what was the new light on the generation in 1995? thank you.
Witnesses Not Budging on 1914
by stevieb1 28 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dmouse
Movello, in 1995, came a dramatic change (new light). The term generation was re-interpreted to mean all the wicked people living since 1914, even those born recently, rather than those born on or before 1914.
*** Watchtower 1995 11/1 A Time to Keep Awake *** We do not need to know the exact timing of events. Rather, our focus must be on being watchful, cultivating strong faith, and keeping busy in Jehovahs servicenot on calculating a date.
Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovahs people have at times speculated about the time when the great tribulation would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we bring a heart of wisdom in, not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we count our days in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term generation as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics.
See also: Watchtowers 1997 - May 1 st p29; June 1 st p28; Sept 1 st p19.
Suddenly Jehovahs Witnesses, who had been convinced that the end was near because the generation born in 1914 were so old, were faced with the prospect of a generation which could last indefinitely. Obviously, the removal of this time limit (lifespan of humans since 1914) meant that all the people born in 1914 could now pass away. It logically follows that the end might be further away than they first thought. This makes the comment in paragraph 15 of the 1995 Watchtower all the more bizarre, it is in fact dishonest:
*** Watchtower 1995 11/1 19 A Time to Keep Awake *** 15 Does our more precise viewpoint on this generation mean that Armageddon is further away than we had thought? Not at all!
-
joannadandy
, and that newer JW's did not seem to have the same degree of faith as some of the old-timers in the faith, hence this was of serious concern.
Yeah funny how people of my generation don't blindly accept a faith and it's teachings...I can see how that would be a problem.
-
ItsJustlittleoldme
Then he said something along the lines of 1914 being set in stone and that the organization was not going to get any new light on this key doctrine, hence we can be sure that Armageddon is very near.
Very interesting, to say the least.. I would ask everyone that heard that speech if indeed they did change that date, and received new light on the subject at a later date, then what would they do? Would they leave the organization because Jehovah has spoken and said, "This is the ultimate truth"? Or does this mean that this man spoke for Jehovah out of turn, and thus he was a false prophet? Is he representing the organization, or himself? I would force the issue to the point that they would have to conclude that something is wrong with that statement, either that, or accept fully that the year 1914 is set in stone, and get a FIRM committment from them that if indeed any new light is given that changes the date of 1914 to some other date for the year Christ returned invisibly to rule in heaven, that at that moment, they would know that this light did NOT come from Jehovah, and they would leave the organization!!!
I would hold them accountable for those words!!!!
-
onacruse
WTS does not need to ever change the meaning of 1914.
They can continue for decades (as indeed they already have) to tweak subsequent events and interpretations, and the "generation" change was only the latest. Remember the original teaching on the "great tribulation"? In 1970 (as I recall) it was yanked completely away from 1914-18 and put right up against a future Armageddon. I distinctly remember how completely thrilled I was at this "new truth" and it never even crossed my mind that WTS was doing anything objectionable. 1914 was still sacrosanct, Armageddon was still right around the corner, so what harm was done? Same with the "generation" change. It was the last straw for me, but by far the majority of JWs I talked to after saw absolutely no problem with it, because (again) 1914 is sacrosanct and Armageddon is still right around the corner.
Virtually every major JW doctrine hinges on, or is impacted by, 1914. The Parousia, God's rejection of Babylon the Great and "special selection" of the WTS, the existence of a remnant, the "theocratization" of the organization, their spiritualized interpretations (of Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, the minor prophets, Revelation), &&& would all fall to the ground if 1914 is dropped (pun intended). Even their adamant Arianism derives from the authority of the "saving Remnant" to provide specialized and unique interpretations of Scripture, and that authority started esp in 1914.
Seventh-day Adventists have a 70 head start on WTS, and how is it going for them with respect to 1844? No problem. "During the early part of the nineteenth century many Christians...expected some very significant events to take place [in 1844]...the severity of thier disappointment was in proportion to the nature of the predicted event. Obviously the disappointment of those who expected Christ to return in 1844 was more traumatic than that of those who looked for the return of the Jews to Palestine. As a result of their disappointment, many gave up the study of prophecy...Some however, continued to study this prophecy...continuing to look to Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary on thier behalf. Rich new insights into that ministry rewarded their efforts. They discovered that...[t]he prophetic time calculations were indeed correct. Their mistake...was in their understanding of what event was to take place...New light from Christ's sanctuary ministry turned their disappointment into hope and joy." (Seventh-day Adventists Believe...; Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988, p. 324) WTS continually does the same disingenuous spin control to retain 1914 as a pivotal date; what consequences may they expect? Well, Seventh-day Adventists are still cruising right along (in 1999 over 10,000,000 members).
IMO, the meaning of 1914 for JWs will never be significantly changed and will not present any enduring problem.
Delayed no more,
Craig
-
Bang
It's the only date they've got that people in many parts of the world can identify with an actual 'other'' event. Though it doesn't matter a hoot to many nations, the west, Europe & Asia all know that something happened in 1914, so it's a claim to fame.
So it's "set in stone" then - does that mean they want to keep it in their hearts?
Bang
-
Flip
something along the lines of 1914 being set in stone
The date may be chisled into 'stone', but, more importantly, how the WTBTS Corporations quantifies the interpretion of its self-professed pivotal date has historically proven to be somewhat more malleable.
Flip
-
minimus
all invisible events are cool, especially 1914.
-
Siddhashunyata
The problem that the WTBTS is dealing with is that they have at least two different audiances and they have to appease both. One audience is the "stuck" oldtimers and the other audience is the "newbies" who are being prepared for the shift into "mainstream" religion. This problem was succesfully navigated by the Seventh Day Adventists by simply saying " the End can happen any time now But lets make this world as good as it can be until It happens". The "Old Guard " died off and the Church began to build hospitals and schools etc. Look for it to happen. The Seventh Day Adventists still teach that the End is "imminent" just as they did over 100 years ago its just not emphasized. This is a transition period for the WTBTS. The SHOUT of the "End" will become a whisper. I guess that's how the world ends .."with a whisper" and "not with a bang".( I couldn't resist that.)
-
uriah
I remember Peter Ellis. He was our CO way back and a gave a talk at a C.Assmbly about sisters (apparently) cajoling their husbands into buying deep freeze units (DFU's) (freezers to you and me). He explained about the birds in the fields and the lillies (about how they were lookded after, NOT the birds and bees type stuff) etc., and that the C.O. and D.O. don't have DFU's in the backs of their circuit cars and that we should trust in Jehovah and not stock up ready for the great tribulation because to do otherwise was to show a lack of faith. This was pre 1975 (just about, maybe '72ish). Look at us now. Most of what we eat is frozen.
Edited by - uriah on 8 July 2002 10:18:3