djeggnog

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 660 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by djeggnog

• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @00DAD wrote:

  The SOCIETY does not refer to this New Light as "Overlapping Generations" because, according to their obfuscated "reasoning" and willingness to capriciously change the meaning of the word "generation, it is only ONE GENERATION made up of TWO GROUPS WHOSE LIVES OVERLAP.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  [W]e have never taught a thing about any "overlapping generations," which is my point. A generation comprised of two groups whose lives overlap with one another, yes, but not two 'overlapping generations.'

  Notice here that what you say here about us changing the meaning of the word "generation" does not in any way agree with what I say here. I don't know how it was you came to conclude what you did about the change in our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 as to what Jesus meant by "this generation."

  @00DAD wrote:

  Never mind the fact that there is a potential 99+ year age difference between the oldest person in the FIRST GROUP and the youngest in the SECOND GROUP.* They are "evidently" only one generation!

  @djeggnog wrote:

  The point you make here though is eclipsed by the fact that of the 16 visions recorded in the Bible book of Revelation, all but six of them remain to undergo fulfillment.... What is yet to occur is the scarlet-colored wild beast's turning on what this harlot, Babylon the Great, represents, namely, religion, for this vision states that this beast will hate, devastate and completely destroy this woman.

  It is then that [...] the fulfillment of the 12th vision with respect to the "great tribulation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:21 comes into view, which event is followed by the execution of God's judgment upon the world by Jesus Christ and his angels to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:30-34....

  Notice again that what you say here about "a potential 99+ year age difference" between the oldest in group #1 and the youngest in group #2 and their being "only one generation" makes no sense since there aren't really two groups at all, so what you are saying here does not in any way agree with what I say here, considering the fact that the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower, dated April 15, 2010, was merely illustrating hypothetically how the life of someone in group #1 could overlap the life of someone in group #2. Plus, where's the logic in concluding with the great tribulation looming that what you have referred to as "a potential 99+ year age difference" could impact the timing of the 12th vision with the 11th vision so close to fulfillment?

  You argue with me for agreeing with you! What a maroon!!!

  Actually, when someone says something foolish, I will tactfully try to point out to them where they are mistaken in their viewpoint. Not everyone has had a university education, not everyone has had a high school education. I know this and I don't pretend that everyone to whom I might speak is an intellectual. I've met folks of my own ilk that are wont to say some pretty ridiculous things, but I, too, have been guilty of saying some ridiculous things, so I know not to take myself too seriously. However, your view was different than my view, so we didn't exactly agree.

  @Black Sheep:

  Describing the WT's new attempt at redeeming their generation doctrine as 'overlapping generations' is very appropriate as their new [definition] of "this generation" includes people who cannot be described as the same generation "...whose lives overlap during a particular time period..." Spin it any way you like, these people are different generations. You're not fooling anybody.

  Our new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 isn't about overlapping generations, but is about contemporaries of a particular event, and the event began with the composite sign of Christ's presence in 1914. We now understand that this event -- the composite sign -- marks the beginning of the "generation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:34, so we no longer apply Jesus' use of generation to people, since these would be contemporaries of one another during the "generation of the sign." The lives of some of the older ones during this generation of the sign would overlap the lives of some of the younger ones during this generation of the sign. Again, there aren't really two groups, the "older" group and the "younger" group, but here's another hypothetical:

  Imagine a three-day convention and I have two parts to give on Days 1 and 2 at the Dallas Convention and two parts to give elsewhere on Day 3. You have two parts to give elsewhere on Day 1 and two parts to give on Days 2 and 3 at the Dallas Convention. You and I are contemporaries at the Dallas Convention on Day 2 even though I was there when it began on Day 1 and you were there when it ended on Day 3. The Dallas Convention represents "the generation of the sign," so that while I was there when it began, you were there when it ended and our lives overlapped at the Convention on Day 2, making the two of us contemporaries there.

  This illustrates how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Jesus' use of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34, for as we discerned from how the word "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6 that Joseph's generation included those whose lives overlapped with his life. Joseph's older siblings were there when Joseph's life began and Joseph's younger brother, Benjamin, who was six years younger than Joseph, as well as his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were there when Joseph's life ended, who might have outlived their oldest uncles, Reuben and Simeon (Reuben was seven years older than Joseph). All of these were contemporaries of Joseph's generation.

  @Vidqun:

  Djeggnog, remember we spoke about dishonest scholarship in an earlier thread.

  Is dishonest scholarship what we were discussing "in an earlier thread"? Really?!? In that other thread, I recall pointing out to you the following:

  (1) The beast at Revelation 11:7 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3. (2) The beast at Revelation 13:1 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 either. And I also recall your writing the following:

  (@Vidqun:)

  When there is doubt or misunderstanding of a word, then it is time to bring in the dictionaries.... [T]he NWT is an American Bible, translated in the US of A, thus my use of Webster. I would say it is very relevant, or did they use the wrong English word for Greek genea?

  [and]

  I know for a fact that the new "generation" interpretation of the Society is unique and unparallelled in the literature. That means they have created a novel and new interpretation that should be added to the list of standard English interpretations (e.g., those by Webster) or even those used by the Oxford dictionary, if you prefer to use that one.

  Do you not notice how you refer to "dictionaries" as if the discussion had been about the definition of the word "generation," and then how you begin using the word "interpretation" and go on to refer to the English language definitions of the words contained in Webster's dictionary as "English interpretations"?

  Again, @Vidqun, I don't want to be hurtful, or say anything that would make you feel insulted or hurt your feelings, but like I told you in that thread, there does seem to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those who translated the NWT from "Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" into its "English equivalent," and specifically as to the NWT translators word choice with respect to the Greek word genea. If you were discussing "dishonest scholarship" with me, fine, but I wasn't aware of it since I was the one that suggested to you that there seemed to be a question in your mind as the scholarship of those that translated the NWT.

  There is a difference, however, between the definition of a word and the interpretation of a word. You seem to not know that these two words -- "definition" and "interpretation" -- are not synonyms of one another, but have very different meanings. I'm really not comfortable discussing this with you, because you don't seem to be in possession of a sufficient knowledge of the English language and your inability to comprehend fundamental concepts compels me to beg off from discussing this topic further with you.

  @smiddy:

  You never commented on my post on Matt.ch.1 vs 17 which clearly identifies a generation as 48 years long ,2 such timespans ( generations ) have already passed since 1914. { 1962 and 2010 }

  I didn't comment, because I couldn't take what you posted seriously. You wrote the following:

  So from Abraham to jesus their were 3 lots of 14 generations,which = 42 generations

  Abraham was born about 2018 BC

  Jesus was born about 2 BC

  a difference of 2016 years

  2016 years divided by 42 generations =48 years

  Which incidentally coincides with what jesus stated in prophecy concerning the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD , well within a generation timespan of 48 years.

  You arbitrarily decided to divide the number of years between Abraham's birth and Jesus' birth, or 2016 years, by the 42 generations mentioned in Matthew's gospel at Matthew 1:17 averaging 48 years for each generation, when Luke's gospel at Luke 3:23-28 indicates that there are 76 generations from Adam's creation to Jesus' birth, which when these 4,024 years are divided by 76 averaging roughly 53 years per generation, except the lives of those in the first ten generations had pretty long lifespan greatly exceeding 53 years. No one would do what you did here.

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @yesidid:

  Well djeggnog what you wrote may not have made a lot of sense, but it probably took a while, so you will have a bit of time to count.

  I didn't write what you read for your benefit, but for the benefit of those that were interested in the OP's question and in reading definitive responses to it.

  @slimboyfat wrote:

  But am I correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @slimboyfat wrote:

  Mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again. Is that the strategy?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I know of no such strategy. What you are saying would seem to be rather speculatory.

  @slimboyfat wrote:

  Oh the irony.

  What do you find ironic about there being no strategic methodology in play for Jehovah's Witnesses to neither mention nor bring up the subject of "overlapping generations" when this idea exists only in your own mind?

  @Alfred:

  djegnogg... aren't you afraid of being destroyed in [Armageddon] for continuously ignoring the Society's directives regarding participation on apostate forums?

  So if apostates join JWN this in your opinion makes JWN an apostate forum? As to whether the Society has prerogatives that give to it the right to override the consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses to smoke, to engage in military service, to accept blood transfusions, to engage in in vitro fertilization procedures, to post messages to any website, I'll leave it to you to judge, but my reading of the Bible suggests that no human being has authority over the conscience of another human being, especially with regard to the Christian freedom enjoyed by Christians, for why would anyone permit their own freedom in Christ to be judged by another person's conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29)

  I hope you are praying to Jehovah for forgiveness... ... it doesn't look good for you right now...

  Why would Jehovah listen to your prayers on my behalf, when he'll never hear them (or have you perhaps forgotten that all prayers to him must be directed to him through the Lord Jesus Christ to whom you do not look for your salvation)? Rather, you should consider praying for yourself (through Christ) that the opportunity will be afforded you to repent before it is too late for you to do so.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @Black Sheep wrote:

  That is correct djeggnog.

  It's a teaching of the Watchtower, not of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  How do you split this hair so as to separate the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, a publishing corporation staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses that produces Bibles and Bible-related literature used by Jehovah's Witnesses from the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses? Contrary to what you evidently believe, Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach anything regarding "overlapping generations," and we never have taught such.

  All of the JWs I have brought it up with have declined to discuss it except for two old time JWs who agreed that I was correct not to believe it.

  And this means what? That those Jehovah's Witnesses were taught something about "overlapping generations" whereas the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses, like myself, were not? If someone doesn't understand the interpretation provided back in 2010 regarding the meaning of the expression, "this generation," as was used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34, I wouldn't expect that person to try to explain it to others until he or she did understand and felt competent to explain this interpretation to others.

  Many Jehovah's Witnesses cannot explain scripturally how it is we teach that the Gentile times that began in 607 BC ended in 1914 AD, they do not know how to explain the "seven times" (Daniel 4:25), nor do they appreciate the significance of Jesus' mention of these "appointed times" (NWT) or "times of the Gentiles" (KJV) at Luke 21:24 either, so I also wouldn't expect these Witnesses to explain how we interpret the scriptures that relate to these "times" until they were competent to do so either.

  It really doesn't matter what "old timers" among Jehovah's Witnesses might have believed for several decades and might continue to believe today according to what may have been our previous understanding of the scriptures. What matters is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe today.

  What I'm telling you here is not unlike what Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:5-26), who tried to acquit herself as a religious person that also worshiped Jehovah the same as the Jews, she worshipped what she did not know, for salvation originated with the Jews. What this woman knew about Jehovah as a Samaritan, whose knowledge of God had been limited to the Torah, was incomplete, and many Jehovah's Witnesses today -- these "old timers" of whom you speak -- are just like this Samaritan woman in their not 'paying more than the usual attention to the things heard,' and so their knowledge of Jehovah is really incomplete, and for this reason they are steadily 'drifting away.' (Hebrews 2:1)

  @designs:

  Black sheep- That's interesting about the old timers, reminds me of 1995.

  What's so "interesting" about what @Black Sheep" said in his post? Being totally clueless, I suspect there is much that @Black Sheep doesn't know or understand about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @sir82 w rote:

  I recall using the "there can't be much time left for the generation of 1914" meme in field service in the 80's pretty frequently. It was typically one of the first things you brought out to a "progressive" return visit or bible study. "Better hurry up & get on the ark, the youngest of that generation is already in their 70's!"

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Jehovah's Witnesses no longer make reference to a "generation of 1914," since in 2010, the 1914 generation interpretation was discarded. Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34 to refer to the generation of the sign that began in 1914.

  @Alfred wrote:

  wtf? did you fall asleep during that assembly part? did you even read the garbage that was put in the Watchtower with nothing more than Exo1:6 as biblical basis?

  In my previous post to this thread, I suggested that one read Post 553, which appears on this page, to read an explanation of something you (obviously!) didn't comprehend while you were listening intently to the part entitled, "Remain 'in the Secret Place of the Most High,'" given at the "Remain Close to Jehovah!" District Convention back in 2010. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of this talk to which you refer, but for clarification I've added the words that appear in red type:

  You see, recent clarification of Matthew chapter 24, and verse 34, underscores that we are living deep in the time of the end. In fact, let’s turn there please, Matthew chapter 24, and let us read together and carefully examine Jesus’ words. Matthew 24:34 of course we know this chapter, Jesus is giving us detailed information about the last days and what to expect, but then this key point is made in verse 34: "Truly I say to you, that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Now here's a question? What is a generation? What is that referring to? A generation consists of contemporaries, individuals who live at the same time. Now for example, in the Bible, in Exodus chapter 1 and verse 6, it refers to Joseph, that very faithful man, and all his brothers, as "all of that generation." Ten of Joseph’s brothers witnessed events before Joseph was even born. And at least two of his brothers lived on after Joseph had died. So although their ages varied, these contemporaries were viewed as being a part of one generation, namely, Joseph's.

  Now correspondingly, the generation that is referred to here in Matthew 24:34 comprises of two groups of anointed Christians. You see, the first group was on hand in the year 1914, when the generation of the sign of Jesus Christ’s presence first began to be observed. Now the second group, made up of those who were later anointed, are for a time contemporaries of the older group who were on hand during the generation of the sign. So Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 indicate that some in the second group will witness the beginning of the great tribulation, hence the length of the generation is limited. Are you with me? Let's illustrate it this way. Brother F. W. Franz, we’re all familiar with Brother Franz, he was born in the year 1893. He was baptized in 1913. And thus, he was alive to discern the sign in 1914. Now Brother Franz lived a long life. Yes, he lived way on until 1992, almost 100 years! Many present-day anointed ones were contemporaries of Brother Franz. And they are part of the generation of the sign that Jesus said would not pass away until all these things occur.

  It is patently obvious to me that you don't understand that many of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach are based on the Bible interpreting itself, so the fact that you don't appreciate the reference to Exodus 1:6 that was used in the Watchtower article dated April 15, 2010, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," is quite telling.

  Nevertheless, in defining the word "generation," the Watchtower dated May 15, 1984, makes reference to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer's Fifth Edition, 1958:

  The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

  "Those born at the same time.... Associated with this is the meaning: the body of one’s contemporaries, an age."

  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament from Walter Bauer’s Fifth Edition, 1958

  "The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries." (Page 5)

  Also, the Watchtower dated September 1, 1952, stated the following with reference to the word "generation" as used at Matthew 24:34: "Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping...." (Pp. 542, 543)

  Consequently, Exodus 1:6 provides the "biblical basis" for how Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the meaning of the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34.

  @slimboyfat:

  But unlike the old generation teaching or the 1975 fiasco, it is not as if the overlapping generations teaching ....

  What you're not getting here is that there is no "overlapping generations teaching." Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach and have never taught anything pertaining to "overlapping generations."

  It's the pure absurdity of the new teaching that makes them embarrassed to repeat it in print.

  No, that's not why such a teaching doesn't appear in print. This "overlapping generations" about which you are going on here isn't something that Jehovah's Witnesses teach or have ever taught. Jesus never spoke about "overlapping generations," but his mention of "this generation" referred to merely one generation, and that "generation" we now understand based on Exodus 1:6 to refer to the generation of the composite sign of Christ's presence which began in 1914.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @00DAD wrote:

  Well DJ is technically correct of course. But like most times when he is "right" he completely misses the point....

  And what point is that?

  The SOCIETY does not refer to this New Light as "Overlapping Generations" because, according to their obfuscated "reasoning" and willingness to capriciously change the meaning of the word "generation, it is only ONE GENERATION made up of TWO GROUPS WHOSE LIVES OVERLAP.

  I don't discern a change having been made as to the meaning of the word "generation." You are the one here referring to "overlapping generations" as if this expression has some relevance to anything that Jehovah's Witnesses teach or have ever taught when the fact is that we have never taught a thing about any "overlapping generations," which is my point. A generation comprised of two groups whose lives overlap with one another, yes, but not two 'overlapping generations.'

  Never mind the fact that there is a potential 99+ year age difference between the oldest person in the FIRST GROUP and the youngest in the SECOND GROUP.* They are "evidently" only one generation!

  The point you make here though is eclipsed by the fact that of the 16 visions recorded in the Bible book of Revelation, all but six of them remain to undergo fulfillment -- just six visions are left! The 11th vision has already undergone partial fulfillment with the abyssing of "the scarlet-colored wild beast" as the League of Nations in 1939 and its ascending out of that abyss as the United Nations in 1945. What is yet to occur is the scarlet-colored wild beast's turning on what this harlot, Babylon the Great, represents, namely, religion, for this vision states that this beast will hate, devastate and completely destroy this woman.

  It is then that is the fulfillment of the 12th vision with respect to the "great tribulation" to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:21 comes into view, which event is followed by the execution of God's judgment upon the world by Jesus Christ and his angels to which Jesus refers at Matthew 24:30-34, when the sign of the Son of man appears in heaven and the "chosen ones" are gathered during "this generation" of the sign following which will be Jesus' separating of the sheep from the goats to which Jesus refers at Matthew 25:31-33.

  What, you ask, is the EVIDENCE that proves that Jesus "evidently" meant what this WT says he meant? Good question! The answer is: No one knows because none was given.

  I would say that you could not have read the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appears in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, for had you done so, you would have come to realize the significance of Exodus 1:6 which was the evidence on which our interpretation of the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34 is based. Either this or you just didn't understand what you were reading.

  I would posit that it is "evidently" because Armageddon has not come. This unfortunate development left the WTBTS with only a few options. They could either admit:

  They were wrong about 1914

  That they have absolutely no idea what Jesus meant

  Reinterpret the meaning of the word "generation"

  They obviously chose Option #3.

  As I stated in another post, 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.

  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 this to have been 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.

  Now, since we're so clear on who make up the members of this single "Overlapping Generation," only one question remains:

  Who are the Underlappers of this Generation?

  I don't see this as a legitimate question to explore, but feel free to explore it with someone else that sees this question of yours as being relevant.

  @djeggnog
• 
  245

  Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?

  it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @slimboyfat:

  But am I correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?

  What "overlapping generations" do you mean? To my knowledge, there has been no such teaching by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation? It's almost enough to make you suspect they are a EMBARRASSED about it.

  What do you mean? There's been much talk about the new interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses here on JWN regarding what it was Jesus meant by "this generation" at Matthew 24:34. Perhaps you've missed those threads, I don't know.

  Mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again. Is that the strategy?

  I know of no such strategy. What you are saying would seem to be rather speculatory.

  @slimboyfat Re: Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching? posted 2 days ago (3/16/2012)

  It's as if they discussed it once or twice just because they had to get it out of the way, but they are not going to draw any more attention to it than necessary.

  Well, this is more speculation on your part, because what you are saying here isn't true.

  Which is [understandable] of course because it is frankly absurd nonsense that insults the intelligence of members even more than the Watchtower's usual drivel does.

  What exactly do you find to be so "absurd" about the latest interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses as to what Jesus meant at Matthew 24:34 by his use of the expression, "this generation"?

  It might be interesting to analyse the literature from the 1980s and see how often they discussed their "generation" teaching then, compared with how often they have mentioned the new "generation" teaching.

  This has been done many times here on JWN, even I have commented on this here in one of the threads on here. Nothing prevents you from doing an analysis of your own though, but previous interpretations as to what Jehovah's Witnesses understood the word "generation" to mean are irrelevant after they have been discarded.

  @sir82:

  I recall using the "there can't be much time left for the generation of 1914" meme in field service in the 80's pretty frequently. It was typically one of the first things you brought out to a "progressive" return visit or bible study. "Better hurry up & get on the ark, the youngest of that generation is already in their 70's!"

  Jehovah's Witnesses no longer make reference to a "generation of 1914," since in 2010, the 1914 generation interpretation was discarded. Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34 to refer to the generation of the sign that began in 1914.

  The latest "generation" definition has a similar implication - the "time left is reduced". The 1914 anointed generation has been dead about 20 or so years, and the youngest of the current GB are in their late 50's.

  You're mistaken. The latest "generation" understanding isn't a "definition" at all, but an interpretation. There is no longer any such thing as a "1914 anointed generation" being taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @slimboyfat:

  The new teaching doesn't even make sense. Maybe the writers have gone on strike from having to try to explain the absurd new light.

  You mean, it doesn't make sense to you, right? Do you even know what the new interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is?

  Where are apologists defending it? I would be interested to see that.

  You might want to go here, and, more specifically, you should read Post 553.

  @tornapart:

  And now we're not supposed to ask any more questions. All the answers there are have already been covered.

  This is not true at all. You can always ask questions, especially when it comes to Bible interpretations that you cannot comprehend.

  @THE GLADIATOR:

  Overlapping Generations

  As I point out in response to what the OP stated at the beginning of this thread, as far as what Jehovah's Witnesses teach today, there is no such thing as "overlapping generations."

  The Society were now saying that 1935 was no longer the cut off date for members of the 144,000.

  When exactly did we begin to teach this? If this is printed in any of our literature, please provide a citation to such a statement. Thanks.

  This change paved the way for their planned change in the meaning of a generation.

  I would really like to see a citation to the effect that 1935 was no longer considered to be "the cut off date" for those with the heavenly calling (the anointed) to be called as such.

  In 2008 the Society continued to explain away more of this cornerstone belief.

  What "cornerstone belief"? Are you here talking about "the cut off date" or the change in how Jehovah's Witnesses were interpreting the meaning of the word "generation" used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34? Which?

  Until now they had taught that ‘this generation’ referred to wicked unbelieving Jews. They had carried this idea forward and given it a modern-day fulfilment, applying it to ‘the wicked ‘generation of unbelievers’ in our own time who would see the end of the system of things. They explained that the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the generation that would not pass away until all these things occur.

  Until when exactly? This statement is vague, for in 2008, "wicked unbelieving Jews" wasn't how Jehovah's Witnesses interpreted the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34.

  This generation no longer just referred to wicked unbelievers but to anointed believers.

  This statement is disconnected from the previous statement. This statement would seem to be referring to the interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses as to how we understood the meaning of the word "generation" used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34 in 2008. Is this is what you mean, then I agree with this statement.

  In the 2010 further changes were made under the heading, ‘Holy Spirit’s Role in the Outworking of Jehovah’s Purpose: ...

  How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about ‘this generation’? He 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.

  This represents the current interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses since 2010 with respect to the meaning of Jesus' words, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34.

  The Society had introduced the idea of an ‘overlapping generations model.’ This is a concept in which if people’s lives overlap into the next generation's lives they can be considered to be one generation.

  The Society has never introduced the idea of any "overlapping generations model." You are claiming here that 'if people's lives should overlap into the lives of the next generation, then they can be consider to be one generation,' but this is not what Jehovah's Witnesses teach at all. In fact, this idea of yours makes no sense at all. You clearly aren't competent to explain the latest interpretation of Jesus' words, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34.

  It’s a bit like playing tag! They stated:

  We do not know the exact length of ‘this generation,’ but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!

  Did you notice in what you quoted here is that there is a mention of a "generation" -- just one generation -- and mention of "two groups whose lives overlap? The statement made in the Watchtower dated June 15, 2010, in the article entitled, "United in Love-Annual Meeting Report," from which you quoted this is ambiguous, for Brother Barr's description of these 'two groups that constitute the generation' are contemporaries, but they do not constitute the "generation" to which Jesus was referring at Matthew 24:34. The article entitled, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, specifically stated:

  [W]e do well to keep in mind several things about the word "generation": 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) How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words about "this generation"? He 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.

  Obviously, John Barr misspoke, for as the article, "United in Love-Annual Meeting Report," goes on to say (and note that these are not Barr's words) about these "anointed contemporaries":

  How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!

  Beaten by the passage of time the Watchtower Society had been forced to move the date for the battle of Armageddon....

  Jehovah's Witnesses have never predicted the arrival of Armageddon, especially in view of the fact that we have always taught what Jesus himself taught at Matthew 24:36, namely, that no one knows "that day and hour." How could Jehovah's Witnesses have moved a date that they have never known, let alone set?

  I have done my best to explain these changes clearly and as simply as possible, including as few quotes as possible to accurately show the change that has taken place. If you are confused, then you are not alone. Many members of the Watchtower Society are still trying to make sense of the new flash of light that has moved the goalpost even further away. Instead or Armageddon being ‘just around the corner’ it has been put on hold indefinitely.

  Taken from the book Can Jehovah's Witnesses SURVIVE? By Trevor Willis.

  This is nonsense. No one at the Society is trying to "make sense" of how we interpret Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 as to what "this generation" means. If the author of this book believes this to be true, he is mistaken.

  @Alfred:

  YES... This is one teaching that NO analytical JW can look someone in the eye and say that they firmly believe Jesus was referring to TWO Overlapping Generations of Annointed Ones... yet the GB has managed to stretch Matthew 24:34 beyond any remotely credible interpretation...

  But this isn't true. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach nor do we believe that at Matthew 24:34, Jesus was referring there to "two overlapping generations" of the anointed. You would credit the governing body for stretching Matthew 24:34 "beyond any remotely credible interpretation," but this is not the governing body's interpretation of the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 at all. While this would be your understanding of what the governing body teaches, of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, this is not what either the governing body teaches nor what Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

  By the 2020's, the Watchtower will have completely revamped their "dooms-day" [recruitment] strategy using some other Biblical "prophecy" (throwing the generation teaching back in the freezer).

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a recruitment strategy and never have had such.

  @Phizzy:

  They should be shy about repeating it, the doctrine is nonsense on stilts.

  No one to my knowledge is shy about repeating what our latest interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is. What makes you think any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is shy about telling anyone how we understand Matthew 24:34?

  @St George of England:

  It is never mentioned these days. Meetings have become like the magazines - SIMPLIFIED.

  What does our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 has to do with there being a "simplified" edition of the Watchtower magazine? The reason for such an edition is because there are many that have been Jehovah's Witnesses for years, and new ones that are studying with Jehovah's Witnesses that are either illiterate or whose reading comprehension skills prevent them from comprehending many of the things they read in the regular edition Watchtower magazine, but the interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is most definitely "mentioned these days."

  @Disillusioned Lost-Lamb:

  They don’t mention a lot of things anymore, if they say it, you got it and move on; don’t dwell or linger, that’s what gets them in trouble.

  This isn't true that Jehovah's Witnesses hardly make mention of Matthew 24:34.

  @james_woods:

  I think that Slimboyfat is onto something here.

  This is the first "new light" I have ever seen from the JWs that has had actual open [dissension].

  There may be "open dissension" here on JWN, but there is no "open dissension" among Jehovah's Witnesses as to what our understanding of Jesus' words "this generation" at Matthew 24:34 is.

  For proof that there is open [dissension] over it - look at the assembly parts targeted against people who are resisting this "teaching".

  How do any of the assembly parts prove there is "open dissension" over our interpretation of Matthew 24:34?

  @djeggnog
• 
  36

  I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated

  by nugget in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

  my mum is a jw my father is not.

  my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @palmtree67:

  Oh, Egghead......you make it sound like JW's are sooooo reasonable.

  Are you saying that not one of the elders with whom you've ever come into contact seemed reasonable to you? The OP's brother-in-law is an elder, so I would expect him to be reasonable in all of his dealings with others, and especially where his own relatives are concerned. The holy spirit says (which is just another way of saying that 1 Timothy 3:2, 3, says) that an "overseer should therefore be ... reasonable." It does not say "can," but "should ... be reasonable." If a man is not reasonable, then he cannot serve as an elder and so he should not be appointed to serve as such. In fact, all Jehovah's Witnesses should be reasonable persons.

  Obviously what you described is what SHOULD be happening, but everyone here knows that is not the reasonable approach that JW's take to these sorts of situations.

  I can only say here what should be happening. Elders are removed for not being reasonable, but I have no reason to believe that the OP's brother-in-law isn't a reasonable person.

  @djeggnog
• 
  36

  I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated

  by nugget in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

  my mum is a jw my father is not.

  my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @nugget:

  This year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary. My mum is a JW my father is not. My husband and I [have] been Df'd and I have 3 sisters. Sister number 1 is married to an elder and is a staunch JW.... Sister no 2 was never baptised and lives in the US. Sister 3 is baptised but inactive and does not attend meetings and lives with my mum and dad.... What I need is some help as to how to navigate this social minefield so that it is a happy time for my parents and not blighted by ill feeling, family arguments over shunning and bad feeling.

  In your message, you mentioned something about a "necessary family [business] card," but there exists no such card. What is needed here is reasonableness by all of you. This occasion that involves your mother and your father is to celebrate he and his wife's 50th anniversary, which is family business, and is not an occasion for animosities or bickering over things that pertain to church business.

  This 50th wedding anniversary of your parents is a family occasion, so we're not here discussing spiritual fellowship. Even if both your mother and father were Jehovah's Witnesses (and I understand that only your mother is one of Jehovah's Witnesses), this is not about spiritual fellowship, which [is the tie that] the disfellowshipping action [cuts] and nothing more than this.

  You say that your eldest sibling -- Sister No. 1 -- is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that her husband is an elder, but other than being your sister and brother-in-law, should they attend a dinner celebrating your parents 50th wedding anniversary, they would both of them be as much guests as would you and your other sisters (Sister No. 2 and Sister No. 3).

  I suppose your parents could send to Sister No. 1 and her husband an invitation and ask them to "RSVP," but if they should attend your [parents'] 50th wedding anniversary, [no guest] would have no responsibility for who is and who isn't on your parents' guest list. Based on the biases that they hold, Sister No. 1 and her husband might have strong opinions, but despite what they might believe to be true, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun family members, except with respect to theocratic functions. What this essentially means is that no discussions of a theocratic nature are to take place with you, their disfellowshipped relative, on this occasion.

  Should a discussion, maybe one raised by your father, ensue about the Bible, Sister No. 1 and her husband could politely, not rudely, withdraw from participating in such a discussion, but it would [be]a bit unreasonable on their part [-- at least in my opinion -- for them] to move to another portion of the house as your mother does her level best to assist her own husband understand what she understands the Bible to teach as to the matters being discussed when I'm sure Sister No. 1's husband, an elder, could provide valuable input to such a discussion for his father-in-law's benefit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not fanatics. If I were Sister No. 1's husband, I would not be putting my mother-in-law, your mother, in such a position when I might offer one or more [spiritual] perspectives to my father-in-law that could be helpful to him [in] understanding what the Bible teaches.

  I don't care how strong the biases your eldest sister and her husband might have against disfellowshipped relatives, [because] for anyone to go beyond what things we teach is for them to impose a rule on Jehovah's Witnesses based on what someone else's conscience might dictate, when every decision that we make must be driven by our own [conscience] alone, not on someone else's conscience. And while I do not know what your father's views on the Bible or on scriptural matters are, I would doubt that he would appreciate what would seem to him to be bickering between two of his daughters over some religious issue to which he doesn't subscribe and in which he has no interest. But this I do know: Such bickering reflects unfavorably upon the Christ, for it is [God's] will that all men be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. What your father should see is proof that the love that is said to [exist] among Jehovah's Witnesses is genuine.

  Love does not become provoked, nor does it look out for its own interests. This is a family function and your sister should not be using it as an excuse to exhibit what strong feelings she might have as to the decision made by [you, her own sister-by-blood and by your husband, her brother-in-law and your husband], to sever their spiritual ties -- your spiritual ties -- with Jehovah's organization as was your right [and your husband's right] to do. Your eldest sister doesn't have to agree with her father's decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses either, as it was your mother's decision to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses [even though her husband decided not to do so], and she has no more right to rail against her own father's decision (so far!) to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses than she does to rail against you [for the] decision [you made] to sever your spiritual ties with her: Your father is still her father and you are still her sister.

  At all times the decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been your father's to make and who knows? Seeing how his eldest daughter treats you could cause your father to take a negative view of the kind of religion practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and alienate him from ever listening to what things his wife might say to him regarding her "church," her form of worship. [The Bible indicates that the wisdom from above is reasonable.]

  Christians should not be belligerent, but reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men, even our own disfellowshipped relatives. Maybe you could have your father remind his eldest daughter that he was informed that the wisdom from above is chaste, then peaceable, and then reasonable. To hear this coming from her own father, someone that has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should be a wake-up call, but I'm not really recommending such an approach, just sharing with you what principles are involved here.

  Accordingly, if your sister and brother-in-law cannot with a clear conscience attend [this] 50th wedding anniversary [celebration], [that would be regrettable, but] they should RSVP to this effect and this should be the end of the matter. It would just be horrible for your father to conclude based on your sister's behavior toward you on what should be a happy family occasion as to her attendance at his and your mother's 50th wedding anniversary that Jehovah's Witnesses are driven by religious fanaticism. Furthermore, @nugget, as I understand it, this occasion will be hosted by your father at his house, which means that none of his children [will] have any say as to how he chooses to conduct the affairs of his own household [and maybe this fact being communicated to your Sister No. 1 and her husband will resonate with them and they will consider attending].

  @djeggnog
• 
  36

  I have a problem any suggestions would be appreciated

  by nugget in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  this year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary.

  my mum is a jw my father is not.

  my husband and i hade been df'd and i have 3 sisters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @nugget:

  This year will be my parents 50th wedding anniversary. My mum is a JW my father is not. My husband and I hade been Df'd and I have 3 sisters. Sister number 1 is married to an elder and is a staunch JW.... Sister no 2 was never baptised and lives in the US. Sister 3 is baptised but inactive and does not attend meetings and lives with my mum and dad.... What I need is some help as to how to navigate this social minefield so that it is a happy time for my parents and not blighted by ill feeling, family arguments over shunning and bad feeling.

  In your message, you mentioned something about a "necessary family [business] card," but there exists no such card. What is needed here is reasonableness by all of you. This occasion that involves your mother and your father is to celebrate he and his wife's 50th anniversary, which is family business, and is not an occasion for animosities or bickering over things that pertain to church business.

  This 50th wedding anniversary of your parents is a family occasion, so we're not here discussing spiritual fellowship. Even if both your mother and father were Jehovah's Witnesses (and I understand that only your mother is one of Jehovah's Witnesses), this is not about spiritual fellowship, which is what the disfellowshipping action halts and nothing more than this.

  You say that your eldest sibling -- Sister No. 1 -- is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that her husband is an elder, but other than being your sister and brother-in-law, should they attend a dinner celebrating your parents 50th wedding anniversary, they would both of them be as much guests as would you and your other sisters (Sister No. 2 and Sister No. 3).

  I suppose your parents could send to Sister No. 1 and her husband an invitation and ask them to "RSVP," but if they should attend your parent's 50th wedding anniversary, they would be guests themselves, and so they would have no responsibility for who is and who isn't on your parents' guest list. Based on the biases that they hold, Sister No. 1 and her husband might have strong opinions, but despite what they might believe to be true, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun family members, except with respect to theocratic functions. What this essentially means is that no discussions of a theocratic nature are to take place with you, their disfellowshipped relative, on this occasion.

  Should a discussion, maybe one raised by your father, ensue about the Bible, Sister No. 1 and her husband could politely, not rudely, withdraw from participating in such a discussion, but it would a bit unreasonable on their part to move to another portion of the house as your mother does her level best to assist her own husband understand what she understands the Bible to teach as to the matters being discussed when I'm sure Sister No. 1's husband, an elder, could provide valuable input to such a discussion for his father-in-law's benefit. Jehovah's Witnesses are not fanatics. If I were Sister No. 1's husband, I would not be putting my mother-in-law, your mother, in such a position when I might offer one or more perspectives to my father-in-law that could be helpful to him understanding what the Bible teaches.

  I don't care how strong the biases your eldest sister and her husband might have against disfellowshipped relatives, for anyone to go beyond what things we teach is for them to impose a rule on Jehovah's Witnesses based on what someone else's conscience might dictate, when every decision that we make must be driven by our own consciences alone, not on someone else's conscience. And while I do not know what your father's views on the Bible or on scriptural matters are, I would doubt that he would appreciate what would seem to him to be bickering between two of his daughters over some religious issue to which he doesn't subscribe and in which he has no interest. But this I do know: Such bickering reflects unfavorably upon the Christ, for it is God will that all men be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. What your father should see is proof that the love that is said to exists among Jehovah's Witnesses is genuine.

  Love does not become provoked, nor does it look out for its own interests. This is a family function and your sister should not be using it as an excuse to exhibit what strong feelings she might have as to the decision made by her own sister-by-blood and her brother-in-law -- your husband -- to sever their spiritual ties -- your spiritual ties -- with Jehovah's organization as was your right to do. Your eldest sister doesn't have to agree with her father's decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses either, as it was your mother's decision to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and she has no more right to rail against her own father's decision (so far!) to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses than she does to rail against you decision to sever your spiritual ties with her: Your father is still her father and you are still her sister.

  At all times the decision to not become one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been your father's to make and who knows? Seeing how his eldest daughter treats you could cause your father to take a negative view of the kind of religion practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses and alienate him from ever listening to what things his wife might say to him regarding her "church," her form of worship. The wisdom from above is first and foremost reasonable.

  Christians should not be belligerent, but reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men, even our own disfellowshipped relatives. Maybe you could have your father remind his eldest daughter that he was informed that the wisdom from above is chaste, then peaceable, and then reasonable. To hear this coming from her own father, someone that has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should be a wake-up call, but I'm not really recommending such an approach, just sharing with you what principles are involved here.

  Accordingly, if your sister and brother-in-law cannot with a clear conscience attend the 50th wedding anniversary dinner, they should RSVP to this effect and this should be the end of the matter. It would just be horrible for your father to conclude based on your sister's behavior toward you on what should be a happy family occasion as to her attendance at his and your mother's 50th wedding anniversary that Jehovah's Witnesses are driven by religious fanaticism. Furthermore, @nugget, as I understand it, this occasion will be hosted by your father at his house, which means that none of his children have any say as to how he chooses to conduct the affairs of his own household.

  @djeggnog
• 
  23

  Son to JW school-mate: "Go ahead. Tell the Jewish girl how the Jewish holiday REALLY happened."

  by Open mind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my family (wife and teenage kids) and i awakened to the true nature of the wt society a couple years ago and are fairly well faded now.. .

  my son attends high school with a couple of jws, one of whom is an elder's son and an ardent true believer.

  let's call him "con".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Open mind:

  My family (wife and teenage kids) and I awakened to the true nature of the WT Society a couple years ago and are fairly well faded now.

  Pray tell, what is our "true nature"?

  So Yelysaveta starts relating a pretty standard version of the Israelites in Egypt and the splashing of the blood on the lentil, yadda yadda. When she's all done Con pipes in with this: [¶] "That's not how it happened!" ...

  What struck my son and myself was the total lack of awareness of how arrogant [Con] must have looked. Even if Yelysaveta was wrong, wouldn't it be better to let the person FROM the culture explain it, and then if you've got a problem with it, ask her about it later?

  Not Con, but your son could have asked "Yelysaveta" if she knew why the Jews today don't also view the day the Israelites left Egypt after midnight to be passover when passover didn't end until the next evening?

  @Blind_Of_Lies:

  NICE! It really is amusing how little JW's know about their faith once they get off the "talking points"

  Actually, I didn't get baptized until I was out of high school, so I wasn't really one of Jehovah's Witnesses and in my day we didn't need "talking points." We used sermons and we used them over and over again.

  @Doubting Bro:

  Of course, JWs seem to think they know everything when in fact, they really only know about 6 scriptures.

  Actually, they know more than six scriptures. Perhaps you have in mind the Christians that attend the Baptist Church down the street and they only know them if you should recite them. They couldn't necessarily tell you where in the Bible they are, let alone show you where.

  @Ding:

  Since Con considers himself an expert on the scriptures, she should have asked him to explain Purim.

  What does Purim have to do with the Abrahamic Covenant or Moses?

  @jwfacts:

  Classic. I hope he was called out on his error. When JW's talk doctrine....

  I believe these were the children of Jehovah's Witnesses, not Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @TOTH:

  TOO bad most high schoolers give about two shits about ANYTHING biblical.

  Many high schoolers might give at least 'one shit' if someone. like your son (or @Open mind's) were to have asked "Yelysaveta" why it is that the folks in her faith celebrate the passover on the day after "the splashing of the blood" occurred and not on the day itself since that is what the Torah says. All eyes would then be looking directly at "Yelysaveta" waiting to hear how she answered your son's (or @Open mind's son's) question.

  I was Open mind's son as a child, but I was into stumping people on things I had learned from the Bible as well as on things having to do with US history and world history. I didn't know a whole lot, but I knew enough to sufficiently put people on the spot with questions that I asked with the intention of not providing the answers to them.

  You see, I learned very young in life that if people are going to continue to think you are smart, you cannot give them the answers to the questions you ask them; else they will also know the answers and thus make them appear as smart or smarter. For example, I would ask the elders in my congregation, "Did 'Jehovah God' -- as a kid, I thought "Jehovah was God's first name and "God" his last name -- not tell Adam and Eve about the tree of life until after they sinned because he knew that they were going to sin?" I was the kid that never wanted to answer any of the questions in the book study or at the Watchtower study unless I was specifically asked by the conductor to do so, and my answer would pretty much all start with the words, "Well, obviously...."

  It wasn't that I was smarter than everyone else, but I liked pretending to be smarter.

  I can see my son in that situation calling CON a stupidass and slapping his face downwardly from [forehead] to chin...LOL

  And today you'd probably get a phone call from the school indicating how your son was charged with assault.

  @djeggnog
• 
  75

  Who Knows The Exact Current Interpretation of "Generation" Please!

  by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would someone please explain the current interpretation of the generation.

  this topic is one that is causing alot of confussion and turmoil.

  jwn, you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You are entitled to believe @BillyEB to be anything but a troll, but this is what I have determined to be true about the man. Should I feel a need to ask for the advice of someone that has since 2006 shown a complete disloyalty to God's organization in rejecting both Jehovah's sovereignty and Jesus' lordship, you will be the one I will tap. Being that I am an adult that is presently in full control of my mental faculties and know a troll when I see one, I don't need your help in determining when someone posts off-topic messages for the purpose of derailing a thread.

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  Not at all; I have neither rejected....

  Note that I said "should I feel a need to ask for the advice of someone...."

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You may have been a born-in and you may have been in association with Jehovah's Witnesses for over 40 years, but you only think you know Jehovah's Witnesses, for you think all Jehovah's Witnesses are exactly the same and should behave in exactly the same way. Some Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are more intelligent than are others and some handle the information that they are given differently than would those with little or no education, because some things are hard for some to understand.

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  No, I'm not born-in.... Yes, baptised in the early 1970s at the age of 20. I came in during the pre-1975 boom.

  You may have been many things, but I don't care what you may have been. My point (you missed it; that's ok) is that you only think you know Jehovah's Witnesses; I'm telling you do not know enough about them.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  You remind me of those who will leave God's organization to go absolutely nowhere because of having a weak conscience that permitted them to accept a blood transfusion, who fearing death were in bondage and they gave in although not really wanting to do so (Hebrews 2:15) or who would shun their own family members because of the conscience of one or more of the elders in their local congregation, who are not masters over anyone's faith (2 Corinthians 1:24) advise them to do so, or because one or more of the more influential in the congregation, who are utterly devoid of a Bible-trained conscience that can distinguish between right and wrong should strongly suggest, based on something they read in one of our magazines or heard someone say, that you should violate your own Bible trained conscience that informs you is unloving to be shunning members of one's own family just because someone else's conscience thinks doing this to be the right thing for you to be doing.

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  Again, not at all. You didn't exactly say I had accepted a blood transfusion....

  Quoted above is what you read, and I suppose it's my fault because I should have explained to you that "[s]ome Jehovah's Witnesses are more intelligent than are others and some handle the information that they are given differently than would those with little or no education, because some things are hard for some to understand. assumed." Actually I did say these very words.

  Perhaps had you understood what these words meant, you would have realized that I wasn't talking about you personally, but I'll just say -- briefly this time -- that "[y]ou remind me" of the kind of person that leaves God's organization because he or she had allowed others to tell him what him or her what he or she should and should not do based on what someone else's conscience thought to be "right" and "wrong," and not because you had a Bible-trained conscience yourself. I don't care if you see eye-to-eye with me or other Jehovah's Witnesses as to the sacredness of blood; what counts is whether we know what we ought to do, or not do, and decide to do what we should not have done or decide to not do what we should have done.

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  If you are to be taken seriously, why do you make these childish remarks? They are completely off base and suggest you have no better response to a well reasoned post than to fire back with name calling and insults....

  I really think you owe Billy an apology, not that I expect you go give him one.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I may not come off to you as being "a sincere JW," but besides being judgmental, who are you? I mean, you're not @Simon, you're not a mod, you don't run JWN, so who are you to me that I should listen to you? Are you the Pharaoh?

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  No, but I left a religion that acts like Pharaoh.

  My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek (hopefully you caught that). I will say this though: True religion is about serving God, and we do this by obeying him. What Jehovah wants is for all mankind to learn how to obey man's rules, how to learn how we ought to conduct ourselves and how to demonstrate love to our neighbors, and how to respect duly constituted authority, but not at the expense of violating our Bible-trained conscience. My side point, btw, was that if I recognized you as having authority over me, I would calling you, "Dad." Perhaps you will recall writing the following when you joined this thread:

  I wish they could all see their past history without the organizational spin.

  I conclude when former Jehovah's Witnesses make such a statement that they are not the kind of people that respect sacred things, that respect God's arrangement, that respect the duly constituted authority of Jehovah. Once you decided to leave God's organization, your attitude resembled that of the Pharaoh, who said: "Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all...." (Exodus 5:2) You don't know Jehovah at all.

  @Vidqun:

  Ok.

  @djeggnog
• 
  75

  Who Knows The Exact Current Interpretation of "Generation" Please!

  by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would someone please explain the current interpretation of the generation.

  this topic is one that is causing alot of confussion and turmoil.

  jwn, you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Vidqun:

  For one to understand this argument you have to know about the beasts, and what the Society’s interpretation of the beasts are. That’s why I gave you the summary, to save time.

  Ok.

  @Vidqun wrote:

  Another telling example is the Society’s identity of the beast "ascending out of the abyss" of Revelation 11:7. At Rev. 17 it is clearly identified with the League of Nations and the United Nations (Revelation Climax-book, Chapter 34, p. 248).... But at Rev. 11:7 it is identified as the great political beast of Revelation 13:1 "ascending out of the sea" (Revelation Climax-book, Chapter 25, pp. 167, 168).

  @djeggnog wrote:

  (1) Are you saying here that you believe the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3, the beast on whom the harlot sits, is also the beast described at Revelation 11:7?

  @Vidqun wrote:

  Yes, that is what I am saying, contrary to what the Society are saying. See explanation at Rev. 17:8.

  The "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 is described at Revelation 13:14 as an "image" of the beast described at Revelation 13:1 that came out of the sea, which is to say that it wasn't the same beast at all, but merely a reflection of it. As to mention of the beast that the apostle John saw coming out of the "abyss" at Revelation 11:7 and being mindful that "interpretations belong to God" (Genesis 40:8), we looked elsewhere in the Bible to interpret this word "abyss" (just as we did by looking elsewhere in the Bible and using Exodus 1:6 to interpret the word "generation" used at Matthew 24:34), where we came to appreciate that the equivalent Hebrew word was "abyss" used by the psalmist in describing the Red Sea at Psalm 106:9 is "watery deep," therefore, the beast that had come out of the sea would logically be the same beast.

  What this means is that the beast at Revelation 11:7 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3.

  That means Rev. 11:7 has nothing to do with 1914-1918, viz. the Society’s explanation. The League of Nations was only formed in 1919. And if it did not take place, then it would be referring to a future, which is a frightening thought for a JW.

  How do you read? Paragraph 21 of the Revelation Climax book begins with the words, "From 1914 to 1918 the nations were occupied with the first world war" in commenting upon the "two witnesses" (Revelation 11:3). Revelation 11:7 says: "And when they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will make war with them and conquer them and kill them," which we believe has everything to do with the war years for on July 4, 1918, and after World War I had ended, Rutherford and seven others were forced to serve long prison sentences on false charges, which action by the beast 'conquered and killed" the witnessing work. Again, the beast that comes out of the abyss is not the "scarlet-colored wild beast," for it was the political wild beast, described at Revelation 13:1 as having "ten horns and seven heads" that were responsible for killing these "two witnesses" after the hostilities of World War I had ended.

  You indicate a belief that the League of Nations was formed in 1919, but with reference to the "scarlet-colored wild beast," we read at Revelation 17:8 that it is "an eighth king, [that] springs from the seven," again referring to the ten-horned, seven-headed political wild beast, which again demonstrates the fact that "scarlet-colored wild beast" is a different "beast," and cannot the same as the beast of Revelation 13:1 of which the "scarlet-colored wild beast" is but an image of it.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  (2) Are you saying here that you believe the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3, the beast on whom the harlot sits, is also the beast described at Revelation 13:1?

  @Vidqun wrote:

  I don’t say that. The Society says so in their publications, which is false. See quote from the Revelation-book.

  Because you had not stated whether or not you believed the "scarlet-colored wild beast" to be the same as the beast at Revelation 13:1, I thought I should ask you what you believed to be the case instead of assuming what you believed, and so if we forget about what the Society's publications state on this point and just concentrate on what the Bible says, it becomes clear that your view is a mistaken one. The "scarlet-colored wild beast" is an "image" of the beast at Revelation 13:1, for unlike the beast at Revelation 13:1, the "scarlet-colored wild beast" didn't come out of the sea. At Revelation 13:14, the wild beast "misleads those who dwell on the earth ... [and] tells ... [them] to make an image to the wild beast that had [received] the sword-stroke" to one of its seven heads (Revelation 13:3) "and yet revived" from that sword-stroke. The "scarlet-colored wild beast" never received this sword-stroke; the beast at Revelation 13:1 did.

  What this means is that the beast at Revelation 13:1 cannot be the "scarlet-colored wild beast" at Revelation 17:3 either.

  The conclusion one reaches is that the Society has no qualms in twisting the meaning of the Scriptures, i.e., God’s Word, to accommodate some of their core doctrines, e.g. 1914.

  I don't see that the Society has twisted the meaning of Revelation 11:7 or any the Scriptures for that matter. What I see is a misunderstanding on your part. You are the one that would identify "the beast 'ascending out of the abyss' of Revelation 11:7" as "the League of Nations and the United Nations," when the scarlet-colored wild beast at Revelation 17:3, identified as the "the League of Nations and the United Nations," is the image of the beast ascends out of the abyss at Revelation 11:7, the image of the beast that ascends out of the sea at Revelation 13:1. At Revelation 17:8, where it makes mention of "[t]he wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss," is, in fact, a reference to the "the League of Nations and the United Nations."

  I believe the League of Nations "was" on January 10, 1920 after the hostilities of WWI had ended, then "is not" in September 1939 at which time the League went into an abyss of inactivity when WWII began, and then became "is" once again when it was revived on October 24, 1945, as the United Nations after the hostilities of WWII had ended.

  Seeing how Bible prophecy came to be fulfilled, I don't see how anyone would even think about leaving the truth, even if it should turn out that we have to make another adjustment in our understanding of Matthew 24:34. We are just too close. With you yourself having been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, @Vidqun, you know so much more about where we are in the stream of time than do those outside of God's organization that have no idea what these things in the book of Revelation mean and you can be instrumental in helping many of these folks, including your own relatives, gain life. It seems rather foolish to me that anyone to be making such a big deal about our having to make an adjustment in our viewpoint as to what Jesus meant by "generation" at Matthew 24:34, just because we want to get it right.

  In connection with translating, don’t know whether you are aware that the NWT is an English translation, i.e., it was translated into English first, an English Bible for an English audience. So all the other NWTs, in the different languages, were translated from the English version. Feel free to check this out if you don’t believe me. So the English NWT is of cardinal importance in establishing the meaning of a word or phrase. No point in going to the NWTs in the different languages. These are all based on the English NWT.

  This is just a strawman where you wish to find fault with a process that is faultless. However, the English language NWT represents the translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Bible texts. It would be unreasonable for any Bible translator that has produced a Bible translation in English to chuck that work and start over in order to produce another Bible translation in Spanish or French or in some other language. I take your point though that it makes no difference how many other languages the NWT has been translated.

  And do not underestimate Webster. It is very informative, tracing the root word back to Greek, Latin, or from where it developed from, e.g. generate – generated, generating [L. genero, generatum, to beget], etc. So for the English speaking person, it is of the utmost importance. There we can agree to disagree.

  Ok.

  @Billy the Ex-Bethelite wrote:

  According to the WT encyclopedia "Insight" on my 2010 WT Lib CD, here's what generation means....

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  You said to Billy the Ex-Bethelite, after he quoted from the Insight book (published in 1988), using the 2010 Watchtower CD,

  "It does occur to me, @BillyEB, that since you have the "2010 WT Lib CD," you could just as well have quoted something more current, such as something from the above-referenced article, which would have been consistent with how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34, instead of quoting something that is now useless, obsolete."

  Yes, I did say this.

  If the Society considers information in the Insight volumes to be "something that is now useless, obsolete", then why are these volumes still being published in the Watchtower CD for present day distribution and study? Billy's point was that Watchtower's beliefs are ever changing, and he made that point regarding the past and present meanings of generation; the fact that you now consider the Insight books to be "useless and obsolete" demonstrates that.

  Actually, @BillyEB's point was absurd: He was questioning why it is that the "now useless, obsolete" articles he quoted in his message from the Insight book on his copy of the "2010 WT Lib CD" had not been excised from the cd, why it was he was still able to quote the articles that provided what Jehovah's Witnesses had previously understood the expression, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34 to mean. In fact, you have done the very same thing here that @BillyEB had done, except he was trolling me, and I know this for reasons I don't feel any need to explain to you, Dad. Furthermore, you are off-topic. I really don't care to hear what you might opine as to what I wrote in response to @BillyEB's post.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  It does occur to me, @BillyEB, that since you have the "2010 WT Lib CD," you could just as well have quoted something more current, such as something from the above-referenced article, which would have been consistent with how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34, instead of quoting something that is now useless, obsolete. You're not a stupid guy, so tell me: Are you just trolling me or was there some point you wanted to make? If you are just having fun, that's fine, too, but perhaps you might consider getting yourself a ball. I enjoy coming to JWN, but I don't come here to have fun or to troll anyone.

  @ScenicViewer wrote:

  Honestly Dj, why do you engage in such name calling? Billy is anything but a troll.

  You are entitled to believe @BillyEB to be anything but a troll, but this is what I have determined to be true about the man. Should I feel a need to ask for the advice of someone that has since 2006 shown a complete disloyalty to God's organization in rejecting both Jehovah's sovereignty and Jesus' lordship, you will be the one I will tap. Being that I am an adult that is presently in full control of my mental faculties and know a troll when I see one, I don't need your help in determining when someone posts off-topic messages for the purpose of derailing a thread.

  While some trolls may even seek to annoy someone, their posts are for the most part designed to derail the threads they join. You have been a member of JWN for less than a year, but since I've been here a little longer and this is not my first "rodeo," it just may be that I have a bit more insight than you do about @BillyEB's antics on here and trolls generally. To quote @BillyEB, he wrote:

  Now, take the opposite of what they have published in Insight and voila! You have their exact current interpretation.

  Actually, here's what the OP asked:

  (@Bubblegum Apotheosis:)

  Would someone please explain the current interpretation of the Generation.

  @BillyEB's response is disingenuous, because instead of quoting from the Watchtower article, entitled "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," dated April 15, 2010, which is found in the "2010 WT Lib CD," he quotes a few things from the Insight book, which are, as I said, "useless, obsolete," an outdated interpretation of Matthew 24:34. What @BillyEB did here is this thread is exactly what "disingenuous" means. The point I'm making here is that the OP didn't ask what it is Jehovah's Witnesses formerly believed before we abandoned that interpretation and embraced the interpretation we now have regarding the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34, so @BillyEB's post was off-topic, and every subsequent post he makes in this thread along these same lines would also be off-topic.

  His counter arguments to your points make a great deal of sense. And your remark that he should get a ball to play with, after admitting he is not a "stupid guy," is just plain insulting.

  This comment of yours is ridiculous, but even if any of his "counter arguments" should make sense to you, I don't feel bound in any way by any of the conclusions you might have reached about them, and as far as I am concerned, you can feel free to roll a ball with @BillyEB, but I don't want to play games with the guy. Furthermore, Dad, I don't make decisions based upon what I think others might approve or determine to be "plain insulting." Like I said, you are off-topic.

  If you are to be taken seriously, why do you make these childish remarks? They are completely off base and suggest you have no better response to a well reasoned post than to fire back with name calling and insults.

  I suppose I could take offense over your telling me here how you think my remarks to @BillyEB to be "childish," but you are an adult and are just as entitled as I am to believe what you want to believe, and just as entitled as I am to draw whatever conclusions you believe to be appropriate about me. In a recent thread in which the man proved to be quite disingenuous, I had to withdraw from it because (a) he was off-topic, (b) he was trolling me, and (c) he proved to dishonest, which is why I have described @BillyEB as being "disingenuous." I know exactly what my words mean, Dad. I would suggest that you adopt a child of your own, so that you might teach that child whatever it is you think to be right and wrong.

  I really think you owe Billy an apology, not that I expect you go give him one.

  Then by all means, @ScenicViewer, you can give an apology to @BillyEB on my behalf, if you really think he needs one, but I don't apologize to trolls.

  To finish off your remarks to him, you declared yourself to not be a troll. I am a little stunned at some of the things you have said on this site, in this thread and others.

  Please don't be stunned. One other thing: I didn't say I wasn't a troll, but what I did say was that "I don't come here to have fun or to troll anyone."

  I have known [Jehovah's] Witnesses for over 40 years, and I don't think I have ever met one as insulting as you. You're not a troll? You don't come across as a sincere JW either.

  I don't? You may have been a born-in and you may have been in association with Jehovah's Witnesses for over 40 years, but you only think you know Jehovah's Witnesses, for you think all Jehovah's Witnesses are exactly the same and should behave in exactly the same way. Some Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are more intelligent than are others and some handle the information that they are given differently than would those with little or no education, because some things are hard for some to understand. You're way off-topic here, but as a parting short, I'll just say this:

  You remind me of those who will leave God's organization to go absolutely nowhere because of having a weak conscience that permitted them to accept a blood transfusion, who fearing death were in bondage and they gave in although not really wanting to do so (Hebrews 2:15) or who would shun their own family members because of the conscience of one or more of the elders in their local congregation, who are not masters over anyone's faith (2 Corinthians 1:24) advise them to do so, or because one or more of the more influential in the congregation, who are utterly devoid of a Bible-trained conscience that can distinguish between right and wrong should strongly suggest, based on something they read in one of our magazines or heard someone say, that you should violate your own Bible trained conscience that informs you is unloving to be shunning members of one's own family just because someone else's conscience thinks doing this to be the right thing for you to be doing.

  A baptized relative that knows the truth, but who deliberately teaches things that run counter to what he knows the Bible teaches is an apostate, for which he or she should be disfellowshipped and shunned by his own baptized relatives, but for all other disfellowshipped relatives, we should mark them, but 'not treat them as if they were enemies. We should instead continue to admonish them as brothers and sisters.' (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) Your own conscience is telling you it is unloving for you to not embrace the joy that occasions the birth of one of their children to whom you are related, unloving for you to not attend the funerals of our own family members based on viewing what is only a suggestion designed only to protect your spirituality to be a rule that forces you to treat members of one's own family as if they no longer mattered or were really dead. No, all Jehovah's Witnesses are not exactly the same.

  I agree with Paul: Why on earth would anyone permit their own freedom in Christ to be judged by another person's conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:29) Paul also wrote: "Do you not know that if you keep presenting yourselves to anyone as slaves to obey him, you are slaves of him because you obey him...."? (Romans 6:16) I may not come off to you as being "a sincere JW," but besides being judgmental, who are you? I mean, you're not @Simon, you're not a mod, you don't run JWN, so who are you to me that I should listen to you? Are you the Pharaoh?

  @djeggnog
• 
  75

  Who Knows The Exact Current Interpretation of "Generation" Please!

  by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would someone please explain the current interpretation of the generation.

  this topic is one that is causing alot of confussion and turmoil.

  jwn, you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  djeggnog

  @Witness 007 wrote:

  As I said: "Now the [Generation] that KNEW the 1914 generation is "the generation" DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?....."

  @djeggnog wrote:

  No. There is no such thing as a "1914 generation" any more. Jehovah's Witnesses have since 2010 needed to abandon this terminology and we have.

  Before the 2010 article, Jehovah's Witnesses had believed there to be such a thing, but that interpretation has been abandoned in favor of what we now understand to be the generation of the sign, during which those of the anointed living when aspects of the composite sign are being discerned (starting with WWI and ending with the great tribulation) would be contemporaries. As indicated in my response to @Ucantnome below, it makes no difference if anyone of the anointed that bears witness to the composite should die as the result of a heart attack, car accident, plane crash or natural causes, that individual would be a contemporary of the generation of the sign.

  @Ucantnome wrote:

  So I am wondering is there a need for the anointed who see the beginning of the sign to overlap with those who see the end to be called contemporaries? Contemporaries of what? Each other or the sign?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  The sign?

  @Ucantnome wrote:

  If it's the sign then to me it seems as long as the sign is there it will have contemporaries.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Correct.

  @JeffT wrote:

  You needed to abandon the terminology in use before 2010 because it was demonstrably false.

  Yes, by 2010, we realized the terminology in use before 2010 where we would make reference to the "1914 generation" was false. There used to be a time when a willingness to admit when you are wrong about something was considered to be an admirable trait, but now even former Witnesses -- that used to admire the candor of Jehovah's Witnesses in their willingness to stand up for their beliefs, and their possessing the courage to say 'yes, we used to believe that, but over time we came to realize that we were wrong' despite the anticipated blowback we subsequently receive -- point the finger of blame at us as though we knew that the teaching we have had to abandon was false, this posture seems hypocritical to me if former Witnesses that once embraced the same false teachings should now pretend that they knew them to be "demonstrably false."

  When I became a JW in 1973 there was a very clear understanding of what "this generation" referred to. It was the people who were old enough in 1914 to have understood the difference between the world before the last days began, and the world in the last days.

  Well, you know what, the understanding you had back in 1973 was clearly wrong. Can you accept this or not? You and I both thought there was such a thing as a "1914 generation," but now we know that this teaching was in error. You need to accept the fact that there was no "very clear understanding" back in 1973 as to what "this generation" referred to at Matthew 24:34. The sooner you stop pretending otherwise, the less ignorant you will be perceived. You learned back in 1973 how Jehovah's Witnesses had interpreted and understood the meaning of Matthew 24:34 and based on the article that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010 ("Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose"), you now know that what you learned back in 1973 was wrong. Get 1973 out of your head. We were wrong in 1973 and if you were onhe of Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1973 that subscribed to the belief in a "1914 generation," then so were you.

  That understanding proved to be wrong and was abandoned for the [...] current inexplicable understanding.

  Yes, it was wrong, but I'm surprised that you think our currently understanding of what Jesus meant by the expression, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34 to be inexplicable, when I've explained how we interpret this verse quite clearly in this thread.

  The society teaches that the trinity doctrine -- three overlapping personalities within the unity of the Godhead-- is unscriptural, not understandable and not rational, therefore false. You should apply that logic to the current understanding of a generation.

  Why? There's nothing logical about the trinity doctrine, for if you think there to be something logical about the doctrine, then I'd like you to explain it to me logically, since I would love to be given the opportunity to deconstruct your explanation to point out how ridiculous I find it to be just as I did when a JWN member (@UnDisfellowshipped) boasted how he could prove using the NWT that "the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible" back in July 2010 and didn't. IOW, there isn't anything logical about the trinity doctrine that would be applicable to the current understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses as to our interpretation of Matthew 24:34.

  Look: Are you prepared to demonstrate to me that what you and all other Jehovah's Witnesses back in 1973 understood as to be the meaning of "this generation" was correct? If not, then what's with all of this self-righteous bloviation on your part, @JeffT? It seems to me that at the time you were wrong, too.

  @agonus:

  So very many paragraphs devoted to the exposition of one little word. Hasn't the Society said in the past that The Truth should be clear, simple, and easy to understand and explain?

  No.

  @Freeof1914:

  On another note Djegnog why would someone with such a CLEAR [understanding] of watchtower doctrine, not biblical, be on an apostate website. An action that is clearly condemned by the watchtower? Just curious as to why you are completely disobeying the watchtower? Apparently your understanding is not complete because [the] society has clearly stated it is a reprehensible action what you have done?

  I am not at all familiar with "watchtower doctrine," for it such existed, I agree that it would not be biblical, and as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, the only doctrines by which I pattern my life are those found in the Bible, and those doctrines are arguably "biblical."

  Contrary to what you believe, JWN is not an "apostates-only" website, and until @Simon does make such a declaration, you will find me posting messages here to JWN. You may be of the opinion that a Christian should allow the consciences of others to dictate what another does or doesn't do, but being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have a Bible trained conscience that has been trained to be able to distinguish between what is right and wrong.

  That said, I do not find anything sinful or wrong with posting messages to JWN, and if I did, my conscience would not permit me to do so. I realize that you are under the mistaken impression that some among Jehovah's Witnesses are masters over the faith of other Jehovah's Witnesses, and while I agree with you that many Jehovah's Witnesses do not think for themselves or seem to know how to think for themselves, I can assure you that I'm not one of those Christians, but that I am a mature Christian. I have only one to judge me, and no mature Christian would permit his or her freedom to be judged by another's conscience.

  If you should no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this was your choice to make and an acceptable exercise of your own free will to leave our ranks, but it is evident to me that you don't know enough about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or what the Bible teaches to think you can give me advice on what you believe I should or should not do. When I was a child, I subjected myself to the authority of my parents and gave heed to the advice they gave me as a child, but when I became a man, I respected their authority as my parents and continued to listen to their advice, but I no longer subjected myself to it as if I were still a child. I'll leave you now to figure out for yourself how this same analogy applies in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  @Billy the Ex-Bethelite:

  According to the WT encyclopedia "Insight" on my 2010 WT Lib CD, here's what generation means....

  I believe Insight on the Scriptures was published back in 1988. However, an adjustment in how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the expression, "this generation," at Matthew 24:34 was made in the article, "Holy Spirit's Role in the Outworking of Jehovah's Purpose," that appeared in the Watchtower dated April 15, 2010, some 22 years later. If Jehovah's Witnesses had interpreted Matthew 24:34 in the way we do since that 2010 article back in 1988, before the Insight book was first published, then you would not have been able to post what things you included in your post from it, which things have become irrelevant.

  This is not unlike you had posted an article to me instead indicating how Pluto is a planet, when almost six years ago now, back on August 23, 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted in the Prague to strip Pluto of its status as a planet, so that we consider it today to be a dwarf planet and what had formerly been nine planets became eight. I have no interest in reading articles in the Insight book that contain obsolete information in them.

  It does occur to me, @BillyEB, that since you have the "2010 WT Lib CD," you could just as well have quoted something more current, such as something from the above-referenced article, which would have been consistent with how Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Matthew 24:34, instead of quoting something that is now useless, obsolete. You're not a stupid guy, so tell me: Are you just trolling me or was there some point you wanted to make? If you are just having fun, that's fine, too, but perhaps you might consider getting yourself a ball. I enjoy coming to JWN, but I don't come here to have fun or to troll anyone.

  @djeggnog