@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@Leolaia wrote:
How can one possibly read the following and not conclude that one generation ("this generation") is comprised of two generations (oh I'm sorry, I mean "two groups") that overlap?
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report *** ....
Like I said, you cannot cite a single publication where the Society has taught that two, three or four generations are really one generation.
Yeah, they say "two groups" and not "two generations".
Exactly.
@djeggnog wrote:
Yes, I mentioned this [1952] 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?"
@Leolaia wrote:
Huh? The purpose of my post wasn't to discuss the point of the 1952 article, nor did it have to address the question under discussion in that article. The only reason why I cited it was to show that before making the doctrinal change the Society didn't understand overlapping generations as "groups" included in a single "generation"....
Ok, @Leolaia.
Okay, let's get this straight. "All that generation" includes everyone "whose lives overlapped Joseph's", including Joseph's sons and his brother Levi's sons. You are a contemporary of Joseph if your life overlaps that with Joseph. Got it. If you happened to be alive when Joseph was alive, congratulations, you are part of Joseph's generation, and that generation would continue on as long as you are alive. Joseph died in 1657 BCE according to Watchtower chronology and Moses was born in 1593 BCE. That leaves some 64 years in between for the generation to pass away, for the generation passed away prior to the new Pharaoh came to power, and that event occurred sometime prior to Moses' birth.
What is the purpose of this strawman? I see no purpose to it. Do you? I don't want to discuss Moses or anything at all having to do with Moses. I made my focus Exodus 1:6. You don't have to, but I have no intention of going where you're going. I think I'm going to stay here, @Leolaia.
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@Ucantnome wrote:
I don't understand why the [anointed] who saw the beginning have to overlap with those who see the end. If the generation is defined by an event "the sign."
Ok.
As an example if I were to go to a three day concert and leave after day one and my son came in half way through day two and this music festival was a defining moment in history my son and I would be part of the generation that was defined by the event but we never overlapped in it but were still part of the generation that witnessed it.
Ok, again, but what does your example have to do with Exodus 1:6? You are here talking about you and your son 'overlapping' a three-day music festival, but you don't seem to understand what Exodus 1:6 is saying in describing the Joseph and his generation
Look, as I've already pointed out in this thread, Jehovah's Witnesses have come to understand that Jesus was referring to the generation of the composite sign during which Jesus' anointed brothers that are living during the "generation" when the composite sign first became evident would see aspects of the sign, while others, whose lives would overlap during this "generation," would be alive to see the great tribulation. We are not being dogmatic about this, so it's not like you've done something wrong just because you have all of the ingredients of the recipe written down, but you don't understand how to use these ingredients to produce the cake you wish to make.
If you cannot accept the explanation that has been provided here, that's perfectly ok. Mankind's salvation still is dependent upon our exercising faith in Jesus' name and not upon whether you understand Jesus' use of the word "generation." We want to understand what Jesus' meant, but this latest interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is the one with which we are currently working, and if it changes again, it changes.
Djeggnog you may have already explained this and I've missed it could you please explain it to me.
Here's the skinny: 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.
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.
@Vidqun:
Interesting to see what Webster had to say about the English noun "generation".
"Interesting" to whom? Does "Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.)" provide an explanation for Jesus' use of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 based on Exodus 1:6? If not, Webster would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?
@Amelia Ashton wrote:
It was originally A. Then it was B followed by C but currently and until further notice it is D!
@ScenicViewer:
Very funny using Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.
You're right; I thought @Amelia Ashton's comment was funny. In fact, I will say to her now:
Your statement is a true statement, @Amelia Ashton.
Considering all the understandings of the 'generation' Watchtower has had, you would think that even adamant Jehovah's Witnesses would be a little timid in defending the overlapping version.
Why? What's the big deal? If we finally have it right, great, but if not, so what? As long as one isn't dogmatic, I don't see the problem.
If a new edition of the understanding is released, which is not out of the question, some of them will just as adamantly defend it too.
Yes, this is true.
I wish they could all see their past history without the organizational spin.
Believe me: Many of us have been Jehovah's Witnesses for decades and we know our "past history" quite well. We have had need to make adjustments in our viewpoint too many times to count, but our beliefs are not static, but progressive. If you are comfortable with studying the Bible "and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth," there's Christendom's static beliefs like their teaching on the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, hellfire, their belief that there are many paths to serve God and believing and trusting in one's church.
I'm pretty sure that you won't hear anyone complaining in Christendom about the meaning of "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, and if you have already left God's organization -- I don't mean you, personally, @ScenicViewer, unless you have left, but the royal "you" -- why be concerned about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe since every Christian denomination has its own beliefs that separate them from other denominations, and Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, etc., are no different.
@Bubblegum Apotheosis:
Thank you, for taking the time and researching the "Overlapping Generation", not a easy subject to understand or explain to young ones.
It really wasn't a problem for me, but I will say that interpreting scripture requires a willingness to go beyond what one reads in a publication and beyond what one hears in a Kingdom Hall, because there are those who may have been Jehovah's Witnesses for many years that have difficulty explaining why it is Jehovah's Witnesses believe Solomon's temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, not in 587 BC as secular writings suggest, but in 607 BC. Much consideration has to be given to the scriptures that have a bearing on the conclusions we might reach at any given time, because, for example, in the days of Pastor Russell, the "great crowd" (Revelation 7:9) was thought to be a spiritual class of Christians with a heavenly destiny.
(BTW, this is going to be a lengthy "example," but I promise that I'm not going to take you painstakingly through the process of Bible interpretation, but I do want to make it clear that our struggle over the years with interpreting the meaning of "generation" at Matthew 24:34 isn't a story about apostasy, but one of our realizing that we were wrong and needed to adjust our viewpoint to an interpretation that is in harmony with the Scriptures, and I also want to clear up the misnomer about what is and what isn't an apostate.)
Many Jehovah's Witnesses today have never heard this teaching before, and some of the new ones in God's organization today might think Russell to have been an apostate, but while Russell had a mistaken view of what the "great multitude" meant, he didn't know he was wrong at the time. I hear many people here on JWN describe an apostate as someone that doesn't agree with a teaching, someone that doesn't accept someone's explanation of a particular doctrine, but there are many people that are not Jehovah's Witnesses and yet they don't agree with many of the things we teach nor do our explanations of various Bible doctrines resonate with these people, and yet Jehovah's Witnesses do not think of any of these folks as apostates, do we? Russell wasn't dogmatic about his views, which made it easy for him to listen to viewpoints that others had reached, may him pliable and willing to adjust his viewpoint when later conclusions reached conflicted with previous conclusions reached.
If you were an elder, then you might know that most elders are all about group-think, but this is not what the apostle Paul meant at 1 Corinthians 1:10 by 'speaking in agreement,' and an elder is hardly willing to challenge what another elder says because that would mean his having to do a little research on what that elder said to see if his is really so. If you don't do any research, then you won't feel compelled to challenge the statement that you thought to have been incorrect, and I believe that this happens a lot. Meanwhile, that elder goes on teaching something that Jehovah's Witnesses do not officially believe.
Now does this make that elder an apostate? Absolutely not, because he doesn't know that what he is teaching is wrong (and why is that?) because no one has told this elder that what he has been teaching others is wrong. Like I said at the outset, some of you here on JWN may have left God's organization because you couldn't accept a teaching or couldn't accept someone's explanation of a particular doctrine, and you hung in there as long as you could, but this kept happening.
BTW, some of you non-elders here on JWN were all about group-think, too, and with you being the kind of person that doesn't enjoy doing research, your only requirement is that an interpretation of a scripture be static and not subject to change two years later or five years later. If this kind of thing kept happening to you and you decided to leave, it's likely that left our ranks because you expected perfect interpretations from imperfect people, even we, as imperfect as we are, are still interpreting the Bible. An apostate is someone that knows that Jehovah is God, but rejects what he knows to be true and teaches instead that Jesus is God. There are many here on JWN that have differences of opinions with some of the beliefs that they came to abandon when they left God's organization, they know that Jehovah is God, they know that Jesus is his son, and they know that salvation is based on faith in Jesus' name, and they would never even think to teach anyone to the contrary, for anyone that would do this would then be guilty of apostasy.
Like I said above, the teaching that the great multitude (or "great crowd") being a spiritual class of Christians with a heavenly destiny may be something you've never heard or read was once believed by Jehovah's Witnesses, but back in Russell's day they were using the Authorized King James Version Bible (KJV) and so instead of "great crowd," they would use the expression found in the KJV, "great multitude," to describe these "secondary companions" to the bride class of 144,000. Russell believed -- and he was wrong -- that these bridesmaids or "companions" would literally be in heaven, standing before God's throne and serving God in his spiritual temple, and he also believed at the time that this great multitude would all of them die before Armageddon and thereby acquire spiritual bodies for themselves.
After the bride class and their companions had died, then everyone else still alive on earth would face judgment after Armageddon. All of the righteous would be living in heaven, leaving only the wicked here on earth. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this today, but this was what was believed to be true from 1879 until after Russell's death.
It was by 1918, after Russell's death, that it was thought that the wicked would not be among the Armageddon survivors, but Judge Rutherford didn't have in mind at all these companions of the bride class being among the "millions now living" in his 1918 talk, "The World Has Ended--Millions Now Living May Never Die." No, Rutherford was referring to good people, those that had not made a dedication to God, but were people who were righteously-inclined.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this today, but this change in our interpretation of the "great multitude" constituted the first of a series of adjustments that was made -- it just had to be made -- in our interpretation of Revelation 7:9, which made sense when reading certain scriptures led us to different conclusions than those we had been forced to abandon. But in 1918, Rutherford was teaching something different about the great multitude that was different than what Russell taught, and so you can imagine the contingent of "haters" that abhorred the injury that they felt Rutherford was doing to Russell's teachings and who were probably thought their nasty prayers against Rutherford had been answered when this "apostate," as well as seven of this associates, were convicted of espionage and sedition, and on July 4, 1918, when they heard that Rutherford would be serving a 20-year prison sentence at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. Perhaps some of these haters had reasoned in a way similar to how many here on JWN have reasoned about the 2010 interpretation of Matthew 24:34: "Maybe now we'll get someone that will teach the truths that "the messenger of the Church of Laodicea" had been teaching us."
According to The Finished Mystery, the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures released after Russell's death as "the posthumous work of Pastor Russell," Pastor Russell was considered to have been the "messenger to the Laodicean Church ... occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household or Faith meat in due season" (Matthew 24:45), although Russell didn't believe this servant to have been a single individual, but instead had taught back in 1881 that this was a collective servant made up of the entire body of faithful spirit-anointed Christians, who today is referred to as "the faithful and discreet slave."
Under Russell, the "woman" in Revelation 12:13 represented the early Church, the "dragon" represented the pagan Roman empire and the "man child" or "male child" represented the papacy, but under Rutherford, an article appeared on page 67 of the Watch Tower dated March 1, 1925, providing a very different interpretation of Revelation 12 that many found hard to accept since it had been thought Russell's interpretation of Revelation 12 to have been the final word. In the article, entitled "Birth of the Nation," the "woman" was identified as God's heavenly organization, the "dragon," as the devil's organization and the "male child" or "man child" as "the new kingdom, or new government, or new nation, which is to rule all the other nations with an iron rod," that is to say, the heavenly kingdom of God. This article went on to explain that after a war in heaven, "Satan and his angels, ... his invisible joint-rulers, were hurled down to the earth," the article stated.
We truly believe that God is using the anointed ones here on earth that are a part of the "woman" now recognized by Jehovah's Witnesses as God's heavenly organization to accomplish God's will in helping the people of the world to understand the dire need for them to repent and become reconciled to God through faith in Christ Jesus in view of the fact that God's will has now been done in heaven with the cleansing of the heavens of the wicked influence of God's chief adversary. All that remains therefore is that God's will be done here on earth.
By 1918, when most of the hostilities following Satan's ouster from heaven had ended, the dragon went on to persecute the "woman," God's organization, by Satan's using those who are a part of his earthly organization to rid himself of "this pestiferous company that stood in [Satan's] way and exposed his wickedness" by having them incarcerated in an Atlanta penitentiary, thus bringing to a halt the Lord's work. It was on March 21, 1919, however, that Rutherford and his associates were granted an appeal of their convictions, on March 26, 1919, that they were admitted to bail pending appeal, and on May 14, 1919, that their convictions on espionage and sedition charges were reversed, thus exonerating them. Since 1918, Jehovah has been judging both the true church and nominal Christendom together, for it was then, following the cessation of hostilities of World War I, that he and the messenger of the covenant, the Head of the temple class, Jesus Christ, came to the antitypical temple for judgment since God's judgment begins with the house of God. Since 1918, the temple class has been making Jesus' invisible presence known by declaring that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The Messianic kingdom will overthrow the Satan's kingdom for Christ the king is now present.
In discussing the application of Revelation 12:15, 16, the article, "Birth of the Nation," pointed out how it had been foretold that from the serpent's mouth would be disgorged "water as a flood" (KJV) or "water like a river" (NWT) after the woman, referring here to the "flood" of false teachings and doctrines that began to be disseminated among the people, who are referred to here as "the earth,"specifically directed at "the woman," against those of the Messianic class, but then when the dragon saw that the earth went on to absorb "this great flood of false teachings that the devil sent forth," and that the woman did not drown in this water, this angered him so that he "went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus." (Revelation 12:17)
While Jehovah's Witnesses today do not today believe the "woman" in Revelation chapter 12 to represent the early Church, do not today believe the "dragon" to represent the pagan Roman empire, and do not today believe the "male child" to represent the papacy, this is how Russell understood them, this was how Russell and his associates interpreted these things. But in the article, "Birth of the Nation," Rutherford stated the following about how the interpretations found in our publications are consistent with settled conclusions that we have reached from our study of the Bible over the years, and how we cannot be dogmatic, for Bible prophecy can hardly be comprehended until it has either already undergone fulfillment or we observe it to be in the course of fulfillment. I am now quoting:
What is here published is not dogmatically stated. Trusting in the Lord for guidance, it is submitted for the prayerful and careful consideration of the anointed ones. If there are readers of the WATCH TOWER who can not agree with what is here stated, then it is suggested that such calmly and carefully wait upon the Lord, always keeping a pure heart. We know that the Lord is his own interpreter, that he will interpret his Word to his people in his own good way and in his own due time.
It seems to be a safe rule to follow, that prophecy can not be understood by us until it is fulfilled or in the course of fulfillment. The twelfth chapter of Revelation is prophecy.
Another safe rule to follow in the examination of scriptures is this: First locate some starting-point, or moment, which we know to be correct; then that which is both Scriptural and wholly consistent therewith may be reasonably accepted as correct. It seems to be well settled now in the minds of the anointed that the Gentile Times, which began 606 B.C., ended in 1914; that the devil became the god of the entire world when Israel was cast off, and that with the coming of 1914 the devil's privilege of ruling the world without interference ceased. The physical facts are consistent with these conclusions.
In Revelation 11:17, 18 we read that the Lord has taken his power and reigned: "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come." This prophecy began to have its fulfilment with the World War in 1914.
The antitypical temple of the Lord is his anointed ones. (1 Corinthians 3: 16, 17) The Scriptural proof heretofore submitted in the WATCH TOWER is to the effect that the Lord came to his temple in 1918; and that there began a final trial and judgment upon the Church. (1 Peter 4:17; Psalm 11:4-7; Malachi 3:1-3; Matthew 25:1-30) Revelation 11:19 reads: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."
We should therefore expect that following 1918, when the Lord came to his temple and it was opened, there would be flashes of lightning; that is to say, intermittent illuminations of the Word of God, giving further glimpses of truth in the great plan.--Z 1916, page 339.
The reference to "Z" or Zion's Watch Tower cited here refers to the article, "'The Earth Trembled' and Fell," which explains how lightnings from God provide enlightenment to the world. The point I wish to make here though is that just as Jesus' apostles didn't understand that God's kingdom would be a heavenly kingdom, or that it would not be established 'at that time' back there in the first century, similarly Jehovah's Witnesses have not always understood things about which the Bible speaks, and so just as Jesus' apostles came to understanding Bible truths gradually, we, too, have come to receive spiritual enlightening gradually as to these Bible truths.
Over time, these Bible truths have become progressively clear over time, but misguided zeal and human error are things that have required us to make adjustments to our viewpoint, especially as to those things on which some have become dogmatic, e.g., our understanding of the word "generation," which word is used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34.
I wonder if the Society knows how deep the disagreement with their interpretation of the "Generation" runs, or if it's just ignored?
The Society isn't concerned with such things as you might imagine. If you do not agree with the latest interpretation of Matthew 24:34, then no one is going to force you to embrace it. You certainly cannot be forced to understand something you don't understand. Most Jehovah's Witnesses cannot explain the currencies used during Bible times, couldn't tell you if their lives depended upon knowing the difference between a "mite" and a "lepton" (there is no difference), nor would they know that two "lepta" equal a "quadrans." and that the quadrans that is referred to at Luke 21:2 as "two mites" is worth a little more than a US penny ($0.012), but their not knowing such things won't bar any of them from either their sins being forgiven them or from their future prospects under God's kingdom.
You mentioned the Society, but since not one of the members of the governing body are masters over the faith of anyone else, you alone will have to prove to yourself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, for it is only by our own faith that we stand or fall. In the final analysis, no one will be able to blame anyone but themselves for their not knowing God and for their lack of faith
This topic is not going away, so it might be [revisited] by the Society. Great post written on this subject, thanks again!
Yes, and it might not be. You might be thinking the Society will be around forever; it may not be around forever, and should there be no more Society as we know it, what might you do then? Will you reason that you can explain that you just couldn't comprehend the explanation you had been provided by the Society as to the meaning of "this generation" at Matthew 24:34, and so when the Society had folded its tent, so did your faith? To use a common expression that many people today use to indicate the folly of someone's idea or position, "Good luck with that."
@djeggnog
