Is the length of a generation about to be 120 years??

by digderidoo 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • teel

    Sir82, my theory is that the '95 'generation' had to be changed because it was too open, it couldn't be used to whip the JWs into doing more. It had no end. Have you seen the emphasis on the current generation explanation, that it definitely has an end?

  • sir82


    That sounds reasonable.

    It will be interesting to see how the R&F respond. Will they go into a 1966-1974 style of gung-ho service? Or will it be met with a giant yawn?

    The world has changed, and JWs tehmselves have changed, quite a bit in the past 40 years. I'd put my money on the giant yawn. The ones who will get excited are the ones who are in their 50's & above, and they just won't be able to do as much physically. The kids (40's & under) just don't care enough any more.

  • baltar447

    lol, BANE think 1914 doesn't mean anything. Are you on crack? Can I have some?

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    It reeks of desperation. The 1995 change got them out of the 1914 business and now they have jumped right back in. Why? To make the end appear close again is the only compelling reason anyone has come up with over the last many months of threads since they first floated the idea last fall.

    The kids on the current GB are in WAY over their heads. The world has changed; we're in the information age. These guys run the Borg like it is still the 1970s. They don't have a clue.

    It used to be that the psychological mind control techniques were one tool in their arsenal. Today it is pretty much all they have.

  • wantstoleave

    The men on the Gb are just that - men. I think I'm truly starting to get out of the witness mentality now because I see flaws, I see the hypocrisy and I've finally discovered that the GB are no better than you or I. They are just men with authority, like the elders and I don't want to be their little follower anymore . So whatever 'new light' they come up, I won't be afraid. I refuse to live my life in fear now.

  • OnTheWayOut

    Everything about the doctrine is tied to 1914. I think this latest new light is an attempt to make it all still sound like their old light was leading up to this, so they can say "We were right all along, but we are more right now." I also think it's a way for the current GB to feel like some kind of actual leaders, tying their actual overlap of lives into the mix and expanding their insistence on obedience.

    It's going to be stretched way past the 120 years eventually. Maybe then, they actually will drop 1914 with their smaller dangerous mind-control cult that's left after the overlap expires.

  • Soldier77
    Mad Sweeney said: The kids on the current GB are in WAY over their heads. The world has changed; we're in the information age. These guys run the Borg like it is still the 1970s. They don't have a clue.

    Absolutely agree here. With the access to the internet and the information on it, they have to be shitting bricks. It's no wonder they keep pounding the whole "guard against the internet", "be careful", "do not let technology control your life"... Did you listen to the talk on Technology from the DC downloads? I was lmao on the statements being made. They truly have no clue. It's aparent that the apathy level of the R&F is growing. It seems like the divide between hardcore fanatical foaming at the mouth JWs and sleepy apathetic drones is getting wider.

  • St George of England
    St George of England
    There are not 120 years here.

    TD - I think the 120 years idea comes from Genesis 6:3


  • cantleave

    Wantstoleave - Congratulations. Welcome to real life, now start enjoying it.

  • TD

    Right or wrong, the pre-95 interpretation conveyed a coherent thought:

    "Those who see the start of the sign (This generation) will not all die of old age (pass away) until the entire sign up to Armageddon (all these things) occurs."

    You couldn't do this after 1995. How could the Witnesses teach an interpretation when none of them could plug in their definitions and paraphrase the scripture into anything coherent?

    The 2010 interpretation is a return to the original formula. Right or wrong, it at least makes semantic sense.

Share this