Posts by Giles Gray

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 2

Issues raised at the Council of Jerusalem

For around thirteen years following Peter’s visit to Cornelius, Jewish and Gentile Christians worshipped together with God’s approval. However, the Jewish concerns regarding the issue of circumcision, though previously officially resolved, hadn’t gone away.

Around 49 C.E. the subject was raised once again by Jewish brothers who had travelled to Antioch, and they were demanding that the Gentiles must be circumcised. (Acts 15:1)

As unreasonable as it initially sounds, the reason why the Jewish brothers expressed their concerns is understandable, considering that circumcision had been a major factor of their theology for hundreds of years (see: Genesis 17:9-14), and also bearing in mind the complications and difficulties that came from associating with the Gentile brothers.

For the Jews, the ritual of religious circumcision had always been of great importance and significance, and they were highly sensitive about the issue. The tension created by having to tolerate the ruling that fellow Gentile Christians were not obligated to follow the Law in this respect, placed the Jews under heavy pressure. They found themselves in an uneasy and awkward situation, so much so, that even some of the apostles and those taking the lead succumbed under the strain and objected. (Galatians 2:11-13)

The following explains the background of events that had taken place just prior to the journey to Jerusalem.

Acts 14:27-15:2 says:-

“27 When they had arrived and had gathered the congregation together, they proceeded to relate the many things God had done by means of them, and that he had opened to the nations the door to faith. 28 So they spent not a little time with the disciples.

15 And certain men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: “Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved.” 2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, they arranged for Paul and Barnabas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.”

It is important to identify the status of the individuals involved. Paul and Barnabas were approved missionaries, whereas the ‘men from Judea’ had not been ‘appointed’. (Acts 15:24)

Having seen all the things that ‘God had done among the Gentiles through them’ in their missionary work, both Paul and Barnabas were arguing against the Jewish brothers in the debate about the requirement for the Gentile’s to observe the Law.

To resolve the issue it was decided to hold the Council of Jerusalem, in order to once again consider this matter.

Acts 15:3-5 says:-

“3 Accordingly, after being conducted partway by the congregation, these men continued on their way through both Phoenicia and Samaria, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations, and they were causing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the older men, and they recounted the many things God had done by means of them. 5 Yet, some of those of the sect of the Pharisees that had believed rose up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses.””

Amongst the gathering of apostles and elders at the Jerusalem Council, the former Pharisees, who had not been approved, were on one side, demanding the Gentiles become circumcised and ‘observe the law of Moses’. On the other side were Paul and Barnabas, the approved brothers, arguing that the Gentiles were not obligated to follow the Law. Paul and Barnabas had witnessed God’s decisions first hand and were able to testify to the fact that God had accepted the Gentiles.

After much discussion, Peter, whom God had originally used to convey His decisions regarding the Law, gave his opinion:-

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:6-11) NIV

Peter’s conviction was firm and he was in full agreement with Paul and Barnabas that the Gentiles had no obligation to observe the Law. Peter unequivocally stated that ‘God made a choice’ to use him, and had considered the Gentiles’ hearts and ‘accepted’ them. God no longer made a distinction between Jew or Gentile because He had ‘purified their hearts by faith’, indicating that He no longer considered them ‘unclean’. (Acts 10:15) Peter then went on to rebuke the Jews for testing God by trying to impose the Law on the Gentile brothers.

Another translation of the bible puts verses 10 and 11 this way:-

“So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.” NET

Of interest is verse 11. Peter used the words ‘we believe’.

This implies that what Peter announced in verse 11 was a collective decision made by the ‘apostles and the elders’ referred to in verse 6, who had gathered to deliberate. It was concluded by these brothers that the Gentiles were not under any obligation to follow the Law because God had already demonstrated acceptance of the Gentiles, thirteen years previously.

After Peter’s address to the brothers, Paul and Barnabas reaffirmed the Council’s decision by further expounding on the way God’s spirit had given clear indications that the Gentiles were already accepted by Him. (Acts 15:12)

James then addressed the congregation:-

“… “Brothers” he said, “ listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

“After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things” - things known from long ago.

‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”” NIV (Acts 15:13-19)

In this passage James acknowledged the evidence from Paul and Barnabas along with Peter’s reiteration of his experiences in 36 C.E. James also presented the prophesy that affirms that God always intended to accept the Gentiles into the church.

Therefore, the issue was settled. The Council found that there was no obligation for the Gentiles to submit to the Law. Instead they were to be accepted because of the grace of God.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

Part 1

An in-depth examination of events that occurred in the 1st Century after the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian congregation reveals an alternative understanding to the Watchtower’s teachings on the meaning of Acts 15:28-29.

Around 36 C.E, the Roman centurion Cornelius who was stationed in Caesarea, became the first of the Gentile Christians. He experienced a Divine vision and was instructed by an angel to send his men on a journey to find Peter (Acts 10:5).

A day later, in Joppa, the apostle Peter also had a Divine revelation involving four-footed creatures, reptiles and birds. The voice in his vision said:-

“13 …“Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him, the second time: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”” (Acts 10:13-15)

Noteworthy is the part highlighted in bold. Peter was commanded to ‘stop calling defiled the things GOD has cleansed’.

After this puzzling vision, the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to go to the house of Cornelius. Accompanied by some Jewish believers from Joppa, he departed with the men who were sent to find him, and on reaching Caesarea, they entered the home of Cornelius. In the house, Peter was greeted by Cornelius and a group of his Gentile friends and relatives, and his words to them are of interest.

In Acts 10:28 Peter says:-

“YOU well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean.”

Even though Peter was breaking the Jewish Law by entering the home of a Gentile and ignoring the long-held beliefs of his people, he was emboldened to do so as a direct result of the instructions he was given by the voice in the vision. He now understood that God had decided to end the separation between ‘clean and unclean’ and the purpose of his vision had been to demonstrate that God now accepted Gentiles as ‘cleansed’, and that salvation was not only for Jews but also for Gentiles, even though at that time, the latter were uncircumcised, and therefore not following the Law.

Note also that having now become acquainted with the Gentiles, Peter begins his speech by saying:-

“For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10: 34-35)

Conspicuous by its absence was any mention of communication from God commanding that Gentiles must adhere to the Law. Instead, Peter pronounced that these people were acceptable to God because of their fear for Him and because their works were righteous.

It is also significant that even though the Gentiles were devout and feared God, they were not proselytes (converts to Judaism) and would have been completely at liberty, according to the Law, to eat meat that contained blood if they so chose. (Deuteronomy 14:21)

If it had been God’s purpose for the Gentile converts to Christianity to follow any aspect of the Law of Moses, this occasion would have been an appropriate time for Him to make known His commands. God was in direct communication with Peter at that very moment, so the conveyance of any directions or commandments to the Gentiles would have been straightforward. But nothing was forthcoming.

The pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household, and their speaking in tongues further confirmed God’s approval of the Gentiles. This was regardless of their lack of observance of the Law, a fact that caused the Jewish brothers who were present to be astounded (Acts 10:45).

As Peter had explained to Cornelius, it was ‘unlawful’ for a Jew to associate with the ‘People of the Nations’. The integration of the Gentiles into the Christian congregation, although meeting Divine approval, would soon prove to be a serious matter for the Jews and the Jewish Christians.

After a brief stay with Cornelius and his household, during which the Gentiles were baptised, Peter travelled to Jerusalem and was immediately confronted there by the Jewish brothers who were ‘supporters of circumcision’, and keen followers of the Law. (Acts 11:2). These brothers did not raise any objections to the ground-breaking news of the baptism of Gentiles, but they were seriously troubled to hear that Peter had disobeyed the Law by entering the house of someone uncircumcised and had eaten at his table, and they began to accuse him and contend with him over his actions. (Acts 11:2,3).

After explaining all the events that led up to his meeting with Cornelius, Peter said:-

“So If God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?

When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life’” NIV (Acts 11:17-18)

The Jewish brothers who were scrupulous about the Law, accepted Peter’s testimony. Noteworthy is fact that they had ‘no further objections’.

At stake in the discussions about the Gentile converts was how the Jewish Christians could continue to honour the Law which was given to their ancestors by God and was recorded in their scriptures, whilst at the same time having fellowship with Gentile Christians, without insisting the Gentiles keep the Jewish religious laws.

There was clearly no Divine obligation for Gentiles to adhere to the Law because both Peter and the Holy Spirit had confirmed God’s approval, as well as the fact that God didn’t intervene at that moment when the brothers were gathered in Jerusalem. This juncture would have been the ideal opportunity, should God have ordained that Gentiles must obey parts of the Law, for Him to inform the brothers in Jerusalem that the Gentiles must also ‘abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood’. And yet God said nothing whatsoever.

It would have been the optimum time for God to speak because the good news was just about to be spread far and wide to the ‘People of the Nations’. (Acts 11:20-21) In that scenario, God’s requirements would have been passed on to the newly converted Christians as part and parcel of their faith and they would have then been aware that they must adjust their daily lives to live in harmony with His will. But this did not occur.

If the issue had been crucial to God, it would be absurd to suggest that He would have omitted to say anything at this point in time, as clarifying his wishes would have avoided future complications in the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

35

An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

by Giles Gray in

i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

Giles Gray

I recently had an online exchange with an active JW about the blood issue. He originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but I pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that JWs reject blood, and therefore I didn’t see any value in debating that topic.

Not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting Acts 15:29.

It’s been a while since I looked into the subject, and I admit I’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but I remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the Watchtower’s rendition of Acts 15:29.

I offered to do some bible research and get back to the JW, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas. I reassured him that I was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact I was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong. He said he awaited my response with interest.

I resolved to be strict about using only the bible in my response, and I refrained from researching on the internet or elsewhere for information because I wanted to be as objective as possible and present what I found without being influenced by the opinions of others.

It took about a week to do some bible reading and compose my thoughts before writing them down, but in the process of researching, I unearthed some information that was new and surprising to me, and which I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere.

I posted my alternative understanding of the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, looking forward to seeing what the JW came back with, but a few weeks have now passed and disappointingly he has not responded. A couple of other JWs showed an interest, but none took on the challenge of discussing my points. It seems to be par for the course that they don’t engage when they are unable to defend their beliefs.

So I thought I would post my thoughts here for JWN members to critique, as I know there are some deep thinkers here who will comment if I have missed something important or if there are further implications to draw out from my ideas. It would be interesting and helpful to be given some feed back from former members of the Watchtower, now it's clear that no current JWs are prepared to respond.

As my explanation is relatively lengthy, I know some here won't have the time or patience to read it, but if anyone who enjoys biblical exegesis is willing to consider my points, I would be very pleased to hear from you.

I have broken my thoughts into five sections for ease of reference, and will add them in separate posts to follow…...

25

Genesis 1:16 and apologists- vegetation before the Sun?

by joey jojo in

gen 1: 11 says: .

11 then god said, “let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.

12 the earth produced [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed according to [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, according to [r]their kind; and god saw that it was good.

Giles Gray

A few years ago I had a couple of JWs call. Not wanting to frighten them off with ‘apostate’ arguments, I decided to question them about the order of creation in the bible. I pointed out the problem of the fourth creative day being out of sequence.

They came back with the Watchtower’s apologetics about the atmosphere clearing and the sun, moon and stars becoming visible from a perspective of how it would have been seen from earth.

So I asked them what God actually did on the fourth creative day, apart from watching dust settle. I pointed out that God didn’t actually ‘create’ anything.

The chap who was accompanying the young man I was conversing with burst out in laughter. This seemed to undermine the confidence of the young man whose call it was and he slightly blushed and looked a bit under pressure.

He promised me that he would go away and see if there was any information on the subject and get back to me. He said it was important to have these kind of questions answered.

He never returned.

77

A question about the contemporary generation teaching following a conversation with a JW apologist

by Giles Gray in

i would like to ask the ex-jws on this site to put their ‘apologists hat’ back on for a moment, so that i can go through the overlapping generation teaching in an attempt to make sense of it.

i apologise if these points have already been addressed on this site.a quick background for the reason for my request… having never confronted a jw apologist on the topic, i recently engaged with a jw regarding the official understanding of a ‘generation’ and unfortunately he didn’t have an answer to the points i was making.

i was left a little confused as to what the official jw response would/should be.so i was hoping that my thoughts below might be considered from an apologist’s perspective.the point in question relates to this section of the watchtower article below from 2008, as well as the jw.org video explanation of the overlapping generation:---:w08 2/15[box on page 25] can we calculate the length of “this generation”?the word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event.

Giles Gray

Waton:-

“For wt weiters, any pre -1914 characters are an embarrassment, and not even part of their 1919 F&DS. Forward overlap is bad enough, why add the backfilp overlap too?”

That was the part of the video that I found the most confusing. I have no idea why Splane bothered to even mention what a contemporary generation was from Joseph’s perspective. Why explain that someone who died just a few hours before Joseph was born would not be considered as overlapping, which I assume draws the conclusion that someone who died just a few minutes after Joseph’s birth would be viewed as a contemporary, and then omit to represent that statement on the chart?

They would have been better off ignoring a backwards time projection altogether and only focus on a forward time projection.

However, I don’t see how they can equate their explanation to the contemporary generation depicted in Exodus 1:6. The bible’s example includes the slight overlap due to the fact that the brothers were all born over a period of time. Whereas the WTs depiction is just about anybody who lived within Joseph’s entire lifespan up to a few seconds before his birth and a few seconds after his death.

I think ‘embarrassment’ is an understatement.

OnTheWayOut:-

“The short story- There was a group of JW’s alive in 1914 whose lives significantly overlapped with JW’s later, and without any reason whatsoever (other than that time is up on their old doctrines), they are saying the two groups are one big overlapping generation, and the end will come before the second group passes away.”

I have to confess that this nearly made me spit my tea out.

I love your lacklustre approach to honorary apologetics.

Basically, you are saying that it is almost impossible to defend. It must be so embarrassing for JWs who have the task of defending this teaching in their ministry.

joey jojo:

“Trying to reason with a jw will leave you frustrated and unsatisfied.”

In my exchange I found it was the opposite. This chap was debating on a public forum and so the questions I asked him, which he was unable to answer, helped highlight just how ludicrous and out of context the Watchtower’s definition really is.

He gave up a little too easily which left me wondering if there was anything more that he failed to disclose.

dozy:-

“But to be honest – why bother trying to convince an active JW? It’s a pointless exercise.”

My objective wasn’t to convince anyone out of their faith. It was more to question them on their belief in order to highlight where their beliefs breakdown. By doing so, any rational person reading the exchange for themselves will be able to see the glaring flaw.

I have no interest in engaging with JWs for my own amusement, although I do enjoy it when they knock on my door… which is not very often these days.

Vidiot:-

“Other than servitude to an authoritarian high control group, there’s not much of an agenda… The real reason the majority of ‘apologists’ stay is because they know what kind of draconian consequences they’ll experience if they don’t.”

I’m not sure that the ‘majority’ are in it for that reason. My guess would be that most are in the religion because they fear their own mortality and struggle to cope with the realities of life.

However, I’m sure there are a good portion of them that remain among the ranks for fear of what they will lose.

77

A question about the contemporary generation teaching following a conversation with a JW apologist

by Giles Gray in

i would like to ask the ex-jws on this site to put their ‘apologists hat’ back on for a moment, so that i can go through the overlapping generation teaching in an attempt to make sense of it.

i apologise if these points have already been addressed on this site.a quick background for the reason for my request… having never confronted a jw apologist on the topic, i recently engaged with a jw regarding the official understanding of a ‘generation’ and unfortunately he didn’t have an answer to the points i was making.

i was left a little confused as to what the official jw response would/should be.so i was hoping that my thoughts below might be considered from an apologist’s perspective.the point in question relates to this section of the watchtower article below from 2008, as well as the jw.org video explanation of the overlapping generation:---:w08 2/15[box on page 25] can we calculate the length of “this generation”?the word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event.

Giles Gray

road to nowhere:-

“Most just reiterate word for word the official dogma.”

That is precisely what happened. I assumed that he wasn’t overly experienced in debating and I was a little disappointed that he couldn’t offer me any more.

The thing that stopped him in his tracks was when I calculated the length of the Watchtower’s ‘contemporary generation’. I got the feeling that he had never sat down and actually worked it out.

Skin:-

“It is a very serious sin if a JW were to openly admit that something the GB say does not make sense.”

I’m not sure how anyone would have the gall to discipline someone for speaking out against such a bizarre, nonsensical teaching. No wonder many left just after this teaching came out.

slimboyfat:-

“The best a JW apologist could say, in my opinion, is that the faithful and discreet slave don’t claim to be infallible, and that understanding of this verse awaits clarification. Point out places where Watchtower has said prophetic understanding is subject to revision and argue that this is not central JW doctrine.”

I think you are right. The GB have given the R&F such a ridiculous teaching to defend. I’m not sure that any of them actually believe it. When questioned on it they don’t seem to have all that much to say.

truth_b_known :-

“As 1914 is a core doctrine of Witnesses, the Watchtower could not allow this belief to be proved wrong. So the goal posts were moved with a new Watchtower definition of the word generation.”

The trouble is, because they have stretched it too far, it is ineffectual in upholding 1914. They would have been wiser to have left the teaching as the 1995 version. I’d love to know the reason why they bothered making the change to the 2008 version at all.

Vidiot:-

“Drop it, and everything else becomes progressively eroded away.”

From the feedback I get from apologists, most of them seem to have accepted that. These days, most JWs seem to be in the religion because it suits their agenda, and not because they have any evidence that what they believe is true.

@waton:

Thank you for stepping in for the apologists.

My question is:-

If the society cite Exodus 1:6 as a definition of a contemporary generation, why does the Watchtower extend the overlap beyond Franz when Franz already overlaps with Russell and Rutherford, in keeping with that scripture?

Why do they ignore all the other anointed who were alive in 1914 and only focus on Franz in the chart in the video?

The apologist didn’t have an answer and it left me wondering if I had missed something in their teachings.

77

A question about the contemporary generation teaching following a conversation with a JW apologist

by Giles Gray in

i would like to ask the ex-jws on this site to put their ‘apologists hat’ back on for a moment, so that i can go through the overlapping generation teaching in an attempt to make sense of it.

i apologise if these points have already been addressed on this site.a quick background for the reason for my request… having never confronted a jw apologist on the topic, i recently engaged with a jw regarding the official understanding of a ‘generation’ and unfortunately he didn’t have an answer to the points i was making.

i was left a little confused as to what the official jw response would/should be.so i was hoping that my thoughts below might be considered from an apologist’s perspective.the point in question relates to this section of the watchtower article below from 2008, as well as the jw.org video explanation of the overlapping generation:---:w08 2/15[box on page 25] can we calculate the length of “this generation”?the word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event.

Giles Gray

I would like to ask the ex-JWs on this site to put their ‘apologists hat’ back on for a moment, so that I can go through the overlapping generation teaching in an attempt to make sense of it. I apologise if these points have already been addressed on this site.

A quick background for the reason for my request… having never confronted a JW apologist on the topic, I recently engaged with a JW regarding the official understanding of a ‘generation’ and unfortunately he didn’t have an answer to the points I was making. I was left a little confused as to what the official JW response would/should be.

So I was hoping that my thoughts below might be considered from an apologist’s perspective.

The point in question relates to this section of the Watchtower article below from 2008, as well as the JW.org video explanation of the overlapping generation:-

--:w08 2/15

[Box on page 25] Can We Calculate the Length of “This Generation”?

The word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event. For example, Exodus 1:6 tells us: “Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.” Joseph and his brothers varied in age, but they shared a common experience during the same time period. Included in “that generation” were some of Joseph’s brothers who were born before him. Some of these outlived Joseph. (Gen. 50:24) Others of “that generation,” such as Benjamin, were born after Joseph was born and may have lived on after he died.

So when the term “generation” is used with reference to people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated except that it does have an end and would not be excessively long. Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”—2 Tim. 3:1; Matt. 24:36. :--

If I understand the quote above and the video correctly, the Governing Body made the argument that Joseph and his ‘contemporaries’ who all moved to Egypt are to be considered as the biblical example of an ‘overlapping generation’ (as described in Exodus 1:1).
According to Exodus 1:1-5, this would include Jacob, his 12 sons and all of their ‘households’, which totalled 70 individuals in all.

For the sake of clarity of the points below, the extent of the overlapping generation that entered Egypt, mentioned Exodus chapter 1 and cited by the Watchtower, consisted of, in part (1) Jacob, (2) his sons Judah and/or Joseph, and (3) Judah’s son Pe’rez.

This was the point (or should I say, an expanded version of the point) I made to the JW apologist,:-

The ‘particular time period or event’ according to Exodus 1:1 was the period when Jacob and his descendants ‘came into’ Egypt. Those who were alive at that time are considered to be the ‘overlapping generation’ referred to in Exodus 1:6.

This overlapping generation WOULD NOT include Jacob’s father Isaac, owing to the fact that he had died the year before Joseph became prime minister of Egypt.

However, according to the Watchtower’s version of a generation, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph would be considered their own overlapping generation, but one that existed before the generation mentioned in Exodus 1:1-6.

The other family descendant that would be excluded from being considered as the overlapping generation of Exodus 1:1 would be Pe’rez’s son, Hez’ron. Hez’ron would have been born after the period that Jacob’s descendants entered Egypt. Therefore, according to the bible, he WOULD NOT be considered part of Joseph’s generation. Hez’ron would be considered part of the generation mentioned at Exodus 1:7.

Despite the fact that the Watchtower article uses Exodus 1:6 as an example of an overlapping generation, I find it difficult to ignore the glaring false equivalence when those verses are contrasted with the Watchtower‘s application of those scriptures.

The chart in the Watchtower’s video commences from the lifetime of Franz. What I don’t understand is why the chart only focuses on Fred Franz. The other members of the anointed who were alive in 1914, even though they are mentioned in the video, their lives are not in any way considered. The entire 1914 generation are only represented by the duration of Franz’s lifespan.

From the starting point of Franz, who already overlaps with Russell (who was conspicuously left out of the video, in spite of the fact that he personally witnessed 1914 and was one of the anointed) and Rutherford, they then continue to extend the contemporary generation to include Tony Morris. They even extend it as far as all the people who lived during Franz’s lifetime. Therefore, anyone who was alive up to and including 1992 is considered part of the overlapping generation. I hope that I’ve understood the video correctly.

I pointed out to the apologist this (potential) flaw in the Watchtower’s thinking. Why does the overlapping generation commence from the lifespan of Franz? Franz was himself part of an overlapping generation that experienced 1914, in the same manner that Pe’rez experienced moving to Egypt with his extended family. (Exodus 1:1)

In 1914, Russell, Rutherford and Franz overlapped as the generation who saw those events. The ‘particular time period or event’, is the year 1914. Therefore, a true parallel to the scripture the Watchtower uses to explain the overlapping generation is already covered by Franz and his contemporaries, i.e. Russell and Rutherford, who lived during the period of 1914.

This is what I went on to explain to this apologist.

Using the ancestry in Matthew chapter 1, if we consider:-

Abraham to be the equivalent of William Miller,

Isaac to be the equivalent of Nelson Barbour,

Jacob to be the equivalent of C. T. Russell,

Judah to be the equivalent of J.F. Rutherford,

Pe’rez to be the equivalent of F. W. Franz,

Hez’ron to be the equivalent of M. Henschel

Ram to be the equivalent of Anthony Morris…

…the contemporary generation equivalent of Exodus 1:1 has long passed away.

If we transpose the people listed above, the scenario fits perfectly to the scripture in Exodus 1:1-6.

Entering Egypt is the equivalent period to 1914.

Russell died not long after 1914, similar to Jacob dying not long after entering Egypt.

Russell is old enough to be the father of Rutherford.

Rutherford is old enough to be the father of Franz.

Franz is old enough to be the grandfather of Tony Morris.

Comparing the contemporary generation of Exodus chapter 1 to the contemporary generation of anointed in 1914, the only person in the list above who doesn’t fit into the 1914 overlapping generation is Tony Morris. Morris is in the same position as Ram in relation to Exodus 1:7. Ram didn’t witness entering into Egypt the same as Tony Morris didn’t witness 1914.

However, both of them would have lived during the lifetime of some of the generation who did witness the ‘particular time period or event’. In spite of this, both Ram and Tony Morris cannot be considered as belonging to the contemporary generation that came before them.

Apart from Tony Morris, all of the other people mentioned in the transposed list above fit perfectly into the scenario of the generation described in Exodus 1:6.

I also pointed out to this apologist how long the Watchtower’s generation actually is. According to the chart in their video, Franz was born in 1893. If Morris lives as long as Franz, he will live to the year 2050 (approximately). A generation, according to that way of thinking, is 157 years.

If we add Russell’s lifespan to the equation, a generation is 198 years.

If we then add the people who lived within Franz’s lifetime (those born up to and including 1992, as is suggested in the video), if they live to 100, a generation would be 240 years.

This would mean that there have only been 8.5 generations since the birth of Christ… with Christ being part of the first generation.

The other point I made was the fact that Nelson Barbour was also a contemporary of Russell, Rutherford and Franz. If the society are to extend the overlapping time forward to include Tony Morris (who didn’t personally witness 1914 but lived during Franz’s lifetime), why does the chart in the video not extend backwards in time to included those who died before 1914 but who lived within Franz’s lifetime? According to the video, shouldn’t this age group also qualify under the society’s definition?

With the inclusion of people who were the same age as Barbour, a generation is 268 years. That is according to the official JW.org video.

There is such a ridiculous and glaring false equivalence in the definition of the generation of Joseph and his brothers mentioned in Exodus, when it’s contrasted with the over stretched 1914 contemporary generation suggested by the Watchtower. The comparison of the ‘contemporary generation’ in Exodus 1:6 to the ‘contemporary generation’ depicted in the Watchtower can only be described as an equivocation fallacy.

109

Proportional Representation vs Electoral Collages

by Simon in

jw
friends

the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!

and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.

yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.

Giles Gray

It really is amazing that no matter how comprehensively a position is debunked, it seems that denial will prevail.

109

Proportional Representation vs Electoral Collages

by Simon in

jw
friends

the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!

and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.

yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.

Giles Gray

SBF - "Their next manifesto should say: we don’t give a damn how you vote, we’ll decide what happen in Scotland regardless."

Never has a statement been as self applicable...

109

Proportional Representation vs Electoral Collages

by Simon in

jw
friends

the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!

and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.

yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.

Giles Gray

"If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it?"

Ha! Maybe for a week or two.

After that 'democracy' (or more correctly... the right to dismiss the democratic vote because it doesn't fit their political agenda) will be administered.