Deconstructing Splanes 'Generation' explanation

Splash

At around 4 minutes into the September 2015 video Splane said "For the man and the baby to be part of Josephs generation they would have had to have lived at least some time during Joseph's lifespan."

This is the lynchpin of the WT argument, that two lives must overlap to be considered the same generation.

Let's take an example of twins who are born just a few minutes apart. Obviously, these twins are the same generation as each other. Then the twins grow to old age.
If a baby is born between the first twin dying and the second twin dying, that baby is not considered to be of the same generation as the first twin, only the second twin. That's just stupid.

Let's take the example that Splane used, Joseph and his brothers. These are the same generation as each other.
Joseph has an older brother. They grow old.
If a baby is born after Joseph dies, but before the older brother dies, the baby is said to be of the same generation as the older brother, but not the same generation as Joseph.

This is a nonsense. The baby's life overlaps with an older person than Joseph so how could this NOT be Joseph's generation too?

What Splane is doing is trying to obscure the distinction between a generation and contemporaries.
You can be of the same generation even if you are not contemporaries.

A child dies at the age of 8.
Another child is born the day after the first one dies.
They are not contemporaries but they are the same generation.
Splanes explanation above would have us believe they are not the same generation.

My brother is 50 years old. I am 40 years old.
If I die tomorrow and my nephew is born next week, my nephew is in the same generation as my brother, but not the same generation as me because our lives do not overlap, yet my life was within my older brothers generation.

Sorry GB, you need to try harder to explain the unexplainable because after years of effort and word twisting, it STILL does not make any sense.

Splash

At eight minutes into the same video Splane reassures us "But here's the point. In 1914, who were the only ones who saw these various aspects of the sign and drew the right conclusion, that something invisible was occurring? Only the anointed."

Everyone on this board knows this is a lie.

NONE of the anointed in 1914 drew the right conclusion. They all drew the WRONG conclusion about 1914.
The anointed were not teaching that "something invisible was occurring" at all! How dare he lie so brazenly!

If 'the point' that Splane endeavours to make is entirely fabricated, then 'the point' is they have resorted to a false tongue to try to explain the unexplainable.

The more the GB speak, the more they expose their true wolfish character.

OnTheWayOut

Splane is setting up the stretch of "this generation." Just as sure as they went from the 1914 generation being people old enough to recognize the sign all the way to the 1914 generation just being born by 1914, so this overlap portion will go from contemporaries that significantly overlapped their adult lives as anointed (basically, they knew each other) right down to babies born just before (10 minutes before) the first group completely died to become anointed later.

They are going to drop the "contemporary" word that they used to condition people to the silly overlap idea.

They like using Freddy Franz in their example because he was "of age" in 1914 and lived until 1992, a year that all of today's Governing Body were born before. They give the impression that the end will come before the current GB are all dead. But I imagine as a kicker, they will put someone born around 1990 on the Governing Body in 15 to 20 years (or less) when this stupid doctrine is getting stale and they will start making it seem like the end will come in that GB member's lifetime.

As a matter of opinion, I imagine they might already have this in mind to do somewhere close to 2034. And I don't think they will name an end date for Armageddon to have occurred, but will name a beginning date for THE GREAT TRIBULATION to have started. They will declare that it did start just like they declared that Jesus did show up on time invisibly.

vinman

Yes, they lied. Just another weapon in my arsenal I will have to share with elders.

Splash

OTWO They like using Freddy Franz in their example because he was "of age" in 1914 and lived until 1992

They speak about Freddy Franz as if he, on his own, constitutes a generation.

When his generation were all dead and gone and Freddy was the lone survivor, it's true to say that he was the last of his generation. It is not true to say that he defined the duration of a generation.

And don't forget, just like Russell's 'pyramid inches', the generation the WT talks about is an 'anointed generation'. This gives them the latitude to define it however they like because there's no such thing, it's something they themselves have made up.

dubstepped

Am I totally wrong, or to be in someone's generation don't you have to be born around roughly the same time? It isn't just about living at some point in the duration of a person's life, but about having life spans that start around the same time, much like my parents and I (and my siblings) are different generations of a family. Even the scripture they used at Exodus 1:6 to define generation talked about Joseph's brothers as that generation and then used a vague term thereafter. But specifically it talked about a generation in context of siblings, who for all intents and purposes would be born in roughly the same stretch of childbearing time and constitute a generation.

Ding

In 1914, the WT was proclaiming that the invisible happenings occurred in 1874 and 1878.

In 1914, the "anointed" weren't considered a separate class.

That only came when "light flashed up" to Rutherford in the 1930s.

OneEyedJoe

Even if you want to accept a generation as spanning essentially two lifetimes with a small period of overlap, how do you determine when the overlap is to occur? Jesus said "this generation" will not pass away. Not "your generation" or "their generation" - "this generation." In the "primary fulfillment" of this, he was talking to his disciples and saying the current generation that witnessed his physical presence would not pass away before the destruction of jerusalem. In this case, if you want to apply an overlapping generation type thinking, the overlap would have occurred not at some point after he spoke the words, but when he spoke them. Someone born 10 minutes before Jesus made this pronouncement could be included in "this generation" and someone who died 10 minutes after could be included.

It's the same with 1914 - if there's an overlap, that's when it happened. We could consider all those who died just after 1914 to be a part of "this generation" and we could include all those born just before 1914 to be a part of it as well. So, in essence, this would be the generation doctrine that they ditched in 1995, which is why that one at least made some sense. They talk about a generation being a group of people who's lives overlap, which is certainly not a definition supported by any scripture, but even if you give them that, they're still wrong.

They're using two definitions of generation and mixing them up - one definition would be the people born in a certain time period, the other being people who's lives overlap in a certain time period and they're trying to say it's people born in a certain time period plus those who's lives they overlap with at a second unspecified time period.

It's just so effing stupid. It makes me so angry that anyone is stupid enough to just accept this as if it makes perfect sense. I get how people can be fooled by the explanation of the blood ban or about birthdays and I'll even give them the numerology BS that gets them to 1914. But the explanation of the overlapping generation nonsense is just so thin and full of holes (none of which require special knowledge/research to find as is the case with 607, blood, etc) that I just don't understand how anyone can listen to it and not be left with more questions than answers.

Marvin Shilmer

In the context of Splane's argument we would have to read the text of Exodus 1:6 to mean Joseph's children are part of "that generation" Joseph is said to belong to. But something tells me the context of Exodus 1:6 does not suggest this.

But, hey, context never gets in the way of Watchtower leadership when it wants to ram something down JWs' throats.

sir82

Y'know, the "overlapping generations" teaching is such a muddled mish-mash, you'd think, "no, they couldn't possibly make it even more implausible!"

So then we get the September broadcast.

Never underestimate the ability of the GB to become even stupider.

Deconstructing Splanes 'Generation' explanation

Share this