@TD:
You said that "[n]one of the convention speakers (So far...) or The Watchtower have said that...," but I know (a) that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you aren't, and (b) what the latest Watchtower stated with respect to what Jesus may have meant by his use of the words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 and you do not. In an earlier post (in another thread btw), you told me that your wife is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but that your interest in "JW theology and [our] beliefs ... is purely academic," because you don't consider yourself to be a religious individual, and that your interest lies "in orthodox JW theology as explained in [our] official publications."
While not directly discussing Jesus' use of the phrase "this generation," you also stated that "JW publications are abundantly clear that this anointing did not commence until Pentecost of 33 CE ... [and that you were pointing this] out because that is what JW literature explicitly teaches and can provide copious references to prove it." I would like to pursue these remarks on what it means to be "anointed" by means of God's holy spirit, but in keeping with the rules of this forum, I suppose it would be more appropriate for you to start a new thread.
As far as the article that appeared in the Watchtower that is the basis of the discussion that is taking place both here and in a few other threads, this is what I believe to be pertinent here:
"[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. That generation had a beginning, and it surely will have an end." ["Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose" (w10 4/15, p. 10, ¶14)]
You may recall my telling you in the "generation overlap' thread that I don't want to argue with anyone, but that I am willing to discuss this matter with you and that if my "tone" should bother you, you might work on thickening your skin just a bit, but I'll do my best to not say anything that might make you cry or even pout. My goal is to share an opinion with you and nothing more. It's your choice to either hear what I have to say or not hear my opinion at all.
Lastly, I told you that when you refer to things like "JW theology and beliefs," "JW publications" and "JW leaders and policy makers," I suppose that I could be described as being all of these things, but they would inadequately describe my function as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so please listen up.
What was recently posted in reply to @garyneal's letter to one of our congregation elders is essentially what I stated here already:
"[A]t Exodus 1:6, which refers to Joseph's generation ("Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation")[,] is used to describe those who were Joseph's contemporaries, even though the verse itself doesn't use this word, which is evinced by the words "...and all that generation," which would not [...] limit "generation" to just Joseph and his 11 brothers, but would include Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who would also have been as much contemporaries of their father as were Joseph's nephews (and nieces), would they not? All of these were contemporaries of Joseph and thus a part of "that generation [of Joseph's]."
You should not be here feigning surprise over the elder's response to @garyneal's question, since I responded similarly. (I am assuming that you comprehended to what it was I was referring in my post when I referred to "Joseph's nephews (and nieces)" all being contemporaries of Joseph.)
I'm appending to this post a few more notes that I've posted elsewhere, but since you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses and your interest is in "JW theology and [our] beliefs" and not in getting to know the true God, Jehovah, better so that you might become united in worship with Jehovah's Witnesses, your interest is tangential at best.
What enables Jehovah's Witnesses to abandon what we may have previously understood to be the explanation for one scriptural passage or another is our faith that God is using Jehovah's Witnesses as His channel of communication, and that due to inherent imperfection, we know and accept the fact that adjustments may need to be made from time to time as our knowledge and understanding of the scriptures, when the same are compared to world events, increases. What one needs and what may be lacking in you is humility, which btw is one of my God's qualities. (Psalm 18:35)
As I'm sure your wife know, humility is a requirement for anyone to be taught by Jehovah, and any human being that is humble must also learn how to be modest, a quality that you seem to have no real interest in cultivating at this time. But whenever it is that you should begin to cultivate humility, you will have to learn modesty, too, for if one doesn't recognize his or her own limitations, he or she cannot walk with the true God. (John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13; Micah 6:8)
Jesus demonstrated modesty in recognizing his own limitations when he refused to get involved in the national politics of his day by letting the people make him their king. Of course, Jesus would have known that 'it doesn't belong to man to even direct his own steps,' let alone his governing the steps of other people as a human king, which is exactly what the prophet Jeremiah had acknowledged. (Jeremiah 10:23) In fact, all politicians on earth today are immodest men and women.
Your endeavor to obtain information on "JW theology and [our] beliefs" smacks of selfishness since you could take what things you learn from your wife and on your own (in a Bible study [Acts 16:31-33]!), and share those things with others, but helping others to understand what things the Bible teaches is not exactly your undertaking, is it? Gratefully (and for reasons that aren't always clear to us when it happens), people do change.
[NOTES]
Firstly, "the term 'generation' as used by Jesus [at Matthew 24:34] refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics." (wt95 11/1, p. 17, ¶6) Secondly, Jesus compared the generation in his day to the one in Noah's day at [Matthew 24:37-39], it seems clear that the people in Noah's generation paralleled the people in "this generation" which began when the sign of Jesus' second coming became manifest in the year 1914. (I would take note the use of the word "this generation" as they are used at Genesis 7:1.] Thirdly, even if we should be able to determine when "this generation" began, we would still be unable to calculate when "this generation" would come to an end since no one knows the "day and hour."
Having said this, should we give consideration to what Exodus 1:6 says regarding the death of Joseph, Jacob's/Israel's son, "and also all his brothers and all that generation," then based on how old Joseph was when he died -- 110 -- then his contemporaries would have been "all [of] his brothers" and Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both living when their father died.
Now looking at the dates, Jacob at age 84 marries both Leah and Rachel in 1774 BC (after his uncle Laban does a bait and switch) so that his 11th son, Joseph, is finally born to Rachel in 1767 BC. (Rachel dies when Benjamin, Jacob's most beloved son, is born some six years later in 1761 BC.) Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous to the "sign" in 1914 would correspond to Joseph's birth and to his two sons that were alive when Joseph died, as well as to Joseph's siblings and to his nephews and nieces, who would also have been contemporaries of Joseph.
Since the separation of sheep from goats doesn't begin until "immediately after" the great tribulation (Matthew 24:29), and Jesus specifically stated at Matthew 24:34 'this generation would not pass away until all these things [that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 and 25] have occurred,' including the tribulation, then it would seem that just as Joseph's contemporaries were still living when Joseph died, then some of Jesus spiritual brothers would still be alive after the tribulation.
The fact that our current year of 2010 is 96 years removed from the year 1914 does not help one do any more than speculate as to the year when the end will come, for we arrive at the year 2024 when counting 110 years forward from 1914 and the Bible is silent as to when Manasseh and Ephraim, who were born in Egypt, but were contemporaries of their father, died.
Now trying to prove Jesus' wrong when he indicated that no man knows "that day or the hour" is such a ridiculous exercise as trying the calculate the year when "the end will come," but it'll come when the good news will have been [satisfactorily] preached in all the earth, which is something that Jesus also said (Matthew 24:14), for if Jesus did know 'the day or hour' when he said this, why would he have lied?
Berating spiritual-minded members of the GB or other Christians for doing what they can to encourage Christians to stay awake and keep them from going to sleep when they need to be vigilant with a view to prayer is evidently the preoccupation of some, but remember just as the Law appointed men having weakness as high priests (Hebrews 7:28), Jehovah uses men today that are just as imperfect, who may at times have gotten it wrong and might even have said some zany things they we might wish they did not say. But most of us here know more of what things the Bible teaches that most the truth because of the work of such dedicated "men," both past and present, including Jesus, including Paul, that have been doing their best to 'keep watch over our souls.' (Hebrews 13:17)