User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2019

Current 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Hi!

I don't think that the 2008-10 doctrine referred to 1914, otherwise it would have been the same as the 1950-2008 doctrine. Care to explain, please? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A common inference with the 2008 change, though not directly stated, was that 'the end must be really really soon' because 'at least some of the anointed who were alive in 1914' would still be alive when 'the end' comes. The 2008 change did not convey an open ended period comprising 'anointed' far into the future (The Watchtower, 15 February 2008, pages 16–17: "Nine decades have passed since Jesus was installed as King in heaven in 1914. ... It also alerts us to the fact that soon he will come to destroy his enemies “at an hour that [we] do not think likely.” ... Our understanding of the meaning of Christ’s presence helps to intensify our feelings of urgency. We know that Jesus is already present and has been reigning invisibly as King in heaven since 1914. Soon he will come to destroy the wicked and bring about vast changes to this entire globe.")

I have altered the wording to reduce ambiguity and unnecessary elaboration by simply stating the new view more directly.

Whereas the 2008 change mentions 1914 several times and attaches urgency to the amount of time that has elapsed since that year, the 2010 article only mentions 1914 once without any reference to how much time has elapsed since, instead saying only that the extended period "must surely have an end". Hence, the 2010 change greatly increased the 'possible' length of the 'remaining time' by several decades. That said, to restore some of the 'urgency' that was lost as a result of the 2010 change, there was some back-pedalling in the 15 January 2014 issue of The Watchtower (page 31), adding that the 'second group' wouldn't just be alive while the first group were still alive, but that they had to be 'anointed' (an unverifiable claim) during that period.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your answer. I mostly agree with your current wording in the article because it encompasses both your position and mine, but have in mind that yours was, as you said, not directly stated, so it could be OR. I would still like to write "to refer only" to the two groups (anointed in 1914 and their overlappers) so as to make clear that it excludes anointed in the year 2200. Greetings. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

For the reasons stated, only can incorrectly suggest that the 2010 change restricted the interpretation to a shorter period, which would be misleading. The absence of the word only with the current wording doesn't suggest, to me at least, that it might also include later 'anointed', because it explicitly states that the second group overlaps the first. I deliberately refrained from adding OR to the article itself, and instead modified the wording to encompass what is stated in the sources while also giving consideration to how the doctrine was actually received.

However, if you think further discussion is necessary, it might be best to start a section at the article's Talk page to see what other editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. As stated, your stated reasons are only inferences. The 2008-10 doctrine, although trying to inspire urgency, does live an open end (there could be anointed in the year 2200). The absence of the word "only" in our wording logically lives the door open to the generation including other groups. Would you like to move this conversation to the Talk page? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The current wording says, regarding the 2010 change, that the 'generation' refers to ""the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914" and other "anointed" members whose lives "overlap" with the first group." Irrespective of whether the 2008 may or may not be considered open-ended, the current wording about the 2010 change does not suggest either a later hypothetical third group or an extension to the duration of the second group, which explicitly overlaps the first group. (As the years go by, a subsequent change to this doctrine will go from possible to likely to essential, but that's out of scope here.)

You are welcome to start a section at the article's Talk page if you would like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed: it does not suggest it, but the current wording (not the current doctrine) lives the door logically open. If you say: "By canids, I refer to dogs and foxes", that does not mean only dogs and foxes, as it also includes wolves, see? Putting "only" there is needed for logical clausure. I won't start a discussion over this. Can we agree on "exclusively" instead of "only"? Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is unnecessary. And your example is flawed. Your example refers to a set that is already predefined to include broader classes, whereas the Watch Tower Society has its own definition that does not refer to a subset of some independently defined set (other than the typical sense of 'generation', which is a significantly shorter period). It is not general practice in an encyclopedic tone to qualify every definition with "only" when providing a definition; hence "by canids, I refer to..." is quite different to "canid refers to..." (though include would generally be used with a term like canid rather than attempting to provide an exhaustive list). The inclusion of "only" would be just redundant but otherwise harmless if it were not for the fact that its inclusion can imply that the later definition restricted rather than extended the previous suggested duration. Its inclusion would therefore be potentially misleading and otherwise unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I see your point: it's based on "general practice". It's a good one. I base mine in logic. And I do think that the later definition restricted the previously suggested duration. Your arguments on the contrary were based on your own inferences. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's understandable that you believe your own 'logic' to be superior, but that's unimportant here. If you disagree with the current wording or my reasons for it, feel free to start a section at the article's Talk page as previously advised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

AfD - Names and Titles of God in the New Testament

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [1]. PiCo (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: ^^^ do not accuse editors of having or pushing a point of view; doing so is casting aspersions. ——SerialNumber54129 09:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)