Generation change in study article

LadyCCC

I just finished reading the "journal" and it mentioned that they have said in the past that the generation meant the unbelieving jews, and then in modern day times generation meant world of unbelievers, now am I wrong to assume that what is mentioned in paragraph 15 of the last study article in the feb. 15th watchtower is that the annointed are the "generation"? Is this now new light? Are we to assume that this is still the truth despite the changes, I mean what if they are and our faith is being tested? (playing with my lip, blub, blub, blub) what do I believe now

LadyCCC

I suppose my post has been exhausted by others...I notice that this topic has been discussed but not thoroughly......would love some feedback on this

moggy lover

The GB changes its "generation" of Matt 24:36 teaching as often as they change their underpants.

This latest change actually goes back to the time of second President JF Rutherford, who had reinvented the meaning of "generation" to refer, not to a people living in a specific arc of time, to make it refer to a "race" or aggregation of people in common cause, in his case, the "anointed"

I am sure someone on this forum will get you the citation for this.

In the mid 60s the fourth President, Freddy [the wunderkind] Franz again reverted to WT type by making the "generation" of Matt 24:36 refer to a specific time period, and people living in that arc of time. This facilitated the proclamation of the 1975 doctrine, and which became incumbent on Watchtower followers to believe without dissent. The expression "the generation of 1914" was the committed dogma of the time.

When this teaching was becoming absurd, and untenable, another change was announced in 1995. Now this "generation" did not refer to a specific people living in a precise arc of time, but it referred to anyone born since 1914, who saw any of the signs of the end. So a person born in 1914, who saw some of this "sign" was considered to be part of the same "generation" as someone born in 2007 who will also see some part of this "sign" This saw the discreet dropping of the "generation of 1914" expression. Since 1995, the anonymous writers and editors of the Watchtower literature, have never placed the terms "generation of" and "1914" in congruity.

Probably because this "explanation" strained credulity, and refused clarity, the GB has naturally been skirting around for a more plausible rationalization.

Not very deep thinkers, and with limited intellectual ability, they have had to resort to a previous "light" that had previously been regarded as "darkness". They have resurrected the hoary old Rutherford humbug.

Stay tuned for further "flashes of darkness" as the ingenuity of the GB is stretched to its limit.

Cheers

Xavier1

Hello LadyCCC

You can check on various differents post on this forum since november 2007

Xavier

LadyCCC

Thanks. I showed it to my husband and he just goes along with the change, he even says that it makes more sense. He dont have doubts like me

nomoreguilt

Ladyccc, if he just goes along with the change, then he'd probably drink the kool-aid too. Why buck the system, the gb says it's so, then it must be so. The sky is falling? NP. get an umbrella. The wts is like Chicken Little. Also like crying WOLF all of the time. Do you think they could get away with yelling FIRE!!!! in a movie theatre??

NMG

alanv

Hi LadyCCC

You're right this topic has been dealt with many times but as you have realized it is continually evolving. Just to enlarge on Moggy's point In the sixties when I was heavily involved with the borg, the generation that were to see all events started began with people aged 15. When that date was looking dodgy they changed it to anybody who was 10 years old that saw 1914 would not all die off. When that did not work they changed it to anybody 5 years old. Of course that proved wrong as well and then the next change came in the mid nineties as has been mentioned.

The society will always indicate that what they are saying is an absolute fact, and yet they now appear to have gone back to what Rutherford said 80 years ago. These changes and flip flops shows everyone that they simply cannot be trusted with explaining scripture.

BluesBrother

alt

Any body else remember this drawing from the old "Truth Book" (or Untruth ?) That book was the 'little blue bombshell' that was to revolutionise the ministry and speed up the Studies so they could all come in before 1975.

They say a picture speaks a thousand words and it always stuck in my mind . What price now all that stuff?

I cannot see how this current thought can make sense unless they re write the English Dictionary. A generation is a body of people living at the same time. So how can they say that the "generation" started at Pentecost 33ce and lasts until after Armageddon..No way!

moomanchu

I remember that pic BB. I sometimes use it as a background on e-mails to jaydubeeyas.

Abandoned

Is this now new light? Are we to assume that this is still the truth despite the changes, I mean what if they are and our faith is being tested?

Do you really feel that a loving God would STILL need to test your faith? Why would he be so insecure about you if he already knows you intimately and can read your heart and intentions?

Generation change in study article

Share this