Matt 24:34. "by no means"

[Anna]

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Similarly pointless is postulating on the basis of "What happens if the 2nd group all die off and the end isn't here?" .

Unfortunately, past experience has taught us that considering this scenario is not so out of place.....

[Anna]

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The concept is not crucial to me, as "concerning that day or the hour no one knows". What I mean is that having this explanation or not having it has made no difference to my faith or sense of urgency regarding the times in which we live. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the system of things ended for me the day I learned the "truth". The information in Hebrews 11 particularly helped me to see my time of life in the context of a long line of those who have excercised faith and who have served Jehovah with a full focus on the "city having real foundations", regardless of when that hope would be realised.

I just noticed this, so forgive me for going on about this in my previous post. So by now you know these are  my sentiments too. So WHY the need for us to have to explain the generation?? The truth is simple. Jesus' illustrations were simple. That is why for example the concept of the trinity does not ring true. The overlapping generation theory is beginning to sound like what people do to try to explain it (the trinity).

[Anna]

On 10/21/2016 at 1:42 PM, JW Insider said:

I think we ran out of room on the "God's Kingdom Rules" thread. I have tried to add a response there, but nothing happens when I click the "Submit Reply" button.

Maybe because that issue has been flogged to death . I don't know if you can "run out of room" . The same thing happened to  me on another thread, I think it might just be a glitch...

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have never seen anyone besides Brother Splane even try to explain it.

This makes it sound like it was an independent idea of Brother Splane, to decide to try and exsplane it, (excuse the pun, I think this has been done before) and I know you do not mean that. But it begs the question, since everything is discussed very carefully and meticulously in great detail by all of the GB members, and probably months ahead of the broadcast, the decision whether to try to explain it, or not to try to explain it, had to have been discussed at great length also. As I mentioned on the other thread, Brother Splane never introduced this particular segment with the idea that there was any public demand for an explanation. This is usually done if that is the case. It just appeared at random. I think the KEY is if we get an honest answer to the motive behind this, we might begin to understand what is truthfully going on. Just my thought.

P.S. Like you, I have never heard any of the friends discuss this topic. It's like it doesn't even exist.....

[Anna]

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am still struggling to see why anyone has a problem with understanding this simple concept. It can only be because it conflicts with their understanding of what constitutes the "last days".

I understand the point you are making perfectly. But what about this scenario, I believe we are living in the "last days" and don't think the overlapping generation is required in order to prove it. Also, it's not about understanding the concept, but it's about does it ring true in light of the scriptures? One can understand the explanation for the trinity (the flesh of the apple being God, the core being Jesus and the skin being the holy spirit, or which ever way around it is, or maybe the pips are the holy spirit, I forget.....). But does it ring true in the light of the scriptures? Another thing I do not understand, you yourself say that the overlapping generation is not important to your faith, in which case why are you trying to explain/defend it?

Edit: Sorry, I realized I already mentioned the last point once....

 

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I cannot see logically what this has to do with the word "Generation"

This seems to be the problem that some have.

"I actually haven't seen efforts to document [generations] rigorously, and I would be somewhat skeptical that they can be documented rigorously."  So saysThomas Di Prete. Giddings Professor of Sociology Co-Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy. Columbia University. ( I agree, by the way).

It seems to me that the term has a general characteristic in that it applies to a group of individuals, alive around the same time, having experienced specific historical events. Beyond that, the specific application appears to be in the hands of the one making that application. The word obviously has a both a collective and singular application at the same time. e.g. "post-war generation" might seem very specific, but it might also refer to a group of popularly defined generations sharing the common feature of being born after the end of the 2nd World War. Depends rather on your point of view. Thomas Di Prete captures it quite well for me.

So, with regard to the notion of a generation comprising a group of contempories whose lives overlap between two historical events, it is really a question of "take it or leave it"

7 hours ago, Anna said:

desperate stretch

Any adjustment in interpreting a situation due to changed circumstance could be described thus. It is purely a subjective view.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

trying to defend this overlapping concept.

Not at all. It doesn't need defence. It is purely a point of view, and falls well within the bounds of the rather nebulous definition of the word. What I object to is attacking something just because it does not fit a particular personal interpretation. And the rather insidious, implied aspersions cast on Jehovah's anointed.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

this really shouldn't have anything to do with our faith

I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I have had full faith in the GB

Perhaps this is something that needs a closer evaluation.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I truly believe this organization does have God's backing.

Now you're talking. Stick with this and take to heart what the psalmist says and this whole subject will shrink back into context.

Ps 119:165: "Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; Nothing can make them stumble."

[Evacuated]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

But does it ring true in the light of the scriptures?

Good question. I can't see a conflict myself. And certainly no comparison with the trinity teaching. However, I can see that others feel differently.

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Another thing I do not understand, you yourself say that the overlapping generation is not important to your faith, in which case why are you trying to explain/defend it?

Well, this is getting a bit personal isn't it? and seems to fly in the face of freedom of expression. I can choose what I like to comment on or discuss surely? As you can and do yourself I am sure. 

Anyway, as you've asked, let's just say .... because I want to. 

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

An individual's feeling that the explanation is not reasonable is no criteria for assuming ALL have a problem with it.

That's true. Everything we say here has an element of individual opinion in it. Even if we are quoting factual evidence in defense of a certain belief, it is because it's our opinion that certain factual evidence is relevant to the discussion. The same evidence won't always make the same point to you that it makes for me.

To be clearer, then, I'm stating that it is my opinion that ALL of us have a problem explaining the "two-group overlapping generation" teaching. I say that, first of all, because it is my opinion that no one, so far, has explained it in a reasonable way or a Scriptural way. I think it's also obvious that we are supposed to believe that Brother Splane's explanation is both reasonable and Scriptural. I do have some additional evidence, based on accepted rules of language and rules of logic that the official explanation is not reasonable. My belief that it is not Scriptural is based on two things: It breaks the usual rules of the Watchtower's methods of exposition, for one, and it also creates a situation where we disregard Jesus' words that you already quoted as the so-called "Group #2" gets older and closer to dying out.

But this does not mean that I believe that ALL Witnesses believe we have a problem with it. I think that relatively few actually know that they would have trouble explaining it, if questioned. I have some reason to believe that many (perhaps even a majority) of Witnesses don't seem to care one way or another. I also think some Witnesses might not be directly aware yet that there is such a doctrine, or else they are only vaguely aware of it.

23 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What I mean is that having this explanation or not having it has made no difference to my faith or sense of urgency regarding the times in which we live. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the system of things ended for me the day I learned the "truth". The information in Hebrews 11 particularly helped me to see my time of life in the context of a long line of those who have excercised faith and who have served Jehovah with a full focus on the "city having real foundations", regardless of when that hope would be realised.

Well said! I'm 100% with you on those points, and I really like the tie to Hebrews 11. I think it's also useful to note that the idea of Hebrews 11 does not end with the last verse of that chapter but goes on into the next chapter:

(Hebrews 11:39-12:3) ³⁹ And yet all of these, although they received a favorable witness because of their faith, did not obtain the fulfillment of the promise, ⁴⁰ because God had foreseen something better for us, so that they might not be made perfect apart from us. ^12:1 So, then, because we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also throw off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, ² as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such hostile speech from sinners against their own interests, so that you may not get tired and give up.

23 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I agree with the baseline as having been set out by Brother Jack Barr at the AGM  October 3, 2009. Later embellishments are simply that.

It's easy to take that to mean that you agree with the general concept, but might also recognize that there could be a danger in "talmudizing" the spirit of that general concept. I don't know if this is what you meant, but if it was, I would have to say that I also could find myself agreeing with the general concept of that "baseline" more easily than the version(s) with specific embellishments. Even Barr's original baseline, however, was bounded with enough specifics so that a certain "goal" is met. It is that "goal" that creates for ALL of us, a problem.

The "goal" in every version is the same. And it is a dangerous goal in view of Jesus' words. The goal is always to be able to make the same claim, basically: that we are definitely living within one human lifespan of the great tribulation.

Ever since 33 C.E., it has always been true that we may be living within one human lifespan of the great tribulation. But stating that something may happen during a certain time period does not make us special. Anyone can state that and be correct. So that is not enough to indicate that we are truly a spirit-guided organization. Jehovah needs to have revealed something in this regard to us so that we know more about the timing of the end than everyone else. Therefore, the primary original basis of the Watch Tower organization has always been that we know something special about the time of the end, that could only have been revealed by God to his special servants. For years, Russell indicated that the Watch Tower organization itself was "that servant."

This is why the first regular publication that Charles Russell published, the Watch Tower, was called the Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. Most of the issues touched somehow on the subject of chronology. It heralded the fact that Russell knew that Christ's presence had started in 1874 and that those of the high calling (144,000) would be taken to heaven within a few short years, and that the entire system of things would go on for no more than a 40-year harvest period beyond 1874, and that the Jews would be re-established in Jerusalem by the end of that 40 year period, and therefore 1914 would be the "end of the Gentile Times." Russell believed that these were "God's dates" and not his.

Russell's very first known piece of published writing was about chronology, and therefore had to address the problem that Jesus said that the "times and seasons" were not for us to know. He summed up his defense by including this Scripture in his first published article from 1876.

(Amos 3:7, NWT)  For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.

Russell taught that those of the high calling were a "prophet." He published in the Watch Tower that those of the high calling were the ones associated with the Watch Tower organization, and that they were "The Christ."  They were "the prophet greater than Moses."

So, saying something "may" happen, is not enough of a "prophecy" to gain the attention of an audience and to motivate them (assuming that they need a time-based motivation). It was always important to say that something will happen. This was the reason for changing the 1919 to 1925 slogan from "Millions Now Living May Never Die" to "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." And this is surely the same reason that each of the explanations about the "generation" produces a definitive time prediction.

*** kr chap. 1 p. 12 par. 19 “Let Your Kingdom Come” ***
We also see that the anointed ones who are still alive and part of “this generation” are getting on in years; yet, they will not all die off before the great tribulation begins.

*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.

*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
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!

Moving this time prediction from "may not die" to "will not die" creates a kind of prophecy. Naturally, we hesitate to use the term "prophecy" but there is no real difference, especially when we are periodically reminded to put faith even in the timing of the words of the "faithful slave." Even the comments about that same already-quoted verse from Amos have included the following reminders:

*** w99 10/1 p. 5 par. 4 “For Everything There Is an Appointed Time” ***
“For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) . . . But we must realize that Jehovah reveals his confidential matters at the time he deems advisable. For that purpose God has authorized a “faithful and discreet slave” to provide his people with “their [spiritual] food at the proper time.” (Matthew 24:45)

*** w84 7/1 pp. 8-9 pars. 3-4 Facing This Age of Violence With Confidence ***
In line with this, Jehovah himself declared: “The Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.”—Amos 3:7. . . .
Does this ancient prophecy have meaning for us today? Yes, . . .  Its prophetic meaning is made known to us through “the faithful and discreet slave,” that group of anointed Christians whom the Master, Jesus Christ, is using now to provide spiritual “food at the proper time” for all of God’s people.”

Because the faithful and discreet slave have given (prophesied) a definitive time period, we are expected to see this as proof that Jehovah must have 'deemed it advisable' (??!!) for this "faithful slave" to provide us with this prophetic information at this particular time.

 

[Anna]

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It seems to me that the term has a general characteristic in that it applies to a group of individuals, alive around the same time, having experienced specific historical events. Beyond that, the specific application appears to be in the hands of the one making that application.

Yes, I can see how that can be the case. I agree that the term generation can be rather ambiguous.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not at all. It doesn't need defence. It is purely a point of view, and falls well within the bounds of the rather nebulous definition of the word. What I object to is attacking something just because it does not fit a particular personal interpretation. And the rather insidious, implied aspersions cast on Jehovah's anointed.

I agree totally, it is a point of view. I may need to go back and listen to Br. Splane's talk again carefully because last time I listened to it it did not leave me with that impression, that it was a point of view.

I understand why you are objecting, and I am sorry if that is how it has come across, that I am attacking because it does not fit in with my interpretation, and I did not mean to be insidious, if that is how it has come across.  I certainly do not want to be casting unwarranted aspersions on anyone not just the anointed. Really I would be fine with all of it if it was delivered in a manner of a proposition, not fact. That is why I need to listen to it again, maybe I am jumping to conclusions too fast. But what I do know is that the passage of time has show us that what we have claimed as an assured fact at one time, has turned out to not be so. So, you know the saying, once bitten twice shy. I have heard the Slave say that they do not want to lose the trust and confidence of the friends. And that is imperative and quite understandable. We should be able to trust Jehovah's representatives on earth. But we also have to remember that they do make mistakes, which they have admitted themselves. And they will keep making mistakes if not for the simple reason that they, just like the rest of us, are not inspired and do not have some kind of direct line of communication with Jehovah. They derive at their understanding through diligent study, and prayer just like the rest of us and I would be so bold as to suggest there is NO difference at all, except for the fact that these anointed men happen to be in that position (of the Slave). It could just as well be anyone of us (within reason of course). So, back to my point, and this is just my impression, if the Slave needs our trust and confidence, then in my logical mind I cannot understand  why the word generation, being so ambiguous (as we have agreed upon)  is not being treated that way, but on the contrary, it seems the overlapping generation is being treated as fact.

There is an noteworthy statement that Br. Jackson made at a hearing in Australia, and I have mentioned this on another post on here, I will copy and paste it again:

"Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction.  So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable". 

On analysis, there are a lot of things one could take away from this. Here are just a few thoughts I had. One is that in order to be able to recognize if something is not in harmony with Gods word we better be well versed in the scriptures ourselves. Two, is that a suggestion that if we see something not in harmony we should not accept it? Or is it merely talking about a hypothetical situation. Three, would for example the "overlapping Generation" be viewed as a "direction" or would that be in the category of doctrine? Is direction to be taken as meaning the same as doctrine?

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

19 hours ago, Anna said:

this really shouldn't have anything to do with our faith

I am not sure what you mean by this statement.

What I meant was that the "overlapping Generation" shouldn't have a baring on our faith. It is not important.

 

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now you're talking. Stick with this and take to heart what the psalmist says and this whole subject will shrink back into context.

Ps 119:165: "Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; Nothing can make them stumble."

I agree. To be sure, the explanation of the Generation is not a stumbling block for me. It's just that I am a very logical person, and I cannot understand why we are trying to explain it...

7 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Well, this is getting a bit personal isn't it? and seems to fly in the face of freedom of expression. I can choose what I like to comment on or discuss surely? As you can and do yourself I am sure. 

Anyway, as you've asked, let's just say .... because I want to. 

I respect that, and agree . And I want to say I am happy we are able to discuss this - what some might regard as controversial and disturbing subjects - in a civilized, calm and respectful way, and more importantly as brothers and sisters . Oh, and also I want you or anyone reading this to be sure that they know that I do not have any intentions to undermine anyone's faith. This is merely a discussion of facts AND personal opinions.

 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

it did not leave me with that impression, that it was a point of view.

The concept or illustration used, (overlapping generation), can only be a point of view (or opinion) on a Scriptural statement because it does not itself appear in Scripture as related to the term in the context under discussion.

It doesn't matter how firmly this view is held or stated, or who by. It can only ever be a point of view at this time. We are at liberty to accept or reject it on the grounds of it being reasonable or not.

I happen to think that, objectively, it is quite within the parameters of comprehension of the language we are currently using, along with accepted definitions of the concept of a generation. On that basis, I consider it to be reasonable. This consideration is reinforced by the fact that the previous opinion on the generation as relating to only one group of people that saw 1914 is, without a doubt, quite wrong.

Time will tell if the current opinion (point of view) is correct or not. If it is, then it's status will be elevated from that of "opinion" to that of "interpretation", and a correct interpretation for that matter. (Or "to wit" as some might state).

If it is wrong, then we will ALL be readjusted in some manner which is not yet required.

However, it would be very wrong if we were to conclude that, because a brother assigned a leadership role in Jehovah's organisation states a changed viewpoint in what we consider to be an over-emphatic manner, (in view of similarly stated past erroneous or incomplete views), they are then not to be taken seriously. The last thing we want in these "last days" is weak leadership. Am I right?

It's up to each one of us, to the extent we are able, to follow the apostle Paul's admonitions,

first at Romans 12:1:

"Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason."

second at Romans 15:1:

"We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong."
 

 

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm stating that it is my opinion that ALL of us have a problem explaining the "two-group overlapping generation" teaching.

Thanks for clarifying.  

However , it is my opinion that NOT all of us have this problem. I do not. The concept is quite simple and clear and (to my opinion) within the acceptable bounds of language as it is used in connection with the general concept of what comprises a "generation". I have posted answers to @Anna on defining this term as I understand it.

As to what Jesus meant, (which I assume would be what you mean by Scriptural), then I think this is completely open to discussion and will not be understood definitively until the event is past. And quite rightly so in view of his statement that "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows".

As for "breaking the usual rules of the Watchtower's exposition", this is a welcome innovation and certainly not an unfamiliar practice of recent times.

Your summation of the varied "Witness" views on the overlapping generation concept is quite acceptable and would seem to be confirmed by postings on this forum.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The goal is always to be able to make the same claim, basically: that we are definitely living within one human lifespan of the great tribulation.

I agree that it is possible to draw this conclusion, but, in the absence of testimony, I cannot conclude that it is an accurate assessment of intent.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So that is not enough to indicate that we are truly a spirit-guided organization.

???What on earth is this? You are going into another subject here entirely about evidence for spirit direction.You'll need to create anoither thread for this.

Next we get some semantics on the use of "may" and "will" as a basis for the following statement:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Because the faithful and discreet slave have given (prophesied) a definitive time period, we are expected to see this as proof that Jehovah must have 'deemed it advisable' (??!!) for this "faithful slave" to provide us with this prophetic information at this particular time.

The "faithful and discreet slave", by which we mean the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, have provided an explanation of the "generation" mentioned by Jesus at Matt 24:34.  

As stated elsewhere, this explanation is completely within the parameters of the definition of this word, and it's current usage. 

This explanation should allay the fears of SOME of Jehovahs Witnesses that the passing of a group of people who witnessed 1914CE, (previously held to be the "generation"), is of no cause of concern particularly in respect of the notion held by some that somehow "they've got it wrong" to say that we are in the "last days " of a wicked system of things.

As to the "expected view" regarding Jehovah's role in the provision of this understanding and what it does or does not prove, your are completely at liberty to make your own decision on that matter. As,for that matter, are the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The last thing we want in these "last days" is weak leadership. Am I right?

I understand what you are saying. And yes, you are right.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Time will tell if the current opinion (point of view) is correct or not. If it is, then it's status will be elevated from that of "opinion" to that of "interpretation", and a correct interpretation for that matter.

Hmmm....because I haven't got around to listening to Br. Splane again, (yet) So I cannot say if it was meant as merely an opinion or if it was meant as more than that, as interpretation. Because that really is the crux of the matter. (in my opinion). So I will have to come back to that later. ......

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The concept or illustration used, (overlapping generation), can only be a point of view (or opinion) on a Scriptural statement because it does not itself appear in Scripture as related to the term in the context under discussion.

Correct.

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I happen to think that, objectively, it is quite within the parameters of comprehension of the language we are currently using, along with accepted definitions of the concept of a generation. On that basis, I consider it to be reasonable.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This explanation should allay the fears of SOME of Jehovahs Witnesses that the passing of a group of people who witnessed 1914CE, (previously held to be the "generation"), is of no cause of concern particularly in respect of the notion held by some that somehow "they've got it wrong" to say that we are in the "last days " of a wicked system of things.

This quote, in answer to JWInsider, is perhaps most telling. I wonder, is this the answer the Slave would give us in response to the question of why try to explain the "delay" by means of an "overlapping Generation", or why try to explain the apparent "delay" at all for that matter. As you see, I am trying to understand the reason for coming up with the "overlapping Generation" in the first place. I like to be given reasons. What other options could there be? (that is actually not a hypothetical question, I am really wondering). Do we even need to be assured that we are living in the last days, as if that concept was what was needed to keeping us going? As if our entire faith was built around "the last days" like a carrot dangled in front of us? You know the answer to that I think; we shouldn't need that. BUT evidently some do(!) One of my very good friends left the truth in 1995 when the first of the explanations for the Generation was printed in the WT. It caused her to completely lose faith in the GB. So it seems like the quest to have to "explain" the apparent "delay" is a bit of a two edged sword. On the one hand it can placate some, and on the other hand it can turn some off. And then of course there are the rest who kind of ignore the whole thing with the attitude "we'll just stick around as there is nothing else out there"o r "we will stick around and see what happens (that's me ). Sorry about me going on, I'm just kind of thinking out aloud as I am typing. (that's a strange sentence). The only thing is that  irks me about this need to explain things (the "delay") is that it gives me the feeling that the Slave thinks we are all some kind of numpties. Little children who need to be pacified.....

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If it is wrong, then we will ALL be readjusted in some manner which is not yet required.

If it's wrong, then that will mean time has run out again. Maybe this whole thing is just a test. Jehovah's way of sifting out "free riders", those who are only in it because they don't want to die.

By the way, I swear you are a lawyer.

[Evacuated]

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

So I cannot say if it was meant as merely an opinion or if it was meant as more than that, as interpretation.

I hope you can see that there can be no interpretation of this as it can only be explained accurately when it has passed. 'No man knows the day or hour'. Until then, any explanation of it's meaning remains...an opinion.(A right one or a wrong one, of course).