Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[Nihilianth]

Poppycock!.... Nothing but pure anti-Semitism.

1. Let's assume that this casuistic language chicanery is correct (it is not as I show in point 4 below).
   
   What does that imply? That Jesus will not fulfill his promise until the Jews stop "kicking"?
   
   Is that what Christian casuists want people to understand?
   
   Does Jesus want to have all Jews EXTERMINATED before he completes his promise?
   
   _
2. The verse would not make any sense whatsoever if the word generation meant the Jewish people.
   
   Here is the verse
   
   Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation (γενεὰ) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
   ​
   According to this casuistic LANGUAGE CHICANERY, what Jesus is saying is that the Jews will not have yet been exterminated before he completes his promises.
   
   What exactly does that mean? It is utter RUBBISH to say something like that.
   
   It is the equivalent of him saying he will come back before there are no more trees.....but when is that? Tomorrow or 100,000 years from now? So long as there are still trees he would still be awaited… what kind of promise is this?
   
   If we were to take the language legerdemain to be correct then Jesus is not saying he will fulfill his promise when there are no more Jews.... he is saying there will STILL BE JEWS ("kicking" as you call it) when he does.
   
   So this is the most DECEPTIVE thing anyone can say... when is that? This is nothing but meaningless EMPTY hogwash.
   
   _
3. If this casuistic word deception is to be taken as true it BACKFIRES UTTERLY upon Jesus and his casuists.
   
   All it does is prove how HEINOUS Jesus is.
   
   Have a look at these verses
   
   Matthew
   

   • 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
     
     Is Jesus calling the Jews evil and adulterous until they stop "kicking"? Is that not evil of Jesus?​
   • 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
     
     Is Jesus calling the Jews wicked and adulterous until they are exterminated? Is that not wicked of Jesus?
     
     Will Jesus never give a sign to the Jews?​
   • 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
     
     Is Jesus calling the Jews faithless and perverse until they go extinct? Is that not perverse of Jesus?​
4. But all this is nothing but an utter DECEPTION. Nothing but casuistry and apologetics trying to acquit Jesus from having made a false promise.
   
   Have a look at this verse
   
   Matthew 1:17 So all the generations (γενεαὶ) from Abraham to David are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ).
   ​
   
   I doubt anyone will get away with arguing that the word generations here means "the entire Jewish race"?
   
   Notice the word used γενεαὶ and compare it with the word used in Matthew 24:34 γενεὰ.
   
   Notice the only difference is the ὶ at the end which signifies the PLURAL.
   
   Can anyone argue that generations is not the plural of generation?
   
   In Matthew 1:17 can anyone argue that the word generations does not mean the plural of generation which is the word that means what is described here.
   
   Can anyone find a dictionary entry where the word generation means the entire race of people through time until they eventually stop "kicking"?
   
   So no... generation (γενεὰ) in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 does not mean the Jews... it means
   
   The people born and living at the time Jesus was making the promise, considered as a group​

So I am afraid Jesus LIED and there is no language chicanery or legerdemain that will convince any sane person who is not brainwashed that it is otherwise.

But what is really PATHETIC is that even if the casuistry were to be true, it in the end is worse for Jesus because it shows him to have been WORSE THAN A LIAR.... the apologetic trying to acquit Jesus from having lied proves that Jesus was a HEINOUS DESPOTIC MORON!!

Nominated! I never, in a million years, would have thought of that argument: The use of the word "generations" (plural) vs. "generation" (singular.) My only regret is that I wish I had seen this post years ago. But better late in learning, than to have never learned at all.

 

[UnrepentantRed]

Here is an extract from secular webs article on Daniels prophecies as it is viewed by dispensationalists, it talks about the failures of the prophetic year system which is used in the bible.

The Dispensationalist Christian Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks

Dispensationalist Christians like Dr. Harold Hoehner have a totally different theory.[52] <snip>

http://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html#dispensationalist

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 4. Please only post a small extract and include a link to the source.

 

[Peregrinus]

I believe Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians because......

It's reasonably certain Paul did not write II Thessalonians.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

Chris B.

Words are important. As Leaumas said:

This generation (γενεὰ) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations (γενεαὶ) from Abraham to David are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ).
Matthew 1:17, as Leaumus pointed out, repeatedly used the word γενεαὶ. With that i at the end, is the plural form of γενεὰ, and gives examples three different times in the same passage of what that means. It is very, very specific.

Sorry, but you can';t just make **** up as you go along.

 

[ddt]

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.

From Strong's Concordance: Original word γενεά, ᾶς, ἡ, transliteration: genea: race, family, generation

OK, maybe Strong's got it wrong because you say so. Let's look at the NAS Exhaustive Concordance.

From the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance:
From ginomai: race, family, generation

And there it is again. That word "race" is once again included in the definition, even in the NAS Exhaustive Concordance. Is it a conspiracy perhaps? How do you explain this fact that it is there?

Let's try Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/γενεά

γενεά • (geneá) (genitive γενεᾶς); f, first declension

birth
race, descent
generation
offspring



Hilite portion: Really now, you can't honestly expect to prevail by assigning homework.

The homework was not to list other dictionary entries that may have copied from Strong's. The homework was to give an actual occurrence in Greek literature that corresponds to your interpretation here. Which is, as I understand it "a tribe, people, nation, ethnicity, even 2,000 years down the line" - this to pre-empt you playing games with the meaning of "race".

I think you probably meant 2 Corinthians 11:2 if you're intending to tie spiritual marriage in with the end times. 1 Corinthians 7 is more a lesson of the responsibilities of sexuality between husband and wife.

No, I did mean this passage. After all, Paul says there, i.a., that if you're a bachelor you should not worry getting married because the end is nigh anyways.

It's not exactly uncommon to find warnings that Jesus may arrive at any time or any moment throughout the books of the New Testament.

Yes, and they're all of the type "he comes REAL SOON now". Not of the type "he comes in 1,000 years, or 2,000 years, or...". Yes, he'll come like a thief in the night, unexpected, but that is no contradiction. See Unexpected hanging paradox.

 

[Nihilianth]

As I have shown here and in other threads, it invariably seems to be out of the frying pan, into the fire, unfortunately for most apologists and casuists.

You see long ago such casuistry worked as an out with benighted sheep because the apologists could get away with trying to make "the entire Jewish race" stop "kicking" so as to bring Jesus back and thus continue to believe that he did not just tell a pack of lies.

It was not considered long ago as bad of Jesus to malign the Jews because of course in the apologists' vitiated brains the Jews deserved it for not believing in Jesus.

Fortunately it now is no longer acceptable for Jesus to curse to death the "Jewish nation" as a fruitless fig tree that deserves felling down or to maligning "the entire Jewish race" for all time until they stop "kicking" as evil, adulterous, wicked, faithless, perverse, sinful, and in other verses labeling them as murderous children of the devil and devils.... at least for most people I hope!!!

Ya know, I grew up in the Catholic Church. Went to Catholic school. Catholics believe that there will just simply be a "Second Coming" of Christ.

Then I started dating this girl when I was like 16, from a so-called "non-denominational church," (Read: "Baptist." I never really understood why some Baptist churches claim to be "non-denominational." But whatever.) They were certainly Evangelical.

Their "Second Bible" was the Left Behind series. They preached and preached and preached about how there would be a nuclear war and famine and whatnot, and that Israel and most of the Jews would be destroyed after the initial Rapture. I remember distinctly hoping, deep down, that it would happen, and happen soon.

I have since become absolutely disgusted and appalled at my 16 year-old self. It is true that Evangelical Christians are disgusting creatures on the order of Nazis. Not a Godwin. They truly are as disgusting, filthy, and ignorant as the Nazis.

At least the Catholics I can stomach. They may have a misplaced faith in something for which there is no evidence exists. But at least they do not preach and believe in such filth while longing for something as gross as a thermonuclear war, starvation, and famine in a nation full of "those J00s" just so they can go and be all nice and comfortable up in the heaven.

It's kinda like millionaires snubbing their noses at the working class. While they get to go and drink and party on their yachts down in the Caribbean, thy force their workers to work extra overtime hours every Saturday.

"f you read it otherwise, obviously you don't have the holy spook in you. "

haha, "holy spook." Love it!

 

[Nihilianth]

Ok. Definition of "Generation:"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generation

noun
1.
the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time:
the postwar generation.
2.
the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
3.
a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age, having similar ideas, problems, attitudes, etc.
Compare Beat Generation, Lost Generation.
4.
a group of individuals belonging to a specific category at the same time:
Chaplin belonged to the generation of silent-screen stars.
5.
a single step in natural descent, as of human beings, animals, or plants.
6.
a form, type, class, etc., of objects existing at the same time and having many similarities or developed from a common model or ancestor (often used in combination): a new generation of anticancer drugs;
a third-generation phone.
7.
the offspring of a certain parent or couple, considered as a step in natural descent.


If you pick the word apart, this is what you get:

"Gen," which can mean "race."
"-ration," which means "daily portion in times of scarcity." Usually, means a restricted portion for a specific period of time. Usually, rations are daily portions. Or even three times per day, portions.

So, "generation" means: "A race during a specific period or portion of time." The connotation for how the word is commonly used throughout most human civilizations down to our time, means people from the same age group. Much like a ration is a portion of food for a single day, or a third of a day.

That is the very definition for "γενεὰ."

In any case, just because a word in modern English can have multiple usages (I don't buy that for the modern English word "generation," but whatever,) does NOT mean that a word from a completely different language, from a completely different time period will have all the exact same "multiple usages" as the modern-day translation of that word! Words change meaning all the time. Hell, words can change meaning every year, depending on how culture changes. So just because you can come up with a dictionary definition (and yes, it is a modern English dictionary that Chris B used,) does NOT mean that definition ("race") applies to the word "γενεὰ."

So, Chris B, that is why it has been asked of you to come up with a Greek source using the word "γενεὰ" to mean "race." Otherwise, your modern English definition is useless. It is anyway, as even in modern English, that is NOT how the word "generation" is ever used. When a person means "race," they say "race." Not "generation."

 

[Leumas]

... I am interested in the topic but please be aware I cannot be offended as to belief, faith or Jesus bashing. I'm really not interested in those aspects. I have no time for those with an agenda attempting to reinforce their own doubts about what they believe or not.

___

Dang, your bias is showing. I can honestly say I've never seen a more energetic attempt to offend the Jesus lovers. And to throw in antisemitism to boot. Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the texts of the Bible. I find your presentation lacking, filled with uneducated assumptions and more to do with hate speech rather than any sort of educated debate. Feed your head and we may be able to have a discussion at some future date. Or not.

 

[Leumas]

It looks as if you intend to rewrite the Bible to better suit your interpretation. We can't do that. The important thing to realize is many words have multiple definitions, whatever the reason for the choice used by the writer, it's what we have to go on. And so each has the freedom to interpret. Some interpret to suit their needs, some try to find the contemporary meaning in the words and yes there are even those who go completely off planet.

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​

 

[Leumas]

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).​

 

[Leumas]

Ok. Definition of "Generation:"
...
So, Chris B, that is why it has been asked of you to come up with a Greek source using the word "γενεὰ" to mean "race." Otherwise, your modern English definition is useless. It is anyway, as even in modern English, that is NOT how the word "generation" is ever used. When a person means "race," they say "race." Not "generation."

But EVEN IF we grant him for argument's sake his utterly wrong definition which even his very own citation proves him to be wrong on then

Yes... but even in the very same verse... it is worse for Jesus to say that generation means the Jews.

I am not just talking about applying the meaning anywhere else which is also a problem for Jesus' image.

No... just the same verse.... here let's have a look at it with the word generation replaced as he said with the phrase "the entire Jewish race".

Matthew 24:34

• Verily I say unto you, This generation (γενεὰ) the entire Jewish race shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Read it now... does it make sense?

What exactly does it mean to say that the Jews will still be around and "kicking" when all those things will come to pass? Does that mean tomorrow or 100 years or 1000 or 2000 or WHEN?

He says that since the Jews are still around and have not yet stopped "kicking" this means that Jesus is not a liar because right up to the day the Jews stop "kicking" Jesus still has time to make all these things pass.

...The modern (skeptical) view of the passage is severely flawed in other words.
Since we still have Jews kicking, I suppose the passage and the prophecy is still ongoing, for Christians.

This is heinous to say the least in that it is hoping for the EXTINCTION of "the entire Jewish race" so as to finally bring about Jesus' promises.

But more importantly, we have here Jesus making a promise that is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS.

If I tell you TODAY that I will give you $100 TOMORROW and then the next day you come to claim the $100 and I tell you well it is not TOMORROW would you come back to claim the $100 again the next day?

What goes through your mind if I tell you that before the white rhinoceros goes extinct I will give you $1M?

What would you say if instead I said that before the human race goes extinct I will give you $1M?

According to the illogic of this casuistic, Jesus in this verse itself (forget the others) was using CHICANERY and making EMPTY PROMISES just as meaningless as the $100 promise above or the end of the human race one.

Or else, Jesus was insinuating that the Jews are as an endangered race as the white rhino example above and inciting the extermination of the entire Jewish race so as to precipitate the fulfillment of his promises as many have in fact tried and are still trying to do so.

But all this is pointless since his own citation proves him wrong

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​

 

[Leumas]

Ah, I see. You are once again trying to assign one definition to a word that has more than one definition. You can't see the parked car because there are too many vehicles in the way. As evidenced in the Strong's Concordance link, the word "generation" had more than one meaning. It is noteworthy to consider the questions answered in that one passage. There were three. That's the interesting part about the book. It's a text that teaches in parables. Literal interpretation of any one passage may be convenient for those with an agenda, but the entire methodology of the text demonstrates otherwise.

Yes... it looks like you are the one who has the agenda.... since you ignore that Strong's Concordance, which you cite, PROVES YOU WRONG.

YOUR VERY OWN CITATION disagrees with you.

Have a look at your very own citation Strong's Concordance 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​

 

[Leumas]

...
I read from the view that I am looking at a parable. A tool for teaching. How to apply the correct definition of a single word is up to the reader. I do not "make up" definitions, I do "look up" definitions though just as someone would look in a dictionary today. Just as one word has many definitions, one passage has many different answers. And that's as it should be IMO. Am I correct in my particular interpretation? I think so and I realize there are others who agree or disagree with my interpretation. I'm fine with that.

Yes.... unfortunately for you among the others who disagree with you are Jesus himself... yes... JESUS DISAGREES WITH YOU.

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.​

And that is of course in addition to YOUR VERY OWN CITATION, Strong's Concordance, 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​

 

[Leumas]

...You must be of the view that the prophecy Jesus foretold must have been the fall of Jerusalem. ...... I don't know of your study method, but I rarely read a passage from a book of parables as "literal".

...Just as one word has many definitions, one passage has many different answers. And that's as it should be IMO....

__

..
It makes no difference to me since I'm not a religious type. If I was to pick a religion to follow, most likely it'd be Buddhism.
Chris B.

 

[Leumas]

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.​

 

[Nihilianth]

Then, too, you have yet another problem of replacing the word generation in biblical text. Throughout the entire bible, both old and New testament, anytime "race" is mentioned, it almost always uses that specific word. And in the vast majority of cases, specifies an exact race.

 

[Leumas]

I suppose everyone that's a Christian is responsible to study the text and learn from it. It is a great book with much meaning written into it. Some folks will see what they want to see, true. Everyone must study in their own way and each is responsible for not being mislead. Even the text one studies should be researched to determine the most accurate translation available. It boils down to faith. I don't have it, probably never did, but the Bible is a great source of knowledge whether you're bound for Hell or not.

AMEN! AMEN!

A great SERMON!

 

[Leumas]

That's it exactly. Paul didn't know, according to the scripture Paul couldn't know (Mark 13:32) when Jesus was coming back, he only knew what signs to watch for. That's the whole concept of the "spiritual marriage" Christians are supposed to have with Jesus. He is the "spiritual husband" figure "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) and so the Christians are the "spiritual virgins". When he returns, those who are found to be with child must have conceived while their "spiritual husband" was away. "Woe to them that are with child in those days!" (Mark 13:17).

AMEN!! AMEN!!

Yet again another great SERMON.

But a question Brother Chris.... what does the husband do to his virginal bride?

Is Jesus supposed to "spiritually" take away our virginity?

Now that might be a jolly nice METAPHOR to use for women and men who do not mind that Jesus take them as virginal brides.

But what about those who do not CHERISH THE THOUGHT of being "JOINED" to Jesus in the manner that a husband "joins" with his virginal bride? Are they to be shut out from the room behind closed doors? Are they to remain out in the cold night without any Jesus to cuddle with? Or are they to be burnt on a stake for not submitting to Jesus as the groom and them as a virginal bride?

Will they be exterminated along with "the entire Jewish race" and felled down like the fruitless fig tree which is the "Jewish nation"?

Or is that another metaphor like Jesus is the SHEPHERD and we are his SHEEP?

Do you know what Shepherds do to their sheep?

No... not that ... I was referring to this

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Lamb_shank.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Tom_Roberts_-_Shearing_the_rams_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=200]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Bernhard_Plockhorst_-_Good_Shephard.jpg[/imgw][imgw=195]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Sheep_shearing.jpg[/imgw]

 

[ddt]

I suppose everyone that's a Christian is responsible to study the text and learn from it. It is a great book with much meaning written into it. Some folks will see what they want to see, true. Everyone must study in their own way and each is responsible for not being mislead. Even the text one studies should be researched to determine the most accurate translation available. It boils down to faith. I don't have it, probably never did, but the Bible is a great source of knowledge whether you're bound for Hell or not.

Chris B.

One of these things is not like the other.

ETA: Luke 22:59-62:

59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

 

[Leumas]

Then, too, you have yet another problem of replacing the word generation in biblical text. Throughout the entire bible, both old and New testament, anytime "race" is mentioned, it almost always uses that specific word. And in the vast majority of cases, specifies an exact race.

That all depends on what you mean by the word word!

You see word can have many words that signify the word word and if word is not used in the right way then MY WORD will you get in all sorts of trouble.

In other words you need to define exactly your words before you can venture a word in edgewise.