Christology and Preterism Part 2

[prophecy70]

You need to understand those who disagree before you make wrong assertions -


NO! We understand 'genea' according to context, & it's normally translated 'generation' & is normally preceded by 'this' & sometimes with added condemnation.

And always in this manner means those presently being addressed. I still have not seen Robycop3 prove otherwise.

 

[prophecy70]

Here is a topic on BB going on now, about how Matthew 24 already was fulfilled.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is a topic on BB going on now, about how Matthew 24 already was fulfilled.

ALL of it, or just the separate aspect Jesus addressed was soon to come?

 

[robycop3]

You need to understand those who disagree before you make wrong assertions -


NO! We understand 'genea' according to context, & it's normally translated 'generation' & is normally preceded by 'this' & sometimes with added condemnation.

But history & reality PROVE that translation doesn't fit in every instance.

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't cite my work again, I got that from somewhere, maybe even someone else's post.

Then I see no need to answer it.

Yeah, I've been reminded about how uneducated I am.

Then be humble enough to admit your ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance, unless it is embraced and touted, as has recently been done here.

Then please show me other verses in the Bible where hautē Genea is translated this race, or speaking not about the present generation?

I finally have some time to discuss this. It's been a very busy week so far.

First of all, the haute (this) does not affect the meaning of genos in any way. It is a pronoun, not an adjective. With or without the pronoun, genos means the same thing. You can just as easily translate "this kind," "this race," or "this nation" from the Greek phrase.

Now, I have said elsewhere that genos has a much wider range of meaning (possible meanings) than "generation" does in English. This is precisely the source of your confusion, and the mistaken dogmatism of others here on the BB.

Now, some Greek-English lexicons include the meaning "generation," but some do not. I think it depends on the influence of the KJV on the lexicographer. Here is the definition given by F. Wilbur Gingrich in his Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: "race, stock--1. descendants. Family.--2. nation, people. 3. class, kind." (p. 41-42). (I left out his Greek examples.)

Gingrich did not even include "generation," so obviously he would say that "generation" in Matt. 24:34 is a mistaken translation. (On the other hand, he does give a meaning of "generation" for genea, but that's another subject.) Note that the first meaning (before the numbered meanings) Gingrich gives is "race, stock," so that is what we call the "root meaning," the most basic meaning of the word.

Now, translation of a particular word, choosing which meaning is correct, depends most of all on context. In Matt 24:34, the context includes the verb parerchomai, translated in the KJV as "pass." To make a long story short, this is not a word for "destroy" but more like "disappear." In my view, this makes a rendering of "race" in the verse even more likely.

As for other verses in the NT where genos may easily, in context, be translated "race," here are some just in Matthew (without doing a complete analysis): Matt. 12:39, 12:41-45 (Ninevah was a different race than Israel), 16:4, 17:17, 23:36.

If you disagree with this analysis, it will not bother me in the slightest, and you will not have the slightest chance of dissuading me. I will not interact with anyone on it who hasn't had, shall we say, at least a year of Greek.

P.S. Let me just add here that "race" (as in black, white, etc.) was a rare word in 1611, so we don't see it in our modern meaning in the KJV. Unfortunately, many modern translations have followed the KJV in that, going along with the "generation" error. Translators can be lazy.

 

[robycop3]

Because the Bible does not teach that.

Yes, it DOES!

2 Thess.2: 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Rev. 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.

Matt. 24:15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

From the same book/chaptet:21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Rev. 13:15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

I suggest you carefully read the entire chapters I quoted from, & then come back & tell us the Bible doesn't teach those things.

 

[robycop3]

Literal how, please explain.

The Israelis saw the glow within the pillar of cloud as God came into it as He said He would.

Amos 8:

9
"It will come about in that day," declares the Lord GOD, "That I will make the sun go down at noon And make the earth dark in broad daylight.

And He will, when the great cosmological disturbance that will immediately follow the great trib occurs.

Isaiah 13:10

For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light.

Literal?

Yes. V.9 mentions the DAY OF THE LORD, which'll be Jesus' return, as well as the punishment of THE WORLD mentioned in V.11.

What in the world does Amon or Osiris have to do with anything?

God said the gods of Egypt would crumble, & they DID. Many of their statues have crumbled. And very few, if anyone, worships them now.

 

[robycop3]

Then I see no need to answer it.

Then be humble enough to admit your ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance, unless it is embraced and touted, as has recently been done here.

I finally have some time to discuss this. It's been a very busy week so far.

First of all, the haute (this) does not affect the meaning of genos in any way. It is a pronoun, not an adjective. With or without the pronoun, genos means the same thing. You can just as easily translate "this kind," "this race," or "this nation" from the Greek phrase.

Now, I have said elsewhere that genos has a much wider range of meaning (possible meanings) than "generation" does in English. This is precisely the source of your confusion, and the mistaken dogmatism of others here on the BB.

Now, some Greek-English lexicons include the meaning "generation," but some do not. I think it depends on the influence of the KJV on the lexicographer. Here is the definition given by F. Wilbur Gingrich in his Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: "race, stock--1. descendants. Family.--2. nation, people. 3. class, kind." (p. 41-42). (I left out his Greek examples.)

Gingrich did not even include "generation," so obviously he would say that "generation" in Matt. 24:34 is a mistaken translation. (On the other hand, he does give a meaning of "generation" for genea, but that's another subject.) Note that the first meaning (before the numbered meanings) Gingrich gives is "race, stock," so that is what we call the "root meaning," the most basic meaning of the word.

Now, translation of a particular word, choosing which meaning is correct, depends most of all on context. In Matt 24:34, the context includes the verb parerchomai, translated in the KJV as "pass." To make a long story short, this is not a word for "destroy" but more like "disappear." In my view, this makes a rendering of "race" in the verse even more likely.

As for other verses in the NT where genos may easily, in context, be translated "race," here are some just in Matthew (without doing a complete analysis): Matt. 12:39, 12:41-45 (Ninevah was a different race than Israel), 16:4, 17:17, 23:36.

If you disagree with this analysis, it will not bother me in the slightest, and you will not have the slightest chance of dissuading me. I will not interact with anyone on it who hasn't had, shall we say, at least a year of Greek.

P.S. Let me just add here that "race" (as in black, white, etc.) was a rare word in 1611, so we don't see it in our modern meaning in the KJV. Unfortunately, many modern translations have followed the KJV in that, going along with the "generation" error. Translators can be lazy.

John, I believe history, both those prophesied events that have already happened, & those that obviously have NOT yet occurred, proves you & Doc Cas right on "genea" even to those such as myself who don't know much Greek, Koine or modern.

The "beast" is to be in power 42 months, or 3.5 years, & in that time, all the eschatological events will occur - the AOD, mark of the beast, great trib, which'll be cut short as Jesus said, followed IMMEDIATELY (as jesus said) by a great cosmological disturbance, during which He will return.

The Jews have remained as a distinct people to this day, & they'll still be here when the man of sin comes, proving Jesus correct as usual.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I believe history, both those prophesied events that have already happened, & those that obviously have NOT yet occurred, proves you & Doc Cas right on "genea" even to those such as myself who don't know much Greek, Koine or modern.

The "beast" is to be in power 42 months, or 3.5 years, & in that time, all the eschatological events will occur - the AOD, mark of the beast, great trib, which'll be cut short as Jesus said, followed IMMEDIATELY (as jesus said) by a great cosmological disturbance, during which He will return.

The Jews have remained as a distinct people to this day, & they'll still be here when the man of sin comes, proving Jesus correct as usual.

We are right there on the same page.

Interestingly enough, I've been looking at my Greek lexicons, and have yet to find one that has "generation" for genea, but they all have "race," including my Greek-Japanese one. This is one word where the translators lag behind the lexicographers.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then I see no need to answer it.

Then be humble enough to admit your ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance, unless it is embraced and touted, as has recently been done here.

I finally have some time to discuss this. It's been a very busy week so far.

First of all, the haute (this) does not affect the meaning of genos in any way. It is a pronoun, not an adjective. With or without the pronoun, genos means the same thing. You can just as easily translate "this kind," "this race," or "this nation" from the Greek phrase.

Now, I have said elsewhere that genos has a much wider range of meaning (possible meanings) than "generation" does in English. This is precisely the source of your confusion, and the mistaken dogmatism of others here on the BB.

Now, some Greek-English lexicons include the meaning "generation," but some do not. I think it depends on the influence of the KJV on the lexicographer. Here is the definition given by F. Wilbur Gingrich in his Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: "race, stock--1. descendants. Family.--2. nation, people. 3. class, kind." (p. 41-42). (I left out his Greek examples.)

Gingrich did not even include "generation," so obviously he would say that "generation" in Matt. 24:34 is a mistaken translation. (On the other hand, he does give a meaning of "generation" for genea, but that's another subject.) Note that the first meaning (before the numbered meanings) Gingrich gives is "race, stock," so that is what we call the "root meaning," the most basic meaning of the word.

Now, translation of a particular word, choosing which meaning is correct, depends most of all on context. In Matt 24:34, the context includes the verb parerchomai, translated in the KJV as "pass." To make a long story short, this is not a word for "destroy" but more like "disappear." In my view, this makes a rendering of "race" in the verse even more likely.

As for other verses in the NT where genos may easily, in context, be translated "race," here are some just in Matthew (without doing a complete analysis): Matt. 12:39, 12:41-45 (Ninevah was a different race than Israel), 16:4, 17:17, 23:36.

If you disagree with this analysis, it will not bother me in the slightest, and you will not have the slightest chance of dissuading me. I will not interact with anyone on it who hasn't had, shall we say, at least a year of Greek.

P.S. Let me just add here that "race" (as in black, white, etc.) was a rare word in 1611, so we don't see it in our modern meaning in the KJV. Unfortunately, many modern translations have followed the KJV in that, going along with the "generation" error. Translators can be lazy.

Many problems happen when we try to force meanings into the actual chosen Greek words and how the authors constructed them, as your explanation makes here.
You are indeed correct tht many have held that generation to be reference to the Jewish race/people will still be here upon the earth when the second coming happens. Also, many have used "I am coming quickly" to mean that it happens right after John penned it down, but the actual meaning would be more like when all of this written down starts to happen, it will all be done quickly, when I do return that will be quickly etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

We are right there on the same page.

Interestingly enough, I've been looking at my Greek lexicons, and have yet to find one that has "generation" for genea, but they all have "race," including my Greek-Japanese one. This is one word where the translators lag behind the lexicographers.

Many use statemnent such as the one that some of them alive at that time would not taste death until they saw Him coming in His glory to be same as saying this generation, but immediatly after that remark, we getthe transfigeration event, wher eindeed they saw Him coming into his real glory!

 

[Covenanter]

Interestingly enough, I've been looking at my Greek lexicons, and have yet to find one that has "generation" for genea, but they all have "race," including my Greek-Japanese one. This is one word where the translators lag behind the lexicographers.

That's presumably because your lexicons look at the word in isolation, whereas the translators look at genea in context.

 

[John of Japan]

That's presumably because your lexicons look at the word in isolation, whereas the translators look at genea in context.

Actually, no, your guess is completely off target. Lexicons are written by actually looking at the word in usage in various documents, especially of the cultural and temporal context the word is being used in. Thus, a lexical entry is written based on a much wider context than the immediate context. A lexicographer will not look at the context of a single usage and determine meaning from that.

 

[agedman]

...
If you disagree with this analysis, it will not bother me in the slightest, and you will not have the slightest chance of dissuading me. I will not interact with anyone on it who hasn't had, shall we say, at least a year of Greek....

That's presumably because your lexicons look at the word in isolation, whereas the translators look at genea in context.

I think you missed all that John was posting.

I disagree with only one part of John's post. That in the quote, above.


I think he possibly meant that he is not bothered by having to interact with anyone. His history on the BB from the time he was in Japan has been to interact with both believers and unbelievers despite the educational level.

A long as people remain teachable, and interact with thought and without acrimony, he has always been faithful and patient. A whole lot better then me, in both language use and patience.

But then, I could be wrong.

 

[John of Japan]

I think you missed all that John was posting.

I disagree with only one part of John's post. That in the quote, above.


I think he possibly meant that he is not bothered by having to interact with anyone. His history on the BB from the time he was in Japan has been to interact with both believers and unbelievers despite the educational level.

A long as people remain teachable, and interact with thought and without acrimony, he has always been faithful and patient. A whole lot better then me, in both language use and patience.

But then, I could be wrong.

Thank you for your kind reply.

I was trying to forestall the following types of ignorant reply that often occur after i make such a post:
1. "Who are you to disagree with the translators?"
2. "Do you think you are better than Dr. Wonderful, who said it should be xxxx?"
3. "Well, I don't know any Greek, but it looks to me like you are wrong because...."

I've gotten tired of that nonsense over the years. Covenanter's reply just made is an example of the nonsense, but so far he is not insisting his uninformed reply trumps mine.

 

[Covenanter]

That's presumably because your lexicons look at the word in isolation, whereas the translators look at genea in context.

Actually, no, your guess is completely off target. Lexicons are written by actually looking at the word in usage in various documents, especially of the cultural and temporal context the word is being used in. Thus, a lexical entry is written based on a much wider context than the immediate context. A lexicographer will not look at the context of a single usage and determine meaning from that.

Sorry, I did miss your post #105 - & only saw the one I replied to.

Gingrich did not even include "generation," so obviously he would say that "generation" in Matt. 24:34 is a mistaken translation. (On the other hand, he does give a meaning of "generation" for genea, but that's another subject.) Note that the first meaning (before the numbered meanings) Gingrich gives is "race, stock," so that is what we call the "root meaning," the most basic meaning of the word.

Your post #105 discusses genos (Strong 1085) which is translated many different ways -

The KJV translates Strong's G1085 in the following manner: kind (5x), kindred (3x), offspring (3x), nation (2x), stock (2x), born (2x), diversity (1x), miscellaneous (3x).​

The key word in Mat. 24:34 genea (Strong 1074) which is translated more consistently -

The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).​

Can you explain why your argument for "race" is based on the word "genos" rather than the word "genea" which is consistently translated "generation"?

 

[John of Japan]

Can you explain why your argument for "race" is based on the word "genos" rather than the word "genea" which is consistently translated "generation"?

Easy. (1) My argument is about a specific passage which has genos, which often means "race." (2) Genea is a different word with a different range of meaning.

Oops. I see that Matt. 24:34 has genea. I'll get back to you on this. Have to go.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, no, your guess is completely off target. Lexicons are written by actually looking at the word in usage in various documents, especially of the cultural and temporal context the word is being used in. Thus, a lexical entry is written based on a much wider context than the immediate context. A lexicographer will not look at the context of a single usage and determine meaning from that.

That can be proven by just using any valid lexicon, as their definitions will list all of the primary and other uses of that term, in both biblical and non biblical literature!

 

[Yeshua1]

Easy. (1) My argument is about a specific passage which has genos, which often means "race." (2) Genea is a different word with a different range of meaning.

Oops. I see that Matt. 24:34 has genea. I'll get back to you on this. Have to go.

And again, one should not be using strongs definitions of the Greek words as the main reference tool...
Great as a concordance, but not so much used as a lexicon...

 

[prophecy70]

If you disagree with this analysis, it will not bother me in the slightest, and you will not have the slightest chance of dissuading me. I will not interact with anyone on it who hasn't had, shall we say, at least a year of Greek.

Its not a Greek issue, Its a interpretation issue. I do not see any reason to use race in any of the verses you showed me. Am I disagreeing about the greek word? No, obviously you know greek and I do not.
Remember about the Judaism thing, you told me they were wrong, and deny Jesus. Why are they wrong? They know Hebrew fluently and they understand the Torah.

So I do not see how the Rabbis can be wrong at all,if it was just a language thing. Im not denying the fact the actual word can mean something else.

this generation will not pass until all these things happen correct?

No knowledge of greek can translate that "Race" unless you have to have a preconceived idea that them "things" did not happen yet, thus changing the whole context of the passage, Because Generation doesn't fit, it would render the whole chapter a lie.

In context, I read a Judgment coming, like the OT passages, paralleled in Luke, about the destruction of the temple, in the Generation Jesus was speaking to, that In History, is recorded, and Did happen, in Context, In that same Generation. No amount of Greek would change that.

(1.) As to these things, the wars, seductions, and persecutions, here foretold, and especially the ruin of the Jewish nation; "This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled (v. 34); there are those now alive, that shall see Jerusalem destroyed, and the Jewish church brought to an end.' Because it might seem strange, he backs it with a solemn asseveration; "Verily, I say unto you. You may take my word for it, these things are at the door.' Christ often speaks of the nearness of that desolation