1914 & “Generation” – What change?

by johnnyc 36 Replies latest jw experiences

  • johnnyc

    I have read through many posts on this website that refer to the fact WTBTS changed their viewpoint on “generation” and its relevance to 1914. There was just an article out in the WT (last six months) that reiterated the fact this viewpoint did not change, and that the WTBTS still expects the “generation” who were around in 1914 to physically see the “conclusion of this system” and the visible second coming of Jesus here on earth. The WTBTS did state they consider anyone being born in 1914 would be applicable, which is a change from earlier discussions, but they have not (from what I have seen) said that “generation” could pass away altogether. Sincerely I ask: if anyone has that information I would love to see it. I would then fully agree with the statements concerning the fact that not many Witnesses know a change was made.

  • BFD

    You've got to be kidding me. For someone who has been on a "god search" you can't see your nose in front of your face. Check out the inside cover of the rags before 1995 then now open your current rag. Let me know if you find a hot potato.


  • White Dove
    White Dove

    Yeah, I'm kind of confused on this point, as well. I know that in 1995 people generation changed to era generation. They removed the genes from gene-ration. Totally illogical. What have they done recently?

  • White Dove
    White Dove


    Play nice, now. No throwing sand in jonny's face. That's not nice.

  • johnnyc

    Yes, I have seen that - but that is hardly a policy change. I agree it is odd, but I am looking for hard "this is the what we think now" sort of information. I am willing to read between the lines a bit, but it should be clear information. I'm currently looking through '95 stuff now, but so far nothing. Some guidance to where I should be looking would help. Thanks.

  • V

    The whole article and comments by Leolaia is here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/156634/1.ashx

    Basically, the "generation" is now the anointed alive on earth (2008)

    Previously from 1995 it was wicked people as a composite group during the end of the system.

    Previously it was those who lived to see the events of 1914, wicked or not.

    And way back in the 1920's...it was the anointed. Full circle?

  • yknot

    Of course in the 20's the anointed were all the Bible Students, every single member.

    The anointing change happened when Rutherford realized the membership would grow beyond 144,000.

    Funny in some ways the WTS has put itself in position Rutherford tried to avoid.

    JohnnyC please take the time to read over the Rutherford and Knorr period of JW history. Research the Golden Age (pay attention to the items & ideas it promoted as this publication was used as todays Awake!). Read the books authored by Rutherford and later Franz (Knorr is a management guy, Freddie was the "Oracle") Actually to better understand Franz consider reading the Studies in the Scriptures vol 1-6 you can find them on the remaining Bible Students websites for free just google "bible students and pastor Russell".

    Also something to keep in mind is that the original generation was from 1874 + 40 years = 1914.

    Again the Bible Students will have all of Bro. Russells stuff on their sites for free. This includes all the ZWTs from start to 1916. A great site to start at is www.ctrussel.us. The Sept KM 07 says to read only WTS approved or WTS pubs, you will find the answers and truth within them.

  • granhermano

    Look what I found doing some simple WT Library research in the Watchtower 1 of november 1995 (the same about the generation change) Questions From Readers At 1 Peter 2:9, the “King James Version” calls anointed Christians “a chosen generation.” Should this affect our view of Jesus’ use of “generation” recorded at Matthew 24:34? [...] As discussed on pages 10 to 15, Jesus condemned the generation of Jews of his time, his contemporaries who rejected him. (Luke 9:41; 11:32; 17:25) He often used qualifiers such as “wicked and adulterous,” “faithless and twisted,” and “adulterous and sinful” in describing that generation. (Matthew 12:39; 17:17; Mark 8:38) 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. They were, though, very familiar with Jesus’ use of the term “generation” in referring to his contemporaries. So they logically would understand what he had in mind when he mentioned “this generation” for the last time. The apostle Peter, who was present, thereafter urged Jews: “Get saved from this crooked generation.”—Acts 2:40. [...]Consequently, when the apostles heard Jesus refer to “this generation,” what would they think? While we, with the benefit of hindsight, know that Jerusalem’s destruction in the “great tribulation” came 37 years later, the apostles hearing Jesus could not know that. Rather, his mention of “generation” would have conveyed to them, not the idea of a period of great length, but the people living over a relatively limited period of time. The same is true in our case. How fitting, then, are Jesus’ follow-up words: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. . . . On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.”—Matthew 24:36, 44. They're using the same argument from 1927 and later discarded in 1995, now in 2008...It's just unbeliavable.

  • johnnyc

    Wow - I have to say that I thought there was some "BIG" revelation I must have missed or something on this generation thing. I've read everything you guys have given me to read so far, and I still don't see where the WTBTS changed their viewpoint of "generation". Either you guys are all going around convincing yourselves of a fact that doesn't exist, or I have yet to see what people are talking about concerning this "change of definition". Like I said, there was recently an article that held steadfast to the fact the generation who where present in 1914 will be around to see "the conclusion of this system of things". It is obvious that the WTBTS has made changes in the age a person would be in 1914 to be considered part of that group, but lastly they settled upon being born of that time. Truthfully, when I read this article, I was amazed that they were holding fast to a date which is right around the corner from the whole 1914 date being proven incorrect. If there is a certain article that someone thinks is out there by the WTBTS that says something different, I would like to know....and I sincerely mean that.

  • doofdaddy

    OK, I'll assume you are serious.

    The reason you haven't been inundated with replies is that this subject has been discussed ad nauseum for years. The wt society had trouble when the generation was getting very old in the late 80's early 90's, so If you read Nov 95 wt they skipped to say the generation was figurative, not literal. This was a fundamental belief that was turned on its head and had huge ramifications for those who believed that the end was so, so near. Wt society denied any change but months later did a one page article, taking minimal responsibility, due to the obvious furore. They have been on damage control since and as you pointed out, have created another change as time, once again is running out for the current "understanding" of scripture.

Share this