JW Insider

Good scripture, one of the best. (And it's our daily text for today: Sunday, 11/27.) But, I can't quite understand the connection to Rachel McAdams (as seen in Mean Girls, Dr. Strange, Sherlock Holmes, The Notebook, The Vow, etc). It seems like it's just another way of indicating that most of us, being human, require something physical to initially attract us to spiritual things. I wonder if this is the best way to express a message about spirituality, though. 
 
Example: http://www.glamour.com/story/see-this-is-why-rachel-mcadams
See, THIS Is Why Rachel McAdams Continues To Be Our Beauty Idol
https://www.etsy.com/listing/481820251/drawing-print-of-rachel-mcadams-doctor?ref=market
 

See some islands and countries already being affected by climate change: http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10/#kiribati-1
 

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.

By way of pure coincidence, I suppose, more scholars put the death of Jesus at about 30 C.E., because Herod was still alive and most scholars put Herod's death in 4 B.C.E. Therefore if Jesus' prophecy was in 30 C.E. about an event coming upon Jerusalem in 70 C.E., then this would also have been a generation of 40 years, which makes the parallel all the more striking.
(Psalm 95:10) For 40 years I felt a loathing toward that generation. . .
(Hebrews 3:9, 10) . . .for forty years. 10 For this reason I became disgusted with this generation. . .
(Matthew 23:36, 37) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,. . .
Also, I don't know if you followed the discussion about how, if the idea of an overlap was somehow important to "this generation," then the only important part of that overlap would be for those who were already older and potentially dying off before they would see the promised sign. If there is a "Group #1" then it was the older persons already alive, prior to new persons being born in their lifetimes ("Group#2). In Jesus case, he tells these living persons that they will not all pass away before all these things occur. In the "wilderness generation" or "generation of Moses" the promise was just the opposite. That those of that older generation would generally die off, and only Group #2 would survive to see the promise.
(Numbers 14:33) 33 Now your sons will become shepherds in the wilderness 40 years, and they will have to answer for your acts of unfaithfulness until the last one of your corpses falls in the wilderness.
In the wilderness, Group#1 died and Group#2 (their sons) survived. In the modern day application to 1914, something akin to  "Group #1" was already dying off before they could really "discern" anything about a composite "sign" in 1914, and only the very young at the time (Group#2) could have discerned the "sign" in 1914 in order to stretch the timeline to somewhere between 1992 (FWF) and 2010 (Barr). So in the 1914 application, it is really a "Group #3" that survives to see the promise. Both Group#1 and Group#2 completely die out.
The 40 year generation in the wilderness is not invoked now, but it created some excitement back in the early 50's of course. For some reason my parents now remember the 1953, 1954 "Armageddon-urgency talks" and have nearly forgotten about 1975:
*** w54 10/15 p. 612 A Message of Encouragement and Value ***
“Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” What a consoling fact that is! All these things would happen in one generation! The sudden worsening of world conditions since World War I, which broke out forty years ago, was here foretold to end within one generation, within the lifetime of people who are now at least 40 years old!
*** w54 8/1 p. 478 par. 18 The Purpose of Your Witnessing ***
18 There is no time to lose. This is a most urgent message. Time is fast running out for Satan and his system of things, for they refuse to recognize that the “Gentile times” ended in 1914 and Christ Jesus was then enthroned as earth’s rightful Ruler. We are now forty years within “this generation,” the generation that witnessed the eventful year 1914, the generation doomed to experience Armageddon. (Matt. 23:36; 24:34) Make no mistake about it, that final war is a fixed date on the divine calendar, just as sure to occur on time as all the other purposes of Jehovah have.
*** w54 3/1 pp. 150-151 pars. 5-9 Restoration of True Religion Today ***
Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918, though similar work still continues with greater intensity, and is known as the “Elisha” work, and this goes on until Armageddon, . . . The end of this old system of things has been manifest since 1914, . . .During the forty years preceding 1914, and the nearly forty years since, every effort has been made to cause false religionists to repent and turn to Jehovah. . . .The time is close at hand for Jehovah to punish these Name-destroyers.
*** w50 8/1 p. 229 par. 9 Serving with the Servant ***
The 40-year period of time (from 1878 to 1918) was foretold in Scripture prophecy, and generally has been referred to as the “Elijah” or “John the Baptist” work, and so named because it constitutes a large-scale, modern-day fulfillment of their prophetic works. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Even as it it written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger . . . "
40 year periods were emphasized. I included the last one, because the idea of Group#1 and the overlapping Group#2 had already been used many times in such a way that Group#1 according to Rutherford was the Group#1(Elijah) that worked up until 1918, and of course, Rutherford & Knorr & Franz admitted that no discernment of the sign could have been possible prior to the "lightning flashes in the holy Temple" that began when Jesus supposedly arrived at the Temple in 1918. Group#2(Elisha) started in about 1918 and would be expected to work at least 40 years more.
By 1961, this idea was updated: The Russellite-era mantle of Elijah that was passed on to "Rutherford-era" Elisha was changed to become the literal time of Rutherford's (updated to be seen as the Elijah work) and passing the work onto the Knorr-era Elisha work in 1942. So, in 1961, we started leaving Russell out of the "Groups," and of course, Russell was finally dropped even from inclusion in the definition of "faithful and discreet slave" as of 2012.
 
 
 
 
 

I'm not surprised.
You might be surprised at the methods of research used by the Watchtower's writers. Before the Internet (and even long after) these types of Bible commentaries, translations, and Bible dictionaries had been the central components of the Bethel Library, and they were used daily by the writers (and at least one researcher). They were often used as the primary support (and sometimes the only support) needed to reject the WTS teachings and develop new WTS teachings. It's also obvious that these were heavily used in the updated 2013 translation. In 2012 a brother at Patterson showed me an online version of a Hebrew Interlinear that they were using with the ability to edit a translation under it. I asked if it would ever be published for the rest of us in the way that the "Kingdom Interlinear" was published. He said he didn't think so but that it was for another project in the works. If you remember, in the US at least, many of us were already running out of Bibles in our congregations, so it was obvious what that new project was, but the brother could only give a "wink and a nod" about the actual project. If you look closely, you will also see a glimpse of the online Hebrew Interlinear in the video given at Patterson usually shown near the end of a tour. It's only about two seconds out of 10 minutes, but it's very clear if you watch for it. The brother who showed it to me says that several of the persons who worked on that project have dozens of commentaries available on their computers for reference. I personally don't use them as a basis for rejecting the WTS teachings. If something seems not to make complete sense from a Biblical perspective, or if one of our teachings produces potential contradictions with the Bible itself, then I see no problem with looking at the same resources that brothers in the Writing Department at Bethel are doing. The same thing holds true for defending the WTS when I'm sure they are right, but there are commentaries that give even more evidence to support the WTS teaching. A commentary should never be the sole basis for either accepting or rejecting a teaching.
Exactly!!!
I agree.
Good point about the meaning of "this race." The idea was also mentioned in a couple of the commentaries you quoted. The WTS came close to using that idea at one point, but rejected it in favor of the idea that "some of you standing here will not see death before all these things occur." This was approximately the same meaning given for "these contemporaries." It's the idea of "contemporaries" that allows for the current use that takes advantage of the "overlap" idea. So I think this is the meaning that all of us are considering in this thread. Perhaps you are thinking of a more specific application that combines the idea of "this race" and "these contemporaries." If so, you might want to be more specific. If any of us are still around in this system after the currently defined "Group #2" are considered gone, then I think you have probably already anticipated the "new light." 
I can also give you thousands of good examples of the GB handling the word of God aright, and providing excellent and life-giving counsel and guidance. What we are discussing, however, is an instance where the Bible apparently contradicts the teaching. If we become aware of such a thing, we have a Christian obligation to speak up. All our questions should be cleared up, if possible. It should be a central part of our "hunger" as Christians!
(Matthew 5:3) 3 “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, . . .[“those who are beggars for the spirit.”, NWT fn.]
(Matthew 5:6) . . .“Happy are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, . . .
(Acts 17:11) . . .for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
 
Your opinion and my opinion and Eoin's and Anna's opinion all have value to me, but none have more value than that subscribed by God, who wants all of us to question, and make sure, and keep testing -- even if what we are testing is the equivalent of an "inspired utterance" or a "deeply entrenched thing" or is in the form of "a letter as though from [the apostles]" --
(2 Thessalonians 2:2) . . . not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired statement or through a spoken message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this is exactly the same subject under discussion. Jehovah wants us to question anyone who says that, in effect, the day of Jehovah is here. Are you saying we should NOT question it, just because the Governing Body who has given us statements, spoken messages and letters are as though they came from the apostles themselves?
According to the Bible we are under obligation to question in order to make sure of the more important things, to "see whether these things were so." And you shouldn't be concerned about such questioning. If something is on a strong foundation, it will obviously stand up to such questioning. If it's built on a weak foundation, then why get overly concerned about the fact that someone is questioning it? I vaguely recall about four instances where Brother Russell had praised and welcomed questions that ultimately resulted in a significant change of doctrine. The only one I can remember right now was about the 1904 change that moved the time of trouble to just after 1914 rather than the few years prior to 1914. He wrote in the July 1, 1904 issue, p. 197:
"The matter seems so plain and simple now that we wonder that we or our many critical readers did not notice it long ago."
This is another interesting and potentially important point about why Jesus would invoke that particular expression (heaven and earth) and commentaries you already quoted even tied that to the idea to what Jesus had said earlier:
(Matthew 5:18) 18 Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one stroke of a letter to pass away from the Law until all things take place.
(Matthew 24:35) 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.
You might be tying this back to the idea of the "race" (another meaning of "generation") of Jesus' audience. I don't doubt at all that there are some wider, important implications here. But I can't help but think your examples are a little bit TOO appropriate. They don't help at all. You mentioned: "like the example of the Hebrews having to wait until 'this generation' needed to pass before they could enter the promised land."
(Numbers 32:13) 13 So Jehovah’s anger blazed against Israel and he made them wander about in the wilderness for 40 years, until all the generation that was doing evil in the eyes of Jehovah came to its end.
It should be pretty obvious, then, why Brother Splane didn't think of this particular verse when he asked the question about what verse first comes to mind when we think about the meaning of "generation." I can't think of any more appropriate verse than the one you alluded to, yet brother Splane went with Exodus 1:6 about the generation of Joseph's brothers.
Thanks for pointing it out!

Allen, I was pleased to note that out of the 500-plus lines of copy-and-paste text in your post, that you wrote about 9 lines of this post yourself, which I have quoted here. While I would agree that the WTS is proclaiming the "Good News of God's Kingdom since the end of the Gentile Times" this does not absolve us from the need to proclaim it more accurately.
(Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, . . .
I think you would even agree that greater accuracy is usually the reason that teachings are adjusted by the Governing Body. With very few exceptions, the changes made in the last couple decades have included evidence that indicates a better and more accurate understanding of the Bible. I think that a close study of Jehovah's word, sometimes gives us evidence that there are exceptions, and the two-lifespan overlapping generation is apparently one of the those exceptions. You yourself just supplied several resources of Bible commentary that indicates some reasons why we might want to reconsider the Watchower's current teaching on this subject.
I think we all agree with the first part of that from the words "It's important" right up to the words "and deep prayer." But you surely can't mean the second part.
The Governing Body has provided half-a-dozen different views of the meaning of "this Generation" since 1931. If you held precisely to any of the meanings taught since 1931 up to about 2009 you might be in danger of disfellowshipping. I happen to agree with one of those prior definitions, but I don't insist that it is the responsibility of others to stay true to the particular view the Governing Body once promoted that I think stayed truest to the Biblical principles. I believe what you should have said was that we should appreciate the work of the Governing Body in presenting an understanding of the Bible that they have diligently worked at in order to convey an appreciation for the overall consistent message, and so that we can be guided to learn and study further. We should appreciate the Bibles, publications and study aids, and the organizational structure provided that encourages continual Bible talks, Bible readings, and continual discussions of various Bible-related topics. We should also respect their traditional, inherited views as long as they can be reasonably supported Biblically even after we handle our own responsibility of "making sure of the more important things." But you can't reasonably support the 6 or 7 different views since 1931, since all of those separate views contradict each other. You haven't said, but you probably accept the view that has been promoted only for the last 7 years out of the last 85 years.
I believe your point, and partially the opposite of your point, is well documented in that there have been 6 or more different definitions of "this generation" and this underscores the fallacies of personal understanding. They obviously were not all in harmony with scripture, or there should have been no reason to drop even one of these definitions as obsolete. The Watchtower no longer considers the views it held about "this generation" for 130 years, from 1879 to 2009, to have been scriptural, does it? The Governing Body rejected 90 years of its teachings on the subject as no longer scriptural, since 1919. This surely highlights the need for each of us to to prayerfully consider the teaching, and "make sure of the more important things."

Relevant portions of this commentary are available on Google books, here. We have another view that the parousia does not start until after the events of the tribulation and cosmic chaos. This makes sense, in context, but it is quite different from the Watchtower's view that the parousia begins well before the great tribulation, more than 102 years before it. The "generation" in the view of the commentary is not a part of the parousia; it is the generation to whom Jesus spoke in the first century, in the lifetime of his audience.
So here we have another application where only a small piece of this, or technically none of it, can be understood to support the Watchtower view. The generation is only in the first century and includes the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and the accompanying tribulation of that time, but the parousia event happens after the "stars fall from heaven" and the "powers of the heaven will be shaken."
Because his view evidently does not agree with your view, Allen, it appears to be just another random comment from a commentary. Was there a reason you included it?
Interesting again that you have found another commentary that gives more reasons to reject the Watchtower's view of the "generation."  (This is actually pretty much the same information as the previous commentary you had just quoted above this one.) The idea is that it refers to the first-century contemporaries of Jesus who would live to see its fulfillment. That would agree with information included in a post responding to Anna, that contemporaries of Jesus could include those born, for example, 80 years prior to Jesus' words in 33 CE, and 80 years after. (80 was not meant to be a definitive number of years, just an example of a lifespan based on a Bible reference.
(Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . .
Just as the previous commentary, this disagrees with the Watchtower view, because it limits "these things" to the first century, and limits "this generation" to the first century.
Just outside of the content that you quoted, there is a statement that says that the types of events mentioned in the earlier part of Mathew -- that part that the Watchtower accepts as a "composite sign" -- that these will characterize the entire period between the comings of Jesus. That would include all centuries from the first until the present - a view that Russell held for a while.
The quotes you gave from this reference agree with everything that all of us already agree on: you, me, Watchtower, etc. One of his themes "Matthew - All Authority in Heaven and on Earth" highlights what we said earlier about the "authority" with which Jesus spoke.
You didn't say why you included this particular reference, I'll assume it was just another commentary that mentioned Matthew 24:34. He doesn't have much to say about it except to say that Jesus was right.
Here is another commentary that supports things that have been said in this thread although it does not provide any specific support to the unique teachings about "generation" proposed by the Watchtower's teaching. He agrees that "certainly not" is an alternative for the emphatic negative where the NWT uses "by no means." Good to see further agreement on that. He notes that "this generation" is used in Matthew and elsewhere especially of Jesus' contemporaries with reference to "judgment." I hadn't seen this before, but it confirms something we said earlier about how references to "this generation" are most often associated with the "wicked" or "unfaithful" and impending judgment, but that even the disciples could be addressed similarly when Jesus referred to "this [faithless] generation." Good to see agreement on that, too. This commentary very directly agrees with the comments made here associating the generation with the lifetime of some of those contemporaries who were alive at the time this prophecy was made. That part bears repeating, I think:
This verse refers to the same time-scale as 16:28 (which was also concerned with the fulfillment of Dan 7:13-14): “some of those standing here will certainly not taste death before . . .” (cf. also 10:23, with the same Daniel reference: “you will not go through all the towns of Israel before . . .”)
This is, of course, quite different from the Watchtower explanation after 2009, which now requires two consecutive lifetimes, with at least a minimal overlap. The idea here is that a view like the Watchtower's is to "ignore both the clearly temporal nature of the disciples’ question and the clear temporal limitations expressed in other words in the parallel passages noted above."
I'm assuming you included this, not because it agrees with or helps to defend the Watchtower view, but only because it was another available commentary that happened to mention Matthew 24:34.

This reference contained nothing in the portion you quoted that contradicts any view expressed here so far by any of us, or by the WTS. I think it perfectly supports the view of Eoin, Anna, me, and probably you, too. It isn't likely that the writer agrees with the idea that there is a specific "generation" related to the length of a lifetime in our day as there was in the first century. But the reference, as quoted, agrees with all of us.
I have never seen this commentary before. I appreciate the perspective and agree that we can sometimes find an added depth of meaning by learning more about the wide range of commentaries and literary sources within Judaism. I am finding this author (H. W. Basser) to be a bit "disjointed" and undisciplined, but he certainly has a knack for drawing connections among a wide variety of resources. But he is not much use in supporting the Watchtower's teachings on his subject. You didn't mention whether you agreed with any of his points, however. And I don't see that he has here added anything specific to the discussion one way or another, anyway. But I am very glad to have learned of this resource. (A good portion of the book is available on Google books, here.)
Yes. Finally! Here we get to a commentary that takes a stand that is relevant to the Watchtower's teaching on this subject. Some of it agrees well with the Watchtower's view, and some does not. The relevant portions are available on Google books, here. Note especially page 63, but the entire commentary on Matthew 24 is useful.
The commentary and MacArthur's corresponding writings and speeches available on the gty.org site provide a wealth of information relevant to a good understanding of synteleia, for example, as the "final end" rather than a loose long-drawn-out conclusion. He does not make use of the special "royal visitation" meaning of parousia, at least in the terms that it is used by the disciples, but elsewhere he shows how Jesus (and Paul, et al) imbue the word with the more far-reaching technical meaning. These points are excellent for a separate discussion
However, the portion you quoted gave some good evidence that highlights the problems of the Watchtower's teaching within the context of the meaning of "this generation." You didn't say why you chose this particular portion but this is worth considering.
First, he works with the "generation" in the context of Jesus' statement that "even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that he is near, right at the door." MacArthur applies "all these things" to include all that has been mentioned in verses 4 to 14 (wars, earthquakes, persecution, preaching) just as the Watchtower does. All the things seen, all the "signs" right up until the "sign of the Son of man" would be seen in the generation living during the end time.  He says: "The signs of Matthew 24-25 will be experienced within one generation, the generation living when Christ returns." MacArthur goes as far as dismissing the effect of Jesus' own words on the first-century generation.
He spends some time on what looks like a very minor point, however, and it is probably more devastating to the WTS theory than most of us realize at first. Notice how it's not necessary to translate v. 33 as "he is near, right at the door." The same word literally means "it is near, right at the door." This doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but it makes us think about how Luke either quotes or paraphrases the same idea as if it the actual better rendering was "it is near at the door" because Luke spells it out as "the kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31).
Remember that the Watch Tower publications do not really accept the words of Luke, here. That's because we have created a problem with the word "parousia" so that both Jesus and the Kingdom are already "here" not "near." Now it's easy to say that Jesus is here and present, but that he will actually be "near" at the same time, because he basically arrives twice in the Watchtower's view: once in 1914 and once again on "Judgment Day." So, it's therefore easier to focus on the beginning of the Kingdom as having arrived in 1914, and then the focus is on the arrival of Jesus on "Judgment Day." But here, we see more explicitly and clearly, that the "Kingdom of God" has not really arrived, at least in the sense of a "parousia." Even if the word had carried only the idea of a mere "presence" in the mind of the disciples who asked, the question was about when Jesus would establish a permanent presence as King of the Kingdom. Earlier this same book had said:
"They were not thinking of Jesus' returning, because they had no idea of His leaving, but were thinking rather of His perfected Messianic presence, which they expected Him to manifest presently." (p.11)
The WTS prefers to say that the parousia of the Kingdom was NOT proved to be near by "all these things," but was already here. The Watchtower's explanation is literally on the opposite side of the door, from Jesus' explanation. This is of course the same problem we have in explaining how the birth pangs continue to go on for a generation after the birth of the Kingdom in 1914.
Other than that, you quoted a large portion of the commentary that is intended to indicate that the generation cannot be the generation of wicked mankind in general (which the Watchtower agreed with, in part, for a time). He also makes a case that it cannot be the generation of Israel, or even of anointed Christians:
"This generation could not, in this view, include any of the redeemed alive now."
That is (oddly) the position that MacArthur ends up agreeing with.
[To be continued...]

I think that Matthew 24, in context, does indicate that you are on the right track. Jesus said 'this generation will not die off before all these things happen.' He said it to give them confidence that these significant events would surely occur even though they would not occur immediately.
Some of them might die before these significant events happened:
(Matthew 24:9) Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name.
Others might be born before the end:
(Matthew 24:19) Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days!
Of the disciples who asked the question about the timing of this "parousia" event upon Jerusalem's Temple buildings, some of them could die from persecution, or perhaps even old age and health reasons prior to that event. At least one of the disciples had a wife, and therefore, probably children, too. Jesus did not know the day and the hour, and therefore he might not have known if any of these particular disciples (apostles) he was addressing would actually survive until the judgment day upon Jerusalem. So Jesus could not necessarily say, as he said earlier:
(Matthew 16:28) . . .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.”
In Matthew 16, Jesus would give three of them (Peter, James and John) a glimpse of the parousia through a vision right after saying it. But in Matthew 24 he is speaking of an event that would come 37 years later. So he would not promise that all of them would personally survive, but he could say that the "generation" would survive to see the event. Notice, too, that it was the same group of disciples (plus Andrew) who asked Jesus the question about the Temple buildings:
(Mark 13:3, 4) .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?”
By referencing the whole generation instead of just the 4 disciples, this allowed Jesus to say the same thing to a living generation of people that could match what he had said to just the disciples earlier. These disciples would undoubtedly take it to mean: "Truly I say to you that there are some of those currently alive in this generation who will not taste death at all until they see the sign of the Son of man's Kingdom as evidenced by this judgment upon Jerusalem."
No matter what Jesus meant, at the time he said it, there were older people in this generation, some of whom might die within the next days, and more for the next 37 years, and there would be new persons born in this time period. Imagine Jesus saying what he said, and then imagine that the generation had gone on for another 70 years.  Most if not all of them would have died off by then. The remnants of an older generation were already beginning to die out from the moment Jesus stated the prophecy, and he was already speaking about living contemporaries who would not completely die out before the fulfillment. Therefore, any argument about overlapping groups in this generation would necessarily include a group of older persons who were already a living component of "this generation."
This isn't just theoretical. An 80-year-old who was part of 'that generation' that Jesus referenced in 33 C.E. would have been born in about 48 B.C.E., just before Antipater the Idumaean appointed two of his sons, respectively, as governor of Jerusalem and governor of Galilee in 47 B.C.E. They could remember a time even before these brothers were named tetrarchs by Rome, and before Herod was named "King of the Jews" by Rome around 40 B.C.E.  An 80-year-old would also have remembered when Herod built this temple as a long-lasting project on a magnificent scale starting around 20 B.C.E., and not considered complete until about 20 years after his death under King Agrippa II:
(John 2:20) 20 The Jews then said: “This temple was built in 46 years, and will you raise it up in three days?”
Therefore if we were to think of a generation as living contemporaries made up of overlapping groups, then the most likely groups who were the significant components of that generation included the older persons who were already dying, and the 'millions then living who would never die' until they saw the Temple event that Jesus warned them about.
It's not necessary to think of it this way, but if we could think of an important single point in a two-team relay race over a course of time, then the only two appropriate groups would be the older group already dying out who were already overlapping with a group that Jesus promised would not die out. Therefore the time of "transition" between the two relay groups was at that point of time in 33 C.E. If Jesus had referred to another group (a third group!) that would arise after the second group died out, then Jesus would obviously have been considered a charlatan and a false prophet.
Yet, this is the argument of the Watchtower in making a modern-day application of Matthew 24.
The entire prophecy of Matthew 24 works without having to tie it "literally" to a second fulfillment at the beginning of a specific generation prior to the final Day of Judgment. If there were such a legitimate date, however, then the only two overlapping groups of any reasonable importance to the definition of "this generation" would have started (group 1) less than 80 years prior to the start of that date and ended (group 2) up to 80 years after that date. If 1914 were legitimate, the span of the two groups would overlap from about 1834 to 1994.  Therefore, it was predictable that, by 1995, the Watchtower would change it to a group of contemporaries no longer bound by a specific lifespan. (Even the book by Ray Franz predicted these types of changes.) The Watchtower chose to quote Robert Wohl, a "worldly" professor of history who had written a book with a most intriguing title:
*** w95 11/1 p. 18 par. 7 A Time to Keep Awake ***
In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: “A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates.”
In one sense they had done the right thing. As one might expect from a "faithful and wise servant," it was wisdom, and it had come at the proper time. This is even how it was presented at the time:
*** w95 11/1 p. 17 par. 6 A Time to Keep Awake ***
Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah’s people have at times speculated about the time when the “great tribulation” would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we “bring a heart of wisdom in,” not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we “count our days” in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term “generation” as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics.
That was a statement that I thought came much closer to the spirit of Jesus' words.

@Allen Smith
I'll try to summarize your post and comment on relevant points. FWIW, I thought your post was very good and very relevant.
First, thanks for providing some Biblical Greek references for the term translated "will/shall [not] pass away." They show that the NWT is translated correctly, when it says "this generation will not pass away." And the context, along with the extra emphasis (discussed earlier in this thread) makes it appropriate to add the phrase "by no means" so that the verse can read:
(Matthew 24:34) 34 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.
I don't believe anyone here had questioned the translation, and I don't think you intended to question it either. You can tell me, of course, if you thought that some of the other possible definitions that these resources provided were presented because you thought that they somehow showed that the NWT was insufficient. Otherwise, I think you are saying that we all agree on these points.
I'm also not exactly sure why you quoted this reference. While it exactly supports what I have come to believe about the meaning of Matthew 24:34 in context, it is NOT what the Watch Tower publications have promoted. Again, you didn't say why you quoted this, but it happens to agree with what I have been saying, and it disagrees with the position of the WTS. Indirectly, it states that the position of the WTS is "highly artificial" and has made use of an interpretation that can only be made "with the greatest difficulty." It indicates that the meaning of "all these things" could only refer to things seen in first century generation of A.D. 30, "within his hearers' lifetime."  I agree with everything in that paragraph you quoted, and you evidently do not agree with it. Am I right? 
This reference should also have been accompanied by a reason for posting it. It disagrees with the prior reference you quoted, but it also disagrees with the view promoted in the Watch Tower publications. First it shows how "'this generation never refers to Israel anywhere in the Bible," and the same would therefore be true of spiritual Israel, which is the position of the WTS. There is a portion of this argument that approaches views held by the the WTS:
"The unbelieving Jew who goes back to Palestine and sees the establishment of Israel as a nation (1948) will be in the generation that sees the Advent."
That was also the position of the WTS from the 1870's through about 1927-1930, based on idea that the "end of the Gentile Times" also referred to the Jews re-establishment in Palestine, which would happen just prior to (or just after) 1914. By the time this finally happened in 1948, the entire Zionist idea (promoted by both Russell and Rutherford) had already been dropped. Personally, I don't believe that the 1948 Zionist "fulfillment" is relevant to Matthew 24, and I think that the Watchtower has already made that case very well. I also have my doubts that you believe in the Zionist fulfillment, so it would have been a good idea for you to explain why you provided a reference that promotes this view.
You quoted that reference only up to the point where it says: "How long is a generation?" But you left off the rest of that paragraph from the source. I'll quote it for you:
How long is a generation? According to the standard set down in Gen 15v13, a generation is an even 100 years! According to Moses, in Ps 90, it is 70 years! According to the passage in Mat 1v17, it is about 42 years! By this system of figuring, a man BORN in 1948 would certainly live to SEE the Rapture & the Advent! The exact date CANNOT be fixed, since there is NO WAY to ascertain the reliability of the calendar since Pope Gregory fooled with it! At any rate, it is clear that the generation that sees the advents described in v14-28 will undoubtedly live to see the Advent of Jesus. This generation is described as the generation that is alive & sees the budding of the fig tree, the leaf - blossoming of National Israel! This date can be fixed with certainty – 1948 A.D.  So there ARE certain ‘signs’ we are to look for preceding the Rapture – read 1 Thes 5v1-7 + Luke 12v54-57.
This, was pretty much  the same way we (WTS) defined "generation" up until about 2009, at which point we had no choice but to extend the meaning, because "this generation," as we then defined it, had pretty much died out. The beliefs of the resource you quoted would not have to change until about 2048, at the latest.
Was there something you agreed with in either of these last two references you quoted? If not, was there a reason for quoting them?
[to be continued...Feel free to respond at any time, however. It might be a while before I continue.]

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.. . .
 
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."
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 view, for what it's worth, is that this particular translation ("by no means") is just one way to state the emphasis. I believe that ThePraeceptor called it a little more accurately when he used the term "most certainly will not pass." 
In other words, in Greek, it does not necessarily carry the same literal idea that can be hinted at in the English expression "by no means."
In English, it can seem to be the equivalent, in this context, of saying: "You should not expect any attempts, or circumstances, or methods, or ways, or means to make this prediction fail." But in Greek, at best, it's a way of saying: "Do you think this prediction might fail? No way!!" [Matching a colloquial expression that creates an emphatic "No."]
Of course, depending on the immediate context, it might still imply that first idea. But it is just as likely that it was a stylistic preference where the common term for "no" or "not" is worded with slightly more definiteness. I say that because there are other examples in the style of Jesus' words where Jesus intentionally comes across with a not-too-subtle "sureness" or speaks with "authority" with such expressions. (Also, it's fairly common in the Greek Scriptures to use this same "οὐ μὴ" expression where the emphasis doesn't seem to be much needed, or doesn't seem to add much emphasis anyway.) In this case, the emphasis on the fact that this prophecy cannot fail is re-stated in the next verse: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away."

Per the info available, this list of the ten commandments does not include "You should not take Jehovah's name in vain." And it adds a new 10th commandment that one should raise up a temple on Mount Gerazim. The Hebrew is "Samaritan" style, which makes sense because Samaritans believed that true worship could only occur on Mount Gerazim (John 4:5-21)
Jesus replied, "Believe me, dear woman, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father on this mountain [Gerazim] or in Jerusalem.
 
The original "Ten Commandments" were supposed to be from about 1500 B.C.E., or 3,500 years ago. This might be from nearly 2,000 years ago. Likely from a Samaritan synagogue destroyed between 400 C.E. and 1100 C.E.

As Melinda indicated these are not genuine. The best evidence I saw was given directly by the Van Gogh Museum just a couple of days ago. They knew it was fake back it was first introduced to them in 2008, then again in 2012, and now again in 2016. See: https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/news-and-press/press-releases/found-sketchbook-with-drawings-is-not-by-van-gogh-according-to-van-gogh-museum

As Melinda indicated these are not genuine. The best evidence I saw was given directly by the Van Gogh Museum just a couple of days ago. They knew it was fake back it was first introduced to them in 2008, then again in 2012, and now again in 2016. See: https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/news-and-press/press-releases/found-sketchbook-with-drawings-is-not-by-van-gogh-according-to-van-gogh-museum

Understand from the newscast that they are not genuine Van Gogh drawings.

This was really good. (Of the 152 page spreads, only the first 47 are about 1941, btw.)
The page spread on 40-41 contains a picture with a caption devoted completely to an army barracks that got 50 new bicycles. I wonder if the correct portion was accidentally covered up under the picture of Rutherford on the other side. If so, whoever had the original set of clippings might want to retake this page spread and show what was covered up by the picture.

That's because the original had 1869 on it. The date is not relevant to the date of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (1884) renamed unofficially in 1890 and then officially to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1896. 
The Society never printed this Bible, but began buying copies to re-distribute as early as 1880. Those copies did not have the Watch Tower name on it. In 1883 the Watch Tower was able to buy a special batch of the Tauchnitz edition Tischendorf translation in large quantities (see picture) to redistribute from Pittsburgh. Those also did not have the Watch Tower name on it. Then sometime around 1909 the Watch Tower paid the printers in London to print a larger quantity with the Watch Tower name on the title page, which the Watch Tower distributed from Brooklyn for a couple of decades.

That's because the original had 1869 on it. The date is not relevant to the date of the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society (1884) renamed unofficially in 1890 and then officially to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1896. 
The Society never printed this Bible, but began buying copies to re-distribute as early as 1880. Those copies did not have the Watch Tower name on it. In 1883 the Watch Tower was able to buy a special batch of the Tauchnitz edition Tischendorf translation in large quantities (see picture) to redistribute from Pittsburgh. Those also did not have the Watch Tower name on it. Then sometime around 1909 the Watch Tower paid the printers in London to print a larger quantity with the Watch Tower name on the title page, which the Watch Tower distributed from Brooklyn for a couple of decades.

Interesting SH Bookshop find. I'm not sure when published.

https://issuu.com/testigodejehovah/docs/watchtower_news_scrap_book
Many  Jehovah's witnesses  reminder pictures  of  the  past  from  1941 !
Click  the  link  -  and  click  on  *zoom*  for  bigger...   Enjoy ;-)

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.
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.
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.
 
 
 
 

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:
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
 
 

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.

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.
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.
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.