Evacuated

1 minute ago, PeterR said:

Do I need to explain that too?

Well, if you need to ask that question there is a presumption of possible obscurity ..so  I think ...yes.  Plain speech please. 

14 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I thought that all witnesses learn and believe the same thing and that this is a defining factor to prove that the wt is the truth? So you are saying that there IS division among jw's? 

Argument is not your forte @Shiwii. Try and speak straight. You might have more success.

13 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

division among jw's? 

Don't be soft. Diversity is not division.

8 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

The collective JW's

About 4 people?

16 minutes ago, PeterR said:

begging the question

If you are going to use logical fallacy jargon, please explain what you mean, otherwise I will find you incoherent, and your argument equally.... fallacious.  Please.

6 minutes ago, PeterR said:

a word study of the Greek word "genea"

Great. Can you recommend something?

7 minutes ago, PeterR said:

There is nothing incorrect about the quote itself,

Good to hear. It appears consistent with the way the word is used in English generaly as well.

4 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I actually think I do

Good.

4 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

the collective group

Who on earth is this?

2 minutes ago, PeterR said:

quite clearly there are some one this forum who would enthusiastically take part in some form of physical burning stoning of the witches apostates if they felt it were sanctioned.

No need  to emphasise this, I certainly have felt the level of malice some appear to have.

3 minutes ago, PeterR said:

I have seen the effect of forced teachings that cause people to doubt. It threatens their personal faith, and it threatens their relationships with friends and family (social structure), and it threatens their sanity.

How are you privy to such insight as this? Where on earth do these dark things you are alluding to take place?

Was this the 1st Century?

1 Cor.5:11: "stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man"

2John 10-11:"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

45 minutes ago, PeterR said:

And if you were a good Catholic who didn't understand how the doctrine of torment in hell could be real, you might be on the receiving end of the same scriptures.

Excuse me interjecting here, but I am sure that Catholics not understanding or agreeing with how the doctrine of torment in hell could be real might have been provided with persuasion of a little more physical nature than the application of scriptures.....  

17 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I have yet to see an explanation from the group here that is collectively the same and conveys the meaning of "generation" as per the wt/gb.

Seems to indicate you understand the meaning of "generation" as per the wt/gb.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

judge them all

No, wrongly anticipated. We have no basis for judgement is my point, faithful once, or otherwise. All we can see is their desertion, regardless of their justification.

It may well be that erroneous views were promoted at the time, which we can pronounce as so now very well, in hindsight.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Do you think that all true anointed Christians would be expected to merely put up with these attitudes and false doctrines and false prophecies?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do....and many, if not all, did! There was enough truth adhered, to even in those days, for any so minded as Peter to conclude: "“Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life." John 6:68.

But........connect me back up with the theme????? 

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree

Good.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

hard to explain

I don't think it is?

James. I would love to share your simple view.

39 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

when a man and a woman have sex, and create a baby ... THAT IS THE NEW GENERATION.

I agree with this, but you cannot be serious when you say that "THE AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF ONE BEING GENERATED." is what Jesus meant in his prophecy. This word "generation" has more than one meaning which has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

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."

That definition allows for more than "the average lifespan of one being generated" in that it does not focus on a chronologoical aspect of the word's meaning, but on an associative or qualitative aspect. That of course allows for more than one generation, by your definition, to be included in the same grouping.  Do you think that is wrong? 

4 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I'm thinking out loud a bit

Good illustration re. the schoolchildren 

It's such a simple concept, it only gets complicated by people trying to explain who ISN'T part the generation! 

Something goes rather subtly off track in all these "generation" discussions for me. It really makes absolutely no difference to the reality of the situation whatever any of us think about the way the final "generation" before Armageddon is structured.

The basic idea of two groups of people, whose lives overlap, spanning a period of time delineated by the year 1914CE and the (yet unknown) outbreak of the "great tribulation", is so elementary that it does not require even a child's chalkboard to explain.

There are illogical dissections going one. For example:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

most of them left the Watch Tower organization,

 Who are "them"? How do we know that those disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then were actually anointed at all? Maybe only those proving loyal in the face of trials were genuine in the first place.

How about:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower in the 1940's admits very explicitly that they did NOT discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. None of them did.

We have discussed this before, but to me, if something is said to be discerned as starting in 1874CE, still continuing in 1943CE, then regardless of revising the start date due to erroneous chronology or doctrine, if that start date includes the year 1914CE in its span, then the event is discerned in 1914CE regardless of any error in interpretation of detail.

Really, the only way we are going to know if our current view of an overlapping group of people, connected by their shared experience and destiny, are indeed the "generation" Jesus was referring to, is to be there when the "great tribulation" starts, and by Jehovah's underserved kindness, to be there when the final post Armageddon dust settles. Isn't that the important element of this?

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The difference on little "s" can make is important. Note that in Spanish "esposa" means wife, but "esposas" means handcuffs.

True, but irrelevant to the generation discussion. We all know that the generation of 1914, consists of a number of generations any way you care to slice and dice those living in these "last days".

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

To explain what I mean, I will first wait and see if the Librarian, or some moderator, wants to first put this topic in a proper category.

Very good point actually, but such an irresistable discussion!. Anyway, I'm out of here until discipline is restored. No disrespect to @JWInsider. Apologies to @Librarian. 

Just now, JW Insider said:

It says it's none of our concern

Now (with respect) don't you overstep either. This refers to " the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".

There's absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in these times and seasons, as long as we try to avoid (with difficulty on occasion) the snare of second guessing Jehovahs timetable.

And we can also be very interested in those "times and seasons that the Father has not placed in, or has released from, "his own jurisdiction". (There is ample evidence of this in the Hebrew Scriptures).

And a healthy interest in such matters is encouraged by Jesus in his admonitions to "keep on the watch", and illustrations in connection with "slaves" and "virgins", regardless of not knowing the day or hour.

Also by Peter at 1Pet.1:10-11: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search.  They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.."
and 2Pet.3:12 "........await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah......."

And indeed the apostle Paul: Romans 13:17 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers." 1Cor.7:29 "...the time left is reduced..." 

And with regard to an appropriate level of interest, the 2008 Watchtower quoted earlier demonstrates this adequately for me in that it states: "Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

David Splane 'splained it, on video somewhere, with a chart.

Still banging on about the "generation" here are we? Well, nothing wrong with that (Acts 1:6), as long as we don't fall out over it.

Interesting quote in 2008 WT 15 Feb:

"The word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event. For example, Exodus 1:6 tells us: “Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.” Joseph and his brothers varied in age, but they shared a common experience during the same time period. Included in “that generation” were some of Joseph’s brothers who were born before him. Some of these outlived Joseph. (Gen. 50:24) Others of “that generation,” such as Benjamin, were born after Joseph was born and may have lived on after he died.
  So when the term “generation” is used with reference to people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated except that it does have an end and would not be excessively long. Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”—2 Tim. 3:1; Matt. 24:36."

Is that difficult to grasp? Is there something wrong with me because I think I understand what this says?

And it considerably precedes JW Broadcasting and Brother Splane's discussion in (I think) 2015.

 I find it infinitly easier to understand compared to this attempt : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlapping_generations_model

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

lol, superstitious much?

Not so much, just there's a few sensitive ones round here 

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The Watchtower "discourages" the use of tattoos, as it is left to one's own conscience and decision.

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

This is from, a fool that just quoted me, being the first to start insulting. You're a silly fool! mate,

I'll overlook the offensive bluster. I know you are capable of an entirely rational response (as in the first quote) when you are in a better frame of mind.

You should try and get a handle on what stresses you out so much 'though. It can't be healthy! Are you holding a grudge or something??

Anyway, take it easy mate!  

PS. Could you like my comment please. I've just noticed my reputation figure stands at 666 and I don't like liking my own posts!!

@AllenSmith. Sorry, can't quote you. It's just too lengthy to dissect!

You are rattled, and, as you loose your command of language when that happens, I just do not really follow the syntax of your 90 word sentence. Take a step back and chill out, mate, and maybe some sense, which you are quite capable, of will ensue. 

Meanwhile, stop mixing the media with the message. An idol can be portrayed in any media but this does not taint the media itself necessarily, although the media itself can be idolised. 

And just keep your insulting rhetoric to either yourself, or those who want to lock horns with you on obscurity. I much prefer it when you reason clearly, which you do on occasion. 

If you are prepared to engage sensibly I will respond. Otherwise, don't waste your breath and bandwidth.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Get it on!!

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You are very close to the correct answer .. the question is NOT "what" ..... but "WHY?"

As already stated, the only answer to your question Why....does Jehovah God forbid tattoos? is : Jehovah God does not forbid tattoos.  

The question could have been asked: 

"Why did Jehovah forbid the Jewish nation to tattoo themslves?" Or "Does Jehovah God forbid Christians to have tattoos? If Yes, Why?"

Different, more informative answers may then have ensued.

Another variation could have been Why....doesn't Jehovah God forbid tattoos? To which a JTR type response such as "Because He couldn't care less about tattoos" might have been suggested. 

As it is, those questions were not asked, and as the question that was asked is basically invalid, the answer given.....remains as: Jehovah God does not forbid tattoos.  

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You presume to speak for GOD when he will judge those for the same presumption. A conscience matter that should be considered with a great deal of moral thought. Mate!

Now, now me old china! You're getting a bit hoighty-toighty yourself here.

For those unable to follow the links to jw.org, what these posts include (my bold) follows:

"The Bible mentions tattoos just once, at Leviticus 19:28, which says: “You must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves.” God gave this command to the nation of Israel, thus setting them apart from the neighboring peoples who marked their skin with the names or symbols of their gods. (Deuteronomy 14:2) While the Law given to Israel is not binding on Christians, the principle underpinning this law is worth serious consideration."

and:

"What questions should I ask?

• "What are the health risks?
• How would it affect your reputation?
• Will you always like it? 

What Bible principles apply?

• Colossians 3:20
• 1 Peter 3:3, 4
• 1 Timothy 2:9
• Romans 12:1

In view of these factors, many people have decided against getting a tattoo."

So, before you start firing off insulting accusations about who is presuming to speak for GOD, please notice that there is no prohibition on tattoos binding on a Christian. However, there are several thought provoking questions and some well chosen scripture texts to enable those who value their Christian freedom to make a well-considered, personal, and conscientious (moral) choice in this matter.

Cheers mate!