its not "new light" its a "new thought"

highdose

like alot of you here, i've been making jw's i know aware of yet another flip flop by their cult.

The response i got from one of them was amazing, she said "its just a new thought thats all" and also "well they ( the GB) have been teaching the same thing about the generation for some time, because they've always said that the anointed was included in the generation, whether the great crowd was meant to be included or not doesn't matter, so actual its all remained the same"

could someone please tell me the difference between "new light and "new thought"???

Chalam

could someone please tell me the difference between "new light and "new thought"???

There isn't any. It is just the same old WT bull :(

Light is the same as the day God created it. Similarly, God is still the same as the day He created light.

Hebrews 13:8 (New International Version)

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Malachi 3:6 (New International Version)

6 "I the LORD do not change.

James 1:17 (New International Version)

17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

1 John 1:5 (English Standard Version)

Walking in the Light

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Blessings,

Stephen

neverendingjourney

People shouldn't be excommunicated for disagreeing with a simple thought. The fact that people face disfellowshipment shows that it's a doctrine (new light) and not a simple "new thought"

Farkel

:could someone please tell me the difference between "new light and "new thought"???

That's the wrong question. What it all is, is "new bullshit replacing old bullshit." That's it.

Farkel

WTWizard

Their idea of new light is altering the definition of a "generation"--this time, they view two generations as if they were one.

My idea of new light is adding a new string of Christmas lights.

Their "generation" makes about as much sense as stringing up two sets of Christmas lights or splicing two lengths of tinsel garland together, and calling it all one set. They are effectively splicing two different generations and making it as if one--as with the Christmas lights, what is to stop them from splicing or hooking up yet another set when they reach the end of the double set they already have? And, after that set reaches its end, what's to stop them from adding yet another set? And so on forever?

Yet, Jesus himself plainly and blatantly said "By no means will THIS generation pass before all these things occur". ONE generation, not two generations spliced together or hooked up end to end. Since they boast about having the monopoly on abiding by the Bible, their adding this splicing two different generations together (adding to the Bible) where Jesus didn't make any such allowances means they are not the truth. Worse, they have a rule that, if the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger has an errant teaching, you are supposed to abide by and TEACH the bad teaching, even if you can prove it wrong using their own Bible, until they change it themselves. Meaning that the witlessses are now required to teach that the "generation" (singular, I did not errantly leave out an "s" from the end) is in fact two different generations tied from end to end to form "one".

I hope people in the territory refuse to fall for this one. Even people that study the Bible itself, or even that scripture out of context (which is enough in this case), should be able to tell that a "generation" is no more two different generations strung from end to end than two sets of Christmas lights strung from end to end amount to a single set.

yadda yadda 2

The definition of "generation" pre-1994 was for decades referred to in the explanation of the purpose of the Watchtower magazine on it's inside cover as "the creator's promise" (that the generation of 1914 would not pass away before the end would come). So it was held out as an important doctrine for decades that Jehovah himself had promised. That is much more than just a "new thought".

teel

Stephen, when you quote something I often check it in the Bible too (in my native language). Re James 1:17 the previous verse fits so excellent in here: James 1:16 "Don't be deceived, my dear brothers." 17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

This passage confirms my thoughts, that JW's teachings changing "like shifting shadows" is a deception.

milola

And, after that set reaches its end, what's to stop them from adding yet another set? And so on forever?

After so many the fuse blows and then there will be no light.

Mary

My, my.....what a difference 60 years makes. Here's the QFR from the 1952 WT that goes directly against what they're trying to pawn off on the R&F now:

gw 52 9/1 p. 542 Questions From Readers

Q. Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?-G. P., Liberia.

Webster's unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: "The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years." But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster's does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster's first-quoted definition, "the average lifetime of man." Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping.

April 2010 WT:

Although we cannot measure the exact length of "this generation," we do well to keep in mind several things about the word "generation": It usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus' words about "this generation"? He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.

Of course the real question is: If the HS were guiding Franz and Knorr to write in 1952 that "this generation" was not referring to 'one generation being succeeded by the next' and they were wrong, on what basis are they contending that "Jesus evidently meant" that it was referring to 'overlapping generations'?

What a crock of shit. I think more and more Witnesses are just going to look at this and shake their heads.

wha happened?

wow, but the avg JW doesn't take any articles that old seriously.