Actually your synopsis have reinforced how strong the mind-control of the organization is and how transparent their excuses to try to cover their many blunders and false prophecies are.
There is no composite sign
.....there is but one "anointed generation" -- "this generation" of folks that lived contemporaneous to when the composite "sign" that Jesus provides in Matthew 24 and 25; Mark 13 and Luke 21 appeared in 1914, and many of the people in this generation will still be alive after the great tribulation and "will by no means pass away until all these things occur," so these anointed ones will live to see the end of this wicked system of things.
That comes across as a fair amount of scriptural embellishment from someone that does not condone embellishment of talk outlines...
Jesus' usage of γενεα at Matthew 24:34 is not materially different than his previous use of the word at Matthew 23:36. In both instances he qualifies that usage with a proximal pronoun indicating something manifest at the moment he was speaking.
In JW theology, the "Anointed" did not exist at that point and would not until Pentecost
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),
(Matthew24:14, NWT) And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.
Forgive my copying and pasting...but does anyone else see a difference here?
Jesus mentioned just one "generation" at Matthew 24:34, making no mention whatsoever of two generations. It goes without saying (but I'll say it for you!) that anyone that is born again, as was the Lord Jesus Christ, when baptized in holy spirit, is said to have received an anointing by means of God's holy spirit, so God's firstborn, Jesus (Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26), and those that comprise "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16) became spiritually-anointed ones, who were adopted as God's "sons" (Romans 9:4) and thus becoming brothers of Jesus, all 144,000 of whom are "the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens" (Hebrews 12:23).
So just as Moses was an "anointed one" or "Christ" (Hebrews 11:26), and Moses' brother Aaron and King David were 'anointed ones of Jehovah' (Leviticus 4:5; 2 Samuel 22:51), King Cyrus of Persia (Isaiah 45:1), even all of Jehovah's prophets are said to be God's "anointed ones" (Psalm 105:15). However, you are free to believe that the concept of being "anointed" didn't exist until Pentecost.
I'm going to ask that you be straightforward in your presentation of scriptural proofs, because I will humor you this time by saying that one may easily compare the Greek word used at Matthew 23:36 with one used at Matthew 24:34 to discern that they are not just "materially different," but different words altogether, but more than this, when using the words "this generation" at Matthew 23:36, Jesus had in mind those Jews that were alive contemporaneous with the tribulation that befell the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.
However, this is the point: The words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, if you would only read Matthew 24:29, 30, are contemporaneous with the events that would occur -- notice -- "after the tribulation of those days" when "the sign of the Son of man" will appear in heaven "during the presence of the Son of man" at the end of this wicked system of things. (Matthew 24:37) I don't have a problem with anyone embellishing an outline, except when the material it presents is rendered unrecognizable by the liberties taken with the outline.
Personally, I don't care how anyone says anything, but if what is said is represented as coming from the Bible, it should at least be true. My theocratic library is quite extensive with most everything I have as hard copies also available to me at my fingertips in some electronic format, which includes the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (originally produced back in 1969), and so much more beyond just what has ever been published by the Society, so I asking you to please not attempt to bluff me again.
Let me just say that this is just a paraphrase of what Jesus stated at Matthew 24:14, but my insertion of the word "satisfactorily" into it is based, in part, on what Jesus stated at Matthew 10:23 regarding our not being able to "complete the circuit," not of the cities of Israel, not just Judea, Galilee and Peraea, but at Matthew 28:19, Jesus assigns to his followers the entire world as their territory beyond the borders of Palestine.
Keeping in mind what Jesus says at Matthew 10:23, one can rightly infer from Jesus' words at Matthew 24:14 that at some point the witness will have been given to the extent possible "until the Son of man arrives" as God's Executioner to bring God's judgment against the world (2 Thessalonians 1:9-11); this good news of the kingdom will be preached as a witness to as many people as we can reach and then the foretold "end will come."
Jesus instructed us to flee to another city whenever we are persecuted in any city, so while there are still problems in Russia (the Moscow congregation), I learned today from one of my Russian brothers that "one union of JWs here won matter on [the] European Court," so our witness may not reach everyone in the world before the end comes (e.g., the kingdom of Saudi Arabia), but just as Roman General Titus withdrew suddenly allowing Jesus' followers to flee Jerusalem, maybe these bans on religious freedom will suddenly fall for a few years, giving us the opportunity to bear witness to the truth in lands currently unavailable to us.
I've read your reply twice, but am not sure if I fully understand your perspective in two areas. Perhaps it would help if you would clarify your position somewhat. I'll be happy to do likewise.
The first area is theology. My interest here is JW theology and beliefs. That interest comes from being married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is purely academic, because I'm not religious at all myself.
Therefore I'm curious: Are you a JW? Are you explaining JW theology here or are you actively promoting your own personal theology?
If you have a personal theology that you're happy with, then I'm happy for you. --But I'm not interested in discussing it. I'm only interested in orthodox JW theology as explained in their official publications.
In this regard, JW leaders and policy makers have advanced two recent interpretations of Matthew 24:34. One appeared in the February 15th, 2008 issue of The Watchtower and one appeared in the April 15th, 2010 issue of the same magazine. An integral part of both explanations was a specific usage of the word "Anointed" in JW theology. That is to say, anointing in the Christian era as the spiritual manifestation of one's spiritual begetting by Jehovah, acceptance into the New Covenant and accompanying heavenly calling.
JW publications are abundantly clear that this anointing did not commence until Pentecost of 33 CE. I haven't pointed this out because it's my own personal belief; I've pointed it out because that is what JW literature explicitly teaches and can provide copious references to prove it.
You've pointed out that there were other forms and meanings of anointing in the Bible and I don't dispute that. The term certainly has a wide range of meaning. But in the context of the recent interpretations of Matthew 24:34 in the captioned issues of The Watchtower above, that is neither here nor there because we are talking about a meaning that is far more restricted in scope. If you are in fact defending orthodox JW theology (And I'm honestly not sure if you are) then you are simply equivocating here.
The second area is Ancient Greek itself. You said:
I'm going to ask that you be straightforward in your presentation of scriptural proofs, because I will humor you this time by saying that one may easily compare the Greek word used at Matthew 23:36 with one used at Matthew 24:34 to discern that they are not just "materially different," but different words altogether.....
The only possible explanation I can think of for why you would assert that they are "...different words altogether" is because you have simply compared the two verses in an Interlinear and don't actually read Ancient Greek yourself:
23:36 ...panta epi thn genean tauthn
24:34 ...amen legw umin ou mh parelqh h genea
These are nominative and accusative forms of the exact same word: If you don't actually read and understand the source language that's fine. It's not necessary to study the Bible. But if that is the case, I don't think a condescending tone is justified when you're talking with someone who can.
I also don't understand what bearing you think "scriptural proofs" would have on the more basic question of Greek grammar and word usage. I've already pointed out that in both instances, genea is qualified by a proximal pronoun: ( tauthn in 23:36 and auth in 24:34) These are both the same word; ( outoV ) the former is accusative feminine singular and the latter is nominative feminine singular. They are both translated to the Engilsh near demonstrative pronoun, "This"
outoV (This) typically indicates something near at hand to the speaker, as opposed to ekeinoV (That) which indicates something removed from the speaker either in space or time. I've taken the time explain this because it directly relates to your interpretation: (Bolding is mine)
The words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, if you would only read Matthew 24:29, 30, are contemporaneous with the events that would occur -- notice -- "after the tribulation of those days" when "the sign of the Son of man" will appear in heaven "during the presence of the Son of man" at the end of this wicked system of things
This removes the generation from Jesus immediate audience to some point in the far future. That view is not uncommon, but interpreters who do this usually invoke a dual fulfillment to accomplish it. You've simply asserted that verse 34 is temporally subject to verses 29 and 30, which makes Jesus word choice in verse 34 questionable. If Jesus was talking about a generation removed in time from his immediate audience, it seems to me that he would have used proper grammar to describe it.
I see no real need to "clarify" my position any further; you want to argue with someone and that's fine. I do not. (BTW, I don't intend to humor you, but I do not wish the "condescending tone" in this post to interfere with the things I'm about to say to you here, since I'm not concerned that something I might say here could hurt your feelings.)
You refer to "JW theology and beliefs," "JW publications" and "JW leaders and policy makers," but 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, but I will respond nonetheless by asking you to ask your wife, "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?" (Luke 12:42) that "faithful ... steward" that provides spiritual food for the household of faith, and to also explain to you just how the "Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" and the "Writing Committee" differs from one another, and now I will go on to provide my responses:
First, that the concept of someone having a "personal theology" among Jehovah's Witnesses is quite foreign to me since we believe that there is but one truth, or, to put this in the vernacular that you seem to prefer, "one theology."
Second, when you read what things I write here, the "policy makers" are Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, in this order, and as long as you make use of the advantage you have -- being married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses -- and undertake a study of the Bible with her or with someone else, you will acquire sufficient knowledge that may build your faith in the things that you have learned from the Bible. If faith should not obtain as a result of your making this effort, that would be unfortunate, but the great tribulation has not yet begun, so as long as Jehovah's Witnesses continue to publish the established heavenly kingdom of God as a witness, there is still time for you to build faith in God and in His promises.
Third (and last), I do not know how to include Greek text here, but you do, and the fact that you presented the Greek word rendered "generation" in most English language Bibles for Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 makes my point apparent to all: That while both of these Greek words are rendered "generation," they are not identical, partially for the reasons you gave, but for one more important reason, which you ignored in my previous post:
When Jesus used the words "this generation" at Matthew 23:36, he had in mind those Jews that were alive contemporaneous with the tribulation that befell the Jewish system of things in 70 AD, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. However, the words "this generation" that he uses at Matthew 24:34 are contemporaneous with the events that would occur -- notice -- "after the tribulation of those days" when "the sign of the Son of man" will appear in heaven "during the presence of the Son of man" at the end of this wicked system of things. (Matthew 24:37) It would be good if you would only take into consideration Jesus' words at Matthew 24:29, 30, but, as much as I hate to say this, none of this is rocket science: Study the Bible, build faith in God, repent, turn around and orient yourself in an opposite direction (that is, toward God), dedicate your life to God's service (as has your wife and as many others have already done) and get baptized that you may enter the antitypical ark and be one of the survivors when the end [of this system of things] comes. [sarcasm]How hard can this be?[/sarcasm]
If my use of terms to describe the hierarchy within the JW organization is inappropriate, I apologize. I'm not a JW myself and am doing my best.
I do not know how to include Greek text here, but you do,
There's three basic ways you can do this. You can click the uppercase Omega next to the smiley on the tool bar; you can manually markup your text to a native Windows Greek font (i.e. Symbol) using the html editor next to the question mark on the toolbar, or you can use Greek characters that are embedded in other Windows fonts (e.g. Times New Roman) but aren't directly accessible from the keyboard by using a tool called "Character map" which comes with Windows.
....the fact that you presented the Greek word rendered "generation" in most English language Bibles for Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 makes my point apparent to all: That while both of these Greek words are rendered "generation," they are not identical
You're right, they're not identical. In English, we indicate a word's place in a sentence mostly by word order:
"The dog bit the man"
"The man bit the dog."
In Greek, word forms change to indicate their place in a sentence:
O kuwn daknei ton anqropon
O anqropoV daknei ton kuna
..But this does not affect definition or meaning in any way. Regardless of who bit whom, these are still the exact same words and "Dog" and "Man" mean the same things respectively in both sentences. It really seems to me that you are latching onto something that appears odd at first to a native English speaker and drawing a conclusion that does not follow in Greek.
I've not ignored what you said in the balance of your reply, I commented on it directly already. I disagree with the idea that you can displace, "This generation" forward in time to a point after the tribulation and I disagree even more strongly with the idea that the declination of the word " genea " has anything at all to do with this.
Besides the proper use of pronouns, such a restriction would apply with equal force to the balance of the sentence including the expression " ewV an panta tauta genhtai " -- "until all these things occur" limiting "all these things" to only events after the tribulation as well. It seems to me that JW literature directly contradicts that idea by interpreting this expression to include the entire sign from beginning to end.
In simple terms, it boils down to this.
In the 1960s and early 70s the WTS taught that “the end” would likely come around 1975 (refer “Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God” page 35 plus numerous other references in publications of that time).
When the end didn’t come in 1975, they said, “Hey, we got it a bit wrong but the end is still coming any day now.” Scriptures such as Matt 24:34, “…this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur,” were used as proof that it would come within the literal generation that saw 1914.
By 1995, it became obvious that people who saw the events of 1914 were dying out.
Since 1995, they have continued to adjust their definition of the term “generation” to support their claims that “the end” is coming any day now.
They could have done themselves a favour by leaving it alone after 1995. In perpetuating the discussion, they highlight their own preoccupation with "the end." It's a motivating force amongst Jehovah's Witnesses.