Mark 13:30

[Brother Bob]

And they will too, in the generation of Jesus Christ.

How long you think the following generation is.



Psalms, psalm 14



"1": The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

"2": The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

"3": They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

"4": Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

"5": There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous

 

[J. Jump]

Or is this another failed prophecy?

and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel

Mark 1:15 tells us the kingdom of God is at hand not that it has been established. The kingdom of God was at hand because the King of the kingdom was on the scene. And if the nation of Israel would repent and believe in the gospel the kingdom would be established, but Israel did not repent as a nation and in fact rejected the offered kingdom and the kingdom was not established but the offer was taken away from the nation of Israel.

Because of their rejection of the kingdom God is calling out a people after His name - the one new man in Christ. Gentiles (and Jews today for that matter) once they are saved by grace through faith come into a position where they can now receive or reject the offer of the kingdom the same as Israel did.

And one day this kingdom will be established. The heavens will be shaken because Satan will be removed from the throne and Christ will take over with His bride/co-heirs. And then Israel after the seven-year tribulation will be moved to the head of the nations where they originally were supposed to be and they will be established in their earthly kingdom just as has been promised and prophesied to happen, but that will ONLY happen after they repent of their sins, which will happen at the end of the seven-year tribulation.

 

[Tom Butler]

Mark13:30 refers to the generation living at the time of the events Mark is writing about.

It suggests that once the clock starts on those events, things will happen fairly quickly.

 

[Brother Bob]

Mark, chapter 13
27: And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
28: Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
29: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30: Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33: Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

He had to be talking about His generation for most of these things are yet come and no one knows that hour saving the Father.

Psalms, psalm 14



"1": The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

"2": The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

"3": They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

"4": Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

"5": There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous
__________________

 

[Marcia]

Missionary-theologian-philosopher-organist-physician Albert Schweitzer thought it meant exactly what it said, that Jesus thought the end would come in the lifetime of those hearing him. So, says Schweitzer, when it appeared that the end was not coming, Jesus threw himself on the wheel of history to urge it forward, and when it turned, it crushed him!

Not my view or that of the Jesus who, in the Fourth Gospel, says that no one takes his life from him, but that he freely gives it. But is it possible that within the human side of the Incarnation there was a supposition about the end times that simply did not come true?

Haven't you quoted Schweitzer before? Or was it someone else? I thought Schweitzer had a lot of aberrant theology. Since when is he the one to quote from?

Jesus would not have said this out of ignorance. When he stated a proposition, it was true.

 

[tommie]

sorry, I repeated someone elses thought.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Haven't you quoted Schweitzer before? Or was it someone else? I thought Schweitzer had a lot of aberrant theology. Since when is he the one to quote from?

Jesus would not have said this out of ignorance. When he stated a proposition, it was true.

I don't think I have quoted Schweitzer before. But Schweitzer is an important voice in New Testament studies, with his "Quest for the Historical Jesus" and his "Psychiatric Study of Jesus". No, I do not agree with all that he wrote, but he has to be reckoned with if we are going to trace New Testament scholarship trends and concepts. And his lifestyle has much to commend it (although his racial attitudes betray the biases of his time). And as an organist I do follow his interpretations of the Lutheran Chorales!

More to the point in this discussion, let me just point out that it is our a priori assumption that any word that comes from Jesus has to be understood as true. I don't dispute that, but it is an assumption with which the persons posting on this point have taken on.

 

[Brother Bob]

huh!!!!!!!

 

[Grasshopper]

"5": There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous

Albert Barnes:
For God is in the generation of the righteous - The word “generation” here, as applied to the righteous, seems to refer to them as a “race,” or as a “class” of people. Compare Psa_24:6; Psa_73:15; Psa_112:2. It commonly in the Scriptures refers to a certain age or duration, as it is used by us, reckoning an age or generation as about thirty or forty years (compare Job_42:16); but in the use of the term before us the idea of an “age” is dropped, and the righteous are spoken of merely as a “class” or “race” of persons. The idea here is, that there were such manifest proofs that God was among the righteous, and that he was their friend, that the wicked could not resist the force of that evidence, however much they might desire it, and however much they might wish to arrive at the conclusion that there was no God. The evidence that he was among the righteous would, of course, alarm them, because the very fact that he was the friend of the righteous demonstrated that he must be the enemy of the wicked, and, of course, that they were exposed to his wrath.

Mark 1:15 tells us the kingdom of God is at hand not that it has been established. The kingdom of God was at hand because the King of the kingdom was on the scene.

When does Daniel 2 tell us the Kingdom would be established?

And if the nation of Israel would repent and believe in the gospel the kingdom would be established, but Israel did not repent as a nation and in fact rejected the offered kingdom and the kingdom was not established but the offer was taken away from the nation of Israel.

Where does it say in scripture the Kingdom was ever conditional on Jewish acceptance? That is the claim of dispies, but on what scriptural basis is it made?

Because of their rejection of the kingdom God is calling out a people after His name - the one new man in Christ.

Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, Did you never read in the Scriptures, "The stone which the builders rejected, this One has become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?"
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.

If the Kingdom wasn’t established by Christ then how was it given to a different nation? When is the Kingdom taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles?

Gentiles (and Jews today for that matter) once they are saved by grace through faith come into a position where they can now receive or reject the offer of the kingdom the same as Israel did.

So they can enter the Kingdom? A Kingdom that hasn’t been established?

"If they (the Jews) had chosen to accept Jesus and crown Him as their Messiah on Palm Sunday, A.D. 32, He would have entered the Eastern Gate and announce the restitution of all things, the cancellation of all debts and the proclamation of liberty to the captives. It was a genuine possibility that Israel could have accepted Him as Messiah and He would have ushered in the millennial Kingdom. Somehow, Jesus would have been crucified at some later point to fulfill the prophecy and provide salvation of all those who repent of their sins." - Apocalypse, Grant Jeffery, p. 33-34.

So when exactly would Jesus have been crucified and fulfilled all the OT prophecies concerning His betrayal and death?

The heavens will be shaken because Satan will be removed from the throne and Christ will take over with His bride/co-heirs.

Satan is on the throne?

Hebrews contrasts the Old covenant to the New covenant.


Heb 12:26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I will not only shake the earth, but also the heavens."
Heb 12:27 And this word, "Yet once more," signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, so that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear,

The writer of Hebrews quotes Haggai 2:

Hag 2:6 For so says Jehovah of Hosts: Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.

Haggai 2 refers to the covenant of Christ, as noted by Wesley:

Hag 2:6 - Yet once - After many confirmations of the new covenant, one more, remains to be made. A little while - Tho' above five hundred years, yet this was but a little time compared with that between the promise to Adam and Christ's coming. I will shake - Whether it be metaphorical or literal, it was verified at the time of Christ's coming into the world. After the return of the captivity, by the commotions among the Grecians, Persians, and Romans, which began soon after this time; this was metaphorically fulfilled. And it was literally fulfilled by prodigies and earthquakes, at the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Hebrews 12 speaks of the establishment of the New Covenant using typical metaphoric language used throughout the OT.

Adam Clarke:
Heb 12:26 -
Whose voice then shook the earth - Namely, at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; and from this it seems that it was the voice of Jesus that then shook the earth, and that it was he who came down on the mount. But others refer this simply to God the Father giving the law.
Not the earth only, but also heaven - Probably referring to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and the total abolition of the political and ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews; the one being signified by the earth, the other by heaven; for the Jewish state and worship are frequently thus termed in the prophetic writings. And this seems to be the apostle’s meaning, as he evidently refers to Hag_2:6, where this event is predicted. It may also remotely refer to the final dissolution of all things.

And then Israel after the seven-year tribulation will be moved to the head of the nations where they originally were supposed to be and they will be established in their earthly kingdom just as has been promised and prophesied to happen,

Again, where is this 7 year tribulation mentioned in scripture?

 

[Brother Bob]

Luke, chapter 17

"21": Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

I don't blame Barnes in trying to come up with some kind of answer other than what the Scripture says for it don't fit his beliefs!

Are we still living under the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ?? You can wrestle with it all you want, but Jesus said in the same Scripture that "no man knoweth that hour".

 

[J. Jump]

Grasshopper it is clear that you are set in your ways and have no desire to make a change in what you believe, so I will be brief in my response to you.

Where does it say in scripture the Kingdom was ever conditional on Jewish acceptance? That is the claim of dispies, but on what scriptural basis is it made?

John the Baptist and Christ both preached repentence because the kingdom of the heavens (as Matthew states it) and the kingdom of God (as other Gospel writers state it - although kingdom of the heavens is used in John chapter 3 in the earlies manuscript available - regardless it is talking about the same thing) were near or at hand.

Later on we see a mob of people wanting to capture Jesus and make Him King. So why didn't He let them make Him their King because that was what He was here for to be their King?

It was because they were unrepentant. If there is no repentance then He can not be their King. And He will not be their King until they do repent at some point in the future. This can clearly be seen in OT type and NT teaching in the Gospel of John regarding the signs and the purpose of those signs.

PM me if you would like more resource material on this.

Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.

If the Kingdom wasn’t established by Christ then how was it given to a different nation? When is the Kingdom taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles?

It was the offer of the kingdom. The kingdom was taken away from Israel in that the offer was evenutally removed from them and it is now being offered to the one new man in Christ that is neither Jew nor Gentile.

So they can enter the Kingdom? A Kingdom that hasn’t been established?

They can't currently enter into the kingdom because it hasn't been established, but one can work out his salvation making sure his election sure.

If one doesn't work out their salvation then they will not enter the kingdom once it has been established as a co-heir with Christ or as part of His bride.

So when exactly would Jesus have been crucified and fulfilled all the OT prophecies concerning His betrayal and death?

I don't know you would have to ask the author that, I don't hold to that view.

Satan is on the throne?

Absolutely. Why do you think the world is so corrupt and why governments are so corrupt. It's because Satan is at the head of each, except Israel as they are not to be regarded among the nations.

 

[Brother Bob]

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Wonder why He would bother putting this Scripture in the Bible for us to read?? You think maybe it was just to take up space?

 

[J. Jump]

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

That is the KJV, but look at some of these other translations:

NASB - nor will they say, `Look, here it is!' or, `There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

NRSV - nor will they say, "Look, here it is!' or "There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

Homan - no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

So the question is which translation is correct, because these two ideas are directly opposed to each other. If you compare Scripture with Scripture the correct translation would be that the kingdom of God was in their midst or among them, becuase the King of the kingdom was on the scene.

The kingdom is a literal kingdom that will literally be established at some point in the future. And that point gets closer and closer as the days drift by to the praise of God!!!

 

[Grasshopper]

Luke, chapter 17
"21": Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

I don't blame Barnes in trying to come up with some kind of answer other than what the Scripture says for it don't fit his beliefs!

Good, you acknowledge the Kingdom is spiritual and not physical according to Jesus.

What you don’t understand and what Barnes does is the fact that the translation “generation” has different meanings. You are attempting to take a Hebrew word and force it into the NT to fit your view. When the NT writers use the term “this generation” it is obvious to anyone with objectivity that it means to those to whom Jesus speaks. Running to find OT references of the translation “generation” is a desperate attempt to justify a failed view.

Grasshopper it is clear that you are set in your ways and have no desire to make a change in what you believe, so I will be brief in my response to you.

It seems you are the one who is stuck in your traditional view. I actually have changed my views going from a pre-mill dispie to the preterist position. So I have changed, have you or are you set in your ways?

John the Baptist and Christ both preached repentence because the kingdom of the heavens (as Matthew states it) and the kingdom of God (as other Gospel writers state it - although kingdom of the heavens is used in John chapter 3 in the earlies manuscript available - regardless it is talking about the same thing) were near or at hand.

But they weren’t near if you are correct and God knew they weren’t near, because God foretold us He would be rejected. If God foretold of Christ’s rejection but also foretold of Christ coming to establish the Kingdom then you have problems. The Cross was the pathway to the Kingdom.

Later on we see a mob of people wanting to capture Jesus and make Him King. So why didn't He let them make Him their King because that was what He was here for to be their King?

Simple, He didn’t come to establish a physical Kingdom. Those who were ready to make Him King were willing to allow Him to be their Messiah. They were not rejecting Jesus, they wanted Him to do just what you want Him to do, establish a physical Kingdom. It was when He refused the earthly Kingdom that they began to reject their Messiah.

Luk 17:20 And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered and said, The kingdom of God does not come with observation.

How can a physical Kingdom come without observation?

It was because they were unrepentant. If there is no repentance then He can not be their King.

But He is still King whether they accept it or not.

PM me if you would like more resource material on this.

Scripture will do.

It was the offer of the kingdom.

No it wasn’t:

Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.

You conveniently add the word “offer”.

The kingdom was taken away from Israel in that the offer was evenutally removed from them and it is now being offered to the one new man in Christ

Huh? If one is a “new man in Christ” then he has already accepted the “offer”.

Col 1:13 For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son;

Quote:
So when exactly would Jesus have been crucified and fulfilled all the OT prophecies concerning His betrayal and death?


I don't know you would have to ask the author that, I don't hold to that view.

You don’t hold the view that Jesus could have established the Kingdom in the 1st century and you don’t believe Jesus would have to be crucified?

Satan is on the throne?

Absolutely. Why do you think the world is so corrupt and why governments are so corrupt. It's because Satan is at the head of each, except Israel as they are not to be regarded among the nations.

Any scripture that says Satan is sitting on the Throne?

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Wonder why He would bother putting this Scripture in the Bible for us to read?? You think maybe it was just to take up space?

No Bob, its in there so people won’t be looking for a physical Kingdom.

 

[J. Jump]

It seems you are the one who is stuck in your traditional view. I actually have changed my views going from a pre-mill dispie to the preterist position. So I have changed, have you or are you set in your ways?

Not at all I am just five months into a some major theological changes to what I have believed in the past. Some tweaks were made to my eschalogical views, but I have been pre-mill all along.

I would be more than happy to change, but so far you haven't presented any evidence that warrants it.

It's sad that you have moved away from the clear teaching of the Bible to chase down a man-made doctrine, but the Bible says as much will happen during the times we live in. Sad, but it is reality.

But they weren’t near if you are correct and God knew they weren’t near, because God foretold us He would be rejected. If God foretold of Christ’s rejection but also foretold of Christ coming to establish the Kingdom then you have problems. The Cross was the pathway to the Kingdom.

What are you talking about? You are trying to re-write Scripture now. It doesn't says they they were near it says the kingdom was near. The kingdom was near because the King of the kingdom was on the earth.

There are no problems. God made a genuine offer of the kingdom to Israel. They rejected this to no surprise of God.

The cross was not the pathway to the kingdom for the Jews. Had they repented as a nation the kingdom would have been established. It was rejected and Christ went to the cross as prophesied and because of that Gentiles were able to accept or reject the kingdom that Israel rejected.

Simple, He didn’t come to establish a physical Kingdom.

Correct. The portion of the kingdom that was offered was the spiritual portion of the kingdom. The physical portion of the kingdom was already promised to Israel. However the spiritual aspect of the kingdom had not until JTB and Christ.

This portion of the kingdom was the portion where they could rule and reign with Christ in the heavenly sphere of the kingdom where Satan and his angels currently rule.

Those who were ready to make Him King were willing to allow Him to be their Messiah.

Unfortunately it was on their terms and not on His. Much can be said of Christians today unfortunately They wanted Him to be their King without repentance.

They were not rejecting Jesus, they wanted Him to do just what you want Him to do, establish a physical Kingdom.

And had they repented that would have happened by default, because Israel would have been in a position to realize that which was already promised to them had they accepted the spiritual aspect of the kingdom. But since they rejected the spiritual aspect of the kingdom the physical aspect went unfulfilled as well.

But He is still King whether they accept it or not.

And to that we agree. He is still their King, they just don't realize it yet, because they are spiritually blinded. But one day their sight will be returned and they will see Him and accept Him as their King with repentance.

Scripture will do.

These resources have everything to do with Scripture, but you're still probably not interested

No it wasn’t:

Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.

You conveniently add the word “offer”.

If I say to you here I have this house and it's yours if you want it. That's an offer right. It's a house, but it's the offer of the house. The offering should be understood. It was a kingdom, but they were being offered a kingdom.

That point should really be rather simple.

Huh? If one is a “new man in Christ” then he has already accepted the “offer”.

You are trying to combine the Word of the Kingdom with eternal salvation. These are two separate messages. Just because a person is eternally saved does not mean they will rule and reign with Christ.

Any scripture that says Satan is sitting on the Throne?

Yeah check out Ephesians just for one.

 

[Grasshopper]

It's sad that you have moved away from the clear teaching of the Bible to chase down a man-made doctrine

Ever heard of John Darby?

but the Bible says as much will happen during the times we live in. Sad, but it is reality.

You keep saying “the Bible says” but you never quote it. Where does the Bible speak of the times we are living in?

Quote:
But they weren’t near if you are correct and God knew they weren’t near, because God foretold us He would be rejected. If God foretold of Christ’s rejection but also foretold of Christ coming to establish the Kingdom then you have problems. The Cross was the pathway to the Kingdom.


What are you talking about? You are trying to re-write Scripture now. It doesn't says they they were near it says the kingdom was near. The kingdom was near because the King of the kingdom was on the earth.

Mar 1:15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God draws near. Repent, and believe the gospel.

What is this “time was fulfilled” that John speaks of?

There are no problems. God made a genuine offer of the kingdom to Israel. They rejected this to no surprise of God.

I ask again, where in scripture does it say the establishment of God’s Kingdom was conditional on Jewish acceptance?

Daniel 2 (which no one seems to want to deal with) suggests no such condtion:

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And the kingdom shall not be left to other peoples, but it shall crush and destroy all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

“days of these kings” refers to the Roman Empire:

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron. Since iron crushes and smashes all things; and as the iron that shatters all these, it will crush and shatter.

Gill:

Dan 2:40 - And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,.... This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation:

The cross was not the pathway to the kingdom for the Jews. Had they repented as a nation the kingdom would have been established.

Would it have been necessary for Christ to die?

Quote:
Simple, He didn’t come to establish a physical Kingdom.


Correct.

So He didn’t offer a physical kingdom. So had the Jews accepted Christ when would the physical Kingdom arrive?

The physical portion of the kingdom was already promised to Israel. However the spiritual aspect of the kingdom had not until JTB and Christ.

Any scripture that says the Kingdom was divided into part spiritual part physical and arriving at different times?

And had they repented that would have happened by default, because Israel would have been in a position to realize that which was already promised to them had they accepted the spiritual aspect of the kingdom.

So now you say He did in fact offer the physical Kingdom by way of the Spiritual.

The question still remains, when would Christ die and atone for the sins of man?

These resources have everything to do with Scripture, but you're still probably not interested

Is scripture not sufficient? I’m familiar with the works of Thomas Ice and other past dispies if those are your sources.

If I say to you here I have this house and it's yours if you want it. That's an offer right. It's a house, but it's the offer of the house. The offering should be understood. It was a kingdom, but they were being offered a kingdom.

That point should really be rather simple.

It is simple, using your illustration, God was going to build a house. He offered it to you, but you reject it so He offered it to another. Whether either accept matters not, God was building the house regardless. God was establishing His Kingdom and it wasn’t dependent on any man.

You are trying to combine the Word of the Kingdom with eternal salvation. These are two separate messages. Just because a person is eternally saved does not mean they will rule and reign with Christ.

Wow.

Quote:
Any scripture that says Satan is sitting on the Throne?



Yeah check out Ephesians just for one.

No mention of a throne in Ephesians.

 

[J. Jump]

Grasshopper as stated before you don't show any interest in wanting to deal with Scripture and that is plain to see. I have offered to give resource material that would answer all your questions. You have asked some questions that can not be done justice in a message board setting, that's why I have offered to send you material that would help you out.

You have declined, so we'll just agree to disagree. If you change your mind and would like to deal with the situation and would like to study the matter out further then you are more than welcome to PM me.

In short there are no sound bite answers that are going to satisfy you so I'm not even going to bother to try, becuase you are getting into matters that can't be answered it one or two sentences.

 

[Brother Bob]

There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Wonder how long that generation is?

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper as stated before you don't show any interest in wanting to deal with Scripture and that is plain to see.

Scripture? What scripture have you provided? Perhaps you should look again at who used scripture and who did not. However you have got my interest. If you will, provide that material and I will look it over.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Speaking of Luke 17:21 this KJV1769 reading is quoted above
(with no reference, but I've been fighting REFERENCING VERSES
to I don't have to flip thru my concordance all day

// Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you.//

//That is the KJV, but look at some of these other translations://

NASB - nor will they say, `Look, here it is!' or, `There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

NRSV - nor will they say, "Look, here it is!' or "There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

Homan - no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

//So the question is which translation is correct, because these two ideas are directly opposed to each other. If you compare Scripture with Scripture the correct translation would be that the kingdom of God was in their midst or among them, becuase the King of the kingdom was on the scene.//

I disagree respectfully. The Kingdom of God was among them, for they
had believed in the Son of God. The Son of God does NOT have to
be physically present (His Holy Spirit works wonders) for the
Kingdom of God to be among us.

\o/ Praise Jesus \o/

Again, a varity of witnesses provides better understanding
of the Holy Scripture.