@Bubblegum Apotheosis wrote:
Would someone please explain the current interpretation of the Generation. This topic is one that is causing [a lot] of [confusion] and turmoil. JWN, you would not believe how many youth and other pre-40er's don't accept the current explanation of this confused JW doctrine. Thank you for taking the time to consider this, and how I can use it to help younger ones, see how foolish it is.
@wannabefree wrote (quoting [w10 4/15, p. 14, ¶ 14]):
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) ... [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.
@Ding wrote:
That definition of generation sure wasn't EVIDENT to the GB in the days of Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, or Franz, was it?
This definition of "generation" was evident to Nathan Knorr, who was the president of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society back in 1952, during which the following, in pertinent part, was given in response to the question that appeared in a "Questions from Readers" article:
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?
Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping.... [W]e could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit....
[w52 9/1, pp. 542, 543]
I believe Fred Franz became the president of the Society some two weeks after Nathan Knorr's death in June 1977, and he served until his death in December 1992, when Milton Henschel became the president of the Society, so I'm not sure why you mentioned Franz at all, for Knorr became the president of the Society following Judge Rutherford's death in January 1942, and neither he (Rutherford) nor Pastor Russell shared the same belief as did Knorr as to the length of the generation to which Jesus referred at Matthew 24:34. I remember the Knorr years and you evidently are repeating what things you were told by someone or you are relating something you read somewhere as to what the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses were in those days. Consequently, what you believe to be true isn't. What I quote above is from a Watchtower article that appeared in 1952 during which time Knorr was president of the Society.
@DesirousofChange:
I don't qualify as "youth" or "pre-40er" but I agree this overlapping thing is a bunch of crap.
Do you understanding the change or don't you? I don't think you do and I'm glad the OP started this topic.
[I think the WT QFR was right about the "younger" ones who are now partaking being mentally ill or delusional, I'd say. This overlapping concoction was freaking delusional.]
Why is that? You learned from Jehovah's Witnesses that we once held belief that were in accord with what appeared in the masthead of the Awake! magazine until November 8, 1995:
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
It is true that based on how we understood Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34, many regretfully concluded that Armageddon would have to arrive before the oldest of Jesus' anointed servants had passed away. Some even had the macabre hope that the deaths of the last of the anointed to have been born at the close of the Gentile Times in 1914 would occur post haste. Be that as it may, after November 8, 1995, the masthead changed:
"Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."
The change was necessary because some opined that the masthead gave the unmistaken impression to anyone that read it, including Jehovah's Witnesses, who had no desire to mislead anyone, that contrary to what we roundly knew Jesus to have stated at Matthew 24:36 as to the "day and hour," that we actually knew the "day and hour" that Jesus himself had indicated he didn't know. This change was made primarily to help the people with whom we placed the Awake! magazine to build confidence in the fact that the end is near and not to mislead or give to them the impression that we had determined when the end of this system of things would occur.
@smiddy:
The WatchTower cover of 1984? ... By their own definition that" overlapping generation" died without the WT prediction coming true.
What "prediction" was made in this issue of the Watchtower dated May 15, 1984, to which you refer, the one with this "cover" and the caption "The Generation That Will Not Pass Away"? On page 4 of the article, "1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away," that appeared in this magazine, stated the following on page 5:
Jesus used the word "generation" many times in different settings and with various meanings. But what did he mean when he spoke of a 'generation that would not pass away'?"
The article went on to quote, on page 5, how one English language dictionary and one Greek-English lexicon defined the word "generation," as follows:
The Greek word rendered "generation" in the Bible has been defined as, "Those born at the same time.... Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age." (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology) "The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries." (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958) These definitions embrace both those born around the time of a historic event and all those alive at that time.
At this point, the following hypothetical also appears on page 5:
If Jesus used "generation" in that sense and we apply it to 1914, then the babies of that generation are now 70 years old or older. And others alive in 1914 are in their 80's or 90's, a few even having reached a hundred. There are still many millions of that generation alive. Some of them "will by no means pass away until all things occur."—Luke 21:32.
Notice that there is no definiteness here. What I have just quoted points out that the word "generation" as used in the Bible "has been defined as ... the body of one's contemporaries" and "the sum total of those born at the same time ... [including] contemporaries. "There definitions embrace those born around the time of a historic event and all those alive at that time." So based on the definitions provided in the article, this article goes on to ask the question: "What other major events remain to be seen by the generation of 1914?"
This question asked is this: If Jesus had used "generation" in the same sense as one English language dictionary and one Greek-English lexicon defines the word, what other major events would "the generation of 1914" see? You can read anything you want into this, but you cannot prove that this series of articles that appeared in this 1984 Watchtower constituted a "prediction."
On page 7 of the aforementioned article, we must keep in mind the premise of the article hasn't changed: If Jesus had used "generation" in the same sense as the above-cited references define the word, what then would the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies means "for all those living today"? The concluding two paragraphs read as follows:
Just as Jesus’ prophecies regarding Jerusalem were fulfilled within the life span of the generation of the year 33 C.E., so his prophecies regarding "the time of the end" will be fulfilled within the life span of the generation of 1914. (Daniel 12:4) This means that marvelous prospects lie before not only that generation but all those living today. Why? Because Jesus also said regarding the significant events affecting that generation: "When you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near.—Luke 21:28, 31.
The nearness of God’s Kingdom today spells the end of the present divisive political, religious and commercial systems. It means the ushering in of a righteous new government for all obedient mankind. You can choose everlasting life under this arrangement of "new heavens and a new earth." (2 Peter 3:13; John 17:3) Yes, you may live to see this promised New Order, along with survivors of the generation of 1914—the generation that will not pass away.
There is only a hypothetical presented here; there is no "prediction" made in this Watchtower dated May 15, 1984.
@OnTheWayOut:
Wannabefree covers it. It really isn't any clearer than that article.
Is that right? Then how come you didn't understand the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010? Personally, I think the explanation wasn't as clear as it could have been.
And Ding has how they will eventually stretch it out until so many who remember them even saying such a silly thing are dead.
But that wouldn't be proof of anything, would it? That would just be speculation, would it not?
When my mother tried to explain it, fresh from the convention that covered it after the article was released, she couldn't do it.
This sounds about right, because, unfortunately, the explanation given as to how we now believe Jesus to have used the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 wasn't very clear. The focus should not have been on the overlapping of the lives of the anointed ones who saw the beginning of the sign of Jesus' presence "with the lives of the anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." The focus should have been on the fact that these anointed ones would live during the generation of the composite sign, which accords with what the holy spirit said through Moses in its use of the word "generation" at Exodus 1:6:
"Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers, and all that generation."
Just as the apostle Peter didn't know the reason God had removed the wall that separated Jews from Gentiles, but understood that it was God's will that he make an adjustment in his viewpoint, it has now become clear to us how the Bible uses the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 is consistent with its use at Exodus 1:6.
In referring to the death of Joseph, Exodus 1:6 not only refers to all of Joseph's brothers, but to "all that generation." Based on Joseph's age when he died -- he was 110 years old when he died -- then Joseph's contemporaries would have been "all [of] his brothers," whose lives overlapped Joseph's, as well as Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were both living when their father died, whose lives also overlapped Joseph's, making them Joseph's contemporaries.
The "generation of Joseph" began with Joseph's birth in 1767 BC, but ended, not with the death of Joseph, but with the death of Joseph's contemporaries, and this would include Joseph's brother Levi, for example, who died at the age of 137, some 22 years after Joseph's death (Exodus 6:16), and the death of Joseph's two sons, who were both born in Egypt, and whose lives overlapped their father's. Thus, the generation of Joseph would be at least 110 years + 22 years, or 132 years long, plus the longest number of years beyond these 22 years that Manasseh or Ephraim, both of whom were Joseph's contemporaries, survived their father's death.
Those of Jesus' spiritual "brothers" that were alive contemporaneous with the "sign" that were born or became manifest in 1914 would correspond to those that became contemporaries of Joseph at his birth. These contemporaries of Joseph's generation would correspond in a similar fashion to the Jesus' anointed brothers, who from 1914 until now became contemporaries of the generation of the sign, for their lives overlapped during the generation of the sign and they could all bear witness to aspects of the composite sign that became manifest in 1914.
I tried to add that she was saying that my great-grandmother, whose life overlapped with mine into my adulthood, would be of a single generation with me by that definition. The "adulthood" part isn't even necessary, but I was trying to go along with their current misrepresentation of how the anointed of 1914 were colleagues of the anointed of "the last days."
Uh-huh. You should have waited until you understood the point being made in the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, before you tried explaining to your mother something you didn't understand. Had you understood the reason Exodus 1:6 was cited in this article, then you would not have told your mother how great-grandmother's life overlapped with yours, since there is absolutely nothing in the article that suggested there was anything relevant to you and your great-grandmother being contemporaries of one another. Here's the working definition for "generation" again:
"The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries."
Being contemporaries with your great-grandmother doesn't mean that you and she belong to "a single generation" by this or by any definition. By "contemporaries," we are not talking about a single generation, but a "time generation," like the people whose lives overlapped your great-grandmother's life, which would include any of her siblings and her children, but not you nor your mother. You might have been a contemporary of your great-grandmother, for your life may have overlapped hers, but you cannot be a contemporary of your great-grandmother's generation. You great-uncles and aunts would be contemporaries of your great-grandmother, and one of her children, who either became your grandmother or the wife of one of her children, who became your grandmother would also be a contemporary of your great-grandmother. Got it now?
Again, the article that is the basis of this discussion talks about overlapping generations during an event, namely, "when the sign began to become evident in 1914." This "time generation" is "the generation of the sign," so tell me how in the world could you have possibly thought yourself competent to explain something that you didn't understand? You read the same article that I read and apparently there was no one around that was competent to explain what it meant to you.
Perhaps Fred Franz, who was the president of the Society from 1977 through 1992, was outvoted when it was decided to release the article, "1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away," that appeared in the Watchtower dated May 15, 1984, but it seems that not many people realized that this article had asked the question:
If Jesus had used "generation" in the same sense as one English language dictionary and one Greek-English lexicon defines the word, what other major events would "the generation of 1914" see? It wasn't a predication, but many, like @smiddy here, decided the article was a prediction.
But you know what? We are just not going to get all upset because we suddenly realize that some of us had misunderstood something, but we immediately make whatever adjustments need to be made in our understanding of Bible doctrines so that we are all on the same page, and everyone in the entire association of brothers in the world is made aware of the need to make adjustments should there be a need on their pat to do so.
Today we believe Jesus to have been referring to the generation of the sign that began with the outbreak of World War I in 1914 in fulfillment of Matthew 24:3, 7, 8. This expression, "this generation," covers the period when the sign began and when it ends, so it became clear to us back in 2010, after some 96 years had passed, that Jesus may not have been referring to anyone's lifetime as we had once thought, but to an "time period" of years, a "time generation" related to an event.
Russell and Rutherford passed away leaving Jehovah's Witnesses with an understanding of what Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 that was different than what Jehovah's Witnesses believed under Knorr. In their day, Jehovah's Witnesses believed Jesus was referring to the lifetime of people when he referred to "this generation." Today, we now know that this was a mistaken viewpoint.
Since we now realize that Jesus had employed a bit of hyperbole at Matthew 24:34, we are now of the belief that Jesus' reference to "this generation" referred to the sign of his invisible presence during which his anointed brothers lived contemporaneous to the composite generation of the sign. We cannot be dogmatic about this matter, but we are now of the belief that those of Jesus' brothers that were living when the generation of the sign began in the year 1914 as well as those of his brothers that are alive when the generation of the sign ends at which Armageddon begins is what Jesus meant when he said that "this generation" would not pass away before all of the things that Jesus indicated would occur in his prophesy about the conclusion of this system of things had taken place.
Interpreting the Bible isn't an exact science, and for this reason, we must discern what the Scriptures mean based on what other Scriptures say or according to how certain related expressions are used in the Bible. Just as the Bible points out at 1 Peter 1:10, 11, the prophets of old made a "diligent inquiry" and "careful search" of the Scriptures and "kept on investigating" as to what particular season or what sort of season] the spirit in them spoke concerning Christ, and just as occurred among God's people during the first century during the days of the apostles, so the same investigation has taken place among God's people today.
It is your right, @Bubblegum Apotheosis, to believe what you choose to believe and each one of Jehovah's Witnesses exercise their respective rights to believe what it is they choose to believe. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I am compelled to tell you what things we believe and what things we do not believe.
@St George of England:
The following is a transcript from the 2011 convention someone put on here: ... [¶] ["T]he generation that Jesus was referring to also consists of two groups of people whose lives would overlap. Group 1 of this generation discerned the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. But they weren't merely born in 1914 nor merely alive to witness the start of Christ's presence. They were spirit-anointed in or before 1914. Therefore, the generation Jesus referred to saw the start of the last days. The second group are those that will see the end of this system of things. As the first group grew older, the second group started to be born so that for a while the two groups overlapped one another - they were contemporaries of one another.
We might think of it this way. While we were in school, we were contemporaries with children of other ages who were also going through school. Even though our ages differed, we were collectively known as 'school age children.' We were all part of the same generation of students. Obviously the older ones finished their course, even while the younger ones were just starting out. [¶] Now, applying that thought to Jesus' illustration, he said in effect, before these younger students could complete their course, this system will have already ended.["]
This illustration wasn't in the outline, but I get the drift of the illustration. This illustrated tracks all of the "school age children" of various ages that "were going through school" all at the same time as a group, but this illustration doesn't explain what the older children who were finishing school ahead of the younger children saw that the younger children, who were "just starting out," also saw. Maybe the event is a renovation of the school when both the older children and the younger children were all attending school at the same time. In this case, while one portion of the school was being renovated, many of the classes that the older children attended were being held in tents whereas by the time the younger children had gotten to be as old as the older children that had finished school ahead of them, they were able to move into their newly renovated digs without their having to attend classes in tents.
These "two groups of people whose lives would overlap" isn't made clear in this illustration and the event that affected these "two groups of people" isn't specified at all. I just invented a "renovation of the school" as the event, but it would have perhaps been helpful for the speaker to have included the event around which these "two group of people whose lives would overlap" was centered.
@Chariklo:
It constantly amazes me that people actually believe all this stuff.... I was greatly saddened to see how the WT had deceived and addled the brain of this otherwise highly intelligent old lady.
In what way was this "highly intelligent old lady" deceived?
@flipper:
There IS no exact interpretation of the newer " generation " theory.
You're mistaken.
VIDQUN- Excellent post ! so as you so aptly show- a generation is only 30 - 40 years tops !
Did you read only the "HALOT" one, @flipper? What about the other definitions that @Vidqun posted? Don't they matter or is the one that defines the Hebrew word it for you? Matthew 24:34 and every word in the verse is part of the Greek text. Here are the other ones that were listed:
Bauer, Danker (BDAG); Friberg Lexicon; Barcley-Newman; Balz-Schneider Lexicon (EDNT); Moulton-Milligan; Gingrich; Liddell & Scott (unabridged); BDBLex. And back in that Watchtower dated May 15, 1984, the Society referred to a dictionary (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology) and to a lexicon (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958). I don't see where any of these other references "aptly show" a 30-40 year generation "tops." And, to be honest, you don't either, @flipper.
@cofty:
Does anybody have a link to the brilliant chart somebody made showing all the changes in generation [doctrine]?
I see @LostGeneration has posted a link to such a chart, but like I pointed out above, interpreting the Bible isn't an exact science, and unlike other Christian denominations whose beliefs are static, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are always in flux and ever changing since as our understanding of the Bible increase our knowledge of it becomes progressive. We have to be willing to make adjustment when we realize that we are mistaken our viewpoint, because that is what humility means, to be willing to admit when we are wrong.
Jehovah's Witnesses have no interest in hiding the fact that we were wrong about something. We could care less who it is in our own ranks that doesn't like the fact that, unlike other Christians groups, we refuse to hold onto beliefs that we have come to believe are wrong. We don't care if you disparage us for being wrong. The Bible is very difficult to understand, but Jehovah's Witnesses have come to understand much of what it says and means than any other Christian denomination out there, for what things we have gleaned from studying the Bible have made understanding it so much easier to us than it is to others that are endeavoring to understand it.
Because we want to help other God-fearing Christians to understand the Bible, it is for this reason that we must continue to discern what the holy spirit is saying to us based on what other Scriptures say or according to how certain related expressions are used in the Bible, for the holy spirit speaks through the Scriptures. In this case, based on what Exodus 1:6 says, we have discerned what Jesus likely meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34.
@St George of England:
I've said this before but I'll say it again: [¶] (Matthew 1:17)....
The only problem is that this scripture is totally irrelevant. This verse was mentioned in the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, so why do you mention it at all?
@VM44:
If one sees a picture of some parents with their [children] one sees TWO generations that are [contemporary] with each other (that is, living at the same time).
But The Watchtower tries to convince everyone that it is only one generation!
When? How exactly does the Society do this? What issue of the Watchtower can you produce where an attempt is made to convince anyone that two generations are one generation? If I'm misstating what you said, then please point that out, but I don't believe this is what you are essentially saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are being asked to believe. This is not what we believe at all.
Torturing the definition of "generation" to suit its own purposes?
No one has tortured the definition f the word "generation." Please review my post and you will find that what we believe the word "generation" means is consistent with secular references, but also that we discern that Jesus' use of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 is explained by how the word "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6 in referring to Joseph's contemporaries as "his brothers, and all that generation."
@Leolaia:
As I previously pointed out in another thread, before the Society adopted this totally insane teaching, it readily recognized that separate generations may overlap without having the overlap render them as somehow comprising "parts" of a single generation.
In the September 1, 1952 Watchtower, a QFR article.... Today, the Society would say that all four generations are really one generation, as they overlap together.
Yes, I mentioned this article in my response as well, and while you're right that the point of the article wasn't to suggest that overlapping generations were "'parts' of a single generation," this is just a strawman, for this wasn't the point of the article. As you and I both point out in our respective posts, the question was: "Scripturally, how long is a generation?"
Furthermore, the Society doesn't say that two, three or four generations are really one generation. You made this up. If you can, please cite the publication where the Society teaches such a thing. I don't expect you to be able to do this, and this is why I asking you to provide a citation to this effect, @Leolaia.
In 1974, the Society again assumed that generations that overlap are, duh, separate generations: ... In 2001, with reference to the growth of Australia as a country, the Society wrote.... Because the three generations have overlapped, the Society today could just as well say that these are three groups comprising one generation, and that the generation of the Botany Bay colonists has by no means passed away.
But the Society didn't say that 'three overlapping generations' comprise one generation, so what's your point? What with the strawman, @Leolaia?
And similarly, they published in 2004....
And what does this 2004 article supposed to be proving about overlapping generations? My guess is that it proves that you enjoy cutting and pasting stuff into your posts.
The Society's own literature shows how much the new "understanding" is contrary to normal English usage, not to mention basic logic.
How?
@djeggnog
