Jehovah`s Witness/Just for a clarification
It's been a long time once again since my last question. Hope you're doing good and your family as well. I am going to be brief again sir. However, this time, I want you to take this more seriously(although you're always serious all the time). This guy on the video is seemingly very sure that the WTS were actually confused about their teachings regarding dates(for more details, please read his script here: http://blog.evidenceministries.org/2014-the-100th-anniversary-of-a-watchtower-fa
)! Now, since you're one of the best JW here, no question why I'm referring this to you for a clarification! I know you love "research" that's why I'm so sure that you can refute all of HIS "quoting-out-of-context" from JW's publ. By the way, I know we'd tackle this already, and I'm quite satisfied with your answers about why JW's were not to be labelled as "false prophet"; but, I think this guy has a point when he said:
"First, this date is taught to be “God’s date.” This was not to be thought of as speculation or the personal view of the WT leaders. This was presented as a date that God Himself had chosen which could not be changed even if they wanted to change it."
A N D. . .
"The other interesting thing about this quote is that it clearly states that the end was expected: Not the *beginning* of the end, but the *end* of the end. Ironically enough, the Watchtower today points back to 1914 as the *beginning* of the end and then has the audacity to claim that 1914 was a successfully predicted prophecy! Again, this is impossible because they were teaching that Jesus had already begun ruling in the heavens as King since 1874 and they were expecting the end of the World in 1914, not the *beginning* of the end."
I am not saying that he's right about all of that, but what he's saying from that article may probably lead to a negative impression; most especially for the weak ones, like me. So, I'm just hoping you can once again educate me about it by just clarifying all of it.
May Jah bless you more with wisdom sir
Thank you in advance
First I apologise for the length of time in replying to this question.. Find the details I need isn't easy with a computer that plays up. I have all the needed information stored on different devices.
Second, I am so sorry about not getting back to you on the other topic were having a private discussion about. I still have not been able to get an other computer, and this one is still very temperamental, sometimes programs work and other times they do not and many times it just freezes. I have lost a lot of research as well as a lot of documents that I had created. And to be honest there were periods of times when I forgot about answering you.
There is also a lot of information is presented by that man that interrelates to other points, so that I am having problems putting it together in a logical manner, so what I have written mat sound disjointed. Sorry about that. You may need to read it several times to piece it together
The article that you sent me to was interesting. What was interesting, to me, about it, was the author only
gives part of the details. I have assumed that the most likely reason for that, is, he is possible just quoting from what other people had said (as is often the case), or, he actually has the old publications that he quotes from. If he has, them he has not done a very good job of his research, or, he does not understand what it is he is reading. Hopefully he is not being deceitful on purpose, but his writing’s, for what ever reason, are deceitful because he does not give the full picture.
I also found it interesting how he tries very hard to be honest abut at the same time seems to want to mislead. His honesty and misleading comes in the one paragraph. In the next quote from him he tells his audience that he is linking two different articles together. ( this makes it look like....) That was his honesty part. The dishonesty is not giving the full picture
and then coming to the wrong conclusion giving the impression that the two statements are absolutely linked together – they are not. He said.
“When the quote from the book is paired with the quote from the web site, this makes it look like the WT successfully predicted World War I and the coronation of Jesus as King in 1914, but what was taught then and what is taught now are two completely different doctrines.”
First what he does not tell
his audience is that the quote from the JW.org web site is from a Watchtower article for “JWs”. We have two editions of the WT each month. One is specifically for JWs and is used at our meetings. The other is for the public and has different articles in it. Now, the WT that is used at out meetings assumes two things 1) that the reader has prior knowledge of things 2 ) if the don't and the person reads something that they are not sure on then they have the tools to be able to do their own research or ask a ling time JW.
I have not found a WT publication that has ever said that they predicted World War 1 They did not know WWI was coming. What they basically said was watch out for 1914 it is a marked year, a time fro trouble.
In 1876 the man that would become the editor of Watchtower magazine had, had a conversation with a , Nelson H. Barbour (editor of a magazine called “Herald of the Morning”) Mr Barbour convinced Russell (from his understanding of the Bible) that Jesus had come to his heavenly throne in 1874 I have the “Biblical evidence” that was put to Russell and, that Russell latter incorporated in his own writings, but for this answer there is too much at this time to put forward. What was shown Russell and what Russell later published was an “understanding”
of Bible Prophecy. Because it came from the Bible, he was just like any one else who has confidence in the Bible, and would say it was “Gods Word” (God speaking - Thus Gods Dates). The Bible does not give any dates at all, because the count of time when it was written is really quite different to what we know. However it does give a lot of clues as to past events and future events by the way some passages are written.
I will start with this quote of his
The other interesting thing about this quote is that it clearly states that the end was expected: Not the beginning
of the end, but the end
of the end. Ironically enough, the Watchtower today points back to 1914 as the beginning
of the end and then has the audacity to claim that 1914 was a successfully predicted prophecy!
What he does not tell his audience is that there were 2 “ends” of events that the WT spoke about.
The first one was the end of what the Bible calls the “gentile times” (or times of the nations). This is mentioned by Jesus at Luke 21:24
“And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.” (NWT) We understand
that what Jesus said there had a link to a prophecy in the book of Daniel (to see more information please go to http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000316
So 1914 was to be the end of the gentile times. The early WT spoke about that. Here is a quote from the Watchtower August 1880 …. “"Day of wrath" ending with the times of the Gentiles
in 1914, when the kingdom of God [soon to be set up or exalted to power] will have broken in pieces and consumed all earthly kingdoms.”.... ( brackets [ ] original )
Here is another quote that showed that the “understanding”
was, that there were two parallel time periods that they understood from Bible prophecy from the July 1880 Watchtower.
Will any whose lamps are burning brightly with the light of the truth on the Times of the Gentiles
the time of trouble
or day of vengeance with which those times end, take the ground that the day of wrath extends beyond 1914? They must do all this, and thus ignore the parallelism between the two days of wrath
, or admit that Christ receives His crown before the subjugation of the nations in this day of wrath.
We still understand that 1914 was the END of the Gentile Times. It is THAT
end that is refereed to in more up to date publications, not the end of the time of trouble. As we learnt more we adjusted out “understandings” of Bible prophecy.
Another quote he used was from “TIME IS AT HAND” page 76.
“In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion
, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men.
What he does not tell you, for whatever reason, is that the dominion
that is spoken of there was the dominion over “Jerusalem” not
all mankind. Page 77 of the book tells us
“It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the ʺTimes of the Gentilesʺ will be fulfilled or completed.”
In the early days when “they” were just starting to gain understanding of the Bible they took many passages about Israel as being literal, that is to have a literal fulfilment. At the end is an Appendix “A” with a quote to demonstrate that.
Now that article quotes from the “What Does the Bible Really Teach book” page 85. I want to put in context what is said there starting in the previous paragraph it briefly discuss a portion of the “Lords Prayer”, and says that there will be a waiting period. I will underline the portion he quotes
22 When Jesus told his followers to pray, “Let your kingdom come,” it was clear that the Kingdom had not come at that time. Did it come when Jesus ascended to heaven? No, because both Peter and Paul said that after Jesus was resurrected, the prophecy at Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled in him: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” (Acts 2:32-35; Hebrews 10:12, 13) There was a waiting period.
23 For how long? During the 19th and 20th
centuries, sincere Bible students progressively
discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. (Regarding this date, see the Appendix, pages 215-18.) World events that began in 1914 confirm that the understanding of these sincere Bible students was correct. The fulfillment of Bible prophecy shows that in 1914, Christ became King and God’s heavenly Kingdom began to rule.
Hence, we are living in the “short period of time” that Satan has left. (Revelation 12:12; Psalm 110:2) We can also say with certainty that soon God’s Kingdom will act to cause God’s will to be done on earth. Do you find this to be wonderful news? Do you believe that it is true? The next chapter will help you to see that the Bible really does teach these things.
We are told that there as a progressive understanding from the 19 th through the 20 th centuries. The above quote was the following “ (Regarding this date, see the Appendix, pages 215-18.) ” that can be found at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005159
Here is an exert form the January 1880 Watchtower. Please notice the words I have put in bold (Italics original)
“The second class who will recognize the kingdom as "set up" will be fleshly Israel
, when toward or at the close of "the time of trouble" they shall have been gathered in great numbers and wealth to Palestine, and when the "nations shall come up to take a spoil and prey," etc., (Ezek. Xxxviii. 11.) For "the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle, .... and half of the city shall go into captivity, &c. . . .. Then shall the Lord go forth and night against those nations as when He fought in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives," &c. (Zech. xiv. 1-4). This, apparently
the first realization Israel will have of the kingdom's having come. Chap. xii, 2, 3; 7-10 seems to discuss the same topic and describe the effect upon them of their marked deliverance. They recognize (look upon) Him whom they have pierced. They seem to be able to establish the identity of the Deliverer
as the one they had once despised, crucified.
Our understanding is
, not that they will see
Jesus or any one with their eyes, nor that Jesus and His church will appear in the midst and fight and kill their enemies (we war not with carnal weapons), but that after they have been badly beaten by the great multitudes of their enemies, the Lord will appear
and show Himself and fight for them "as
when he fought in the days of battle." But how
was that? Think of it! How he overthrew great kings and strong nations before them; nations so much stronger than they that it was a miracle
.Thus God was in the midst of Israel, and delivered them from all their enemies round about. As then
, so again he will reveal himself as their deliverer, and they shall say: "Lo, this is our God. We have waited for him, and he will save us." So the work of revealing
progresses until "all shall know him, from the least to the greatest," and "all nations shall come and worship before him," and thus every
eye shall see (recognize)him, while only the holy shall see him as he is.
We have since that time adjusted our understanding that those restoration prophecies did not relate to natural Israel (and Jerusalem) but to a spiritual Israel and a “heavenly Jerusalem”
To get a full picture of what was said back in the early days and what is understood now would take a book to show all the quotes in context.