Posts by djeggnog

posted

245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@elderelite:
I find it so amusing that eggnog cannot simply [address] the plain reality:
I'd happy to amuse you, but to what "reality" do you refer? Are you referring to your reality or mine? I've addressed what is my reality. If you weren't listening, what can I tell you?
Jesus used "generation" in the first [century] and it was indeed a generation of less than 40 years. Period. Fact.
Actually, the 37 years between when Jesus' spoke those words about Jerusalem's destruction in 33 AD and its description in 70 AD wasn't a generation. Not at all. When Jesus used the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34, he was referring to the generation of his followers that were living in Judea that had begun to see, just 33 years later, the sign that Jesus had described at Luke 21:21-24, which ultimately led to the great tribulation that destroyed the temple and killed some 1.1 million Jews, and brought to an end of the Jewish system of things four years later. What happened in Jerusalem became a prophetic shadow or "type" of the reality or "antitype."
You are stuck on what you believe a generation to be, rather than on what Jesus meant when hye used the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34. Jesus wasn't referring to a generation of 20-23 years, a generation of 33-37 years, a generation of 40-50, or even a generation of 80-90 years as you and others are wont to believe in satisfaction of your own respective theological viewpoints. Jesus was referring to the passing away of a generation, the passing away of a particular event, the passing away of the great tribulation, not the passing away of the people that were alive when the great tribulation befell them. How can we know that Jesus wasn't talking about a generation of people passing away? Because Jesus said at Matthew 24:22, we read that it was "on account of the chosen ones," Jesus said, that those days would "be cut short," which enabled some flesh to be saved. This is how we know that Jesus was referring to the generation that would witness an event, and not to people themselves.
And we know this to be true historically because some 97,000 Jews survived and did not die, did not pass away, so by Jesus' saying "this generation will not pass away," what Jesus was referring to then at that time he was also referring to now in this time, namely, the generation that would see the sign when it began -- the generation that began to see the sign in 66 AD, which is the minor fulfillment of Matthew 24:34 (the type), and the generation that began to see the sign of Jesus' presence in 1914 AD, which is the major fulfillment of Matthew 24:34 (the antitype). When Christians living in Judea had begun to see the sign that Jesus had given them, they began to flee to Perea, to the mountainous region around Pella, a city located in the mountains located some 954 miles away from Jerusalem clear on the other side of the Jordan River.
By current wt standards its been 98 years. Thats not a generation by anyones [definition]. Blather, quote and defend all you want. The [comparison] is broken beyond repair. The end came. Exactly when jesus said. In 70 ce. A hope for anything more is smoke and [mirrors] and wasted paper.
I don't believe you will find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus specifically gave to any of his followers the year when the end of the Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish system of things, would come, but you know when it came because history informs you of when the temple in Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself was destroyed. By your own admission, @elderelite, you are at present pretending to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is fine, but you should not expect me to give any credence to a pretender's point of view, knowing as I do that it is not 'by the Bible's standards' that the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34 can be measured in years as you are wont to do. The generation of the sign that began in 1914 continues until now, and I have faith that whether it continues for yet another five or ten years, it will yet continue "until all these things occur."
@therevealer:
If the [anointed] are chosen, and that by none other than (jehovah or jesus?) and then fall away/are disfellowshipped, does this not suggest that an error was made in their choosing?
If you should hire a guy to move money from money from the casino tables to the Count, the place where money is counted, stacked and packed for a trip by armored vehicle to the bank, and after 17 years of faithful service you learn that he had decided to abscond with the $1.25 million he had collected on his cart during his table run, would this not suggest that an error was made on your part in his choosing? How do you feel about Judas Iscariot, who was chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the twelve. Does Judas' betrayal not suggest that an error was made on Jesus' part in his having chosen the man? I don't know why, but I'm actually offended over the question you asked here, @therevealer.
Your question reminds me of an occasion when the Kingdom Hall had been opened so that folks could go in and do some overall cleaning and maintenance work, and I wasn't expected to be there, but upon driving by I noticed the cars in the parking lot that would not otherwise be there and so decided to pull my car into the lot to say "Hi!" and maybe offer my help, only to discover Blackjack being dealt among four teenagers in one of the restrooms, and my initial impulse was to pull out some money and say "Deal me in!" since I was once a teenager myself, and I used to play Blackjack at school -- I play Blackjack on my iPad now -- and my sudden appearance I guess you might kinda freaked all of them out.
One of them had become so fearful of what he thought was going to happen next once an elder had reported to his parents what had happened at the Kingdom Hall that he peed himself -- I'll call him "Peabody," so I excused the other three from the restroom and told them to sit in the main auditorium since I needed to talk to whomever was in charge. I left Peabody in the restroom to grab some sweats from my gym bag and came back inside to tell him that he should change his pants and then call his father and tell him he had had gotten wet and needed a change of clothes right away, since I had learned that Peabody was riding with one of the other teenagers. I told Peabody that after he had called his father that he should meet me in the main auditorium where the other teenagers were.
I told them that they may not realize it, but what they were doing in God's house was just as inappropriate to be done there as it was when men had set up tables in the courtyard outside of the temple, and had converted this area on the temple grounds -- the courtyard -- into a marketplace where animals were being sold to the foreigners that had travelled with their families to Jerusalem to observe the passover, so that they could have what things they needed to offer sacrifices at the temple, but being dishonest merchants, they were selling these animals for more than they were worth. These men, I told them, had also set themselves up as a money exchange to exchange foreign coinage for coinage peculiar to Jerusalem, but being dishonest brokers, the money exchange was crooked with these foreigners receiving less than what they were entitled to receive for their coins.
I then had them read John 2:15, 16, and Matthew 21:12, 13, which had occurred before the passover in 30 AD and on Nisan 10, 33 AD, respectively. I also told them that when I saw what they were doing in the restroom, I wanted to throw all of them out of the Kingdom Hall because what they did was like walking into God's spiritual temple and pulling out a deck of cards to play Blackjack in a holy place.
I told them that if Jesus had walked into that restroom and saw them playing Blackjack in the Kingdom Hall, he would have become righteously indignant and made a whip of ropes and used it to drive all of them all out of the Kingdom Hall, except that this was the 20th century and Jesus would probably have had to go to jail, and it would be all their fault because Jesus had become righteously indignant that Blackjack was being dealt in God's spiritual house of worship.
I told them that I was once a teenager, but the Kingdom Hall is a holy place and my hope is that what they had just read in the Bible as to how Jesus felt about God's house of worship will help them to see things as Jesus did so that would ever do this or anything like this again, at which point I would feel I had no choice but to report this incident to their parents. One of these teenagers is now an elder in another congregation and whenever I do see Peabody, he smiles because he knows that only he and I know about his accident after I had broken up the card game!
Listen, @therevealer: I don't know, but maybe when you were once regularly associating along with Jehovah's Witnesses, you heard someone say or you read in one of our publications something about free will. Even if it should out that you didn't hear a thing about free will, free will is something of which all human beings are in possession, for with it, one can decide to take that swath of $20 bills stacked up on a table at your friend's house and become a thief, and enjoy the rush that comes from stealing something of value from one of your friends, or you can decide to ignore the klepto impulse in you and do what Jesus would do. That you were gathered as one of the Jesus' "other sheep" to worship and praise God in everything you do does not suggest that an error was made should you deflect and decide to go back to the things you had supposedly left behind -- like the dog that has returned to its own vomit, and the hog that had been bathed clean to return to rolling in the mud again -- but only that you had exercised your own free will to do what you felt like doing, to do what things you wanted to do, and having free will gives you the choice to do what you want.
Look: Don't be silly! No one is responsible for the choices that someone else makes. Not your parents, not some other adult, and certainly not Jehovah or Jesus. No one is responsible for the choices that you have made. You are responsible for the exercise of your own free will. If you want to apportion error, the error would be yours, no one else's.
@THE GLADIATOR:
I wish you well in your quest for truth. May I suggest that truth is very simple, it is organizations that make it sound complicated. There is money to be made in [claiming] to ‘have the truth.’ You seek truth, and I admire that.
I'm not on any "quest for truth"; I believe I've found the truth. I don't seek truth; I have the truth. The truth is not simple, if it was, then you should know it, but, as it is, the truth is for those who are able to humble themselves before God and learn, for it is not for the simpleminded. Why don't you go admire someone else. I need neither your admiration nor sarcasm; I'm fine without any of these.
I urge you never to surrender your birthright to gain the approval of those who claim that your right to life is dependent on membership of their club.
You seem clueless to me as to knowing what it is that constitutes one a Christian, @THE GLADIATOR, you truly do. A Christian is someone whose conscience has been spiritually trained to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. If someone with their own conscience should disapprove of something that I might be doing or might not be doing, that would be a function of their own conscience, not mine. When anyone sees fault in anyone else not their own child, in someone that is not their own responsibility, that is judgmentalism, and while there is a lot of judgmentalism found among Jehovah's Witnesses, it exists here on JWN, too, with folks thinking that they can judge others -- those who are currently Jehovah's Witnesses and those that are no longer actively so -- because many of them actually learned to be judgmental from other Jehovah's Witnesses. It's sad when an adult is persuaded that he or she must live up to another's expectations for them in that they give up all claim to themselves and subject themselves to the will and designs of others seeking to obtain their approval, based not on their own conscience, mind you, but based on the consciences of others.
I do not live to gain the approval of others. My future prospects are in the hands of the Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and I do not accept the judgment of any man, nor do I care whether anyone (other than my own wife) approves of me or of the things I do and don't do. I am what some might refer to as a spiritual person, a mature Christian, and an adult. Maybe one day you, too, will grow up and become such.
@djeggnog
245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@THE GLADIATOR wrote:
This change paved the way for their planned change in the meaning of a generation.
@djeggnog wrote:
I would really like to see a citation to the effect that 1935 was no longer considered to be "the cut off date" for those with the heavenly calling (the anointed) to be called as such.
@THE GLADIATOR wrote:
djeggnog You obviously did not read the quotes I posted earlier for you. I know it’s not Christmas but I’ll post them again for you: ...
In 2007 this teaching was significantly altered:
Hence especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly calling ceased in 1935. Thereafter, any called to the heavenly hope were believed to be replacements for anointed Christians who had proved unfaithful. Thus it appears that we can not set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.
The Watchtower 1 May 2007 - pages 30-31
I did read what you quoted, but just because no specific date can be set for when the heavenly calling of Christians ended, this article you cite here doesn't at all impact the viewpoint that the heavenly calling ended in 1935. What this article is saying is that one must not conclude that anyone that begins to partake of the emblems at the Memorial that was "baptized after 1935" could not have had witness borne to him or her that they have the heavenly hope. What this article also says is that no precise answer can be given to the question of when the heavenly calling ceased, but "especially after 1966 it was believed that the heavenly calling ceased in 1935."
Put another way, 1935 remains "the cut off date," even if it should occur that someone "baptized after 1935" should come to realize that he or she has a heavenly calling, for replacements would have to be grafted in should any of the anointed unrepentantly fall away from true worship. But whereas in the past we were rather dogmatic in saying that 1935 the heavenly calling cease, we should not be dogmatic about this.
@djeggnog
245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, remember we spoke about dishonest scholarship in an earlier thread.
Is dishonest scholarship what we were discussing "in an earlier thread"? Really?!? ...
Do you not notice how you refer to "dictionaries" as if the discussion had been about the definition of the word "generation," and then how you begin using the word "interpretation" and go on to refer to the English language definitions of the words contained in Webster's dictionary as "English interpretations"?
Again, @Vidqun, I don't want to be hurtful, or say anything that would make you feel insulted or hurt your feelings, but like I told you in that thread, there does seem to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those who translated the NWT from "Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" into its "English equivalent," and specifically as to the NWT translators word choice with respect to the Greek word genea. If you were discussing "dishonest scholarship" with me, fine, but I wasn't aware of it since I was the one that intimated to you that there seemed to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those that translated the NWT.
There is a difference, however, between the definition of a word and the interpretation of a word. You seem to not know that these two words -- "definition" and "interpretation" -- are not synonyms of one another, but have very different meanings. I'm really not comfortable discussing this with you, because you don't seem to be in possession of a sufficient knowledge of the English language and your inability to comprehend fundamental concepts compels me to beg off from discussing this topic further with you.
@smiddy:
You never commented on my post on Matt.ch.1 vs 17 which clearly identifies a generation as 48 years long ,2 such timespans ( generations ) have already passed since 1914. { 1962 and 2010 }
I didn't comment, because I couldn't take what you posted seriously. You wrote the following:
So from Abraham to jesus their were 3 lots of 14 generations,which = 42 generations
Abraham was born about 2018 BC
Jesus was born about 2 BC
a difference of 2016 years
2016 years divided by 42 generations =48 years
Which incidentally coincides with what jesus stated in prophecy concerning the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD , well within a generation timespan of 48 years.
You arbitrarily decided to divide the number of years between Abraham's birth and Jesus' birth, or 2016 years, by the 42 generations mentioned in Matthew's gospel at Matthew 1:17 averaging 48 years for each generation, when Luke's gospel at Luke 3:23-28 indicates that there are 76 generations from Adam's creation to Jesus' birth, which when these 4,024 years are divided by 76 averages roughly 53 years per generation, except that the people in the first ten generations (through Noah) had pretty long lifespans that greatly exceeded 53 years. No one would do what you did here.
@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, allow me to delve into some "honest interpretation."
I'm really not interested in what you are calling "honest interpretation."
Because of being followed by a negative connotation in most cases of NT use, the emphasis should be on the sinfulness of the people, rather than the "genealogical" element. One should therefore not view the word "generation" as a chronological marker, but rather as a qualitative noun.
Ok.
2. Almost all the remaining NT genea-passages speak of "this generation" (he genea haute). This construction in Greek, with the demonstrative regularly following its noun, is clearly the equivalent of haddor hazzeh....
It is interesting that the OT does not know this stereotyped phrase in its NT sense.... In these passages the temporal, "genealogical" element is completely absent. The emphasis lies entirely on the sinfulness of this class, this type of people.
3. In Jesus’ discourse about the future the phrase clearly bears this second meaning: Mk. 13:30; Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32. Indeed, in every other NT passage where haute forms part of this phrase, it has the same pejorative character. But since the discourse refers to this genea "passing away", the temporal, genealogical element is also present, though of secondary importance.
You have here quoted from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which is a good resource in that it can be used to provide an understanding of the meaning of the words contained in the Greek text of the Bible, but your focusing on what this dictionary says about "the temporal, 'genealogical' element" suggests to me that you are neither familiar or competent to discuss this topic with me.
The fact that don't seem to be able to use your own words in articulating your point of view convinces me that you are merely repeating what things you have read in this dictionary according to your own understanding, which is hardly more than obtains from attending high school. Pretentiousness only works to a point and you reached that point in that other thread in which we exchanged posts regarding the meaning of the Greek word genea.
What you have quoted is an interpretation of a theological body, and not just a definition of the word "generation," and many of the conclusions one finds in this resource are based on theological beliefs not shared by Jehovah's Witnesses. You may not realize this, but the word "Theology" in the title of this work is what informs that the definitions it provides have a theological bent.
You provided a quote from this dictionary which indicates that where Jesus uses the Greek word haute (as in he genea haute), it has "the same pejorative character" as contained in certain other Bible passages without realizing that Jehovah's Witnesses, too, once shared this view in thinking that when using the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 that Jesus was referring to the generation of wicked people.
As a body of Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses are guided by holy spirit and so we have taken a very different approach when reading Matthew 24:34 than the approach taken by the theologians of Christendom, who are not guided by God's spirit and have rejected the applying a "pejorative character" to the word "generation." Consequently, our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is based on how "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6.
@iCeltic:
Jehovah's Witnesses playing with words again, there's a surprise. More evidence of why 99/100 it's useless even discussing things with them as sensible adults. No discussion, they are right and everyone else is wrong. Apparently.
Evidently.
@djeggnog
245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@00DAD wrote:
The SOCIETY does not refer to this New Light as "Overlapping Generations" because, according to their obfuscated "reasoning" and willingness to capriciously change the meaning of the word "generation, it is only ONE GENERATION made up of TWO GROUPS WHOSE LIVES OVERLAP.
@djeggnog wrote:
[W]e have never taught a thing about any "overlapping generations," which is my point. A generation comprised of two groups whose lives overlap with one another, yes, but not two 'overlapping generations.'
Notice here that what you say here about us changing the meaning of the word "generation" does not in any way agree with what I say here. I don't know how it was you came to conclude what you did about the change in our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 as to what Jesus meant by "this generation."
@00DAD wrote:
Never mind the fact that there is a potential 99+ year age difference between the oldest person in the FIRST GROUP and the youngest in the SECOND GROUP.* They are "evidently" only one generation!
@djeggnog wrote:
The point you make here though is eclipsed by the fact that of the 16 visions recorded in the Bible book of Revelation, all but six of them remain to undergo fulfillment.... What is yet to occur is the scarlet-colored wild beast's turning on what this harlot, Babylon the Great, represents, namely, religion, for this vision states that this beast will hate, devastate and completely destroy this woman.
It is then that [...] the fulfillment of the 12th vision with respect to the "great tribulation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:21 comes into view, which event is followed by the execution of God's judgment upon the world by Jesus Christ and his angels to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:30-34....
Notice again that what you say here about "a potential 99+ year age difference" between the oldest in group #1 and the youngest in group #2 and their being "only one generation" makes no sense since there aren't really two groups at all, so what you are saying here does not in any way agree with what I say here, considering the fact that the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower, dated April 15, 2010, was merely illustrating hypothetically how the life of someone in group #1 could overlap the life of someone in group #2. Plus, where's the logic in concluding with the great tribulation looming that what you have referred to as "a potential 99+ year age difference" could impact the timing of the 12th vision with the 11th vision so close to fulfillment?
You argue with me for agreeing with you! What a maroon!!!
Actually, when someone says something foolish, I will tactfully try to point out to them where they are mistaken in their viewpoint. Not everyone has had a university education, not everyone has had a high school education. I know this and I don't pretend that everyone to whom I might speak is an intellectual. I've met folks of my own ilk that are wont to say some pretty ridiculous things, but I, too, have been guilty of saying some ridiculous things, so I know not to take myself too seriously. However, your view was different than my view, so we didn't exactly agree.
@Black Sheep:
Describing the WT's new attempt at redeeming their generation doctrine as 'overlapping generations' is very appropriate as their new [definition] of "this generation" includes people who cannot be described as the same generation "...whose lives overlap during a particular time period..." Spin it any way you like, these people are different generations. You're not fooling anybody.
Our new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 isn't about overlapping generations, but is about contemporaries of a particular event, and the event began with the composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914. We now understand that this event -- the composite sign -- marks the beginning of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34, so we no longer apply Jesus' use of generation to people, since these would be contemporaries of one another during the "generation of the sign." The lives of some of the older ones during this generation of the sign would overlap the lives of some of the younger ones during this generation of the sign. Again, there aren't really two groups, the "older" group and the "younger" group, but here's another hypothetical:
Imagine a three-day convention and I have two parts to give on Days 1 and 2 at the Dallas Convention and two parts to give elsewhere on Day 3. You have two parts to give elsewhere on Day 1 and two parts to give on Days 2 and 3 at the Dallas Convention. You and I are contemporaries at the Dallas Convention on Day 2 even though I was there when it began on Day 1 and you were there when it ended on Day 3. The Dallas Convention represents "the generation of the sign," so that while I was there when it began, you were there when it ended and our lives overlapped at the Convention on Day 2, making the two of us contemporaries there.
This illustrates how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Jesus' use of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34, for as we discerned from how the word "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6 that Joseph's generation included those whose lives overlapped with his life. Joseph's older siblings were there when Joseph's life began and Joseph's younger brother, Benjamin, who was six years younger than Joseph, as well as his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were there when Joseph's life ended, who might have outlived their oldest uncles, Reuben and Simeon (Reuben was seven years older than Joseph). All of these were contemporaries of Joseph's generation.
@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, remember we spoke about dishonest scholarship in an earlier thread.
Is dishonest scholarship what we were discussing "in an earlier thread"? Really?!? In that other thread, I recall pointing out to you the following:
(1) The beast at Revelation 11:7 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3. (2) The beast at Revelation 13:1 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 either. And I also recall your writing the following:
(@Vidqun:)
When there is doubt or misunderstanding of a word, then it is time to bring in the dictionaries.... [T]he NWT is an American Bible, translated in the US of A, thus my use of Webster. I would say it is very relevant, or did they use the wrong English word for Greek genea?
[and]
I know for a fact that the new "generation" interpretation of the Society is unique and unparallelled in the literature. That means they have created a novel and new interpretation that should be added to the list of standard English interpretations (e.g., those by Webster) or even those used by the Oxford dictionary, if you prefer to use that one.
Do you not notice how you refer to "dictionaries" as if the discussion had been about the definition of the word "generation," and then how you begin using the word "interpretation" and go on to refer to the English language definitions of the words contained in Webster's dictionary as "English interpretations"?
Again, @Vidqun, I don't want to be hurtful, or say anything that would make you feel insulted or hurt your feelings, but like I told you in that thread, there does seem to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those who translated the NWT from "Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" into its "English equivalent," and specifically as to the NWT translators word choice with respect to the Greek word genea. If you were discussing "dishonest scholarship" with me, fine, but I wasn't aware of it since I was the one that suggested to you that there seemed to be a question in your mind as the scholarship of those that translated the NWT.
There is a difference, however, between the definition of a word and the interpretation of a word. You seem to not know that these two words -- "definition" and "interpretation" -- are not synonyms of one another, but have very different meanings. I'm really not comfortable discussing this with you, because you don't seem to be in possession of a sufficient knowledge of the English language and your inability to comprehend fundamental concepts compels me to beg off from discussing this topic further with you.
@smiddy:
You never commented on my post on Matt.ch.1 vs 17 which clearly identifies a generation as 48 years long ,2 such timespans ( generations ) have already passed since 1914. { 1962 and 2010 }
I didn't comment, because I couldn't take what you posted seriously. You wrote the following:
So from Abraham to jesus their were 3 lots of 14 generations,which = 42 generations
Abraham was born about 2018 BC
Jesus was born about 2 BC
a difference of 2016 years
2016 years divided by 42 generations =48 years
Which incidentally coincides with what jesus stated in prophecy concerning the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD , well within a generation timespan of 48 years.
You arbitrarily decided to divide the number of years between Abraham's birth and Jesus' birth, or 2016 years, by the 42 generations mentioned in Matthew's gospel at Matthew 1:17 averaging 48 years for each generation, when Luke's gospel at Luke 3:23-28 indicates that there are 76 generations from Adam's creation to Jesus' birth, which when these 4,024 years are divided by 76 averaging roughly 53 years per generation, except the lives of those in the first ten generations had pretty long lifespan greatly exceeding 53 years. No one would do what you did here.
@djeggnog
245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@yesidid:
Well djeggnog what you wrote may not have made a lot of sense, but it probably took a while, so you will have a bit of time to count.
I didn't write what you read for your benefit, but for the benefit of those that were interested in the OP's question and in reading definitive responses to it.
@slimboyfat wrote:
But am I correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
@djeggnog wrote:
What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.
@slimboyfat wrote:
Mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again. Is that the strategy?
@djeggnog wrote:
I know of no such strategy. What you are saying would seem to be rather speculatory.
@slimboyfat wrote:
Oh the irony.
What do you find ironic about there being no strategic methodology in play for Jehovah's Witnesses to neither mention nor bring up the subject of "overlapping generations" when this idea exists only in your own mind?
@Alfred:
djegnogg... aren't you afraid of being destroyed in [Armageddon] for continuously ignoring the Society's directives regarding participation on apostate forums?
So if apostates join JWN this in your opinion makes JWN an apostate forum? As to whether the Society has prerogatives that give to it the right to override the consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses to smoke, to engage in military service, to accept blood transfusions, to engage in in vitro fertilization procedures, to post messages to any website, I'll leave it to you to judge, but my reading of the Bible suggests that no human being has authority over the conscience of another human being, especially with regard to the Christian freedom enjoyed by Christians, for why would anyone permit their own freedom in Christ to be judged by another person's conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29)
I hope you are praying to Jehovah for forgiveness... ... it doesn't look good for you right now...
Why would Jehovah listen to your prayers on my behalf, when he'll never hear them (or have you perhaps forgotten that all prayers to him must be directed to him through the Lord Jesus Christ to whom you do not look for your salvation)? Rather, you should consider praying for yourself (through Christ) that the opportunity will be afforded you to repent before it is too late for you to do so.
@djeggnog wrote:
What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.
@Black Sheep wrote:
That is correct djeggnog.
It's a teaching of the Watchtower, not of Jehovah's Witnesses.
How do you split this hair so as to separate the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, a publishing corporation staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses that produces Bibles and Bible-related literature used by Jehovah's Witnesses from the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses? Contrary to what you evidently believe, Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach anything regarding "overlapping generations," and we never have taught such.
All of the JWs I have brought it up with have declined to discuss it except for two old time JWs who agreed that I was correct not to believe it.
And this means what? That those Jehovah's Witnesses were taught something about "overlapping generations" whereas the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses, like myself, were not? If someone doesn't understand the interpretation provided back in 2010 regarding the meaning of the expression, "this generation," as was used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34, I wouldn't expect that person to try to explain it to others until he or she did understand and felt competent to explain this interpretation to others.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses cannot explain scripturally how it is we teach that the Gentile times that began in 607 BC ended in 1914 AD, they do not know how to explain the "seven times" (Daniel 4:25), nor do they appreciate the significance of Jesus' mention of these "appointed times" (NWT) or "times of the Gentiles" (KJV) at Luke 21:24 either, so I also wouldn't expect these Witnesses to explain how we interpret the scriptures that relate to these "times" until they were competent to do so either.
It really doesn't matter what "old timers" among Jehovah's Witnesses might have believed for several decades and might continue to believe today according to what may have been our previous understanding of the scriptures. What matters is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today.
What I'm telling you here is not unlike what Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:5-26), who tried to acquit herself as a religious person that also worshiped Jehovah the same as the Jews, she worshipped what she did not know, for salvation originated with the Jews. What this woman knew about Jehovah as a Samaritan, whose knowledge of God had been limited to the Torah, was incomplete, and many Jehovah's Witnesses today -- these "old timers" of whom you speak -- are just like this Samaritan woman in their not 'paying more than the usual attention to the things heard,' and so their knowledge of Jehovah is really incomplete, and for this reason they are steadily 'drifting away.' (Hebrews 2:1)
@designs:
Black sheep- That's interesting about the old timers, reminds me of 1995.
What's so "interesting" about what @Black Sheep" said in his post? Being totally clueless, I suspect there is much that @Black Sheep doesn't know or understand about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
@sir82 w rote:
I recall using the "there can't be much time left for the generation of 1914" meme in field service in the 80's pretty frequently. It was typically one of the first things you brought out to a "progressive" return visit or bible study. "Better hurry up & get on the ark, the youngest of that generation is already in their 70's!"
@djeggnog wrote:
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer make reference to a "generation of 1914," since in 2010, the 1914 generation interpretation was discarded. Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34 to refer to the generation of the sign that began in 1914.
@Alfred wrote:
wtf? did you fall asleep during that assembly part? did you even read the garbage that was put in the Watchtower with nothing more than Exo1:6 as biblical basis?
In my previous post to this thread, I suggested that one read Post 553, which appears on this page, to read an explanation of something you (obviously!) didn't comprehend while you were listening intently to the part entitled, "Remain 'in the Secret Place of the Most High,'" given at the "Remain Close to Jehovah!" District Convention back in 2010. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of this talk to which you refer, but for clarification I've added the words that appear in red type:
You see, recent clarification of Matthew chapter 24, and verse 34, underscores that we are living deep in the time of the end. In fact, let’s turn there please, Matthew chapter 24, and let us read together and carefully examine Jesus’ words. Matthew 24:34 of course we know this chapter, Jesus is giving us detailed information about the last days and what to expect, but then this key point is made in verse 34: "Truly I say to you, that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Now here's a question? What is a generation? What is that referring to? A generation consists of contemporaries, individuals who live at the same time. Now for example, in the Bible, in Exodus chapter 1 and verse 6, it refers to Joseph, that very faithful man, and all his brothers, as "all of that generation." Ten of Joseph’s brothers witnessed events before Joseph was even born. And at least two of his brothers lived on after Joseph had died. So although their ages varied, these contemporaries were viewed as being a part of one generation, namely, Joseph's.
Now correspondingly, the generation that is referred to here in Matthew 24:34 comprises of two groups of anointed Christians. You see, the first group was on hand in the year 1914, when the generation of the sign of Jesus Christ’s presence first began to be observed. Now the second group, made up of those who were later anointed, are for a time contemporaries of the older group who were on hand during the generation of the sign. So Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 indicate that some in the second group will witness the beginning of the great tribulation, hence the length of the generation is limited. Are you with me? Let's illustrate it this way. Brother F. W. Franz, we’re all familiar with Brother Franz, he was born in the year 1893. He was baptized in 1913. And thus, he was alive to discern the sign in 1914. Now Brother Franz lived a long life. Yes, he lived way on until 1992, almost 100 years! Many present-day anointed ones were contemporaries of Brother Franz. And they are part of the generation of the sign that Jesus said would not pass away until all these things occur.
It is patently obvious to me that you don't understand that many of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach are based on the Bible interpreting itself, so the fact that you don't appreciate the reference to Exodus 1:6 that was used in the Watchtower article dated April 15, 2010, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," is quite telling.
Nevertheless, in defining the word "generation," the Watchtower dated May 15, 1984, makes reference to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition, 1958:
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
"Those born at the same time.... Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age."
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958
"The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries." (Page 5)
Also, the Watchtower dated September 1, 1952, stated the following with reference to the word "generation" as used at Matthew 24:34: "Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping...." (Pp. 542, 543)
Consequently, Exodus 1:6 provides the "biblical basis" for how Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the meaning of the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34.
@slimboyfat:
But unlike the old generation teaching or the 1975 fiasco, it is not as if the overlapping generations teaching ....
What you're not getting here is that there is no "overlapping generations teaching." Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach and have never taught anything pertaining to "overlapping generations."
It's the pure absurdity of the new teaching that makes them embarrassed to repeat it in print.
No, that's not why such a teaching doesn't appear in print. This "overlapping generations" about which you are going on here isn't something that Jehovah's Witnesses teach or have ever taught. Jesus never spoke about "overlapping generations," but his mention of "this generation" referred to merely one generation, and that "generation" we now understand based on Exodus 1:6 to refer to the generation of the composite sign of Christ's presence which began in 1914.
@djeggnog wrote:
What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.
@00DAD wrote:
Well DJ is technically correct of course. But like most times when he is "right" he completely misses the point....
And what point is that?
The SOCIETY does not refer to this New Light as "Overlapping Generations" because, according to their obfuscated "reasoning" and willingness to capriciously change the meaning of the word "generation, it is only ONE GENERATION made up of TWO GROUPS WHOSE LIVES OVERLAP.
I don't discern a change having been made as to the meaning of the word "generation." You are the one here referring to "overlapping generations" as if this expression has some relevance to anything that Jehovah's Witnesses teach or have ever taught when the fact is that we have never taught a thing about any "overlapping generations," which is my point. A generation comprised of two groups whose lives overlap with one another, yes, but not two 'overlapping generations.'
Never mind the fact that there is a potential 99+ year age difference between the oldest person in the FIRST GROUP and the youngest in the SECOND GROUP.* They are "evidently" only one generation!
The point you make here though is eclipsed by the fact that of the 16 visions recorded in the Bible book of Revelation, all but six of them remain to undergo fulfillment -- just six visions are left! The 11th vision has already undergone partial fulfillment with the abyssing of "the scarlet-colored wild beast" as the League of Nations in 1939 and its ascending out of that abyss as the United Nations in 1945. What is yet to occur is the scarlet-colored wild beast's turning on what this harlot, Babylon the Great, represents, namely, religion, for this vision states that this beast will hate, devastate and completely destroy this woman.
It is then that is the fulfillment of the 12th vision with respect to the "great tribulation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:21 comes into view, which event is followed by the execution of God's judgment upon the world by Jesus Christ and his angels to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:30-34, when the sign of the Son of man appears in heaven and the "chosen ones" are gathered during "this generation" of the sign following which will be Jesus' separating of the sheep from the goats to which Jesus refers at Matthew 25:31-33.
What, you ask, is the EVIDENCE that proves that Jesus "evidently" meant what this WT says he meant? Good question! The answer is: No one knows because none was given.
I would say that you could not have read the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appears in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, for had you done so, you would have come to realize the significance of Exodus 1:6 which was the evidence on which our interpretation of the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34 is based. Either this or you just didn't understand what you were reading.
I would posit that it is "evidently" because Armageddon has not come. This unfortunate development left the WTBTS with only a few options. They could either admit:
They were wrong about 1914
That they have absolutely no idea what Jesus meant
Reinterpret the meaning of the word "generation"
They obviously chose Option #3.
As I stated in another post, interpreting the Bible isn't an exact science, and for this reason, we must discern what the Scriptures mean based on what other Scriptures say or according to how certain related expressions are used in the Bible. Just as the Bible points out at 1 Peter 1:10, 11, the prophets of old made a "diligent inquiry" and "careful search" of the Scriptures and "kept on investigating" as to what particular season or what sort of season] the spirit in them spoke concerning Christ, and just as occurred among God's people during the first century during the days of the apostles, so the same investigation has taken place among God's people today.
Russell and Rutherford passed away leaving Jehovah's Witnesses with an understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 that was different than what Jehovah's Witnesses believed under Knorr. In their day, Jehovah's Witnesses believed Jesus was referring to the lifetime of people when he referred to "this generation." Today, we now know this to have been a mistaken viewpoint.
Since we now realize that Jesus had employed a bit of hyperbole at Matthew 24:34, we are now of the belief that Jesus' reference to "this generation" referred to the sign of his invisible presence during which his anointed brothers lived contemporaneous to the composite generation of the sign. We cannot be dogmatic about this matter, but we are now of the belief that those of Jesus' brothers that were living when the generation of the sign began in the year 1914 as well as those of his brothers that are alive when the generation of the sign ends at which Armageddon begins is what Jesus meant when he said that "this generation" would not pass away before all of the things that Jesus indicated would occur in his prophesy about the conclusion of this system of things had taken place.
Now, since we're so clear on who make up the members of this single "Overlapping Generation," only one question remains:
Who are the Underlappers of this Generation?
I don't see this as a legitimate question to explore, but feel free to explore it with someone else that sees this question of yours as being relevant.
@djeggnog
245
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
djeggnog

@slimboyfat:
But am I correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation? It's almost enough to make you suspect they are a EMBARRASSED about it.
What do you mean? There's been much talk about the new interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses here on JWN regarding what it was Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34. Perhaps you've missed those threads, I don't know.
Mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again. Is that the strategy?
I know of no such strategy. What you are saying would seem to be rather speculatory.
@slimboyfat Re: Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching? posted 2 days ago (3/16/2012)
It's as if they discussed it once or twice just because they had to get it out of the way, but they are not going to draw any more attention to it than necessary.
Well, this is more speculation on your part, because what you are saying here isn't true.
Which is [understandable] of course because it is frankly absurd nonsense that insults the intelligence of members even more than the Watchtower's usual drivel does.
What exactly do you find to be so "absurd" about the latest interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses as to what Jesus meant at Matthew 24:34 by his use of the expression, "this generation"?
It might be interesting to analyse the literature from the 1980s and see how often they discussed their "generation" teaching then, compared with how often they have mentioned the new "generation" teaching.
This has been done many times here on JWN, even I have commented on this here in one of the threads on here. Nothing prevents you from doing an analysis of your own though, but previous interpretations as to what Jehovah's Witnesses understood the word "generation" to mean are irrelevant after they have been discarded.
@sir82:
I recall using the "there can't be much time left for the generation of 1914" meme in field service in the 80's pretty frequently. It was typically one of the first things you brought out to a "progressive" return visit or bible study. "Better hurry up & get on the ark, the youngest of that generation is already in their 70's!"
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer make reference to a "generation of 1914," since in 2010, the 1914 generation interpretation was discarded. Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34 to refer to the generation of the sign that began in 1914.
The latest "generation" definition has a similar implication - the "time left is reduced". The 1914 anointed generation has been dead about 20 or so years, and the youngest of the current GB are in their late 50's.
You're mistaken. The latest "generation" understanding isn't a "definition" at all, but an interpretation. There is no longer any such thing as a "1914 anointed generation" being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.
@slimboyfat:
The new teaching doesn't even make sense. Maybe the writers have gone on strike from having to try to explain the absurd new light.
You mean, it doesn't make sense to you, right? Do you even know what the new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is?
Where are apologists defending it? I would be interested to see that.
You might want to go here, and, more specifically, you should read Post 553.
@tornapart:
And now we're not supposed to ask any more questions. All the answers there are have already been covered.
This is not true at all. You can always ask questions, especially when it comes to Bible interpretations that you cannot comprehend.
@THE GLADIATOR:
Overlapping Generations
As I point out in response to what the OP stated at the beginning of this thread, as far as what Jehovah's Witnesses teach today, there is no such thing as "overlapping generations."
The Society were now saying that 1935 was no longer the cut off date for members of the 144,000.
When exactly did we begin to teach this? If this is printed in any of our literature, please provide a citation to such a statement. Thanks.
This change paved the way for their planned change in the meaning of a generation.
I would really like to see a citation to the effect that 1935 was no longer considered to be "the cut off date" for those with the heavenly calling (the anointed) to be called as such.
In 2008 the Society continued to explain away more of this cornerstone belief.
What "cornerstone belief"? Are you here talking about "the cut off date" or the change in how Jehovah's Witnesses were interpreting the meaning of the word "generation" used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34? Which?
Until now they had taught that ‘this generation’ referred to wicked unbelieving Jews. They had carried this idea forward and given it a modern-day fulfilment, applying it to ‘the wicked ‘generation of unbelievers’ in our own time who would see the end of the system of things. They explained that the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the generation that would not pass away until all these things occur.
Until when exactly? This statement is vague, for in 2008, "wicked unbelieving Jews" wasn't how Jehovah's Witnesses interpreted the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34.
This generation no longer just referred to wicked unbelievers but to anointed believers.
This statement is disconnected from the previous statement. This statement would seem to be referring to the interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses as to how we understood the meaning of the word "generation" used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34 in 2008. Is this is what you mean, then I agree with this statement.
In the 2010 further changes were made under the heading, ‘Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose: ...
How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about ‘this generation’? He 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.
This represents the current interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses since 2010 with respect to the meaning of Jesus' words, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34.
The Society had introduced the idea of an ‘overlapping generations model.’ This is a concept in which if people’s lives overlap into the next generation's lives they can be considered to be one generation.
The Society has never introduced the idea of any "overlapping generations model." You are claiming here that 'if people's lives should overlap into the lives of the next generation, then they can be consider to be one generation,' but this is not what Jehovah's Witnesses teach at all. In fact, this idea of yours makes no sense at all. You clearly aren't competent to explain the latest interpretation of Jesus' words, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34.
It’s a bit like playing tag! They stated:
We do not know the exact length of ‘this generation,’ but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
Did you notice in what you quoted here is that there is a mention of a "generation" -- just one generation -- and mention of "two groups whose lives overlap? The statement made in the Watchtower dated June 15, 2010, in the article entitled, "United in Love-Annual Meeting Report," from which you quoted this is ambiguous, for Brother Barr's description of these 'two groups that constitute the generation' are contemporaries, but they do not constitute the "generation" to which Jesus was referring at Matthew 24:34. The article entitled, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, specifically stated:
[W]e do well to keep in mind several things about the word "generation": It 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. (Ex. 1:6) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about "this generation"? He 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.
Obviously, John Barr misspoke, for as the article, "United in Love-Annual Meeting Report," goes on to say (and note that these are not Barr's words) about these "anointed contemporaries":
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
Beaten by the passage of time the Watchtower Society had been forced to move the date for the battle of Armageddon....
Jehovah's Witnesses have never predicted the arrival of Armageddon, especially in view of the fact that we have always taught what Jesus himself taught at Matthew 24:36, namely, that no one knows "that day and hour." How could Jehovah's Witnesses have moved a date that they have never known, let alone set?
I have done my best to explain these changes clearly and as simply as possible, including as few quotes as possible to accurately show the change that has taken place. If you are confused, then you are not alone. Many members of the Watchtower Society are still trying to make sense of the new flash of light that has moved the goalpost even further away. Instead or Armageddon being ‘just around the corner’ it has been put on hold indefinitely.
Taken from the book Can Jehovah's Witnesses SURVIVE? By Trevor Willis.
This is nonsense. No one at the Society is trying to "make sense" of how we interpret Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 as to what "this generation" means. If the author of this book believes this to be true, he is mistaken.
@Alfred:
YES... This is one teaching that NO analytical JW can look someone in the eye and say that they firmly believe Jesus was referring to TWO Overlapping Generations of Annointed Ones... yet the GB has managed to stretch Matthew 24:34 beyond any remotely credible interpretation...
But this isn't true. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach nor do we believe that at Matthew 24:34, Jesus was referring there to "two overlapping generations" of the anointed. You would credit the governing body for stretching Matthew 24:34 "beyond any remotely credible interpretation," but this is not the governing body's interpretation of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 at all. While this would be your understanding of what the governing body teaches, of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, this is not what either the governing body teaches nor what Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
By the 2020's, the Watchtower will have completely revamped their "dooms-day" [recruitment] strategy using some other Biblical "prophecy" (throwing the generation teaching back in the freezer).
Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a recruitment strategy and never have had such.
@Phizzy:
They should be shy about repeating it, the doctrine is nonsense on stilts.
No one to my knowledge is shy about repeating what our latest interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is. What makes you think any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is shy about telling anyone how we understand Matthew 24:34?
@St George of England:
It is never mentioned these days. Meetings have become like the magazines - SIMPLIFIED.
What does our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 has to do with there being a "simplified" edition of the Watchtower magazine? The reason for such an edition is because there are many that have been Jehovah's Witnesses for years, and new ones that are studying with Jehovah's Witnesses that are either illiterate or whose reading comprehension skills prevent them from comprehending many of the things they read in the regular edition Watchtower magazine, but the interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is most definitely "mentioned these days."
@Disillusioned Lost-Lamb:
They don’t mention a lot of things anymore, if they say it, you got it and move on; don’t dwell or linger, that’s what gets them in trouble.
This isn't true that Jehovah's Witnesses hardly make mention of Matthew 24:34.
@james_woods:
I think that Slimboyfat is onto something here.
This is the first "new light" I have ever seen from the JWs that has had actual open [dissension].
There may be "open dissension" here on JWN, but there is no "open dissension" among Jehovah's Witnesses as to what our understanding of Jesus' words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 is.
For proof that there is open [dissension] over it - look at the assembly parts targeted against people who are resisting this "teaching".
How do any of the assembly parts prove there is "open dissension" over our interpretation of Matthew 24:34?
@djeggnog
36
I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated
by nugget in
1. jw
2. experiences
this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

my mum is a jw my father is not.

my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.
djeggnog

@palmtree67:
Oh, Egghead......you make it sound like JW's are sooooo reasonable.
Are you saying that not one of the elders with whom you've ever come into contact seemed reasonable to you? The OP's brother-in-law is an elder, so I would expect him to be reasonable in all of his dealings with others, and especially where his own relatives are concerned. The holy spirit says (which is just another way of saying that 1 Timothy 3:2, 3, says) that an "overseer should therefore be ... reasonable." It does not say "can," but "should ... be reasonable." If a man is not reasonable, then he cannot serve as an elder and so he should not be appointed to serve as such. In fact, all Jehovah's Witnesses should be reasonable persons.
Obviously what you described is what SHOULD be happening, but everyone here knows that is not the reasonable approach that JW's take to these sorts of situations.
I can only say here what should be happening. Elders are removed for not being reasonable, but I have no reason to believe that the OP's brother-in-law isn't a reasonable person.
@djeggnog
36
I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated
by nugget in
1. jw
2. experiences
this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

my mum is a jw my father is not.

my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.
djeggnog

@nugget:
This year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary. My mum is a JW my father is not. My husband and I [have] been Df'd and I have 3 sisters. Sister number 1 is married to an elder and is a staunch JW.... Sister no 2 was never baptised and lives in the US. Sister 3 is baptised but inactive and does not attend meetings and lives with my mum and dad.... What I need is some help as to how to navigate this social minefield so that it is a happy time for my parents and not blighted by ill feeling, family arguments over shunning and bad feeling.
In your message, you mentioned something about a "necessary family [business] card," but there exists no such card. What is needed here is reasonableness by all of you. This occasion that involves your mother and your father is to celebrate he and his wife's 50th anniversary, which is family business, and is not an occasion for animosities or bickering over things that pertain to church business.
This 50th wedding anniversary of your parents is a family occasion, so we're not here discussing spiritual fellowship. Even if both your mother and father were Jehovah's Witnesses (and I understand that only your mother is one of Jehovah's Witnesses), this is not about spiritual fellowship, which [is the tie that] the disfellowshipping action [cuts] and nothing more than this.
You say that your eldest sibling -- Sister No. 1 -- is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that her husband is an elder, but other than being your sister and brother-in-law, should they attend a dinner celebrating your parents 50th wedding anniversary, they would both of them be as much guests as would you and your other sisters (Sister No. 2 and Sister No. 3).
I suppose your parents could send to Sister No. 1 and her husband an invitation and ask them to "RSVP," but if they should attend your [parents'] 50th wedding anniversary, [no guest] would have no responsibility for who is and who isn't on your parents' guest list. Based on the biases that they hold, Sister No. 1 and her husband might have strong opinions, but despite what they might believe to be true, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun family members, except with respect to theocratic functions. What this essentially means is that no discussions of a theocratic nature are to take place with you, their disfellowshipped relative, on this occasion.
Should a discussion, maybe one raised by your father, ensue about the Bible, Sister No. 1 and her husband could politely, not rudely, withdraw from participating in such a discussion, but it would [be]a bit unreasonable on their part [-- at least in my opinion -- for them] to move to another portion of the house as your mother does her level best to assist her own husband understand what she understands the Bible to teach as to the matters being discussed when I'm sure Sister No. 1's husband, an elder, could provide valuable input to such a discussion for his father-in-law's benefit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not fanatics. If I were Sister No. 1's husband, I would not be putting my mother-in-law, your mother, in such a position when I might offer one or more [spiritual] perspectives to my father-in-law that could be helpful to him [in] understanding what the Bible teaches.
I don't care how strong the biases your eldest sister and her husband might have against disfellowshipped relatives, [because] for anyone to go beyond what things we teach is for them to impose a rule on Jehovah's Witnesses based on what someone else's conscience might dictate, when every decision that we make must be driven by our own [conscience] alone, not on someone else's conscience. And while I do not know what your father's views on the Bible or on scriptural matters are, I would doubt that he would appreciate what would seem to him to be bickering between two of his daughters over some religious issue to which he doesn't subscribe and in which he has no interest. But this I do know: Such bickering reflects unfavorably upon the Christ, for it is [God's] will that all men be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. What your father should see is proof that the love that is said to [exist] among Jehovah's Witnesses is genuine.
Love does not become provoked, nor does it look out for its own interests. This is a family function and your sister should not be using it as an excuse to exhibit what strong feelings she might have as to the decision made by [you, her own sister-by-blood and by your husband, her brother-in-law and your husband], to sever their spiritual ties -- your spiritual ties -- with Jehovah's organization as was your right [and your husband's right] to do. Your eldest sister doesn't have to agree with her father's decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses either, as it was your mother's decision to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses [even though her husband decided not to do so], and she has no more right to rail against her own father's decision (so far!) to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses than she does to rail against you [for the] decision [you made] to sever your spiritual ties with her: Your father is still her father and you are still her sister.
At all times the decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been your father's to make and who knows? Seeing how his eldest daughter treats you could cause your father to take a negative view of the kind of religion practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and alienate him from ever listening to what things his wife might say to him regarding her "church," her form of worship. [The Bible indicates that the wisdom from above is reasonable.]
Christians should not be belligerent, but reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men, even our own disfellowshipped relatives. Maybe you could have your father remind his eldest daughter that he was informed that the wisdom from above is chaste, then peaceable, and then reasonable. To hear this coming from her own father, someone that has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should be a wake-up call, but I'm not really recommending such an approach, just sharing with you what principles are involved here.
Accordingly, if your sister and brother-in-law cannot with a clear conscience attend [this] 50th wedding anniversary [celebration], [that would be regrettable, but] they should RSVP to this effect and this should be the end of the matter. It would just be horrible for your father to conclude based on your sister's behavior toward you on what should be a happy family occasion as to her attendance at his and your mother's 50th wedding anniversary that Jehovah's Witnesses are driven by religious fanaticism. Furthermore, @nugget, as I understand it, this occasion will be hosted by your father at his house, which means that none of his children [will] have any say as to how he chooses to conduct the affairs of his own household [and maybe this fact being communicated to your Sister No. 1 and her husband will resonate with them and they will consider attending].
@djeggnog
36
I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated
by nugget in
1. jw
2. experiences
this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

my mum is a jw my father is not.

my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.
djeggnog

@nugget:
This year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary. My mum is a JW my father is not. My husband and I hade been Df'd and I have 3 sisters. Sister number 1 is married to an elder and is a staunch JW.... Sister no 2 was never baptised and lives in the US. Sister 3 is baptised but inactive and does not attend meetings and lives with my mum and dad.... What I need is some help as to how to navigate this social minefield so that it is a happy time for my parents and not blighted by ill feeling, family arguments over shunning and bad feeling.
In your message, you mentioned something about a "necessary family [business] card," but there exists no such card. What is needed here is reasonableness by all of you. This occasion that involves your mother and your father is to celebrate he and his wife's 50th anniversary, which is family business, and is not an occasion for animosities or bickering over things that pertain to church business.
This 50th wedding anniversary of your parents is a family occasion, so we're not here discussing spiritual fellowship. Even if both your mother and father were Jehovah's Witnesses (and I understand that only your mother is one of Jehovah's Witnesses), this is not about spiritual fellowship, which is what the disfellowshipping action halts and nothing more than this.
You say that your eldest sibling -- Sister No. 1 -- is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that her husband is an elder, but other than being your sister and brother-in-law, should they attend a dinner celebrating your parents 50th wedding anniversary, they would both of them be as much guests as would you and your other sisters (Sister No. 2 and Sister No. 3).
I suppose your parents could send to Sister No. 1 and her husband an invitation and ask them to "RSVP," but if they should attend your parent's 50th wedding anniversary, they would be guests themselves, and so they would have no responsibility for who is and who isn't on your parents' guest list. Based on the biases that they hold, Sister No. 1 and her husband might have strong opinions, but despite what they might believe to be true, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun family members, except with respect to theocratic functions. What this essentially means is that no discussions of a theocratic nature are to take place with you, their disfellowshipped relative, on this occasion.
Should a discussion, maybe one raised by your father, ensue about the Bible, Sister No. 1 and her husband could politely, not rudely, withdraw from participating in such a discussion, but it would a bit unreasonable on their part to move to another portion of the house as your mother does her level best to assist her own husband understand what she understands the Bible to teach as to the matters being discussed when I'm sure Sister No. 1's husband, an elder, could provide valuable input to such a discussion for his father-in-law's benefit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not fanatics. If I were Sister No. 1's husband, I would not be putting my mother-in-law, your mother, in such a position when I might offer one or more perspectives to my father-in-law that could be helpful to him understanding what the Bible teaches.
I don't care how strong the biases your eldest sister and her husband might have against disfellowshipped relatives, for anyone to go beyond what things we teach is for them to impose a rule on Jehovah's Witnesses based on what someone else's conscience might dictate, when every decision that we make must be driven by our own consciences alone, not on someone else's conscience. And while I do not know what your father's views on the Bible or on scriptural matters are, I would doubt that he would appreciate what would seem to him to be bickering between two of his daughters over some religious issue to which he doesn't subscribe and in which he has no interest. But this I do know: Such bickering reflects unfavorably upon the Christ, for it is God will that all men be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. What your father should see is proof that the love that is said to exists among Jehovah's Witnesses is genuine.
Love does not become provoked, nor does it look out for its own interests. This is a family function and your sister should not be using it as an excuse to exhibit what strong feelings she might have as to the decision made by her own sister-by-blood and her brother-in-law -- your husband -- to sever their spiritual ties -- your spiritual ties -- with Jehovah's organization as was your right to do. Your eldest sister doesn't have to agree with her father's decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses either, as it was your mother's decision to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and she has no more right to rail against her own father's decision (so far!) to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses than she does to rail against you decision to sever your spiritual ties with her: Your father is still her father and you are still her sister.
At all times the decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been your father's to make and who knows? Seeing how his eldest daughter treats you could cause your father to take a negative view of the kind of religion practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and alienate him from ever listening to what things his wife might say to him regarding her "church," her form of worship. The wisdom from above is first and foremost reasonable.
Christians should not be belligerent, but reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men, even our own disfellowshipped relatives. Maybe you could have your father remind his eldest daughter that he was informed that the wisdom from above is chaste, then peaceable, and then reasonable. To hear this coming from her own father, someone that has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should be a wake-up call, but I'm not really recommending such an approach, just sharing with you what principles are involved here.
Accordingly, if your sister and brother-in-law cannot with a clear conscience attend the 50th wedding anniversary dinner, they should RSVP to this effect and this should be the end of the matter. It would just be horrible for your father to conclude based on your sister's behavior toward you on what should be a happy family occasion as to her attendance at his and your mother's 50th wedding anniversary that Jehovah's Witnesses are driven by religious fanaticism. Furthermore, @nugget, as I understand it, this occasion will be hosted by your father at his house, which means that none of his children have any say as to how he chooses to conduct the affairs of his own household.
@djeggnog
23
Son to JW school-mate: "Go ahead. Tell the Jewish girl how the Jewish holiday REALLY happened."
by Open mind in
1. jw
2. friends
my family (wife and teenage kids) and i awakened to the true nature of the wt society a couple years ago and are fairly well faded now.. .

my son attends high school with a couple of jws, one of whom is an elder's son and an ardent true believer.

let's call him "con".
djeggnog

@Open mind:
My family (wife and teenage kids) and I awakened to the true nature of the WT Society a couple years ago and are fairly well faded now.
Pray tell, what is our "true nature"?
So Yelysaveta starts relating a pretty standard version of the Israelites in Egypt and the splashing of the blood on the lentil, yadda yadda. When she's all done Con pipes in with this: [¶] "That's not how it happened!" ...
What struck my son and myself was the total lack of awareness of how arrogant [Con] must have looked. Even if Yelysaveta was wrong, wouldn't it be better to let the person FROM the culture explain it, and then if you've got a problem with it, ask her about it later?
Not Con, but your son could have asked "Yelysaveta" if she knew why the Jews today don't also view the day the Israelites left Egypt after midnight to be passover when passover didn't end until the next evening?
@Blind_Of_Lies:
NICE! It really is amusing how little JW's know about their faith once they get off the "talking points"
Actually, I didn't get baptized until I was out of high school, so I wasn't really one of Jehovah's Witnesses and in my day we didn't need "talking points." We used sermons and we used them over and over again.
@Doubting Bro:
Of course, JWs seem to think they know everything when in fact, they really only know about 6 scriptures.
Actually, they know more than six scriptures. Perhaps you have in mind the Christians that attend the Baptist Church down the street and they only know them if you should recite them. They couldn't necessarily tell you where in the Bible they are, let alone show you where.
@Ding:
Since Con considers himself an expert on the scriptures, she should have asked him to explain Purim.
What does Purim have to do with the Abrahamic Covenant or Moses?
@jwfacts:
Classic. I hope he was called out on his error. When JW's talk doctrine....
I believe these were the children of Jehovah's Witnesses, not Jehovah's Witnesses.
@TOTH:
TOO bad most high schoolers give about two shits about ANYTHING biblical.
Many high schoolers might give at least 'one shit' if someone. like your son (or @Open mind's) were to have asked "Yelysaveta" why it is that the folks in her faith celebrate the passover on the day after "the splashing of the blood" occurred and not on the day itself since that is what the Torah says. All eyes would then be looking directly at "Yelysaveta" waiting to hear how she answered your son's (or @Open mind's son's) question.
I was Open mind's son as a child, but I was into stumping people on things I had learned from the Bible as well as on things having to do with US history and world history. I didn't know a whole lot, but I knew enough to sufficiently put people on the spot with questions that I asked with the intention of not providing the answers to them.
You see, I learned very young in life that if people are going to continue to think you are smart, you cannot give them the answers to the questions you ask them; else they will also know the answers and thus make them appear as smart or smarter. For example, I would ask the elders in my congregation, "Did 'Jehovah God' -- as a kid, I thought "Jehovah was God's first name and "God" his last name -- not tell Adam and Eve about the tree of life until after they sinned because he knew that they were going to sin?" I was the kid that never wanted to answer any of the questions in the book study or at the Watchtower study unless I was specifically asked by the conductor to do so, and my answer would pretty much all start with the words, "Well, obviously...."
It wasn't that I was smarter than everyone else, but I liked pretending to be smarter.
I can see my son in that situation calling CON a stupidass and slapping his face downwardly from [forehead] to chin...LOL
And today you'd probably get a phone call from the school indicating how your son was charged with assault.
@djeggnog