present-truth chronology", refers to what was published, i.e. their interpretation of chronology, which in that article was explicitly dealing with 1925. No other chronology is given in the article, and there is no implication that they meant that only what the bible states is 'God's chronology' and the rest is their own. There is no other chronology which is implied to be "of God" but for the interpretation that is published in their literature. "Present-truth chronology" does not identify the source material from the bible; it specifically, and without alternative, identifies the interpretations that the Society had in what was the "present". On the other hand, how do you justify your view that "this chronology" refers to anything other than that which is explained in the article. I am old enough and wise enough to see the difference between mistakes, misdirection, and misconception, and I will call it as I see it. A 'mistake' is forgetting to carry the one in a math quiz; publishing incorrect information that affects how people live their lives is irresponsible.--Jeffro77 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro- 1) The article is not about 1925 and I do not even see that date in any of the articles in 1922 on chronology! 2)The articles are quite clear that faith should be in BIBLICAL chronology and not in secular. 3) Present truth is what is recorded in the Bible and not what is in secular history, writtten in the past. The article is contrasting "prehistoric pagan chronology" and "history" with "present truth chronology." or Biblical chronology. See:Very first par. on p. 183, also p. 186 3) note the subheadings: P. 183 "Early Pagan "history" unreliable" p. 185 "Boastful, lying inscriptions" p. 186 "untustworthiness of Archaeologists" then p. 187 which contains the quotes under discussion-including the conclusion that stated "Present-truth chronology .... is a matter of faith in Jehovah and in his inspired Word. Those that lack faith in God's Word and cast about for needless help from admittedly lying pagan records, will doubtless receive according to their lack of faith." As for the next article dated July 15 starts by stating, "The world has had many systems of chronology..." These are contrasted with "present truth chronology" as found not in prehistoric pagan chronology but in the Bible. It appears quite clearly that you have not looked up the information and are relying on untruthful, bias, information. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, please refrain. One must try to approach an issue with bias put aside. Johanneum 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Jeff your most recent point (Dec 2) seems valid but the references do not support it. I have tried to explain this to you many times. Can you come up with another statement such as, "...dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 while teaching that these dates were reliable" Just an idea. Johanneum 07:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

However there are definite reasons why they would highlight accurate true chronology is “of God”. For example in the Insight book vol. 1 p. 449-450 states, “Divine inspiration, by which the Bible historians were able to set down their records, assures the reliability of Bible chronology.—2Pe 1:19-21.” In the next par. an archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, is commented as saying about historical dating: “Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” He further describes the framework of chronological history as “a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every joint.”—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. Johanneum 16:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment is not strictly relevant. Notably, the linchpin of the Society's chronology is based on the acceptance of a Babylonian astronomical diary regarding the reign of Cambyses II in order to indirectly support 539. (Insight vol 1, p 453) (Of course they don't admit that it's from an astronomical diary [Strm.Kambys.400], which they later denounce in the same article as being unreliable.) Interestingly, that same paragraph acknowledges that Cyrus' first year was in 538, and as Ezra 3:8 indicates that the temple work began in Cyrus' second year, confirmed by Josephus (Against Apion, Book I), it places the return of the Jews in around October of 538, not 537. But I digress.--Jeffro77 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro77 you missed the whole point again. It is most relevant becuse that is why so much has to be said about relying on "chronology [which]is not of man, but of God". The religion teachs that secular history, "of Man" is not necessarily relable but that which is "of God" is. Johanneum 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point. I just don't agree with it. The issue is that yes, the Society says that the chronology in the bible is of God, but then their publications go onto state that their 'present-truth chronology' is that chronology of God. There is no room for misinterpreting comments such as "present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct."--Jeffro77 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that historically, the Watchtower has made claims of being certain, and as the date approaches decreasing in certainty. After a date has passed they either disavow the certainty of that date, or go to a new one. With the recent 1975 incident, I think that pattern changed a bit, but still pretty basically the same. To provide these quotes one needs to establish the context with the entire eschatological framework being preached at that time. Russell himself obviously became less certain with the 1914 date, as the preceding years up until 1914, he was waffling between 1914 and 1915. There is nothing terrifically damning about it all, just the facts of the dates, the certainty, the back-peddling. I don't consider the information to be particularly inflammatory, and as long as the fact are stuck with, and the information is well supported, and conclusions aren't drawn for the reader, it should all be fine. joshbuddy, talk 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you Contribution. A balanced stand is always appreciated. Thanks Joshbuddy! Johanneum 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can some other contributors please provide some input here to get a consensus on the edits being reverted between myself and Johanneum????--Jeffro77 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)