Matt 24:34. "by no means"

[Anna]

10 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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).  

I am listening to Br. Splane right now so I will give you my opinion later, (tomorrow) for what it's worth

[Queen Esther]

1 minute ago, Anna said:

I am listening to Br. Splane right now so I will give you my opinion later, (tomorrow) for what it's worth

Enjoy  the  Talk  with  Brother  Splane !

[Anna]

Ok, so I have finished watching Br. Splane and here is my verdict: Although expressions indicating opinion are not used during the whole of the talk, there would be nothing wrong with anyone saying that it IS an expression of opinion because words indicating fact are not used either. And as you said above, matters are never a fact unless they have already happened! HOWEVER, there is one expression of fact, and that is regarding 1914. Br. Splane  says referring to the signs (paraphrased ) ”now when did all these things begin to appear? (answer:)  In 1914".  Unfortunately , although it has already happened, the invisible part of it (Christ’s enthronement) cannot be proved, because of the fact that it was invisible. The visible part of the sign can be proved depending who you ask.  Br. Splane said (paraphrased) “The boy would understand these things were bad, (regarding 1914) but only those with spiritual discernment  would  see what this meant, that Jesus  was close at the door". Then he asks the crucial question “who were the only ones at that time who drew the right conclusion?” Well of course we know the answer to that. (although they drew that conclusion a little earlier) And then I think we can start getting in to some kind of circular mode of reasoning here....Correct me if I am wrong. Also this brings up the chronology problem again. As regards the explanation of the Generation, one is at liberty to either accept it or reject it without it raising an issue.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

the invisible part of it (Christ’s enthronement) cannot be proved, because of the fact that it was invisible.

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?

[Queen Esther]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Ok, so I have finished watching Br. Splane and here is my verdict: Although expressions indicating opinion are not used during the whole of the talk, there would be nothing wrong with anyone saying that it IS an expression of opinion because words indicating fact are not used either. And as you said above, matters are never a fact unless they have already happened! HOWEVER, there is one expression of fact, and that is regarding 1914. Br. Splane  says referring to the signs (paraphrased ) ”now when did all these things begin to appear? (answer:)  In 1914".  Unfortunately , although it has already happened, the invisible part of it (Christ’s enthronement) cannot be proved, because of the fact that it was invisible. The visible part of the sign can be proved depending who you ask.  Br. Splane said (paraphrased) “The boy would understand these things were bad, (regarding 1914) but only those with spiritual discernment  would  see what this meant, that Jesus  was close at the door". Then he asks the crucial question “who were the only ones at that time who drew the right conclusion?” Well of course we know the answer to that. (although they drew that conclusion a little earlier) And then I think we can start getting in to some kind of circular mode of reasoning here....Correct me if I am wrong. Also this brings up the chronology problem again. As regards the explanation of the Generation, one is at liberty to either accept it or reject it without it raising an issue.

Thank you  very  much, sister  Anna !

[Anna]

15 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

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?

Yes. Actually I was going to bring up the matter of faith, but then I changed my mind as I thought it was going off on another tangent. But yes, that is definitely a part of our belief where that scripture finds perfect application.

21 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Can't be a coincidence that that's where the most acerbic attacks are focused?

Curious isn't it?

[Queen Esther]

10 minutes ago, Anna said:

Yes. Actually I was going to bring up the matter of faith, but then I changed my mind as I thought it was going off on another tangent. But yes, that is definitely a part of our belief where that scripture finds perfect application.

Curious isn't it?

Many  Bible scriptures  also  difficult  to  understand,  just  curious,  yes   We've  to  learn  everlasting....

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Can't be a coincidence that that's where the most acerbic attacks are focused?

I have worked some territory in what we sometimes call the "Bible Belt" or at least places with very similar outlooks, mostly in Missouri, but also in Oklahoma, Illinois, and both Carolinas. I have never yet heard an "acerbic attack" focused on our chronology. 1914 is sometimes considered seriously even by evangelicals who have no other interest in our work. Personally, I have used the facts about the generations since 1914 as evidence that we really need God's Kingdom now more than ever, and the prayer "Let Your Kingdom Come" should become more fervent in these times when so many signs of our time point toward disaster. Human government, even when it appears well-meaning, always fails to promote the ideals of that Kingdom.

I never get a problem when I mention 1914 like this, and even those who know that we have a special doctrine about 1914 have never seemed the least bit riled by it. But if I'm put in a situation where I must mention hell-fire and torment, or Trinity, or mention that we believe that Jesus is not God, I have been chased off porches, and even had a woman scream at me: "You'll burn! You'll burn!!!" When I was a first and second grader it was the flag salute issue and neutrality issue that riled people up and created the acerbic attacks, which included rocks being thrown at me in second grade.

I say this because I have never seen "acerbic attacks" focused on the 1914 doctrine. I'm sure they exist. But if I were to go to the most popular anti-JW sites that take on this subject, jwfacts or COJ's site, I see absolutely no acerbic attacks. The most complete one I've seen is by a "jeffro77" and all of these sites are the least acerbic of all the subjects I've seen covered. Now if you were referring to the reverse direction for some reason (and I don't think you were) then I would have to agree. I've seen those attacks, even here, in the most acerbic terms one might ever expect from a Witness. I worked for a brother at Bethel who railed against COJ in very acerbic terms. A pro-1914 site called "607v587" makes the best attempt to stay fairly even-keeled, but is still peppered with little ad hominem attacks and barbs.

I take exception because it's easy (but wrong) to convince people that a good and reasonable presentation of evidence is a vicious attack. I'm not saying that you are engaging in that at all, but I've seen it said by at least one person here on this forum, and I've seen the exact same behavior on pro-Mormon and pro-Scientology sites.

[JW Insider]

On 10/23/2016 at 9:22 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

Yes. I saw that. I disagree, but didn't want to interrupt the conversation with Anna. I recall that you engaged in a similar conversation before, and I didn't want to just repeat the exact same points. I'm happy to try to set out the Biblical evidence against it along with the evidence from the "acceptable bounds of language." Don't know if I'll get to all that in this post, though.

The current explanations explain that it's important to know the meaning of both "generation" and "these things," so I wanted to comment on both of these ideas.

The general idea behind our current teaching is that "generation" can often refer to contemporaries, or it can often refer to the generation of parents, for example, as opposed to (or set in relation to) the generation of their children, or the generation of the grandparents of those children, or the grandchildren of those parents, etc., etc.

We have consistently discussed it primarily with the meaning of contemporaries, not specifically a generation of children, for example, set in relation to the generation of their parents of or their own children. We have always said that it meant basically, 'the people referred to directly, along with their living contemporaries."

This is a good definition. Whenever the context is not specifically about the "family-stage" definition of "generation," this "living contemporaries" definition works in Matthew, Exodus, and everywhere else it's found in the Bible, too. Therefore, a consistent meaning can be found, and this is usually a good thing. Context could "stretch" the meaning, but wherever context doesn't require or even imply a stretched meaning, then there is usually no reason to change it from its basic consistent meaning. If anyone insisted on a "stretched" meaning when there was no reason from context we would consider this to be a "twisting" of Scritpure. If anyone else tried to do this, or tried to convince Witnesses that some non-Witness doctrine was true by utilizing this method, we would reject it as 'not handling the word of God aright.' In fact, we have already rejected false teachings on exactly this same basis. As you said, however, we had a specific doctrine that required a certain understanding of "generation" and since the time seems to have passed for that definition to work, we must now change the understanding of the "generation." (I would submit that there is another solution, which keeps the same consistent definition of "generation" but changes the understanding of the specific doctrine that now requires this new definition of "generation.")

Another problem with the current explanation is this: In re-developing the range of meaning that could be meant by "this generation" there is a specific verse that is now used as a basis for defining the idea behind the word "generation." It is probably supposed to be seen as a verse that allows us a lot of flexibility and range in the way we can define it. If so, then the verse chosen is not a very good choice. Exodus 1:6 can and does refer to living contemporaries, but, unfortunately, we know to whom it is referring, and therefore we do not gain the flexibility and inconsistency required by the two-group overlapping generation. The contemporaries of Exodus 1:6 are tied to a specific set of children, the children of Jacob, which primarily included Joseph and all his brothers:

(Exodus 1:5) ⁵ And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. ⁶ Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.

If we back up just a couple of verses into the final verses of Genesis we find that it ends with this information.

(Genesis 50:22-26) ²² And Joseph continued to dwell in Egypt, he and the household of his father, and Joseph lived for 110 years. ²³ Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. . . .  ²⁶ And Joseph died at the age of 110, and they had him embalmed, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

Reading this entire section together from the last paragraph of Genesis into the first paragraph of Exodus, we see that Joseph was living with (contemporary with) the currently living descendants who were born to his father Jacob. (See 1 Chronicles 7) The "family-stage" definition of generation is used when referring to the sons and grandsons of Ephraim (and Manasseh). These totaled 70 living people at the time (contemporaries), who eventually died. There is no hint here, nor anywhere in any Biblical use of the word "generation" that it can refer to non-living contemporaries. If so, those born to Jacob could not have been limited to 70. It had to refer to living contemporaries at a particular point in time.

Only if the word refers to living contemporaries, could one then reasonably refer to a time when all those living contemporaries would die out. Jesus uses it the same way in Matthew when he says "this generation will not pass away until all these things occur." It makes no sense at all to speak of "this generation" if Jesus was speaking to an audience that would ALL pass away. For what reason could they 'lift their heads up because their deliverance was getting near' if ALL of the people in that audience were going to pass away?

You had made a good point when you said:

On 10/5/2016 at 5:03 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

the generation will by no means pass away in that, at the time of reference, the generation will be so evidently present that it will be ummistakeable, i.e. not a dwindling remnant.

A dwindling remnant would actually be a discouragement, a reason to put their heads down in a dejected way, because obviously their deliverance would by then have proven to be such a long way off that almost none of them survived to see what was supposed to happen. This is very inconsistent with Jesus' promise that "by no means" (emphatically) would this audience pass away. Jesus worded the same idea in a way that is even less mistakable:

(Matthew 16:28) 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”

Jesus was correct, however, that "these things" (see Mark 13, and Luke 21) refer to the things they would see that were directly related to the judgment on Jerusalem when no stone would be left upon a stone.

(Mark 13:2-4) . . .Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?”

(Luke 21:5-7) . . ., 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?”

Jesus then answered their question, by telling them they would also see things that were not part of this sign of the end.

(Luke 21:9) . . .For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately. [Can also be translated, "but the end is not soon."]

The emphasis in all the gospel accounts that there were going to be "things" that could mislead them as opposed to an actual sign or signs related to the time of the end, might indicate that "these things" of Luke 21:32 (Matt 24:34) did not include "these things" that some would only mistakenly interpret as signs signifying the time of the end.

And then he told them the answer to their question about the SIGN and when:

(Luke 21:20-32) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. . . . For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. 25 “Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations . . . 27 And then they will see the [sign of the] Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.” . . . 31 Likewise also you, when you see these things happening, know that the Kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all things happen.

In other words, the disciples asked Jesus about the end, (the parousia, the synteleia, the judgment) not a "long-term conclusion" that could last for many years. So these things are primarily the things related to the judgment on Jerusalem, and thus the time when they could now expect the Kingdom at any time (the parousia of the Kingdom). That judgment on the anti-Christian Jewish system had to be out of the way first before the final parousia could be anticipated. (In this view, much like the view of the Watchtower, the judgment on Jerusalem is a preview of the parousia on one nation, after which the way was now opened for the parousia on all nations.)

(Matthew 23:36-38) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her. . . 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you

 

 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I say this because I have never seen "acerbic attacks" focused on the 1914 doctrine

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.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

...direct, clever and cruel..."Acerbic", in that sense, sums the matter up quite well for me.

Ah! I have seen that. I went immediately for the cliché meaning when it's combined with the word attack and assumed "venomous, vitriolic, virulent, vicious" which didn't quite ring true in my experience. Even the word "attack" still didn't quite ring true, and I think I've seen more direct, clever and cruel attacks on the blood issue, supposed education policy and unfortunate prevalence of pedophilia.

But then, I decided to review Brother Splane's presentation on the issue of the overlapping generation, and instead of going to the original source, I assumed that someone would have cut it down to exactly the 10 or so relevant minutes out of the longer broadcast, so I went to Google and typed in "Splane on generation" without the quotes. I saw a couple of YouTube videos and clicked on them. One was both "direct" and "cruel" comparing it to a pile of dung. And another one was "clever" only in the sense that it seemed like the correct video, but was full of derisive laughter at the end, and YouTube itself offered a couple more options which were apparently along the same lines of those two videos at the top of the original search results.

My third attempt worked just fine, but I have no doubt now that you had more good reasons for using the term "acerbic attack" than I was aware of. Sorry to have doubted you. 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

that someone would have cut it down to exactly the 10 or so relevant minutes out of the longer broadcast,

Thankfully yes. It's under "talks"  in the broadcast website.

I had to look up the word acerbic as its not one I had ever used. Now I can add it to my vocabulary. As per usual for words it has several meanings, so out of the choice presented I picked the one most suitable in my opinion. Since 1914 is not really an emotive subject like the trinity, blood etc. but is more of a topic for ridicule, scoffing and cynicism.......apparently acerbic comes from acid, so to me that kind of fit in quite well as I have seen that from opposers as you have. Made me think of "aunty acid"...