Why

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its hard to say without checking the details...

So, with checking the details, in what year did the JW organisation start teaching that the end of the world is nigh?

...our understanding of these things has changed over the years, so what was professed in 1870 is not the same as what is professed to this day as we are constantly revising our teaching.

But you've got it right this time, right?

Originally posted by FMF
So, with checking the details, in what year did the JW organisation start teaching that the end of the world is nigh?

[b]...our understanding of these things has changed over the years, so what was professed in 1870 is not the same as what is professed to this day as we are constantly revising our teaching.

But you've got it right this time, right?[/b]

We think so yes, but as beetle stated in the 'is science wrong' thread, one cannot be
dogmatic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont claim any, i merely am at liberty to utilise the data at hand, not to uselessly speculate.

Is the scope and completeness of the data from the 9thC valid in a way that makes it scientifically legitimate to compare it to the data from the 20thC, when we bear in mind the scope and completeness of 20thC data?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i know that but we are referencing a composite sign, not events in isolation. In
order for that periods to have been the beginning of 'pangs of distress', it would need
to have been accompanied by global wars as well.

Where does the Bible mention the phrase 'global wars'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We think so yes, but as beetle stated in the 'is science wrong' thread, one cannot be
dogmatic.

You contend that your prediction is not "dogmatic"?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Where does the Bible mention the phrase 'global wars'?

it is our understanding that the term, nation will rise against nation and kingdom
against kingdom is with reference to a global war.

Originally posted by FMF
You contend that your prediction is not "dogmatic"?

I think our position of constantly revising our teaching is one of the most refreshing in
all Christianity. Its not my prediction FMF, its a Biblical prophecy, i merely sought to
substantiate it with empirical data, i cannot see how this can be construed as
dogmatism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is our understanding that the term, nation will rise against nation and kingdom
against kingdom is with reference to a global war.

So it doesn't actually use the term 'global war'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So it doesn't actually use the term 'global war'?

not explicitly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not explicitly.

It's either a yes or a no.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's either a yes or a no.

no not explicitly, its inferred.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no not explicitly, its inferred.

I think you see what you want to see. It's quite evident you've interpreted that piece of scripture to suit your doctriine, or to be more precise, someone at the Governing Body did. You blindly parrot and follow.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I think you see what you want to see.

'nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', how else are we to
understand this statement PK in any other terms other than a global conflict?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom', how else are we to
understand this statement PK in any other terms other than a global conflict?

Could it not apply to a regional war involving a few countries?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Could it not apply to a regional war involving a few countries?

meh I dont think so, when have nations risen against nations, first world war me thinks
is a likely candidate, ok prior to this you had some manoeuvrings like the triple entente
etc , but nothing like whole nations against nations.