WT last week 'This Generation"

by bobld 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • bobld
    bobld

    I have a question for Leolaia.You did an excellent review of last weeks WT study article I appreciated it Q13/14. In the paragragh ""As a class,these anointed ones make up the modern-day "generation" of comtemporaries that will not pass away "until all these things occur" "" see footnote.

    My question...if the anointed.ie 144,000 make up a generation of comtemporaries. Would they not be part of a generation say in the 1st century,the 5th century,10th century.15th century 18th century,19th century(1914) providing the proper food at the proper time.If that is so than how can the GB say this generation(anointed ones)will not pass away and that we are living "in the conclusion of the system of things"? True they will say look at the signs in Matt.,Luke, world events etc since 1914.Explain,"This suggests that some who are Christ's anointed brothers will still be alive on earth when the foretold great tribulation begins." All over 100 years old,so they should be walking off the stage by now (gehenna).

    THE END

    Bob

  • Aleman
    Aleman

    Actually, there are still some of the 144,000 still alive so the generation is still alive with them.

    -Aleman

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Not to mention that this nullifies all the supposed significance of the year 1914. If the "generation" started in 33 AD, and Jesus said "this generation will not pass away until bla bla bla", then what the heck is the deal with 1914 anymore? That year is so tied to the "generation" that when the generation isn`t a literal generation anymore (or at least a "generation" starting that year!), that year doesn`t mean a thing.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    The old pre-1995 teaching had a definite start-date for the generation, i.e. 1914 (or those at a certain age in 1914). It was the end-date that was indefinite but bound by the usual limits of a generation. Then in 1995, the generation was redefined as "the peoples of earth who see the sign of Christ’s presence but fail to mend their ways". The "sign of Christ's presence" was still believed to have started in 1914, but the new interpretation allowed the generation to continue indefinitely, as the whole period between 1914 and Armageddon was held to manifest the evidence of the "sign of Christ's presence". The Society denied that "Armageddon is further away than we had thought", but in fact that is how things ended up by the course of events, as the older teaching once construed the end coming no later than the 1970s, or no later than the end of the 20th century. The new interpretation only defined the generation as those alive during Christ's presence and at Armageddon. Although the endpoint was unknown, the generation was defined more by its endpoint than its startpoint (other than the fact that the generation dates after 1914, which is true for almost everyone alive today).

    Then in 2008 the Society redefined the generation again, claiming that it is composed of those "anointed ones [who] make up the modern-day 'generation' of contemporaries that will not pass away 'until all these things occur' ". The inclusion of the word "modern-day" would seem to prevent one from regarding the "generation" in a non-literal sense as all the anointed throughout history. These are all contemporaries "living at a particular time", like any other generation. The Society probably still maintains that the generation is set within the period of Christ's presence after 1914, but there is no startdate at all -- as indicated by the fact that the article makes a special point that the generation of Joseph included those born before him and those born after him. This vagueness would allow the understanding of the generation to keep up with the times as 1914 recedes further and further into the past. The generation seems to defined rather by the endpoint, such that the promise about "this generation" not passing away "suggests that some who are Christ's anointed brothers will still be alive on earth when the foretold great tribulation begins". Although the Society claims that the generation of anointed contemporaries is presently in existence on the earth (on account of Armageddon being sooooo close), they could technically claim the same 100 years from now with respect to the "anointed" still alive in that day. Rather, it is when the great tribulation begins (and then subsequently Armgeddon) that the generation would clearly be defined as the one that witnesses both the "sign of Christ's presence" that has been in effect since 1914 and the final events of this system of things.

    My 2 cents, as usual. :)

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    So basically, the 1914-date is based solely on "the signs of Christs presence" (war, earthquakes, famine etc.). Nothing else! And that`s just not enough, because people live longer and are more healthy than ever before. Earthquakes are no more frequent now than they were in the past (although it takes a bit of knowledge to explain why this is, to a jw), and there hasn`t been a war like the world war in 60 years. The only places with famines, are in Africa, and that`s not anything new, it was like that in the 19th century too, we just didn`t hear about it back then. You can show a JW that there has been other periods in mans existence that were much, much worse than the period 1914-2008 (like the entire 14th century, in which 2/3 of the European population died from the plague and all the disasters that followed). And if we get a relatively peaceful period soon...I don`t know how they are supposed to keep up the "urgency". The "signs" just isn`t enough. I can`t believe that the jws can`t see this.

  • cyberguy
    cyberguy

    I believe this generation change was done to cover the difficulty they were getting into with the 1935 cut-off date, whereby anyone added after that date would be replacements for unfaithful “anointed.” This change, therefore, allows additional new ones to the 14400 roster, since the complete number of “anointed” is added progressively until the great tribulation. Otherwise, they would have to admit that tens of thousands of “anointed” were unfaithful from 1935 onward to justify all the new memorial partakers each year. Finally, by attaching the generation to the “anointed” as a class, they justify the authority of the “anointed” (as represented by the mystical “slave class” and GB), because all the new GB members were born after 1935!

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Finally, by attaching the generation to the “anointed” as a class, they justify the authority of the “anointed” (as represented by the mystical “slave class” and GB), because all the new GB members were born after 1935!

    A ha!! That makes a lot of sense.

    There will still be a problem with 1935 when the time comes for those identified by Rutherford as members of the "great crowd" pass away. That year is still held as significant as when the "great crowd" was identified, when in fact the facts of history would eventually reveal that none of them were part of the "great crowd" after all. I wonder how they will get out of that one.

  • TD
    TD

    Leolaia

    There will still be a problem with 1935 when the time comes for those identified by Rutherford as members of the "great crowd" pass away. That year is still held as significant as when the "great crowd" was identified, when in fact the facts of history would eventually reveal that none of them were part of the "great crowd" after all. I wonder how they will get out of that one.

    Yeah. They've gushed over this and called it a bright flash of light more times than I can remember. Problem is, this was over 70 years ago and those people that stood up were already adults at the time. I had a relative who remembered that convention. This individual was born in 1896 and passed away thirty years ago. (Would be 112 this year if still alive....)

  • oompa
    oompa

    tag.........oompa

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    My attention was just drawn to this excellent essay on the problem with the "great crowd":

    http://nicodemusjw.blogspot.com/2007/10/note-for-historical-context-below-essay.html

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit