ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Hebrews 1 and 2 had already dealt with his Kingship and royal power: "God is your throne." "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." "The scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." "But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned. . ."

 

I have great difficulty in seeing what all the fuss is about over this matter. No one (no one??) disputes that Jehovah God is, was, and always will be the Sovereign Lord of the Universe (whatever the Universe comprises). By His very nature, He could not abdicate that position even if He wanted to. (Rev.4:11) Jesus himself has never disputed that fact (Phil.2:6), and never will, regardless of the exalted position he now enjoys (thoroughly attested to by @JWInsider),  see also 1Cor.15:27-28.

But, the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, who has never abdicated His position, is said on a number of occasions when expressing His Power in accomplishing His will in the face of opposition,  to have "become King" (1Chr.16:31; Ps.47:8; Ps.93:1; Ps.96:10; Ps.97:1; Ps.99:1; Is.24:23; Is.52:7. Let the reader sort the context).

So, why should we find it so difficult to grasp that Jesus, the image of the invisible God, the King of Jehovah's Messianic Kingdom, who will lead the heavenly angels in vanquishing all oppostion to Jehovah's Sovereign rulership expressed through that very kingdom of His Son, could not also express rulership in executive action at different times? And, as in the case of his Father who "becomes King", despite being King already, whenever He expresses His rulership, why cannot Jesus do the same? Surely this is all the more reason to glorify rightly that same Son of God who, after accomplishing the complete restoration of all things to His Father's satisfaction, then submits to His Father's rule in an action which once again enables Jehovah to "become KIng"?

To me this argument is a whole heap of smoke for which there is...just...no....fire!!!

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So, why should we find it so difficult to grasp that Jesus, the image of the invisible God, the King of Jehovah's Messianic Kingdom, who will lead the heavenly angels in vanquishing all oppostion to Jehovah's Sovereign rulership expressed through that very kingdom of His Son, could not also express rulership in executive action at different times? And, as in the case of his Father who "becomes King", despite being King already, whenever He expresses His rulership, why cannot Jesus do the same? Surely this is all the more reason to glorify rightly that same Son of God who, after accomplishing the complete restoration of all things to His Father's satisfaction, then submits to His Father's rule in an action which once again enables Jehovah to "become KIng"?

These are excellent points. But let's look at this more closely. Let's say, just as an example, there was an angel who vanquished all opposition to Jehovah's rulership by killing 185,000 Assyrians in one night. This might even be one of those occasions when one could say, "Jehovah has become King." But would you ever express this fact by calling that angel a king? 

Also, if you are able to say, as you did, that Jehovah's Son could express rulership in executive action, then why be so concerned to claim that he is NOT really a king holding the office of king? Perhaps that's exactly what makes him a king in the Bible's terminology.

How can you even use an expression like the "kingdom of His Son" without thinking that the person for whom that Kingdom is named is not truly a king? Would you ever say "David's kingdom" and claim that David was not really a king?

Also, notice that Jehovah is already a king when some event or action causes Jehovah to become king. So, why do we need to make sure then that Jesus is NOT a king when the Bible speaks of him as becoming king?

Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King. So when you say "why cannot Jesus do the same?" what you really mean is something like the opposite. You mean something more akin to "why can't we say Jesus is NOT a king when he becomes king."

And why do you think everyone who holds this idea that Jesus can be called king but not really be a king has avoided the fact that his title in 1 Tim 6 is "king of kings" in the first century? Doesn't this make him more than just a king over the kingdom of his congregation? Why is he called "ruler of the kings of the earth" in the first century?

The Watchtower publications freely admit that Jesus was at least king of the kingdom over his congregation. And we believe Colossians was written around 61 CE.

(Colossians 1:13) 13 He [God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,

Of course, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having two kingdoms. And since God's "beloved Son" is Jesus, this verse actually says "He . . . transferred us into the Kingdom of [Jesus]." It is pure conjecture and speculation to claim that Jesus has a second Kingdom, not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. What is really happening here is pretty obvious, which is that Jesus has been bringing Kingdom subjects into his Kingdom since the first century.

To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.

 

[JW Insider]

On 6/30/2017 at 9:34 PM, Gnosis Pithos said:

NOT scripturally sound, for Ezekiel prophecy when only using 1260 in revelation as a guide would end up in 653AD. Just about the time of the rise of the Muslim nations, after the Christian disputes of the formation of the Vatican in 66CE and the Church fathers after 100CE. These churches were only interested in claiming power for themselves in the name of Jesus, NOT for Jesus and God’s heavenly Kingdom. So, here is the unity in that period.

So, Prophecy should have been fulfilled after 653AD, and we are all still here, living under a corrupt government. And who were the 2 witnesses, and why has God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass. Not to mention when did the great commission end in order to fulfill God’s promise of a better Kingdom. Mark 16:15

Therefore, scripture would be a book of inconsistent stories, and prophecy's, since all that Jesus promised for his father’s sake, would have been complete, and humanity continues in the same path So, those opinions ARE NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND!!!!!

Knowledge is afforded to those that seek the kingdom of God. Therefore, those that believe their own opinion, is part of this world, and have NO heavenly kingdom interest. Therefore, there is no difficulty expressing God’s word to the nations, by scripture, and those that proclaim in the name of their own opinion, overshadow true knowledge. So, Christians would do better to accept the word of God, and through those that God commissions, rather than allow masked opinions peak their curiosity.

So, now, on to the next part of your post from 6/30/17:

You say that "for Ezekiel's prophecy when only using 1260 in Revelation as a guide, you would end up in 653 AD" (Muslim rise). For some reason you also mention 66CE (Vatican?), and 100CE (Church fathers?). I believe you mention those early dates because you are pointing out that 66 to 100 (and therefore 70) is not a good time to think of Jesus as "king." Of course, the Bible contradicts this idea in a verse you have so far scrupulously avoided. (1 Tim 6:15)

In Ezekiel's prophecy, I'll assume you are talking about the following:

(Ezekiel 21:25-27) 25 “But your day has come, O fatally wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel, the time of your final punishment. 26 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Remove the turban, and take off the crown. This will not remain the same. Raise up the low one, and bring low the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it. And it will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.’

I could apply a couple of others of Ezekiel's prophecies, such as Ezekiel 37:1-14 which has some parallels to Revelation 11, and perhaps even show other places like Ezekiel 4:6, where the prophecy uses a day for a year. So you can correct me if I am missing something here, but I think you are taking 1,260 years from 607 BCE which would bring you close enough to 653 CE.

So, assuming that the pseudo-archaeological date of 607 BCE was correct, you probably believe that 1,260 years from this starting point would be the only possible definition of the Gentile Times. And since this ends up near 653 CE, you probably believe that Jesus could not, therefore, have been serious about the Gentile Times being 3.5 years, or 42 months in length. 

As you are already no doubt aware, the Watchtower does not really use the idea of a day for a year as a "rule" because the "three and one-half times" that Jesus assigned to the Gentile Times are not changed to years anyway. They are treated as 1,260 literal days. (And it can never be admitted in the Watchtower that Jesus assigned this length to the Gentile Times because that would mean that Jesus contradicted the Watchtower.)

*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. This period of time includes both the 1,260 days (42 months) and the symbolic three and a half days referred to in Revelation chapter 11.

To get it a little closer, we see that the dates were given in the most recent Revelation commentary as:

*** re chap. 25 p. 164 par. 12 Reviving the Two Witnesses ***
The John class had to preach this message for a definitely stated time: 1,260 days, or 42 months, the same length of time that the holy city was to be trampled underfoot. This period seems to be literal, since it is expressed in two different ways, first in months and then in days. Additionally, at the beginning of the Lord’s day, there was a marked period of three and a half years when the hard experiences of God’s people matched the events prophesied here—starting in December 1914 and continuing to June 1918.

• The start of December 1914 through the end of June 1918 is about 1,307 days.
• The end of December 1914 through the start of June 1918 is about 1,248 days.
• The middle of December 1914 through the middle of June 1918 is about 1,278 days.

So that wouldn't be very far off from 1,260 days. Can we get a little more exact to see why these months are being mentioned?

*** dp chap. 17 p. 296 par. 18 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End ***
The prophecy is quite explicit as to when the 1,260 days would end—when there is “a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces.” In the middle of 1918, leading members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, including its president, J. F. Rutherford, were convicted on false charges, sentenced to long terms of confinement, and imprisoned. God’s holy ones did indeed see their work ‘dashed to pieces,’ their power broken.

When was holy "saint" Rutherford convicted, sentenced and imprisoned? Did one of these events happen on a day in June 1918?

*** w99 2/1 p. 17 par. 14 Our Treasure in Earthen Vessels ***
On June 21, 1918, Brother Rutherford and seven other leading Bible Students were jailed. . . . On appeal, they were released on March 26, 1919.

So the probable 1,260 day run ends close to June 21, 1918 meaning that it started close to January 8, 1915. (see http://www.convertunits.com/dates/from/Jan+8,+1915/to/Jun+21,+1918 for a quick check of the calculation.) That means that you can't really reach back all the way to the year 1914 from the time they were imprisoned. In order to reach back into the year 1914 you'd have to go back at least 9 days before the imprisonment. Of course, nothing all that special happened in December 1914 anyway, so it's obvious that they just wanted to try to reach back into that year for the "optics" even if the 1,260 only reached back to the beginning of 1915. In the book "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom" Fred Franz dealt with this problem using the Jewish names for the months, but this didn't really hide the problem for anyone that went to the effort to look at the actual Jewish dates he used. They were often even farther out of range than the current "miscalculation."

Then the publications just apparently give up on trying to assign the next mention of days in the same vision of Revelation 11:

(Revelation 11:11) . . .After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them.

These 3.5 extra days, are assigned to a period that goes from about June 21, 1918 when they were imprisoned to around March 26, 1919 when they were released.

*** re chap. 25 p. 169 par. 24 Reviving the Two Witnesses ***
The corpses of the two witnesses were suddenly alive and active again. It was a bitter pill for those clergymen to swallow, the more so since the Christian ministers whom they had schemed to put in prison were free again [March 1919], later to be fully exonerated.

The 3.5 days are merely compared with the 1,260 days and said to therefore refer to a "shorter period of time." Imagine that! Trying to get within a 9 days of 1,260 days, and then saying that the next 3 and one-half days refer to a period of about 278 days!

The first calculation is within 1% correct. The second calculation is off by about 8,000%

Imagine, if the 2,520 years could be that far off. It's like saying that Jesus could have received his kingship in 1914, or if we were to use the same level of accuracy we use in Revelation 11:11, then perhaps it could be as late as the year 200,000 CE -- nearly 200 millenniums from now!

----------

So then you go on to say that the prophecy should have been fulfilled in 653 AD, and yet we are still here living under a corrupt government.

That entire idea should be rejected wholeheartedly if we take Jesus seriously.

First of all, Jesus said the Gentile Times had not started yet when he gave the prophecy in Luke 21. Remember that he said that:

(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled.

(Rev 11:2,3) . . . and the holy city will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until 42 months (1,260 days) are fulfilled. [paraphrased]

The verb "will be trampled" is in the future tense. Both Jesus and Luke knew how to use verbs and could have easily chosen the correct verb tense if he wanted to express ongoing action that started in the past but was continuing.

(Also, it should be noted that you are still living under a corrupt government today, even though you are 103 years past 1914.)

The solution is not to start the 1,260 days in 607 or anywhere near 607. Another solution is not to change the 1,260 days into years. Despite the fact that the Watchtower calls this a "rule" they break it for every single reference to any modern prophetic fulfillment except the 7 times. They don't even use it for 3.5 times, or even for the 3.5 days, or the 1,290 days, or the 1,335 days. Not much of a "rule" is it?

You also asked:

"And who were the 2 witnesses, and why has God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass."

I'll discuss a possible alternate view of Revelation 11 under another topic heading. As to why God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass, I think we all know.

(2 Peter 3:8, 9) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.

It's the same as asking why the Babylonian Captivity (in our current explanation) lasted about 1,900 years.

You also asked:

"when did the great commission end in order to fulfill God’s promise of a better Kingdom. Mark 16:15"

My Bible no longer includes Mark 16:15, but if you are referring to the same commission in Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus announced that "ALL authority had been given him in heaven and on earth" and he therefore commissioned a disciple-making work, then it has not ended for any of us who take on preaching and teaching as our primary ministry in the congregation. It goes on for the same reason stated in 2 Peter 3.

Your questions are basically pointing out good reasons to realize that you should not start the Gentile Times prior to Jesus announcement that they would begin some time in the future, not in the past.

You said:

Therefore, scripture would be a book of inconsistent stories, and prophecy's, since all that Jesus promised for his father’s sake, would have been complete, and humanity continues in the same path So, those opinions ARE NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND!!!!!

I think we can just as easily see that it's the 1914 doctrine creating a book of inconsistent applications of prophecies, and changing explanations. And since humanity continues in the same path after 1914 as they had before, and since all that Jesus promised for his Father's sake is still not complete, you are arguing for reasons why Jesus could not have started his kingdom in 1914, either.

Then you say:

Knowledge is afforded to those that seek the kingdom of God. Therefore, those that believe their own opinion, is part of this world, and have NO heavenly kingdom interest. Therefore, there is no difficulty expressing God’s word to the nations, by scripture, and those that proclaim in the name of their own opinion, overshadow true knowledge. So, Christians would do better to accept the word of God, and through those that God commissions, rather than allow masked opinions peak their curiosity.

If we are truly seeking the kingdom, we will not fall for just any opinions, but will base what we know on the Bible, and admit what we don't know. If it turns out that we have been preaching 1914 just because it was the tradition and opinion of men, then it won't seem right. Pieces of the puzzle will begin to unravel through study of the Scriptures, respect for the Scriptures, prayer, meditation, discussion with others, and serious inquiry. Christians should accept the word of God through those whom God commissions, the Bible writers themselves. It's a dangerous thing when we start accepting what men say without question. The Bible tells us to test everything, make sure of all things, and to be noble-minded by questioning. Why would anyone decide to shirk such a wonderful and enjoyable responsibility?

(1 John 4:1) 4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .

(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;

(1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) . . .. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

(Acts 17:11) . . .Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .

(Philippians 4:5) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near.

[Evacuated]

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.

 

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King.

Who is trying to prove Jesus was not a king? The Scriptures are abundantly clear that Jesus, a king, can become a king in the same way that Jehovah, a king, can become a king. They are also abundantly clear that Jesus, UNLIKE Jehovah, has not always been a king. (Despite those who might seek to muse on how Jehovah could have been king when alone).Comp.Ps.90:2.

That even a human can become a king whilst being a king is shown in the words of Abner when negotiating with David: "Then Abʹner said to David: “Let me go and gather all Israel together to my lord the king, so that they may make a covenant with you, and you will become king over all that you desire"" 2Sam.3:21.

As long as those who are unaware of or, who choose not to recognise, a king's authority remain, or there are those who are yet to recognise it, there is room for an existing king to "become king".

Hence, Ph.2:10 "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground" which is yet to be fufilled, itself only an echo of Is.45:23: "By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty".

And, once again, 1Cor.15:28: "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone". With regard to this last text, we have no  problem accepting that Jesus was not aready subject to Jehovah when he is spoken of subjecting himself at a future time here do we? So in that act, Jehovah "becomes king" to His Son, Jesus, whilst both He and Jesus are still kings, does He not?
Yes, both Jesus and His Father and Sovereign Lord, Jehovah, will both be kings and become kings on many future occasions, as they have done so in the past. Compare Isaiah 9:7: "To the increase of his rulership...there wil be no end"

Alas, there is no fuel for the fire on the back of this head ! (figuratively of course)
 

[ComfortMyPeople]

6 hours ago, bruceq said:

    If you believe Jesus did not become King in 1914 or unrepentant ones should not be disfellowshipped then start your own religion, I am sure the 30,000 other apostate "Christian" religions who agree with you will welcome you with open arms as some do here as well.

"Promoting" the apostate teachings of Christendom against the teaching on 1914  does not make one a loyal Witness of Jehovah, it IS apostasy !!!

I suppose you’re aware your comments are most derogatory and, in my opinion, unfortunate.

For we, the JW's, one of the most reprehensible sins is to be considered as apostate. The Insight book declares under this term:

• “…a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith.

I don’t view myself as apostate, I’ve not abandoned my faith nor my religion.

You probably are worried, sincerely worried and indignant because some in this forum should ponder these principles:

• ·        Jud 8 “despising authority, and speaking abusively of glorious ones”
• ·        1Cor 1:10 “you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

Quoting the Insight-Jonah reference:

• “Another evidence testifying to the authenticity of this Bible book is its candor. Jonah’s improper attitude toward his commission and concerning God’s action in sparing the Ninevites is not covered over”

This candor is one of the evidences the Bible is the book of God. There is no cover over any sin, mistake or lack of judgment of the anointed ones leading the people.

Where have we learned that Noah got drunk, or David killed Uriah? In false religion’s books of that period?

How did we have knowledge about the fight between Paul and Barnabas, or the lack of judgment of Peter? Through Simon the magician posts?

Why Jehovah didn’t consider it proper to cover these mistakes? You don’t think the Bible is an apostate book because is full with faults of God’s people in all ages, do you?

And these mistakes were presented as such, as errors. Not in the style: “well, we, despite all almost hit the mark.”

The situation is that if we read in the Bible about errors this is proof of their humility. But if we read or talk about our present day mistakes, we’re apostates.

The motivation @JW Insider, me and others share is, precisely avoiding others have the necessity to reach to poisonous places to find some facts we have denied. We have denied because are hidden or “colored”

Regarding the coloration process @JW Insider has provided a lot of PROOFS. I just wish to recall one I’ve written about. Recently we study in our Watchtower study there were errors in last century, for example when the Watchtower gave support to the peace initiative of president Wilson. But, in reality, the petition in our magazine not was a petition to pray for peace, instead, to pray for USA would win the war.

Now, what is it better, to hide this (lack of sincerity / half-truth)? But the information, the real information is spread all around the world. You can easily find the President Wilson exact petition and the word by word article in the 1918 Watchtower.

Regarding the late point. Why have I had to reach “dangerous” sites to get all the Watchtower articles, from 1879? Why my religion didn’t provide a “safe” place to download absolutely all this older literature?

If you read our posts with other glasses you easily see that we’re trying to justify the brothers on charge. But no describing them as “almost-inspired” but as they really are: mere humans.

Now, you mention “unrepentant ones should not be disfellowshipped” but I never have mention this. Expulsion has Bible basis. But the “mechanism” to dealt with has been subject to changes. Do you grant the possibility of new changes? If so, these new changes will try to fix injustices or problems with our position. Meanwhile, what should we do with these injustices? These problems are openly seen by the world and by a lot of loyal brothers.

You also mention that if I don’t believe that Christ begun to rule in 1914 I should leave my religion! Should have I abandon when the 1975 affair?

What backbone, determinant, core teaching is 1914 for you! But not hundreds, nor thousands, but hundreds of thousands of brothers can’t explain which is the Bible basis for this teaching!! Should they leave their religion?

I and other with this posture firmly believe we’re serving with the people Jehovah is using for His purpose. But, remember, @bruceq, sometimes God’s people has needed cleaning. Why not now? Is, perhaps, more relevant the role of the present-day GB than the older times apostles? If Christ had to clean the seven congregations (in spite of the apostles influence) why in these days is impossible a new cleaning, in spite of the GB influence?

[JW Insider]

On 7/1/2017 at 4:06 PM, Gnosis Pithos said:

How then can it be proven that the Watchtower is deceiving people, by making false claims scripturally, without distorting the majority of their belief, and if the prevailing opinion is so negative, then why remain part of that corrupt system, going against what Jesus taught? Bolster and contradictions don't amount to reasoning by scripture, and it makes for bolstering and false claims of their own. Intelliculal dishonesty, therefore, would be the prevailing opinion. And True witnesses should be reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing with such hypotheticals and personal opinions. Since the same can be said when it comes to deception with personal views within the Christian Congregation.

This is a response to your post from Saturday, July 1, as marked above. You were especially focused on the word "deceiving." You ask how it can be proven that the Watchtower is deceiving people. That's pretty easy. Instances have already been pointed out a few times in threads that your I.P. address doppelgangers have participated in. No need to reinvent the wheel here, because we already know how you will spin it. Also, to keep it simple, I'll stick with items that have already been mentioned.

But before repeating that example, I wanted to point out that your words about it being "so negative" and "corrupt" and "distorting the majority of their belief" is not how I see it. These mistakes, if that's what they turn out to be, are exactly the kinds of mistakes we should expect. In fact, they were exactly what Jesus told us to expect. A mistake that is repeated often still does not mean that there an intent to deceive. But nevertheless, it produces a deception. I pointed out a letter from a man who wrote Russell and said that he would have married, and continued with farming business, but that since the explanation of the 40 year harvest, etc., from 1874 convinced him to sell and not get married and put everything he could into the Harvest work. I'm sure you don't think this was so bad, even if it changed his life completely. Yet he was deceived into thinking that these teachings promoted by Russell were correct. And he changed his life over these teachings. When Jesus said, look out that you are not deceived in Matthew 24, he was referring specifically to how easy it would be to start thinking of wars and earthquakes as signs of the end, when Jesus said not to think of them that way. He said just to think of these things as things that must take place, but the end is not yet, these are just the beginning. And if we think about the rest of the instructions in Luke 21, then it becomes obvious that it would have been very easy to be deceived very early in this generation, when the Bible speaks of a couple of earthquakes early in the generation from 33 to 70. Also, remember that the Roman nation even under the recent Pax Romana was still in a constant state of "rumblings" or "rumors of war" at the borders. Every province saw soldiers traveling through to reach the outer edges of France, Spain, Britain, Germany, and other nations. There were skirmishes even in Jerusalem, Palestine, Galilee and Egypt as reported in Acts. If they had reacted too soon to these rumors and begun fleeing to the mountains, they would have brought unnecessary hardship upon themselves, their children, their pregnant relatives. They had to learn not to consider these things to be a sign. Not until Jerusalem was surrounded by armies was it time to move out. This is the primary kind of deceit that Jesus spoke about, although he also mentioned false prophets, and false Christs.

You mention that:

"Bolster and contradictions don't amount to reasoning by scripture, and it makes for bolstering and false claims of their own. Intelliculal dishonesty, therefore, would be the prevailing opinion. And True witnesses should be reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing with such hypotheticals and personal opinions. Since the same can be said when it comes to deception with personal views within the Christian Congregation."

This is absolutely true, and it's why all of us have to be careful even about what we propose hypothetically. I have begun stating it less hypothetically than I did a couple years ago, because I am now convinced in my own mind. (Compare, Romans 14:5) If we are convinced, it is not wrong to speak out in a sure manner:

(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. . . .

But I don't claim that it reaches that level of sureness. Obviously, if anyone has information or evidence that calls this evidence into question, then both alternatives, or other viable alternatives should be compared and considered in the light of Scripture. All I am doing here is explaining why I am convinced that ALL the various aspects of the 1914 doctrine can now be shown to be problematic from a scriptural viewpoint:

That includes, of course:

• The pseudo-archaeology behind the date 1914 (607)
• A clear non-contradictory explanation of the 70 years
• The range of meaning of the word "Parousia" Visitation,Presence,Royal Parade
• The range of meaning of the word "Synteleia" Conclusion/End
• The range of meaning of the word "Telos" Conclusion/End
• The range of meaning of the terms for "Last Days"
• The problem with claiming insivibility of the parousia
• The problem with claiming that signs would give us advance warnings
• The problem of exhausting all common meanings of Generation
• The references to the Kingdom in the first century
• The references to Satan falling from heaven in the first century
• The reference to "sit at my right hand" changed in the Bible to "rule as king"
• The "stand"/"sit"/"stand"/"sit" sequence in explanations
• The references to Christ as King in the first century
• The references to inconsistent and unnecessary types and antitypes in a second fulfillment of the tree dream
• The contradiction about Nebuchadnezzar's restoration as Christ's Kingdom, the Gentile representing the Jews, and vice versa
• The problem with Jesus referencing Luke 21:24 (Gentile Times) and giving them a length of 3.5 times, not 7
• The problem of forcing 7 times to equal 2,520 years, when all references to the 3.5 times (half the length) is said to equal a number closer to 1,260 days
• The dual offices of Melchizedek
• The list can go on and on...

But you are absolutely right that deception is possible in any doctrinal proposal. This is why we must prove to ourselves and make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. We won't always be right, of course, but if there are questions, then we admit the questions. We admit where we are using conjecture, and where we have no doubts.

[Anna]

11 hours ago, bruceq said:

  JTR,  insider and some others on this blog have repeatedly  quoted from apostate books {Ray Franz} and visited and pasted from apostate sites {you can do a search right on this blog for proof}. You wish to associate with apostates since you have read and promote their teachings by QUOTING from them, that IS apostasy and makes one in fact an APOSTATE. {wt 86 3/15}.

 "and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves". Acts 20:30.

"Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.+ ¹⁸  For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites,* and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones".  Rom 16:17,18. Titus 3:10,11.

    You both have stated in the past that you still go to the meetings and thus pretend to be a brother yet you find you can reveal your true self by hiding your identity in a forum. You of course would say that you love the truth, the brothers and even have a clean conscience. The Bible says apostates would do the same. {Read entire book of Jude}.  Why even Satan had concern for Jesus and quoted Scripture to him as well. That did not prove his LOYALTY  to Jehovah or those taking the lead. But true loyal Christians would not read apostate books and teachings and you both have definitely not hidden the fact that you have read and promoted the teachings of Ray Franz in this very thread! .

   Because of listening to the Devil and not rejecting his lies, the first human pair apostatized. So, then, should we listen to apostates, read their literature, or examine their Web sites on the Internet? If we love God and the truth, we will not do so. We should not allow apostates into our homes {via the Internet} or even greet them, for such actions would make us ‘sharers in their wicked works.’ (2 John 9-11) May we never succumb to the Devil’s wiles by abandoning the Christian “path of truth” to follow false teachers who seek to “introduce ruinous ideologies” and try to ‘exploit us with well-turned phrases.’—2 Peter 2:1-3, Byington. {See also W06 1/15} 

Therefore you as well as insider and your followers are not approved to give any kind of interpretation or teaching of any kind at all on any subject because by your actions against Jehovah you have confessed to be promoting apostate teachings  : "They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works,  because they are detestable and disobedient and NOT APPROVED FOR GOOD WORK OF ANY SORT."  Titus 1:16.

  So "anything" they now post is now considered as false teaching by your own confession of promoting apostate ideas of Ray Franz and other apostate websites.

  If you believe Jesus did not become King in 1914 or unrepentant ones should not be disfellowshipped then start your own religion, I am sure the 30,000 other apostate "Christian" religions who agree with you will welcome you with open arms as some do here as well.

"Promoting" the apostate teachings of Christendom against the teaching on 1914  does not make one a loyal Witness of Jehovah, it IS apostasy !!!

Why should we get so upset and cry “Apostate!", over a date?

You are just attacking the person, not presenting a reasonable and valid counter argument. A few others don’t agree with everything JWInsider says on here, however they are able to present a respectful reply, keeping to the topic, without ad hominem attacks and insults. Perhaps we are making a mistake holding onto 1914 as if it was some precious oracle that under no circumstances could ever change. We tend to get frustrated with Trinitarians and criticize them for believing in the trinity because  that word is not even in the Bible, but neither is 1914. In the grand scheme of things Jesus became King and is King, and as such he will bring about what sincere Christians pray for, and what we as Jehovah’s Witnesses preach to all people. There is no doubt that 1914 and the generation teaching keep us on our toes spiritually, whereas on the contrary, Christendom is sleeping. Just yesterday the brother who gave us a local needs part reminded us of how close the end is. The convention is about how close the end is. We’ve been saying how lose the end is since Russel’s days. The common thread is, that ALL would like to see the end come in THEIR life time. Russel hoped it would come in 1914, Rutherford hoped it would come in 1925, Franz and Knorr hoped in 1975, then after that there were no more dates, but the former generation teaching as taught by the old school GB of the 80’s suggested within the end of the 20th Century, and now, with the latest formation of the GB, and the refined teaching of the overlapping generation, within the next 35 years, in which case the two youngest members of the GB could still be alive to see it. I personally do not have a problem with that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anticipating and wishing the end would come in one’s life time. There is nothing unscriptural about it. In fact the opposite, it has scriptural backing as we know. And it WILL come in somebody’s life time. But to staunchly insist on something despite obvious evidence to the contrary is crazy. This is why we have adjusted our understanding on so many things! We do not staunchly insist on something that just doesn’t seem right (although sometimes it takes a while). However, there are some individuals, even on this forum, who insist on believing something even when it makes no scriptural sense and even insist we must be loyal to an idea even if it is bad!

IF the system goes on for another 50 or so years, I very much doubt 1914 will remain. It will be adjusted somehow, it will have to be, because elapsed time will become the dictator for a new understanding  just like time made necessary the creation of the overlapping generation. And who knows, perhaps JWInsider’s scriptural interpretation will be adopted, or some other interpretation. It would not be the first time. On the other hand, if the end comes before that, then obviously there will be no need to even think about 1914. So either way, it doesn’t make much difference in the grand scheme of things. Just think, when we are all (hopefully) sitting at dinner in the new world, and someone mentions 1914, or 1975, or the overlapping generation or any other chronological theory,  we will probably just smile and think “those were the days, when we were still in nappies (diapers), and we just did the best we could”. I don’t think anybody is going to be saying “see, you were wrong”! either way.

As regards the scriptures you quoted about apostates, Acts 20:30, Rom 16:17,18. Titus 3:10,11. Do not apply to anyone on here, really.  I mean JTR, flattering speech? Are you kidding? And I don’t think JWInsider is interested in drawing disciples after himself.

And as for this one:  "They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and NOT APPROVED FOR GOOD WORK OF ANY SORT."  Titus 1:16.Well, that’s a bit judgemental isn’t it? Do you know their works? I mean respectfully discussing alternative scriptural ideas of ambiguous scriptures (not core teachings!) means that those are bad works?  Are you saying that those who discuss these things are automatically detestable and disobedient and unapproved for good work of any sort? I discuss these things quite often with my step dad. He is an elder.

As for Ray Franz’s book, I have heard it is in the Bethel locked library, or used to be (can someone verify this?) In any case, his book has led many away from Jehovah and the organization. Many of them have become atheists. I don’t think Ray has come up with any new teachings, he merely related what he heard and saw when he was privy to what goes on behind closed doors on Wednesdays (and other days).  Of course some of it was intentionally coloured, (after all he was upset that he got the boot)  and a lot of it was his opinion and/or interpretation of what was going on. But he did succeed in demystifying the GB, and unfortunately for some, this spelled the end of their trust in them and the organization and with it Jehovah. Why? No doubt because these people were basing their faith on dates and men.  Nowadays, the GB are "demystifying" themselves for us. Increasingly, WT articles, books and assembly items remind us of their imperfection, remind us that they are also the domestics, and remind us that they need our prayers and that in the end each man and woman will stand for themselves in front of Jehovah....

[JW Insider]

On 7/1/2017 at 5:46 PM, bruceq said:

Jw insider:

   Chronology is ambiguous for a reason, Jehovah did not yell from the heavens that His Witnesses is the true faith. Otherwise everyone would be a Witness but for the wrong reasons, Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart not because of the interpretation of some blogger who gets his info from apostate websites. Notice Rev. 6 shows after Jesus is given the crown that the next rider takes peace away from the earth not just a few nations. To me and others that is GLOBAL war - 1914. Notice no chronology needed, just a sign of a global war.{   Dan. 2:44 - "SET UP a kingdom" even tho he is "King of kings" God's Kingdom is set up sometime after Rome disintegrated with its complete fall in the year 1453 C.E.} First global war after that was 1914! REV. 6:4!!!

    But what you are doing is more than just about 1914 since you and others such as JTR on this blog have repeatedly  quoted from apostate books {Ray Franz} as your ideas and his are identical about 1914. You wish to associate with apostates since you have read and promote their teachings by QUOTING from them, that IS apostasy and makes one in fact an APOSTATE. {wt 86 3/15}.

 "and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves". Acts 20:30.

"Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.+ ¹⁸  For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own appetites,* and by smooth talk and flattering speech they seduce the hearts of unsuspecting ones".  Rom 16:17,18. Titus 3:10,11.

    You have stated in the past that you still go to the meetings and thus pretend to be a brother yet you find you can reveal your true self by hiding your identity in a forum. You of course would say that you love the truth, the brothers and even have a clean conscience. The Bible says apostates would do the same. {Read entire book of Jude}.  Why even Satan had concern for Jesus and quoted Scripture to him as well. That did not prove his LOYALTY  to Jehovah or those taking the lead. But true loyal Christians would not read apostate books and teachings and you have definitely not hidden the fact that you have read and promoted the teachings of Ray Franz in this very thread! .

   Because of listening to the Devil and not rejecting his lies, the first human pair apostatized. So, then, should we listen to apostates, read their literature, or examine their Web sites on the Internet? If we love God and the truth, we will not do so. We should not allow apostates into our homes {via the Internet} or even greet them, for such actions would make us ‘sharers in their wicked works.’ (2 John 9-11) May we never succumb to the Devil’s wiles by abandoning the Christian “path of truth” to follow false teachers who seek to “introduce ruinous ideologies” and try to ‘exploit us with well-turned phrases.’—2 Peter 2:1-3, Byington. {See also W06 1/15}
 

Therefore you as well as JTR and your followers are not approved to give any kind of interpretation or teaching of any kind at all on any subject because by your actions against Jehovah you have confessed to be promoting apostate teachings  : "They publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works,  because they are detestable and disobedient and NOT APPROVED FOR GOOD WORK OF ANY SORT."  Titus 1:16.

  So "anything" you now post is now considered as false teaching by your own confession of promoting apostate ideas of Ray Franz and others.

  If you believe Jesus did not become King in 1914 then start your own religion, I am sure the 30,000 other apostate "Christian" religions who agree with you will welcome you with open arms as some do here as well. {unless you wish to retract the apostate teachings of Christendom}.

{However as of 2017 JW.ORG is now the number one religious website out of 17,000 other religious websites. Praise Jah for the TRUE religion}!!! ISA 2:2-4!

Edited 5 hours ago by bruceq

Every time I went back to begin a more complete response to this, I saw you had changed it. This was posted on Saturday, July 1, but your last edit was "5 hours ago." It's been more than 4 days now, so I hope you are finished editing:

You said:

"Jw insider:  Chronology is ambiguous for a reason, Jehovah did not yell from the heavens that His Witnesses is the true faith. Otherwise everyone would be a Witness but for the wrong reasons, Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart not because of the interpretation of some blogger who gets his info from apostate websites."

Working from the last idea you presented in that paragraph, I got absolutely none of this information from apostate websites. I first learned all the basic ideas here from various brothers at Bethel, all of whom worked in positions of high responsibility in Service/Correspondence, Writing, and even two members of the Governing Body who continued to serve faithfully in their positions until death. The brothers in Writing were not apostates either. Two of them (Aid Book researchers) were dismissed from Bethel but at least one of them remained as an elder and a special pioneer when he went back to his own congregation. As I found time to search the scriptures and see whether these things were so, I realized that I was able to get all of it from the Bible itself, while still at Bethel, long before there were any books on the subject, and before the Internet was even a public thing. Also, just for the record, R.Franz was a very quiet person who kept to himself and I never got to know him at Bethel, except through his talks and morning worship. I was aware toward the middle of 1980 however, that he was said to hold some of the same views as some of these others, but I never got any of it from him. By early 1980, a least a hundred Bethelites were whispering about these things including issues with the 1914 doctrine.

I also notice that you remind us that Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart, not because of the interpretation of some blogger.  I agree with this of course, and it's exactly why I believe it is important enough to bring up in public. No one should worship because of the interpretation of some blogger. I only respond to this particular point because it's the specific reason that ambiguous chronology has no place in our worship.

----

Previously I gave a response to your statement that "Chronology is ambiguous" but it was not a direct answer to your concern.

I think your admission that the chronology is ambiguous is actually quite a statement to ponder. Unfortunately, by saying this you are admitting another kind of "deceit" that I hadn't really brought up yet. When one of your Bible students asks you about how you get the date 1914 from the Bible, do you admit that it's ambiguous? Do you tell the reason you just gave here, why you think it's ambiguous. I agree that it is ambiguous, but if you follow the direction of the Watchtower in such discussions, you are probably not admitting to your Bible students that chronology is ambiguous.

In fact, it is well known that the date the Watchtower gives for the destruction of Jerusalem is questioned by 100% of all persons that the Watchtower quotes as experts on the subject. We accept the date 607 with absolutely no evidence for it. None! In fact we get this date by counting backwards from 539, yet all the persons who the Watchtower quotes as experts so that we "know" about the date 539 are the same experts who ALL question 607 as the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, we all have used the ideas that you can count backwards from 539, but 539 is part of the evidence that shows 607 is not possible. If 539 is a real, then 607 is wrong.

That doesn't mean that we need to rely on secular chronology. We could always just say that we have our own chronology that we believe is Bible-based. But if that were true, then how could we ever speak about 539? 539 is a secular date, based on the very same evidence that shows 607 is not the date for Jerusalem's destruction. That's a kind of deceit.

But putting that aside a minute, notice too that we can find over ONE THOUSAND references that don't ever admit that 607 is ambiguous.

*** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
The ‘trampling’ on that kingdom of the dynasty of Davidic rulers did not begin with the Roman devastation of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate. (2Ki 25:1-26; see CHRONOLOGY.)

*** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
This also confirms the start of “the appointed times of the nations” in the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, 607 B.C.E.

*** si p. 69 par. 1 Bible Book Number 12—2 Kings ***
Nebuchadnezzar at last executed Jehovah’s judgment by devastating Jerusalem, its temple, and the land of Judah in 607 B.C.E.

This could go on for at least 1,500 references just from the latest Watchtower Library CD/DVD. There is no hesitation, and no qualification, and never an admission that this date is used with NO evidence for it. And not just with NO evidence, but AGAINST the evidence of all those the Watchtower considers experts about that time period. The vast majority of books and magazine bound volumes ever produced all mention the date, and never mention that it is problematic and ambiguous.

And then there is the history of how we have presented other dates. Naturally as predictions first get proposed they might seem a bit tenuous, and then as we get closer and closer to the expected fulfillment, and we start losing confidence we can find statements that say that we never claimed these dates to be absolute. But look at the in-between time, when confidence was high:

The Time is At Hand, p.239:

Our Lord's presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and one-half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878 when kingly judgment should begin at the house of God. . . . The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of Kings. . . .

p.77:

In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. . . . will obtain full universal control, and that it will then be "set up" or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.

Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226:

We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble"

Watch Tower, July 15, 1924, p.211:

"The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year . . . "

I'm sure you are aware that this type of information could also continue ad nauseum. But note that there were times for almost every one of the dates proposed, when there was no question about these dates. Never is the general argument made that chronology is ambiguous.

That's enough for the first part of my response to this particular post.

[BroRando]

On 8/2/2017 at 6:23 PM, Bible Speaks said:

Ok been away (not fishing!) So what is 2034? 

Thank you,

Bible Speaks 

The year 2034 is not new. Matter of fact, this year was discussed on the public page for all to see early in the year 1914. In the first part of 1914, the Bible Students known as International Bible Students Association discussed the “time of trouble” on the printed page called The Bible Students Monthly. Early in 1914, an issue of The Bible Students Monthly was issued with the large bold heading “END OF WORLD IN 1914? Some have quoted the large headline of this tract as proof that Russell was expecting the “end of the world” in 1914. However, such neglect the subheading under the larger headline, which states: “NOT THE VIEW OF PASTOR RUSSELL NOR OF I.B.S.A.” International Bible Students Association: "Nevertheless, when viewed from God’s standpoint, we are still “shortly after” 1914. Although Russell himself did not think the time of trouble would be this long, he did allow that it could be. It is possible that the time allotted for this period is 120 years (1914+120=2034), but that these days will be “cut short” some time before they are allowed to reach their end. We do not put this forth as a “prophecy”, nor would we feel anything was wrong if 2034 came and went and nothing had happened as far the full binding of Satan and the destruction of his empire is concerned. All things are in God’s hands." 

The prophecy at Daniel points to the time period of 1914 is explained in our literature.  Applying the period Jehovah gave to 'ungodly mankind' was 120 years to turn around. (Genesis 6:3).  But this is a prophecy that is coming to light today, it's not well known, even amongst the brothers and sisters. It's the "Days of Christ".   In Brother Rando’s research of the Bible, he found scripture does interpret other scripture. The answer to how long a day was, according to God’s Will was found in (Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8). This is vital to gaining understanding in how we are to measure time in God’s view. Spiritually and not fleshy or physical. A day in heavens time is a thousands years to us. It’s by this method we can measure time and where we are in the stream of time of the end. In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19) Was Jesus indicating that he was the Temple of God, God’s Kingdom? And that the temple would in fact be destroyed or broken down? According to God’s Word, the following scripture is the basis for Salvation. “For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) In order for John 2:19 and Romans 10:9 to come in line, did Jesus utter a prophecy about God's Kingdom since he stated, “I will raise it up”? IF the basis for salvation is that Jesus is Lordand that God raised him up. We can conclude that Jesus did not raise himself up, but it was God that raised him, since Jesus was dead and conscious of nothing at all. (Ecc 9:5)  Jesus prophesied that HE would raise God's Kingdom. Jesus was speaking prophetically of raising the temple of God within the third day of a thousand years. Jesus warned Peter not to think the thoughts of man. (Matthew 16:23) Based on 2 Peter 3:8 if we apply that a physical day is a thousand years, then we are able to determine the time frame to when God’s Kingdom would be raised up by Jesus Christ. Jesus was put to death on Nisan 14, 33CE. The two days would actually represent two thousand years and we come up with the year 2033. Jesus stated,“in three days I will raise it up.” So the third day is upon us in 2034. 

[Arauna]

I recall that 1914 was the first major war fought with airplane bombing, flame throwers, chemical and gas weapons, many submarines (improved on the tiny ones used in the civil war in USA)... it was also after the development of the telegraph - used extensively;  tank warfare and individual soldiers were issued with machine guns.... battle of the Somme rates on most lists of worst battles ever fought.

Second world war is an improvement on this with aircraft carriers; radar; radio used extensively during war; and atomic bomb; 

What do we have now: improvement on previous weapons: satellites, drones, intercontinental ballistic missiles; nuclear submarines; supersonic jets; electro magnetic pulse; more varieties of nuclear weapons; information warfare, 

Most weapons are all improvements on the communications or weapons used in the 1914 WW1....

The proof is still on the ground.  

[JW Insider]

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I recall that 1914 was the first major war fought with airplane bombing, flame throwers, chemical and gas weapons, many submarines (improved on the tiny ones used in the civil war in USA)... it was also after the development of the telegraph - used extensively;  tank warfare and individual soldiers were issued with machine guns.... battle of the Somme rates on most lists of worst battles ever fought.

Second world war is an improvement on this with aircraft carriers; radar; radio used extensively during war; and atomic bomb; 

What do we have now: improvement on previous weapons: satellites, drones, intercontinental ballistic missiles; nuclear submarines; supersonic jets; electro magnetic pulse; more varieties of nuclear weapons; information warfare, 

Most weapons are all improvements on the communications or weapons used in the 1914 WW1....

This type of thinking is very appealing. I have used the same ideas in my own discussions at the door and with Bible studies for several  years. So I understand the temptation to apply everything to 1914 whether it was developed in 1844, 1914, or 1944. The strong temptation to see a great world war as a "sign" is probably the very reason that Jesus repeated the point so many times -- that those who look for a sign should not be misled by wars or rumors of wars. 

A great earthquake would also sound like a sign of the end, or perhaps a perceived increase in earthquakes. The same could go for an increase in great pestilences, or great famines and food shortages. These things cause a lot of fear and concern, and often devastating loss of life. So it was natural that the disciples would have looked to such things as "the SIGN."

The Watch Tower Society, for many years, stated that that such things (wars, earthquakes, etc) were NOT signs of the "presence" or "parousia." From the 1890's up until about 1931, the Watch Tower Society promoted books that made this point. These books evidently sold in the millions of copies. The WTS reported that 100,000 "Studies in the Scriptures" sold in 1931 alone. (This was no longer the teaching in 1931, of course, but it had been the teaching for decades, and the WTS still had a lot of these books left to sell, after most of the doctrines changed between 1927 and 1929.)

Russell thought Jesus was saying that we should not be misled about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, etc., because this was not the sign. These were just the things that would continue to happen throughout history.  A Bible paraphrase, called the Message, evidently understands it similarly by rendering Matthew 23:4-8 like this:

Jesus said, "Watch out for doomsday deceivers. Many leaders are going to show up with forged identities, claiming, 'I am Christ, the Messiah.' They will deceive a lot of people. When reports come in of wars and rumored wars, keep your head and don't panic. This is routine history; this is no sign of the end. Nation will fight nation and ruler fight ruler, over and over. Famines and earthquakes will occur in various places. This is nothing compared to what is coming.

Russell also said that these so-called signs, just referred to the routine history of mankind for the last 18 centuries. Not even the changes brought about by World War I made Russell think to change this idea.

[Arauna]

Whether these weapons were developed earlier - the tank was never used on the scale it was used in the war from 1914 onwards and now is a standard feature of war - or variations on it.  Airplanes were also in the development stage earlier - but they were not used on a scale ever before specifically for war until 1914.  Zeppelins were used much more before this.  So the composite use of so many different technologies makes it the first time that it was not man against man (or man on horse against man) even though horses were still used..... so this became warfare with mass machine killing.