Evacuated

OK.
As was already pointed out, we have always known that a generation can include overlapping contemporaries, but these contemporaries belong to another generation. The Watchtower has said that "three or even four generations" may overlap at the same time. So the overlapping explanation is not about how to define a single "generation that will not pass away." My own issue with the current explanation has more to do with the disrespect it shows to Jesus, in trying to twist up the meaning of language so much that we have inadvertently tried to present him as some kind of trickster.
*** w52 9/1 pp. 542-543 Questions From Readers ***
Your publications point out that the battle of Armageddon will come in this generation, and that this generation began A.D. 1914. Scripturally, how long is a generation?—G. P., Liberia.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary gives, in part, this definition of generation: “The average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child; an age. A generation is usually taken to be about 33 years.” But the Bible is not so specific. It gives no number of years for a generation. And in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, the texts mentioning the generation the question refers to, we are not to take generation as meaning the average time for one generation to be succeeded by the next, as Webster’s does in its 33-year approximation; but rather more like Webster’s first-quoted definition, “the average lifetime of man.” Three or even four generations may be living at the same time, their lives overlapping. (Ps. 78:4; 145:4) Before the Noachian flood the life span was hundreds of years. Down through the centuries since, it has varied, and even now is different in different countries. The Bible does speak of a man’s days as being threescore and ten or fourscore years; but it assigns no specific number of years to a generation.—Ps. 90:10.
Even if it did, we could not calculate from such a figure the date of Armageddon, for the texts here under discussion do not say God’s battle comes right at the end of this generation, but before its end. To try to say how many years before its end would be speculative. The texts merely set a limit that is sufficiently definite for all present practical purposes. Some persons living A.D. 1914 when the series of foretold events began will also be living when the series ends with Armageddon. All the events will come within the span of a generation. There are hundreds of millions of persons living now that were living in 1914, and many millions of these persons could yet live a score or more years. Just when the lives of the majority of them will be cut short by Armageddon we cannot say.
 
 

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
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!!

Hi Anna,
I appreciate this question. Predation actually contributes to ecosystem stability, playing a critical role. Viewed this way, predation then contributes to the overall "peace among animals."
See for instance this article by Dr. Fazale Rana, an old-earth creationist biochemist:
Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown
http://www.reasons.org/articles/animal-death-prevents-ecological-meltdown

Interesting article and very carefully reasoned through. However, I couldn't commmit to his conclusions any more than agreeing that he raised some interesting possibilities.
The author quotes Ewin Monsma: 'Reformed scholars have generally been of the opinion that the Bible gives no evidence of death among animals before the fall.’ He does not seem to refute this idea, so appears to share it.  I believe there is controversy on this matter amongst those who call themselves (or are called) "creationists", but was surprised recently to find that some Jehovah's Witnesses also adhere to the view that animals only die as a consequence (somehow) of the rebellion in Eden, and that this will not always be the case. (There seemed to be an element of pet bereavement in this).
I haven't met any (yet) who extend the resurrection hope to animals that have died however. Interestingly, this does appear to be a Mormon belief:  "The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be recreated, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” Joseph Fielding Smith. Conference Report, October 1928, p. 100. The mind boggles on the logistics of this!
There is an obvious difference of opinion between Jehovah's Witnesses on animal diet and behaviour, both historic and future as shown in the discussion here. It is pretty clear that a literal interpretation of popularly referenced scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, Mic.2:4 is encouraged both in the text and illustrations in Watchtower publications, and there is no denying the appeal of this view. However, the view is open to considerable extrapolation and it is this I think that polarises opinion.
Early on in my theocratic education, it was clearly pointed out to me that paradise promises in the Hebrew Scriptures relating to Israelite restoration should not be interpreted out of their historic context. For example, they should not be used as an authority for concluding that lions will begin roaming the entire earth so that each child can have a lion as a pet. Nor should we think that, regardless of climate conditions, grapes and figs wiIl flourish everywhere. However, they do provide a basis for believing that peaceful and paradisaic conditions will prevail amongst the entire creation here on earth, under Jehovah's Kingdom rule. The relative peace between members of the true Christian congregation as "animalistic" behaviour is replaced by the "fruitage of the spirit" can be seen as a token of what is to come.
This allows for a wide variety in the personal visions individuals may cherish on what conditions will prevail in the paradise earth to come, but in no way allows for an imposition of such views on others where there is no clear Scriptural basis. By the same token, the relatively harmless views of others should be respected, regardless of any perceived naivety on the part of those who feel their more educated perceptions deserve higher credence.
A couple of Scriptural principles that moderate my grip on personal views that can only be termed as benign speculation regarding  the exact detail and logistics of many aspects of life in the coming paradise earth are contained in these texts:
"For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit." Rom.14:17
"But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 1Cor.2:9

 

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

He needn't worry. I nudged him over the edge.
If someone would pay for advertising tattoos, I would get several. It is an area in which I would be able to beat out the kids, since older people tend to aggregate more space over time.

@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.
 

Maybe my earlier answer wasn't clearly stated.
No. He does not.
If anyone wants to explore the matter further and to get some guidance on how appropriate the modern (secular) fashion for tattoos would be for Christians then try:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-say-about-tattoos/
 https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/teenagers/ask/should-i-get-a-tattoo/

Interesting article and very carefully reasoned through. However, I couldn't commmit to his conclusions any more than agreeing that he raised some interesting possibilities.
The author quotes Ewin Monsma: 'Reformed scholars have generally been of the opinion that the Bible gives no evidence of death among animals before the fall.’ He does not seem to refute this idea, so appears to share it.  I believe there is controversy on this matter amongst those who call themselves (or are called) "creationists", but was surprised recently to find that some Jehovah's Witnesses also adhere to the view that animals only die as a consequence (somehow) of the rebellion in Eden, and that this will not always be the case. (There seemed to be an element of pet bereavement in this).
I haven't met any (yet) who extend the resurrection hope to animals that have died however. Interestingly, this does appear to be a Mormon belief:  "The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be recreated, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” Joseph Fielding Smith. Conference Report, October 1928, p. 100. The mind boggles on the logistics of this!
There is an obvious difference of opinion between Jehovah's Witnesses on animal diet and behaviour, both historic and future as shown in the discussion here. It is pretty clear that a literal interpretation of popularly referenced scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, Mic.2:4 is encouraged both in the text and illustrations in Watchtower publications, and there is no denying the appeal of this view. However, the view is open to considerable extrapolation and it is this I think that polarises opinion.
Early on in my theocratic education, it was clearly pointed out to me that paradise promises in the Hebrew Scriptures relating to Israelite restoration should not be interpreted out of their historic context. For example, they should not be used as an authority for concluding that lions will begin roaming the entire earth so that each child can have a lion as a pet. Nor should we think that, regardless of climate conditions, grapes and figs wiIl flourish everywhere. However, they do provide a basis for believing that peaceful and paradisaic conditions will prevail amongst the entire creation here on earth, under Jehovah's Kingdom rule. The relative peace between members of the true Christian congregation as "animalistic" behaviour is replaced by the "fruitage of the spirit" can be seen as a token of what is to come.
This allows for a wide variety in the personal visions individuals may cherish on what conditions will prevail in the paradise earth to come, but in no way allows for an imposition of such views on others where there is no clear Scriptural basis. By the same token, the relatively harmless views of others should be respected, regardless of any perceived naivety on the part of those who feel their more educated perceptions deserve higher credence.
A couple of Scriptural principles that moderate my grip on personal views that can only be termed as benign speculation regarding  the exact detail and logistics of many aspects of life in the coming paradise earth are contained in these texts:
"For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit." Rom.14:17
"But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 1Cor.2:9

 

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
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!!

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
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!!

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!  
 

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
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.
 

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
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.
 

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.  

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!  
 

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.  

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!  
 

Maybe my earlier answer wasn't clearly stated.
No. He does not.
If anyone wants to explore the matter further and to get some guidance on how appropriate the modern (secular) fashion for tattoos would be for Christians then try:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-say-about-tattoos/
 https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/family/teenagers/ask/should-i-get-a-tattoo/

Interesting article and very carefully reasoned through. However, I couldn't commmit to his conclusions any more than agreeing that he raised some interesting possibilities.
The author quotes Ewin Monsma: 'Reformed scholars have generally been of the opinion that the Bible gives no evidence of death among animals before the fall.’ He does not seem to refute this idea, so appears to share it.  I believe there is controversy on this matter amongst those who call themselves (or are called) "creationists", but was surprised recently to find that some Jehovah's Witnesses also adhere to the view that animals only die as a consequence (somehow) of the rebellion in Eden, and that this will not always be the case. (There seemed to be an element of pet bereavement in this).
I haven't met any (yet) who extend the resurrection hope to animals that have died however. Interestingly, this does appear to be a Mormon belief:  "The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be recreated, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” Joseph Fielding Smith. Conference Report, October 1928, p. 100. The mind boggles on the logistics of this!
There is an obvious difference of opinion between Jehovah's Witnesses on animal diet and behaviour, both historic and future as shown in the discussion here. It is pretty clear that a literal interpretation of popularly referenced scriptures such as Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, Mic.2:4 is encouraged both in the text and illustrations in Watchtower publications, and there is no denying the appeal of this view. However, the view is open to considerable extrapolation and it is this I think that polarises opinion.
Early on in my theocratic education, it was clearly pointed out to me that paradise promises in the Hebrew Scriptures relating to Israelite restoration should not be interpreted out of their historic context. For example, they should not be used as an authority for concluding that lions will begin roaming the entire earth so that each child can have a lion as a pet. Nor should we think that, regardless of climate conditions, grapes and figs wiIl flourish everywhere. However, they do provide a basis for believing that peaceful and paradisaic conditions will prevail amongst the entire creation here on earth, under Jehovah's Kingdom rule. The relative peace between members of the true Christian congregation as "animalistic" behaviour is replaced by the "fruitage of the spirit" can be seen as a token of what is to come.
This allows for a wide variety in the personal visions individuals may cherish on what conditions will prevail in the paradise earth to come, but in no way allows for an imposition of such views on others where there is no clear Scriptural basis. By the same token, the relatively harmless views of others should be respected, regardless of any perceived naivety on the part of those who feel their more educated perceptions deserve higher credence.
A couple of Scriptural principles that moderate my grip on personal views that can only be termed as benign speculation regarding  the exact detail and logistics of many aspects of life in the coming paradise earth are contained in these texts:
"For the Kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit." Rom.14:17
"But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 1Cor.2:9

 

Quite true. What I had in mind was more regarding speculation based on scripture rather than it's direct statements.

@Eoin Joyce     Nice discussion. Had those two texts in mind when I was writing but decided to leave them out.  It is just a discussion.  We all have preferred viewpoints and the scriptures support some of them, but we will all learn in the future.
Love this part of your comment:
"This allows for a wide variety in the personal visions individuals may cherish on what conditions will prevail in the paradise earth to come, but in no way allows for an imposition of such views on others where there is no clear Scriptural basis. By the same token, the relatively harmless views of others should be respected, regardless of any perceived naivety on the part of those who feel their more educated perceptions deserve higher credence. "
I did not commit to everything the author said  but I do believe that animals as well as man can exist happily without having to kill and eat meat. Jehovah has limitless wisdom and there are other ways to keep down animal and insect population besides predation. 
Lots of things the Bible says are perceived as naïve, even the fact that the system will have an end.
However, Jehovah's way will prevail when the time comes.
 

Just came across this on the Internet.  What I wrote above are my own conclusions, but I wanted to see if anyone else had this view.
Author who believes  what the Bible says about God’s original purpose for animals and man with relation to diet.  See link
 
https://answersingenesis.org/animal-behavior/what-animals-eat/creations-original-diet-and-the-changes-at-the-fall/