NEW GENERATION DEFINED -- April 15, 2010 Watchtower
So, my understanding is that before 1995, the generation was considered to be the generation actually born in 1914 and before. In 1995, the definition of the generation was changed to mean any wicked people who see the sign since 1914, not necessarily born on that year, effectively extending the generation out indefinitely. Now, the generation is not referring to the wicked but any of the annointed, not only who see the sign but whose lives overlap those that saw the beginning of the sign in 1914. This way it keeps the idea that the generation can extend out indefinitely, if there are always new ones claiming to be annointed, but, at the same time creating the impression that it's limited to one overlap and will definitely have an end sooner rather than later. So the only real change since 1995 is that the generation now refers to the annointed, not the wicked (since it already was extended indefinitely in 1995). Right?
Paul, another aspect of the End Times and the Witnesses to consider is that the Wt. Society has also repeatedly changed their views on when the Anointed are to be in Heaven- during the 'Presence', all in Heaven before Armageddon, during Armageddon, post Armageddon, but in the effort to be fair Christianity has never been able to settle on the issues either.....interpretation of Scripture is just that and everyone has an opinion.
When Church Leaders speak for their flocks it becomes Dogma or Doctrine, then the fur starts flying.....
I'm just saying that it seems the big change happened in 1995. That's the one that would take the wind out of my sails. I would lose my sense of urgency. This new explanation just changes who the generation is refering to (if I'm understanding correctly). The change that would effect me personally would be the 1995 explanation that the generation could go on forever. If I've already accepted that one, with all the major implications regarding my education, child bearing, saving for retirement, etc., why wouldn't I accept this latest change that has no personal bearing on me except to create a renewed sense of urgency? I just don't think it's going to be a big deal to anyone inside the organization.
Yes, as long as they remain an End Times focused religion they will interpret Scripture to create that sense of anxiety in the members.
It done intentionally, its a juggleing act with no good solution.
why wouldn't I accept this latest change that has no personal bearing on me except to create a renewed sense of urgency?
Because this latest adjustment is further evidence that the GB is making it all up as they go along. It's one more doubt to suppress. Eventually, the doubts begin to pile up and stink to high heaven enough for people to begin to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, the JWs don't have the truth.
Many JWs are not aware of the doctrinal flip flops that have characterized their religious organization. I'm 30 years old. I was brought up in the 80s and all I knew was that I would never see the year 2000 because the 'the generation" teaching would not allow for it. I didn't realize the extent to which this particular teaching had changed over the years. After repressing doubts for several years, I began to entertain the thought that I had been misled.
You're right, this won't have a sudden impact on the organization to the point of a sudden mass exodus, but as the years go by, this kind of nonsense becomes too much to bear. There are countless of people on this board who began to doubt the veracity of the FDS's claim of authority as a result of the 1995 generation change, but who remained in the organization for several years afterwards.
One more detail, the lifespan of a person is not the same as a generation.
One generation length is defined at 25 years, not 80 years.
As Paul From Cleveland says, if the majority of followers did not leave when the far less palatable 1995 change happened, they will not leave now. This is going to be accepted by most as a positive change that they all must have been hoping for.
Urgency, my axx! Here you are, telling me that "a generation" refers to a group adjacent to the lives of the actual generation "that saw the beginning of the conclusion". This, according to the Washtowel, is 1914. Assuming that the oldest born in 1914 live 120 years, the first generation will be gone in 2034. Given that there will be some alive that lived while these were around, all they have to do is be born in 2034, just seconds before the last alive as of midnight December 31, 1914 Alaska time (the last time zone before the date line) die. Suppose just one of these lives to be 120--and, they have until 2154! And they want us to be urgent--according to my calculations, this gives us more than 140 years from now. Anyone who maintains this urgency will waste their whole lives on this "emergency".
It doesn't really take much brains to figure this one out. The Bible insists that there would only be ONE generation involved. The article even has Gestapo mandating reading Mt 24:32-34 where this is based on. Nowhere in the Bible does it even allow for the possibility of having two different generations strung up like Christmas lights. Yet, what this washtowel article is trying to do is claim that "a generation" is actually two different generations hooked up end to end (much the way one sets up multiple sets of Christmas lights if one set is not enough). All this makes as much sense as a claim on the package of lights "Reaches 45 feet in just one set". You get it home, and it reaches 22 1/2 feet, and you need to string up two sets, connected end to end, to reach the full 45 feet. Remember, Jesus was very specific when he said "This generation (just one)".
The worst part is that the witlesses are required by the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger to believe and TEACH such blatantly bad teachings as this. There has been an article (in fact, this is ongoing) within the last few years that explicitly instructs the witlesses that the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger is more important than the Bible. If they teach something that is wrong, even if you can prove it wrong right from their OWN BIBLE, you are still supposed to believe and TEACH the bad teaching until they themselves correct it. This is not something that one needs to be a theologist to be able to see--and I hope new studies see that they are not even abiding by their own Bible when they see how blatantly they twist "a generation" around.
Fred Franz would have done something far more exciting! Barbarra Anderson made an interesting comment in one of her articles concerning a collection of Millerite books that used to be in Fred's library. I wonder if that is why they' ve lost their shine and lost their way, nobody on the GB or else where at HQ is connected to the ideological roots. I am not complaining. This re-hashing of the generation thing is going to overlap with another generation thing and the end will never come! lol
I am taking the emblems this year, lets try one of those things they use the internet for, you know to stop simon cowel getting the xmas no1. Lets see if we can organize and get the embelm partakers up to 12, 000. Now that would get them talking!!!
I wish to first state that I personally believe that when Jesus said "this generation [genea]" relating to the end of the age, he was referring to the corrupt Adamic generation that Paul spoke of in Philippians 2:15 :, "a crooked and perverse generation [genea]." (World English) While the word "generation" can mean different things, as related to "the end of the age," there are two generations: the generation through Adam, and the generation -- the new creation -- through Jesus. In speaking of this generation as passing away [Parerchomai], Jesus uses the same expression as he used when speaking of the present heavens and earth passing away. ( Matthew 5:18 ; Mark 13:31 ) Hebrews 2:10 speaks of the foundation of this heavens and earth as being laid down by Jesus, referring to the time of the creation of world of mankind, thus of the time spoken of in the six days of creation. ( John 1:10 ) John uses a similar word in 1 John 2:17 , where he speaks of the world passing away. Peter uses the same expression as Jesus in speaking of the present heavens as passing away, although he is referring to 'heavens' as having existed from the flood of Noah's day, not as from the original creation. ( 2 Peter 3:10 ) However, Peter earlier speaks of the corruption that is in the world (kosmos) through lust (elevated desire). That corruption that is in the world (kosmos) came through the sin of Adam and Eve: Eve's desire for knowledge and to become like God, and Adam's desire to please his wife rather than his Creator. Paul uses the word kosmos, saying that sin entered into the world (kosmos) through one man. ( Romans 5:12-19 ) And Paul refers to this creation as the "whole creation" or "all creation" that has been subjected to vanity and that is in bondage to corruption. ( Romans 8:20-22 ) Thus, it is this creation through Adam, this generation through Adam, this corrupt world/creation through Adam, this heavens and earth that "shall perish" ( Hebrews 1:11 ), but shall not pass away until all thing are fulfilled. In becoming free from the bondage of corruption, the old passes away, and the present creation is changed into a new creation, even as the believer in this age becomes reckoned as a new creation before the passing away of the world in general. -- 2 Corinthians 5:17 ; Hebrews 1:12 ; Revelation 21:1-5 .
Remember, these are the same people that brought you miracle wheat and dates from all over the place all phophesyed from a drunk. And of course they gobble it up - we are talking about dubs, people. They don't want to know the truth because 'the truth' is all they have.
The above is somewhat misleading. There have been several varieties of "miracle wheat." The first I know that was named "miracle wheat" was that of a farmer by the name of Kent B. Stoner, of Fincastle, Virginia. His variety of "miracle wheat" failed in time because farmers failed to keep the strain pure. A few decades later, a new variety of "miracle wheat" was produced by a man by the name of Norman Borlaug . Neither of these men were associated with the Watch Tower. Some Bible Students sold some of Stoner's variety at a price cheaper than Mr. Stoner had been selling it, for which the editor of the The Daily Brooklyn Eagle claimed to Russell to be a fraud, resulting in Russell's suit for libel, which suit he lost because of failure to prove intent on the part of The Eagle.
Russell, from the very start, disclaimed being a prophet, or that his studies should be considered prophecy. While there are rumors that Rutherford was an alchoholic (I don't know what to believe concerning this), Russell certainly was not an alchoholic.