Generation - one more time

by johnnyc 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  johnnyc

  Sorry guys. I know I have brought this up before (a couple years ago), but my mother and I were talking (she is a ultra-jw) about the WT's generation, and she told me that the WT has never come out and said they took back the generation "timeframe" from 1914. She said they only changed who it was referring to - but nothing has changed on the fact within a generation from 1914 THE END has to come. Well, I went back to the 1995 article, and really didnt see where the timeframe was explicitly changed.

  I am going to go back to her once I have my "p"'s and "q"'s checked - since it is not often she will talk with me about these things (like once a year). Can you guys help reference me to current article(s) that specifically deal with the fact they have taken back their previous claim about the end coming within the generation that started in 1914. I must admit I am not keeping up on my watchtower reading (lol) and hope you guys can direct me.

  Thanks in advance.
• 

  sherah

  All of the ammo you need can be found here:

  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/generation.php
• 

  cofty

  You are right the key article in 1995 never came clean and admitted clearly that they were abandoning the promise of the same week about the generation. In the masthead of the Awake of the same week however they changed the wording from something like "before the generation of 1914 passes away" to "that will soon replace this old system" or something similar.

  It was actually this dishonesty rather than the change itself that casued me to question.

  I'm sure somebody can post scans for you.
• 

  wha happened?

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utpjQFBuQQM&feature=related
• 

  00DAD

  This website has some really good info on the WTBTS's changes to its teaching about the GENERATION.

  • JW Facts: Changes to the Generation Teaching
• 

  wha happened?

  I prefer my generation. It's not re-written every few years
• 

  00DAD

  WH brought up an interesting comparison:

  • Roger Daltry: I hope I die before I get old!

  Mr. Daltry was born March 1st 1944 and is still alive and kicking!

  • WTBTS: Millions Now Living Will Never Die!

  Famous Rutherford blunder from the 1920s. They're all dead now, ALL OF 'EM!!!
• 

  leavingwt

  johnnyc: The doctrine was changed again, after 1995. There is no longer a connection between 1914 and the Generation. There is nothing in the current JW theology that would contradict an Armageddon well into the future, such as 2050. (When 1914 was still connected, 2050 would be an impossibility, due to the human lifespan.)
• 

  leavingwt

  My statement above is somewhat misleading, in that 1914 is still a part of the doctrine. What I should have stated is that the current doctrine does not require that someone alive on or before 1914 be alive for Armageddon.

  From sherah's link above, via JW Facts:

  The overlap generation amounts to a complete revocation of the 1995 teaching, as once more it sets a time frame, and no longer included the wicked, but rather the anointed. It is an attempt to bring back the urgency of the pre-1995 teaching, but without setting any definable end date by which to be proven incorrect. The assumption is encouraged that the end will be shortly, within in the life of an anointed that was a contemporary of an anointed alive in 1914. If Armageddon does not arrive in that timeframe, it can then be extended to an anointed who knew an anointed who knew an anointed alive in 1914 - serial overlapping.
• 

  ScenicViewer

  Scans of the Awake masthead.

  Awake, October 22, 1995

  

  And the following issue, November 8, 1995

  

  As a side point, notice that the first scan says it is "the Creator's promise" that "a peaceful and secure new world" would be here "before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."

  The Creator never made such a promise. It was Jehovah's Witnesses who made that promise, but tried to make it look like it came from God. Often JWs will say, 'but we never said it in God's name' in an attempt to sneak away from the 'flase prophet' label. However, claiming that it was "the Creator's promise" makes it "in God's name."