Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[Craig B]

If you wish to accept that David and Saul first met on multiple occasions that's fine. I think it's incorrect, but that's my opinion.

No such thing of course. I say the Goliath duel meeting is certainly fabrication, and the earlier meeting is probably mythical too.

You're twisting words. I said previously the only knowledge I have of Michal was that she was Saul's daughter and one of David's wives. And so? What do you want from me? I don't know her, and I have admitted it, but yes indeed I do know David. Only by study of David did I know of Michal at all. Can I not admit when I don't know every single person in the Bible by close personal study of each one? Surely you don't know every detail of every character mentioned in the Bible? If you do I'll admit I'm impressed because I sure as heck don't.
Chris B.

No of course. But Michal is so important in the David story, I'm surprised you haven't read the foreskins tale, or the later bolster tale, or the David dancing before the Ark tale, in all of which she plays a big part.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No such thing of course. I say the Goliath duel meeting is certainly fabrication, and the earlier meeting is probably mythical too.

Perhaps the entire text is a fabrication in that case.

No of course. But Michal is so important in the David story, I'm surprised you haven't read the foreskins tale, or the later bolster tale, or the David dancing before the Ark tale, in all of which she plays a big part.

"Only by study of David did I know of Michal at all."

What is your exact criticism of Michal? I will try to keep it in mind while I review her.
Chris B.

 

[Border Reiver]

Perhaps the entire text is a fabrication in that case.

Entirely possible. While there is some concordance between parts of the Bible and the records of their neighbouring peoples, much of the early stories in the OT are completely unverifiable - Exodus, the conquest of Caanan, etc.

In as much as certain Roman families invented elaborate geneologies back to Aphrodite, or some other diety or demigod it is not inconcievable that the warlord holding onto Jerusalem commissioned his scribes to come up with a backstory to his dynasty to give it divine approval beyond, "I have a big, well-trained army, you will do what I say."

"Only by study of David did I know of Michal at all."

What is your exact criticism of Michal? I will try to keep it in mind while I review her.
Chris B.

No one is criticizing Michal. What we are criticizing is the Biblical texts that simulataneously make this daughter of Saul a mother of 5 and without children.

That and the tortured reasoning that it would take for Saul to have two daughters named Michal.

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps the entire text is a fabrication in that case.

That is very probable.

What is your exact criticism of Michal? I will try to keep it in mind while I review her.

I have no occasion to criticise her. In the end she perceived that David was a mountebank.

2 Sam 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 16 And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.

 

[Nihilianth]

That is very probable. I have no occasion to criticise her. In the end she perceived that David was a mountebank.

Offtopic, but this is kinda funny. That is a very rare word. But for some reason, this past week, I have seen that word no less than a dozen times, in like 5 different places.

Anyway, I am guessing Chris B couldn't come up with an answer to "generations." Which must means he has officially admitted that it is never used to mean "race." Which means, that the second coming of Christ did not happen and is not going to happen, making a big fat stinking liar out of the Bible. Case closed!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Offtopic, but this is kinda funny. That is a very rare word. But for some reason, this past week, I have seen that word no less than a dozen times, in like 5 different places.

Anyway, I am guessing Chris B couldn't come up with an answer to "generations." Which must means he has officially admitted that it is never used to mean "race." Which means, that the second coming of Christ did not happen and is not going to happen, making a big fat stinking liar out of the Bible. Case closed!

You have failed to give your interpretation of the passage. You have only argued that genea in the Greek translation can only mean one thing "generation". I have pointed out on multiple occasions that "Genea" is listed as:
"genea: race, family, generation" it is found as entry # 1074 in Strong's Concordance. If you are correct, why would they do that?

Above you say "Case closed!" yet you have provided no evidence of your view as to the correct interpretation of the passage, and there are several different interpretations. Why have you not provided yours?
Chris B.

 

[Nihilianth]

You have failed to give your interpretation of the passage. You have only argued that genea in the Greek translation can only mean one thing "generation". I have pointed out on multiple occasions that "Genea" is listed as:
"genea: race, family, generation" it is found as entry # 1074 in Strong's Concordance. If you are correct, why would they do that?

Above you say "Case closed!" yet you have provided no evidence of your view as to the correct interpretation of the passage, and there are several different interpretations. Why have you not provided yours?
Chris B.

Others have reputed Strong's Concordance in this thread! It isn't what you say it is.

Second of all, we aren't talking about the word, "generation." We are talking about the ancient greek word "γενεαὶ." Nowhere, whatsoever, in the ancient Greek language does "γενεαὶ" mean "race." If it does, you are responsible to either prove it, or retract your argument altogether. Strong's Concordance does not prove that "γενεαὶ" means "race." You cannot use the Bible or someone's interpretation of the Bible, to prove the Bible. That is called "Circular Reasoning!" You have to show your work. Where else, in ancient Greek, does the word "γενεαὶ" mean "race?"

Even if we were talking about the modern English word "generation," it still does not mean "race." Like. At all. We use the word "race" to mean "race."

And finally, the Bible, when it means "race" it says "race." And more often than not, specifies exactly which race.

In other words:

You have STILL not responded to my or others posts regarding the use of the word "generation."

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Others have reputed Strong's Concordance in this thread! It isn't what you say it is.

Second of all, we aren't talking about the word, "generation." We are talking about the ancient greek word "γενεαὶ." Nowhere, whatsoever, in the ancient Greek language does "γενεαὶ" mean "race." If it does, you are responsible to either prove it, or retract your argument altogether. Strong's Concordance does not prove that "γενεαὶ" means "race." You cannot use the Bible or someone's interpretation of the Bible, to prove the Bible. That is called "Circular Reasoning!" You have to show your work. Where else, in ancient Greek, does the word "γενεαὶ" mean "race?"

Even if we were talking about the modern English word "generation," it still does not mean "race." Like. At all. We use the word "race" to mean "race."

And finally, the Bible, when it means "race" it says "race." And more often than not, specifies exactly which race.

In other words:

You have STILL not responded to my or others posts regarding the use of the word "generation."

I have hilited in your post where you list "γενεαὶ", the plural of "γενεά" , the specific passage does not say "γενεαὶ" as you listed above, it says "γενεά".

Are you looking for the wrong form of the word? How can you know it wasn't used as a metaphor in this passage? Why is the transliteration of "γενεά" listed in the Concordance as "Genea"? Indeed, right at the top of the page it reads, and you can check for yourself in Strong's #1074:
"genea: race, family, generation"

I think I understand why you refuse to discuss your interpretation of the passage. It is my belief you don't have one because you've not done enough work to try to decipher the meaning personally. If you're just hanging on entries from the skeptic's bible, you'll never come away with anything other than what someone else wants you to think.

There's much more to it than the view that "Jesus lied" or "Jesus is not coming". Ridiculous. With that type of reasoning in mind, when reading the passage from John 10:7 "So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." I can only suppose that some of those critical minds must surely believe Jesus had a door knob and hinges on his body. Or the proof that he lied is that nobody has those items on their body.
Chris B.

 

[ddt]

Are you looking for the wrong form of the word? How can you know it wasn't used as a metaphor in this passage? Why is the transliteration of "γενεά" listed in the Concordance as "Genea"? Indeed, right at the top of the page it reads, and you can check for yourself in Strong's #1074:
"genea: race, family, generation"

You can keep screaming that Strong lists "race" as possible translation, but that's not how it works. Concordances and dictionaries don't define the meaning of words. They only render them on basis of the actual use of words by original authors.

I note that there's not a single other place in the NT where γενεά is used in the meaning of "race", and you've conceded that. So give us another use of γενεά outside the Bible - in Thucydides, or Xenophon, or Plutarch, or any other Greek author, where it (obviously) means race and not generation. That's the way to convince us, not on basis of a concordance plus dictionary of a book that forms the basis of ca. 30,000 denominations with all their own interpretation of that book - and which thus is at risk to contain dubious translations to fit in with the favourite interpretation of the compiler or their financier.

And really, are you going to hang this up on Nihilanth making a typo and writing the plural form instead of the singular? Let's not even get started about that metaphor thing, that is the ultimate cop-out.

I think I understand why you refuse to discuss your interpretation of the passage. It is my belief you don't have one because you've not done enough work to try to decipher the meaning personally. If you're just hanging on entries from the skeptic's bible, you'll never come away with anything other than what someone else wants you to think.

Pot meet kettle?

There's nothing implausible about Nihilanth's interpretation: apocalyptic thinking in other strands of Judaism than early Christianity is well-attested, and we've also been through passages in the Epistles that convey the idea of "the end is nigh". You make your case that this instance of γενεά may indeed refer to 2000 years and counting.

ETA: and there's also Matthew 16:28 (or Mark 9:1) that belies your interpretation:

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

That clearly says that the End Times will happen in this generation, no doubt about it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You can keep screaming that Strong lists "race" as possible translation, but that's not how it works. Concordances and dictionaries don't define the meaning of words. They only render them on basis of the actual use of words by original authors.

I note that there's not a single other place in the NT where γενεά is used in the meaning of "race", and you've conceded that. So give us another use of γενεά outside the Bible - in Thucydides, or Xenophon, or Plutarch, or any other Greek author, where it (obviously) means race and not generation. That's the way to convince us, not on basis of a concordance plus dictionary of a book that forms the basis of ca. 30,000 denominations with all their own interpretation of that book - and which thus is at risk to contain dubious translations to fit in with the favourite interpretation of the compiler or their financier.

And really, are you going to hang this up on Nihilanth making a typo and writing the plural form instead of the singular? Let's not even get started about that metaphor thing, that is the ultimate cop-out.

Pot meet kettle?

There's nothing implausible about Nihilanth's interpretation: apocalyptic thinking in other strands of Judaism than early Christianity is well-attested, and we've also been through passages in the Epistles that convey the idea of "the end is nigh". You make your case that this instance of γενεά may indeed refer to 2000 years and counting.

Hilite:
Really? And you know this how? Or are you backing away now that you've found another example of "γενεά" in the Bible that means something other than "generation"? Proving more than one definition is applied to it.

As far as Nihilanth's interpretation of the passage, what is it? He hasn't shared it on the forum yet as far as I'm aware. Does he consider it a discussion of the fall of the temple? Or simply a lie about the second coming? I'm curious to know.
Chris B.

 

[ddt]

Hilite:
Really? And you know this how? Or are you backing away now that you've found another example of "γενεά" in the Bible that means something other than "generation"? Proving more than one definition is applied to it.

You seem to misunderstand the function of dictionaries. They don't define everyday words, they list their meaning(s). The comprehensive ones also give cites of occurrences. Terms of art and scientific jargon may be defined, in standards or scientific literature. The Bible is neither.

And no, I have not found another example in the Bible where γενεά means something other than generation.

As far as Nihilanth's interpretation of the passage, what is it? He hasn't shared it on the forum yet as far as I'm aware. Does he consider it a discussion of the fall of the temple? Or simply a lie about the second coming? I'm curious to know.
Chris B.

He can speak for himself about his wider interpretation, but he's clearly of the opinion that γενεά there means generation. Personally, I think it's the utterance of an apocalyptic prophet who indeed thinks the End Times will happen in this generation.

And you seem also confused about what the English word "lie" means. If I predict that Brazil will be WC soccer, and Germany actually becomes it, I have not lied, but I have made a wrong prediction.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You seem to misunderstand the function of dictionaries. They don't define everyday words, they list their meaning(s). The comprehensive ones also give cites of occurrences. Terms of art and scientific jargon may be defined, in standards or scientific literature. The Bible is neither.

And no, I have not found another example in the Bible where γενεά means something other than generation.


He can speak for himself about his wider interpretation, but he's clearly of the opinion that γενεά there means generation. Personally, I think it's the utterance of an apocalyptic prophet who indeed thinks the End Times will happen in this generation.

And you seem also confused about what the English word "lie" means. If I predict that Brazil will be WC soccer, and Germany actually becomes it, I have not lied, but I have made a wrong prediction.

I use the New American Standard Concordance when I review a word from the text. Strong's is good but NAS is better IMO, it goes a bit deeper.

The futurist view allows that γενεά - genea is also considered to be used for race. I realize the problem with using γενεά as "race" here but it is used elsewhere in the same application by Jesus though in a negative sense. So the argument that it has been used to refer to race elsewhere in the Bible is valid. Quite simply I agree with this interpretation.

I also agree with the foretelling of the fall of the temple. Which is likely the main focus of the passage and I understand that. Unfortunately, there are some with an agenda or some sort of animosity toward the book that view the passage as Jesus was lying and misleading his listeners. I disagree with those folks. Indeed if they were correct or it was simply a failed prophecy, there would not be a Christian religion today.

The Anti-Bible folks are not true Atheists so they're something else with an agenda. True Atheists don't care if the religious people have their little book of faith. True Atheists couldn't care less if their neighbor worships a potato.
As long as they don't hurt anyone who cares? Chris B.

 

[Nihilianth]

I have hilited in your post where you list "γενεαὶ", the plural of "γενεά" , the specific passage does not say "γενεαὶ" as you listed above, it says "γενεά".

Are you looking for the wrong form of the word? How can you know it wasn't used as a metaphor in this passage? Why is the transliteration of "γενεά" listed in the Concordance as "Genea"? Indeed, right at the top of the page it reads, and you can check for yourself in Strong's #1074:
"genea: race, family, generation"

I think I understand why you refuse to discuss your interpretation of the passage. It is my belief you don't have one because you've not done enough work to try to decipher the meaning personally. If you're just hanging on entries from the skeptic's bible, you'll never come away with anything other than what someone else wants you to think.

There's much more to it than the view that "Jesus lied" or "Jesus is not coming". Ridiculous. With that type of reasoning in mind, when reading the passage from John 10:7 "So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." I can only suppose that some of those critical minds must surely believe Jesus had a door knob and hinges on his body. Or the proof that he lied is that nobody has those items on their body.
Chris B.

You're right: γενεά is the singular, and that is the word that is used. Making your argument for the interpretation of "race" even less valid. Because if it said: "Before these generations are out," that could mean "the end of the Jewish race." And so, a 2000 year+ rendering for the apocalypse would be valid. But it doesn;'t say that. It says "γενεά;" "generation." "Before this generation is out," meaning, as DDT pointed out: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

So I take it you have no examples from ancient Greek text, demonstrating that "γενεά" means "race?"

I also take it that you have no argument regarding the post I left about the meaning "generation" as it is used in modern English? No, "generation" does NOT mean "race." Neither in the ancient Greek, nor in the modern English!

And you also have no answer as to why your interpretation of Strong's Concordance is a logical fallacy: Circular Reasoning. You cannot use the Bible, to prove the Bible to be true. Or even throw in one step in there: Proving the Bible true, by using the interpretation (which you actually fail to understand), of a passage from the Bible.

Rather than sit here and claim that I have not studied this (which you are correct, I have not) why don't you educate me? Show me a third-party source from an ancient Greek text where "γενεά" means "race." Prove my post regarding the modern English word "generation" to be wrong.

And not just the NT, but even the OT uses the word "race" to mean "race;" It even specifies specific races more often than not!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You're right: γενεά is the singular, and that is the word that is used. Making your argument for the interpretation of "race" even less valid. Because if it said: "Before these generations are out," that could mean "the end of the Jewish race." And so, a 2000 year+ rendering for the apocalypse would be valid. But it doesn;'t say that. It says "γενεά;" "generation." "Before this generation is out," meaning, as DDT pointed out: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

So I take it you have no examples from ancient Greek text, demonstrating that "γενεά" means "race?"

I also take it that you have no argument regarding the post I left about the meaning "generation" as it is used in modern English? No, "generation" does NOT mean "race." Neither in the ancient Greek, nor in the modern English!

And you also have no answer as to why your interpretation of Strong's Concordance is a logical fallacy: Circular Reasoning. You cannot use the Bible, to prove the Bible to be true. Or even throw in one step in there: Proving the Bible true, by using the interpretation (which you actually fail to understand), of a passage from the Bible.

Rather than sit here and claim that I have not studied this (which you are correct, I have not) why don't you educate me? Show me a third-party source from an ancient Greek text where "γενεά" means "race." Prove my post regarding the modern English word "generation" to be wrong.

And not just the NT, but even the OT uses the word "race" to mean "race;" It even specifies specific races more often than not!

Clearly there will always be multiple interpretations of this passage. I will briefly list my reason for accepting the futurist view as being accurate as well.

The passage in question:

Matthew 24:34 "I tell you the truth, this generation (genea | γενεά ) will not pass away until all these things take place."



Yet we have "this generation" used to define the people he's talking to directly that uses genean or γενεάν here:

Matthew 23:36 "I tell you the truth, all these things will come upon this generation" (genean | γενεάν )

So, if we are to assume "this generation" can only be defined as the people there at that moment, why did he use a different form of the word for the same use? Now some would like you to believe that in every instance where we see "generation" in the Bible as singular, that the word "γενεά" is used there, but it's not, and they're wrong and you can verify it for yourself.
The preterist says that there was only one use for the word "γενεά" right? So ask yourself, if that is correct then why do we have two forms used in an application referring to "generation" and both are singular? Yet in one passage we have γενεά-genea, and the other we have γενεάν-genean?

Circular reasoning? How can one say there is only one use of the word and then claim the use of a different form of that word means the exact same thing? Nonsense. They cannot have it both ways. They must admit there are other forms of the word used and were translated as "generation" in the singular referral, it's in the text.

So, we have genea, and genean, both used to describe "this generation" which both originate from genos. Now what is "genos"? : a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

"Nation" must also be considered to be a valid use of the word, hence as is listed in Strong's as the very first word following genea: "race".

So let's look a bit deeper. We know we have at least 2 forms being used. Let's look at γενεά specifically since that's the one used in the passage of topic. In Luke 11 Jesus used it again:

Luke 11:29 "As the crowds were getting larger, Jesus began to say, “This generation (genea | γενεά) is an evil generation (genea | γενεά); it looks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah."

Now, what do we have in the next passage:

Luke 11:30 "For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation (genea | γενεά)."

What and where or who was Nineveh? Major importance that we have this one word. Nineveh is the capital of the Assyrian empire. So Jesus is talking about "Assyrians" when he mentions Jonah being a sign for them. Specifically, Jonah became a sign for another people, another nation. And importantly the proof that (genea | γενεά) is used to refer to a nation.

In the last of Luke 11:30 Jesus says: "So the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation (genea | γενεά)." Clearly he's talking about his people and separating them from the Assyrians, as in separating them as a nation that is different from the Assyrians.

You asked, and there it is, all packaged up for you nice and neat. I do not wish to debate this interpretation further. I'm certain there will be others posting marathon blithering of nonsense to refute my position but I have used specific passages that are unquestionably referring to "nation" when γενεά is the descriptor used, there is no gray area for them to attack from, try as they will.
Chris B.

 

[ddt]

The passage in question:

Matthew 24:34 "I tell you the truth, this generation (genea | γενεά ) will not pass away until all these things take place."


Yet we have "this generation" used to define the people he's talking to directly that uses genean or γενεάν here:

Matthew 23:36 "I tell you the truth, all these things will come upon this generation" (genean | γενεάν )

So, if we are to assume "this generation" can only be defined as the people there at that moment, why did he use a different form of the word for the same use? Now some would like you to believe that in every instance where we see "generation" in the Bible as singular, that the word "γενεά" is used there, but it's not, and they're wrong and you can verify it for yourself.
The preterist says that there was only one use for the word "γενεά" right? So ask yourself, if that is correct then why do we have two forms used in an application referring to "generation" and both are singular? Yet in one passage we have γενεά-genea, and the other we have γενεάν-genean?

Circular reasoning? How can one say there is only one use of the word and then claim the use of a different form of that word means the exact same thing? Nonsense. They cannot have it both ways. They must admit there are other forms of the word used and were translated as "generation" in the singular referral, it's in the text.

So, we have genea, and genean, both used to describe "this generation" which both originate from genos. Now what is "genos"? : a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

So you have absolutely no clue at all about (Ancient) Greek?

Greek nouns are declined. The ending changes depending on the four (*) different cases - nominative, genitive, dative, accusative - and the number - singular, plural or dual (**). In Matthew 24:34, γενεα is the subject of the (subordinate) sentence, and so it's in the nominative case. In Matthew 23:36, it's an adverbial clause initiated with the preposition επι which means it's in the accusative. The links from the Interlinear bible have annotations to the grammatical forms underneath the text. And here's a wiki link to the table for the Greek first declension of nouns.

A long story short: there are no two words here, there are two forms of the same word. And anyone discussing the Greek text should know this basic knowledge.

(*) some consider the vocative a fifth case, others don't bother with distinguishing it.

(**) the dual number - to signify there's two involved - is still common in Homer, but really rudimentary in classical Greek and non-existent, AFAIK, in Koine.

 

[ddt]

I use the New American Standard Concordance when I review a word from the text. Strong's is good but NAS is better IMO, it goes a bit deeper.

The futurist view allows that γενεά - genea is also considered to be used for race. I realize the problem with using γενεά as "race" here

So really, this is only special pleading. It means race because you want it to mean race.

but it is used elsewhere in the same application by Jesus though in a negative sense. So the argument that it has been used to refer to race elsewhere in the Bible is valid. Quite simply I agree with this interpretation.

I note you do not mention these other places where γενεα is used in the sense of "race".

And I also note you fail to come up with any extra-biblical references where it would mean race. But you've already shown that you have no clue when it comes to ancient Greek. Time to give it up, Chris. At least you put in some more effort than DOC.

 

[Leumas]

So really, this is only special pleading. It means race because you want it to mean race.


I note you do not mention these other places where γενεα is used in the sense of "race".

And I also note you fail to come up with any extra-biblical references where it would mean race. But you've already shown that you have no clue when it comes to ancient Greek. Time to give it up, Chris. At least you put in some more effort than DOC.

What is mind boggling is all this tenacious stubborn persistence with going on with this inanity despite the fact that his very own Strong's Concordance PROVES HIM WRONG.

He keeps going on and on insisting that generation means race because it says so in Strong's concordance.

What he fails to realize as he actually keeps doing all the time (failing to realize that is) is that when it comes to Matthew 24:34 , Strong's Concordance CLEARLY SAYS that the word as used in that verse means exactly what it ought to and that is generation.

What is mind blowing is that I have already pointed that out to him numerous times and he even noted that I already did that .... yet... he keeps persisting that Strong's concordance proves him right even though for any person who can read and can think, it in fact proves him wrong.

It is almost as if he hopes that by persevering in stating his inane assertions we will just give up and accept his errors.

I guess that is yet one more Christian casuists' modus operandi... now that they cannot break peoples bones and burn some alive so as to cow the rest into believing their LIES they have to resort to the stratagem of repeating the lies enough times with enough bare faced shameless conviction and maybe eventually just like with Jesus and the Bible people will just believe.

Yes... it looks like you are the one who is doing that.

YOUR VERY OWN CITATION disagrees with you.

Have a look at your very own citation telling you that in Matthew 24:34 the word generation means what it is supposed to mean
Here have a look from your link

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews​

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

deleted

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So really, this is only special pleading. It means race because you want it to mean race.


I note you do not mention these other places where γενεα is used in the sense of "race".

And I also note you fail to come up with any extra-biblical references where it would mean race. But you've already shown that you have no clue when it comes to ancient Greek. Time to give it up, Chris. At least you put in some more effort than DOC.

Backed up by the text. You wanted an example and you have it. Fin
Chris B.

 

[Leumas]

Backed up by the text. You wanted an example and you have it. Fin
Chris B.

Do you think by persisting in repeating your error it will ever become anything other than an arrant display of failure to recognize your mistake?

Your very own citation proves your wrong!

The Greek language proves you wrong!

The English language proves your wrong!

The Bible proves your wrong!

Jesus Christ proves you wrong!

You have been told this numerous times already....yet you keep coming back again and again buzzing about as if you have not seen any of the posts that swatted your assertions over and over again.

Why don't you just admit your error and be done with it.

Here have a look at just one sample of a post that proved you UTTERLY WRONG.... admit it and move on to the next stuff you will be proven wrong in.

Matthew 24:36...

But a few sentences before that he says...

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

...

...
The favorite response to the "this generation" passage is that Jesus was referring to the entire Jewish race when he used "generation" (Greek "genea").

So your answer to finding the definition of γενεά to include meaning "race" in Strong's Concordance is that they may be in error? They got it wrong? Wow. "The Concordance is wrong"....Ahem.. okiedokie.

It looks like YOU ARE THE ONE who thinks that Strong's Concordance is wrong.

Strong's Concordance says that in Matthew 24:34 the word generation means what it is supposed to mean.

YOU ARE THE ONE who thinks Strong's Concordance is wrong.

Here have a look from your link

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews​

And that is in addition to YOU THINKING THAT JESUS IS WRONG too.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.​