Evacuated

We don't need to assume it. It is a feature of all generations associated with a historical sequence. An important feature here is that the duration of the sequence of events described in Matt 24 is longer than the life span of one human at the time they occur. As for Matt 24 supporting the idea, it does not define the use of the word generation directly. It does not actually state something like "a generation attached to the events described here will have to extend longer than the lifetime of one man". Instead, we need to 'reason from the Scriptures". It is clear that there is no Bible rule determining the length of a generation. Just thinking about Genesis 15:13-16 in comparison with the context of other places where the word is used shows this. Or when you think how long people lived in earlier Bible times then obviously, the concept of a generation, if related to how long someone lives, is flexible. The idea of a generation based on the Bro Splane's reasoning against the description of Joseph's generation at Exodus 1:6 works for me. It's not creating a new concept or anything. It just points out the fact that when a generation is associated with a historical sequence (in this case the life of Joseph), then members of that generation obviously overlap lives because people continue to be born within the parameter of time set by that sequence. The overlap occurs between the lives of 2 groups. Group 1.Those born before the event(s) referenced. Group 2. Those born after, but living at the same time as the first group. This is the case for every generation associated with a historical sequence. (I'm not forgetting that we limit the generation here to just to anointed Christians) Whether one persons lifetime is long enough to span the duration of that sequence or not is immaterial. It is not the crucial criteria. Now, with regard to the duration of the period of time identified by Jesus in Matt. 24 as the "last days". If we have accepted (for various reasons which are the subject of other threads) that 1914CE commences that time period, with the 1st World War as a tangible evidence of that, then it is patently obvious that the period of time marking the "last days" exceeds the life span of humans at this time. (If humans at this time lived as long as Abraham, or even Job, did, this discussion might not be taking place). But Jesus spoke of a generation associated with the historical sequence known as the "last days", a generation that, like all other generations before, would consist of 2 overlapping groups, a generation associated with a historical sequence of events that exceeds the life span experienced by persons at the time, but, nevertheless, a generation that will have "by no means pass[ed] away, when God's Kingdom crushes and puts an end to all other kingdoms. So then, what you have stated about Group 2 not seeing the start of the sign is not an assumption. It is a common feature of all generations defined in this way. It's just that no one seems to have specifically pointed it out. However, what is unique in this concept is the make up of those in the second group considered valid for inclusion in the generation. That is, Group1 consists of those alive to witness the start of the historical sequence, and Group 2, those born after the start but who are contemporary to that first group. Where the historical sequence exceeds the lifetime of any in the first group, then ONLY those overlapping with that first group are considered as part of that generation. Any coming on the scene later (ie overlapping with the 2nd group only), are excluded. So, it is the limiting of those included in the second group that is the doctorine here, not the concept of the overlap of groups in a generation, which is a fact independent of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some nutshell eh?

There are some strange comments and inferences in this thread. Regardless of what others may think about our stand on blood, some facts are as follows: Jehovah's Witnesses make a personal decision to avoid the use of whole blood in medical management of health issues simply becuase they understand the prohibition at Acts 15:29 to apply ito this practice. Jehovah's Witnesses do not sign a baptism certificate because the baptism itself is seen as a public declaration of their decision to dedicate themselves to God. The so-called "blood card" that Jehovah's Witnesses use is a provision to assist them in dealing with medical authorities in case of an emergency. It serves as an expression of their will in regard to a personal choice of medical procedure and is no different than carrying information regarding diabetes, an allergy, or any other medical preference or condition. Medical practioners wishing to respect personal choice in such matters have expressed appreciation for such a document, not least because it helps to resolve conflict in balancing their own professional responsibility against respect for an individual,s wishes. It is a personal choice to have one and no one is compelled to carry one as is inferred. The brothers who support Jehovah's Witnesses in a medical emergency are there by choice of the individual experiencing the situation. They work outside of specific situations to raise awareness amongs medical practioners of the reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses take this particular view of a medical procedure, and the existence of alternative methods of managing medical conditions where blood loss trauma is an issue. They also support Witnesses in locating practioners who respect their conscientous stand and have sufficient expertise to treat them.

Don't look back. I did the same thing 45 yrears ago!

Hope they soon get a refurb. Put ours on hold!

Great info. The koal defies the evolution theory eloquently!

Is this an exhibit or a current situation?

Tempting, but no. 37 years would be too short. Remember, this stage in the proceedings is a crucial one anyway. 2Pet.3:9 has a particularly intense application at present. But just keep in mind that every generation attached to a historical sequence will of necessity have an overlap. Those witnesses born before the start of the event(s) will always overlap with those witnesses born after the start (and before the end), although they are all part of the same generation. This is a fact of life. We didn't make it up, we just didn't notice it's significance before.

I can't see how this would qualify one to be a part of the generation. Maybe I needed to word my final sentence more explicitly "No one dying before the birth or being born after the death of Joseph could be included in his "generation" even if related." Even if restricting generation membership to family, (perfectly reasonable), the qualification is that the individual must have been alive at the same time as Joseph. Not for his entire life, but at least a part of it. That then excludes unborn future contemporaries but allows for the OVERLAP in the lives of those born prior to and those born during Joseph's life. That indicates the Joseph's generation was an overlapping one. It's not playing loose, it's just observing a feature. It is patently obvious that the full significance of the events of 1914CE were not published in the Watchtower generally by the anointed until years after the event. I don't think any of us could say for sure when the significance did start to be discerned. However, as discussed elswhere, I don't see this as an issue particularly. I mean, I have a friend suffering from left-side paralysis. For some time my friend was treated (ineffectively) for a stroke. Then the medical authorities decided to look more carefully (MRI scan) and discovered...a brain tumour!!!. The earlier diagnosis had been completely wrong. However there was no change in the experience of my friend regardless of how the symptoms had been interpreted. My friend knew something was wrong all the time! They also knew that the treatment was not working and suspected an incorrect diagnosis. None of this changed the fact my friend was ill. Without labouring the analogy further, the anointed experienced the reality of the events of 1914CE, but did not discern or explain the significance of them correctly. They certainly knew there was far more significance to those events than mere political developments, but more detail came later. The important things are that they were anointed and they were there! That makes them part of the "generation". This is the significant point we obviously agree on. However, I do not think those who died earlier to Jesus prophecy and particularly to Pentecost 33CE, are included in this "generation". I also understand this generation to be limited to Jesus disciples who he was talking to at the time and any others contemporary with them. They were not a part of the "wicked and adulterous generation" to whom Jesus addressed other remarks. I also believe that the fulfillment of this aspect of Jesus' prophecy on the Jewish system of things took on added significance as soon as the Christian congregation was founded at Pentecost 33CE because the events of that day, particularly Acts 2:5-11, line up with that feature Jesus pointed to at Matt 24:14. By the way, I cannot see a direct conection with the earlier transfiguration account. I agree with the descriptions and application you provide in connection with the 1st century fulfillment of Jesus prophecy. I cannot see anything here to contradict the view that the Ist C anointed (overlapping) generation that saw the beginning of Jesus prophecy, particularly from Pentecost 33CE "by no means pass[ed] away" until the destruction of the Jewish system of things in 70CE. I suppose I should for clarity also point out that I do not believe the "overlapping generation" idea is something we have invented. It is merely an observation of a feature of any generation attached to a historical sequence. It is just something we had not previously noticed. It was there all the time. (Bit like my friend's tumour).

Seems to feature frequently in Book fair booth photos from South America as an example. I don't know how other employees of other organisations present themselves at these events, but having attended a number of trade fairs over the years, I have noticed a smart dress code amongst many of the more successful organisations. Haven't seen it at Kingdom Halls and Conventions ...yet. Its probably a case of 1 Cor.9:19-23.

To all really. Please don't waste time overthinking my relay race illustration. You may have noted I have abandoned it now. I only wanted to illustrate the idea of an overlap, but I realise now that there are too many tempting red herrings in the concept of a relay race. (Christian race, obstacles, training, teams, trainers, runners, false starts....dear me!) So really this is an example of illustration overkill because it 's too vivid and rich for the purpose I intended.

Now we differ here, as I think it is quite a good choice and was surprised it figures so little in discussion until now. Anyway, for me, even if not limited to Joseph's brothers, we have a group of people, some born earlier, some born later, but all at some point having shared space with Joseph whilst he lived. That is the common experience that unites them into one generation. Although Joseph had a birth and a death, there was no stated requirement for his contemporaries to witness those two events to be included as members of "that generation". All that was required was that they shared some time of their lives with Joseph in order to be included as a part of that generation. By necessity, any born AFTER the birth of Joseph would see their lives OVERLAP with any born before Joseph. However, all would be a part of Joseph's generation as they were contemporaries. No one dying before or being born after the death of Joseph would be included in his "generation" even if related. Bringing this understanding to the events described by Jesus for the end of the 1st Century Jewish system of things, a similarity is pretty clear to me. The first Christians anointed in 33CE (which included the apostle John) were joined by others in the ensuing years, up until 70CE and the end of that (Jewish) system of things. Some not even born in 33CE could have accepted Christianity and been anointed in those interim years. The lives of those Christians experiencing their anointing after 33CE and up to 70CE, would OVERLAP with Christians anointed in 33CE (this includes Cornelius in 36CE). This way, they became contemporaries with the earlier group, and are appropriately included as members of that "generation". As such, they were the generation that saw all the things fortold to occur in that period of time although individuals may not have experienced the full period. With the apostle John as a prominent example, that "generation" had "by no means pass[ed] away" before the fulfillment of Jesus words for that time. I can't see how Matt 16:28 relates to this topic. However you have included references to Mark 13 and Luke 21. I am avoiding the temptation to enter into a debate about the composite question at Matt. 24:3 and it's ommision as a factor in understanding the answer Jesus gave. Save to say, Jesus's answer addressed aspects of the disciples' question that they did not realise they were asking. These aspects reach down into the "last days" of the worldwide (not 1st Century Jewish) system of things, and this is reflected in the scope of the answer that Jesus gave as recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Jehovah's Witnesses understand the period since 1914CE until the present time to be the "last days" of a worldwide "system of things". They cite the events listed by Jesus in these passages of Scripture as having their fulfillment in the well-documented catalogue of catastrophic events, along with kingdom preaching, experienced world-wide in the period since 1914CE. Various debates on that subject are contained in a number of other threads on the forum so need no repetition here. So, for me, the current "generation" of Matt.24:34 comprises a group of people, who all at some point have shared space with anointed Christians who were so when the Messianic action taken by Jesus Christ to expell Satan and his demons from the heavens in 1914CE took place. For those anointed after 1914CE, their later arrival on the scene necessitated that their lives would OVERLAP with members of that earlier group of anointed. However, as contemporaries, they are included in the "generation" that will see all the things Jesus prophesied, including the outbreak of the "great tribulation". They are the "generation" that "will by no means pass away" in our time. It is unlikely (although theoretically still possible) that any of the first group of anointed are still on earth now. In order to be included in the second group, these individuals' lives as anointed must OVERLAP with the lives of members of the first group who witnessed 1914CE. This excludes from the "generation" any Christians receiving their anointing after the last of the first group finish their earthly course and prevents a looping of the process. I still maintain this to be a fairly simple concept, but I must say that my understanding has been considerably refined and improved by discussing on the forum. This required an expansion in the understanding amongst Jehovah's Witnesses of what comprises the "generation" Jesus spoke of, as the previous understanding was obviously inadequate.

acerbic: used to describe something that is spoken or written in a way that is direct, clever, and cruel. This definition fits what I mean to convey by the use of the word "acerbic". You have listed a range of evidence sources for anyone wishing to investigate the substantiation of this description, although some of the postings here provide sufficient evidence for me. This word carries many shades of meaning ,as I am sure you are aware, (as does the word "generation"), and I have seen some of those other characteristics displayed by many on both sides of the argument, as indeed you have pointed out has been your own experience. But in the terms of the definition above, the attacks I have seen and experienced on both chronology and other evidence strands regarding Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom in the heavens in the year we call 1914CE, closely match the description above as direct, clever, and cruel. This includes the style of commentary in the form of criticisms of the Governing Body, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Society etc. etc. which usually accompanies these attacks. "Acerbic", in that sense, sums the matter up quite well for me.

Quite right. But of course, that's where faith comes in isn't it. The evidence based kind (Heb.11:1). And doesn't that faith itself becomes an evidence of unseen realities? Can't be a coincidence that that's where the most acerbic attacks are focused?

Things don't change. Acts 16:20-21; 19:25-27 etc.

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).

Thanks

Can you post the source of your information please. Thanks.

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. 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. ???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: 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.

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."

I had a Watchtower prep group at my house right through 70s and 80s but usually no more than 10-12 including my family of 7. As I led it, I suppose it was a bit like a Family study evening now where we might invite some others to share. It was never discouraged though. 26 in the picture seems quite a large group of predominantly young ones. I suppose some might see issues around suitably qualified ones to lead such groups if they get a bit large and a bit age biased. I remember there was a (possibly early 80s?) US Bethel issue with private Bible study groups seen to be going off the rails somehow. Maybe this was connected with the "prohibition" mentioned above? @JWInsider will surely have some detail as you suggest.

The unbelievers that is..... But he did know it was coming and he did know the day....... Is this opinion or fact?

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. 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.

Where was that??

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" Any adjustment in interpreting a situation due to changed circumstance could be described thus. It is purely a subjective view. 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 am not sure what you mean by this statement. Perhaps this is something that needs a closer evaluation. 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."

It was the unbelievers who took no note of Noah wasn't it? Those who listened were expecting God to act, because He told them He would quite a few years before. Actually, Noah did know the day when the destruction would come didn't he? Keep that in mind when drawing the parallels. And keep Matt 24:43-44 in the picture too.