Noble Berean

It really doesn't matter how nice they make it sound...at the end of the day this "two groups" theory is human extrapolation and it does not have clear, Biblical support. This is the same organization that doesn't use the word "cross" in its translation despite historical records of crucifixion because the Aramaic word "stauros" does not clearly mean cross. And they were correct to do that! Our Bible should be the evidence. Let's not go beyond it. And there is no clear, scriptural evidence that the generation in Matthew 24:34 is two overlapping groups.
Not once did the GB suggest that the generation could be two overlapping groups until after the first theory failed. And the idea that the generation was one group existed for nearly a century. So, is this a case where the generation "evidently" meant two groups, or is it an attempt by the GB to force a square peg in a round hole? Wouldn't it have made more sense to throw out that failed idea and reevaluate our understanding of the prophetic framework? Even if 1914 is a valid prophetic date, why take the risk when it's been interpreted wrong before? In an organization that puts such value on Bible truth, wouldn't it make sense to discontinue a theory that has proven unreliable and has even mislead JWs? The GB did the opposite. They manufactured a new definition for generation that suits their need to keep 1914 a valid date. The GB holds onto 1914/the generation dearly, because it gives people a sense of urgency and makes our organization prophetically significant. Without it, JWs may become disillusioned or not cling to the organization. There are plenty of human motives for keeping this failed theory around, but at the expense of spiritual truth.

It really doesn't matter how nice they make it sound...at the end of the day this "two groups" theory is human extrapolation and it does not have clear, Biblical support. This is the same organization that doesn't use the word "cross" in its translation despite historical records of crucifixion because the Aramaic word "stauros" does not clearly mean cross. And they were correct to do that! Our Bible should be the evidence. Let's not go beyond it. And there is no clear, scriptural evidence that the generation in Matthew 24:34 is two overlapping groups.
Not once did the GB suggest that the generation could be two overlapping groups until after the first theory failed. And the idea that the generation was one group existed for nearly a century. So, is this a case where the generation "evidently" meant two groups, or is it an attempt by the GB to force a square peg in a round hole? Wouldn't it have made more sense to throw out that failed idea and reevaluate our understanding of the prophetic framework? Even if 1914 is a valid prophetic date, why take the risk when it's been interpreted wrong before? In an organization that puts such value on Bible truth, wouldn't it make sense to discontinue a theory that has proven unreliable and has even mislead JWs? The GB did the opposite. They manufactured a new definition for generation that suits their need to keep 1914 a valid date. The GB holds onto 1914/the generation dearly, because it gives people a sense of urgency and makes our organization prophetically significant. Without it, JWs may become disillusioned or not cling to the organization. There are plenty of human motives for keeping this failed theory around, but at the expense of spiritual truth.

Thank goodness for diligent individuals online who have saved the originals...

The answer to your question is......42

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this:
(Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23:
(Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation."
But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false.
He says:
But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'"
Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory:
Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6:
But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6  that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how:
He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

Thank goodness for diligent individuals online who have saved the originals...

As printing is reduced it will become easier to rewrite all the embarrassing statements online that never materialised.

If Jehovah told us tomorrow that Armageddon has begun would you listen to the Faithful Slave? Perhaps when we keep up to this Chariot we can learn how fast we're moving! Keep focused Don't Give Up! 

Don't they want brothers and sisters to come up? They built a museum... 

The funny thing is, old publications are JWs' worst enemy! Where do they think many of the dangerous 'apostate' ideas come from?
I also wonder how long this resource and the associated youtube channel will last before a copyright infringement 'cease and desist' order from Watchtower is slapped on them. Hm, let's wait and see ...
To add: I hope it lasts - it is a useful site - especially with all that is being discontinued at the moment.

These are the most significant changes I think we've ever seen at an Annual Metting even though all of the changes have already been part of a predictable trend for the last few years.

His perfect body was offered up as a sacrifice for our sins and has brought many benefits to us now and in the future. That is what  is important.

My Beautiful Sister Rhonda LeRocque lost her life in the Las Vegas mass shooting. My heart is broken, I'm numb, I feel paralyzed. This doesn't seem real.
??????????
All I can do is turn to God's Word for comfort, just as she would want me to. May she rest now until her name is called and she is awakened in paradise. 
??????????
"Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment." John 5:28,29.
??????????

Yes! No wonder you are coughing when you see the amazing accomplishment of those eight dear men you have pictured! 
Look at the witness they have given! And all of our brothers worldwide who wrote in have a share! And, of course, our 175K brothers in Russia are the real heroes. 
Note the two pronounced and permanent spikes in web traffic to jw.org following the April 20th verdict and the July 17th appeal! You have good reason to praise these men, @James Thomas Rook Jr. I understand why you would do it. Millions of people check to see if jw.org is truly extremist as reported. Of course, they see it is not. What an amazing service they have rendered to Jehovah - almost as much as certain ones who go online and do nothing but bitch!
However, James,, you should remember that they are but men, who give all glory to Jehovah. You should not be worshiping these guys.
 

.    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jw.org
 

With some creativity, I suppose some of the so-called "Top 40" Star Wars quotes might be worked into the imagined conversation:
“In time, the suffering of your people will persuade you to see our point of view.” — Nute Gunray “I find your lack of faith disturbing.” — Darth Vader “What if I told you that the Republic was now under the control of a Dark Lord of the Sith?” — Count Dooku “I’m one with the Force. The Force is with me.” — Chirrut Îmwe “Well, if droids could think, there’d be none of us here, would there?” — Obi-Wan Kenobi

I don't think I would say this to an adult let alone a young child. Doesn't seem very tactful or appropriate. 

I don't think I would say this to an adult let alone a young child. Doesn't seem very tactful or appropriate. 

They're not being punished for doing the right thing. If the organization's policies were effective, would we be seeing repeated sexual abuse in congregations? It became a big enough issue that child welfare organizations got involved, and the org has faced multiple cases against them. How bad does this issue need to be before it's acknowledged that the policies of the organization have failed in this regard? Sometimes it's best to just to be humble and not let ego get in the way of necessary changes.
The WT organization chooses to be heavily involved in people's lives, so its bears partial responsibility for the continued presence of sexual abuse in the congregation. The organization shouldn't get brownie points for enforcing congregational purity unlike other denominations. That's a give-in if we are to believe this organization is being directed by God. And it's also a misdirection from the fact that this protective system has failed to protect many young JWs.
I think we can both agree that it's the atmosphere of this organization that has led to these legal problems. JWs are taught to rely on the organization to handle issues--the elders and overseers. So, it's no surprise that many JWs come to elders looking for direction on matters of sexual abuse before turning to anyone else. I think elders should always report abuse to police, because that's their moral duty. The hundreds of unreported claims of sexual abuse have left a stain on our organization and God's holy name.

They're not being punished for doing the right thing. If the organization's policies were effective, would we be seeing repeated sexual abuse in congregations? It became a big enough issue that child welfare organizations got involved, and the org has faced multiple cases against them. How bad does this issue need to be before it's acknowledged that the policies of the organization have failed in this regard? Sometimes it's best to just to be humble and not let ego get in the way of necessary changes.
The WT organization chooses to be heavily involved in people's lives, so its bears partial responsibility for the continued presence of sexual abuse in the congregation. The organization shouldn't get brownie points for enforcing congregational purity unlike other denominations. That's a give-in if we are to believe this organization is being directed by God. And it's also a misdirection from the fact that this protective system has failed to protect many young JWs.
I think we can both agree that it's the atmosphere of this organization that has led to these legal problems. JWs are taught to rely on the organization to handle issues--the elders and overseers. So, it's no surprise that many JWs come to elders looking for direction on matters of sexual abuse before turning to anyone else. I think elders should always report abuse to police, because that's their moral duty. The hundreds of unreported claims of sexual abuse have left a stain on our organization and God's holy name.

Although completely off topic on this thread I just thought I would mention this: This has already changed. Victims are no longer  required to “testify” in front of JC elders, and sisters may be able to assist the elders in establishing facts etc. (however sisters will never be able to take part in a JC committee because of its “official” nature).
View the 2017 Child Safeguarding policy HERE
This particular one is for the UK and Ireland, it will be the same all over the world.

Charles Taze Russell (February 16, 1852 – October 31, 1916), or Pastor Russell, was a prominent early 20th century Christian restorationist minister from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, and founder of what is now known as the Bible Student movement, Jehovah's Witnesses are known. 
?????
Learn why he said that!
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1204083

There are some who, if they came to my door merely as themselves, I would run in terror.

Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween is because
they don't like people coming to their door unsolicited?

Reasons Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Do Not Celebrate Halloween -
?? ? ??
Long but educational -
?????
Some might argue that the origin of Halloween celebrations is of little consequence despite the fact that these celebrations are undeniably pagan in origin. 
But how should Christians view Halloween if they truly wish to worship and please God as best they can? Would even limited participation in the celebration meet with God's disapproval? The following will assist in determining the answers to these questions. 
Halloween's Pagan Origin "Its name means hallowed or holy evening." - The World Book Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 8, pp. 3245-6. 
To really understand this "holy evening" you must realize that Halloween, as we know it today, has grown from several different sources. The main source has been traced back to religious ceremonies of the ancient Babylonians. - The New Golden Bough, Sir James Frazer, edited by Dr. T. H. Gaster, p. 468, Mentor Book, 1964; and Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend, 1949, p. 38. - 
From Babylon, this pagan religious celebration spread throughout much of the world. The Druids of ancient Britain also borrowed this Babylonian festival and celebrated it to honor Samhain, Lord of the Dead, whose festival fell on November 1. - Halloween Through the Centuries, Linton, p. 4. They believed this pagan god called together "certain wicked souls on Halloween" - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 11, p. 103. PopoutIn honoring this pagan god, his supplicators hoped to be protected from these "wicked souls." 
Therefore, many of the things done in celebrating this "holy evening" are in honor of the false gods of the Druids. For example, "When you light a candle inside the jeering pumpkin face, you are in a small way imitating the Celtic Druids" who lit "great bonfires on hilltops to honor the sun god" and thereby help keep away winter and the evil spirits. - The Book ofHolidays, McSpadden, 1958 ed., pp. 149-153; and All About American Holidays, Krythe, 1962, pp. 214-215. Since the "Mother" Church (which was established in Rome about 200 years after the death of the last Apostle) embarked on a course of adopting and adapting pagan religious ceremonies into the Church, it is not surprising that elements of ancient Roman false worship were also added to the "Holy Evening"celebration. 
For example, "when you duck for apples ... you are doing as the Romans did - - honoring Pomona, the Roman goddess of orchards." - The Book of Holidays, pp. 149-153 andCollier's Encyclopedia, 1975, Vol. 2, p. 192.
Although Halloween poses as a Christian holiday, it is exposed as a pagan feast. One dictionary describes "pagan" as: "One of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion." "Polytheistic" means "the worship of or belief in more than one god." True Christians should consider these things as serious because God views these things very seriously. (Lev. 19:2) God Himself said: "You must not have any other gods against my face. Because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (Ex. 20:1-5) NWT
Yet some may wonder what harm could possibly come from letting children attend a costume party or simply participate in a superficial way. Yes, it is not Scripturally wrong for children to have a costume party or play games such as bobbing for apples. However, doing so as a part of Halloween would be celebrating that pagan religious feast. This would be compromising Christian principles. The Biblecondemns the whole idea of putting a Christian mask on a pagan practice.
If pagan ceremonies, customs, god names, etc. are really mixed in with ceremonies, customs, etc. that we use today, they are not merely unacceptable - - - they are detestable to God. We must completely get away from these unclean things and not even "touch" them. (2 Cor. 6:17) Notice how exclusive the worship of God must be: "Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." - Exodus 23:13, NIVSB. Also see: What Does the Bible Really Teach? - Take Your Stand for True Worship from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS).
Halloween and Witchcraft
The real religion celebrated by the "Holy Evening" of Halloween is still a living religion. What is sometimes called "witchcraft" has had its ups and downs but is still practiced as a religion in nearly every country of the world.
"It began in the shadowy darkness of man's early religion. It lived and flourished through the ages and it is by no means wiped out even yet. Witchcraft in the Middle Ages was the `art' of controlling natural forces by power obtained from the Devil. Witches were people who made agreements with the Evil One." -Britannica Jr., 1957 ed., Vol. 15, pp. 131-132.
Whether deluded or not, these "witches" were (and are) making a public declaration: a demonstration of their faith and a defiance of the God of the Bible. They continued to practice their religion (in many different, varying sects) in spite of great persecution. This religion of the Middle Ages actually grew out of the earlier pagan Druid religion.
"These rites did not die .... When a monk or knight swore that in a clearing of the woods he had seen witches dancing around the devil, he did not lie. What he saw was ... people worshiping with a priest of the heathen religion. The prayer meetings of the witches were called witches'Sabbaths. .... Two nights especially were set aside - October 31, called Halloween and the eve of May Day, called Walpurgis." - Britannica Jr., pp. 131-132.
"Though the Church was able to destroy the temples and outward forms of worship of these heathen religions, it could not completely eradicate the faith and beliefs of their priests and worshipers. These found an outlet during the Middle Ages in witchcraft which was devoted to the worship ofSatan. This cult included periodic meetings, known as witches' sabbaths, which were given over to feasting and revelry. One of the most important sabbaths was held on Halloween." - Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, Vol. 11, pp. 106-107.
"The witches' sabbat [sabbath], or Black Mass, was a mockery of the religious one. It began with the assembly of the witches' covens, always at night, in forests, open fields, at crossroads, and even secretly in churches.... The name `sabbats' for these meetings is believed to have come from the Old HebrewSabbath - the seventh day." - A Cauldron of Witches, Alderman, 1973, p. 9.
The Bible warns against the practice of spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The apostle Paul wrote: “I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22, New International Version) He also asked: “What common interest can there be between goodness and evil? How can light and darkness share life together? How can there be harmony between Christ and the devil? What can a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:14-16, Phillips)
While it is true that the vast majority of those who celebrate Halloween would claim to reject Satanic practices, we should, nevertheless, be aware that historically this holiday has close connections with the occult. Therefore, celebrating Halloween can serve as a door leading to spiritism, especially for impressionable youths. Pagan rites and traditions tainted by spiritism simply have no place in Christian worship; they are far from harmless. (Also see: Dabbling in the Occult—What's the Harm? and What You Should Know About Witchcraft from the WBTS.)
Halloween - Based on Unscriptural Beliefs
Finally, Halloween, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day are all based on the beliefs that the dead suffer or that they can somehow bring harm to the living. However, the Bible clearly shows that such beliefs are not true, saying: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for thedead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) 
For that reason, the Bible counsels: “All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [the common grave of mankind], the place to which you are going.” (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Since the dead are unconscious and thus incapable of harming others or suffering themselves, we have nothing to fear from them. 
At the same time, prayers to help them are of no use whatsoever. But this does not mean that there is no hope for our dead loved ones because the Bible assures us that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) (Also see: The Bible's Viewpoint - What Happens at Death? from the WBTS.)
Should You Celebrate Halloween?
Clearly, God would not approve of any ceremonies or customs that have any pagan associations. The Bible also warns us about the practice of spiritism - of which Halloween historically has close connections with. And finally, Halloween is based on beliefs that run completely contrary to what the Bible teaches. 
So when it comes to celebrating Halloween - especially after considering what you have just read - what will you decide? - 
Contributed

How many generations?