Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Jehovah's Witnesses This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Eschatology Chart

There appear to be several inaccuracies for the chart on this page. I'd like to see documentation for the claim

1) that after 1926 the Witnesses believed that Christ was enthroned as King in 1878.

2) Also, where is the documentation that the Witnesses ever believed the heavenly resurrection occured in 1919?

3) or that false religion would be destroyed in 1920? (That was taught with regards to 1918. What was expected in 1920 was the destruction of governments. When the 1918 prediction failed, the Society dropped the 1920 prediction about governments and started the "Millions" campaign.)

3) or that false religion would be destroyed in the 1940s?

4) or that the Witnesses from 1976 to 1995 thought the Great Tribulation would end in 1995?

Dtbrown 09:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dtbrown, you could have just changed the dates instead of deleting the whole table. I will amend it, and repost it when I have some time. Also, every detail does not have to be on the table, it's only an overview; the text should give the details etc. Regards. Central 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
1. You are correct I will amend that.
2. Was 1918 not 1919.
3a. "As the fleshly-minded apostates from Christianity, siding with the radicals and revolutionaries, will rejoice at the inheritance of desolation that will be Christendom's .. so will God do to the successful revolutionary movement; it shall be utterly desolated, 'even all of it.' Not one vestige of [Christendom] shall survive the ravages of world-wide all embracing anarchy, in the fall of 1920. (Rev. II: 7-13)" {TFIM 542} [TFIM 1926 ed replaces "fall of 1920" with "end of the time of trouble"]
TFIM C.J.Woodworth & G.H.Fisher suprvsd J.F.Rutherford: Studies in the Scriptures VII - The Finished Mystery 'The Posthumous work of Pastor Russell', 1917-20, 1924, 1926-7 [N.B. The above Studies in the Scriptures (books also called 'The Millennial Dawn' till 1904) are referred to in CENT 6 as Bible truths, see CENT and WT Aug 1 1971 468 for proof they are WTBTS publications] from www.freeminds.org
3b. "Receiving the gift, [Rutherford's book, Children] the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon." (WT 15 Sep 1941 p.288) World religions would obviously be destroyed at this time in line with all Watch Tower doctrines, as they were all still in operation, and would definitely not be survivors of Armageddon.
4. That related to the "last generation" doctrines, and their literal application of 70-80 years lifespan. 80 years ran out in 1994-5. If it were correct then Armageddon would have to have come by then. We know this false interpretation was abandoned when it failed in 1995. Regards. Central 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Central, re-read the quote from the Finished Mystery. It is talking about the revolutionary movement, not Christendom. The prediction for 1920 related only to governments.

Do you have any specific quotes for:

3) or that false religion would be destroyed in the 1940s?

4) or that the Witnesses from 1976 to 1995 thought the Great Tribulation would end in 1995?

as mentioned above other than what is "obvious"? Dtbrown 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dtbrown are you having a bad day or just bored and choosing to be quarrelsome and blatantly pedantic? If you know anything of the Watch Tower's teaching you would know that "false religion/Babylon the Great" according to JWs will be destroyed before Armageddon, all and every one of their articles covering this subject back this position. If Armageddon were to come within months of 1941, then by default "false religion" would automatically be wiped out along with the wicked. Or are you now promoting a new JW doctrine that false religions will be exempt due to a non-printed directive? You are not being remotely reasonable at all. Sometimes I really wonder why you make up such irrational complaints. And as for 1995, their "within one generation" makes it very clear that they were obsessively promoting the thought that the end would have to come before "the 1914 generation dies out". It died in 1995, or reached the Watch Tower's maximum of 80 years lifespan, so their "last generation" predictions for Armageddon were also binned in 1995 as they had not come true.
PS. Please don't vandalise my table. I took a long time writing that code, and made an effort to make it more pleasing to the eye, and more accessible to follow the flow of information. These pages on Wikipedia do not have to be clones of each other you know. Central 12:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Central, please stop the personal attacks. I disagree that your table is an improvement on this page.
Now, can you substantiate your claim about 1920 and the 1940s and with clear and specific statements from Watchtower publications which clearly state they taught the destruction of "false religion" would occur then? Do you have a clear and specific Watchtower statement that said the Great Tribulation was expected in 1995? Dtbrown 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I do seriously think you might have a major problem with comprehending rational logic. If all the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses clearly and unwaveringly state that at Armageddon all false religion will have been completely removed from the earth, how can you not grasp the basic fact that this does not have to be neurotically and obsessively repeated ad infinitum in each and every quote over and over? It's like the Watch Tower says 5+5=10, and 10=Armageddon. They say this over and over, and then one time they only say 5+5 will be here in year X, and in you come with: "How can you say it means 10, where is the 10, I can't see 10, can you show me 10?" How can the basic fact that 5+5=10 evade you each and every time, or are you doing this on purpose?
If you have literacy issues, or are dyslexic I will understand and sympathise with you a bit, but if you are doing it out of boredom or a personal vendetta then I will have no more time for your often ridiculous questions about blatantly obvious facts that are staring you in the face. We had this stance from you on the other subject, where Tommstein was trying to get you to grasp basic logic. You appear to be interpreting everything as some kind of bizarre brainteaser word game, or complex riddle. Now, a simple example in logic:
"If there are 100 people in a room and only 5 are wearing red trousers, and only those wearing red trousers survived when gunmen ambushed the room, who survived?"
A normal reply would be "the five wearing red trousers" but you come out with: "Well what about the people with black trousers, they were not mentioned, what about the women with skirts, and the men in blue jeans, and they were not mentioned. . .maybe they survived. . ." Simple logic has already given you the answer, "only those wearing red trousers survived when gunmen ambushed the room" but you refuse to see it, and you start nitpicking irrelevant information when it changes absolutely nothing. Again here you are doing the same thing, why for heaven sake? If you want more quotes get them yourself. Now, can you substantiate your claim about 1920 and the 1940s and with clear and specific statements from Watchtower publications which clearly state they taught the destruction of "false religion" would not occur even at Armageddon? I would like some detailed quotes from you that state Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "Babylon the Great, the World Empire of False Religion will survive Armageddon intact" as that is your claim, is it not? A claim that contradicts every single article ever written on the subject! But, hey, how can 5+5=10 if Dtbrown can't comprehend it?
Dtbrown said: "Do you have a clear and specific Watchtower statement that said the Great Tribulation was expected in 1995?" Did you bother to read a single word on the subject of a generation? Do I need to get a calculator for you? What is 1914 + 70 or 80? Well it's either 1984, or 1994 is it not? Go and read the Watch Tower articles on the "1914 generation". How is this not clear? "Members of that [1914] generation will see the end of this world. It should be noted, however, that the world's end does not come after the end of that generation. It comes within that generation. . . The generation living in 1914, millions of whom are still alive on earth, will be living when the end comes at Armageddon. . . A generation, according to Psalm 90:10, is from seventy to eighty years. The generation that witnessed the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 does not have many more years left"
PS., You also willfully ignored the fact that I clearly put "possibly 1995" in the table, so what's your real agenda here? Central 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Dtbrown formally asked you for evidence for the claims you made in the table. Instead of answering you spend four hostile paragraphs maligning Dt's reading comprehension and logic faculties, without providing any evidence that doesn't amount to original research. Such hostility is not necessary, and quite unwarranted in this instance. Duffer 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Dtbrown has all the evidence in front of him; it's just his nature to not accept it, for whatever specific personal reasons, just as you are the same. You can have 100 clear unambiguous Watch Tower quotes contradicting your own apostate views, and you will ignore them all, and go for one ambiguous quote that says nothing at all, and neurotically obsess on that until the cows come home, but that's just the way your are. Every JW knew the implications that if one generation was a literal 70–80 years, and that count stated in 1914, then the Armageddon would have to come by 1995. Even those will the least numerical literacy could work that one out. If people cannot, or choose not to grasp such basic logic then I give up with them. I would have more patience for someone with special needs than I do with time wasters. Central 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not provided evidence that amounts to more than original research. It's conjecture, not evidence. Your claim that my views are apostate are unfounded. Duffer 12:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Months" is open-ended. Just because one speaker used a phrase, which was reported in the Watchtower a YEAR later, does not make it official doctrine. Also, the table is ugly and cluttered. Please re-think it. joshbuddy 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Months" is open-ended. Just because one speaker used a phrase, which was reported in the Watchtower a YEAR later, does not make it official doctrine. Also, the table is ugly and cluttered. Please re-think it. joshbuddy 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
joshbuddy said: "'Months' is open-ended." Really? Most people say months when they mean months, weeks when they mean weeks, and years when they mean years. Are we now to think that 65 years after 1941, Rutherford's "remaining months" was really meaning the remaining 780+ months? Come on, you are not even fooling yourself with that silly claim.
"Just because one speaker used a phrase." Rutherford, the divine "channel of God" and the President of the Watch Tower Society "God's organization" and alleged mouthpiece of God, and the one who approved and wrote much of the content in the Watchtower magazine allowed that to go into print, so he had more authority, power and influence than all others at that time. So, hardly a weak comment from a nobody.
"Also, the table is ugly and cluttered", LOL. Hey, give up the snide comments. Are you still that pissed off that I changed the table a while ago on the main page, then you zapped it back immediately claiming: "I'd rather keep presentational and content changes seperate. we can agree on presentation after we agree on content." You are showing that you appear to have taken it all so personally? Your way or no way is it? Seems so. Swallow your pride and stop making irrational claims. If my table is so "ugly", then what does that make your table? What's the phrase? Get your own house in order first, and please stop harbouring petty grudges if you have any. Central 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how a quote from 1941, namely "months" substantiates a 1940 date.
Actually, they said the same thing in 1935 also, which I've added. The literature is the source, in print, personal feelings are not relevant. It's being approved by "God's channel" and printed, so it's valid evidence to put forward. Central 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You've provided no evidence of a 1995 date. The quotes you've provided are speculative, and the conclusions you've drawn from them do not belong in the wikipedia.
I'm sorry you took my comment about your table being ugly and cluttered so personally. Perhaps, if you can step back from it a bit, you'll see its a rather dense meaty table, and not really not all that easy to read. Please, in future, refrain from putting words in my mouth.
I think telling the truth about the JW's is more than enough to help people make informed decisions regarding them. I wish people wouldn't resort to non-verifiable statements, or original research, in an effort to exagerate their faults. That should be left for someone else, and not on this wiki. joshbuddy 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
joshbuddy, I hardly think they are "non verifiable" when they are clearly there for all to see in their literature. How much intelligence does it take the average person to work out that if Armageddon must come before a limited 70, or 80-year old generation from 1914, it must come before 1995? Central 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
But all of those quotes appear pre-1975. So their intent was probably more likely to bolster the 1975 date, not some teaching from 1976-1995 that it would occur within that 80 year period. Please provide quotes from that period that teach this. joshbuddy 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with joshbuddy here. Central, I don't appreciate your lack of civility in dialogue here and after the continued personal attacks I don't feel it necessary to continue dialogue with you. If your edits are not factual or do not display NPOV then I will make my comments then. Dtbrown 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've edited what I feel are the most serious errors of the chart. I have more thoughts about it but will address those later. Dtbrown 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw many words' manipulating (in article "Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses") that make JW look much worse than they are in real. Besides there are/were many simple errors that are just lies or unverified informations. I dont mean this article should be removed, but I strongly recommend to fix those ones with one or more real elder of JW. I tried to fix some but I'am not one of them so I'm the right man at all.

[edit] The year 1920 in chart for destruction of religion

I'll try this again.

The Finished Mystery book (1917 and 1918 editions) predicted the destruction of Christendom for 1918 and the destruction of governments in 1920. When the 1918 prediction failed they dropped the prediction for the destruction of governments in 1920. Instead, Rutherford started the "Millions" campaign highlighting 1925. 1920 was never a year that the WT predicted the destruction of false religion. I am asking for substantiation for any WT statement that said false religion would be desroyed in 1920. Dtbrown 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An apology to central, moving forward on this page.

I apologize for criticizing the table earlier. My comments were rude and incivil.

I would like this to keep this page moving forward, and ultimately replace the version on the JW main page with a greatly summerized version. How does that strike everyone? joshbuddy 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...” [1]
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)

[edit] Before 1975

As I know of, there were never any statements in the literature that recommended members to run up large debts or that encouraged everyone to sell everything they owned. They simply appreciated that someone did sacrifice much for being pioneers. That is something else. I put that specific section in NPOV because it seemingly claims that such behavior was clearly affirmed by the organization.Summer Song 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to take care of your concerns. I think the section still needs work but hopefully this will resolve the NPOV issue. Dtbrown 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of dates

It is interesting to note that the "Millions now living will never die" dates are still valid for a few years to come. I you take 586 BC as the date of the fall of Jerusalem, as most or historians do, it becomes 1935 AD, not 1914. And people who were born in 1935 is only 72 years old now. So, it could be still valid for a couple of decades.

I wonder what are they going to say 200 years from now, when they see still nothing happen. Surely they are gonna say that they have realized that it's all about something spiritual, not visible. LOL. --Damifb 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/c/Talk%7EEschatology_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_20fe.html"