Generation ‘Refinement’ 1995 - 2010.....

Generation ‘Refinement’ 1995 - 2010.......jjj

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
JJJ

Australia

#1 Feb 4, 2010
#1

Pg 17 Nov 1 1995 this article was the first ‘new light’ on the meaning of the generation of Mathew in decades……… the article basically said that term generation used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period with their identifying characteristics.

What were these characteristics?

From par.10 onwards the article keeps comparing to the generation that would pass away in these last days to the generation of Noah’s day…..who were also destroyed.

Why was this generation destroyed? Because like the generation of Noah’s day they were wicked.

In fact par. 12 states that this generation refers to the people of earth who ‘see the sign of Christ’s presence but fail to mend their ways’. What ‘ways’ are they referring to?

Well obviously if this generation is destroyed because it ‘fails to mend its ways’……their way would be wicked and logically then the generation that the new light from 1995 revealed for us is a ‘WICKED GENERATION’ that is alienated from god.

Now keep in mind……this is progressive ‘new light’(prov. 4:18) and one would presume that this new light was revealed to the channel, the FDS from god as highlighted in the following paragraph from 2010.
JJJ

Australia

#2 Feb 4, 2010
#2.

April 15 2010 WT……..

Par. 13, Third, holy spirit is at work in bringing Bible
truths to light.(Prov. 4:18) This magazine has
long been used by “the faithful and discreet slave”
as the primary channel for dispensing increased
light.(Matt. 24:45) For example, consider our understanding of those who make up “THIS GENERATION” mentioned by Jesus.(Read Matthew 24:32-
34.) TO WHAT GENERATION DID JESUS REFER? The article
“Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You?”
explained that Jesus was referring, NOT TO THE WICKED, BUT TO HIS DISCIPLES, who were soon to be anointed with holy spirit. Jesus’ anointed followers, both in the first century and in our day, would be the ones who would not only see the sign but also discern its meaning—that Jesus “is near at the doors.”

(Capitals added)

Compare the above 1995 definition of the generation to the latest efforts in the April 15 2010 WT……..

Now could anyone call the latter definition of the generation a ‘refinement’? Of course not! Not unless you would call a blind man from birth miraculously receiving sight.…..’a refinement’.

The 1995 the WTBTS printed that the generation of Mathew was referring to the wicked generation of mankind, who although recognised the signs of Chris’s presence refused to mend their ways……….

And the 2010 definition explicitly states that this generation was NOT the wicked generation, but instead referred to Christ’s anointed disciples.

COULD THE TWO DEFINITIONS OF THE GENERATION BE ANYMORE OPPOSITE?

I appreciate that for any Jws that seriously consider the above and its implications that you are in for a massive dose of cognitive dissonance…….but if you are a lover of truth as you would insist…..then how could anyone bury their head in the sand any longer?

Far from the FDS/GB of the WTBTS being the one true channel that god is using, far from the WTBTS religion being the truth……the above two articles show in black and white, from their own mouths that those men in Brooklyn do not have a clue and like everyone else are just guessing.

That would not be so bad except for the fact that they claim to the one true religion and then demonise anyone who disagrees and leaves.

If you can continue to state that they are…..and what’s more direct and encourage other people to become Jws because it is the WTBTS that has the truth…….then you are either in denial, dishonest or both.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#3 Feb 4, 2010
This Generation"

The Watchtower of February 15, 2008,(pages 23-25), offered an updated explanation regarding "this generation," as mentioned by Jesus at Matthew 24:34. But this was not a "new" understanding, as it returned to the interpretation of 81 years earlier, in the 1927 Watchtower, February 15, page 62.

The changing explanations over the years of "this generation":

C.T. Russell taught that "this generation" referred to people in general, who were living at a significant time in history.(Battle of Armageddon, pages 603-605)

J.F. Rutherford changed this in 1927 to apply only to the members of the "new creation," the anointed. "Some members of the new creation will be on the earth at the time of Armageddon." (W27, 2/15, p 62, click to view photocopy (res. 900x1191)

In 1942, "this generation" was no longer identified with just the anointed.(W42, 7/1, p 204, par. 43)

In 1949 it was more clearly explained that it "had its modern counterpart in our generation from A.D. 1914 forward. This generation is the one that sees the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven as foretold by Daniel." It was expected that the generation of 1914 would be on hand to witness the end of this system.(W49, 7/15, p 215, par. 19)

By 1995 time for "this generation" had run out and the explanation needed to be updated. Therefore, "this generation" became "the wayward people who make up this contemporary 'wicked and adulterous generation,'" but no longer limited to any particular date.(w95 11/1 p. 15 par. 21)

Then in 2008, we were told: "As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day 'generation' of contemporaries that will not pass away 'until all these things occur.'" (W08, 2/15, p 23-25)

This explanation was a return to what had already been discredited.

The April 15, 2010 Watchtower adds the following "increased light": "[The word 'generation'] usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end...[Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end."

It's just as Isaiah foretold:
"O my people, those leading you on are causing [you] to wander, and the way of your paths they have confused... Jehovah himself will enter into judgment with the elderly ones of his people and its princes." —Isaiah 3:12-14.
JACE

Woodbridge, VA

#4 Feb 4, 2010
Ephesians 4:14 (New Living Translation)

14 Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth.

NO MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID
snideone

Yadkinville, NC

#5 Feb 4, 2010
noahsday wrote:
This Generation"
The Watchtower of February 15, 2008,(pages 23-25), offered an updated explanation regarding "this generation," as mentioned by Jesus at Matthew 24:34. But this was not a "new" understanding, as it returned to the interpretation of 81 years earlier, in the 1927 Watchtower, February 15, page 62.
The changing explanations over the years of "this generation":
C.T. Russell taught that "this generation" referred to people in general, who were living at a significant time in history.(Battle of Armageddon, pages 603-605)
J.F. Rutherford changed this in 1927 to apply only to the members of the "new creation," the anointed. "Some members of the new creation will be on the earth at the time of Armageddon." (W27, 2/15, p 62, click to view photocopy (res. 900x1191)
In 1942, "this generation" was no longer identified with just the anointed.(W42, 7/1, p 204, par. 43)
In 1949 it was more clearly explained that it "had its modern counterpart in our generation from A.D. 1914 forward. This generation is the one that sees the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven as foretold by Daniel." It was expected that the generation of 1914 would be on hand to witness the end of this system.(W49, 7/15, p 215, par. 19)
By 1995 time for "this generation" had run out and the explanation needed to be updated. Therefore, "this generation" became "the wayward people who make up this contemporary 'wicked and adulterous generation,'" but no longer limited to any particular date.(w95 11/1 p. 15 par. 21)
Then in 2008, we were told: "As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day 'generation' of contemporaries that will not pass away 'until all these things occur.'" (W08, 2/15, p 23-25)
This explanation was a return to what had already been discredited.
The April 15, 2010 Watchtower adds the following "increased light": "[The word 'generation'] usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period; it is not excessively long; and it has an end...[Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end."
It's just as Isaiah foretold:
"O my people, those leading you on are causing [you] to wander, and the way of your paths they have confused... Jehovah himself will enter into judgment with the elderly ones of his people and its princes." —Isaiah 3:12-14.
so, what was jesus talking about? the generation has to mean something. its kind of tied in to the sign of the last days. is it already past,in the future or what? i need an up to date answer, since i live in the year of 2010. scripture only,thank you

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#6 Feb 4, 2010
Because of the WTS teaching on 1914 as the marked year of the beginning of the last days, that Jesus talked about in Matt24, Luke 21 and Mrk 13, the WTS has stated that the generation started at 1914, so they have had to change their original thoughts because their interpretation which they said came from God did not fit in with scripture.

As shown in the post above.

Only God knows the time and year or date, not even Jesus, so for the WTS to give any date has shown God has not approved as nothing has come to be true.

Obviously it is future, the presence of Christ is future.

Any one can put a swing onto the generation scripture. But obviously Christ was talking to his disciples, and they did see the end in their day.

The bigger fulfillment is any one that has a spiritual eye can see that we are living in the times foretold in the bible as the last days.

But the date is Jehovah's, not the WTS, which is why they have got themselves into this mess in the first place, stupid prophets. Ez 13:3.9
JACE

Woodbridge, VA

#7 Feb 4, 2010
noahsday wrote:
But the date is Jehovah's, not the WTS, which is why they have got themselves into this mess in the first place, stupid prophets. Ez 13:3.9
see you need to stop it:

Ez 13:3...

I, the LORD God, say those lying prophets are doomed! They don't see visions--they make up their own messages! 4Israel's prophets are no better than jackals [a] that hunt for food among the ruins of a city. 5They don't warn the people about coming trouble or tell them how dangerous it is to sin against me. 6Those prophets lie by claiming they speak for me, but I have not even chosen them to be my prophets. And they still think their words will come true. 7They say they're preaching my messages, but they are full of lies--I did not speak to them!
apocrypha

Fleming, OH

#8 Feb 4, 2010
All the "generation" changes stem from the anointed were sealed blunder. One good presumpteous mistake demands many more.

What a tangled web they weave....

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#9 Feb 5, 2010
It gets worse...

Associate membership to the UN Department of Public Information
The Watchtower Society became an Associate member of the United Nations Department of Public Information (UN/DPI) in February 1992 and maintained this membership until October 2001.[7] According to the United Nations Department of Public Information, the primary purpose of NGO association is, "the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies."[8] The association status was ceased the day after it was made known in the Guardian newspaper.[9][10] In a letter dated August 4, 2004, the UN website explained the association it had with the Watchtower Society: "By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities."[11] The official UN/DPI Web page explains about associated organizations:“Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status.”[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah 's_Witnesses_and_the_United_Na tions

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#10 Feb 6, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah 's_Witnesses_and_the_United_Na tions

sorry the link broke up this explains what the UN itself said about

JW and the works they had to do for the uN to be a DPI.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#11 Feb 6, 2010
the link keeps breaking.

google Jehovahs Witnesses and the United Nations

and open the wikipedia site.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#12 Feb 6, 2010
And for the WHOLE truth about the UN situation here is a thorough investigation of all the "claims" made about it:

http://www.thirdwitness.com/UN/www.jehovahsju...

It explains in detail what *really* happened with documentary proof.

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#13 Feb 6, 2010
What part of the unbias article did you not get, coming form the UN itself as to its wants for anyone to be a DPI.

Is 3rds site approved by the WTS, if not why are you directing others to it. hypocrite.
tried and true

Buffalo, NY

#14 Feb 6, 2010
Gareth wrote:
And for the WHOLE truth about the UN situation here is a thorough investigation of all the "claims" made about it:
http://www.thirdwitness.com/UN/www.jehovahsju...
It explains in detail what *really* happened with documentary proof.
That is not a creditable site. Thirdwitness is just a spindoctor apologist.

The truth is out there for anyone who cares to research.
shattered

Canada

#15 Feb 6, 2010
Gareth:And for the WHOLE truth about the UN situation here is a thorough investigation of all the "claims" made about it:

http://www.thirdwitness.com/UN/www.jehovahsju ...

It explains in detail what *really* happened with documentary proof.

PLease don't tell me I need to go back into the WTS literature to enumerate the multitude of references condemning the UN and the ones that support it or the the WTS references that tell the faithful not to touch the "unclean thing". The WTS does what is expedient and I don't believe there would have been any change if British reporter had not shone a light on the WTS/UN connection. The WTS engages in what I call "situational ethics"
Was there some kind of nefarious conspiracy .....nope I don't think so.... but that's not the point. If any of the "rank and file" had done the same, they would have been DF'd for apostasy, for being aligned with an organization that stands in opposition to God's Kingdom. Lets face it, you can read the original NGO/WTS agreement wherein the WTS signatories agreed to support the aims of the UN. No amount of "spin" can gloss over or change that. For crying out loud, as a JW, if you join a YMCA to get into shape you get DF'd for apostasy because of joining a "false religious group" when they stopped being that a long time ago. Humanitarian, yes, in their promotion of practicing good deeds but religious certainly not.Even the Roman Catholic Church condemns them for their lack of religious dogma. You can find that online too if you're interested enough to check the facts.
The WTS joining the UN as a NGO was wrong according to their owns words and by their own words they stand condemned. No gloss , no spin doctors , just the facts

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#16 Feb 6, 2010
shattered wrote:
PLease don't tell me I need to go back into the WTS literature to enumerate the multitude of references condemning the UN and the ones that support it or the the WTS references that tell the faithful not to touch the "unclean thing".
You need to go back to the WT literature because they do not say that the UN is the "unclean thing". You are mistaken.

The "unclean thing" that is not to be touched is 'false religion'. NOT the UN.
shattered wrote:
The WTS does what is expedient and I don't believe there would have been any change if British reporter had not shone a light on the WTS/UN connection. The WTS engages in what I call "situational ethics"
Or they simply didn't know that the UN had changed the wording of the relationship until it was brought to their attention.
shattered wrote:
Was there some kind of nefarious conspiracy .....nope I don't think so.... but that's not the point. If any of the "rank and file" had done the same, they would have been DF'd for apostasy, for being aligned with an organization that stands in opposition to God's Kingdom.
No they would not.Even

They would have been questioned by the elders, given the opportunity to evaluate their situation in light of scripture and freely forgiven if they stopped the association.
shattered wrote:
Lets face it, you can read the original NGO/WTS agreement wherein the WTS signatories agreed to support the aims of the UN. No amount of "spin" can gloss over or change that.
Supporting the *aims* of the UN is NOT the same as supporting the UN itself. The *aims* of the UN are for world peace and security. Everyone supports those aims.

But the WTS has *always* spoken out against the UNs ability to realise those aims. They have always firmly stated that only God's Kingdom can do that.
shattered wrote:
For crying out loud, as a JW, if you join a YMCA to get into shape you get DF'd for apostasy because of joining a "false religious group" when they stopped being that a long time ago.
First, the YMCY has religious affiliation and is therefore the "discusting thing" that the Bible instructs us not to touch.

Second, you would not simply be disfellowshipped. You would be given the opportunity to repent.
shattered wrote:
Humanitarian, yes, in their promotion of practicing good deeds but religious certainly not.
They are the (Y)oung (M)en's (C)hristian (A)ssociation. YMCA. Inwhat way is that not religious affiliation?
shattered wrote:
Even the Roman Catholic Church condemns them for their lack of religious dogma.[/QUOTE}

Claiming to be Christian but refusing to teach that which is Christian and tolerating un-Christian behaviour makes them a false Christian organisation. Part of the "disgusting thing" not to be touched.

[QUOTE who="shattered"]
You can find that online too if you're interested enough to check the facts.
The WTS joining the UN as a NGO was wrong according to their owns words and by their own words they stand condemned. No gloss , no spin doctors , just the facts
They ended up in an inappropriate relationship with the DPI. However they immediately repented of that.

So whatever bad thing they MAY have done in God's eyes is in the past and forgiven.

Christendom, on the other hand, continues to unrepentantly promote and back the UN as mankind's hope for peace. They continue to try to exert political influence within the UN which is "riding the wild beast".

This is what condemns them.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#17 Feb 6, 2010
tried and true wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not a creditable site. Thirdwitness is just a spindoctor apologist.
The truth is out there for anyone who cares to research.
TRANSLATION:

"tried and true" does not want people reading that site because he knows it exposes the truth about the UN DPI situation.

But if in doubt we can always go and read what it says and come to our own opinion:

http://www.thirdwitness.com/UN/www.jehovahsju...

After all, why look at only one side of the argument?
alanv

Sandy, UK

#18 Feb 6, 2010
Garath said 'you need to go back to the WT literature because they do not say that the UN is the "unclean thing". You are mistaken.
Throughout the years the society has repeatedly condemned the U N for saying it is mankinds only hope for peace and security.
Over the years the society has called it all sorts of darogatary names. Whether they actually called it an unclean thing is totally irrelavant.
They have always told the rank and file to keep well clear of it.
Clearly they are hypocrites as they got as close as they could to it, and when they got caught out
They pleaded ignorance.

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#19 Feb 6, 2010
alanv wrote:
Garath said 'you need to go back to the WT literature because they do not say that the UN is the "unclean thing". You are mistaken.
Throughout the years the society has repeatedly condemned the U N for saying it is mankinds only hope for peace and security.
Over the years the society has called it all sorts of darogatary names. Whether they actually called it an unclean thing is totally irrelavant.
They have always told the rank and file to keep well clear of it.
Clearly they are hypocrites as they got as close as they could to it, and when they got caught out
They pleaded ignorance.
Please show me just ONE example of a WT publication telling "the rank and file" to 'steer clear' of the UN.

And please also list 3 or 4 of the "derogatory names" that you say that have called the UN.

That is, of course, if you are not just making this up?
WIZARD

Johnson City, TN

#20 Feb 6, 2010
Forget about the United Nations for a moment, Gareth.

I want to know about 'This Generation' if you will be so kind to tell me the truth about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Brexit voted out of EU, Globalist Must Crease C... 10 min Brother P 30
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 15 min imagoodboy 7,330
News Judge sanctions Jehovah's Witnesses 26 min aadrivers 11
So far away 31 min Samson 93
News Jehovah's Witness conventions will draw 11,000 ... 33 min aadrivers 8
News 'Remain Loyal!' theme of Jehovah's Witnesses co... 43 min True Christian w... 212
Shunning someone is a sin! 1 hr Letitbeknown 39
continuation on michael and the resurrection of... 4 hr imagoodboy 122
You know, churchoids- 5 hr Brother P 469
1914 8 hr jsmith 220
More from around the web