Matthew 24:34 "this generation"

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Since when did "baptism dates" have

ANYTHING to do with how long a generation is?

[Anna]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Since when did "baptism dates" have

ANYTHING to do with how long a generation is?

It has everything to do with it since we are talking about the generation that was anointed before 1914. (Jesus talking about the signs of the last days which began in 1914 and THAT generation not passing away). Therefor the person would have to have been baptised before 1914. So it's that generation.  .

Which is where we encounter the problem because THAT generation is all but dead now and it does not apply to M. Sanderson, since he was baptised and became one of the anointed well after 1914 BUT, and this is the whole point of the overlapping generation, his life OVERLAPPED (between approx 1977 when Sanderson was baptised and 1992 when Franz died) with the life of one of the anointed who was baptised before 1914 (Franz).

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

32 minutes ago, Anna said:

Which is where we encounter the problem because THAT generation is all but dead

I see from the double circle  sketch that the generation begins about 1880?

May I suggest that it is JUST AS REASONABLE to say that a generation can be 3,000 years if you take the square of the last three numbers of your car license plate, and add it to 1880, and round it back arbitrarily to AD 4180, in anticipation of the formation of the First Galactic Empire.

I apologize for not having a graphic of MY reasonable theory, but the cat was sick.

And although the "overlapping generations" idea was never in the Bible ... never ... ever ... there were perhaps other things that equally were COMPLETELY left out .....

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I ask myself, in all honesty, can those two groups (circles) really be called ONE generation?

The answer to your question here is "Yes, of course they can, and they have." This is why the whole debate has been generated.

So really it is quite a simple matter. It is not about understanding the concept. You have ably demonstrated that by your diagram. Others have explained clearly too in the many postings here. It is not about the fact that the term generation has a number of meanings attached. This has been demonstrated here scripturally, and any quick internet search will reveal many ways in which meaning has been attached to the word in a variety of secular contexts.

So what is the problem? It is that the GB has defined the word "generation" by attaching to it a concept which I have not found elsewhere yet.

The concept as I understand it is as follows:

• A time span is delineated by events, and, by that delineation, exceeds the life expectation of any single  human alive at the time.
• It is then held that there are two groups of humans, one experiencing the initiating event, the other experiencing the terminating event.

Further qualifiers are that:

• BOTH groups consist of baptised, anointed Christians.
• Additionally, their lives must overlap whilst in that state.
• Finally, they must be in that state when experiencing either of the initiating or terminating events. 

So. What is the crux of this matter? It is not a matter of understanding. It is quite simply that the GB's definition of the word "generation" and the concept they have attached to it is not accepted by all people.

There appear to be 2 basics reasons stated here and they are and/or reasons:

1. To define the word generation in this manner is unacceptable and does not concur with any accepted definition in general usage.

2. This definition is not found in a Scriptural context, and was not what Jesus had in mind when using this term.

However, it is clear that there are others to whom the definition and concept is both understandable and acceptable, and, more importantly, Scripturally harmonious.

It seems that the final arbiter will be the passage of time and events as is often the case with matters of Bible prophecy.

[Anna]

32 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is not a matter of understanding. It is quite simply that the GB's definition of the word "generation" and the concept they have attached to it is not accepted by all people

Yes. Thank you for putting it succinctly into a nutshell. 

 

35 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Scripturally harmonious.

But how can that be?

36 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

It seems that the final arbiter will be the passage of time and events as is often the case with matters of Bible prophecy.

Indeed. And that's what I'm relying on.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

If for the purposes of political correctness, being generally "agreeable", and not wanting to be labeled an apostate, you bend your mind into a pretzel and enter a cow into the Kentucky Derby ... no good will come of it.

You will NOT win ... and your life will have been wasted on fantasies.

... and, it ruins the milk.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I see from the double circle  sketch that the generation begins about 1880?

I included Br. Russell and a random date of when he founded the WT society, by that time I assume he was anointed. We can just as easily leave him out as it does not change the 1914 generation.

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

if you take the square of the last three numbers of your car license plate, and add it to 1880, and round it back arbitrarily to AD 4180, in anticipation of the formation of the First Galactic Empire.

Just drop your formula in the suggestion box at Bethel

[Anna]

A thought has just occurred to me. Was Br. Russell ever baptised?

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

A thought has just occurred to me. Was Br. Russell ever baptised?

Various histories seem to indicate so. Not sure what detail there is in the WT yet but the consensus appears to be that:

"Because of their intensive study of the Bible, the Russell family (Charles, Margaret, and Joseph) concluded that they had finally gained a new and clearer understanding of what a Christian is called to do in laying down their earthly life in sacrifice and service to God. All three renewed their consecration (vow of dedication) and decided to be re-baptized in 1874."

[Srecko Sostar]

On 9/28/2017 at 18:58, Gone Fishing said:

alternative suggestions.

Hi, as i see you have good intention. But in JW org there is/are no alternative nor suggestions. Only "obey" WT. :)  

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Anna said:

But how can that be?

I know you have a question on this, but for some, the comparison with Ex.1:6 is quite sufficient to satisfy the possibilty of the "generation" extending to two groups. The use of the word generation there is quite applicable to all of "Israel" that spent time in Egypt while Joseph was still alive, including his father. But there are some who may restrict the generation mentioned there there to just Joseph's brothers.

So, for some, the definition harmonises with Scripture, for some, it does not. This is what I said.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

To some people Rap "Music" is harmonious.

I like bagpipe music, but many people think someone is squeezing a cat to death.

IN CONTEXT of the people living at the time ... a grandmother ... a mother ... and her daughter .... were THREE generations.

YES THEY DO OVERLAP ... but they are still ... still ... THREE generations ... not ONE generation.

This has historically ALWAYS been the case ... it is the case now, and always will be the case, all over the world, and in every ... EVERY ... culture.

... except OURS ... here and now ... and ONLY because false prophesy needs to be "explained away" so the money does not stop rolling in.