The "Overlapping Generation" Revisited.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, Anna said:

I think we should explore this one a little further

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

whether belief in the current "overlapping generation" doctrine was optional, or perhaps less important than other doctrines

In a post within 3 minutes of yours, I noticed that the 2010 original WT on this teaching appears to carefully delineate what items are definite and what items are not. It's from this type of writing that I assume you derived the idea that it was, in effect, "optional."

[Anna]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In a post within 3 minutes of yours, I noticed that the 2010 original WT on this teaching appears to carefully delineate what items are definite and what items are not. It's from this type of writing that I assume you derived the idea that it was, in effect, "optional."

Yes, I posted first and then saw your post after, and yes, you are right.

My thoughts too:

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Note that it isn't by believing in a potential 'two-lifespan' generation that we are keeping up with advancing light and the leadings of holy spirit, but only explcitly by maintaining a sense of urgency, and keeping on the watch. As Christians we would do this with or without the two-lifespan generation, based on other scriptures,

Of course it could be interpreted the other way too, could it not? That we are keeping up with advanced light by believing the two life span generation....perhaps this is how opposers interpret it and hence the "confusion"....?

[JW Insider]

To keep a more complete set of references for this topic, we also have the Jan 15, 2014 WT:

*** w14 1/15 pp. 30-31 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY
14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.
15 In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. 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. This should add to our conviction that little time remains before the King of God’s Kingdom acts to destroy the wicked and usher in a righteous new world.—2 Pet. 3:13.

And, as was already mentioned Brother Splane, in the September 2015 JW Broadcasting talk, provided a chart. Then this same chart was referenced just a few months later by a later JW Broadcasting speaker, Brother Kenneth Flodin, who said that it was "masterfully explained" by Brother Splane and that he did such a "beautiful job" that he wasn't going to attempt to repeat it, so he just replayed the video of Splane, and then called it a "very clear explanation."

 

[Anna]

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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 is evidently only so because evidently the previous thought was wrong because most of the 1914 generation, as previously interpreted, are dead.

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

This is evidently only so because evidently the previous thought was wrong because most of the 1914 generation, as previously interpreted, are dead.

Yes. However, as something is put out there, it soon becomes the way "we understand" it. Note paragraph 15 from the 2014 Watchtower, quoted above. This is the "editorial we" of the writer of this particular article, or is a statement of unity by the Governing Body and/or "editorial board," or it's a statement of what we as Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

[JW Insider]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

14 There is yet a third reason for confidence. What has developed among God’s people points to the nearness of the end. For example, prior to the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven, a group of faithful anointed ones were actively serving God. When some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 did not come about, what did they do? Most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution and kept right on serving Jehovah. Over the years, most—if not all—of those anointed ones have faithfully completed their earthly course.

I think a careful reading actually does lead to the idea that the Watchtower is now promoting the entire doctrine as Bible "truth."

Of course there is a lot of "hyperbole" and "hypobole" in this introduction. It was not "some of their expectations about what would happen in 1914 that did not come about; for most of them, it was ALL OF THEIR EXPECTATIONS ABOUT 1914 that did not come about. If they are referring to the entire group of faithful anointed ones (by their own count) who were actively serving God, then no one could say, per the Watch Tower publications that "most of them proved their integrity under trials and persecution" or that "most --if not all--of those anointed" faithfully completed their earthly course. In fact most of them left the Watch Tower organization, and many were pushed out on purpose by Rutherford, either actively or through doctrinal error. (Doctrines that he promoted, but which we now consider to be in error.)

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.

This is also hyperbole, because none of them readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year, because they continued to discern that Christ's presence was in 1874, and this they discerned even into the 1920's and 1930's, when the doctrine was partially changed. Officially, they kept discerning that Christ's presence had begun in 1874, right up until about 1943. Note this from the book, God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years -- Has Approached:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
⁵⁵In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

The Watchtower in the 1940's admits very explicitly that they did NOT discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. None of them did.

Therefore, there are conflicting points here about how they did not understand most of what happened in 1914, and then claiming, at the same time, that they readily discerned what happened in 1914. Taken together, it might be highlighting the more important point that, in spite of a wrong understanding, at least some continued to maintain their integrity and continue to be watchful about Christ's presence. This might also color the lens by which some interpret the importance of the urgency and integrity as opposed to the acceptance of the specific current doctrine itself -- then or now.

[Evacuated]

Something goes rather subtly off track in all these "generation" discussions for me. It really makes absolutely no difference to the reality of the situation whatever any of us think about the way the final "generation" before Armageddon is structured.

The basic idea of two groups of people, whose lives overlap, spanning a period of time delineated by the year 1914CE and the (yet unknown) outbreak of the "great tribulation", is so elementary that it does not require even a child's chalkboard to explain.

There are illogical dissections going one. For example:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

most of them left the Watch Tower organization,

 Who are "them"? How do we know that those disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then were actually anointed at all? Maybe only those proving loyal in the face of trials were genuine in the first place.

How about:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower in the 1940's admits very explicitly that they did NOT discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. None of them did.

We have discussed this before, but to me, if something is said to be discerned as starting in 1874CE, still continuing in 1943CE, then regardless of revising the start date due to erroneous chronology or doctrine, if that start date includes the year 1914CE in its span, then the event is discerned in 1914CE regardless of any error in interpretation of detail.

Really, the only way we are going to know if our current view of an overlapping group of people, connected by their shared experience and destiny, are indeed the "generation" Jesus was referring to, is to be there when the "great tribulation" starts, and by Jehovah's underserved kindness, to be there when the final post Armageddon dust settles. Isn't that the important element of this?

[bruceq]

I'm thinking out loud a bit but this is how I have explained it in under a minute:  {Simplicity is key although some apostates may try to confuse and make light of this simple illustration with apparent words of worldy wisdom and drivel - just wait and see if it happens}:

   Lets say a child is born in the year 1996 and starts school in the year 2001. In that year he sees the event of 911. He ends his school age  in the year 2013 however another child begins school in the year 2013. That child did NOT witness the event of 911 however for a time isn't both students actually "students" in school and therefore of a particular school age or "generation"?  Is this not an example of an "overlap generation'? A child starting school in 2014 would NOT be of THAT contemporary generation [contemporary to the 911 event of the students]. Now many other generations can overlap with this one but the pivotal point is the event of 911.  It seems so simple to me. And if you ask the 5 year old : Who is a student in school at this time in the year 2013? Even he can figure out it is not just the one in first grade but also the one in 12th grade. Whereas a student beginning school in 2017 would not have witnessed the event of 911 as a student nor be a contemporary of the 2001 student but would be a contemporary of the 2013 student, his overlap is not related to the event of 911. So of course there can be and is many overlaps but only one overlap is the generation of being a student regarding the pivotal year of 911.

[Evacuated]

4 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I'm thinking out loud a bit

Good illustration re. the schoolchildren 

It's such a simple concept, it only gets complicated by people trying to explain who ISN'T part the generation! 

[PeterR]

36 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I'm thinking out loud a bit but this is how I have explained it:

   Lets say a child is born in the year 1996 and starts school in the year 2001. In that year he sees the event of 911. He ends his school age  in the year 2013 however another child begins school in the year 2013. For a time isn't both students actually "students" in school and therefore of a particular school age or "generation"?  Would this be an example of an "overlap generation'?

 

That's a fair attempt to put it into your own words. What you are proposing is a "less stretched" version of the official doctrine.

First of all if this was how it was applied then we would be allowing for a few years beyond 1914, rather than 50 or so.

This is how it would fit into the evolution of the doctrine. I'm not going to dig out all the references, but a bottled history would look like:

1. in the 70's the "generation" had to be those who were old enough to see and comprehend the events of 1914.

2. since #1 didn't work out, later on it was decided that being born any time before 1914 would suffice

3. since #2 was looking shaky we took a break and detached the "generation" from a human lifespan altogether

4. since #3 didn't have the same sense of urgency a new formula was needed ...

Now if they had gone with your version they could have moved from #2 to "... or born a few years after". This would have, according to your example, bought maybe 10 years, to be generous. That would have probably been insufficient. So they indeed took your model, but streeeetched it out to something that no longer fit your model. By using the same words as your model while glossing over the actual damage to the language Jesus used, we end up with a kind of fudged version of what you're proposing.

What I believe it's important for you to note is the actual difference between your model, and the way it's being applied to a much longer time period.

 

Quote

Now many other generations can overlap with this one but the pivotal point is the event of 911.  It seems so simple to me. And if you ask the 5 year old : Who is a student in school at this time in the year 2013? Even he can figure that out.

Yes, but then you would have switched the question from "who was the generation who lived through 911" to a different question altogether.

It's effectively a verbal sleight of hand. If your audience isn't paying attention they don't notice when you make the switch. They know at the end that something's wrong, because that's not what "generation" means, but because each step you took sounded roughly okay and they didn't notice the step that made the switch, some of them end up accepting it.

 

Quote

Whereas a student beginning school in 2017 would not have witnessed the event of 911 as a student nor be a contemporary of the 2001 student but would be a contemporary of the 2013 student, his overlap is not related to the event of 911. So of course there can be and is many overlaps but only one overlap is the generation of being a student regarding the pivotal year of 911.

 

So see what you did there? You took the original clause of "witnessed the event of 911", and then you introduced a new clause "contemporary of the 2001 student". And rather than connect the two clauses together by an AND condition as the logic would demand, you connected them by an OR condition.

Let me attempt to illustrate:

I can define dolphins as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae".

I can expand my definition to say that dolphins can be defined as "aquatic mammals of the family Delphinidae" AND "animals that swim".

But if I substitute an OR for that AND, then I open the door to say that "clown fish" are "dolphins".

What you are doing is attaching an acceptable sub-clause to your "generation of 911", but then uncoupling it from the primary clause as if it can stand alone. But it cannot do so without doing damage to the sense of the primary clause.

 

 

[bruceq]

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Good illustration re. the schoolchildren 

It's such a simple concept, it only gets complicated by people trying to explain who ISN'T part the generation! 

Agree it is simple so simple a 5 year old can understand it. Yet some 5 yr. olds apparently cannot.  

bruceq said: "Simplicity is key although some apostates may try to confuse and make light of this simple illustration with apparent words of worldy wisdom and drivel - just wait and see if it happens"

And behold it just happened in the previous post. 

 “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectuals I will reject.” ²⁰  Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things?  Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? ²¹  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not get to know God  through its wisdom,  God was pleased through the foolishness  of what is preached to save those believing...but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame;  ²⁸  and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are." 1 Cor. 1:19-28. 

PeterR : "I dare say you'd squeeze your version of it past an average 5 year old though. I can't argue with that. {look at next post lol}

Thank you, Jesus also agrees with the teaching methods of Jehovah's Witnesses:

"At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. ²⁶  Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."  Matt 11:25,26. 

Tom: Thanks a lot for the link to your book. Your doing a good job not getting any vomit on you from the vomiting dogs ie. 2 PeterR 2:22, Rev. 22:15.

[PeterR]

12 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Agree it is simple so simple a 5 year old can understand it as illustrated. Yet some 5 yr. olds apparently cannot.  

It is in fact, a proper understanding of the illustration that exposes the fallacies of the doctrinal explanation. The illustration at least has value in that regard.

I dare say you'd squeeze your version of it past an average 5 year old though. I can't argue with that.

You might want to select one that doesn't ask too many questions.