The generation changed is explained in the June 15'th WT!

by life is to short 135 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • besty
    besty

    What a remarkable coincidence that the 97 year old John Barr was wheeled out to make these comments.

    Anyone would think it was important that he specifically could be quoted on the record as being the one who introduced this change.

    Could it be that he is the only current GB member born before 1914? Is he the last gasp at 'overlapping' for the 55 year old Geoff Jackson? Is John Barr the last living link to 1914 they cling to? I mean was he really born in 1913?

    No - I'm being too cynical now......

    http://www.freeminds.org/organization/governing-body/current-list-of-watch-tower-society-s-governing-body.html

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    Losch has got to be wetting himself with excitement over the prospect of Barr and Jaracz finally climbing that pyramid in the sky and leaving him in charge down here.

  • bennyk
    bennyk

    Oh, dear. Evidently the Watch Tower Society's new understanding contradicts a previous teaching.

    "When Jesus used 'generation' for the last time, he was on the Mount of Olives with four apostles. (Mark 13:3) Those men, who were not yet anointed with spirit nor part of a Christian congregation, certainly did not constitute either a 'generation' or a race of people." (Watchtower 01. Nov. 1995, pp. 30, 31)

    "What did Jesus mean by 'generation,' both in his day and in ours? Many scriptures confirm that Jesus did not use 'generation' with regard to some small or distinct group, meaning only the Jewish leaders or only his loyal disciples." (Watchtower 01. June 1997, p.28)

    Evidently, the Watch Tower Society is full of manure...

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    Someone needs to repost the "generation changes" chart. This latest change is a tweak to generation definition number 2, IIRC. If you consider it a unique new definition, then it is generation definition number 6 for the Borg.

  • Quandry
    Quandry

    "evidently" is the word the society uses for bullshit.

    And the pile increases with each "generation" change.

  • flipper
    flipper

    LIFE IS TOO SHORT- Great thread ! Thanks for posting it !

    The quote : " Those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. " First of all - there can't be TWO groups of a different age in ONE generation. Each generation IS it's own age.

    Generation definition : " The average time in which children are ready to take the place of their parents ( usually figured at 30 years ). " Readers Digest Oxford Wordfinder Dictionary

    Contemporary definition : " Living or occurring at the same time. APPROXIMATELY EQUAL IN AGE . A person or thing living or existing AT THE SAME TIME as another. A person of roughly THE SAME AGE AS ANOTHER. "

    All anointed ARE NOT the same age as each other. So I call bull$hit on the WT societies false definitions. The WT society has become very deceitful in making their OWN definitions for words like " generation " or " contemporaries " or even " worldly " . Think about it. They change the meanings of words ALL THE TIME. Weirdos.

    Also the quote : " How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 WILL NOT DIE OFF ( where have we heard THAT before ? ) before the great tribulation starts ! " Translation : John Barr is screwed royally ! Dude's 97 years old ! It's almost insulting to HIM that they used HIM to announce this change !

    But the reality of the whole matter is the YOUNGER contemporaries are screwed just like John Barr- because they will all die as well. Everybody dies. Period

  • wannabefree
    wannabefree

    If I can remain in until the article is studied at the KH it would be fun to comment at the meeting and ask "am I the only one bothered by this? am I the only one that thinks this is a bunch of nonsense? this doesn't make sense" ... do you think if we did this at meetings others would reason? I suppose not, and it would most likely be the final opportunity to make a comment.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Besty's post number 3127 on this thread: Best thought on the matter.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I might just have to start a new thread - how many definituions can we get out of "EVIDENTLY"

  • joelingeorgia
    joelingeorgia

    you are attempting to apply logical reasoning to a group that exists based on faith. this is not only true of JW's. all religions change

    things, behave hypocritically, etc. religions are based on faith, generally blind faith. you can't rationalize faith.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit