Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[ddt]

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

Non-sequitur. I asked for a reference. You seem aware how to give references to Bible verses (e.g., Matt. 24:34), so where are those other places?

Oh, and here's an online Greek grammar course. Here's another, more comprehensive one. There are plenty more.

 

[Leumas]

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

Here is yet another CLEAR PROOF of your inability to understand what your very own citation actually says.

If you are going to quote stuff and cite it, the first thing you should do is make sure that it in fact does support you.

Apparently you do not even understand that your own citation that you think supports you is in fact proving you wrong.

Can't you see that this is the time where you ought to just give up.... when a citation you yourself give in support of your bare assertions turns out to in fact CLEARLY PROVE YOU WRONG you should just concede your error and carry on to the next place where you would be proven wrong again.

I understand that position. That interpretation is also shared by some that believe the second coming of Christ has already happened. The preterist position. I do not share that opinion or interpretation, but I understand why some feel as they do.

Many passages are metaphoric and I can see why someone of a particular race would have a chip on their shoulder if they viewed the use of "generation" as a negative metaphor but that's simply not the case. The use of "generation" can also simply mean "race" without any negatives applied. The negatives would be in the mind of the reader if they exist IMO.

Yet AGAIN YOUR VERY OWN citation DISAGREES with you


Have you read from your very own link

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).​

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Here is yet another CLEAR PROOF of your inability to understand what your very own citation actually says.

If you are going to quote stuff and cite it, the first thing you should do is make sure that it in fact does support you.

Apparently you do not even understand that your own citation that you think supports you is in fact proving you wrong.

Can't you see that this is the time where you ought to just give up.... when a citation you yourself give in support of your bare assertions turns out to in fact CLEARLY PROVE YOU WRONG you should just concede your error and carry on to the next place where you would be proven wrong again.

Ah, so you now admit that γενεά has more than one application/use other than referring to the people living at one time. There may be hope for you after all. Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

Ah, so you now admit that γενεά has more than one application/use other than referring to the people living at one time. There may be hope for you after all. Chris B.

Please expand on that, so that the casual reader might understand what you mean by it.

 

[ddt]

Ah, so you now admit that γενεά has more than one application/use other than referring to the people living at one time. There may be hope for you after all. Chris B.

Have you already started your ancient Greek grammar course? Can you explain what the word γενεας denotes? (hint: more than one answer).

 

[Leumas]

Ah, so you now admit that γενεά has more than one application/use other than referring to the people living at one time. There may be hope for you after all. Chris B.

 

[Nihilianth]

..]

Wow, thats a mighty effort at interpretation you must expend to arrive there. I think that ddt's rather succinct explanation suffices. Besides, It isnt like two different words in the english language could mean the same thing.

Im just going to stick with the idea of the simplest explanation is probably the correct one: "generation" does not mean "race," and therefore, the bible is proven wrong. There is no "second coming" of christ.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

..]

Wow, thats a mighty effort at interpretation you must expend to arrive there. I think that ddt's rather succinct explanation suffices. Besides, It isnt like two different words in the english language could mean the same thing.

Im just going to stick with the idea of the simplest explanation is probably the correct one: "generation" does not mean "race," and therefore, the bible is proven wrong. There is no "second coming" of christ.

Nah, it's no effort, the only pesky part is looking up the exact passage quotes from the Bible, but with the wonders of copy/paste even that is a brief task.

There's nothing wrong with simply interpreting the passage with the use of "generation". My post briefly outlines the futurist view that allows for race or nation to apply as well. There are multiple interpretations of that one passage and there always will be. It's not a question of who's right or wrong as there is no one answer that defines the passage precisely in fact.
Chris B.

 

[barehl]

Ah, so you now admit that γενεά has more than one application/use other than referring to the people living at one time.

I already referenced this on page 6 of this thread. You made no attempt to reply to that post or the other three on that page. I guess I don't have to wonder why.

You've only quoted Strong's and I already explained why Strong's is wrong. Are we now into the make believe part of the discussion?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I already referenced this on page 6 of this thread. You made no attempt to reply to that post or the other three on that page. I guess I don't have to wonder why.

You've only quoted Strong's and I already explained why Strong's is wrong. Are we now into the make believe part of the discussion?

If you'll review post #334 you'll find another example used within the Bible.
There's no need to look elsewhere for what is already found in the Bible which is the book of discussion.

As far as not replying to certain posts you have made in the thread. Part of my reasoning was to save you from embarrassment as since you mistakenly stated that the siege of Jerusalem as discussed previously was ended with a payment. This is entirely incorrect and reflects a severe lack of knowledge of the subject, as the siege of Jerusalem began immediately AFTER the payment was made at Lachish in the text. I'm sorry but you'll need more than access to google in some cases of discussion here.
Chris B.

 

[Nihilianth]

Nah, it's no effort, the only pesky part is looking up the exact passage quotes from the Bible, but with the wonders of copy/paste even that is a brief task.

There's nothing wrong with simply interpreting the passage with the use of "generation". My post briefly outlines the futurist view that allows for race or nation to apply as well. There are multiple interpretations of that one passage and there always will be. It's not a question of who's right or wrong as there is no one answer that defines the passage precisely in fact.
Chris B.

Your arguments have been soundly defeated by the likes of leumas, ddt, and barehl.

 

[Nihilianth]

#352 is attempting to ise the bible, tp prove the bible. Circular.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Your arguments have been soundly defeated by the likes of leumas, ddt, and barehl.

That's an odd way of looking at it in my view. Assigning homework is not any sort of valid argument, it's merely a diversionary tactic. If there is some comparison to be made of the text with that of the work of Homer that would invalidate my findings, I'm still waiting for it to be presented.
Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

That's an odd way of looking at it in my view. Assigning homework is not any sort of valid argument, it's merely a diversionary tactic. If there is some comparison to be made of the text with that of the work of Homer that would invalidate my findings, I'm still waiting for it to be presented.
Chris B.

I don't think the procedure is like assigning homework. If the word in question can mean "race" in Greek writing, then it ought to be possible to find it so used in Greek texts outside the NT. If you can find it there, it would provide you with powerful support.

 

[ddt]

That's an odd way of looking at it in my view. Assigning homework is not any sort of valid argument, it's merely a diversionary tactic. If there is some comparison to be made of the text with that of the work of Homer that would invalidate my findings, I'm still waiting for it to be presented.
Chris B.

I don't think the procedure is like assigning homework. If the word in question can mean "race" in Greek writing, then it ought to be possible to find it so used in Greek texts outside the NT. If you can find it there, it would provide you with powerful support.

This.

And we've also suggested some more appropriate writers, like Thucydides or Xenophon - who both wrote in 4th C. Attic, the direct predecessor of Koine Greek, or Plutarch, a contemporary of the gospel writers.

Oh, and how's that online course Greek going? Have you already learned the first declension of nouns? Have you already figured out what γενεας means?

 

[barehl]

If you'll review post #334 you'll find another example used within the Bible.

Which is completely irrelevant as has already been explained to you more than once. You need a reference from either a classical author such as Homer or a Hellenistic writer to validate Strong's. You can't validate Strong's with a second reference to Strong's. Do you really not understand this?

Part of my reasoning was to save you from embarrassment as since you mistakenly stated that the siege of Jerusalem as discussed previously was ended with a payment. This is entirely incorrect and reflects a severe lack of knowledge of the subject, as the siege of Jerusalem began immediately AFTER the payment was made at Lachish in the text.

In what text? Are you trying to use the Bible again to validate the Bible? Do you also not understand why this doesn't work? The Biblical account claims that the siege occurred after a tribute was paid to stop the siege of Lachish and that 185,000 Assyrian soldiers suddenly died. This account is of course, absurd. The Assyrian account claims that Jerusalem was besieged and that it ended when Hezekiah paid tribute. Since it talks of destroying 46 cities in Judah the account is probably also exaggerated since there is no obvious reason to make an exception for Jerusalem.

The truth is probably somewhat in between. Since it was embarrassing to Hezekiah to admit paying tribute while Jerusalem was under siege, he had every reason to claim that the tribute was paid for another city (which was extremely unlikely). However, it was also embarrassing for Sennacherib to admit that he hadn't been able to breach the city so he had every reason to claim that he only stopped when tribute was paid. And, it's obvious that nothing like 185,000 soldiers died. However, if we divide that by 100 then the death of 1,850 soldiers due perhaps to cholera (and probably twice that many sick) would be a strong incentive to accept tribute and stop the siege even though that wasn't the original intent. In other words, I doubt there was any clear winner. I would say both gave up something.

 

[barehl]

Your arguments have been soundly defeated by the likes of leumas, ddt, and barehl.

My knowledge of Greek is pretty limited. All I can say is that I haven't been able to find any reference to back Strong's claim that the word in the Bible can mean "race". The references I've found in Homer, I would read as birth or heritage rather than race. And other sources have stated that Strong's lacks historical context, so clearly it needs to be validated. Knowing this, I can't think of any reason why someone would take Strong's as the default position to be disproved rather than a possible meaning requiring further proof.

And as others have pointed out, why would we read Matthew 24:34 differently from Mark 8:12?

 

[Craig B]

My knowledge of Greek is pretty limited. All I can say is that I haven't been able to find any reference to back Strong's claim that the word in the Bible can mean "race". The references I've found in Homer, I would read as birth or heritage rather than race. And other sources have stated that Strong's lacks historical context, so clearly it needs to be validated. Knowing this, I can't think of any reason why someone would take Strong's as the default position to be disproved rather than a possible meaning requiring further proof.

And as others have pointed out, why would we read Matthew 24:34 differently from Mark 8:12?

Or same chapter, verse 38, where it clearly refers to the people living at that time. See http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/8-38.htm.

ETA Here's the AV/KJV text.

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

 

[Peregrinus]

Mat_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.

Let's see if "some standing here" can be equivocated into a 10-page pie fight.

 

[Leumas]

Mat_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.

Let's see if "some standing here" can be equivocated into a 10-page pie fight.

I think that is the purpose of all the shenanigans.... spoil the thread if not even the entire forum so that none can get any benefit from it.

I have long ago given up on sitting outside on my porch because any pleasurable moments I ry to get are invariably frustrated by niggling pests that even after having been repeatedly swatted they keep buzzing back over and over again looking for good substance to spoil with their filthy spit and venomous nips.

“Nothing seems to please a gadfly so much as to be mistake for a currant, and if it can be baked in a cake and palmed off on the unwary, it dies happy.”

— Mark Twain​