This site now has permission to reprint various postings and articles from JWFacts, JWStudies, JWInsider, and several others. We are still working on getting more content from still other posters, bloggers, and site creators, and are especially looking for JWs who have taken up the same studies about chronology that we focus on here.

JWFacts has contributed articles found throughout the site, and several of the contributions from JWStudies are also found in various places on this site. The following series of articles presented below have been culled from JWInsider’s postings about 1914 from jw-archive.org and theworldnewsmedia.org.  JWInsider presents himself as a JW who remains in good standing with his congregation. While we do not always agree with the views of JWInsider, his perspective usually reflects a fair consideration of both the scriptural sources and Watchtower sources.

Note: JWInsider’s posts are often lengthy, and we have been given permission to edit them down, fix typos, etc., but have not exercised this permission yet in the posts we have decided to publish. Due to the nature of discussion forums, we are able to post only JWInsider’s side of a discussion, without the counter-arguments. With only a couple exceptions, we do not have permission to post responses from other participants in the discussion forum.

JWINSIDER #001 on 1914: From the posts in the topic ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view.

The original context is found here:  https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/39516-all-aspects-of-1914-doctrine-are-now-problematic-from-a-scriptural-point-of-view/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site now has permission to reprint various postings and articles from JWFacts, JWStudies, JWInsider, and several others. We are still working on getting more content from still other posters, bloggers, and site creators, and are especially looking for JWs who have taken up the same studies about chronology that we focus on here.

JWINSIDER #002 on 1914: From posts in the topic ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view.

The original context is found here:  https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/39516-all-aspects-of-1914-doctrine-are-now-problematic-from-a-scriptural-point-of-view/

[response or question from other forum participants removed]

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

1. The NWT has a fairly obvious mistranslation in Jeremiah 29:10. It has been discussed ad nauseum, but the general view from Hebrew scholars is that we have chosen the word “at” instead of “for” because the more obvious translation would lead people to notice that the verse is directly about Babylon and only indirectly about Judah. Our current doctrine requires the opposite.
2. There was a time when the entire NWT was only translated into a dozen additional languages, and in order to say that these were actual “Bible translations” and not just translations from the English into another language, brothers in a couple countries with Biblical language skills translated directly from Hebrew. Two of these translations came out with the dreaded “for” instead of “at” and had to be changed back to match the NWT English.
3. After many consistent denials of the validity of “for” here, the Isaiah’s Prophecy book made use of the exact same point about Babylonian hegemony in the discussion of Tyre.
4. The Insight Book admits that Zechariah 1:12 and 7:4 must have been written almost 90 years after 607 BCE, which would be 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if it had happened in 607. Ten different independent “witnesses” and literally thousands of dated contract documents all combine to provide evidence that it was only 70 years earlier that Jerusalem was destroyed, not 90. Yet, Zechariah 7:4 also indicates that it was only 70 years earlier, showing that Bible history is confirmed by archaeology. This is something that we would normally get excited about, whenever archaeology confirms the Bible record. But in this case we don’t say anything because we have a doctrine that has forced us to add 20 years to every date prior to 539, all the way back to the creation of Adam.
5. [edited to add:] Also I had included the reference to Ezra 3 in that initial bullet point because it says that the sound of those who must have been 70-plus-year-olds (per Zechariah) wept with such a loud voice that some people couldn’t distinguish the shouts of joy from the weeping. This is far from definitive, but in the Watchtower’s theory of events, this would have referred to the sound of the 90-plus-year-olds. If we accept the history from Zechariah 1 & 7, they would have been within the range of the expected life-span, 70-plus.(Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . .(Ezra 3:12,13) Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.