1914 - What's the Problem?

Comment by Peter on 2015-10-28 14:07:03

Well said brother. I know in my heart that the 1914 doctrine is false, and now look forward to when Jesus really returns. If it be in my lifetime or not I still have the hope of a resurection. Thanks for the timely article.

• Reply by Katrina on 2015-10-29 11:02:59

  All the GB had to do is obey what Christ said, no one knows the time not even the son.

  • Reply by Katrina on 2015-10-29 11:08:35

    My heart goes out to all my b/s those wakening and those confused and those that just follow whatever the GB say.
    I pray that the end is soon because I can't stand the cruelty in this world, the injustice and the milions suffering because they had no say as to where they were born.
    I believe Jesus is a righteous and just King and takes all things into consideration, Jehovah knows our potential.

    • Reply by markchristopher on 2015-11-01 05:04:04

      Good article Apollos.Thank you.
      For me it was the realisation that Jesus did not return in 1914 that changed my hope from surveying Armageddon and achieving eternal youth, maybe?To the good news that was originally offered.A resurrection which finally redeems us from our inherited sinful flesh then eternal life.No need to fear death never-mind Armageddon!
      2 Corinthians 1:3 "Heartfelt thanks be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ--the Father who is full of compassion and the God who gives all comfort"
      

  • Reply by Christian on 2015-10-29 19:55:04

    So true Katrina, but that would take some humility on the part of the men that make up the GB. To date, they have done not one thing that reassures me they have this vital quality. If they did the Organization wouldn't be in the mess it's in to-day. Why is it so hard for these men to say they were w-w-w-wrong. If they did, and not just on this issued but others too, my heart would melt towards them, and so too possibly, would God's. Then he just might pour out his Holy Spirit on this arrangement. But, alas!

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-30 15:23:58

      The three most important things for a Christian to say, to prevent them from falling into error and away from God, are these:
      1. I don't know.
      2. I could be wrong.
      3. I'm sorry.
      The three things WT is incapable of saying.

  • Reply by Trynhard on 2015-11-04 11:56:22

    You hit the nail on the head. Why all the debate over a date.

Comment by AndereStimme on 2015-10-28 14:45:28

I can't tell you how many times I've pointed out the anti-biblical nature of 1914-based end-mongering and gotten responses like "just wait on Jehovah, let him sort things out" or "it helps me maintain a sense of urgency". No one wants to face the obvious point that you can't defy clear scriptural warnings and expect to experience zero negative consequences, so this is an extremely important subject.

• Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-10-30 11:36:17

  A balanced and scripturally sound article Brother Apollos, and well researched as always. Jehovah seeks worshipers who worship him with truth (John 4:23) And truth is discovered by careful and diligent study (research) of God's Word. (Proverbs 2:6; 18:15) Knowledge is discovered by research, sound and honest research. Research will always have the effect of undermining untruth, but it will always reinforce truth.
  Why do so many rationalize the act of going along with the 1914 doctrine? Even though entertaining troubling doubts, why do so many continue to excuse the errors? The reason may be explained by how our brains are wired.
  The majority of JW's believe that our teachings are scriptural. They believe our teachings have been decided over time by careful, rational consideration of biblical facts (along with Jehovah's holy spirit). They believe the leadership that produces our teachings are sound and intelligent men. In reality, many of our current beliefs have a very uneasy relationship with the facts. Rather than fact being the driving force behind our beliefs, our beliefs dictate the facts we chose to accept. Some twist facts so they fit better with their preconceived notions. Many uncritically accept bad information, just because it reinforces their beliefs. This type of reinforcement makes them more certain they are correct, and less open to information which challenges their beliefs.
  There is a substantial body of psychological research that shows that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing preexisting views. If we believe the 1914 doctrine is truth, we are more likely to passively accept it as truth and any information that reinforces that belief, at the same time dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.” Whether or not the information is accurate, we accept it as fact, because it confirms our beliefs. As we are more confident in our beliefs, we are less likely to entertain any facts that contradict them.
  Research outside the box of JW theology forces one to critically re-evaluate one's position. In the early stages of awakening, this is unsettling. Our brains are designed to create cognitive shortcuts, be it inference, intuition, and so forth. Our brain would prefer to avoid the sort of discomfort that the rush of information during research inevitably brings.
  We have nothing to fear dear ones, our God wants us to know the truth, and is clearly giving us the opportunity to worship him in spirit and truth.
  Phileo,
  Sopater
  

  • Reply by peely on 2015-11-02 23:02:37

    Nicely put, yes God and Christ both want us to know the truth. I appreciate your comments on the awakening process. Finding out the truth can be uncomfortable, but we plunge forward, through and past it. It is then we realize we did the right thing. Heb 10:39

  • Reply by Skye on 2015-11-03 05:28:32

    The key therefore is to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:23,24).
    Romans 10:2 "For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." This scripture which JWs so often apply to others, could in fact apply to themselves. Paul recognised that his fellow Jews had this kind of zeal without knowledge, and he worked to help set them free from their destructive ignorance.

Comment by Buster on 2015-10-28 20:34:38

It seems as in the annual meeting and them trying to fit in the Ezekiel valley of dry bones, prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14, and them trying to tie that with C.t. Russell and 1919, yup they just dropped that stuff on the Rank and File, of course I thought they were done this Anti-type Joke....Nope. Wait I thought Russell was doing the work Like John the Baptist, I am confused and can not get the lies straight.
And of course Mr. Lett said that the 607 BC is correct, it seems as of late people are either talking or smelling something is wacky, cause this year they been trying to Push this 1914 in the watchtowers, the Clarification of the Great Overlapping Generations, and other things, in the past its been a joke and now , heck not now it been a while just a Lie, but hey they ain't gonna change, well not in this Generation,
And let's not even get started in all the Math and Algebra skills that go into making 1914 fit, Amazing, and in the end the people are just buying it and Obeying what ever the GB say, that is the bigger problem, putting your faith in men and not in our Lord Jesus and our heavenly Father Yahweh ( Jehovah), but heywe must Obey...
Love to all

Comment by Out of Africa on 2015-10-29 00:06:27

"False doctrine makes people think a certain way that can subtly subvert their faith"
I am quite new to your site and can attest to the above point. I used to muse (in a nightmarish sort of way) about what I would do if one day the organization told us they had made a mistake and 1914 is not correct. Would I still serve Jehovah? Now that I am beginning to realize that this might indeed be true it has shaken my faith a lot. Not that I have been serving Jehovah because I thought the end was close, but now it is very easy to lose faith completely since I feel that spiritually speaking the rug has been pulled right out from under my feet. I was convinced that I had the truth but now I am in the position of having to re-examine all my beliefs in line with scripture, even as I have been encouraging my bible studies to do.
It is no wonder that many who wake up become atheists - if the organization which we were so convinced is God's arrangement is a lie it is very easy to conclude that everything, including the bible and Jehovah, are also fabrications. That is why your site is so encouraging - it is extremely faith strengthening to see that there are brothers and sisters with bible based faith apart from the organization.
I have a number of bible studies and want to teach them the truth. Is there perhaps a list of corrected understanding (with accompanying scriptures) that will help me identify the real truth as explained in the bible teach book a little quicker as I do not want to teach falsehoods while I am on my own journey?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-29 07:43:20

  Hi Out of Africa,
  We are working on such a list. It's just a question of time. Unfortunately, all of us still have to work for a living, so it's a balancing act.

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-29 10:12:06

  One way to try to come to terms with reality, and reconcile ourselves to what we have learned upon "waking up", is to consider the life of a Christian in, say, the tenth century AD. At that time, the Catholic Church held sway, and not even the dissent of Protestant Reformation some five centuries later would have been tolerated. In that environment, in what form would "true worship" manifest itself? What possible form COULD it take? (And, embarrassingly difficult for WT to answer, what was "God's Organization" at that time?) Should a person living in that time in history have joined the Catholic Church, since it was "the only game in town"? What real choice did they have?
  To me, the answer is, there was no true worship to speak of, and certainly there was no such thing as "God's Organization". Christians were basically doing what was described in Judges 17:6: "In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do."
  Persons who frequent this web site, and similar WT dissenter sites, are familiar with the issues surrounding the WT "last days" doctrine. From the 607 BC vs. 587 BC question, to the validity of their interpretation of the book of Daniel, to the justification (if any) for treating 1914 as meaningful, much less the rationale for identifying any part of WT as the "faithful and discrete slave", etc. we see that the entire chain of events that have been put forth to justify this doctrine is flawed at every step. It is just a row of dominos, waiting for someone to push down the first one, leading to the collapse of all the rest. Persons who have "woken up" already understand this, but the rank and file JW can't or won't see it, at least not yet.
  Given this, how should we view our current day? At the end of the first century, the death of the apostles ushered in a spiritual "dark ages" period, an age of apostasy (in the actual sense, not in the WT sense), far longer than the various dark-age periods identified by historians. If 1914 did not begin the last days, and the other aspects of WT theology are likewise untrue, then we must face the fact that we are STILL in the spiritual dark ages that began in the second century. The dark ages never ended. Ask your honestly: As you observe the events of the world around you, does the world seem spiritually "enlightened" in any sense of the word, or does it seem to be enveloped in deep gloom? Is there any doubt whatsoever that we still live in the 'dark ages'? You already know the answer.
  How should this affect us? Those who had associated with the WT and have subsequently left need not feel shame or regret for leaving, because they have not left the "truth" or the "true religion". In reality, ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS ON EARTH AT THIS TIME ARE FALSE RELIGIONS. If you leave one of them (be it WT or any other) you have done nothing wrong, and indeed are to be commended for taking a courageous stand in the face of daunting odds.
  It is incumbent upon any who would hold tight to their faith in God and Christ to do what is quoted in Judges, to do what is right in your own eyes, provided your eyes are guided by the truth of the Bible.
  How do you know what the "right" thing is? Well, what was one of Jesus' most severe criticisms of the religious leaders of his day? That they taught the commands of men as doctrines. As soon as you align yourself with a human organization that teaches the commands of men as doctrines, and requires obedience to them, you know then that you are not doing what is right. Jesus told us in plain language what God disapproves of. It is up to us to listen to them.

• Reply by katrina on 2015-10-30 08:11:13

  hi Out of Africa welcome I can relate very much to your post, for me once the GB declared themselves as the FDS and then the overlapping generation that was the start of my awakening, and this site has helped me to try and keep a balance as its easy to get down and discouraged once we start to awake, spiritual food and prayer, and research is important especially in the WT publications as for me they themselves tell so many contradictions once your eyes are opened it very easy to pick.
  I don't go door to door anymore, only have a few r/v and informal witnessing, I mainly stick to the gospels and good news of salvation.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-02 12:18:24

    It is no wonder that the GB has decided that they alone are the FDS. Consider that "anointed" ones outside of the WT headquarters were not contacted in any organized way. They were not asked their opinions on doctrinal matters, nor asked to contribute articles for publication in the WT magazine or in books.
    WT gave the "anointed" lip service as being part of this noble "faithful and discrete slave class", but in reality, anyone outside of headquarters was "thrown under the bus", by being totally ignored. Except lately, they got a little bit of attention when they partook at the Memorial, and then the attention consisted of questions and scrutiny as to whether their actions were valid and justified or not.
    It is only to be expected that after decades of marginalizing the "anointed", these ones would face their ultimate disenfranchisement by the GB claiming they alone are the FDS. The icing on the cake was the recent WT article that said "anointed" ones should not discuss their status, and other people should not ask them about it. So, it's a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, just like the 'gays in the military' controversy.
    Evidently, persons who believe they are anointed ought to act like they are ashamed of that belief, and no is supposed to say anything. In that way, these ones become "out of sight, out of mind" and the only people left that matter at all is the GB.

Comment by 1984 on 2015-10-29 01:00:23

This is an outstanding article, a really excellent summary of everything that's wrong with the 1914 doctrine. They really have nailed their pants to the mast with this one, and the further they march on the more those pants stretch and strain (like the incredulity of the whole generation thing.) Inevitably, this can only end one way, and it's gunna hurt!

• Reply by Wild Olive on 2015-10-29 03:48:45

  Exactly ,everything has been swung on the 1914 nail, it actually makes the position of true believers more fragile as time goes on,it's going to have to be abandoned eventually, much the same way that everthing Russell taught pre 1914 has also been cast adrift,with barely a flinch.
  I used to hang onto 1914 because of ww1
  Took me 40 years to realise that an even worse war happened 20 years later that changed the world even more profoundly than ww1.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-10-31 09:40:49

  Thanks 1984. You paint quite the picture with that metaphor :)

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-10-29 04:45:26

True believers say when confronted with the truth "Anyway, my faith is not based on dates". Ok, well it seems we have a bit of a problem then, as 1914 is shoved in our face at every opportunity. The ultimate loyalty test. What a joke

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-29 19:58:07

  Maybe their "faith" is not personally based on dates (and we can grant them that this might be true on an individual basis) but their membership in the WT most definitely IS based on dates. What will happen if a JW tells their elders that he doesn't believe 1914 is the year Jesus invisibly came to power. How long before they must recant that statement or be disfellowshipped? A faith not based on dates? Really?

Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-29 07:19:48

I love this line of reasoning, Apollos.
I've just recently learned that it was Nelson Barbour who taught that Christ was returning visibly in 1874. This is the same Nelson Barbour who joined up with C.T. Russell in 1876 and began publishing with him; the same Barbour whom Russell split with over--among other things--a disagreement over the validity of the ransom sacrifice. Well, this guy's 1874 prophecy failed to come true, but instead of humbly admitting he was wrong, he took the course of many before him and compounded the lie with another. This new one had his prophecy coming true as predicted, but no one knew it because Christ's presence was invisible. It was this idea that he sold to Russell in 1876, who taught it until his death. Rutherford picked it up, but around 1933 moved it forward to 1914. So the idea of an "invisible presence" originated with a man who rejected the validity of Christ's ransom sacrifice. His teaching lives on to this day among Jehovah's Witnesses and some of the Bible Student groups.
When asked about his return in Kingly power to sit upon the throne of David and restore Israel, Jesus told his disciples that it did "not belong to [them] to know the times and seasons that the Father has put in his own jurisdiction." Yet, since the days of Russell, this has been a mainstay of our JW faith. Those who would minimize this endeavor as just the efforts of sincere men trying to know when the end is coming should think about another time when someone took something that lay within the jurisdiction of the Father. Eve, the first daughter of God, transgressed (stepped over, went beyond) the boundary limiting her own jurisdiction, into that of God and ate of a fruit it was not hers to even touch. Look were that led.
Infringing on God's jurisdiction regarding "times and seasons" has lead to untold heartache and the shipwreck of faith of countless ones. Will the Father overlook this anymore than he did the transgression of Eve?

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-10-31 09:39:07

  Thanks Meleti. Yes, that parallel of what the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction with the original command in Eden occurred to me as I was writing this. There are not many things in the Bible that are worded in this way, and both situations have to do with "knowledge". We should really take note of that.

Comment by Father jack on 2015-10-29 10:26:57

Yes thanks for that apollos its nice to hear your views again . Just about the 1914 doctrine , i was never really convinced all along that it was true it was one of those may bes for me . So to me it was never really that important . After quite a few years though i began to realise it was wrong but still had the attitude that if people want to believe that its up to them it wasnt my buisness . However i think the real problem starts when you have a hierarchy that are teaching these things as gods truth even though clearly wrong and then worse taking it personally when a sincere bible student questions the doctrine to the point of levelling an accusation of apostasy at them and then kicking them out of the congregation . Now here we have a massive problem because the fact is that what ever doctrine the watchtower comes up with whatever procedure they implement however wrong or absurd it is even if its works against our own conscience we are expected to believe and obey it otherwise we are out and looked upon as evil . They remind me very much of diotrophes who liked to have first place in the congregation . I honestly think they have stumbled many sincere people with thier pride and false doctrines .

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-10-31 09:36:17

  Thanks Father jack. Your thought processes over the years seem to parallel mine quite closely. I think it's understandable that our first step on seeing falsehood, but wanting the organization to be the one true religion, is to minimize the impact of the error. But there comes a time when we start to see the real implications and can no longer hold that position.

Comment by Buster on 2015-10-29 12:29:04

Let's take a look at the evidence, and I am sorry if my tone might sound humorous, but hey people say that of me, and it is better I say this, this way or else I might say something less Christian like.
So Jesus was suppose enthroned as king by 1914. And so the master has allowed the following.
1. We said Scripture Evidence since 1879 that he came back to his presence in the year 1874, till about the 1930's ( exact year we will leave that blank) , but said period Now we say Nope he came back in 1914 and we have Scripture Evidence, We think.
2.in the watchtower of 1922, it says Jesus was king in 1878 ( yes know they been saying he was king in 1878 since near the beginning of 1879, but this is one of the few times they said this in the 1920's ). wait I thought the master picked the Jws ( excuse me the Bible students since 1919), so they were wrong again.. Woops.
3.so our lord and master you know since back then they thought he already returned before 1914, would let Russell say and write that 1914, October was when the time will end, World would end, and years before 1914 people would get rapture up ( woops the organization does not like that word ) and all this was is what Alrighty God word the Bible said. Wow Awesome.
4. Of course our king lord would let the Finish Mystery get published we all know now that book is a powerful indictment against Christendom, yup I guess maybe cause when you read it , you might just Laugh yourself to the point of passing out. And they the Bible students ( Jws) were using this Master Class book still in the 1920s saying it was such a powerful book, yup our Master Jesus approved, of Course he would.
5. Since 1878 as kin....excuse me 1914 as King, Jesus has let people, his people that he rules over, to predict, and to drop prophecies about 1914, 1915, 1918, 1919, 1921, 1925, in the 1940's, 1966-1975, and he all know that they were pushing the around the year 2000 hard, and woops 1799, 1874, and 1878 cause those are now wrong. Nice.
6. Our Lord has allowed the Organization for Generation's to miss use Proverbs 4:18 Light/Doctrines/ ....sure that is what the verse says, even if it does not mention our lord or doctrines, and the verse really repeats what Proverbs 4:14 says, which says Path of the wicked ones, and 4:18 is just a total continuation of that verse showing the wrong path and right path, cause it uses the word But. But the Organization now says in the 2011 watchtower this verse is Jesus leadership is progressive, not stagnant. Yup they said thatbin the 5/15/ 2011 watchtower and with the above information, oh yeah his leadership sure is moving backwards and forward.
I will end this list here, I am not trying to make fun of our Lord and Master Jesus or his and our Almighty God Yahweh ( Jehovah) but somebody is sure making fun of them and also doing so so.much more.
love to All

• Reply by 1984 on 2015-10-29 17:08:29

  Great work buster, good perspective. Love your comments. Keep em coming!

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-29 22:30:40

  As others have noted before, the correct understanding of Proverbs 4:18, and the whole 18th chapter of Proverbs, is that it teaches us the benefits of choosing proper conduct and selecting good associations, and has nothing to do with spiritual light. But, for the sake of argument, suppose it did actually have the meaning attributed to it by WT. What then?
  Unquestionably, and by their own admission, the "light" published by WT has changed over the years. If in fact earlier "old light" was in error, and was corrected by subsequent "new light", where did any of this supposed "light" come from?
  To understand the seriousness of this question, we need only consider a comparable question asked by Jesus. We find this passage in Mark 11:27-33:
  27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the older men came to him 28 and began to say to him: "By what authority do you do these things? or who gave you this authority to do these things?" 29 Jesus said to them: "I will ask YOU one question. YOU answer me, and I will also tell YOU by what authority I do these things. 30 Was the baptism by John from heaven or from men? Answer me." 31 So they began to reason among themselves, saying: "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Why is it, therefore, YOU did not believe him?' 32 But dare we say, 'From men'?" - hey were in fear of the crowd, for these all held that John had really been a prophet. 33 Well, in reply to Jesus they said: "We do not know." And Jesus said to them: "Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things.
  So, in like manner, should WT challenge their critics and dissenters, as if to say, 'What authority do you have to challenge our doctrines and teachings?', we properly ask also of the WT: 'From what source does your so-called "new light" come? From heaven or from men?'
  If WT replies, in effect, 'from heaven', we must ask, How, then, can you reconcile that claim with 1 John 1:5-6?
  5 And this is the message which we have heard from him and are announcing to YOU, that God is light and there is no darkness at all in union with him. 6 If we make the statement: "We are having a sharing with him," and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth.
  If "old light" contained errors that must be corrected, then that "old light" contained darkness. Indeed, if the "light" is truly getting "brighter", then there is no choice but to conclude that earlier "light" contained aspects of spiritual "darkness" that needed to be dispelled by subsequent "new light".
  However, if THAT is true, and the earlier "light" contained elements of darkness, and if the assertion that light is 'from heaven', then proponents of the "increasing light" doctrine are effectively calling God a liar and are (even if indirectly) attributing darkness to Him, a thing that 1 John says is not possible. Thus, one cannot adhere to the "increasing light" doctrine without committing blasphemy against God.
  On the other hand, if WT's "increasing light" doctrine is from men, then everything that WT stands for is merely the opinions and commands of men, who have no legitimate hold over anyone. And if they still claim to have a hold over people, and claim to speak on God's behalf as his 'sole channel of communication', they are making an assertion they cannot justify or back up scripturally.
  Either way, WT makes itself out to be purveyors of lies and blasphemy. Hardly an enviable position to be in, but they did that to themselves.
  

  • Reply by Father jack on 2015-10-30 14:15:41

    To be honest as far as i knew for years i did think that there knowledge in a sense was from men . I never realised that they were claiming to be gods spokesmen i just thought that they may have bee n a faithful slave imperfect men like the rest of us trying their very best to provide an explanation for us of gods word the bible . I thought that these people had read the bible for years and i respected their opinion . They have even said themselves that they do not claim to be gods prophets and i knew that they had got things wrong in the past . I really did not expect to be called an apostate if i did not believe everything they said . I would never have joined the religion in the first place if i had have known that .
    

  • Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2015-10-30 16:05:47

    Real A -
    Our official interpretation of Proverbs 4:18 is one far removed from the context. When you consider chapters 1-7, it is clear that Solomon's target audience is unmistakably........ Solomon's sons. (consider Proverbs 1:8; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1)
    Given the context, we can appreciate that we must take Proverbs 4:18 completely out of context to suggest that its meaning somehow suggests a progressive revealing of truths to a select group of men in the last days. Leadership never connects the dots, but to correctly understand the meaning of Proverbs 4:18 we must pair it with the next verse, Proverbs 4:19.
    In considering the pair, we find two paths are contrasted, the path of the righteous, and the path of the wicked. The same contrast is conveyed in Proverbs 4:11,14.
    In that Solomon was speaking to young men, their life was before them. It is as if they were standing at a fork in the road. Which path would they choose? The path of the righteous was lit, albeit very dimly at the start. The path of the wicked was dark, and would remain dark throughout life.
    If they chose the righteous path, given their inexperience in life, the light present on the path would prove to be like the morning dawn. Yes one can see, but not with clarity. Objects on the horizon at break of dawn are hazy and may appear as one thing, yet as the light of dawn progresses, their true identity becomes unmistakenly recognizable.
    So it is with a young man growing into adulthood and gaining maturity. At age 20 we thought we had it all figured out, but were we wrong. How our perspective changed by age 30, 40, 50? As we gain maturity, it's as if the light on the path gets brighter. We see the wisdom of making good choices, we feel God's blessing in our lives. In this sense the light gets brighter, until the day is firmly established, we reach full maturity.
    The contrasting path is of the wicked, and it is darkness.
    Leadership cleverly misapplies this scripture, using it as their trump card that allows them to get things wrong over and over again...... without explanation or apology.
    Sopater
    

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-30 22:53:18

      You're absolutely right, Sopater. When WT misapplies this verse in a vain attempt to justify the new-light doctrine and cover up their own errors, they are distracting attention from the real meaning and value of this counsel in Proverbs 4. They can't really let this chapter speak for itself, a passage which provides a fine model for fathers on how to teach their sons about wise choices in life, because if they did that, it would become clear that the new-light doctrine is not taught or supported here. So instead, they teach the commands and opinions of men, and the real words of God get hidden away, as so much collateral damage. Such a shame that God's word is treated that way.

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-01 11:25:13

    Oops, typo: I should have said "whole 4th chapter of Proverbs" as it relates to Proverbs 4:18, not "whole 18th chapter of Proverbs". Musta had "18" on the brain :-))

Comment by MarthaMartha on 2015-10-29 14:14:52

I thoroughly enjoyed that article Apollos. Good thing my head's firmly attached because I was nodding in agreement so much it could have fallen off. Great arguments, logic, and thought provoking words. Thank you.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-10-31 09:32:37

  Thanks MarthaMartha.

Comment by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-29 14:15:35

One of the biggest problems about believing that 1914 is important, is that nothing seems to have happened. Yes, WW I happened, but spiritually, what really happened? If Christ is enthroned, what is he doing? No disrespect to Christ is intended, but really, has he just been "twiddling his thumbs" for 100 years? Gathering his thoughts? Devising a strategy? And the nations? If the Gentile times "ended" in 1914, in what way are those nations doing (or not doing) anything differently than they ever did? Aren't the nations of the world continuing to rule, to govern their peoples, to build infrastructure, to engage in commerce and scientific research, to occasionally engage in wars and military activities? Have the activities, goals and motives of the nations after 1914 been even slightly different, in any meaningful way, to what they were before 1914? History would say, No.
That being so, if Christ were really enthroned in 1914, he could be open to the kind of criticism laid upon incompetent human rulers that accomplish nothing, such as "lame duck" or "do nothing administration".
Is this the dynamic, powerful leader the scriptures have led us to believe Christ would be? Hardly. Didn't the Bible say "EVERY eye would see him"? Yet, it would appear there is nothing to see. We have only two choices: We must either make an (unsubstantiated) assertion that his rulership is "invisible", or conclude that he isn't ruling yet.
Which viewpoint is in harmony with what the Bible actually says, and what mankind's history has revealed? Which makes more sense?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-29 15:26:48

  The only empirical evidence the Organization has advanced is that WWI started then as a result of the great anger the devil had at being ousted from heaven by the newly enthroned Jesus Christ. The problem with this "evidence" is that according to WT chronology, Jesus was enthroned in October of 1914. So the devil would have been ousted after that. However, the trigger for the war was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in July of that year and the war itself began in August, so this couldn't have been the result of an angry ousted Satan since he was still in heaven. (Based on WT theology, of course.)

  • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-29 15:50:24

    Of course, there is utterly no evidence that the month of October has anything to do with anything. It is merely a WT assumption, wherein the start of every year is presumed to be October. They could always claim they were 'accurate to the nearest year'. Whenever someone questions WT chronology and math such as this, they simply ignore differences and inconsistencies such as years being 360 days except when they are 365, etc. If you ask a devoted JW about these matters, they would dismiss them as trivial.

• Reply by Father jack on 2015-10-29 15:57:04

  Thats right again TRA. Its starting to sound crazy when we put it like that . It certainly doesnt feel like paradise where im living .

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-10-29 17:09:54

It goes back further than Nelson Barbour as well Meleti. William Miller preached the end of the world in 1843, this was changed to 1844 by the guy who came up with the no immortality of the soul doctrine, can't remember his name. The bridge between 1844 and 1874 is provided by Jonas Wendell. Read his book "Present Truth or Meat in Due Season". It gives a chart showing why they thought Miller was out by 30 years. This was right at the time Russell dropped into that dinghy hall mentioned in the Proclaimers book. These guys were all ex-Millerites and true believers. People like that have to convince other people that what they say is true, because if they can get you to believe as well, it must have the ring of truth. On a second point, in the refinements of understanding at the AGM, check out how many times the dates 537, 607, 1914 and 1919 are mentioned. Yep, they know the truth all right. Had to laugh at the 2 sticks antitype. I would be interested on your thoughts on the substitutionary atonement re Nelson Barbour. Have you read the article?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-10-29 18:51:25

  Hi Anon,
  I was aware that Miller came up with it first (or did he?) and made reference to that back in 2012 in the article "Was 1914 the Start of Christ's Presence". For those interested, they can see the Miller chart here.
  There is an excellent analysis of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses on youtube given by Tim Martin.
  I haven't read the article on the substitutionary atonement. Wasn't even aware of it.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-10-29 20:05:58

    https://archive.org/details/PresentTruthByJonasWendell
    I think the dialogue between Russell and Barbour on the ransom, which word Barbour still used until his death, is in here.
    https://archive.org/details/1875-1880HeraldOfTheMorningAssortedIssues
    When everyone failed to go to heaven, Barbour started to come up with other explanations, hence his views on the substitutionary atonement. it's an interesting read. He basically believed Jesus died for us, not instead of us. Interested to hear your thoughts on it :-)
    

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-10-29 20:15:04

Here is the Watchtower defence of it's chronology from way back in 1922.
https://archive.org/details/1922WatchtowerArticlesOnChronology

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-10-30 23:11:05

  If one has the patience to wade through all this (and the print is a little hard to read), there are some real eye openers in this 1922 WT.
  1. It seems clear that even with the evidence of secular history known in 1922, WT was aware that this evidence showed Jerusalem fell in 587 BC, not 607 BC. Yet, they create an incredibly convoluted explanation trying to justify 607. Archeological evidence found since then, such as detailed in Carl Johsson's book, has only increased in the 90-some years since.
  2. The WT article shows that they accept secular history when it agrees with WT doctrines and theories, but when secular history agrees, WT doesn't simply choose not to use that secular evidence, but they feel compelled to engage in name-calling, and label those historians as "agents of Satan" - and that's an actual quote from the article. Much of the article goes beyond acknowledging that people had questions about 607 BC and 1914, but it deals in intimidation and character assassination. Anyone who disagrees with WT is, in their eyes, guilty of rejecting Christ himself. Never mind that over time, much of this article's particulars will be altered, some repeatedly.
  3. This article, more than once, suggests that any Bible Student worth his salt should already be fully aware of the overwhelming evidence that 'proves' the WT position under discussion. What is notable is that, for the sake of those NOT as experienced as this presumptuous statement implies, the article doesn't actually provide that evidence - not all of it, anyway. Many verses are unattributed, as well. They take a tone of, "all well-educated Christians already know thus-and-so" and don't get around to providing facts and bible references to back them up. (This sounds so much like proponents of evolution, that will say 'all well-educated people believe in evolution' so why debate it. It is the same faulty reasoning in both cases.)
  I have to say, reading such articles with (now) wide-open eyes is profoundly painful to me. They just never stop the self-congratulatory rhetoric, and so much of it is simple propaganda with a thin veneer of scriptural-sounding respectability. How people believed this stuff (and still do) is the biggest surprise of all.
  

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-10-31 21:55:56

    Well done for getting through it all. Realising Daniel was taken into exile with Jehoaikim, not Jehoiachin, was a big eye opener for me.

    • Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-01 17:23:56

      I had not heard of this issue before. Could you give some details and background on it, and what its significance is? How does this change our understanding? I don't disbelieve you, but this is the first time I recall anyone mentioning it. Any additional details and explanation would be appreciated.

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-11-02 05:52:00

        No problem. The synchronism between the rulers can be found at Jere 25:1, and Jere 46:2, where the 4th regal year of Jehoiakim is the 1st year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Apparently the Babylonians did not count accession years. So when Daniel 1:1 says that Daniel was in Babylonian exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, that was the year that Nebuchadnezzar had taken over rule from Nabopolassar, his accession year. But his 1st proper year of rule which was counted was the following year. This explains why Daniel could interpret Nebuchadnezzars dream after 3 years of training, in the Nebuchadnezzars 2nd year, because you also need to count his accession year (3rd year of Jehoiakim). So this makes perfect sense. Daniel was taken into captivity in the reign of Jehoiakim, as the Bible says, not taken with Jehoiachin. Daniel was actually taken into captivity quite close to the start of the seventy years. Which is why he understood when they were finished. (Jere 25:12, Daniel 9:2) I believe the start of the 70 years was around the year King Josiah died. Jehovah said he would be spared from seeing the badness that would be bought upon the land (2 Chron 34:28) Jehoahaz only ruled for 3 months before going to Egypt. Jehoiakim was the first king to pay tribute to Nebuchadnezzar. 609 was the start of Babylon domination. Confirmed by history and in the Bible (539 + 70 = 609) I'll let you research the current view of Daniels exile. Something about 8th year of vassalage. Confused me that's for sure. It also meant we couldn't just take Daniel 1:1 at face value.

        • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-11-02 09:11:58

          Thanks for this information, Anonymous. I appreciate seeing the proof for 609 which makes much more sense. Now if the Society has clued to this earlier, they could have at least removed the serious flaw in their logic that the First World War is proof of Jesus invisible enthronement because it resulted from the Devil being cast down and having great anger. The flaw, of course, is that by their chronology the Devil was cast down after October 1914 and the war started in August, with the trigger for it occurring in July when Ferdinand was assassinated.
          Of course, they can no longer make that "adjustment" because putting it in 1912 (609 B.C.E. + 2,520 years = 1912 A.D.) would eliminate their overlapping generation explanation as demonstrated by David Splane in the September broadcast. They've nailed their trousers to the mast of the anointed lifespan of Fred Franz who was not anointed in 1912.

Comment by CJ on 2015-10-30 21:35:22

I'm confused. You said that the whole world will k JW his return. Then you said Christians who endure will join him in ruling over the earth during his presence that follows his return. (Matt 28:19,20; Acts 1:8)
Why would the disciples ask about the sign of his presence if the presence follows his return thy everyone will see?

• Reply by CJ on 2015-10-30 21:35:56

  Know*

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2015-10-31 04:45:16

  The signs of his presence are the things by which you can tell he is near. The signs themselves don't prove the presence already happened, but that it is due to happen. What are the last days? The signs of the things that happen before his return.

• Reply by apollos0fAlexandria on 2015-10-31 09:31:18

  Hi CJ,
  That's a reasonable question when coming at it from a JW standpoint. But you need to not only go on the question raised by the disciples who didn't yet know exactly what they were asking, but also carefully read the answer given by Jesus.
  Rather than assuming that Jesus is launching into what the sign will be as he starts to talk in Matt 24:4 read his words in the entire passage carefully and see where Jesus actually says what "the sign" would be. It doesn't happen until v30 of Matt 24. Then go back and check what Jesus is really saying in the immediate response he gives them. His first words are "Look out that nobody misleads you, for ..." and then goes on to say what misleading things would happen.
  At what point in his response does he switch from warning against the misleading information and telling them exactly what the sign would be? It's v 27. Read the whole passage carefully with those markers in mind and see if it's still confusing.
  Apollos

• Reply by on 2015-11-02 16:19:33

  Another big eye opener is realising that the length of the Persian period is one that is hard to determine. You have to put your trust in one of two sources, Daniel or Ptolemy. The end of the seventy years of Babylonian domination also marks the start of the seventy weeks prophecy in Daniel. The going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem actually issued with Cyrus, so you need to count from then.This fulfills Isaiah chapter 44 & 45, Cyrus was going to rebuild the city. We count from a different time, which was just repairing fresh damage done to an already rebuilt city. This also means the Persian period is 82 years too long, if you rely on Ptolemy, who was reconstructing the period himself from information he had received. If the Persian period is actually 82 years shorter than commonly accepted, this also throws out the count of 2520 years, rendering the whole calculation useless.

• Reply by on 2015-11-02 20:57:17

  What is bad is that they were clued into it, but chose to stick with a forced interpretation of scripture to suit a particular view of chronology. The governing body in 1970's all received a copy of some of Carl Olof Jonssons treatise. So they are more than aware of all the facts, but chose to go with the lie instead of truth. So sad really, to know deep down something is not truth.

Comment by Menrov on 2015-11-01 04:56:34

Before I became a JW, 1914 had no significant meaning for me, other than that it was the year in which the first world war started. But as my country remained neutral during WW1, WW2 had far more impact. As a JW, 1914 is a critical year (at least until now but believe little by little this is changing....).
Since this good article by Apollos, I started to think: if the bible does not provide a year, month, day on which Jesus was born, why would the bible provide information that supposedly all point to 1914? It does not make sense. The visible coming of Jesus was far more important than the "invisible return of Jesus" Also, the actual birth year of Jesus seems not to be our year 1 but some 4 or 6 years before (4 BCE or 6 BCE).
When Jesus was on earth, people recognized Him as being the Christ or Messiah through HIs acts and teaching. And that was growing until at the end of His life, many followed him in order to be taught or to be cured (or both). His presence was real and visible. Many were there when He died and many saw Him after His resurrection. His presence really made a positive difference to those who were longing for Him and a negative difference to those who wanted to maintain their status quo.
Looking at the WBTS doctrine of an invisible presence, it is obvious that actually nothing really has changed compared to the years before 1914 Yes, world affairs have changed (technology, medical etc) but those changes were managed by the world. There is nothing that shows beyond a doubt that Jesus was in charge of some significant world change. Actually, come to think of it, could It be classified a sort of blasphemy, to teach the doctrine of an invisible presence? It might sound harsh but to teach people Jesus is ruling while there is not a shred of proof? While things in the world are still very tough for millions of innocent people (young and old alike, by war, hunger, illnesses, injustice), which was also the case before 1914?

• Reply by The Real Anonymous on 2015-11-01 13:04:21

  To me, the best answer to this question is Carl Olaf Jonsson's book, "Sign of the Last Days, When?" He strongly makes that case that, even if 1914 and the 20th century were difficult times for the world, they weren't the only period in history in which life was difficult. He shows a great deal of evidence that the 13th century was extremely difficult, since it was a period of extensive warfare lasting a whole century, and was the time when the Plague killed a vast number of people; crime, disease and hunger were also very severe. In comparison, is our time really worse than that? Not really. In fact, based on available history and taking known historical population growth rates and projecting them backwards, the world should have far more people now than it actually does, but so many people died in the first thousand years AD that it kept the population stagnant. It seems that there was a point where for a while the elimination of all human life on earth was a real possibility. In view of that, are the days after 1914 really as bad as THAT? No. The WT narrative simply doesn't ring true, and it rings even less true now in the 21st century, as many of the difficulties faced in the WW I time frame have actually markedly improved.
  What is worse is that there does seem to be evidence that some stories often cited by WT to "prove" we are in the last days - quotations from various newspapers - may have been "plants". One story about earthquakes supposedly being more frequent, and another about 1914 being a fulfillment of prophesy, appear to be deliberately planted or leaked to the media of the time by JW sources, and then quoted in the WT to make them appear as if independent and unbiased.

Comment by Skye on 2015-11-01 07:16:49

JWs believe Jesus has been present in Kingdom power since 1914, but he has yet to take full control over the earth. Regarding Matthew 24:3 in the NWT refers to the sign of Christ's presence. As far as I can see in all other translations Matthew 24:3 refers to the sign of Christ's coming.

Comment by Humiliore on 2015-11-02 00:40:00

Excellent article Apollos, I had never looked at things this way until now, that the 1914 doctrine carries the implication that Jesus is an impotent leader. Quite dishonoring to him, now that I see it.
Thank you!

Comment by Dawn Ann on 2015-11-02 01:17:44

Great article Apollos. I was always confused about the 1914 doctrine for a number of reasons. Your article and reasoning however, has helped me to put to bed the reasons why 1914 is incorrect and also the importance of how this doctrine can be a cause for stumbling. It really minimizes the role of Jesus and his second coming.

Comment by Pursuit Of Truth on 2015-11-29 10:59:51

...and any kid could do the maths too. We know the milenial reign begins after Armageddon, which implies Jesus rulership for a 1000 years of course. However we (JW'S) say that JC was enthroned in 1914, roughly a century ago. So this would mean that Jesus apparently has 900 years left to rule, right? Now this in itself is already enough evidence that 1914's theory holds upon a thread as Armageddon obviously hasn't past yet.

Comment by Be Determined to “Let Your Brotherly Love Continue”! | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-05-29 13:17:25

[…] as my brothers, because they believe in false doctrines like an invisible presence that began in 1914, and in a secondary class of Christian who is not a child of God, and because they give allegiance […]

Comment by Willibrordus van der Weide on 2016-11-24 01:34:44

The idea of 1914 is for new people without any Bible scholarship background to heavy to check if it is true or not. Mostly they need attention and respect and have other troubles in life. After years of doubts it is for me sure that 1914 i a complete false doctrine. Even the idea that Jesus is an angel is a false doctrine. Jesus never gone BACK to heaven but gone to heaven as a man(not as an angel). Revelation 5:10 the 144.000 who shall have an earth resurrection shall rule ON(epi) earth with Jesus from Sion, the new Jerusalem. The GB is evil and tried with bunkervideo's to FEAR the members only. Am glad to join the teachings of Sir Anthony Buzzard with many other JW's. The time of the GB is soon over we know and we reset the dictorb gospel today. Welcome !

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-11-24 10:00:45

  We agree that the invisible presence of Christ in 1914 is a false doctrine. Likewise, that Jesus was an angel in heaven. We have proven these statements from scripture elsewhere on this site and its companion sites. However, the teaching of Sir Anthony Buzzard that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth on earth is one that we disagree with. Nevertheless, we appreciate that everyone is entitled to their viewpoint.

Comment by Do You Highly Esteem Jehovah’s Own Book? | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2017-01-09 09:46:46

[…] “God’s Word tells us to give the Kingdom first place in our lives.” – par. 8 True, but what kingdom? The Kingdom Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously claim was established in 1914? […]

Comment by messenger on 2018-05-12 20:15:49

"•False doctrine makes people think a certain way that can subtly subvert their faith." Taken from your article
All my children were raised as Jehovah's Witnesses since birth. They were all baptized, and were active. But as adults they all left. I asked one of my sons why he left. He said that his JW grandmother (his mother's mother) used to tell him since he was a little boy the end was coming real soon. Then when his great-grandmother (my grandmother) died, he had discussions with his younger brother about what his grandmother used to tell them, saying that end was coming real soon. But the New World didn't come before his great-grandmother's death, to spare her of that. So they discussed that thought when she died. Then my sons' and daughter's mother (my wife) died shortly after that at just 57 years of age. Next my sons' and daughter's grandmother died, the one that often told them the end is coming real soon. But obviously not soon enough to spare her daughter from death, which she saw before her own demise. And it goes without saying my children read these predictions in WT publications also. One side note: Their mother was the nicest person I have ever met, and the nicest person my children ever met. She was an extremely rare person in that way. And we all realized it, including her own mother who died after she did.
Possibly next I'll die, or more likely their grandfather will. I've seen my future. I know where I'm going. But none of my children have seen theirs. None of them are presently Christian. My daughter now claims never to have believed in Witness doctrine, because of the hypocritical behavior of Witnesses, and the overbearing and unbiblical rules issued by the Watchtower society Witnesses are required to follow. All my sons used to believe in God, Christ, the Bible and the Watchtower Society teachings.
After my grown children's mother died I talked the one son I refer to above into coming back to the hall for about a year. He stopped after seeing bad behavior visited upon me by two of the ruling elders. When I asked him why he stopped coming he said, "God's people would not act like that."
My story, and the story of my children, is not the whole story. These wrecked faiths are just the tip of a huge iceberg that wrecked the faith of more people than we will ever know. But Christ knows. The whole story about false prophecies and animalistic Christian behaviors and what those produce is huge. Many, many, many and then some turn to apostasy because of it.
I enjoyed your article. I'll read your other articles on this topic. In them you might have already listed these two scriptures I offer, but just in case those are not listed here are two more to make your point: "Many false prophets will arise and mislead many." Matthew 24:11; "Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name saying...'The due time has approached.' (Christ's warning) Do not go after them." Luke 21:8