OK - I have done as much research on this subject as I think I can - both on the internet and the Watchtower library. There was a "follow-up" to the issue in the June 1, 1997 QUESTIONS FROM THE READERS (as noted by another post here). It starts by saying "That Discussion in The Watchtower (Nov. 1, 1995 as noted above) offered no change at all in our fundamental teaching about 1914". If people are talking about the age issue as to what constitutes a generation - which undoubtedly has been redefined, the article states: "It must be acknowledged that we have not always taken Jesus' words in that sense". What we are talking about here is the fact the WTBTS once estimated that someone should have been a certain age upon seeing 1914, and that a generation was typically 70 to 80 years. As I have stated in my earlier comments, the WTBTS has changed ONLY that someone could have been any age in 1914 (even born that date), and that some remaining "anointed" need to be alive to see the "conclusion of this system". My grandfather, who happens to have been born in 1914 is currently 94. Unless the WTBTS makes a further change, this is the "status quo". There may be another '75 issue around the corner, but as for now, I have not seen anything from the WTBTS literature which would indicate a "fundamental" change in the 1914/generation teaching. In fact, I am shocked that they have not made a change being there are only a couple years left where the connection of 1914 can be made with "generation". Does anyone have something I have overlooked?
1914 & Generation What change?
I have not seen anything from the WTBTS literature which would indicate a "fundamental" change in the 1914/generation teaching.
Ya yer right jonny. Somebody somewhere sometime is gettin their ass destroyed. No change at all.
Johnny, I hate to call you delusional, but I call em as I see em. Ever heard of reading the question? Looking at the CONTEXT? Observe:
That discussion in TheWatchtower offered no change at all in our fundamental teaching about 1914. Jesus set out the sign to mark his presence in Kingdom power.
ME: So the "no change" answer was about the question cited....period. The end of the article clearly states:
So the recent information in TheWatchtower about "this generation" did not change our understanding of what occurred in 1914. But it did give us a clearer grasp of Jesus’ use of the term "generation," helping us to see that his usage was no basis for calculating—counting from 1914—how close to the end we are.
So duh....1914 is out the window when it comes to having anything "timewise" or normal "generationwise" to armageddon! Simple enough? I would have thought IP-SEC's posts would have already clarified this for you....but it is time to accept it....there is a REASON they call it the last Frikkin days................cause they last, and last, and last................................oompa
(Oops, it posted soon as I opened it.)
Johnnyc - take some time to think about all of the information over the next few days. This subject has been very confusing for me also. I didn't even know about the 1995 change until I found JWD because I've been out since about 1980.
The comments above have helped me better understand. I hope after a while it will make more sense to you also.
Oompa, thanks for bringing out that point that the statement about no change only was in answer to the question they presented in the magazine. It didn't have anything to do with the generation discussion.
Some of us take a little longer to 'get' it. You guys have been so much help in explaining the changes and the flip-flops. Thank you for being patient in trying to explain.
When I left the WTS I never even questioned the doctrines. I just didn't like the cult like control.
oompa: What you are saying is simply not the case. The full question was: "The Watchtower of November 1, 1995, focused on what Jesus said about this generation, as we read at Matthew 24:34. Does this mean that there is some question about whether God's Kingdom was set up in heaven in 1914?" The question clearly includes the issue about "this generation", making the answer applicable, as the teaching concerning 1914 and "generation" go very much hand in hand. The article even goes on to talk more specifically about the "generation" issue and the fact they had incorrectly viewed it as "70 or 80" years before. There is no question that they changed their viewpoint on how long a generation would be....but only to the fact it could be virtually someone born in the year 1914 and not limited to this age group. I will do some more reading, but like I have said many times on this thread, does someone have anything clear that would support the claim the WTBTS made a MAJOR change here? Making the change to basically the fact someone could be older does not seem all that major to me.
I can only tell my experience. From 1976 to 1995, I went from door to door telling people that this generation will by no means pass away before the end will come. These are people who (are of an age to appreciate what was going on say, 10 15 yrs old in 1914) saw the fulfillment of jesus prophecies as per Matthew 24 (and more importantly 1914). It was consistently high lighted by the organisation that it must be SO CLOSE as they are old folks.
1995 article says that this generation is now figurative e.g. "in my father's generation" which is tottally non specific. It can be any time. This is a major change as after this article the preaching work lost urgency, the prophecy lost its power and it made a laughing stock of the wts and all who sincerely believed their version of truth.
JC: The question clearly includes the issue about "this generation", making the answer applicable, as the teaching concerning 1914 and "generation" go very much hand in hand.
OMG JC! Just read the frikkin question!!! It does NOT include it!
JC: There is no question that they changed their viewpoint on how long a generation would be....but only to the fact it could be virtually someone born in the year 1914 and not limited to this age group.
Again JC, the did NOT change their viewpoint on how LONG a generation would be...they changed what a generation IS! And they say NOTHING about the need to be born in 1914 or alive before it. Pay attention, and stop living in the past. I want to spank you.......oompa
Where did Johnny go???
Where did Johnny go???
He's researching the meaning of the word "spank"..............
I remember at a circuit assembly a talk given about the whole generation thing and how it is possible that the generation of 1914 could pass away and that was the reason why some were put in position on the GB who were not apart of the 144,000 (correct me if I'm wrong). to take the lead in case they all died before the end. I think there is someone by the name Brown who is on the GB but not of the anoited class...(is that right?) it's kinda foggy...