Explanation for the generation in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32

by alice.in.wonderland 62 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • The Finger
    The Finger

    The only thing this explanation proves is how wrong they were with the other and how unlikely it is they have been chosen for anything.

  • palmtree67
    you rebuke them for not debating with you about the evidence presented in the OP, yet you ignores those replies which actually do directly debate the subject raised in the OP, such as Ultimate Reality's.

    Thank you, Essan!! I was starting to think I was going blind!! Or crazy!!! I'm not the only one who notices Alice's modus operandi.

  • wasblind

    Essan have i told you lately,

    that i'm glad your hear on the board

  • Essan

    The OP basically says that Generation can mean many things and that the Scriptural context determines the exact meaning - or at least it should.

    But that is not what is happening with the Society's ever changing interpretation of the "Generation". If their interpretation of the Generation was actually based on the Scriptural context it would not have changed so many times, because the context is unchanging. I don't recall those passages of Scripture changing over the past 100 years, do you? No. The context is unchanging and pretty obvious. It's not that hard to understand.

    So why has the Society's interpretation of the "Generation" changed so many times, if it's Scriptural context has never changed? Because the "context" they are using to interpret is not the Scriptures, it's their own publications and their own claims.

    The context they are using is 1914 and their claim that this date is when the "Generation" starts and that it is marked from this year.

    Their interpretations are based on the wrong context. Having linked the "Generation" to 1914, and because of being unwilling to admit they were wrong to do this, the context continually shifts as the decades pass. They are forced by repeated evident failure of interpretation due to the passage of time to constantly change the "Generation", not by 'new light".

    But, their intent is still not to interpret the "Generation" in terms of what the Scriptural context actually reveals, but to interpret it in a way that retains their 1914 date, in a way that somehow still makes them right, despite the fact that every former attempt to interpret it according to 1914 has proved them wrong and had to be scrapped. They are like someone who tries to put their feet in two different rowing boats. The boats start to drift apart, but they wont make a choice to go with one or abandon the other, so they end up doing the splits in ever more painful fashion as the 'boats' - 1914 and the "Generation" - drift ever further apart. Right now they are in full splits stretched so far that - excuse my vulgarity - their balls are dangling in the water. LOL

    You'd think they'd have noticed a pattern and they'd have said to each other:

    "Hang on guys. Every time we interpret the generation, the passage of time proves our interpretation wrong and he have to find new ways of extending what a Generation could be so it still links with 1914. We've run out of options and the recent explanations are just getting extremely silly. But we're not getting the interpretation from the Scriptural context, we're just trying to make a Generation fit with 1914. Maybe that's where we've been going wrong? Maybe we should reconsider 1914 in light of the fact that every interpretation we have made of the Generation - when linked to 1914 - has failed?"

    The "Generation" is proving 1914 wrong. But they won't admit it. That's because their primary context for interpretation is not the Bible, but their own claims regarding dates. Their primary context is their own pride.

    Come on guys, you've abandoned so many dates before, another one isn't really going to matter is it?

  • palmtree67

    Very well put, Essan.

    And I don't have to wade through piles of gobble-de-gook to get your point.

    I think the "truth" is simple. Jesus wasn't talking to grammatical scholars, he was talking to the everyday person who worked and lived an everyday life. If someone had told them the generation Jesus was talking about was some kind of overlapping generation that spanned hundreds of years,....what would they have thought?

  • chrisjoel

    More closely associated with Jesus are Kingdom heirs, the 140,000.

    Jesus said to them:“Truly I say to you, In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:27-28

    And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:

    .........But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter 2:9

    The concept “generation” has more than one meaning in the Bible ......

    1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation.

    4. a group of individuals belonging to a specific category at the same time

    Matthew 24:34 has more application to a group of individuals belonging to a [specific category].

    The unified generation that bore witness to all events during the Messiah's presence on earth and the sign of Christ's presence during the conclusion of the system of things was the 144,000 (individuals belonging to a specific category).

    w70 6/1 p. 331 par. 22 Do You Have “Faith to the Preserving Alive of the Soul”?

    The resurrection of the anointed Christians, who number 144,000, is to spirit life in heaven and it began to occur in 1918 C.E., after the establishment of the heavenly Kingdom in 1914.

    The overlapping generations discussed at the latest District Assembly includes all of the anointed remnant of human's still alive during the conclusion of the system of things, but also includes the 144,000 in its entirety, as they're likewise living contemporaries of the modern anointed remnant. ...This would include Jesus disciples, apostles and first century Christians that took note of events in the first century and the remaining remnant of the anointed class in the last days.


    THIS IS truly fantastic.

    That when Jesus sat down on his throne, in 1914, to start his invisible presence, a remnant of that royal Priesthood was FOUND on earth. These annointed represent the 144000 and started their spirit life in heaven in 1918 upon death.....They include the apostles and first century christians AND the remaining annointed Today!

    Essentially, you are saying that the SAME annointed christians from Jesus day, are infact overlapped with the same EXACT true christians up until 1914/1918...and beyond...

    Are YOU willing to accept the consequences such reasoning bears out?

    DID you forget that the person who started this whole cafeteria of spiritual hodgepogde, a certain CT RUSSELL, failed to notify

    any remnant of the 144,000 (contemporaries of the modern anointed remnant in his day) that they should NOW attach themselves to the international bible students Of pennsylvania since they are no longer the faithful and discreet slave class, as now RUssell now is!

    No matter how you slice it , dice it , cut it up, or gener- ration-a lize it, THE Jehovahs WItnesses cannot be taken seriously , because there was no such thing as a faithful and discreet slave class surviving until Russells day. Therefore there is no over lapping of annointed christians from Jesus day and today. Therefore there is no JW authority.

  • Cagefighter

    You have to be on Meth or a JW to actually read Alice's posts and find any connectivity. Alice you should submit this to the Watchtower you could write the articles.

  • alice.in.wonderland

    “The OP basically says that Generation can mean many things and that the Scriptural context determines the exact meaning - or at least it should.”

    The context of this scripture isn't crystal clear and the meaning of some Bible passages are only explained through the passage of time. It's quite possible the faithful and discreet slave had the current meaning in mind but took into consideration various expectations and let time be the judge.

    The people that deny its meaning as explained in the Watchtower don't know what it means and really never did. Was it ever explained in any other books written by theologians?


    “This generation” in Matthew 24:34

    How then is this verse to be explained? Actually it is difficult for any theological position, including that held by moderate preterists.

  • Cagefighter

    Why do I feel like I am tweaking everytime I read her posts. Ugh.. I am getting the shakes.

  • cyberjesus

    Hey Alice, welcome back! I missed you

Share this