The September Broadcast - This Generation

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-09-09 12:23:38

A Generation is 40 years - not 70, 80 or 100 - nor does it overlap anything.
What is a biblical generation? (Ex. 20:5, Num. 14:18, Job 42:16) shows this to be the transition from father to son. Apparently, the average time between a father's first son and his son's first son is a generation. How long was that? About 40 years. Given the marriage and family customs in ancient times, this estimate seems reasonable. The length might have occasionally been shorter, but it was not likely to be much longer. If couples were going to start a family, they would have to do so while they were still young and strong enough to care for their children. They would certainly not wait 70 or 80 years to bring their first child into the world.
It took 40 years for the generation that angered God to expire in the wilderness (Num. 32:13, Ps. 95:10).
"From the deportation to Babylon until the Christ was fourteen generations". (Mt. 1:17). The deportation to Babylon occurred in 587 B.C.E. (not 607), and Jesus became the Christ when he was baptized in 29 C.E. Omitting the zero year, 587 + 29 = 616 years. 616 / 14 generations = 44. So, the time span from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ shows the average length of a generation was about 40 years. (The length of a generation must be understood as an average length, just as when Psalms 90:10 says a lifespan is 70 or 80 years, it does not mean people live exactly 70 or exactly 80 years, but about that long.)
How does this affect the "prophetic generation" issue? Jesus repeatedly referred to the people of his day with words like, "With whom shall I compare this generation?" (Mt. 11:16). Thus, "this generation" must have had a fulfillment on people that lived in the first century, at the very least. (Whether that expression applies to anyone else is a separate question.)
Jesus talked about the disgusting thing causing desolation (Mt.24:15) and then says, "this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Recalling that Matthew 24 recounts the words of Jesus just before he was put to death, those words were likely spoken in 33 C.E. The Roman armies came, first in 66 C.E. and then in 70 C.E. to destroy Jerusalem. 70 - 33 = 37 years. Thus, the generation that existed in 33 C.E. did not go on existing more than 40 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. So, THIS generation in the first century did NOT pass away without the prophesy of Jesus being fulfilled upon it. Even more compelling is that Jesus began his ministry just before 30 C.E., exactly 40 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.
But what to make of Mt. 24:36? "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Jesus had described the fall of Jerusalem in great detail, including the fact that "your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes", and instructions on how to escape. That is a lot of information for someone who supposedly did not know anything concerning this generation.
But "that day and hour" means something else. How can we know? Because, rather than saying THIS day and hour, it says THAT day and hour. "This" and "that" in the Greek text are completely different words. Jesus DID know about THIS generation, but did NOT know about THAT generation.
It seems clear that THIS generation was the one in the first century that Jesus knew a great deal about, including when and how Jerusalem would fall, but THAT generation would not exist for some time in the far future - the events surrounding which Jesus knew nothing.
And there is more.
If only God knows that "day" and "hour", what do we know about God's view of a "day"? A thousand years with God is like one day. (2 Pet. 3:8). If 1000 years is like "one day", what would one "hour" be? In the first century, the custom of dividing a day into 24 hours was already well established from the Babylonians and the Greeks. Jesus referred to the daytime part of a day as having 12 hours (John 11:9). So, if a day is like 1000 years, then an hour must be like 1000 / 24 or about 41 years. What does this mean?
"THAT DAY AND HOUR" WAS A GENERATION !
This means that only God knows the "generation" that comprises the last days of this entire world.
Because both Jesus and the angels had complete knowledge of the creation of the earth and mankind, they could have performed the necessary calculations to determine when THAT generation would commence - IF it were a fact that could be derived by accurate knowledge and simple mathematics. Yet, in spite of being wise, powerful and in possession of complete knowledge of the facts, Jesus and the angels could not make this determination. Why? Because it is not a matter of accurate facts and clever reasoning, but is a matter that belongs to the jurisdiction of God alone - not to the angels, not to the Son, and NOT to the Watchtower Society.
To hold oneself up as doing something that only belongs to God is presumptuous, and is a form of blasphemy to claim to have done it. The Watchtower, in addition to being a false prophet, has made itself a blasphemer by taking upon itself a role that only belongs to God.
One final point, which should be evident from the above. There is simply no scriptural justification whatsoever for the Watchtower to continually change their interpretations (a.k.a. "guesses") as to the length of a generation, including the preposterous "overlapping generation" theory, created in a desperate attempt to escape their failures of prophesy. The scripture's one and ONLY definition of generation is 40 years - period. The Bible allows for no other understanding of its duration. Not a single verse in the entire Bible can be pointed to as evidence of any contrary length of time, other than 40 years.
For reasons that are beyond the scope of this article, it seems clear that "THAT generation" - the one about which Jesus didn't know when it would occur -, has not happened yet. That is, the "last days" for the modern world have not yet started. If this were so, that would make all the predictions and warnings about the last days from the WT to be null and void.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-09 12:43:15

  I concur with you about the 40 year generation average. But one question. You refer to "that generation" in quotes as if referencing a scripture. I'm not aware of any relevant scripture where Jesus uses those words?

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-09 15:23:48

    That is correct; there is no scriptural reference implied, only a 'phrase' I was trying to emphasize; sorry for any confusion. I am drawing a conclusion here. The conclusion is that when Jesus discussed "that day and hour" it represents a different, future generation.
    Why make this conclusion? Because THAT day and hour - THAT generation - is something Jesus does not know about. Yet, THIS generation, the one that lasted 40 years, from the start of Jesus' ministry to the destruction of Jerusalem, is one that Jesus clearly DID know about, since he knew there would be encamped armies surrounding them with fortified stakes, etc. It could not be claimed that Jesus knew nothing about THIS generation - he knew a great deal about it. So, since he was discussing "generations", and he knew a great deal about one of them but not the other, leads to the conclusion there is a second "generation" period, distinct from the first one.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-09 16:16:25

      Thanks for the clarification. There is also another option. Perhaps there is no second generation, but only the first.

      • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-09 17:46:39

        That is certainly true enough. However, if there is in fact no second generation, what was the day and hour Jesus knew nothing about? It couldn't be the generation in the first century, because as noted above, he DID know about it. If it's neither in the first century, nor a future generation, what time period is left for which Jesus was unaware? I wouldn't know how to answer that, myself.
        That is, to eliminate a second, future generation as the meaning for 'that day and hour', it has to mean something else. But what else is there for it to mean?
        Rejecting the idea of a second future generation has other problems as well. If there is no second generation, on what terms and under what conditions would the modern day world be judged by God? Would there be no notice whatsoever, until the "lightning bolts" starting flying, so to speak? That would seem out of harmony with divine justice as we have come to understand it.
        However (by way of disclaimer), my asking of a rhetorical question that others are unable to answer does not, in itself, mean that I myself have the answer either. All I have is a supposition and a theory.
        That being said, here is my supposition on this matter. We have two biblical precedents.
        First, in the time of Moses, there were supernatural events that took place, coinciding with the visible presence of God's representative. After the nation of Israelites left Egypt, some complained and showed a lack of faith, leading to a 40-year die-off of that generation.
        Second, we have the appearance of Jesus on the scene, performing miraculous signs to the Jew. Most complained about and criticized him and showed a lack of faith. Jesus said that that "this" generation would not pass away until all of the condemnatory judgment against them was fulfilled. 40 years later, that's exactly what happened. Most of those faithless Jews in Jerusalem died off in the Roman siege.
        Here is where my speculation comes in. I believe that at some point in the future, there will be some kind of miraculous, supernatural signs that the entire world will see. "Every eye will see him", as it says. Will this also be accompanied by the visible presence of a new representative from God? Maybe one or more angels? It's possible; but there is no way to know. In any event, people everywhere will know that God has given mankind an ultimatum, and from that point on, they will have one generation - 40 literal years - to get their act together, to decide if they will be obedient or not.
        God has (presumably) not decided when that future 40-year period will start, and has not informed Jesus or the angels. They will probably find out about the same time we do.
        Because all this pertains to a future 40-year span, all the prior flawed speculations about 1914, the "last days" supposedly occurring now, the failure of the WT "generation" doctrines and interpretations to correspond to reality, etc. all make sense. These interpretations failed because they are simply echoing the doctrines of William Miller and the Second Adventists, who thought it was in their day that these things took place, rather than the future. They just keep making the same mistake, over and over again.
        It also explains why the so-called signs of the last days (supposed food shortages and more earthquakes - things that really didn't happen) failed to materialize. These things never were the sign, and this isn't the time anyway.
        Finally, if events were to unfold in this way, so that the entire earth is informed at some future date that the 40-year generation "countdown clock" has started, it answers the nagging question about how all people of the earth could be reached with the so-called "good news" that the WT tries to disseminate. It is clear that they cannot possibly reach everyone with mere human efforts, and this strikes honest-hearted persons as unfair and contrary to God's standards of justice. But, if the entire world gets this information revealed to them by divine intervention, then God' justice and fairness are preserved, and the entire world would have a fair and equal chance to choose God's side, if they wished to.
        

        • Reply by Menrov on 2015-09-10 02:47:23

          I believe the discussion about a "second, future generation" is a separate topic. Your views are interesting but not sure if scriptural. However, you mentioned: on what terms and under what conditions would the modern day world be judged by God
          John 3:16-21 gives the answer: either show faith in the Son and receive eternal life or remain in the state as if Jesus did not come into the world. It is up to our Judge (Jesus) to decide if one deserves eternal life. There are many forces to prevent people to believe in Jesus, like in the first century and still to-date. The end of the world as we know it will mean that those forces will be removed. Unrighteous people would have no excuse other than to blame themselves if they decide not to accept God and Jesus.
          

          • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-10 19:45:37

            I understand your point, Menrov. However, when I said "If there is no second generation, on what terms and under what conditions would the modern day world be judged by God" it was not in reference to whether God, through Christ, would know how, or be capable of, judging mankind. The issues are (a) properly and fairly notifying everyone on earth, in clear, unambiguous and easy-to-understand terms, what is expected of them, and (b) giving all persons a reasonable amount of time to absorb that life-altering information and acting on it, without duress or the threat of an immediate deadline to scare them into obedience when they otherwise might not be inclined to do so. To accomplish all that, for the entire population of the world, it simply couldn't be done overnight. There wouldn't be enough time. And, the efforts of mere men to "spread the word" have proven inadequate to the task. There are vast stretches of the earth controlled by communist or Islamic or other philosophies or other influences that would prevent everyone from getting a fair chance. And, if evidence were only provided by mere mans' interpretation of a very old religious book, it would not be enough to convince everyone. We know that part for certain, because it's not enough to convince people now. What means is available to get everyone's attention, in a way that could not be dismissed? The same means that Jesus used to get people's attention - by miraculous signs. Since it would amount to a matter of life and death for the entire world, is it really so hard to believe that God would use his divine power to get people's attention? That way, no one could say they never knew, didn't hear about it, or were not given a chance. It's the only way that would "get the job done" fast enough, thoroughly enough, and be in harmony with God's standards of justice and fairness. (Well, in my opinion, anyway.)

            • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-10 23:17:48

              (a) The premise of this line of reasoning is that if everyone is not properly and fairly notified in clear, unambiguous terms then God would be acting unrighteously, something we know he cannot do. Yet, he didn't notify the pre-flood world. He didn't notify the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn't notify the invading armies during the kingship of Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat.
              The flaw in this premise is the erroneous belief that everyone who is killed at Armageddon dies for all time. However, if they come back in the resurrection of the unrighteous, that premise is null and void.
              (b) this presumes that God can create the situation where all can have a fair unencumbered and equal opportunity to accept Jesus. To do that, God must remove Satan and the worldly governments and the world's tradition-bound communities. That he will do, for sure. That is what Armageddon is all about. That's why we call the post-Armageddon world and not the pre-Armageddon world, Judgment Day.
              Your ideas are correct, but the timing is wrong. All that you expect God to do, he will do. Just not prior to Armageddon.

              • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-11 10:23:22

                Meleti, you wrote above that you have planned a follow-up article on this subject. I look forward to reading it.
                I understand why you could have issues with my line of reasoning. The fact is, it is speculation (as I will freely admit), and nothing is gained in a contest of "my speculation is better than your speculation". We are not inspired, and we may be wrong (and frequently are). We need to exercise great care.
                I have some difficulty with the rebuttal above. You stated, God "didn’t notify the pre-flood world". The Bible does not actually whether the pre-flood world was notified or not. However, 2 Peter describes Noah as a preacher of righteousness. Does that mean Noah went around preaching to the pre-flood world, in a manner that might be recognized by the WT today? We don't know, but the possibility certainly exists. Further, the ark had to have 'stuck out like a sore thumb'. Anyone who saw the thing being built would have asked about it, and would have told other people. After all, nothing else like it existed in the entire world. Would such circumstances count as "notification"? Perhaps it would.
                We must also be mindful that the scriptures do not tell us everything. Until Peter wrote his second letter, we would not even have known that he was a "preacher of righteousness". Prior to the writing of that letter, we could have assumed that no one had been told anything, and we would not have had any inspired writings to claim otherwise. This highlights the fact that the Bible record, as good as it is, has its limits.
                You also cite "the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah" and "the invading armies during the kingship of Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat". I would suggest you are comparing unlike things.
                In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, we recall the famous discussion between Abraham and God: "It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?" (Gen. 18:25) God reassured Abraham that everything would be 'on the up and up' regarding the judgment of these cities. Yet, the account makes no mention of any search being made for possible righteous men being there. Was that a task assigned to the two angels, a task that was not recorded? Did God simply use His divine power and personally examine the hearts of every inhabitant Himself, bypassing the angels? The account does not say.
                As for the invading armies, you may be correct that they were not "notified" in a formal way. However, by this time, the surrounding nations must have had some acquaintance with Israel's God; they knew who Jehovah was, and many feared Him in one way or another. Since these people were not innocent bystanders, but armed soldiers, it could be argued that the degree of "notice" they deserved is less than that owed to an ordinary civilian who is minding their own business and going about living their life. I see the situation as no different than if a robber attacks me and threatens my life. It is uttering unnecessary and redundant for me to interrupt my efforts of self-defense to be 'politically correct' so to speak, just so I can dutifully notify my attacker that I will defend myself and anyone with me, even if the result might be the death of the attacker. The very fact that are attacking me and threatening my life relieves me of any obligation to be polite to them.
                To equate advancing enemy armies with ordinary civilians, most of whom are completely unaware of the Bible and likely have next to no understanding of God's purposes, is not only a logical fallacy but severely flies in the face of God's standards of justice. The armies had death and destruction as their aim, and they certainly had to know they would face deadly opposition - if not miraculously from God, at least from the Israelite armies. They were not innocent, but knew exactly what they were doing. They were, by any measure, "bad" people, and surely they themselves understood, on some level, that they were in fact bad people.
                In contrast, is a person today who knows little or nothing about God and the Bible really "bad" in the same sense and to the same degree as those ancient soldiers? I don't see how. What would God be thinking? "How dare you be ignorant and uninformed of Me. To the death with you!" ?
                Is it reasonable to conclude that God would act in such a precipitous and heartless way, against persons whose only 'crime' is to not know any better? In Jonah, it says that God felt "sorry for Nineveh the great city, in which there exist more than one hundred and twenty thousand men who do not at all know the difference between their right hand and their left". Today, people do not spiritually know 'their right hand from their left'. Yet in Jonah's day, these sympathetic words were said regarding the Assyrians of Nineveh, individuals not known for being 'nice'. What - has God's compassion for people changed since then? I don't see how.
                The sole basis for presuming that various parties were not "notified" is the lack of scriptural accounts to confirm that this had been done. We simply do not know what did or did not happen, in the face of a lack of written confirmation. As a person who is quick to note "logical fallacies" in the arguments of others, you should face the fact that you cannot prove a negative through the absence of evidence. That is, the silence of the Bible as to whether a certain group was notified or not is not evidence of anything at all, one way or another, other than the evidence that it wasn't discussed.
                As an example, clearly God carried out an enormous number of activities to prepare the earth for human habitation, but only the briefest of summaries is present in Genesis. Should we assume that the lack of a written record on those other matters means He didn't do those things? We have utterly no way of knowing how or when or by what means God created our earth. All we have is 'the finished product' to examine and to draw conclusions from.
                You stated that the flaw in my premise "is the erroneous belief that everyone who is killed at Armageddon dies for all time. However, if they come back in the resurrection of the unrighteous, that premise is null and void." Deferring for now the fact that this too is a speculation, there is an enormous problem with this line of reasoning.
                To assume that a person who not merely dies, but is "killed at Armageddon" - and let's be clear, we are talking about a person "killed at Armageddon" by the express will, direction and approval of God - could "come back in the resurrection of the unrighteous", it implies that God made a mistake. After all, if God intentionally chooses to end the life of some individual, "deliberately and with 'malice' aforethought" as lawyers put it, and then He turns around and resurrects them, it surely seems like He made a mistake and trying to correct it. What, was His 'aim' off when He 'threw his lightning bolts'? That seems very unlikely.
                To overcome the problem, you would have to show us some scripturally supported reasoning as to how God could 'make a mistake' and yet not actually make one.
                It is true that God is spoken of as feeling "regret" over certain matters. However, a close inspection of the verses that discuss regret show that the 'regret' was a change of attitude by God regarding the conduct of humans. That is, some perhaps started out well but turned to badness, and He was disaapointed in them. Others had been set in a course of wrongdoing, but because of facing adversities or because of hearing words from God's prophets or judges, some people repented and turned around. This was pleasing to God, allowing Him to change His position about those persons, because THEY changed THEIR conduct.
                No where in the scriptures does God ever regret His OWN actions. In order to convince me, and others, that God could actually 'regret' killing individuals at Armageddon, and then turn around and say, in effect, "oops, I shouldn't have killed that one, my bad', you have an enormous mountain to climb. I look forward to your efforts, but I seriously doubt you came overcome this problem.
                Finally, you say that my ideas are correct but the timing is wrong. As we know all too well, whenever humans try to imposing "timing" of events that are in God's control, they make themselves look like fools. C.T. Russell made that mistake, and so has the WT from his day until now. The biggest challenge to all of us is to not make the same mistake yet again.
                If we are enraptured by our own speculations, about timings or any other matter, we will have failed to engage in unbiased Bible research. You remember - the whole purpose for which this site has been established?
                Again, I look forward to your next article. I would only advise that you write (and tread) carefully.
                

                • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-11 11:43:01

                  My article will address all these questions. I appreciate your voicing them, because it helps me to focus on the issues that must be addressed. This weekend, I plan to publish a follow-up to the article on the September broadcast on "This Generation". Following that, I'll start a series of articles on Salvation. It is an issue I've been wanting to understand for some time, but I had to get all the JW doctrinal cobwebs out of my brain first before I could see more clearly what the Bible is actually telling us.

                  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-11 21:27:25

                    Meleti, I will give you the smallest of "wiggle room" on this one. Let us agree that the most valuable possession a person has is their life. No one could ever pay a higher price for being a sinner than to die on account of it. Whether that death was a 'natural' one, or was hastened by God, the price was still paid. Perhaps death at God's hands would act as a form of 'discipline', so that when (presumably) resurrected later, the person would understand with certainty, and appreciate more fully the depth of their wrongdoing. That certain knowledge might be enough to (finally) jolt the person in question into repentance. After all, they will likely be resurrected with the same heart, conscience and memories they had before. That knowledge might be sufficient incentive for them to turn around. Even though God does not delight in the death of the wicked, sometimes persons are so intransigent that maybe nothing else would get their attention besides their own death. If then raised up, and knowing these things, it might be enough to convince even the most prideful and arrogant that in their prior life they were in the wrong.
                    The prospect of such sorts of resurrections brings up a vast number of questions. Consider just one example: Supposing a man tasked to be an executioner is resurrected along with the criminal persons of ancient times that he personally beheaded. That would make for some awkward conversations around the coffee table, so to speak.
                    However, I am still not convinced that all this is not uncomfortably close to God appearing to have made a mistake. I do look forward to your article.

                    • Reply by katrina on 2015-09-13 01:13:02

                      Simply put its all excuses to keep the1914 false teaching a true, but one false teaching creates a lot of other false teachings to keep the original false teaching going.
                      I doubt if they ever could see the truth they couldn't change because that would not support the 1919 teaching of the GB appointment and the whole foundation of this religion is 1914 and now 1919.
                      

                      • Reply by J-A-T on 2015-09-14 21:08:40

                        Hi Anonymous,
                        I agree with a lot of your reasoning, however, as to the grounds on which God is going to determine the eternal future of currently 7 billion people, I beg to differ with your view on scriptural grounds, in that we already know that God is not going to judicially execute even a single person for the aggregate of transgression, no matter how grievous or large, that was committed by them as a result of their inherited sinfulness, but only due to their wilful rejection of God’s remedy for their sin, namely, Christ’s sacrifice, the offer of redemption which the Holy Spirit is giving EVERY person on this planet at the most opportune time in their life, and perhaps repeatedly until they have hardened their hearts beyond the point of return, short of God interfering in their free will – there is no known gene that predisposes anyone to reject God’s apology offered in Christ – NOW is the time of judgment, the time to accept God’s salvation, or be forever damned.
                        But secondly, God has given each person on this planet a conscience to which the Holy Spirit is bearing witness to accuse or even excuse, in accordance with their deeds, whether they are good or bad, so that when the whole politically correct world soon turns on those few true believers still holding fast their confession of Jesus, even people who have no knowledge of Scripture at all, will nevertheless be judged according the secret things in their hearts, which will then be revealed, whether they will betray and persecute the perfectly defenceless, innocent and harmless disciples of Christ or not.
                        Again, there will be no excuse for some genetic predisposition or inherited sinfulness for their maliciously turning against these peaceful followers of Christ.
                        Even, or, rather especially, during war, utterly sinful and seemingly evil people suddenly reveal their true heart by refusing to gun down an unarmed enemy they have been taught to hate - such will be the case in the upcoming day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind in infinite righteousness.
                        The factor of time, as a deadline, such as used as an ‘incentive’ by JWs and others, for people to ‘clean up their act,’ is not something a God who judges the heart would use, I am sure – ‘now is the especially acceptable time, now is the day of salvation.’
                        

                        • Reply by katrina on 2015-09-15 04:50:13

                          God is a God of mercy, don't think he will be destroying starving people that cant comprehend a thing due to malnutrition, or mentally deformed people or children, yes lets leave it at that the judgement of their hearts, the POTENTIAL that God sees.
                          

Comment by Buster on 2015-09-09 13:18:08

Right when Mr. Splane said that let's talk about this generation Jesus was talking about. I said Oh Oh, we are gonna mess they are gonna blow it big time.
The day before, I promise I picked up the book from my shelf survival into a new earth, and was reading this whole 1914 generation thing, as we all know this book was made by the organization in 1984, and still believed that the tribulation was coming before all those people of 1914 died, and of course looking at page 27, and there declaration " Present wicked world to be destroyed by God before the Generation that saw 1914 passes away" they use Matt 24:3-34 and Luke 21:7-32.
As we know in about 1995 tko 2015, this generation doctrine has gone through more changes then a thrown football. Again when GB member Splane said what Scripture to use to describe this generation thing, I predicted it, no really I did, heck most people should have, if you read the whitewash version of Gods Kingdom Rule book, they use this one verse to say oh yeah Overlapping is in this verse.
I am amazed and almost think it is sad and in a way i said in a way evil that they can switch and turn Jesus words, from him meaning all sorts of things, from every person will see me in Matthew 24:30, oh no that means invisibility, What!!!!!. Have you not read Mark, and Luke Account he said the same thing, and Revelation 1:7, yup same thing. Nope invisibility. Right. And don't get Me started oh yeah they discerned the signs what sign when they later said whoops oh yeah Jesus did not come back from 1874-1978, nope he came in power in 1914. But Rutherford said that early to mid 30's not in 1914, and where is Pastor Russell in all this. Man so I always knew reading what Jesus said he.meant for you to.check and see he was talking about Exodus 1:6, of course he did, But of course.

Comment by Christian on 2015-09-09 19:56:37

Brothers. This may seem slightly off topic but I want to express a slight unease that I feel that some may be falling into the same trap as the very ones who you are indeed, rightfully showing up to be false. All the words contained within the Holy Scriptures have sat there for scores of generations. But here, people come along and decide they're going to declare that their generation is special, different to all the others that have come and gone before them. And, in many ways, that attitude is understandable, many generations have felt that way in the past. The rumblings of Christians alive in the 10th and 11th century come to mind, as they earnestly believed that a thousand years anniversary of Christ's death was 'fast approaching'. It became the ' Hot Topic' and consumed much of the population. Well in this case they got the dates right, but the expectation wrong. It seems that as a peoples, humans are always wanting a sign. I recall Jesus becoming quite miffed at the constancy of this demand. The events recorded in Mark 8:12 come to mind: 'So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said:"Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation." My own take on this is that with most of us, the looking for a sign, so to speak is more about us. Me, me, I want to to see it, I want to be one of the ones, out of all the billions of humans who have graced this planet, to be special. Reminds me of the Cinderella story and self-centered desire of the 'Ugly Sisters' who - at all costs - had to make the Crystal Slipper fit, when in fact it didn't and never would.
Is this what Christianity is all about? Well of course, we must 'Stay Awake' as we behold the 'Day' coming nearer. But I'm not sure that means becoming so consumed with that process that we start seeing Him in the shadows of the night wherein it really is just our imagination. In other words, I suspect that because of our backgrounds as earnest and sincere JWs that we're in danger of still missing the main point. That is, allowing God's Spirit to work within us as people, growing the fruits that will result and building, each of us, that Holy Temple - which is in fact, we ourselves, as distinct individuals. Sadly, I hear so little of this from the platform and I hear a great deal of self-justification and how wonderful JW.org is. So I do thank you brothers for your exposes and presentation of sound and logical use of God's Word, it refreshes my soul but whilst knowledge is good, Love is really what it's all about, don't you think?

• Reply by father jack on 2015-09-10 03:01:56

  Enjoyed that comment christian , its spot on ive believed the very same thing right from the start, i could never understand this hysteria about the end is nigh concept ,of course i see the reason now .

• Reply by Hamilton Grey on 2015-09-12 17:31:25

  Hi Christian, thank you for your comment. It is true date fixing and focusing makes us become self centred on our own salvation, it's like running to the life boat and shouting out to others to get in. Do we feel secure in knowing we have the best seat in the boat, just willing the boat to be cast afloat? As Christians we should project love by not putting ourselves first but others. "Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it." Matt 10

• Reply by Vincent Gomez on 2015-09-13 15:07:18

  Totally agree with your comment Christian. Even when I was immersed in the organization, I came to the conclusion that I may die in this system. Depressing? Not at all. I remember the Young People Ask video, where the older man dies in the end. I always said I want to be like him. Die old and satisfied like the other faithful ones in the scriptures. As an elder I always tried to emphasize this kind of thinking. The "generation" thing changed 3 times in my life. I simply did not believe it anymore, and I wanted others to not focus on a time table but rather on devotion to Jehovah. But I noticed that the GB's real goal in all of this is to get the younger adults excited and not think of the past. A younger person often feels that we "got it right this time", much like many of us felt about the generation not passing away. We didn't focus on past failures. I do not believe they are innocent. You can't convince me that they don't know what the "apostates" know about the real history. They will keep up this nonsense until they are bankrupt. In fact, I believe they want to confuse. You don't know how many times I have heard older ones say, "well it is too difficult for me to understand, but I'm not that bright anyway", and then swallow everything the GB says.

Comment by Blackhole on 2015-09-09 21:42:13

To me they have started digging a hole and now they can't stop digging it.
Reminds me of these words of a song by Bernard Cribbins which kind of sums up the attitude of the GB.
There I was, a-digging this hole
A hole in the ground, so big and sort of round it was
There was I, digging it deep It was flat at at the bottom and the sides were steep
When along, comes this bloke in a bowler which he lifted and scratched his head
Well we looked down the hole, poor demented soul and he said
Do you mind if I make a suggestion?
Don't dig there, dig it elsewhere
Your digging it round and it ought to be square
The shape of it's wrong, it's much too long
And you can't put hole where a hole don't belong .......
So I gave him a look sort of sideways and I leaned on my shovel and sighed Well I lit me a fag and having took a drag I replied I just couldn't bear, to dig it elsewhere I'm digging it round co's I don't want it square
And if you disagree it doesn't bother me
That's the place where the holes gonna be ..
So if you think that this overlapping generation idea is going to go away, think again. Well, that is until they start digging a different hole.

Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2015-09-09 21:47:34

In the context of Splane's argument we would have to read the text of Exodus 1:6 to mean Joseph's children are part of "that generation" Joseph is said to belong to. But something tells me the context of Exodus 1:6 does not suggest this.
If Exodus 1:6 does not suggest that Joseph's children should have been included as part of "that generation" then Splane's argument is wholly unsupported.

Comment by Mark-O on 2015-09-10 02:44:11

It seems the post 1944 GB mixed "weed" apostate "generation" fits the state of Jerusalem of that day, and it "passed away" by Roman boots. Hence Matthew 24:15 and the Bethel UN NGO marker. Imo the "generation" is the mixed in apostate generation Bethel has cultured since 1976 especially.
It will see the first judgment action of 1 Peter 4:17, imo.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-10 08:03:05

  What is special about 1944?

Comment by Rufus on 2015-09-10 08:24:43

The question David Splane asks and gives us time to answer is "What verse would you choose? [to give the right context of several terms: “all these things”, “this generation” and without explicit mention: “that day and hour.”]
This is with the purpose to understand the answer given by Jesus privately to his Apostles, when Jesus said:
(Matthew 24:34) “Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.”
Jesus had just denounced in detail in the temple itself the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. He concluded by saying: (Matthew 23:34-37) " For this reason, I am sending to you [the Pharisee class] 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... "
24 Now as Jesus was departing from the temple, his disciples approached to show him the buildings of the temple. 2 In response he said to them: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”
3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be..."
Jesus provided an answer to this simple direct question, continuing to use the same key phrases.
So when David Splane asks us which verses to use for context of “generation”, it should obviously be the same context as the subject under question.
Other candidates for alternative verses to understand “this generation” are:
(Matthew 11:16) “With whom will I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who call out to their playmates...
(Matthew 12:41) Men of Ninʹe·veh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at what Joʹnah preached.
(Mark 8:12) So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.”
(Luke 7:31) “With whom, therefore, should I compare the men of this generation, and whom are they like?
(Luke 11:29-32) When the crowds were massing together, he began to say: “This generation is a wicked generation; it looks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Joʹnah.
(Luke 11:50, 51) so that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel down to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah, who was killed between the altar and the house.’ Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation.
(Luke 17:25) First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-10 14:53:24

  Sound reasoning, Rufus. I'll make use of it in the next article if you don't mind.

Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2015-09-10 08:40:44

When David Splane asserted the anointed of 1914 drew the right conclusion about an invisible event I think what he had in mind is the teaching that October 1914 supposedly marked the end of the gentile times. If so, then according to current Watchtower theology the conclusion those anointed drew was incorrect because what they thought the end of the gentile times was is nearly 180 degrees different from what Watchtower teaches today. In effect, in 1914 the anointed thought "The gentile times = X" but today Watchtower teaches "The gentile times = Y", and X and Y represent contrasts (one an ending the other a beginning)
So, according to current Watchtower teaching the professed anointed of 1914 had not drawn the right conclusion about even this event. In its 1975 Yearbook Watchtower leadership boldly asserted JWs had 40-years advance knowledge on this matter, but as Meleti's article above points out, it's a flawed view of history. (See "Taught what about 1914?" at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/05/taught-what-about-1914.html)

Comment by Humilliore on 2015-09-10 15:06:34

Seeing as I was born shortly before Fred Franz died, does that make me of the generation that saw 1914? Or am I being presumptuous ; )

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-10 15:16:40

  According to the Governing Body, it wouldn't, unless you were immediately baptized and then received the heavenly calling. Sanderson was 10 when he was baptized, so perhaps if you were born in 1982, you could be of the 1914 generation.

  • Reply by Humilliore on 2015-09-11 02:24:56

    Oh darn... but I would be of the generation that saw the Titanic sink, right?

• Reply by father jack on 2015-09-11 02:10:00

  That would mean armageddon is dated as far as 2052 or even 2062 then no no no no it has to be just around the corner . Haha

Comment by Skye on 2015-09-10 18:46:58

We know that God uses typology in the Bible - perhaps that relates to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, we don't know. What we do know from Jesus words "this generation will not pass away until all these things occur", if we read the whole chapter of Matthew 24, is that Jesus was referring to all the events of that chapter, including his arrival in Kingdom power.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-10 23:09:21

  Actually, I'll be publishing an article this weekend that will suggest an alternative.

  • Reply by Skye on 2015-09-12 06:46:42

    The Organisation's date setting and lack of scholarly approach has caused much damage to brothers and sisters. It's time for intelligent Bible study, of which we are all capable.

Comment by father jack on 2015-09-11 02:49:49

Come on we would never say in ordinary terms the things that mr splane is saying . In my mind it was my grandparents who were the generation that experienced the 2 world war . i wasnt around then . This is just changing the goal posts if you ask me this must be one of those things that has to be believed even if it makes no sense . 2 timothy 3 v 8 and 9

Comment by Buster on 2015-09-11 14:57:55

I know I must not be the only one who when I first saw this Monday on the broadcast, that I knew he was gonna use Exodus 1:6, I knew it, and I still laughed outloud.

Comment by Hamilton Grey on 2015-09-11 19:28:30

Truth is always simple and clear, lies end up being a tangled mess. The bible shows us quite clearly how long a generation is from the human perspective.
After all Jehovah had done for the nation of Israel when liberating them from Egypt they still lacked faith. Because of this he determined that this generation would not enter the promised land but the new generation would enter, the ones who no longer knew the land of their parents (Egypt). How long would this generation need to be? Let Jehovah answer this very question for us:
“‘“And I will bring in your children, who you said would become plunder, and they will get to know the land that you have rejected. But your own corpses will fall in this wilderness. Now your sons will become shepherds in the wilderness 40 years, and they will have to answer for your acts of unfaithfulness until the last one of your corpses falls in the wilderness. According to the number of the days that you spied out the land, 40 days, a day for a year, a day for a year, you will answer for your errors 40 years, for you will know what it means to oppose me. “‘“I, Jehovah, have spoken. This is what I will do to all this evil assembly, those who have gathered together against me: In this wilderness they will come to their end, and here they will die. The men whom Moses sent to spy out the land and who caused the whole assembly to murmur against him when they returned with a bad report about the land, yes, the men who brought back the bad report about the land will be struck down and die before Jehovah. - Numbers 14
Jehovah determined it would take 40 years for that faithless generation to die out.
Do not harden your heart as at Merʹi·bah,
As in the day of Massah in the wilderness,
When your forefathers tested me;
They challenged me, though they had seen my works.
For 40 years I felt a loathing toward that generation, and I said:
“They are a people who always go astray in their hearts;
They have not come to know my ways.”
So I swore in my anger:
“They will not enter into my rest.” – Ps 95: 8-11
To be so reliant on a date to determine our salvation demonstrates a lack of faith, let our faith be that of Abraham:
"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, although not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as a foreigner in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God." – Heb 11: 8-10
Abrahams faith was not based on a predetermined date but simply on the “promise” one day his off spring would inherit the land he lived in as a foreigner. He knew he would not live to see the fulfillment of that promise but his faith never wavered. Abrahams faith enabled him to see into the future and look towards the city having real foundations or real merit.
“And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand on the seashore, and your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” – Gen 22
Great blessings are installed for humanity based on faith not dates!
(The societies 1914 doctrine has been used in a similar fashion as the hell fire doctrine, it is used as a tool of fear not faith)

• Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-12 09:55:05

  I find your last sentence to be profound. It never would have occurred to me to equate the fear factor of 1914, Armageddon in general, etc. and the hellfire doctrine. Perhaps an even closer analogy is to compare the effect of the hellfire doctrine on Christendom with the threat of disfellowshipping and/or the stigma of being called an apostate. The degree of fear and level of control over masses of people are about this same.
  Thanks for this remarkable insight.

Comment by Junia on 2015-09-13 11:34:11

September Broadcast

Comment by Claudelle on 2015-09-13 22:53:10

"This"... used with periods of time-related to the present.
This is the meaning of the word "this" in this instance. It is used to establish a time.
It is not complicated, it is easy (I'm sure) to establish if "this" has been translated accurately from the Greek language.
It is not referring to a thing, a place, or some other material matter. It is simply referring to that moment in time; relevant to what Christ is strikingly referring to. Namely: the destruction of Jerusalem in approximately ending in 70CE.
Better use of English and it's history would certainly help clear up the misunderstood rantings of the GB. Hence the call to stay away from Universities...........at all costs.

• Reply by Skye on 2015-09-14 03:05:04

  Read Matt 24:29. Jesus is speaking of a terrible time of distress, relating to Jerusalem, but he says it is to be followed "immediately" by his appearance in glory. According to Jesus words there is no gap between the tribulation, heavenly signs and his second coming. Therefore Jesus was not referring to 70 CE, though this may have been a type, but we cannot know that for an absolute certainty.
  If we read Matthew 24 keeping the OT in mind we will achieve an understanding of Matt 24:34.

  • Reply by Skye on 2015-09-14 07:44:51

    The OT can be described as a map of the future - in order to understand Jesus' words, we much study the OT. As JWs we did not study the OT intelligently - this is something we must do now in order to find the Truth as Jesus taught.

Comment by Junia on 2015-09-14 09:12:55

Try again...
Why do we even think 'this generation' refers to the anointed, let alone two generations of anointed.
The use of the pronoun 'this' indicates that Jesus was not referring to the disciples ( or he would have said 'you' as he does on several occasions), but to the generation of people contemporaneous with the disciples who would live to see the destruction of Jerusalem. It seems obvious from reading the passage that this is what Jesus was talking about. Do we have to read into this a modern day parallel any more than the surrounding of Jerusalem with stakes?

• Reply by Skye on 2015-09-14 13:57:40

  Read Zechariah 14
  There is to be a final war by the nations against Jerusalem - this is yet to happen, which would mean that Jesus was not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.
  

Comment by Anonymous on 2015-09-14 10:50:37

The topic of the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" merits some comment. Meleti has suggested in some of his remarks that because there would be a resurrection of the unrighteous, that might include persons who were directly put to death as a result of the express will of God, such as those who died in Noah's flood. My response was that this creates a problem, because it suggests that God made a mistake in judging a person as worth of death. If they merit a resurrection, why put them to death in the first place? But if they merited death, on what basis could God bring them back?
While waiting for part two of Meleti's coverage of this topic, it seems useful to consider the idea about the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. It is important not to view this in absolute terms.
The idea is based on the passage in Acts 24:15, where Paul tells us, "I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."
Firstly, every human in history (not counting Jesus, of course) whether alive now or deceased, is or was a sinner. That much we know for certain.
Consider Ecclesiastes 7:20: "For there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin."
And Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Thus, every person that is going to get resurrected is unrighteous, a sinner. It all comes down to a matter of degree. Some unrighteous persons led worse lives than others, in the same way the average person would conclude someone is a "good" or "bad" person, without making any claim that a "good" person is necessarily "perfect". Is such a view scriptural? Yes.
In Matthew 26:45, Jesus says to his disciples, "The hour has drawn near for the Son of man to be betrayed into the hands of sinners." Was Jesus including his disciples in the group of "sinners" he was condemning? No. But, was there a single one of his followers that were perfect in the absolute sense? No.
Compare this to Jesus words in Matthew 5:28-29: "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."
WT has frequently pointed out that this view of the resurrection pertains to a future time, looking back at how a person's life had turned out after they were raised to life. If they made good choices, the end-result of being brought back would be a resurrection of life, and if they made bad choices, the end-result of being brought back would be a resurrection of judgment.
This view makes sense. Otherwise, if "bad" people are resurrected, then immediately declared as "bad" because of what they did in the past and are immediately put to death, what would be the point? It would make God out to be punitive and vindictive. I mean, it's almost literally a case of "beating a dead horse", and with all due respect to the Almighty, it seems somewhat crazy. For goodness sake, if a person is so bad they deserve to die, but they're dead already, couldn't they just be left deceased and not tormented in that way? And wouldn't God be showing disrespect to life to resurrect someone and grant them the precious gift of life, only to immediately turn around and put them to death again? That's totally irrational and unreasonable.
This being so, is it possible that the two discussions on resurrection - one contrasting righteous vs. unrighteous, and one contrasting life vs. judgment, are the same thing?
Suppose that were true. What would it mean? It seems that if a person were resurrected and made good choices with their life from that point forward, that would be the course of a righteous person, which would result in their case being a resurrection of life, assuming they didn't turn to bad later. Correspondingly, if a person were resurrected and made bad choices with their life from that point forward, that would be the course of an unrighteous person, which would result in their case being a resurrection of judgment.
If this understanding is correct, then the resurrection of the unrighteous does not have to include those deliberately executed by the direct action of God, such as those who died during the Flood.
It is true the scriptures say that those that have died have been acquitted of their sins. But that is not a blanket forgiveness that applies in an absolute sense to everyone. We know that from Mark 3:29: "Whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
How would this apply in terms of those put to death at Armageddon? It would suggest that such ones are not eligible to be resurrected later.
(It also answers that famous question that the WT seems incapable of giving the same answer to two times in a row, namely, Will those put to death at Sodom and Gomorrah be resurrected in the future? Answer: Based on the discussion above, No.)
This line of reasoning may not be obvious from an initial reading of the relevant scriptures. If there were an obvious answer to who were and who were not coming back, people wouldn't have been debating the question for centuries as they have. So, I will simply say that this is how it looks to me, and invite others to comment.

• Reply by SinkingPeter on 2015-09-14 15:57:21

  How do you feel about Matthew 10:15? How can it be better for those in Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who do not listen to the apostles if they already died the second death?
  The wages that sin pays is death. I believe that those who have died, either by Divine judgement or other means, have paid the price. Christ's ransom can still be applied to those after the resurrection and they will be judged. I do not think it is a logical necessity that being put to death by God and then being resurrected by Him implies any mistake by God. One can reach that conclusion, but that is an assumption, not something required by the logic. If God decides that someone should die in this age and be resurrected in the next age where they can learn without Satan's influence, who am I to say that His means of achieving this is a mistake? I do not know the fullness of His Justice, and so I am unqualified to be an arbiter as to when His actions would constitute a mistake...which is handy, because we know He cannot make mistakes. We do know that death is a sever punishment from our perspective since we cannot undo it, but for God, it is a trivial thing to undo.

  • Reply by Anonymous on 2015-09-14 17:06:49

    As always, it is important to put the scriptures in context.
    Here is Matthew 10:11-15:
    "Into whatever city or village YOU enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until YOU leave. When YOU are entering into the house, greet the household; and if the house is deserving, let the peace YOU wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from YOU return upon YOU. Wherever anyone does not take YOU in or listen to YOUR words, on going out of that house or that city shake the dust off YOUR feet. Truly I say to YOU, It will be more endurable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on Judgment Day than for that city."
    Compare this with Jude 7: "So too Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."
    Let us agree to one thing right away, which is that these two passages are hard to reconcile. If the punishment in question is indeed "everlasting", then how could those so punished be resurrected? Wouldn't that mean the punishment was not "everlasting" after all? It seems so to me.
    Then consider Jesus' words above. Were those ones he criticized guilty of the extremely grave sins that the ancient people of Sodom and Gomorrah were? No. All it says in the account is that they simply didn't listen. Is that, in and of itself, worthy of the death penalty? If we truly believe that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, as extremely bad as they were (depicted as "bad and gross sinners", attacking and threatening Lot and his two guests, who were angels) somehow deserve a resurrection, how is it that people whose sole error was not listening are worse by comparison, and presumably do NOT deserve a resurrection? And, if in your view, persons whose sole error was simply not listening deserved a resurrection, how can we understand what Jesus said? After all, he said they were going to be WORSE off than those from Sodom and Gomorrah. If they both have a chance to live again, aren't they pretty much on equal footing? In what meaning way would one group be any worse off than the other, if they BOTH get resurrected? It doesn't sound like there is any difference at all, does it?
    But, is that really what Jesus said? Note closely, the condemnation was against the LAND of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the CITY whose inhabitants did not listen to Jesus' disciples. It didn't actually SAY it was about the PEOPLE of those cities. That is sort of implied - and that's really the whole point - but it is not actually stated in words.
    Note also in Jude, it discusses "Sodom and Gomorrah and the CITIES about them".
    Could the whole point about Sodom and Gomorrah being a "warning example" be more about the CITIES than about the PEOPLE that lived there? People could note how the CITIES were destroyed, and perhaps conclude from the destroyed remains of those cities that "God means business, we better listen to Him"? Yet, Jude also discusses the excessive, sinful CONDUCT taking place - things that only apply to people, not to cities, which are mere inanimate things.
    Some people believe that the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah are somewhere submerged under the Dead Sea. That is a pretty permanent form of destruction. Yet, it is not inconceivable to believe that someday, part or all of the Dead Sea could dry up or be drained, and the geological area once occupied by Sodom and Gomorrah could be made into new cites. Not the actual Sodom and Gomorrah of old, of course, but new cities of some sort could possibly exist one day. If that happened, could the punishment of those cities still be considered "everlasting"? I guess it depends on your point of view. Those cities were mere tracts of land, and mere land has no moral qualities, good or bad; it's only people that are good or bad.
    We must recall that God promised Abraham if He could find any good people in Sodom and Gomorrah, he would spare the cities. Yet, the account shows that not a single good person could be found.
    So, the question comes down to whether the issues surrounding Sodom and Gomorrah are about the cities, or about the people in them. We know that Jesus, as the superlative teacher he was, used many techniques to get his listeners' attention. Sometimes this involved hyperbole. For instance, he said in Matthew 19:24, "It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God." Should we conclude he was referring to a literal camel and needle here? No. Should we conclude that the expression "It will be more endurable" is any different? I don't see how. Perhaps others DO see how, and can explain it to me, but at this moment, Jesus words about Sodom and Gomorrah have the 'look and feel' of a hyperbole, a literary device used to get peoples' attention, and are not to be taken literally. If so, then my original conclusion holds, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all similar persons directly put to death by God and by his angels are not in line for a resurrection. If they were, it would mean God's original judgment against them was in error, yet God does not make errors. Thus, in my view, they would not be resurrected.
    

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2015-09-14 17:59:14

      I would ask you to take this discussion over to www.discussthetruth.com which is set up specifically for this type of dialog. Comments on BP are just that, comments on the article in question. You'll find the discussion forum more effective for the type of dialog this topic entails.

Comment by BeenMislead on 2015-09-17 13:01:14

Here is the bibles definition of what a generation is:
Exodus 20:5 says: “You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me.”

Comment by The Rise and Fall of JW.org | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-06-19 13:48:51

[…] consider that David Splane in the September Broadcast on tv.jw.org used the members of the Governing Body to exemplify the second group of anointed who […]

Comment by This Generation – A Modern Day Fulfillment? | Beroean Pickets on 2016-09-25 18:43:31

[…] embrace the latest doctrinal fabrication reiterated and refined in David Splane’s September broadcast.  Again, we are being told that “the due time is […]