JW Insider

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Please show the relevance! to the thread. If you are going to "delete" my post administrator, at least be equal since I disagree with JWinsiders implication of ALL true Witnesses have a problem with any topic here.

I worded that a bit too strongly. Sorry about that. It is still my opinion that ALL of us have a problem explaining it reasonably to others. I have never seen it explained reasonably yet, but again, this is my opinion. Others will probably find Brother Splane's presentation reasonable, and the explanation in the publications reasonable and, therefore,would also find Eoin's explanation reasonable.

I don't mean that it's unreasonable in the sense that there is absolutely no reason for it. I had already said that I don't have any problem understanding why we say it. The reason is pretty clear and the reason even accompanies the explanations in the publications and broadcasts. I'm just not convinced that it's a good reason.

For a while there I was actually adding phrases to a lot of my posts that I was expressing an opinion, and that even when quoting others, or quoting easily verifiable facts, that it's still my opinion that the specific support I quote is relevant. Since a lot of people use opinions to express ideas around here without qualifying opinions as opinions, it seemed unnecessarily pretentious. 

I've had my posts moved before too. They were not deleted, just put under a different topic heading. Posts should never be moved or deleted just because you or someone else disagrees with their implication. If that happened the ability to discuss anything would suffer.

If you want the entire year and not just the last two digits you can do it like this:

(Rev 13:17) What is the number of the wild beast?   (666)

Subtract your age: age  [this should actually be how old you will be on December 31 this year]

(Rev 12:5) Add the number of days in "three and one-half  times:  1,260

(Lk 3:23) Subtract Jesus' age at his baptism: 30

(Dt 34:7) Add the age of Moses at his death: 120

This is the year of your birth.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Anyway, for me, even if not limited to Joseph's brothers, we have a group of people, some born earlier, some born  later, but all at some point having shared space with Joseph whilst he lived.

The verse itself does not say explicitly that it means more than just the generation that included Joseph and his brothers, the "family-stage" version of generation --  and this is the way that Brother Splane uses it. I have thought that this use of the verse is "self-debunking" but at the very least I can give it the benefit of the doubt, because the context could still allow us to include the currently living contemporaries of subsequent "family-stage" generations. This allows us to legitimately expand on the the idea of the single family-stage version of generation, because it could imply that the "generation" could have included any of Joseph's nephews, and even grand-nephews who had already been born. If it does include that, it's a Biblical usage that gets a little closer to what Brother Splane is trying to present. It would seem to mix the "family-stage" definition and the "living contemporaries" definition.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

we have a group of people, some born earlier, some born  later, but all at some point having shared space with Joseph whilst he lived. That is the common experience that unites them into one generation. Although Joseph had a birth and a death, there was no stated requirement for his contemporaries to witness those two events to be included as members of "that generation". All that was required was that they shared some time of their lives with Joseph in order to be included as a part of that generation. By necessity, any born AFTER the birth of Joseph would see their lives OVERLAP with any born before Joseph. However, all would be a part of Joseph's generation as they were contemporaries. No one dying before or being born after the death of Joseph would be included in his "generation" even if related.

I think that's playing a bit loose with the idea here, because the Bible text refers to a generation dying out. There is nothing in the Bible text that tells us that the term "generation" includes people dying out that hadn't even been born yet. And if it could include not just living contemporaries, but unborn future contemporaries, then who is to say that it means to only include those who would, at some point in the future, live as contemporaries of Joseph? Why not include those who might be born at some point in the future who would become contemporaries of a one or more of Joseph's brothers who might outlive him? And, of course,if you admit that it can include persons who had not yet been born, then why not allow it to include those who would be born at future time that overlapped some portion of the life of any of those nephews or grand-nephews who may have already been alive at the point in time when Moses considers that 70 of Jacob's descendants were alive at a certain point when Joseph was already in Egypt?

Even if this sounds ridiculous, it approximates the way the Watch Tower publications explain a "1914 version" of the phrase in Matthew 24:34. It says that there was a point in time when young and old persons readily discerned the sign in 1914. According to the Watchtower publications of the time period, some "saw the sign" but no one readily "discerned" it until years later, and some of them evidently may not have readily "discerned" it until 30-some years had passed by. The publications are currently only pretending that it was readily discerned, as we have already discussed in another thread. Recall that the Watchtower from October 1, 1930, p.291 was only one of several articles that gave this idea:

"The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof."

My main point is that we have no place in the Bible where such a definition of "generation" is required to make sense of the text.  I think that the explanation that the Watchtower Society has promoted is the most exceptional definition anyone has ever come up with. It appears in no Bible dictionaries, or Bible language dictionaries, as far as I know. It's just a new interpretation that has become necessary because the previous definition of generation has failed, even though that previous definition was more likely, and this new definition is unlikely.

Most importantly, even if the term generation really did have multiple possible meanings in various contexts in other parts of the Bible, we need to see what makes the best sense in the context of the way Jesus used it in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The lives of those Christians experiencing their anointing after 33CE and up to 70CE, would OVERLAP with Christians anointed in 33CE (this includes Cornelius in 36CE). This way, they became contemporaries with the earlier group, and are appropriately  included as members of that "generation". 

The lives of those who Jesus spoke about as included in 'a generation that would not die out' would definitely overlap with persons who had not been born yet, or join with them later, just as they overlapped with persons who had died before Jesus ever mentioned this generation that would not pass away. That fact is not relevant. It doesn't make either the previously overlapping persons or the subsequent overlapping persons a part of the the generation that would not pass away.

The primary reason for this can easily be determined by meditating on the passage and asking if the Bible itself answers for us the question about "Why" Jesus said that "this generation would by no means pass away." How would the disciples have understood it? If they would have had a question about it, were those questions answered in the context of Jesus' words. Clearly they were answered. Jesus said that his reason was to assure them that something significant was going to happen within the lifetime of the people who heard him. Some might die that same day, that week, that year, and some in every year right up until 70 CE. But the generation would NOT die out until that significant thing happened. Some would get a special glimpse or preview of the Kingdom at the Transfiguration, but that generation would get a special glimpse of a Judgment Day exactly as predicted by Jesus. Because of the accuracy of the prophecy there could be no doubt that this was part of the proof of Jehovah's sovereignty and proof of the fact that "he who comes in Jehovah's name" was "blessed" as the King of that Kingdom that showed a glimpse of its power even to those who had rejected and killed him. 

(Matthew 23:34-39) 34 For this reason, I am sending to you prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them you will kill and execute on stakes, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 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—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”

You asked why I had included the verse about the Transfiguration. It's because of this same theme, that the Kingdom was being made more real to those who were listening to Jesus. Some were blessed with a glimpse of the glorious power of that Kingdom while Jesus was with them on earth, and some would be terrified with a glimpse into the outworking of that Kingdom as Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled. Even those who might have been terrified, need not be, because Jesus gave a warning and instructions for those who would listen closely.

Note the parallels among some of these passages:

(Matthew 10:16-23) . . .“Look! I am sending you out as sheep among wolves; so prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard against men, for they will hand you over to local courts and they will scourge you in their synagogues. 18 And you will be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations. 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you. 21 Further, brother will hand brother over to death, and a father his child, and children will rise up against parents and will have them put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all people on account of my name, but the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.

Obviously, there is a sense in which the Son of man arrived in 70 CE. But notice, how this same context of Matt 10 gets partially repeated in Matthew 23 & 24, Mark 13 and Luke 17 & 21. Yet, they will still be in the process of fulfilling the directive "This good news of the kingdom will be preached" when the Son of man "arrives." In other words, some of them will still be alive at that time.

(Matthew 16:27, 28) 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. 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.”

The verse was fulfilled for some of the disciples (in a glorious and positive way) who evidently would die prior to 70 C.E. But 70 was also a time when he would begin to repay some according to their behavior through the judgment upon the Jewish religious system. Note again the parallels to Matthew 23:1-39. (The entire chapter is useful here, because it's about how the entire Jewish religious system had corrupted the seat of Moses and used it to "shut up the Kingdom of the heavens.")

Because it's pretty clear that Jesus was promising the closeness of the significant event, that it would be specious for the meaning to be skewed by maneuvering it to mean that it might not come in their own lifetime, but possibly in the lifetime of people who hadn't been born yet. And of course, Jesus was not playing a trick on them. He really was referring to something that would occur within the lifetime of most of them. The fulfillment of "these things" would start in only 33 to 37 years into the future . . . well within the standard two meanings of generation, but most appropriately used with the meaning: "you and your currently living contemporaries will not die out before all these things occur." If the significant event predicted (the destruction of the temple) had not occurred within the lifetime of many of the people who heard Jesus warnings (before he was rejected by the same generation) then Jesus would have been considered a false prophet.

On 10/4/2016 at 3:40 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

I mean, you have a two stage relay. Start point: 1914 CE on one end. Finish point: the "great tribulation" on the other end. The track between is the stream of time.

As it is impossible for one team of runners to span the distance from the start, 1914 CE, to the finish, the "great tribulation", there are two teams of "anointed" Christians. Starting the race, those who saw the year 1914 eventually meet up with those (born later) who will see the outbreak of the great tribulation. The baton is passed and the race completed by the second group.

The entire group are seen as the (anointed) generation of the last days in Jesus prophecy. Not really rocket science is it?

As already alluded to, I don't think we have anything like a "two stage relay." Assume that it is true that Jesus gave a prophecy about a certain "generation" that he addressed in Matthew 24, and assume that somehow this "generation" has two fulfillments, one on a generation he addressed in 33 CE, and one on a generation he addressed in 1914.

If we really could look to the original fulfillment to gain insight into the second fulfillment (which we say that we do) then we should look carefully at what that audience already knew about the language Jesus used. Jesus did not use the term generation to refer to the "family-stage" (i.e., where grandparents / parents / children / grandchildren refers to 4 different generations as in Mathew chapter 1). Jesus always used it to refer to the living contemporaries of the people he spoke with. In effect, the word generation is about the same as saying "you" [plural] in a way that we know he means all the people in the nation who should be listening to him at that time, not just the particular small group he is addressing at the moment.  Here is every instance from Matthew with some context. Note especially that a "Judgment Day" is in the immediate context

(Matthew 11:16-24) 16 “With whom will I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to their playmates, 17 saying: ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance; we wailed, but you did not beat yourselves in grief.’ 18 Likewise, John came neither eating nor drinking, but people say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of man did come eating and drinking, but people say, ‘Look! A man who is a glutton and is given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” 20 Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his powerful works had taken place, for they did not repent: . . .  24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”

(Matthew 12:39-45) 39 In reply he said to them: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet. 40 For just as Joʹnah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. 41 Men of Ninʹe·veh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at what Joʹnah preached. But look! something more than Joʹnah is here. 42 The queen of the south will be raised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solʹo·mon. But look! something more than Solʹo·mon is here. . . . the final circumstances of that man become worse than the first. That is how it will be also with this wicked generation.”

(Matthew 16:1-4) 16 Here the Pharisees and Sadducees approached him, and to test him, they asked him to display to them a sign from heaven. 2 In reply he said to them: “When evening falls, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is fire-red,’ 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be wintry, rainy weather today, for the sky is fire-red but gloomy.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” With that he went away, leaving them behind.

(Matthew 23:34-39) . . .For this reason, I am sending to you prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them you will kill and execute on stakes, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 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—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”

(Matthew 24:29-34) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. 32 “Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.

(Matthew 17:16-20) 16 I brought him to your disciples, but they could not cure him.” 17 In reply Jesus said: “O faithless and twisted generation, how long must I continue with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring him here to me.” 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was cured from that hour. 19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said: “Why could we not expel it?” 20 He said to them: “Because of your little faith.. . .

On 10/21/2016 at 4:48 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Well, there was, of course, no sign for the "wicked and adulterous generation" (save the sign of Jonah). But that's not us is it? 

Note that the example from Matthew 17:16-20. I put it last because it is the only one without a direct reference to a Judgment Day in the context, but it is the disciples who trigger the expression that Jesus uses about a "faithless and twisted generation." Jesus even calls them "of little faith." Therefore, I wouldn't be too sure to claim that we know exactly who all the people were when Jesus referenced a "generation."

On 10/21/2016 at 4:48 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

This applies only to ANOINTED CHRISTIANS

Why? He wasn't even speaking to anointed Christians, was he? He was speaking to people who were still having trouble with the idea that they needed a sign, or needed to know "when." They weren't ready to live by faith, not by sight. The anointing was, in fact, the solution to the problem they had of thinking they were about to see the Kingdom of God in Israel.

(Acts 1:6-8) 6 So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.”

Back to the relay race.

Jesus used the expression "generation" to refer, in effect, to "you people and all your associates." I think that's pretty obvious. But it doesn't really even matter what other meanings we could attach to the term "generation" because Jesus already explained in context that he meant that the "end" is so close, that  "you and your associates who should be listening to me" will not all die out before some of you will actually see this true sign of the end in your own lifetime. Some will get fooled by signs that are not true signs of the end, so don't get misled. But you survive to the presence can lift your heads up and rejoice because when you finally see the true signs, your deliverance is near.

If there was a relay race hand-off, or transition, then it started right there in 33 C.E. Some of the living contemporaries would die off and therefore not see it in their lifetime. It was only 33 to 37 years away! If Jesus had come to earth and made this prophecy 50 years earlier, then it would have been nearly meaningless to tell a generation of living contemporaries that they would be able to lift their heads up and rejoice. Almost ALL of them would be dead, and it would have been fairly easy to watch the diminishing health of the 87-year old survivors and predict the time when the prophecy had to come true.

Clearly, Jesus did not intend for them to do that. So he said that it would come at a time when they did not think to be it. Yet this is exactly what the current Watch Tower publications are encouraging when they mention that the second group is getting on in years, and therefore we know from that fact that the time is close. We should know the time is close because it is close in our hearts, not because we were seeking a sign.

My guess is that this is about as fake as it looks.

The stupidity of chasing after material things.

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. 

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

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.

1 minute ago, Eoin Joyce said:

An individual's feeling that the explanation is not reasonable is no criteria for assuming ALL have a problem with it.

That's true. Everything we say here has an element of individual opinion in it. Even if we are quoting factual evidence in defense of a certain belief, it is because it's our opinion that certain factual evidence is relevant to the discussion. The same evidence won't always make the same point to you that it makes for me.

To be clearer, then, I'm stating that it is my opinion that ALL of us have a problem explaining the "two-group overlapping generation" teaching. I say that, first of all, because it is my opinion that no one, so far, has explained it in a reasonable way or a Scriptural way. I think it's also obvious that we are supposed to believe that Brother Splane's explanation is both reasonable and Scriptural. I do have some additional evidence, based on accepted rules of language and rules of logic that the official explanation is not reasonable. My belief that it is not Scriptural is based on two things: It breaks the usual rules of the Watchtower's methods of exposition, for one, and it also creates a situation where we disregard Jesus' words that you already quoted as the so-called "Group #2" gets older and closer to dying out.

But this does not mean that I believe that ALL Witnesses believe we have a problem with it. I think that relatively few actually know that they would have trouble explaining it, if questioned. I have some reason to believe that many (perhaps even a majority) of Witnesses don't seem to care one way or another. I also think some Witnesses might not be directly aware yet that there is such a doctrine, or else they are only vaguely aware of it.

23 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What I mean is that having this explanation or not having it has made no difference to my faith or sense of urgency regarding the times in which we live. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the system of things ended for me the day I learned the "truth". The information in Hebrews 11 particularly helped me to see my time of life in the context of a long line of those who have excercised faith and who have served Jehovah with a full focus on the "city having real foundations", regardless of when that hope would be realised.

Well said! I'm 100% with you on those points, and I really like the tie to Hebrews 11. I think it's also useful to note that the idea of Hebrews 11 does not end with the last verse of that chapter but goes on into the next chapter:

(Hebrews 11:39-12:3) ³⁹ And yet all of these, although they received a favorable witness because of their faith, did not obtain the fulfillment of the promise, ⁴⁰ because God had foreseen something better for us, so that they might not be made perfect apart from us. ^12:1 So, then, because we have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also throw off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, ² as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such hostile speech from sinners against their own interests, so that you may not get tired and give up.

23 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I agree with the baseline as having been set out by Brother Jack Barr at the AGM  October 3, 2009. Later embellishments are simply that.

It's easy to take that to mean that you agree with the general concept, but might also recognize that there could be a danger in "talmudizing" the spirit of that general concept. I don't know if this is what you meant, but if it was, I would have to say that I also could find myself agreeing with the general concept of that "baseline" more easily than the version(s) with specific embellishments. Even Barr's original baseline, however, was bounded with enough specifics so that a certain "goal" is met. It is that "goal" that creates for ALL of us, a problem.

The "goal" in every version is the same. And it is a dangerous goal in view of Jesus' words. The goal is always to be able to make the same claim, basically: that we are definitely living within one human lifespan of the great tribulation.

Ever since 33 C.E., it has always been true that we may be living within one human lifespan of the great tribulation. But stating that something may happen during a certain time period does not make us special. Anyone can state that and be correct. So that is not enough to indicate that we are truly a spirit-guided organization. Jehovah needs to have revealed something in this regard to us so that we know more about the timing of the end than everyone else. Therefore, the primary original basis of the Watch Tower organization has always been that we know something special about the time of the end, that could only have been revealed by God to his special servants. For years, Russell indicated that the Watch Tower organization itself was "that servant."

This is why the first regular publication that Charles Russell published, the Watch Tower, was called the Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. Most of the issues touched somehow on the subject of chronology. It heralded the fact that Russell knew that Christ's presence had started in 1874 and that those of the high calling (144,000) would be taken to heaven within a few short years, and that the entire system of things would go on for no more than a 40-year harvest period beyond 1874, and that the Jews would be re-established in Jerusalem by the end of that 40 year period, and therefore 1914 would be the "end of the Gentile Times." Russell believed that these were "God's dates" and not his.

Russell's very first known piece of published writing was about chronology, and therefore had to address the problem that Jesus said that the "times and seasons" were not for us to know. He summed up his defense by including this Scripture in his first published article from 1876.

(Amos 3:7, NWT)  For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.

Russell taught that those of the high calling were a "prophet." He published in the Watch Tower that those of the high calling were the ones associated with the Watch Tower organization, and that they were "The Christ."  They were "the prophet greater than Moses."

So, saying something "may" happen, is not enough of a "prophecy" to gain the attention of an audience and to motivate them (assuming that they need a time-based motivation). It was always important to say that something will happen. This was the reason for changing the 1919 to 1925 slogan from "Millions Now Living May Never Die" to "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." And this is surely the same reason that each of the explanations about the "generation" produces a definitive time prediction.

*** kr chap. 1 p. 12 par. 19 “Let Your Kingdom Come” ***
We also see that the anointed ones who are still alive and part of “this generation” are getting on in years; yet, they will not all die off before the great tribulation begins.

*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 give us confidence that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.

*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!

Moving this time prediction from "may not die" to "will not die" creates a kind of prophecy. Naturally, we hesitate to use the term "prophecy" but there is no real difference, especially when we are periodically reminded to put faith even in the timing of the words of the "faithful slave." Even the comments about that same already-quoted verse from Amos have included the following reminders:

*** w99 10/1 p. 5 par. 4 “For Everything There Is an Appointed Time” ***
“For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) . . . But we must realize that Jehovah reveals his confidential matters at the time he deems advisable. For that purpose God has authorized a “faithful and discreet slave” to provide his people with “their [spiritual] food at the proper time.” (Matthew 24:45)

*** w84 7/1 pp. 8-9 pars. 3-4 Facing This Age of Violence With Confidence ***
In line with this, Jehovah himself declared: “The Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.”—Amos 3:7. . . .
Does this ancient prophecy have meaning for us today? Yes, . . .  Its prophetic meaning is made known to us through “the faithful and discreet slave,” that group of anointed Christians whom the Master, Jesus Christ, is using now to provide spiritual “food at the proper time” for all of God’s people.”

Because the faithful and discreet slave have given (prophesied) a definitive time period, we are expected to see this as proof that Jehovah must have 'deemed it advisable' (??!!) for this "faithful slave" to provide us with this prophetic information at this particular time.

On 10/4/2016 at 6:59 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

But for the purpose of the illustration, (which is to illustrate the proposition we have been presented with), only 2 count because only 2 teams can span the full course with one interchange.

I have a feeling we will end up back here with just the two teams that "map" directly (I think) to the two groups the Watch Tower publications have mentioned. I'm still very interested in the 10 and the 4 you mentioned, but this focus on the last two will make it much easier to discuss with less confusion. So in this post, I'll refer to those last two teams as #1 and #2, even if you temporarily were referring to them as #3 and #4, OK?

I asked the question about the "interchange," whether it is one point in time, or many points in time.

Brother Splane gives the example of Fred Franz, not as definitive, but as an ideal example of someone who was baptized in 1913, therefore assumed to be of the anointed before 1914, "readily discerned" the sign in 1914 and lived until 1992.

*** w93 3/15 Rewarded With “the Crown of Life” ***
Brother Franz was born on September 12, 1893, . . . He was baptized on November 30, 1913 . . . .  December 28, 1992, a memorial service was held . . .

He qualifies therefore to be in group #1.

But here is another example who may not qualify in group #1. His experience indicates the possibility that group #2 began as early as 100 years ago.

*** w01 5/1 p. 31 “Jehovah Has Been Very Good to Me!” ***
Karl was baptized in 1918,

*** w84 10/1 p. 22 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***  My first contact with Bible truth took place back in the spring of 1917 . . . In those days we were told: ‘If you want to stay in the truth, read the seven Studies in the Scriptures through each year.’ Of course, I wanted to stay in the truth and therefore I dutifully read these volumes through each year until I came to Bethel. This amounted to reading ten pages a day . . . . Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible Students was put to the test.

So, Brother Klein (a member of the GB) apparently meets the qualifications only for Group #2, although he died within a decade of Brother Franz, from Group #1. There are undoubtedly others, then, who were part of Group #2 who may have died as early as 1918, only a very few years after 1914 and only a very few years after they were already "of the anointed."

Of course, the Watch Tower has not defined whether these anointed had to be associated with the Watch Tower Society to be "truly" of the anointed. It's probably something we are expected to assume, but even Brother Klein (in telling his experience to the Bethel family) admitted that he disassociated himself from the Watch Tower Society in 1918 and joined the "Standfasters" for a period of time, but was then welcomed back within months. I don't think that any of us believe he had to start his anointing all over again counting from the time he loyally rejoined the Watch Tower Society.

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Look, there is something wrong here, The law of diminishing returns it LOOKS like, but not necessarily.

No contradictions. ALL of us have a problem with the explanation if even the Governing Body cannot produce a reasonable explanation. And many of us must realize that we have this problem, based on the online evidence that very few Witnesses even try to come up with any ideas in defense of the doctrine when either an outsider or an insider questions it. As far as I can tell there is no evidence that Witnesses have become involved in trying to defend this idea Scripturally. Yet, I know of about a dozen brothers from around the world who have been active on various forums to Scripturally defend our stance on war, neutrality, hellfire, eternal soul, trinity, etc.

I have never seen anyone besides Brother Splane even try to explain it. Also I am still surprised that relatively few seem to even know about it. A pioneer sister from our congregation was here a few months ago with her husband. He asked about it, and she seemed to say that either she did not know about it, or feigned a lack of knowledge for her husband's sake. I said I'm sure that this is a topic we'll be getting more information about, and quickly moved on to another topic. But you are right that very few complain, just like 1975. I think that's because relatively few even worry about ever having to explain it.

These are mostly relative terms (i.e., "many," "few") that only have meaning when compared to our own expectations or historical comparisons with previous experiences and attitudes concerned with various topics of "new light." The only term that is not relative is when I claim that we "ALL" have a problem explaining it reasonably. If your explanation proves to be reasonable, then you would be about the first (outside of Brother Splane) who has even made an attempt, as far as I can tell.

13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Let's have the relay illustration???

Yes. But as a baseline let's just repeat the basic idea:

*** kr chap. 1 pp. 11-12 pars. 16-19 “Let Your Kingdom Come” ***
16 “This generation.” Did Jesus have in mind unbelievers? No. . . . Therefore, when Jesus spoke of “this generation,” he had in mind his anointed followers.
17 “Will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” How will those words prove true? To answer that, we need to know two things: the meaning both of “generation” and of “all these things.” The term “generation” often refers to people of varying ages whose lives overlap during a particular period of time. A generation is not overly long, and it comes to an end. (Ex. 1:6) . . .
18 . . .  The generation consists of two overlapping groups of anointed ones—the first is made up of anointed ones who saw the beginning of the fulfillment of the sign in 1914 and the second, anointed ones who for a time were contemporaries of the first group. At least some of those in the second group will live to see the beginning of the coming tribulation. The two groups form one generation because their lives as anointed Christians overlapped for a time.
19 . . .  We also see that the anointed ones who are still alive and part of “this generation” are getting on in years; yet, they will not all die off before the great tribulation begins.

The same details, stated another way, are included in the 2014 Watchtower article. Also, they perfectly match the "JW Broadcasting" videos:

*** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. Those who made up this group were not merely alive in 1914, but they were spirit-anointed as sons of God in or before that year.—Rom. 8:14-17.
16 The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. They were not simply alive during the lifetime of those in the first group, but they were anointed with holy spirit during the time that those of the first group were still on earth. Thus, not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” of whom Jesus spoke. Today, those in this second group are themselves advancing in years.

When the idea was first introduced on October 3, 2009, not all of these ideas were explicit, but the basic idea was there:

*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr . . . referred to . . . “This generation . . .”  . . .  “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!

So, off to the races . . . .

The relay-race analogy is not mentioned in the publications (yet). I can't yet see how it's appropriate, which is why when you first mentioned the two-stage relay, I asked the following:

On 10/4/2016 at 4:42 PM, JW Insider said:

Really? Why do you believe that a "two-stage relay" is an appropriate analogy. As long as we are using a slippery definition of the word "generation" why not a "four-stage relay"?

The idea was that the extension of the generation currently requires two life-spans because the first group has already died, or at least is already assumed to have died. What happens if the second group dies? What would happen if the third group dies? The argument against this, of course, is that this won't happen because the whole point of the teaching is that the second group is already getting older and the great tribulation will get here before that second group dies out. As we get closer and closer to that point, however, we are in the same danger again of believing we know when the end must occur, which contradicts what Jesus said in the verse you quoted above: "because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it."

You made some statements in response to my question where you stated that there are at least 10 teams in the race. I wasn't sure exactly what you meant about the 10 teams, but then you went back to focusing on just two teams with one interchange.

On 10/4/2016 at 6:59 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

That's a bit too loose because you are introducing a new concept here. You can have as many stages as you like in your race, but that's not the one I am looking at.

Actually, there are at least 10 teams in this race. But for the purpose of the illustration, (which is to illustrate the proposition we have been presented with), only 2 count because only 2 teams can span the full course with one interchange.

Then just as I was thinking about how this does or doesn't fit the illustration, you added some other details that could be confusing:

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

We have a a relay race. 4 stages (in the modern concept) This applies only to ANOINTED CHRISTIANS.

Ist stage= 1st Century Christians; 2nd stage=true Christians, after the Apostle John, down to the 19th Century (you tell me who they were, if you can); 3rd stage=those true Christians leading up to and past 1914CE; 4th stage=those born after 1914CE but who overlap the lives of those who actually saw 1914CE, and who will personaly see the Great Tribulation.

You appear to be tying the words of Matthew 24 into one long relay-race, with 4 stages as follows:

1. from say around 33 C.E. to probably a time around 99 C.E.
2. from after 99 C.E. to, I'm guessing, some point past 1879 C.E.
3. from that point, past 1879, until a point after 1914, probably nearly reaching until the 1990's
4. from that point, in or just after the 1990's until the great tribulation.

Sorry to do have to do this, but before I can really comment, I need to know if this is what you meant. I'm curious about why stage #1 and stage #2 are now considered important. Is #2 considered a group similar to the groups mentioned in the WT and kr? Why is #2 the only one that doesn't match to physical human lifespans? Did I understand your reference to the 19th century correctly, that #2 and #3 somehow overlap in the 1800's?

Also, do you believe that there is a specific time when the "interchange" happens, or do you think that this "interchange" is ongoing for as long as any two groups overlap? For example, one or more persons in group #3 may have died in 1916 and some new Bible students who became members of the anointed after 1914 therefore only qualified to be in group #4, and could have therefore overlapped with at least one person from group #3 who died in 1916?

If that last scenario is possible then you probably would accept that persons in group #4 may have actually started dying over 100 years ago. Otherwise, the interchange would more likely be the single point in time when the last qualified individual person in the previous group (team?) is still alive at the same time that all the qualified persons in the subsequent team are alive. And therefore, we could potentially wait for the last individual survivor out of all those who are qualified in team #4 before at least one of them reaches the great tribulation. (Of course it could also happen at any time before the last survivor passes off the earthly scene.)

3 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Who could possibly find it a problem???

ALL of us have a problem explaining it reasonably to others. As you are already well aware, this is not just my own view, it is the view of many others in the world-wide Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't have any problem understanding why we say it, and how we got to this point. But I would have a problem explaining it reasonably to others as a true doctrine. As far as many Witnesses are concerned, it is a false doctrine, but one we have to put up with because we have nothing better to replace it with at the moment.

I understand very well that you disagree, and that you have no problem believing it yourself. But it looks like you also have a problem explaining it reasonably. Your relay-race illustration seems very problematic. But I understand that we don't all reason in the same way and I am willing to understand your reasoning, if I can. I will try, I promise.

To try to keep my posts shorter I won't start on the relay-race illustration until the next post. I'll use the rest of this one to respond to a quick aside that you brought up:

5 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I can see you have a problem with the 607BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem, From that comes an issue with the Gentile Times ending in 1914CE, and a whole load of other issues on chronology. But, I thought chronology was not something you particula\rly have any interest

I have no interest in promoting anything to do with chronology. It has nothing to do with Christianity or our ability to serve as Jehovah's Witnesses. In a congregational setting, I see no reason to upset the foundation that the faith of so many is still built upon. Many people can see that it is a sandy foundation, but many JWs really are still serving for the idea that "the end will come in their lifetime" and think that they have nothing else to fall back upon. For now, their faith and motivation for service is not built fully upon love for Jehovah and for our neighbor, and especially those related to us in the faith. When and if the time comes and the brothers see fit to make any corrections to the current doctrine, if they deem it necessary, then the only way that the brothers will accept it without feeling "lost" (with nothing to fall back upon) is if such a correction comes from the Governing Body themselves. We know that any change would be easily accepted if it comes from the mouth of the Governing Body, because, this is already evidenced by most in the congregation, who have already accepted the "two-group overlapping generation" explanation without complaint. And probably most don't really even think about it. Of course, that's part of the problem as to why so many are flustered with the problem of trying to defend it or explain it reasonably.

My interest is in defending the Bible against "strongly entrenched" ideas has resulted in a lot of comments on this forum related to chronology. This is because chronology is used as a way to denigrate parts of the Bible. I think that is what was happening around 1975 with phrases like:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.”

We are again teaching that the end must come in our lifetime. It very well may. We hope and pray that it does. But trying to find signs and evidence that it will (or must) is a contradiction to the words and spirit of Jesus' words, Paul's words, Peter's words, James' words, etc. Jesus said we needed to always be on the watch, precisely because we won't get a sign, and he was speaking to anointed disciples when he said this. It reflects in our motivation for service. It can take away from purely Christian motivations.

On 10/4/2016 at 3:40 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Since 2009 there has been a great deal of discussion around the concept of an "overlapping generation" in connection with Jesus words at Matt. 24:34.

I don't see anything particularly difficult about the idea myself. 

I mean, you have a two stage relay. Start point: 1914 CE on one end. Finish point: the "great tribulation" on the other end. The track between is the stream of time.

As it is impossible for one team of runners to span the distance from the start, 1914 CE, to the finish, the "great tribulation", there are two teams of "anointed" Christians. Starting the race, those who saw the year 1914 eventually meet up with those (born later) who will see the outbreak of the great tribulation. The baton is passed and the race completed by the second group.

The entire group are seen as the (anointed) generation of the last days in Jesus prophecy. Not really rocket science is it?

I don't see anything difficult about the idea either. It is about as difficult to understand as someone claiming that "one equals two." In fact that equation pretty much sums it up. That's not rocket science at all.

On the other hand, there really is a difficulty is in understanding the contortions that one might have to go through to explain why they really believe that "one equals two." This is an embarrassment that requires people to suspend their powers of reason, which is dangerous for Christians who would follow the Biblical counsel and advice:

(Romans 12:1) 12 Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.

(1 Peter 3:15) . . .make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason. . .

(Acts 19:8) . . .Entering the synagogue, for three months he spoke with boldness, giving talks and reasoning persuasively about the Kingdom of God.

(James 3:17) But the wisdom from above is . . .  reasonable, . . .

Otherwise, it would be possible for someone to fool us into thinking that the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ is already here, according to the apostle Paul.

(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. . .

Isn't that exactly what happened under Russell's and Rutherford's stewardship?

If we are not careful to do our utmost to handle the word of truth aright, isn't it possible for someone to subvert our faith by saying that the resurrection already occurred?

(2 Timothy 2:15-18) . . .Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Isn't that exactly what happened under Russell's and Rutherford's stewardship when they taught that the resurrection had already occurred in 1878 and then 1918, respectively? Didn't Rutherford and other Bible students potentially violate what was holy by saying that Russell, as a spirit, was communicating with them after he died? Didn't a more recent Watchtower potentially violate what was holy by trying to show that the resurrection had already occurred (between 1918 and 1935) by claiming that the spirits (men or women who had died and were resurrected as spirits) had communicated doctrinal matters to the Watch Tower Society prior to 1935?

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.

We know that spiritism violates what is holy. Spiritism is communicating or attempting to communicate with spirits. So this might seem to be strong language, but this indicates just how important the point is from a Biblical perspective. When Rutherford published a book in 1917 that said that Russell was still communicating in order to run every aspect of the work that the Watch Tower was doing, was this in any way correct? Was it a deviation from the truth?

Of course, we claim that the first resurrection has already occurred, and continues to occur, including the resurrection of Paul himself, the very person who warned us about how serious a matter this was. So, as of 2007, we effectively say that it is OK to involve ourselves in this kind of spiritism today, or at least it was around the year 1935. But the same article also showed that the entire idea was still undetermined and at best any attempt to determine an exact time of the "first resurrection" prior to the "great tribulation" was only an attempt to pinpoint "an interesting possibility."

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible, it is not out of harmony with other scriptures that indicate that the first resurrection got under way soon after Christ’s presence began.

And notice, even here, how it is only through "circular reasoning" that this deduction made, because it relies on the identification of 1914 as the beginning of Christ's presence. And this brings us right back to the quotation from 2 Thess 2:1,2 already mentioned above: "concerning the presence . . . not to be quickly shaken from your reason . . . to the effect that the Lord's day is already here." The 2007 Watchtower also used some additional reasoning that is not only weak, it creates direct contradictions with different doctrinal ways in which we utilize the same phrase, "to the presence of the Lord." I'll provide details later if you are not already aware.

At the very least, we should use our reasoning to make sure that we have this doctrine right, correct?

On 10/4/2016 at 3:40 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Since 2009 there has been a great deal of discussion around the concept of an "overlapping generation" in connection with Jesus words at Matt. 24:34.

I don't see anything particularly difficult about the idea myself.

I think we ran out of room on the "God's Kingdom Rules" thread. I have tried to add a response there, but nothing happens when I click the "Submit Reply" button. This thread, however, also gets to the heart of the "two-group overlapping generation" problem which has come up in some ways on several of the other chronology-related threads. I know that this teaching is a problem for many others and evidently it is not a problem for you. So your reasoning should be worth exploring.

I feel that the Glen Baxter illustration you have shared is more than appropriate. For any who missed it, it's been described like this:

Two 18th- or 19th-century white men in fur coats — one with flames creeping up his neck — talking to an American Indian holding a sign that reads, “White man’s head on fire”. And there is a caption at the bottom that says, “Quite good, Running Elk. Your work on the apostrophe is coming along. But there is still much to learn.”

For me, the words of Jesus are very clear that looking for signs and portents to determine how close the "end" might be is an unchristian activity. Yes, it happened even in the first century but Jesus always warned against it. (Acts 1:7,8) In other words, the passionate and fiery determination to prove from signs and portents that we are within one lifespan of the time of the end of this system is dangerous. It's playing with fire. We were warned against it by Jesus himself.

So various Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses have come along many times through the years and pointed out the danger. But the Watchtower's traditional power structure always had a blind spot when it came to the idea that someone outside of the traditional power structure was capable of pointing out a flaw or a danger. The placating and patronizing attitude toward several members of the Writing Department and Service Department and Gilead Lecturers and Aid Book researchers was amazingly similar to this reaction in the Baxter illustration. Even a couple members of the Governing Body as individuals had pointed out the emergency situation to the Governing Body themselves. An emergency situation was pointed out, and the response showed that they had completely missed the nature of the emergency. One of the responses in the 1981 "Kingdom Come" book was amazingly analogous to "Your work on the apostrophe is coming along. But there is still much to learn."

*** kc p. 188 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:

That entire Appendix in the 1981 book has already been thoroughly debunked as a complete non-response to the actual issue at hand. It implicitly admitted to seeing progress in the ability of members outside the power structure to communicate their ideas a little bit better. ("apostrophe") But it responded by showing an inability to understand two-way communication outside of the traditional prejudices. 

I don't think you agree that continually pointing out that we are always within one lifetime of the "end" of this system is dangerous. However, in another thread you did admit that the problem with false prophecy is the problem of lulling people into a false sense of their own safety:

On 9/25/2016 at 11:28 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

But by the same token, I see no contradiction in applying the term "false prophecy" to any teachings or pronouncements from any source that serve to lull the people and their leaders with soothing assurances . . .

This is no doubt related to the same reason that Jesus warned against looking for signs and trying to divine the times and seasons when the point was that only motivation should be our "love of God and a strong desire to do his will." The Proclaimers book speaks of this lulling of people away from the proper motivation as follows:

*** jv chap. 6 p. 62 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Disappointed expectations as to the return of the Lord Jesus had in the 19th century caused many followers of William Miller and various Adventist groups to lose faith. But what about the Bible Students associated with Russell? Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?

It was pretty funny, as long as you can pretend it was some other religion she was talking about.

One line hit a little too close for comfort at about 14min40sec.

[Brought to you by "New Light"!!]

"New Light! If you can't change what you say, change what 'what you say' means."

This is exactly what happened with the phrase "The Gentile Times have ended..."

The primary manipulation, as I understand it, is that the person who is credited with taking the picture is supposedly just interested in humanitarian issues. The problem was that it was quickly shown that he had just previously been photographed with a person beheading a young Palestinian, probably 11 years old. He is actually mixed up with some wacky extremists. But this actually may be true of the "White Hats" in general. What has happened is that there are a lot of people who push for war, when they believe that support for that war can include millions of dollars in aid from the United States. In this case, there are thousands of contractors and political hawks that also want war, and they are anxious to get credibility for the war. That credibility at one time in the recent past had to come from media support, but the media is no longer trusted, because they are often sequestered into "safe" hotels where the war stories are fed to them from military insiders. However, even the media has turned against this practice because it has so often led to mistaken reporting and gullibility.

So the new "trusted source" for warmongering has become humanitarian aid agencies who are willing to work with the military. What is missed however, is that organizations such as USAID which attempts to present itself this way, is actually a U.S. organization with a Department of Transitional Initiatives which has been linked to several "regime change" programs often making use of social media disinformation. (Massive programs making use of fake accounts, etc.)

This is also a partial explanation for the talk about a "no fly zone" in Syria. It is sometimes called a "safe" zone, or no-bombing zone, and it sounds excellent in theory. But every U.S.-backed "no fly zone" has historically been a euphemism for war that is intended to end in regime change. 

Naturally, I have no stake at all in trying to figure out what is right or wrong when it comes to regime change anywhere. It almost always results in more problems than it solves, and I always hope for peace on earth and goodwill towards men. But my only point here is that manipulation is common when it comes to talking a nation into giving its tacit backing to war. But we shouldn't be naive about how clever these methods can become. PR groups, and humanitarian groups are as likely to be involved these days as politicians and media.

On 10/14/2016 at 2:41 AM, ThePraeceptor said:

Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence".

I responded as follows:

On 10/14/2016 at 11:02 PM, JW Insider said:

Another answer to the claim that there is no other word for "presence" is that the idea of "presence" is already implied in the context of many verbs and phrases so that the term is not usually necessary at all in the Greek.

I may have erred in implying that you were making a "claim" here, as I see by your response:

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

Also, I am not "claiming" things. I'm just stating facts on the meaning of words without even trying to interprete the verses.

That was the only time I see that I used the term "claim" in my response, but I don't use it as if to imply that all claims are non-factual. I am claiming certain facts, too, and also that certain bits of factual evidence might also have a bearing on the discussion.

However, to keep that prior response from becoming too long () I left out the fact that the NWT translators disagree with this idea you presented that there is no other word in Greek for "presence." Here are some examples from the NWT along with the basic Greek word that can carry the idea of "presence" in various contexts or phrases.

(Luke 13:26) 26 Then you will start saying, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our main streets.’

ἐνώπιον enṓpion, en-o'-pee-on; neuter of a compound of G1722 and a derivative of G3700; in the face of (literally or figuratively):—before, in the presence (sight) of, to.

(Acts 2:28) You have made life’s ways known to me; you will fill me with great joy in your presence.’

πρόσωπον prósōpon, pros'-o-pon; from G4314 and ὤψ ṓps (the visage, from G3700); the front (as being towards view), i.e. the countenance, aspect, appearance, surface; by implication, presence, person:—(outward) appearance, before, countenance, face, fashion, (men's) person, presence

(1 Thessalonians 1:2, 3) 2 We always thank God when we mention all of you in our prayers, 3 for we continually remember your faithful work, your loving labor, and your endurance because of your hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father. [Related to the word in Acts 2:28]

ἔμπροσθεν émprosthen, em'-pros-then; from G1722 and G4314; in front of (in place (literally or figuratively) or time):—against, at, before, (in presence, sight) of.

Curiously, if the NWT had been consistent in the translation of 1 Thess 1:3 using the term presence in the same way when we got to the next instance of that word in 1 Thess 2:19 we would have translated the verse like this:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19) "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation [in the presence  of] our Lord Jesus at his presence?" [NWT + insert]

That verse alone should make us wonder if "presence" was really the right way to translate "parousia." So instead we translated it:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19, NWT) "For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence?"

The KJV and many other translations use something like this: 

(1 Thess 2:19, NASB) For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

If your post was not so long I could refute your arguments point by point but I'm not really that interested in proving who is wrong and who is right.

And, as it turns out, there is even much more evidence than what I offered. I apologize for that.

On 10/16/2016 at 0:22 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

I would like to understand one thing though. According to your view the word "parousia" of the original should have been translated as "royal visitation" and not "presence".  Am I right in concluding this by your post?

Just like the other Greek words that the NWT translates as "presence", there is not always a single word or term that fits all the contexts. So sometimes the term "presence" would be perfectly acceptable, but there is no reason to let the meaning in other contexts suffer for the sake of consistency. The prior NWT (pre-2013) attempted a higher level of consistency, which I personally like a lot because a more literal and consistent usage is sometimes better for study. The current 2013 NWT is less consistent but I have no problem with this, purely for the ease of reading.

As you know we have sometimes taken words like "Gehenna" "Hades" "Sheol" "Shibboleth" "Tartarus" etc., and, instead of translating them at all, merely used a kind of transliteration along with study material in a Glossary or a separate doctrinal teaching. So we could have used the term "Parousia" in phrases like the "Parousia of the Son of man."

There is also the idea of using a capital letter so that the "Presence of the Son of man" is seen as having a more special meaning than "presence of the Son of man" and gets distinguished from other contexts where the word presence is used in a more common way. The latest NWT does this with every reference to the Kingdom of God or Christ, over 100 times in the 2013 NWT (except in Colossians 1:13, of course, because this "kingdom" is obviously dated to 33 C.E.).

However, using the term "Presence" even capitalized doesn't really give the full sense of the term. There are only one or two cases in the Greek Sciptures where "presence" might be as good or better than the words "coming" or "arrival" because it's used in the common sense that matches its etymology. However, an arrival implies a subsequent presence anyway, and more often, the arrival is the focus and the key to understanding the subsequent presence. So it would be slightly better to translate "Coming" or "Arrival" or "Return" (in this case) because it gives a little more focus on the "Event." The capitalization could be added because it separates it again from the mundane uses of "arrival" or "coming" or "return."

The other problem with the word "presence" or "Presence" is that can imply that someone is "there" and you just haven't noticed it, but in the cases where it is used in the Bible it is paralleled with a bright, shining, glorious "manifestation" with words like "lightning" and "epiphany." So it could be an improper translation based on context.

(1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence.

A few of the other instances of this type of contextual usage were already mentioned in prior posts.

Our NWT translators no doubt wondered why the first translators of the Bible out of Greek into their own language used the word "advent." Advent implies an "event" rather than just a presence, at least it focuses on the "event" portion. Yet, while the koine Greek of the Greek Scriptures was still a living language, they chose to use "advent" in Latin and words related more to coming and arrival in Syriac and Coptic, etc. Knowing that the Latin word "Advent" was already the equivalent of "Parousia" when referring to a royal visitation finally explained this, but much of the evidence hadn't been translated into English until nearly 1910 (Adolph Deissmann, for example). This was just a few years too late for Benjamin Keith to have noticed when he showed Nelson Barbour the usage in Benjamin Wilson's Diaglott.

Of course, they could have researched and noticed that every instance of the usage in Josephus could have been better translated with "coming" or "arrival" than with "presence." Not that "presence" would have been wrong in some of the cases, but that "coming" or "arrival" almost always provided a better sense in the context. The exceptions were when it was used of the "manifestation" or "theophany" of God, but even these implied both ideas together: the arrival of a manifestation and exceptional presence of God, often associated with lightning, thundering voice, judgment, etc. Josephus, by the way, did not refer to any royal parade-like events when he used the term parousia, but his context made it clear that when he used the term "parousia" his focus was more about the arrival than the subsequent presence. For example:

His mother was the sister of Onias the high priest, who informed him of the coming [parousian] of the ambassador; for he was then sojourning at a village named Phicol, where he was born. Not long after that, he came [elthón] to the city and reproved Onias for not taking care of the preservation of his countrymen” [Josephus, Antiquities 12.4.2]

Notice that he wasn't informed of the "presence" of the ambassador, but of the "coming" of the ambassador (to Jerusalem) who was not yet present there. It wasn't until afterwards that he came to Jerusalem. This construct matches the use in Matthew, so even though the context shows us how we should understand the idea embedded in the term,  it is not absolutely necessary to translate the idea of a royal visitation into the word itself, because the context already clarifies the special nature of this "parousia." But it would be insufficient to merely call it a "presence" due to the same context.

There is another reason to avoid "presence" when referring to the Parousia event, and that's the ambiguity or "looseness of meaning" created when translating the prepositions in front of it. We've gotten used to it in our publications, but there is an inconsistency about whether we should say "at his presence" or "during his presence." There is no evidence from the Greek itself about which is better; we merely choose the word "during" instead of "at" based on our doctrine.

(1 Corinthians 15:23) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

But compare 1 John 2:28, already quoted above, where the word "at" is used, and yet it is exactly the same expression in Greek.

The same thing can happen with other prepositions like "until" (which also happens when Jesus says I will be with you (present) until the "synteleia"):

(James 5:7, 8) 7 Be patient then, brothers, until the presence of the Lord. Look! The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over it until the early rain and the late rain arrive. 8 You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence of the Lord has drawn close.

The idea is that Christians should be patient until the parousia event. If that parousia began in 1914, the incorrect implication is that Christians no longer need to be patient after 1914. Matthew 28:20 would similarly imply that Jesus is only present with us until 1914.

Depressingly low turn-out.

(Of course, this is not the actual picture of the KH during the talk. It's just a "still" picture used as a background and kept there during the entire recording.)

Perhaps if someone "leaked" every meeting and talk, more people would make an opportunity to listen.

I think the focus of the talk was about Witnesses getting "worn down" by the "strain" of repeated activities of meetings and service and keeping up, as he said, "week after week, month after month, year after year," or discouraged by difficulties dealing with opposition, and world conditions, difficulties in old age, health, marriage, singleness, being stuck with a bad partner "forever," stress, etc.

The speaker admitted that depression is not admitted by many people who suffer it, and that it is probably a problem among us that is "bigger than we may realize." He gave the comparison of our Witness activities to the world as if it was a reason to explain higher rates of depression among Witnesses than the rest of the world, because, as he said, the world 'has more time to relax, take naps, go out on the town on the weekends, watch TV etc. So we shouldn't be surprised that we [Witnesses] get depressed.'

Barren Hannah was the initial example with vexation, crying, and lack of appetite. But even this was never tied to medical depression, just an example to show that depression has been known through history. The speaker read a couple of quotes about these more serious forms of depression, but tied them only to "depressing problems" such as the bad economy. For younger ones in the congregation, it was mostly focused on how saying always saying "No" to pressures about dating, sex, drugs, masturbation, sports, and college education "gets old" and the speaker said it's a worse feeling for them when they want to do these things, but feel "hemmed in by Jehovah's righteous standards." (Unfortunately, statements like this can directly produce a judgmental attitude against fellow congregation members who become depressed.) 

I like that there were good reminders of why we should not let certain people like the elderly become "invisible" and "forgotten" or even how pioneers might be going through problems with apathetic territories, and loss of joy. Self-sacrificing efforts don't seem appreciated by elders and publishers, the speaker says. Ministerial Servants are like "unsung heroes" who aren't noticed and may feel continually passed over when wanting to become an elder. And elders have a lot expected from them, and it's a lot of work with a non-stop schedule and may fall short, or they are dealing with a lot of spiritual problems in the congregation.

But there was nothing about medical or clinical depression. And the examples and solutions were not appropriate to that kind of depression. I was a bit struck that from very early on, the talk included the same standard encouragement that would be given even if the talk had nothing to do with depression, re-using material from a standard marriage talk, standard encouragement for single persons, elderly, and those who feel overworked or underappreciated. (e.g., To become better prospective mates: sisters should learn to cook more than one or two dishes, and brothers should be more spiritual than the sisters: spiritual heads, not their spiritual peers.)

He read from 2 Sam 12, where David could have got depressed when he lost a son by Bathsheba who lived for a week. But seemed cold and hard-hearted and did not grieve. Similarly, he says, we have "no reason to depress ourselves over the past and hang onto that but instead live in the present and for the future." This can be good advice in general, but has little to do with serious depression, and David's example is depressing in itself, because it seems to be insight into his own unique personality, not intended as advice helpful to a seriously depressed person. 

On the overworking of elders, the suggestion to delegate to MS and other baptized brothers is a good idea to reduce stress, which gives more time for elders to reduce their own stress and focus on shepherding. But he says there has been a branch-wide trend for brothers not to reach out when they could. 

A good reminder at the end was that depressed people shouldn't feel that Jehovah has left them. He added, that it's not the time to isolate themselves, but to get more involved in the congregation. In conclusion, he read two verses. The first  in 1 Cor 10:13 that says:

(1 Corinthians 10:13) 13 No temptation has come upon you except what is common to men. [speaker inserted the word: "depression" here] But God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out so that you may be able to endure it.

Don't know how appropriate it is to link depression with temptation, but the idea was that it would never go beyond what you can bear, which is why he added the caveat next. There was finally, an acknowledgement at the end that really serious depression can exist, too. It took a total of about 6 seconds:

"Now at times a person's depression can be so severe that it may require professional help and if that's the case, so be it."

And then he immediately spoke for a few more seconds on the grave dangers of professional help, and the fact that it could result in bigger problems than the depression itself. This can be true, but I didn't think he was being supportive, encouraging or consoling to those who may have found it necessary to seek professional help. It's really a discouragement and even a kind of judgment for those who have felt it necessary to seek this kind of help.

Similarly, twice in the talk he had mentioned how Jehovah doesn't forget our "work" and another verse used at the conclusion appeared to provide a word of encouragement that was a bit out of context.

(2 Chronicles 15:7) 7 But you, be strong and do not become discouraged, for your activity will be rewarded.”

I was hoping he would have focused on a less reward-centered message, but use the motivation that Christians find happiness in, including our inward response to "undeserved kindness" the opposite of a reward-centered message. Therefore, I think a good conclusion could have included ideas from passages like this one, instead:

(Ephesians 5:15-20) 15 So keep strict watch that how YOU walk is not as unwise but as wise [persons], 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked. 17 On this account cease becoming unreasonable, but go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is. 18 Also, do not be getting drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but keep getting filled with spirit, 19 speaking to yourselves with psalms and praises to God and spiritual songs, singing and accompanying yourselves with music in YOUR hearts to Jehovah, 20 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ giving thanks always for all things to our God and Father.

Mir auch. Ich habe den Besuch des deutschen Bethel genossen. In Patterson haben wir sogar ein Bild vom Paradies, wo die Kinder Fußball spielen.

But I understand your request to avoid discussion. Thanks for the picture.

7 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Thanks, JW Insider !

You're welcome!

7 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

But no discuss under my postings please !

I understand. Thanks for the posting, though.

On 10/14/2016 at 9:09 AM, tromboneck said:

Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”—Matt. 24:8.

No one can or should try to judge the claim of any specific individual. However the current teaching is only saying that if any persons claim to have become "of the anointed" after the first group died out, then the length of their life doesn't matter anyway in trying to determine the length (or makeup) of the generation. The point has nothing to do with whether their claim has any "merit." 

The first generation is assumed to have died out already, although who could say for sure if there was not a 120 year old brother or sister somewhere who was of the anointed at age 16?  If so, that first group has not died out yet, but will likely die out in the next year or so. If we assume that the last member of group one died on January 1, 2000 at 12:01 am EST, then it is quite possible that two brothers who were twins, born in say, 1980, could both be of the anointed. If one of the twins (let's say, the younger one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes before 12:01 am EST on January 1, 2000 then he would be part of the "generation" that would not pass away. If the other one (let's say, the older one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes after his twin brother, then he would not be part of that generation.

So it's even very possible for a younger person to be a part of the generation where his older brother is not part of it.

Hope that makes sense.

44 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Enjoy the beautiful picture ! Thats all ;-)  

I already enjoyed the picture, and am still enjoying it.

I think you would not have enjoyed the Bethel Art Department. A "Paradise" scene had to be scrutinized in every way you could imagine. We would have looked at the picture above and asked:

Does the brother need to have the facial hair?

Do all of the sisters need to be wearing jewelry?

Are any dresses too revealing?

Is the brother too muscular, not muscular enough?

Are the sisters too overweight, too underweight? Too pretty, not pretty enough?

Is there a good ratio of brothers versus sisters?

Is there an ideal age depicted? Not too old or too young?

Are there multiple races depicted?

Are there children?

Is everyone smiling?

Are any of the birds about to eat something that might be alive?

Are there any fishing poles on the boat? A motor? Any parts requiring a technical education?

Does the drink imply alcohol?

Does the straw look like plastic?

What about swimming clothes vs. casual clothes vs. meeting clothes?

Is there any specific language or alphabet depicted anywhere?

Does anything in the picture appear derivative or distracting?

Is it too perfect? Not perfect enough?

This picture is actually very good, and it would mostly pass the questioning. But, even so, it would not have made it into the Watch Tower publications in 1976-1982 without several revisions. As of 2005 or so, I think it might even be acceptable as is.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

Sorry, this is going to be a long post

Sorry. I don't read long posts.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I don’t think it’s prudent to keep our mouth shut if we believe that talking would be beneficial.  What is wise though is establishing when it is beneficial to talk and when not.

Good advice. Paul spoke on this subject to the Corinthians.

(1 Corinthians 14:26-40) 26 What is to be done, then, brothers? When you come together, one has a psalm, another has a teaching, another has a revelation, another has a tongue, and another has an interpretation. Let all things take place for building up. 27 And if someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns, and someone must interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. 30 But if another one receives a revelation while sitting there, let the first speaker keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one at a time, so that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And gifts of the spirit of the prophets are to be controlled by the prophets. 33 For God is a God not of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the holy ones, 34 let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation. 36 Was it from you that the word of God originated, or did it reach only as far as you? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone disregards this, he will be disregarded. 39 So, my brothers, keep striving to prophesy, and yet do not forbid the speaking in tongues. 40 But let all things take place decently and by arrangement.

It's an interesting glimpse into what some of the first century meetings must have looked like. I agree that the time for speaking up with "tongues" and "prophecy" and "revelation" has likely come and gone. (Notwithstanding the claims of Judge Rutherford.) But if these gifts laid the foundation for the growth of the early congregation and the acceptance of what we now have as the Christian Greek Scriptures, then all is not lost of these either.

Still, we have the idea of someone who may have a teaching. Obviously, even the tongues, prophesying and revelations were for the purpose of teaching and encouraging "so that all may learn and be encouraged." What is intriguing is the idea of speaking up. Speaking up must have been for the purpose of questioning. Why women couldn't speak up to ask their questions, I don't know. I suspect it was due to the culture shock of allowing women and men to sit together in public, and the danger of therefore limiting the growth of the early congregation ... "so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively."

(Titus 2:4, 5) . . .that they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively.

(1 Timothy 2:11-15) 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. 15 However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, . . .

Answering a question is the same as teaching in Paul's mind, which is why Paul would probably not even allow a sister to raise her hand and answer a prescribed question at a Congregation Bible Study or Watchtower Study, either. Even asking a question was showing a lack of subjection for them. Yet, a brother could do so. So clearly, we don't do everything the way Paul envisioned it in the first century. But it seems that Paul wanted a meeting in which people came to learn and be encouraged, and he appears to suggest two or three topics, one at a time that could come up, not from some central authority, but from members of the congregation who would offer a teaching (through questions, explanations, prophecy, tongues, interpretation, psalms), and then there would be time for more questions and learning. This may sound a bit like what we do now, but you rarely hear anyone, even brothers, speak up to ask their own questions.

Also, more to the topic, there are a lot of people who think that questioning means we are not speaking in agreement. This is not true at all. If there are questions about a topic and someone feels they should be dogmatic about a certain interpretation, then that is what creates the conflict, because it becomes impossible to overturn a dogmatic belief - a "strongly entrenched thing" - without a certain level of dogmatism in the response to it in order to show that there are reasons to question it. Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do. The different interpretations are merely accepted as different ways that different persons have interpreted it.

This would even work with very odd and controversial doctrines, such as the Great Pyramid and the predictions for 1925, for example. Various brothers should have merely admitted that it was true that some brothers were interpreting the Great Pyramid as Jehovah's witness or the Bible in stone. It would also be admitted as TRUE that some brothers did not believe this was right. We could AGREE on that. That is already the consensus. Some brothers might get more dogmatic about it and sort of "beat their fellow slaves" into believing it, but in an environment where we are supposed to ask questions, then we are still in agreement that this is something where questions have come up. We AGREE that there is a doctrine about a Pyramid being suggested, and even that some brothers are being dogmatic about it. (It was the dogmatism by which people were told they must believe whatever Russell had believed about Pyramids that resulted in the counter-dogmatism that the Pyramid doctrine was from "Satan."

It seems to be in this sense that "divisions" (to some extent) are helpful, because when people are willing to question without dogmatism, they help to reveal what is approved and what is not. When people get too dogmatic and speak out against questioning, this also becomes an indicator of what is approved. There was a brother in Writing when I was at Bethel who often joked: "Argument weak? Shout like hell!" (Eccl 9:17)

(1 Corinthians 11:18-19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

And of course, there would be other doctrines, where consensus would be so obvious, no one could question it.

(Hebrews 5:11-6:3) 11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits.

21 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

so I don't like much where this assumption/reasoning is going...

On 10/13/2016 at 11:14 PM, JW Insider said:

It is the more likely definition of the term parousia (parade-like spectacle of a royal visitation) that is the primary reason for it

No it is not! You just want it to be so as to fit your alternate interpretation (which, admittedly, is very interesting).

παρουσία (parousi'a) is the noun of the verb πάρειμι (pa'rimi) which is a composite word from παρά (preposition with various meanings, in this case the meaning is "beside") and εἰμί (verb, I am) and so we have a literal meaning of "being beside, being with" or as it is commonly translated "being present". Therefore the noun would be "presence". Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible. From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit. Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence". So, in my view, to use your definition of "royal visitation" to support the "visibility" or incontestability of Christ's presence is simply not accurate.

I don't want it to be the more likely definition. It causes embarrassing problems for us that are difficult to explain or avoid. But it certainly is the more likely definition when the term in the noun form, "parousia," is used of a king or royal personage. Of course, the more common use of the term, when speaking of non-dignitaries, would simply be "presence."

You said: "Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for 'presence'."

This implies that it would be difficult to say things like, "they were in the presence of Jesus" without using the term "parousia" and therefore the term could just as easily (or more easily) refer to the common definition of "presence." So how would we be able to know if the form, "the parousia of Jesus," or "the parousia of [dignitary]" was referring to a common presence or a "royal visitation" event?  Wouldn't it always be ambiguous? But there is actually plenty of evidence that the form "THE PAROUSIA OF . . . " would more likely define a royal visitation event, when used of a royal personage. And for us, the most important of that evidence is in the Bible itself.

First of all there are many other ways to indicate "presence" without using the word "parousia" in Greek. In fact, the verb form is an obvious way to avoid ambiguity. Of course, context provides the best clues. We can always look and see if the term "parousia" is ever used in the Bible of a royal personage, person of high or powerful rank, dignitary, etc and check whether the context provides any clues about a "spectacular" event or not. You probably already know what the answer would be from context, and I don't think these are just coincidences, because they almost always lead to the conclusion that a "spectacular event" is implied in the context.

A similar term in the Greco-Roman world that had both a common and a royal definition was "triumph" which evidently started out in this case as a term for a special kind of parade, but which also was used in a more mundane way to refer to any kind of success or acheivement. There are inscriptions and depictions of various "triumph" parades from contemporary stone images and writings:

The word triumph comes to us from Latin, but its usual meaning in that language is not the one we commonly give to it in English. To the ancient Romans, a triumphus was a parade celebrating a great military victory. The victorious general would ride a chariot through the streets of Rome to the steps of the Senate, a slave standing beside him holding a crown of laurels over his head. The general’s army would follow, leading the defeated enemy commander, captured slaves, and great wagons of spoils from the victory. The day was a holiday and the entire city would turn out to cheer, to feast, and to drink. Roman poets also used the word triumphus to refer to the victory itself, as did later prose writers in Imperial Rome. But this second sense was relatively rare in Latin, and the word usually referred only to the processional and accompanying celebrations.  (from wordorigins.org)

Clearly, if there were any ambiguity about whether a royal triumph or a common triumph were meant, the context would take care of it, or another term for success could distinguish the mundane meaning.

Another answer to the claim that there is no other word for "presence" is that the idea of "presence" is already implied in the context of many verbs and phrases so that the term is not usually necessary at all in the Greek. Look at some pairs of verses below to see what I mean:

• (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him.
• (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan [until his presence before] John, in order to be [present to be] baptized by him.
• (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave the command to depart for the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him: . . . 
• (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus [found himself in the presence of a] crowd around him, he gave the command to depart [so that they would then be present on] other side. 19 And a scribe came up [so that he was in the presence of Jesus] and said to him: . . .
• (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were with Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!”
• (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were [known to be in the presence of] Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!”
• (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”
• (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am [present] in their midst.”

So it shouldn't be surprising that the term parousia is rarely used of anyone in the Bible. But this makes it all the more curious that only one gospel writer ever uses it, and the one that does, of course, is Matthew who uses it only 4 times. Every one of the times Mathew uses the term, it is about the Parousia of Jesus, never anyone else. One of the four times, it's the disciples asking Jesus about the Parousia after Jesus has just described a spectacular judgment event. The other three times, it was in Jesus' answer where Jesus speaks of it as "The Parousia of the Son of Man." Jesus always describes it in the context of a spectacular judgment event.

You also said: "Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible."

There are very good reasons to presume this was the intended meaning. Matthew, the only gospel writer who uses the term "parousia," actually describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the same terms that would remind Greek readers of a parade-like "parousia."

(Matthew 21:4-9) 4 This actually took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, who said: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion: ‘Look! Your king is coming to you, mild-tempered and mounted on a donkey, yes, on a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’” 6 So the disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and they put their outer garments on them, and he sat on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road, while others were cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road. 9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!”

The royal parousia event in the Greco-Roman Hellenistic world was known to be a bit more flamboyant. Discussions of such events have spoken of crowds coming out to see and cheer, the fixing of the roads so that the "king" (emperor, dignitary, etc) had a smooth path, and it could be accompanied by trumpets and fanfare from an entourage of persons dressed in white robes, and could even include a public event where the dignitary could sit in judgment to showcase his power.

The "entourage" associated with the term Parousia may even be the reason for including the mention of  the trumpet sound and the angels when describing the spectacular judgment event.

(Matthew 24:30, 31) . . .Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

(Matthew 25:31, 32) 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, . . .

You also said: "From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit."

Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation":

The citations from Euripides and Sophocles use language from upwards of 500 years earlier. The special use of the term Parousia may not even have generally developed at that point. Even if it already had, remember that the term only carries the special meaning when the context is about the official parousia of a royal or official personage, or of a god. The term should be translated as merely presence or arrival in these other cases. Notice from the Liddell-Scott entries that the special use begins to show up more from later authors, per their references.

Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures.

Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158:

A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.⁶ Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."⁷Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].⁸ These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23).

Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.⁹ For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284). Of perhaps equal importance is another sort of "sacral" use of the term, found in an inscription from the Asclepion at Epidaurus, which reads tan tep[a]rousian tan auto [p]arenephanize ho Asklapio-"and Asclepius manifested his parousia"¹⁰ (compare 2 Thess 2:8). It is important to realize that one should not make too sharp a distinction between the sacred and the profane use of parousia, not least because by Paul's time the emperor was already being given divine status of a sort. E. Best puts it this way:

These two usages are not so far apart as might seem for court and sacral language are closely linked. It is difficult to believe that those who used the term in the Hellenistic world were unaware of this significance.... The word then was chosen to express the concept in Greek because it carried the nuance of movement and probably, ... because it carried from Hellenistic culture the idea of a ceremonial visit of a ruler to his people which would be for them a joyful occasion.

(p. 158)

It is probable that Paul is drawing on the secular parousia imagery, for when a king went to visit a city his herald would go before him to the city walls to announce with trumpet blast and audible words the coming of the king. It might even include the "cry of command" to open up the city gates so as to let the visiting monarch in (compare the use of this tradition in the entrance liturgy in Ps 24:7-10).

This suggestion becomes more than a conjecture when we point out that in I Thessalonians 4:17 Paul refers to the apantesin. Cicero, in the course of his description of Julius Caesar's tour through Italy in 49 B.C., says, "Just imagine what apanteseis he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him" (Ad. Att. 8.16.2; compare 16.11.6 of Octavian). This word refers to the action of the greeting committee that goes out to meet the king or dignitary at his parousia who is paying an official visit to the town, and escort him back into the town on the final part of his journey. "These analogies (especially in association with the term parousia) suggest the possibility that the Lord is pictured here as escorted the remainder of his journey to earth by his people both those newly raised from the dead and those who have remained alive." Thessalonica, a Hellenistic town founded by the Macedonian king Cassander, was a free city within the Roman Empire from 42 B.C. The recipients of l Thessalonians would surely have been familiar with what Paul was implying by the use of the secular Hellenistic language of a parousia.

---- end of quote ----

I highlighted (bolded) the portion about giving a crown to the king at a parousia event because of what Paul says:

(1 Thessalonians 2:19, 20) For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence? Is it not in fact you? You certainly are our glory and joy.

One of those references was from the "Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" -- Testament of Judah 22:1-3.

1. And the Lord shall bring upon them divisions one against another. And there shall be continually wars in Israel;
2. And among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, Until the salvation of Israel shall come, Until the PAROUSIA of the God of righteousness, That Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace.
3. And He shall guard the might of my kingdom for ever; For the Lord sware to me with an oath that He would not destroy the kingdom from my seed for ever.