The Nov 1995 Watchtower, detailing the latest interpretation of Matt 24:34 to come out of the WTS thought control headquaters in Bethel, NY must surely be one of the seminal issues they have published in all the years of their otherwise sordid history.
Like most charlatans, they applied theological legerdemain and intellectual sleight-of-hand to craft a scenario that diverted attention from their own previous failings and created a position that now seems unassailable.Conjuring, rather than revealing the meaning behind what may have been a solid biblical revelation, they ended up with tickling the ears of their R&F.
The 1995 interpretation of Matt 24:34 is the latest culmination of a process that has undergone several mutations over the years of WTS existence. We will have the grace not to mention the utterly absurd prophetic utterances of Russell and Rutherford, utterances which were evidently made with divine sanction, because these have long since been embarrasingly discarded by their less than loyal sucessors. But suffice it to say that in recent years these changes have been well documented by observers of the WTS. Ray Franz, in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" pgs 477-480] details these:
1 Oct 8, 68 Awake: [pgs 13, 14] The comment was made that Jesus was "obviously" referring to those at least 15 years and over.
2 Oct 1, 78 WT: [pg 31] What was "obvious" in 68, evidently became less than "obvious" ten years later.It now appeared, again under the sanction of a mutable god, that those "Old enough to observe" those things were being the ones being referred to. At the same time, they emphatically ruled out those born on that date of 1914, because this was thought to be a logical conclusion.
3 Oct 15, 80 WT: [pg 31] Two years later, evidently under pressure to reveal what "Old enough to observe" meant, they suggested an age of at least 10 years.
4 May 15 84 WT [pgs 4-7] Six years later from the statement made in 78, what appeared "logical" then mysteriously transmuted into "illogical" and those who were in fact born in 1914 became acceptable.
Now, with nimble ambiguity, and misplaced rhetoric, they have settled on an "explanation" that satisfies neither scriptural nor personal concerns. Arrogantly insensitive to those who have tirelessly given their devotion to the WT leadership, and who now have suffered disappointment, this latest clarification of a troublesome issue has put to rest any further need for discussion.
I feel that it is necessary to know that the evolution of WTS theology comes not as result of concern for biblical fidelity, but rather for gaining the best practical benefit to the WT leadership. WT theology coexists comfortably with their financial greed, and adjustments such as this satisfies this gratification, not biblical revelation. That such tactics violate even the most basic grounds of disciplined Bible exposition, is something that is of no concern to the WTS leadership. What is important is that they must be seen to be operating under divine fiat.
How long the WTS can continue with this charade depends on their ability to obfuscate this matter sucessfully. The usual method employed is to create other certainties that can absorb the attention of the R&F. The displacement of the latest tract seems to be one such means.
Cheers
Cheers