JW Insider

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.
 
 

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.
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:
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.
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:
You appear to be tying the words of Matthew 24 into one long relay-race, with 4 stages as follows:
from say around 33 C.E. to probably a time around 99 C.E. from after 99 C.E. to, I'm guessing, some point past 1879 C.E. from that point, past 1879, until a point after 1914, probably nearly reaching until the 1990's 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.)

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:
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.
 

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?

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:
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?
 

That's exactly what the level of emphasis already implies here! Even if we cannot always pick up that level of emphasis out of the expression [οὐ μὴ] alone, it alerts us to the idea that there is a "confident assertion" being proposed, and the next verse tells us that the emphasis was indeed intended to instill extra confidence in the prediction about the generation not passing away. (In this case, the confidence is that under no circumstances will this generation have died off before the stones of the Temple area are thrown down.) That level of confidence appears in the next verse. I'll choose Luke's version below for comparison, because sometimes if an additional meaning is appropriate, it shows up in the other gospel accounts:
(Luke 21:31-33) 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. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away.
Of course I also used Luke's version to show that the arrival of Kingdom of God has clearly not already happened during the generation, or at the beginning of the generation, as our doctrine requires, but arrives after these things have occurred.
There are some similar constructions of the idea that probably give the exact sense of Matthew 24:34:
(Matthew 10:23) . . . for truly I say to you, you will by no means [οὐ μὴ] complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives.
(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 [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”
(Mark 9:1) . . .“Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Kingdom of God already having come in power.”
(Luke 9:27) 27 But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all [οὐ μὴ] until first they see the Kingdom of God.”
A couple of these verses were referencing the fact that some of the apostles were given a direct visionary experience or revelation of that Kingdom of God, and a couple of them were in direct reference to the time when "no stone would be left on top of another, and not be thrown down." While the Temple destruction was not the final judgment, it was treated as another vision or revelation of that same final judgment which could now immediately follow at any time after the judgment on the Jewish system of things.
All the Bible contradictions that derive from the Watch Tower's traditional view about the parousia (since before 1879) can easily be resolved by understanding that Jesus' "presence" begins at the end of this generation. It is the only solution that works for both the judgment on the Jewish system of things and the final judgment on the world-wide Gentile system of things. 1914 is therefore superfluous, in addition to directly contradicting Jesus' words about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction.
It also resolves the idea of the "generation" perfectly, because Jesus refers to the fact that the stones of the Temple would indeed come crashing down within the lifespans of many of those who heard him predict it. It would not be just a dwindling remnant. And of course Jesus was right, it wasn't just a dwindling remnant. These things were predicted around 33 CE and occurred between 66 and 70 CE, only 33 to 36 years into the future. By no means did that generation pass away within 36 years; many lived to see it. No one had to come up with some means of making it work with a two-phase generation, or by some other meaning imposed upon the term.

When did Pope Francis do this? Which Catholic conference was it? As will become apparent, Pope Francis did no such thing. 
Alan Murdock has pointed out that this is old news. The catholicsay article goes on to copy much of the March 22, 1987 Awake! article verbatim.
Given how old the information is, the 10,000 figure attributed to La Republica will reflect peak numbers of converts in the 1970s and '80s. If anyone's that interested, they can access Yearbooks from that period online to check the numbers being baptized. But it has to be said that firstly, not all who were baptized would have been Catholics (e.g. what about all the homegrown JW children?) and secondly, there have only been about 4,000 or 5,000 baptisms per year in more recent times.
The Awake! provides a more specific reference ...
In an editorial dealing specifically with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Jesuit magazine La Civiltá Cattolica of February 18, 1984, wrote: [etc.]
[bold emphasis mine]
 
... and here is the original online, for any Italian speakers here - scroll to pp. 313f.
La Civiltà cattolica, Issues 3205-3210, 1984, 'I Testimoni di Geova'
 
 
 

Why are you posting this every couple of months. Saw it more than once.  The heading is incorrect. It was not Pope Francis. 
This is what it said:  "The Catholic Church raised a "cry of alarm", according to La Repubblica, because every year ten thousand thousand Catholics  become Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Jesuit Giusseppe De Rosa said that "from a religious point of view the most dangerous are Jehovah's Witneses.  They come fully trained; they always have the Bible in their hand."
In an editorial dealing specifically with Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jesuit magazine La Civilta Cattolica of February 18, 1984, wrote:  "The first reason for the spread of the movement lies in the propaganda techniques [that is, in the preaching work]. The work on the one hand is painstaking, carried out from door to door by people who are scrupulously trained in this work and strongly convinced ... " etc etc
Why are we so hungry for the plaudits of worldly men?
 

The September 2013 Awake article on this matter was addressed to people in this way , "you may not believe in supernatural spirits".
2 Cor. 4:4
Satan blinds peoples minds to the truth through false propoganda in many areas, religious, scientific, political etc. They construct all kinds of mental buildings based on these false foundations.
When some people hear the truth on a matter however, it can move their thinking on other issues. Bit like seismic activity in one area causes building collapse somewhere miles away. 
I had a study once with a Trotskyist revolutionary. He was active in a radical political party. It was impossible to discuss world conditions or religion in general without getting into a political debate.  After a year, I gave up and switched to talking in detail about the Bible's teaching on life after death, something he had expressed no interest in. However, this was new to him and he listened with some interest intellectually, as he did not know that mainstream church thinking differed from what the Bible taught.
Nothing happened for several months until he attended a funeral service for a close relative. He realised that the funeral discourse contradicted what he now knew was taught in the Bible. He was outraged by this. Within weeks he started attending all the meetings at the Kingdom Hall and soon dedicated his life to Jehovah. His zeal was now redirected into the preaching and teaching work and he pioneered for many years. 
So in the spirit of Ecclesiastes 11:5, I would encourage @Queen Esther to keep publishing the truth on matters. Who knows where it will have success?
Just one thing, It is good to provide a link to jw.org when quoting articles in this manner. Like this: Sep 2013 Awake

If you look at the original version that Queen Esther posted here you can see that the words were translated from " CUÍDENSE HERMANOS ."  This just means "Take Care, Brothers"
Also, if you run the whole thing through Bing translator, it can clear up a couple of the issues that remained from Google translator. (It also translated "died" instead of "killed.") Neither translator is perfect, of course. It helps more to have family members that speak fluent Spanish.

If you look at the original version that Queen Esther posted here you can see that the words were translated from " CUÍDENSE HERMANOS ."  This just means "Take Care, Brothers"
Also, if you run the whole thing through Bing translator, it can clear up a couple of the issues that remained from Google translator. (It also translated "died" instead of "killed.") Neither translator is perfect, of course. It helps more to have family members that speak fluent Spanish.

The overlapping generation was first presented by John Barr just months before he died. He was born in 1913 and, technically he qualified to be in Group #1, which would have implicitly allowed Group #1 to end in 2010. If there were any 20-year-old anointed contemporaries who were also alive while Barr was alive in 2010, then they could potentially live for another 100 years, and this might imply the possibility that the system could go on until 2110. 
Brother Barr was effectively dismissed from Group #1 when Brother Splane gave the famous presentation based on a chart that used F.W.Franz as a good example of Group #1. It raised the bar (as it were) by stating that the person should have already been anointed in 1914, not merely someone now known to be anointed who was "on hand" in 1914. Note the difference:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
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.”
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
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.
The first version in 2009 (Wt, 6/15/2010) could have implied the second, but only the second version made it explicit. Then again, one could still argue that Brother Barr was already "anointed" in 1913 in the sense that Ephesians states:
(Ephesians 1:4, 5) 4 as he chose us to be in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and unblemished before him in love. 5 For he foreordained us to be adopted as his own sons through Jesus Christ, according to his good pleasure and will,
The choice of young Brother Sanderson who was assigned to the Governing Body in 2012 was supposed to have been directly related to this new teaching. Very few "anointed" in the second group were young, and still had a respectable "high profile" in the organization.
 

The overlapping generation was first presented by John Barr just months before he died. He was born in 1913 and, technically he qualified to be in Group #1, which would have implicitly allowed Group #1 to end in 2010. If there were any 20-year-old anointed contemporaries who were also alive while Barr was alive in 2010, then they could potentially live for another 100 years, and this might imply the possibility that the system could go on until 2110. 
Brother Barr was effectively dismissed from Group #1 when Brother Splane gave the famous presentation based on a chart that used F.W.Franz as a good example of Group #1. It raised the bar (as it were) by stating that the person should have already been anointed in 1914, not merely someone now known to be anointed who was "on hand" in 1914. Note the difference:
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
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.”
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
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.
The first version in 2009 (Wt, 6/15/2010) could have implied the second, but only the second version made it explicit. Then again, one could still argue that Brother Barr was already "anointed" in 1913 in the sense that Ephesians states:
(Ephesians 1:4, 5) 4 as he chose us to be in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and unblemished before him in love. 5 For he foreordained us to be adopted as his own sons through Jesus Christ, according to his good pleasure and will,
The choice of young Brother Sanderson who was assigned to the Governing Body in 2012 was supposed to have been directly related to this new teaching. Very few "anointed" in the second group were young, and still had a respectable "high profile" in the organization.
 

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.

I think this is a good question. I know from comments some Witnesses have made that they already believe that we should treat the spiritual food at the proper time as if it came from an infallible source. One of the elders in our congregation (who offered the closing prayer at the mid-week meeting this week) often "gushes" about the Governing Body in his prayer, and I cringe for how this sounds to any new ones. It is very common to hear many brothers mention (in prayer) how thankful we are for the provisions that the "faithful and discreet slave" has made for us, and this seems to be in better taste.
But the real answer to your question is that they never would and never will. They don't believe they are, and they never will. If any one of them suggested it, he would likely be kicked off the Governing Body for suggesting something so fallible. They definitely don't treat each other as infallible. Bethelites say that the argumentative spirit is even more palpable among them now than it was in 1980 when political factions among them reached a peak that I thought it could never reach again. But the arguing is now done by proxy through the Governing Body "Helpers," and appears to be getting worse as they all get older. If anyone doubts this, just ask any Bethelite who has been anywhere near the door of the Helpers meeting in the last few months.
So it's an impossible hypothetical. But I'm guessing that the real question is whether we already treat the Governing Body as if they were infallible.
I think there are a few factors that can lead to this, and the types of quotations you made from Watch Tower publications provide the primary basis. The repetition of similar sentiments in congregation talks and prayers is the secondary basis.
The third basis is the way that we cover for them when errors are made, and this is partly due to appreciation for the unity of the organization and for the international brotherhood that has developed from this organization. To that extent, what we are doing is fine and right, for "love covers a multitude of sins."
But it's dangerous is when pride becomes the factor by which we defend any past lapse in judgment. This happens to all of us to some extent, because we can become prideful and arrogant that we have the only true religion, that Jehovah loves us more than our fellow man, that we are preaching to others because we are better and more righteous than they are, that our doctrines are not only correct but that opposing doctrines come Satan rather than human error.
This attitude of pride goes right to the top of our organization, and this is why it sometimes shows up in the self-righteous statements that sometimes slip through the editing process and appear in print. At the highest levels people saw this in Brother Rutherford, and one well-known and well-respected brother even won a case in court against him for Rutherford's abusive behavior. An old friend of mine at Bethel (A.Worsely) who was in court that day defended Rutherford and felt badly for having lied in court to do it, yet he says he lied because of fear of the same abusiveness. Brother Knorr was also known as a vindictive, petty "dictator" when it came to anyone who questioned his decisions. Knorr thought of many of the jobs at Bethel as menial and demeaning and would therefore use them as punishment when someone spoke up about an injustice. He punished older brothers by changing their job from the Home Office to the factory-bindery. He removed privileges from people he saw as gaining too much attention for themselves, even if it was only for the sin of writing "Faith on the March" (A.H.MacMillan) or defending Cassius Clay (H.Covington). A friend of mine, the former editor of the Awake! magazine (C.Quackenbush) was only one of several older brothers invited back to Bethel immediately upon Knorr's death, while I was at Bethel. People (including myself) saw this attitude continue in F W Franz and Ted Jaracz who would also become abusive and vindictive when their views were not seen as 100% correct.
From what I'm told, the current Governing Body are a much more peaceful group, but the Helpers, the ones who prep them on issues (and who are now involved in voting them into office) are vying and jockeying on a lot of issues these days, some doctrinal and some financial.
That background should help you see why such a claim would never happen, but our own pride in our organization makes us treat our doctrine as sacrosanct. Even if we know it could change at any time, we defend current doctrine because of the teaching about the "faithful and discreet slave" who gives us "food at the proper time." The idea is that even if it isn't 100% true, it's "true for now" which is sometimes implied by "food at the proper time." This used to be taught using the same words that Seventh Day Adventists use (and other Second Adventists and Bible Student groups). They called it "present truth" based on the same misunderstanding that Russell and others had about 2 Peter 1:12. The Watchtower has used expressions to defend past incorrect teachings as incorrect but really just 'the right thing but at the wrong time' or 'the right time, but expecting the wrong thing.' Our view of Romans 13:1 between the 1929 and 1961 has been treated as an incorrect doctrine, but sometimes it's pointed out that this wrong doctrine was important for the progress of the organization at the time. Other wrong doctrines have been treated as tools for "testing and refining" of God's people.
A better view of changing doctrines is put in better perspective here:
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. God leads them progressively so that the truth constantly grows brighter, they reflect more fully God’s glory, and they are transformed more and more into his image. (2 Cor. 3:18) They come to know him more intimately. Their needs are fully supplied, everything for their spiritual welfare being provided. (Phil. 4:19) Such progress involves changes, readjustment of their thinking.
Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940’s Jehovah’s witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position. Since 1962 they understand the “superior authorities” of Romans 13:1 to be the rulers of worldly governments, whereas up to that time, since 1929, they had held a different viewpoint. Other examples could be cited. Does this show that Jehovah’s witnesses do not have the truth? Does this bring into question the basic principles of their teachings?
Not at all. Jehovah’s witnesses do not claim infallibility. They are being taught by God. (Isa. 54:13) Never will they know all things, but they will continually be learning from the inexhaustible wisdom of God as they walk in his truth.

The article goes on to discuss some issues, including the importance of believing in "types and anti-types" although this has recently changed again (2014).
Most Witnesses have the proper attitude, because we have been taught that the GB is not infallible, even during that one meeting a week when they meet together and make decisions.
 

This has been stated in the Watch Tower publications, but it might also be slightly misleading:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
This change to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence had been 1872-1873 and was moved to 1976 (then later changed 1975). 
[The person who did most of the outlining of the ka book was the same person who completely wrote the 1943 book, and the 1944 book, "Let God Be True."]
Those particular meanings that had been attached to 1874 were already assigned to 1914 before 1943, although not all of the significance attached to 1874 had been completely removed. The Watchtower apparently avoided any publicity about these changes so this happens to be the only specific mention of when this doctrine was changed. However, some of the changes were mentioned in 1925, and perhaps even a hint in 1922, but seemed not to "stick" until 1930/1.
Another change between 1943 and 1944 was the definitive change to the zero year problem that had resulted in keeping 606 on the books until it was changed to 607 after 1944.
*** re chap. 18 p. 105 Earthquakes in the Lord’s Day ***
Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239
Also, the mechanism behind the "1874 chronology" is what I have sometimes referred to by that term. The mechanism is the use of corresponding time parallels between the Jewish-era "advent" and the Christian-era "advent" and this remained in use even in the 1950's. Some of this remained with a slight adjustment to 1874 using 1878. And it was for the same reason that 1918 remained important. (The "temple inspection" had been 1878 and was moved to 1918, and 1918 had become the date for the first resurrection for related reasons.) 1878 was dropped as the beginning of a 40-year harvest as late as 1961 (evidently). And, lastly, the year 1918 which had also used the "1874 chronology" in this sense, was not dropped in about 2007 (evidently). The idea of the first resurrection in 1918 was once definitive, and has now become only "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
========added in a late edit rather than creating a new post====
These are footnotes in the Proclaimers book that help explain how some of the "parallels" worked:
*** jv chap. 28 Testing and Sifting From Within *** That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878. Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. (See Volume II, pages 99-101, 171, 221, 232, 246-7; compare reprint of 1914 with earlier printings, such as the 1902 printing of Millennial Dawn.) It seemed to them that this fitted well with what had been published regarding the year 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times. See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” [1943] chapter XI; “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Bible chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.  

Hello Anna,  Welcome. Hope you don't mind if I add a few points.
Russell never scrapped the 1874 date, ever.
The 1873/4 date was actually originally suggested as a possibility by "Father Miller" himself back around 1843/4, but many of the Second Adventists after Miller preferred looking to closer dates in the 1850's and 1860's. (Many others did what Miller himself did, and said they shouldn't be setting dates any more. The Seventh Day Adventists generally followed Miller's advice.)
Barbour had the advantage of having been promoting the 1873/4 date from all the way back when other date-setters were still focusing on those 1860's dates. This is what made Barbour's name most closely associated with 1874 among the remaining Adventist date-setters. (He was the only one left standing after the previous failures.) Therefore, after the the 1860's failure, this meant that Barbour had a newly "captive" audience of Second Adventists that would quickly number to around 15,000 subscribers in time for the initial 1873 date expectations. He had to start building up the numbers again after the two main failures in 1873 and 1874, but Barbour (via one of his "Herald" contributors, B W Keith, and prior to Russell "discerning" it) declared 1874 to be correct as the beginning of an "invisible" presence, and then set 1878 as the new date for Christ's return.
This is why it was so urgent for Russell to put money into publicizing 1878, and why he funded a much larger distribution of Barbour's "Three Worlds" in 1877 that spelled out the "times and seasons" aspect of the Lord's Return, while Russell himself wrote a smaller booklet that focused on the "object and manner" aspect of the Lord's Return. Russell did get his name put on "Three Worlds" as co-author, but I've read that he probably didn't add much of anything himself. But all of this was focused on preparing for 1878. 1874 was used as a foundation to prove that 1878 was urgent!
Russell says that when 1878 failed, Barbour started spouting some bad doctrine in order to create a "distraction" from the failure of that date. Russell said that 1874 was still right, and 1878 was still right, but that they had expected the wrong thing. Russell then funded the Watch Tower magazine due to the urgency of the 1881 date when he was sure that the Bride of Christ would be joined with Christ in heaven, while remaining Christians would participate in a 40-year harvest that lasted from 1874 to 1914. 
It's true, as Ann said, that the 1874 was dropped around 1930, but there were some ways in which the "1874 chronology" (based on a chronological year-by-year correspondence between Jewish and Christian events) remained for several years, even after 1874 itself was dropped. Note the last vestige of this chronology:
*** kr chap. 5 p. 50 par. 5 The King Shines Light on the Kingdom ***
The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven.
This 40-year harvest remained "on the books" up until 1961, but it had been slightly adjusted:
*** w54 3/1 p. 150 par. 5 Restoration of True Religion Today ***
Not until the Lord of the harvest gave the command could that be done. Corresponding to the events of the first advent, there is first an “Elijah” work performed, like the work of John the Baptist, to warn the people, trying to bring them to repentance. Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918
*** w51 7/1 p. 410 par. 6 ‘Time, Times and Half a Time’ ***
6 Now note further corroborative proof of this period of time: “I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (Rev. 11:3, NW) The “two witnesses” are the antitypical Elijah-John-the-Baptist work, and their being introduced at this time is important, for it helps us to understand Daniel’s prophecy. . . .  foreshadowed great works to be accomplished at this end of the system of things, and which were also to be done before 1918. . . . So it was antitypically with the work done from 1878 to 1918.
*** w52 2/1 p. 78 par. 7 Jehovah’s Theocratic Organization Today ***
But again we ask, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time?” In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple for judgment, there was a class of sincere consecrated Christians . . .
*** w60 10/1 pp. 606-607 The Great Wheat Harvest ***
What was foretold in the illustration of the great harvest has been taking place in our day,. . . Christ’s anointed followers have been separated from Christendom, and imitation Christians appearing among them are removed as weeds are removed from harvested wheat. . . . The history of Jehovah’s witnesses, particularly since 1918, verifies the accuracy of what Jesus prophesied. . . .  As the harvest period in the illustration . . . . The more than forty years [1918 to 1960] that have passed since its beginning is short when compared with the centuries that have passed since the congregation was planted.
 

Whoops!
Maybe what I meant to remember was that he was never "disfellowshipped" which means that technically he is not "officially" an "apo-state." I see that his experience says nothing of being DF'd, but then again, I've seen people DF'd for less.
Everything he says about his discussions with Albert Schroeder and John Albu "rings true," perfectly. (John Albu was a brother in NYC, but not a Bethelite) I was put in contact with Albu for access to some of his books and his expertise for research projects.
Alan says:
I have believed the same thing, but never knew for sure. I think the general outline of that 1981 book was to be prepared from a couple of older Watchtowers with updates meant to specifically answer new questions raised about Ptolemy's canon and several other sources that Carl Olof Jonsson had written about. I remember that Bert Schroeder, Gene Smalley and others were angry about COJ's manuscript but wouldn't attempt to answer it. It got passed around like a hot potato around the Writing Department for years. Finally, Fred Rusk (the brother who gave my wedding talk) got it as an assignment to produce a Watchtower article in 1980. Rusk knew that the best researchers in-house at the time were Napolitano&Lengtat but he didn't like them because they had been friends with Ray Franz and had helped work on the Aid Book. He let it sit in his office for several months. I had a very strong feeling that it would end up being turned into an assignment for John Albu. John had been open-minded about discussing anything doctrinal, even things controversial up through 1981. But he seemed to close himself off completely in 1981 and for the rest of his life (until 2004), as far as I could tell.

One of the first talks I was assigned to give while still a "ministerial servant" was the "Gentile Times" talk. The old outline was pretty much along the lines of the article that Russell had written for George Storrs' Bible Examiner back in October 1876. I prepared the talk in 1977 and had all kinds of questions. I never asked those questions specifically because I didn't think there was anyone I could ask. But I worked with the Art Dept at Bethel, and that turned into a series of research assignments even while I continued full-time work for 4 years in Art. Several of the research assignments required a full reading of the old Watch Tower books. The research also put me in touch with a lot of people who also had their own questions about the chronology. I even found out that several members of the Governing Body believed that many parts of the chronology had to be wrong. Turns out I got the questions answered without ever asking them. I only gave that "Gentile Times" talk once, and since 1977, I have been able to give dozens of different hour talks that don't have anything controversial in them (as far as I know).

It was an interesting time. The white-robe bridge incident was curious. This was a reference to a previous time. Recall that Barbour thought it would be 1873 then 1874 and there were several places where many of his followers gathered for a final rapture. Russell joined the expectations in time for the 1878 expectation, and then Russell's readers (without Barbour) next expected it in 1881. Until 1914, there were no real "rapture" expectations for all Bible Students, although 1910 became popular for a while. 1914 was the biggest, but there were a lot of speeches that downplayed the expectation from November of 1913 on through about the middle of 1914 when Russell indicated for a while that he had lost faith in 1914 and even wondered what people might be saying 100 years in the future (2014) as he said that it no longer seemed likely to happen. But then the war started and he regained his faith in the chronology. Even then, however, Brother Wise and others continued to downplay the exact expectation for October. Brother MacMillan was sure of October, however. In 1915 he even gave a convention talk blaming the extension (then 8 or 9 months after October) on a lack of dedication by the great crowd (great company/great multitude).
The robes issue is even more interesting. It was once a pejorative way to make fun of Millerites and Barbourites to claim that they were standing around at night wearing their white "ascension robes." There is a lot of evidence that robe thing was just made up ("out of whole cloth"), from a story starting out of the Boston area. But over time, it seems like the Bible Students began to think of it as appropriate, after all. Remember that when Russell was dying, he asked to have his "toga" put on, so that he died wearing it. Also, the "first edition" of Faith on the March indicates that even MacMillan might have already had his white robe prepared. (He lets us know this in the context of telling about one Bible Student who already had already negotiated a funeral plot for himself in the summer of 1914 to be ready by around October 1914.)
Another minor point is that the Millennium had already started in 1873/4. The new millennial day was already dawning, thus, "Millennial Dawn." The first Jubilee cycle after that was to end in 1924 which was one of the reasons that Abraham, Isaac, Jabob, David, etc, were to be raised in 1925. It was not until much later that the Millennium was expected to end in 1976, then 1975 after some chronological adjustments. Franz even gave one speech where he mentioned the new understanding of the Jubilee to start in 1975. It would have coincided with the earlier chronology of Jubilee cycles, 1874/5, 1924/5, 1974/5 - and for a time Franz even wanted to change the 1975 date to 1974, but was evidently outvoted and the article was never published.

No one can tell for sure why we emphasized October so much. It was the habit of several chronologists after William Miller and therefore followers of Barbour and Russell also emphasized October. It has nothing to do with when the Temple fell even though the book "What does the Bible Really Teach" mistakenly indicates that the temple fell in October. Other publications such as Insight and various Watchtower articles say that it was NOT October. (More importantly, the Bible says it was not in October.) I think the "Bible Teach" book changed it to October just to simplify the reasons for explaining October 1914. It was probably for similar reasons that the date for Russell's announcement has changed from October 1st to October 4th to October 2nd. Don't know if you are aware, but the Watchtower has also taught that the actual date for the end of the Gentiles Times was October 4th:
*** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
11 Now that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, we know that the day for Jehovah to hold an accounting with the Gentile nations for “their error” must be very near. Never has the world been the same since 1914. Secular historians cannot explain the reason for this. But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended.
*** w75 11/1 p. 661 par. 15 The Time for Choosing God as Sovereign ***
This fact of universal interest has been true since the year 1914 C.E. In that year “the times of the Gentiles,” or, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended about October 4/5 , when counted from the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah by the Babylonians in the year 607 B.C.E.
*** w73 3/15 p. 168 What Kind of Ruler Does Mankind Need? ***
When did Jehovah do so? In the year 1914 C.E. when the “appointed times of the [Gentile] nations” ended, about October 4/5.
*** w72 6/1 pp. 351-352 Questions From Readers ***
At the end of the Gentile Times, about Tishri 15 ( October 4/5 ), 1914 C.E., Revelation 11:15 was fulfilled: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”
*** w72 12/15 p. 748 par. 5 The Time to Decide in the Name of Which God to Walk ***
By the end of the Gentile Times about October 4, 1914, eight nations and empires of Christendom, along with Japan, were fighting one another.
*** w71 12/1 pp. 717-718 par. 1 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
The Gentile Times had begun about the middle of the lunar month Tishri in 607 B.C.E., and so their 2,520 years of duration would end in 1914 about Tishri 15, which corresponds with October 4/5 . By then the British Empire and other empires of Christendom were embroiled in the war. The other member of the Anglo-American Dual World Power entered the war in the spring of 1917.
*** w70 1/15 p. 50 par. 5 Peace with God amid the “Great Tribulation” ***
Both the Bible’s time schedule and the physical facts of history prove that the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended in 1914 C.E. about October 4/5 that year.

That expression "the physical facts . . .  prove" was an expression that Rutherford often used when there was no real evidence for something. In this case, it's probably F W Franz using it, but with the idea that WWI provided those "physical facts of history."  There are many more quotes like this, but notice that the next one actually admits that it is two months off, and offers no explanation for it.
*** w65 9/15 p. 569 A Pivotal Date in History ***
With this pivotal date established, it is easy to go back seventy years from the seventh month of the year 537 to the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. as the time of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah. In 607 B.C.E., the month of Tishri began on September 22/23, the day for the observance of the festival of the new moon. It was in that month of 607 B.C.E. that the “seven times,” or, “the times of the Gentiles,” “the appointed times of the nations,” began. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, AV; NW) This was two months after Jerusalem had been destroyed and its temple plundered, wrecked and burned down, after which its two principal priests were killed.—2 Ki. 25:5-21.
Evidently to make up for the lack of evidence for October 4th, one of the next paragraphs points out that "At Ezra 3:6 it is stated: 'From the first day of the seventh month on they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, when the foundation of Jehovah’s temple itself had not yet been laid.' This would be, according to the Gregorian Calendar, on September 28/29, of 537 B.C.E. So on the first day of the month they celebrated the new moon of the seventh month of that year."
Then, a footnote states the following (linked to September 28/29):
*** w65 9/15 p. 570 A Pivotal Date in History ***
Or, according to the Julian Calendar, October 4/5, 537 B.C.E. See Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (edition of 1956), by Parker and Dubberstein, page 29.
Just because Tishri 1 fell on October 4/5 in 537 doesn't mean it fell on October 4/5 in any other "signficant" year. The above admits that it wasn't that date in 607, and in 1914 Tishri 1 lands on September 8th. Of course, this particular new moon celebration was just one of three different memorials to the time of the Temple destruction, but was not the date for the destruction itself according to the Bible and the Insight book.
The October tradition is actually based on a lot of assumptions, including the idea that Adam was created around October 1, 4026. The old October 1, 4028 B.C.E. date was more definite, but when it changed to 4026, the Insight book changes it only to "likely".
*** it-1 p. 45 Adam ***
That was in the year 4026 B.C.E. It was likely in the fall of the year, for mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time in the autumn around October 1, or at the first new moon of the lunar civil year.
For some reason we began believing that Jehovah, in effect, created the civil, secular calendar when he created Adam. (When Jehovah implemented the sacred calendar the first month was changed from Tishri to Nisan in the spring.) The older reasoning was closer to the idea that "we just knew" because we understood Bible chronology. The newer reasoning, starting around 1950,  included the idea that Adam must have been created in the fall, and this would explain why many secular calendars (including the Hebrew) started in the fall.
*** w70 5/1 p. 273 par. 5 An Ingathering Affecting All Mankind ***
However, Bible chronology which indicates that Adam was created in the fall of the year 4026 B.C.E. would bring us down to the year 1975 C.E. as the date marking 6,000 years of human history with yet 1,000 years to come for Christ’s Kingdom rule. So whatever the date for the end of this system, it is clear that the time left is reduced, with only approximately six years left until the end of 6,000 years of human history. (1 Cor. 7:29) This corroborates the understanding of Jesus’ words that the generation alive in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I would not pass away until the end comes.
*** w68 5/1 p. 272 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
4026 [B.C.E]           Creation of Adam (in early autumn)  Gen. 2:7
*** w51 4/1 p. 221 An Interesting Chronological Chart ***
  4025 B.C.    Adam’s creation (in the fall)         Gen. 2:7
 
 
It might seem off the subject, but the October date of Adam's creation was once accepted as a very important factor in determining the possible date for Armageddon, and as we see in the quotes above, this was tied back to 1914. And as the quote below shows, for some reason we "needed to determine" time from the "autumn of 4026" -- elsewhere stated to be about October 1st.
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 pars. 4-5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
5 Therefore, God’s seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.
*** w67 7/15 pp. 446-447 The Removal of Mankind’s Chief Disturber ***
Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E., which means that six thousand years of human history end about the fall of 1975 C.E. We are in the great 7,000-year rest day of God, starting at the time he rested after the creation of Adam and Eve. There are, therefore, a thousand years left to run.
In those years we sometimes gave another piece of evidence as a reason for sticking with the October tradition. The following article which is specfically on the topic of the time of Adam's creation gives no other reason for October other than this one, and this one just appears almost out of the blue with no other context about October. (In 1955 we were still pointing to the 1976 date, not 1975, which happened when we changed the date of creation back again from 4025 to 4026.)
*** w55 2/1 p. 94 Questions From Readers ***
What are the reasons for changing the creation date of Adam first from 4028 B.C. to 4026 B.C. and now recently in the book “New Heavens and a New Earth” to 4025 B.C.? . . . Incidentally, Jesus, who became the second or “last Adam,” was born in the fall of the year around the first of October. . . . The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date.
Apparently, the entire October tradition was just something we inherited from Nelson Barbour, and we kept it even though we found very little basis or evidence for it.
 
 
 
 

On the other hand, the "first edition" of "Faith on the March" says that this happened on Sunday, October 4th:
We realized that 1914 was upon and now we must do something about it. On the 23rd of August, 1914, Brother Russell made a trip out in the northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern States, and wound up at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 30 through October 4, 1914. That was an interesting time because we thought we were going to heaven that first week in October--- and were looking forward to that. That was the idea.
...
On Saturday about 500 of us took the Hudson River daylight boat, a very lovely ride from Albany to New York. Then Sunday morning we were to open up in the Tabernacle and conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel. Sunday morning, October 4th, the dining room was crowded. Brother Russell's habit when he came down in the morning was to hesitate at the entrance of the dining room a moment and say, "Good morning, everyone". We would all say, "Good morning". But this morning after greeting us as to the time of day he said, "The Gentile Times have ended, their kings have had their day." Then, of course, we all applauded. We were all very excited and I wouldn't have been surprised if at that moment we all just started up, that being the signal to go up, but it wasn't.
So the same recorder of these events first wrote the circumstances to show why it was Sunday, October 4th when the announcement was made.

Good post. Good research.
The Watchtower here says it was on October 1st, and I think A. H. Macmillan was the first to say it was on October 2nd.
I have read Macmillan's "Faith on the March" and I'm now reading the typewritten first draft of Macmillan's "Faith on the March." (His edits remind me of experiences watching the editing process at Bethel.) For years, I have noticed that there are a couple of things that Macmillan either just "made up" or else he had a very poor memory, or was choosing between two or more versions of a story. But when he chose to report on specific things that Russell said or did, there is strong evidence that it's Macmillan's own fault when he reported it incorrectly. (For example, when a bunch of Watchtower readers were reported to have waited on a bridge in Pittsburgh in their white robes expecting to be raptured, he quotes Russell to exonerate him from any personal embarrassment in that incident. But he ends up claiming Russell said something that he wouldn't likely have said unless Russell also had a bad memory. The newspaper account that Macmillan claims to base the story on, actually doesn't exist, and it now appears Macmillan confused it with a report from a Philadelphia newspaper about an incident a few hundred miles away from Pittsburgh.)
On the other hand, Rutherford had also been known to make "convenient" changes in a story, which he did several times in his booklet from 1915: "Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens." As a lawyer he must have had some of the documentation in front of him, but he makes several claims in that booklet that differ from the court records, often just slightly and often in a technically ambiguous manner, and often with an obvious purpose of simplification or to avoid a distraction that might create suspicion. (The entire booklet was written for the purpose of exonerating Russell from about a dozen of the major claims made against him and/or his business practices.)
In think that in this particular case, I would choose to believe that it did happen, and that Macmillan is correct, rather than Rutherford. The reason is that Rutherford may have only wanted to give emphasis to the fact that the Gentile Times ended on October 1st, and including the fact that Russell waited until October 2nd would be a distraction that would have required a small explanation. So the slight change was just to avoid the distraction. Technically, Rutherford may have thought that "first of October" could ambiguously refer to the earliest part of October instead of a specific date. It's also possible that Rutherford incorrectly remembered it being on October 1st.
But the other reason to accept Macmillan's date is because it looks like he is working from a diary. We also know from another source document that Macmillan had worked out the travel dates for all his speeches and convention travel in 1914. We also have a letter from Macmillan explaining why he can't make a certain travel arrangement based on the dates and (un)available funds. As a Bethel administrator, he would likely have kept good documentation. Also, we know it was common for many Bible Students to use books like "Daily Heavenly Manna" as a diary. What he writes in Faith on the March appears to say that many of the Bethelites didn't even get home until late in the day or evening on October 1st.  500 persons (including Bethelites and "conventioners" who would be staying at Bethel at least until Sunday October 4th) were traveling on October 1st from Saratoga Springs to Brooklyn.including a Hudson Steamer from Albany. This is several hours of travel. Note from Macmillan's book:
Ever since 1879 The Watch Tower had been calling attention to the foretold end of the present systems as due to begin in 1914. But while we were all looking forward to 1914 and the end of wickedness and sorrow in the earth, many of us were thinking more of our own personal, individual "change" than anything else. On August 23, 1914, as I well recall, Pastor Russell started on a trip to the Northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern states, and then ending at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 27-30. That was a highly interesting time because a few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. At that Saratoga Springs convention quite a number were in attendance. Wednesday (September 30) I was invited to talk on the subject, "The End of All Things Is at Hand; Therefore Let Us Be Sober, Watchful and Pray." Well, as one would say, that was down my road. I believed it myself sincerely — that the church was "going home" in October. During that discourse I made this unfortunate remark: "This is probably the last public address I shall ever deliver because we shall be going home soon." Next morning (October I ) about five hundred of us began the return trip to Brooklyn, including a lovely ride on the Hudson River Day Line steamer from Albany to New York. Sunday morning we were to open services in Brooklyn, this to conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel, the home of the headquarters staff members. Friday morning (October 2) we all were seated at the breakfast table when Russell came down. As he entered the room he hesitated a moment as was his custom and said cheerily, "Good morning all." But this morning, instead of proceeding to his seat as usual, he briskly clapped his hands and happily announced: "The Gentile times have ended; their kings have had their day." We all applauded.
We were highly excited and I would not have been surprised if at that moment we had just started up, that becoming the signal to begin ascending heavenward — but of course there was nothing like that, really.
[My great grand-father was with Russell on the Northwest and Pacific portion of Russell's convention tour starting August 23, 1914. He was one of speakers out of Chicago who usually joined Russell only on the "Western Tour" as they called it ]

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.

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.