Anna

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this:
(Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23:
(Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation."
But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false.
He says:
But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'"
Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory:
Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6:
But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6  that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how:
He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

Hahaha, yes, you could call it disaster relief. But I'm being serious. Anyone?

Many interesting comments!
I'll do a bit of analysis later. But.....first impressions, it seems like we are all a bit in the dark!
Like Jesus said: "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father" Mk 13:32.
Huh! Don't you hate it when someone's always right???

Hahaha, too true!

It makes one wonder...and we can only hope. But I still think we will all be taken by surprise, because things rarely have a habit of turning out like we thought they would!

Hahaha, too true!

did you see their towel? never leave home without one

I think I've presented the following alternative suggestion before (a couple of times):
It makes sense that when Jesus refers to "all these things" he is referring to the same "all these things" that the disciples asked him about:
(Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” In context, of course, "all these things" referred to the judgment on Jerusalem and therefore the toppling of the Temple buildings.
(Mark 13:1-4) As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” Since the word "synteleia" can refer to a final destruction and the word "parousia" can refer to a final judgment event, the disciples no doubt thought that these events were part of the final parousia/synteleia on the whole world. After all, Jerusalem represented the whole world to them. Therefore, Jesus' words to them started out "Do not be misled." or "Look out that nobody misleads you." For you are going to see a lot of things in this generation that you might think will be a sign of that final end, but remember that all these things are going to take place. A lot of things might fool you into thinking you are seeing that final sign. You will go through a lot of trials and tribulations. But don't be misled. The final end cannot happen until AFTER the only sign, which is what you will see come upon Jerusalem.
Jesus' prophecy about Jerusalem, of course, also contains a lot of good counsel about how easy it would be to also be fooled into thinking that this or that is a sign for the final parousia too. It's also easy for us to be fooled into thinking that wars, and earthquakes, and famines are a "sign" of the final parousia, when really we know that, even though all these things will take place, people will also be talking about peace and security right up to the end. People will be eating and drinking and marrying and going on with their lives right up to the end. People will be ridiculing the fact that all things are still going on just like they have been from the beginning, right up until the final end.

True, but not about the people in the picture. It was true of the number of generations in Matthew chapter 1.
14+14+14=42
(Unless these three people are galaxy hitchhikers.)

Hahaha, yes, you could call it disaster relief. But I'm being serious. Anyone?

Matthew 24:34 " All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations". This is counting each person's lifetime as a generation
Insight to the Scriptures under Generation, p917:
A generation commonly refers to all persons who were born about the same time. (Ex 1:6; Mt 11:16)
Associated with this is the meaning “contemporaries.” At Genesis 6:9 it is stated concerning Noah: “He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries [literally, generations...
Length. When the term “generation” is used with reference to the people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated, except that the time would fall within reasonable limits. These limits would be determined by the life span of the people of that time or of that population. The life span of the ten generations from Adam to Noah averaged more than 850 years each. (Ge 5:5-31; 9:29) But after Noah, man’s life span dropped off sharply. Abraham, for example, lived only 175 years. (Ge 25:7) Today, much as it was in the time of Moses, people living under favorable conditions may reach 70 or 80 years of age.....
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies. When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.
The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined" (in Matthew mark and Luke).
Dictionary definition of Generation: 1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation. 2. the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. 3. a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc. Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.   Definition of contemporaries: adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz. 2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand. 3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel. noun, plural contemporaries. 4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others. 5. a person of the same age as another. However, I do understand the idea that the Slave is trying to present when it says "Contemporaries" rather than generation. But even then, in general, contemporaries also live and die roughly at the same time. As regards the contemporaries of a certain time period, for example the contemporaries of WW, that would surely not include someone who was born in 1960 would it? As for the contemporaries of a certain sign, in this case the "time of the end", well the contemporaries of that time could be as long as the "time of the end" lasted! In view of the different time concepts of humans as opposed to Jehovah, the time of the end could be a 1000 years long! And all those people that lived and died (approx.12 generations), could be counted as generations living in the "time of the end" if we are going to use that formula...
So....I hate to say it, but since I agree with the explanation of the Insight Book, and the dictionary definitions, I have no choice in this stream of time but to question the accuracy of 1914, rather than the logical understanding of Generation...and Contemporaries.  So that's my alternative suggestion @Gone FishingBut of course I could be wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Matthew 24:34 " All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations". This is counting each person's lifetime as a generation
Insight to the Scriptures under Generation, p917:
A generation commonly refers to all persons who were born about the same time. (Ex 1:6; Mt 11:16)
Associated with this is the meaning “contemporaries.” At Genesis 6:9 it is stated concerning Noah: “He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries [literally, generations...
Length. When the term “generation” is used with reference to the people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated, except that the time would fall within reasonable limits. These limits would be determined by the life span of the people of that time or of that population. The life span of the ten generations from Adam to Noah averaged more than 850 years each. (Ge 5:5-31; 9:29) But after Noah, man’s life span dropped off sharply. Abraham, for example, lived only 175 years. (Ge 25:7) Today, much as it was in the time of Moses, people living under favorable conditions may reach 70 or 80 years of age.....
“This Generation” of Christ’s Prophecies. When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.
Later that same day, Jesus again used practically the same words, saying: “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Mt 24:34) In this instance, Jesus was answering a question regarding the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple as well as regarding the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things. Before his reference to “this generation,” however, he had focused his remarks specifically on his “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” and the nearness of the Kingdom of God. Immediately afterward, he continued with references to his “presence.” (Mt 24:30, 37, 39; Lu 21:27, 31) Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.
The people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced these many terrifying events concurrently and in concentrated measure—international wars, great earthquakes, terrible pestilences, widespread famine, persecution of Christians, and other conditions that Jesus outlined" (in Matthew mark and Luke).
Dictionary definition of Generation: 1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation. 2. the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring. 3. a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc. Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.   Definition of contemporaries: adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz. 2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand. 3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel. noun, plural contemporaries. 4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others. 5. a person of the same age as another. However, I do understand the idea that the Slave is trying to present when it says "Contemporaries" rather than generation. But even then, in general, contemporaries also live and die roughly at the same time. As regards the contemporaries of a certain time period, for example the contemporaries of WW, that would surely not include someone who was born in 1960 would it? As for the contemporaries of a certain sign, in this case the "time of the end", well the contemporaries of that time could be as long as the "time of the end" lasted! In view of the different time concepts of humans as opposed to Jehovah, the time of the end could be a 1000 years long! And all those people that lived and died (approx.12 generations), could be counted as generations living in the "time of the end" if we are going to use that formula...
So....I hate to say it, but since I agree with the explanation of the Insight Book, and the dictionary definitions, I have no choice in this stream of time but to question the accuracy of 1914, rather than the logical understanding of Generation...and Contemporaries.  So that's my alternative suggestion @Gone FishingBut of course I could be wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Anna you have answer before eyes :))))
 

I didn't hear him say anything about it being a "fantastic novel" as quoted by the original poster, but he definitely recommended it  by saying; "You may want to pick it up and read it" and that "it's very interesting reading" .  
I would like to comment on a lot more but this is a busy two weeks for me work wise, and I am able only to read the comments, and  briefly reply with little snippets that don't require a lot of thought (well, I am blonde)...

Very good, the answer is not one but three! . I swear, it wasn't a trap, just plain ol logic

The topic bellow is not accepting any further comments so I have no choice but to start another topic, although this thread will probably be really short...
I  wanted to comment on this remark made by @Alessandro Corona : "Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has".
That the book was written through automatic angel writing is mere speculation and not based on any know facts.  The publishers Leopold Classic Library commented on its re- print: ....."our view is that this is a significant literary work, which deserves to be brought back into print after many decades...... We hope that you will enjoy this wonderful classic book”  I have the book, and agree with both Leopold publishing and Br. Herd (if he really said anything like what was quoted). It is a romantic novel of the caliber of well known classics and if you can get a hold of it (Amazon has it) then I recommend it for your library.
I think the rumour originally got started because it was said that  Ms. Ann Eliza Smith, the author, had never read the Bible and despite that, her observations regarding that time (antediluvian) were remarkably accurate so much so that is was deemed she must have had this information communicated to her via an angel. I find it unlikely that she didn’t know anything about the Bible since most people at that time did, and one of her other novels (From dawn to sunrise) apparently deals with “the historical and philosophical religious ideas of mankind”. She herself says that : “the theory upon which the story is founded is in strict accordance with the sacred writings of the Hebrews and traditions of other ancient nations”.
Anyway, for those who want to know more about the novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seola
Note what the footnote says about the music that she said had inspired her: “A book review publisher called, "Good Company-Sunday Afternoon: A magazine for the household" released an article on the novel Seola in 1878. The magazine believed the compositions that motivated Smith to write the novel was the prelude to the “Creation”, one of Strauss’s waltzes, a scrap of a symphony of Saint Saens, and Wagner’s Centennial March, all played simultaneously in a small room”. 
Also note the reason Br. Russell recommended the book was because: "we believe it will be of interest to Bible Students, who are familiar with the machinations of the devil and the demons and the influence exercised by them prior to the flood and also now in this evil day. The book throws light on the subject and is believed, will aid those who carefully consider it to avoid the baneful effects of spiritism, now so prevalent in the world".
Of course this kind of reasoning was very popular at the time because as was said "spiritism was now so prevalent in the world"*. However now, we would just consider the novel an interesting read as any other, well written story, (that was made up but based on facts), would be.
*It seems the popularity of spiritism (called spiritualism by wikipedia) got it's modern start in Europe and the USA in the late 1800's with the "help" of the Fox sisters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_sisters
 
 
 
 

I think this might be because the lamp is very close to the wall, whereas the apostles are not. They do cast some shadow, on each other, and the scroll, but not on the wall because of their distance, and the position of the light source.  But I agree, the shadow of the lamp looks a little exaggerated, probably to add interest and depth....It looks like the like the light source is coming from 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock...

I didn't hear him say anything about it being a "fantastic novel" as quoted by the original poster, but he definitely recommended it  by saying; "You may want to pick it up and read it" and that "it's very interesting reading" .  
I would like to comment on a lot more but this is a busy two weeks for me work wise, and I am able only to read the comments, and  briefly reply with little snippets that don't require a lot of thought (well, I am blonde)...

The theory isn't difficult to understand, but where's the Biblical evidence? Br. Flodeen gave the concluding talk at the convention and discussed the new theory--not one scripture was referenced! Very strange...

Awwww..........that was a let down!

I didn't hear him say anything about it being a "fantastic novel" as quoted by the original poster, but he definitely recommended it  by saying; "You may want to pick it up and read it" and that "it's very interesting reading" .  
I would like to comment on a lot more but this is a busy two weeks for me work wise, and I am able only to read the comments, and  briefly reply with little snippets that don't require a lot of thought (well, I am blonde)...

We have not yet reached the million word mark for this thread, and under the rule of Universal Silliness, we are required to argue these points for the next several years.
I have wasted MUCH of my life devoted to such things, and consider them now ALL .. light entertainment.
Only.
MANY years ago I lamented that Ecclesiastes 12:12 was my favorite scripture, as it expressed the burden of carrying around many heavy bags of sand on my back... loaded on by others.
I am going to do the best I can, hope it's good enough ... sit back, and "watch the show"
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is irrelevant.
I strongly suspect that soon enough ... too soon ... WE WILL ALL KNOW.

Dear dear Cos. you are fond of these rather demeaning responses aren't you? Is this how you were taught?
"mystical" eh? Now that's a word my Trinitarian religious teacher used in answer to questions I had on the Trinity doctorine at school!
With regard to your request, it is the entire discussion provided by Jesus on the subject. His words for me stand alone without any need for me to amplify or explain.
I'm quite happy with your definition. Although I would add that Jehovah's power does not cease to exist when it is not in action.

Thanks for the offer but, as even those professing an understanding of the Greek cannot agree on this text, my schedule won't run to revisiting all the arguments. As I said, one's understanding of Scriptural context will dictate the conclusion on matters like this anyway.
You see, this is YOUR opinion, to which you are entitled. Although I shared your view at one time, (not expressed in such detail), I now differ as to my understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter and, (ironically), consider Holy Spirit to have been an enlightening factor in this, as it was certainly not involved in the imparting of my previously held concepts on the subject.
Your selective phrasing is to assume "power" as a synonym for the phrase "power in action", and to quote other phrases using either term as synonomous. By omitting the qualifying phrase "in action",  you create a contradiction by comparing in parallel phrases that are actually describing different elements. To place "power" against "power(in action)" is actually an "apples and oranges" comparison. The terms although related, are different. Now, "power in action"  is synonomous with the word "force" however, and these can be substituted for each other.
The concept of "force" has been defined as something that "only exists as a result of an interaction'", and thus for me adequately describes the relationship between God's Almighty power (His potential) and His Holy Spirit, the force, which is His power applied (or, "in action"), to accomplish His will. His Power is Almighty, without limitation. His spirit acomplishes a variety of operations, and is His power applied to the extent required at any particular moment. Thus Holy Spirit is limited to the demands of the moment and task at hand, otherwise it would be destructive. (Also, Scripture identifies  the need for those who have it already to pray for more).
So that explains my understanding which for me harmonises wth all the scriptural references I have seen both literal and figurative, be they descriptive or allegorical. Other explanations I find inadequate, or contradictory, or both.

No ... it's not ... that is why there are MANY different types and sizes of 12v batteries that you can buy, all at the same auto parts store ... once you put a load on them, that POTENTIAL energy behaves quite differently when actually doing work.