The "Overlapping Generation" Revisited.

[bruceq]

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome  instruction,  which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion,  ⁴  he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything.  He is obsessed  with arguments and debates about words.  These things give rise to envy, strife, slander,  wicked suspicions, ⁵  constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind  and deprived of the truth." 1 Tim 6:3-5.

[PeterR]

bruceq

Sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. No doubt that's what the scripture means.

[bruceq]

40 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Don't patronise. It's a sure way of closing doors. I shouldn't have to tell you that. (There you go!)

Good that you appreciate the need to keep a confidence. There's no need to elaborate. Abstract discussions are too inconclusive on this kind of thing so I'll move on from this subject.

I agree with Eoin time to move on as this is like watching a squirrel crossing the road.

"HAPPY is the people for whom it is this way!  HAPPY is the people whose God is JEHOVAH"!    PSALM 144:15. 

[bruceq]

6 minutes ago, PeterR said:

bruceq - sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. I'm sure that's what the scripture means.

Funny how you thought that Scripture was actually about YOU. LOL Have a nice time dabating with yourself. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

.

Bruceq is probably right ....

If we are going to REFUSE to use the word "generation" like Jesus meant it ...  which all those listening INSTANTLY understood without a million word debate ....... the way the word has been used for FOUR THOUSAND and more years, and is used today by EVERYBODY on the planet ..... except the GB .. it's like milking a mouse, because you need the butter.

... or a squirrel.

[PeterR]

57 minutes ago, bruceq said:

Funny how you thought that Scripture was actually about YOU. LOL Have a nice time dabating with yourself. 

 

I guess "dabating with myself" (whatever that means) is more productive than trying to reason with some people.

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm only going to quote the Insight article on the subject which says of Jesus:

"However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence."

I thought it might be useful to note the differences in the printed version of the Insight article, and the recently updated online version of the Insight article. Words from the original Insight article that are no longer included in the updated version are highlighted in bold/red. Words added only to the updated version are highlighted in bold/blue :

*** it-1 p. 918 Generation ***  [Printed version] “This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies. ... Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24. The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined in Matthew chapter 24, Mark chapter 13, and Luke chapter 21.

*** it-1 p. 918 Generation *** [with online changes] “This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies. ... Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. So his comment about “this generation” logically had an application down to 70 C.E. However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence.—Mt 24.

The primary correction being made here is very vague about the definition of "generation" because the Insight book was already being written at a time when the doctrine was in flux.

The actual reason for the correction is that this portion of Matthew 24 was temporarily seen as ONLY applying to a future generation, not the generation that Jesus was speaking to, which was a generation that would see the fulfillment in 37 years. Note that both articles are the same in the beginning portion, quoted below, that was left out at the point where the ellipses were placed in the quotes above:

When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.

What the original was saying was that although the context of Matthew 24 speaks of "this generation" twice, once in Matthew 23:36 and once in Matthew 24:34, they mean something different in both cases, so you have to look at the context. The printed version of the Insight book is saying that only Matthew 23:36 refers to the 37-year generation of Jesus' day ending in 70 C.E., but when Jesus says almost the same thing again in Matthew 24:34, then this time he is referring only to the future "1914" generation. Note where the words "however" and "also" are added and omitted in the two versions.

In the updated online version, Insight is now saying that Jesus was simultaneously referring to both historical contexts at the same time: 70 C.E. which saw the end of the Jewish system of things,  and ALSO the generation that sees the end of the entire system of things at the end of his parousia. 

The value of this updated point is that we now have the backing of the Watch Tower publications to show that Jesus used the same word for both contexts. Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

For example, it seemed that Jesus had told that generation that they (or at least many of them) would experience the tribulation upon Jerusalem in their own lifetime because the end would come upon that generation. Now if it had taken 140 years instead of 37, then we might rightly look for an interpretation of "generation" that could be stretched somehow to two lifetimes. But if the end of the Jewish system really had come in 173 C.E. (instead of 70) and we knew that Jesus was referring to a two-lifetime generation, then what right would we have to claim that Jesus could ONLY be referring to a 40 to 70 year generation in the case of the "1914 generation"? If another religion was teaching such an inconsistency, we would obviously deride them for their lack of ability in "handling the word of truth aright." (2 Tim 2:15)

[Anna]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

My thoughts too. But then how do the "signs of the times" fit in? If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If another religion was teaching such an inconsistency, we would obviously deride them for their lack of ability in "handling the word of truth aright." (2 Tim 2:15)

When we go to the Airport, and  enter that fragile aluminum tube that takes our even more fragile bodies made of mostly water seven miles high into the hostile sky,  we hope the pilot has some idea where he is going, and is not just wandering around aimlessly, his main concern being  keeping his cushy job.

It's a shame when we look around and all the other passengers have embraced the idea  that this is normal.

Mostly because anyone who complains is hustled to the back of the plane, and thrown out the door.

.. lovingly, of course ....

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.

This was the section (in both Insight books) that interested me, because it reflects an understanding of the word "generation" to apply to a group of people that is not necessarily limited by a finite period of years, more by a shared experience. (Unreferenced post-publishing date editing of JW publications is another subject entirely).

I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar and @PeterR has suggested a word study of the use of the word genea which appears at Matt.24:34 as a starting point for this discussion. Whilst this would be very interesting, greater minds have obviously chosen the English word "generation" as a suitable translation for this term. As this is reflected in 25 English translations listed at biblehub.com, then reinventing the wheel at this stage seems to me unnecessary.

There's nothing particularly innovative about the "shared experience" view and seems to reflect the more recently defined "social generation" concept (itself only an observation of an existing phenomenon). However,  the detachment from a clear, chronological anchor is a bit more unusual, though not unique. Not that this detachment is absolute, as there is a start point, the year 1914CE, but that's where the specific, chronological association ends...for now. Another significant and fairly unusual aspect includes the grouping of more than one "biological" generation. Again unusual, but not unique.

So, without excessive references to easily obtained examples, it appears that JW's "official" and "current" understanding of the term "generation", as used in Jesus's end-time prophecy, differs from the more common understanding of this (English) word held in general (reflected in a number of postings presented here).  In terms of it's use by sociologists and historians, (with whom the word apparently has greater currency), there is a departure from more usual application, but the understanding is not unique.

The pith of this matter is, of course, what did Jesus specifically mean when he used the term? The honest answer to this? We do not specifically know. We can only infer.

[PeterR]

59 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The pith of this matter is, of course, what did Jesus specifically mean when he used the term? The honest answer to this? We do not specifically know. We can only infer.

 

If you admit that's the honest answer, then why do our publications say "Jesus evidently meant ..." and then go on to give a meaning that is outside all acceptable norms?

The doctrine is made up, but then when published in print, or presented on JW TV and at assemblies, the spiritual food is said to come from Jehovah Himself.

If the honest answer is that everyone admits we don't know, and that most seem to view it as opinion of the GB, then why promote it as something given by God?

Do you not see any problem with that at all?

Bible commentators for centuries have been able to draw a line between their own opinion, and the inspired Word of God. When a person fails to do that and attributes their own opinions to God, bad things result. It a sufficient number of good people recognized the problem then perhaps we could move past all the nonsense and actually have some unity based on reality.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

My thoughts too. But then how do the "signs of the times" fit in? If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

The "signs of the times" are EXACTLY the same in both contexts.

But as you already know, I still read that portion of Matthew 24 in the same way that Charles Taze Russell and dozens of other Bible commentators have read it: That Jesus was asked for a sign of the end times, and he told them not to be fooled by things like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, because all these things would happen just as they always have. He said not to be fooled because these types of "signs" were not going to help them understand the time of his visitation (parousia). It would come as unexpectedly as a thief in the night, and a thief doesn't give a sign of his coming.

The part that Russell ignored was that Jesus also said that no one should say that Jesus had already returned, but that you just can't see him, because when he returns, his parousia will be as visible and as suddenly unexpected as lightning that shines from one horizon all the way to the other.

This is why Jesus built up to the point where he said, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken. "THEN THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in heaven."