I've just been catching up on this thread.
To boldly argue in favor that Exodus 1:6 proves that Jesus was taking about two overlapping groups within one 'generation' is to ignore the opposite argumentation that the same source (WT) has given for over 100 years.
Before 2010 and certainly before 2008, no one in Brooklyn thought that Exodus 1:6 and Jesus statement about a generation had anything do with each other in seeking to create a new definition of the word 'generation' as used by Jesus. As of 2010, in WT-speak, a generation no longer means 'people born around the same time' (like siblings within 15 years or less of each other) but rather people that are 'connected to each other through a common experience.'
In 2010, the generation are the 'anointed' and the common experience they share is that the lives of some post-1914 anointed 'overlapped' with those that saw the events of 1914. Therefore, Armageddon must come within the lifespan of the second group. In this way one generation (made up of two overlapping groups -- but no more than two) 'sees' 1914 and Armageddon.
The scriptural justification for this is the new interpretation of Exodus 1:6. Of course, this ignores the simple and obvious meaning and context of what is actually recored in the gospel accounts. Jesus tells BOTH his disciples and the wicked religious leaders that their generation will see what we now know to be the end of the Jewish system in 70CE. That took place in less than 40 years of his statements, or, one generation -- generation in it's classic meaning.
Now, why on earth would any JW seek to defend this non-sense when their spirit-directed source has made these statements over the years:
CURRENT LIGHT: WT April 15, 2010 p. 10:
[Generation] usually refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period...(Exodus 1:6).
"[Jesus] evidently meant that the lives of the anointed who were on hand when the sign began to become evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation."
------------------------------
Insight Vol 1 pg. 917:
"A generation commonly refers to all persons who were born about the same time. (Exodus 1:6, Mt 11:16)"
Notice that Exodus 1:6 is used in both definitions.
-----------------------------
Watchtower, November 1, 1995 p. 30-31 Questions From Readers:
This article argues, among other things, that Jesus use of 'generation' could not be applied to the anointed. It goes on to state:
"Those men [ the apostles ], who were not yet anointed with holy spirit nor part of the Christian congregation, certainly did not constitute either a "generation" or a race of people."
------------------------------
Contrast that statement with the February 15, 2008 WT (p. 21-25) on the generation (this is also repeated in the April 15, 2010 WT article):
"Jesus said that it was his disciples, soon to be anointed with holy spirit, who should be able to
draw certain conclusions when they saw "all these things" occur. So Jesus must have been referring to
his disciples when he made the statement: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these
things occur."
------------------------------
Compare that to the Watchtower June1, 1991 p.28:
"Many scriptures confirm that Jesus did not use "generation" with regard to some small or distinct group, meaning only the Jewish leaders or only his loyal disciples."
------------------------------
And finally, with regard to OVERLAPPING generations seeing different parts of 'the sign':
Watchtower, October 15, 1988 p.4-5
"Might it be, though, that the sign could occur over the span of many human generations? No. The sign is to occur during one particular generation. The same generation that witnessed the beginning of the sign will also witness its climax..."
------------------------------
Now, before the 'defenders' get carried away: You CANNOT use the 'new light' excuse since this a bogus concept. Proverbs 4 has nothing to do with a progressive revealing of 'Bible truth'.
Second, where is the scriptural evidence that we should apply a secondary meaning to Jesus' words? Where is the evidence for a 'parallel dispensation' with a secondary, larger fulfillment of the prophecy?
The whole reason these convoluted interpretations are being created is that time ran out on all the 19th and 20th century chronological interpretations along with their supposed climaxes. New interpretations are needed to keep 1914 relevant in 21st century.
