Confirmed! Watchtower Feb 15 08 brings the "generation" change

by observador 175 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  neverendingjourney

  Everything that appears in the Watchtower is for the Watchtower's own benefit.

  One of the major flaws of this new doctrine has already been pointed out by another poster, but it bears repeating. How could the generation that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 refer to the anointed if there were no anointed around until the Pentecost of 33 A.D., well after Jesus' death? If Jesus said "this generation" when speaking directly to the four apostles on the Mount of Olives, how could he possibly mean "the anointed" if those four apostles weren't anointed yet? I'll wait to read the Feb. 15 Watchtower to see if the society even bothers to address that.
• 

  Dagney

  I remember discussing this '95 generation change in the article Narkissos posted in great length at the time. I felt the explanation was feasible and within context of the scriptures; hard to fight that. But the WBTS flip was unsettling and the beginning of the end for me, and many others.

  I still associate with some I had the conversation with back then and cannot wait to ask them what this new change means to them. Cannot wait.

  On a side note, I spent many hours over the last few days with a dear "sister" discussing where we are in life. She confessed she is down to one meeting a week and I heard later from her husband that I gave her "much to think about." Who knew.
• 

  Mary

  The real question is: Which cover would best suit the cover of the February 2008 Craptower study:

  

  

  Or:

  
• 

  JWdaughter

  Ok, the thing that struck me was not the change, but their explanation of a point that always bugged me, and the lameness of it.

  "5Today, people who don't have the spiritual understanding think that there is nothing of "stunningly observable" as to the signs of Jesus' presence. They reason that all continues as before. (2 Peter 3:4) On the other hand, the faithful brothers of Christ, the present class of John, recognize this sign as if it was a lightning and understand its real meaning."

  The being as observable as lightning. . .well, considering it took them, what-11 years??? to make that observation, I find it kind of ironic and laughable. A person would have had to study up quite a bit of WT history to know that they did NOT observe his return in 1914. They were not expecting his return, they were expecting something else. And they didn't make the leap to his presence until a decade later (if I recall correctly)
• 

  dawg

  Good point JW daughter, but these people are fools no matter which way we cut it. I find it interesting that so many of you are so smart, but you know what guys? Screw these fools. For the last year I don't take crap off any fool still willing to treat me with distain becasue I won't follow these idiots, this is just one more log on the fire. Screw um. I mean seriously, screw these fools!
• 

  Narkissos

  What imo was roughly correct in the 95 articles is:
  - that "this generation" in the Gospel context is a negative reference to a collectivity of people (which makes the last flip truly comical);
  - that "generation" has a definite, although imprecise, time implication.

  What was untenable is:
  - that a "generation" can be stretched indefinitely, e.g. to the point where no individual contemporary of the terminus a quo remains; such a generation could not, in effect, "pass away," making the Gospel logion meaningless;
  - that "this generation" actually means two distinct generations -- one which fits the common definition of generation (some people would see both Jesus' ministry and Jerusalem's fall within their lifetime) and the other which doesn't.

  Have the latter problems somehow kicked in for the WT to change its stance again? Maybe, but it seems an incredibly sloppy way to introduce such a major change.

  If (as I suspect) the 95 articles were basically Fred W. Franz's "testament," his shoes must be screaming.
• 

  restrangled

  Lets just all agree to call it for what it is..... A LOT OF HOT AIR!

  My grandmother got the itch with this religion back when Russel was in charge, and thought she would see the end before she died. My mother took up the same itch and believed she would not die.....she is now 73......she taught her kids we wouldn't make it through high school, and now we are close to 50 years old.

  NO MATTER HOW THEY WANT TO SPIN IT....IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF BS.

  SIMPLE AS THAT!

  R.
• 

  restrangled

  SORRY....DOUBLE POST.

  R.
• 

  oompa

  Neverending: How could the generation that Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 refer to the anointed if there were no anointed around until the Pentecost of 33 A.D., well after Jesus' death? If Jesus said "this generation" when speaking directly to the four apostles on the Mount of Olives, how could he possibly mean "the anointed" if those four apostles weren't anointed yet?

  Simple, when they became annointed they were part of that generation of 70ce, and everyone not annointed at that time was also part of that contemperaneous people---generation....

  It was a prophecy (ie future thing) so it when he said it it did not matter they were not around...when it happened the anointed were around..

  ok?............oompa
• 

  Leolaia

  May I also remind everyone that the GC are identified in the literature as survivors of the Great Tribulation, as per Revelation 7, such that a person who dies before the end was NEVER part of the GC, although the average JW is not led to that conclusion directly; it is a logical consequence of Armageddon being continually "delayed" since the time when the "gathering" started in 1935. How could the GC be gathered beginning in 1935 if they all die out before long? Could this be another "generation"-esque issue in store for the future?

  BTW, I have a group of JWs in eyeshot in front of me, a group of them at a table here in the train station. What should I do? ;)