Talk:Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions

New article
I'm not entirely convinced at this stage that this article is necessary. If it is necessary, the lead needs to (briefly) explain what the Watch Tower Society is. It is odd that Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible Student movement aren't mentioned (or linked) in the lead. Is this intentional??-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that the predictions are not exclusive to either the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible Student movement. Though the identity of the religion changed, the publishing agent remained consistent, so this is the focus of the article. I've added links to the JWs and Bible Student Movement under the first subheading . The number of separate sources on the issue clearly establish the notability of the subject, so your opening sentence is quite puzzling. BlackCab (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't question the notability per se, but the matter is fairly well covered in other articles. And the lead requires more detail to let the uninformed reader know just what this 'Watch Tower Society' is.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no other article dealing specifically with failed WTS predictions. It's covered from a critical point of view in Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses and elsewhere; this article addresses the specific predictions as discussed by academics in the overall context of the religion's history of predictive failure, its method of dealing with it and the response of members. BlackCab (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this information is more than satisfactorily covered in the criticism article. There is no need to be redundant here, this article should be submitted for deletion. Willietell (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for comment from some impartial editors.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely adds to the information about failed predictions and critical response. If anything Failed predictions section in the Criticism article should be shorten and more information moved here. Jonpatterns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This article should remain distinct. It is a mistake to regard this simply as a subset of "criticism". Naturally, failed predictions cannot be a favorite subject of the Watchtower, but the topic of this article is HISTORICAL. We are not trying to make the Witnesses look as stupid as possible. Plainly Watchtower writers have become far more cautions/responsible than they once were; I contributed a section about the more fuzzy prediction that Armageddon would at least be due within the 20th century. This notion was dropped a full DECADE before 2000, with a peculiar case of in-house post-publication rewriting/self-censorship! So one could say that the Watchtower has matured, made wiser by past disappointments, just as well as "criticizing" them for the mistakes of yesteryear. Here, we should simply chart historical facts that are (frankly, not unnaturally) underreported in recent Watchtower literature. This is of great interest for their doctrinal development, quite irrespective of how "critics" may use the information. For instance, their fairly central doctrine that the "Second Coming" is actually an invisible "presence" originates from one past (semi-)disappointment, when nothing visible happened on a precalculated date. Fauskanger (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfulfilled prediction of "this generation" of 1914
This is a good article, and there's another point I'd like to add. Based on the JW's beliefs of the great tribulation, this is when all religion will be under attack & destroyed. In Matthew 24:34 it states "Truly I say to YOU that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur". Until recently, this statement was applied to those of the anointed ones *born* in 1914. John Barr was the last one of the anointed born in 1914, and he passed away in 2010 (?). Before passing away, however, he stated that "this generation" also refers to those who were anointed at around the same time as those anointed in 1914, and that generations overlap. Furthermore, Jesus apparently was talking about those *anointed* in 1914, not born, and those anointed in 1914 would surely have passed away much earlier than Barr did. It is now clear that since generations overlap, the date of 1914 is ceasing to have as great of an importance as it once was, since generations can overlap for infinity.Azubarev2 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Azubarev2
 * We can't add that without reliable sources. Otherwise it's original research.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing an idea out there for those that have time and energy to look up the sources. Maybe I haven't expressed myself well enough, but the basic idea is that the JW's had to change their literal idea of Mat. 24:34 to a more liberal one. The brutal fact is that before they didn't think that the literal generation of the anointed ones born in 1914 would die out before armageddon, but they did. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/generation.php  Azubarev2 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Azubarev2
 * The JWFacts website has interesting information, but as it is a personal website, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. Unless you can express some sources we can use, we can't add your ideas to the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've checked this ref. up and it says two generations overlapping, not infinite generations. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

1873
The article is incomplete without covering Russell's belief that the second coming of Jesus will occur in 1873. JW's still believe that 1873 was an important milestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.198.207 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Russell's earliest predictions are covered in two Wikipedia articles, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and History of Jehovah's Witnesses. In the late 1860s Jonas Wendell, who was a major influence on Russell, was predicting Christ's return in 1873. But Russell's first book, Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World, which was published in 1877, proposed that Christ had already left heaven in 1874 to return to earth. It was therefore not a prediction. BlackCab (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Awake! magazine's prediction
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to mention the fact that for years Awake! had the following statement in every issue "“Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away". The last issue that had this was the Oct 22, 1995 issue. I bring this up because we all know that 1914 was used for decades as being the key year, but this specific prediction, which I think it is safe to call a prediction because they are presenting it as a statement of fact, is rather blatant, even if they have moved away from 1914 from a practical standpoint, if not an official one. If you look at Dr. Zoe Knox's article "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" in Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011, she mentions this. Vyselink (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. However, it would be helpful if you could provide the relevant quote or a link to Knox's article here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote. I'll have to get a stable URL because I got it from my universities jstor account, so I'll do that soon.
 * "The start of World War I was confirmation of the prophecy. Instead of marking the commencement of the final battle of Armageddon, however, it was those of the generation of 1914 (i.e. people alive at that time) who would see the battle, not the year 1914. The Society has since further amended the stance that the generation of 1914 would witness the second presence, most recently in the mid-1990s. Every edition of Awake! includes a brief statement under the heading “Why Awake! is Published.” Until 22 October 1995, this statement ended with: “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.” After this issue, the closing sentence was changed to read: “Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things.” The reference to the generation of 1914 witnessing the second presence — a frequent theme in the Society’s literature before 1995 — was removed as this generation was dying out."
 * Vyselink (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Armageddon to come within 20th century
Is anyone following this page? If so, does anyone have access to Chryssides, George D. (2010). "How Prophecy Succeeds: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Prophetic Expectations". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 1 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1558/ijsnr.v1i1.27. ISSN 2041-952X ? This looks--by its date--to be the only secondary source that might address the wiki section Armageddon to come within 20th century. With Chryssides input, perhaps the discouraging editing tag on this section could be removed.Bookman1968 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Overlapping generation
No specific date on this one, so when are we going to consider it unfulfilled? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The teaching in question does not stipulate any specific year, but does allow for a year well beyond the current year.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Jeffro is correct, the JW's don't specify a year, so it's in the future. My own research for my PhD suggests an end year of around 2071, but that is OR and requires a bit of "what-if"ism's regarding how long people live etc. Anyway, bottom line, as the end date was not set and is definitely in the future, it can't be said to be "unfulfilled" as of yet. Vyselink (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)