'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

I've asked you: What are the signs for in Matthew 24 eight times.Eight times you've ignored the question.You finally answer it.................and still have "not" answered it.You're playing games.For the ninth time, WHAT ARE THE SIGNS FOR?????Im Matthew 24 there are (without going back to it) over a dozen "signs" that Jesus states. In detail.For the tenth time, WHAT ARE THE SIGNS FOR????

Nope. First "son of Berechiah" is not in the early manuscripts. So which Zechariah is Jesus refering to? Zechariah is the father of John the Baptist, who is a high priest who obviously was in the temple. He is never heard of after Mary leaves three months pregnant. So it could refer to him.Second, the OT does not say Zechariah is the son of Berechiah.Third, go to Luke 11: 47"Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.Luke makes it quite clear, THIS GENERATION refers to those living. Jesus holds those of THIS GENERATION reponsible for what occured in the past. Even assuming the Zechariah is the one mentioned in the OT, its clear, "this generation" refers to those alive.This backs up Matthew 23 perfectly. The story being conveyed it that "this generation" refers to those alive, being held responsible for past events.Now, for the eleventh time....are you going to tell me what the signs are for?

I've asked you: What are the signs for in Matthew 24 eight times. What you're doing is rude. We are in a debate. You asked questions, I answered them all. I asked questions, you ignore them. In fact, I asked my question before you even went off with yours. You didnt say after my first time I asked that you would get to it. You didnt after the second. The third. The fourth...and so on.Eight posts I had to ask this question before you just stated you would eventually get to it. Thats rude.And yes, its a scary question. Bc there is only one answer. The reason you havent gotten to it yet is bc you need time to find an elusive response.Whats sad, is that you could have answered it with three words or less.So yes, apparently its quite scary that you cannot take two seconds to come up with a response.As for jumping around, I am doing no such thing. You brought up Matthew 23.I addressed this issue in detail in my previous post. I also used Luke 11 which parellels Matthew 23. Its the same topic, with Jesus doing the talking. Are you being dishonest here or are you truly delusional in your line of thinking? Where the heck have I jumped around? I answered your question regarding Matthew 23 in my previous post.I addresed the Zechariah issue. I also pointed out in the earliest manuscripts its not even there the "son of". I also used Luke which parellels the story! Its the SAME story!On top of that, you have no evidence to support your assertion.34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.Obviously the "you" refers to those alive. Therefore, Jesus is talking not of those in the past, but in his present. Verse 35, the "you" refers back to verse 34, which then shows its still the same people. The only part you can hope to cling on is "whom you murdered..." which you have no evidence for that its refering back to the OT. Regardless, even if Jesus states that the forefathers of the Pharisees killed Zechariah from the OT, its still would not mean "this generation" refers to those in the past. Hes already established hes talking to those in his present.Once again though, I must point out that you are doing what you always do. Taking one verse out of context.If you start reading from verse 1 of chapter 23, its states whom Jesus is refering to: The Pharisees.Jesus then proceeds to "rip apart" the Pharisees. Those in his present day."This generation" refers to those in that time line.The evidence backs my assertion. You have no evidence that Jesus means "nearly every generation" in the past, when he states "this generation".Stop procrastinating.I asked what the signs are for. Its a simple question. Once you know the answer to that, "this generation" is crystal clear.

Wrong. Unless you answer my question which I posed first before these tangents, I'm not going any further. Its annoying that I had to ask you over eight posts before you would even respond to the issue.I'm not getting into a debate as to the reasons it could be Zechariah from the OT. There isnt any evidence either way. I know all the apologist arguments and they even admit there isnt any evidence either way.Even if you could prove it was, its a moot point. We are discussing "this generation". The argument could be read either way regarding if its the people just in front of those in the past. You have zero evidence "this generation" in Matthew 23 inludes everyone from the past though. But the kicker, is that Matthew 23 gives no indication of future generations. Matthew 23 can only mean those in the past and those in front of Jesus or just those in front of Jesus. There isnt ANY indication whatsover that Jesus is speaking of those in the future. So your entire argument, as usual, is a strawman. Also, showing Matthew 23 includes those in the past, does not mean Matthew 24 also does, nor does Matthew 23 show it refers to anyone in the future.Your entire premise is faulty. Just bc Jesus COULD have meant others besides those in front of him, does not autmatically mean Matthew 24 does also. Hence CONTEXT.This is exactly why I want you to answer my question first.Also, regarding Luke. It matters not what the differnt styles are...its the same story. Luke is quite clear "this generation" means only those standing in front of him. Matthew is telling the same story. Unless you wish to admit Luke was wrong.But as I stated, we were discussing Matthew 24. Once you answer my question, there isnt any need to bring Matthew 23 into this.Now, I'll ask again.What are the signs for in Matthew 24?It gets quite tedious that you keep bouncing around, avoiding key issues.Please, answer my question. If you do not wish to. So be it.You can stick your head in the sand and continue with someone else.Thanks.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Well Jay, you're proving as dishonest as the next apologist.As I stated, your rant has nothing to do with the topic. I even stated to you that there isnt a concrete solution and what do you do? You go on and give an entire post....which isnt a solutiuon. In fact, I even stated that your apologist sites cover this and ADMIT there isnt any evidence either way.http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2335.htmlBut as usual, you have a point to prove....which again, is off tangent and out of context.I did err though. I said the OT does not say Zechariah is the son of Berechiah. I should have said the OT does not say Zechairah the son of Berechiah was killed in the temple.But as usual, you gloss over the main point. Its NOT IN the earliest manuscripts. I have stated this already and as usual you ignore it. Only Zechariah is. So we do NOT know which Zechariah. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and SAID it was the one you wish it to be. It changes nothing.But again, another moot point. Your posts usually do this.Same with Peter. Most scholars admit its a forgery. BUT...I even said lets assume its the same author. What does it still say?That the end times were to occur during HIS time line! 1 Peter states this crytal clear!How many people now have stated that when you debate you are out of context, using scripture which has nothing to do with the debate?You throw so much scripture out, confusing the situation, that the initial debate gets bogged down.Its obvious you do not wish to engage in any type of honest debate. I asked you with at least 9 posts what are the signs for before you would even state that you'll EVENTUALLY get to that. There is a reason you havent. You're building the biggest strawman (which you do nearly every post) that you're once again trying to confuse the subject.Matthew 23 uses "this generation" in one of two ways. To include those in the present (of Jesus) or those in the past and present. The future is not included.So again, its a moot point.Here is the bottom line.Every word used to describe the end times denotes it is to arrive fast.Be it "quickly", "soon", "near","at the door", "nearby"," to not tarry" etc....As usual, the apologist has to change the meanings of the words.Paul addresses his books to a SPECIFIC audience. He includes "you' and "we" which again denotes a time frame in which Jesus will return. During his time line.Only an apologist can change the audience to mean something else.Jesus in Revelation states when he returns he will being angels and reward mankind.Matthew 16 states this exactly AND adds there will be some alive when speaking to his disciples in front of him that will witness the event.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Jesus tells his disciples to flee from town to town preaching about Jesus...and that they will NOT be able to get to the last town in Israel before he returns.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Matthew 25, Jesus tells the high priest he will witness his return.Only an apologist can twist this to mean something else.Notice a pattern? Notice all the posts, you are jumping back and forth trying to change what the Bible states?The Bible never seems to mean anything it says.If Jesus returned during their lifetime.....and I said that part of the Bible is false, that there isnt any indication he would, you'd scream bloody murder and use every single piece of scripture I did to show he was to return during their lifetime. You would accuse me of being a liar if I used all the excuses you did.If Jesus returned during their lifetime and I said that part was added bc "soon" really means "far off", that "nearby" means "far away', that "quickly" means "slowly" you'd think I was nuts.Yet thats exactly what you did.Then you grabbed the word "delay" which apparently you do not know the meaning of...bc somehow you think this means 2000 years in the future. "Delay' can mean anytime frame, so again ANOTHER moot point by you.You're twisting scripture bc you cannot accept its an utter failure.Then there is the damning Matthew 24. Anyone with any simple reading comprehension can see Jesus plans on returning during their lifetime.I will not continue any further (perhaps you do not wish to either with me, thats ok) until you address the key issue of this entire debate.WHAT ARE THE SIGNS FOR?

Two points:1) Let me know when you're done with your strawman and plan on addressing my question regarding what the signs are for. 2) I never said they were all in Matthew. Any author who describes the end times in the NT uses terminology which means its happening very soon. ALL OF THEM.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Jay,This really is absurd. How many times have I asked you now abou the SIGNS IN MATTHEW 24?You answered using Revelation.
You answered in John.Now, are either of those Matthew 24?I'll ask again. Is this the 15th time now?What are the signs FOR in Matthew 24?
Jesus gives a long list of signs....What are the signs FOR in Matthew 24?

2) I never said they were all in Matthew. Any author who describes the end times in the NT uses terminology which means its happening very soon. ALL OF THEM. I did back it up. I gave over twenty verses which states the same terminology. The only way you can get around this is by changing the meaning of the word.You're not an idiot Jay. Do NOT tell me when they speak of the end times and they use the terms:QUICKLY.
NEAR.
NEARBY.
AT THE DOOR.
SOON.
AT HAND.
TIME IS SHORT.
LAST DAYS.
A LITTLE WHILE............that the idea conveyed was that its upon them. You are trying to make god out to be deceptive and/or confusing.If the end times were thousands of years later, any author could have stated its "far off", "not close", "slowly" etc... and the idea would have been easily conveyed that it would a long time before the end times are coming and the return of Jesus.But NOT one of those terms is used. NOTHING is used to show far off. Nothing.Now, those are just the terms, they have been repeated quite a bit. I may even be missing a few.So please do not tell me that those terms do not mean the end times are far off. In any other situation, if I asked you what those words mean, you'd agree with me.Lets assume for the sake of argument that Jesus really believed he was returning right away and not thousands of years later...Do those terms I gave back up his belief?The ONLY reason you're saying they mean something other than their meaning is bc you CANNOT have it any other way. If you take those words for what they mean, then Jesus and his followers were wrong or lied.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

I did respond. I stated it has nothing to do with me. I said BIBLICAL SCHOLARS have called it a forgery. Second, I even added even if its not a forgery it backs up 1 Peter quite nicely in the respect that they both claim the end times are near. I even addressed you by stating if you wish to ignore that most Biblical scholars consider it a fraud, thats fine. Why? As I stated a few times (you do have a habit of ignoring evidence when presented to you) that 1 Peter also believed the end times were near.1 Peter 1: 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.1 Peter 4: 7The end of all things is near.As I stated, Peter believed the end times were upon him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll say it again. Notice how I have to repeat everything? Also notice, how you once again do not understand context. In fact, I think I have accused you this nearly every post (you butchred Matthew 23 which I will get to once you address what the signs are for) and backed it up everytime with evidence.1) It does not matter if 2 Peter is a forgery or not. If its the same author, then you still have the same problem. 1 Peter thinks the end time are upon him.2) The scripture you use, I gave you two Christian sites which explain in detail that it does not mean what you think it does.
It is not saying a day IS a thousand years, its says a day is LIKE a thouands years. Peter is saying trust god, remain faithful, he will return.

Im fine Jay. The problem lies in the fact you're too busy trying to correct the obvious problems that you're not paying attention to what I'm asking.I never once asked what the signs are for throughout the NT. I asked what the signs were for in Matthew.I asked a simple question, you ignored it repeatedly, then bounced around to Matthew 23, Luke, Revelation, Peter, the OT,ect.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let me understand this. I ask a question which is the very heart of our debate. You ignore it. I ask again. You continue to ignore it. I ask over and over to stay on topic, while you bounce all around scripture while still ignoring it....and you accuse me of being boring with my question and not refuting you?The entire point of my question was to refute you! But you wont answer it! Even your two feeble attempts didn't address the issue. You told me what the signs are, I'm asking what they are for!I will get to Matthew 23 eventually, which again shows how lilttle reading comprehension you have? The chapter tells you whom Jesus is speaking to, which generation he is referring to....and you still get it wrong. On top of that I explain even if "this generation" in 23 refers to everyone in the past, it by no means automatically makes "this generation" in Matthew 24 the same. Hence why I keep stating to use Matthew 24, bc of the context!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------What is "old" is the fact that my posts are so long, and most of it has nothing to do with anything bc you're all over the place. I wanted to focus on Matthew 24. As of now, we have scripture from Revelation, Luke, Matthew 23, Peter and the OT. For the love of your make believe god Jay, its NOT my websites. I already told you this. They're Christian websites, apologists ones. They're not debate sites. I even gave the links which apparently you cannot be bothered to read. They're most likely the same websites you frequent in search of answers.They state, as I have, you're taking the verse out of context. Shocking.It does not mean a day is a thousand years.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I asked this question, perhaps I missed your response.If Jesus wanted to convey the end times were to occur recently...Would the terms:NEAR, NEARBY, AT HAND, AT THE DOOR, SOON, QUICKLY convey that message?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WOW! AFTER PROBABLY 20 REQUESTS, YOU'VE FINALLY ANSWERED MY SIMPLE QUESTION!Now, I previously asked who the "you" is. Obviously you cannot say its just the disciples/those in that time frame, so you said its refers to those in that time frame and those in the future.Ok, fine.From your lackluster answer, I will assume that you admit that signs are indicators to his followers when the end times are approaching and when Jesus will return?Now, are we in agreement so far?

I presented you a question. I couldnt even get to B, you wouldnt even answer the question for A.This is why I called you dishonest (amongst other reasons). We are discussing Matthew 24. I asked you a question about Matthew 24. You then jumped to Revelation, Matthew 23, Luke and so forth. Wow. How is it you can understand scripture and not understand a simple question. Even Huntard replied you didnt answer the question.I asked what the signs are FOR.You replied for something important. Well gee, Jay...no kidding. Hence why I asked what they are FOR.I would say over 75% of your posts are either preaching, going off an tangents or changing the topic. Sheesh. You never ONCE stated that after I asked the question. Not once.Good. We can move on. It only took, what 100 posts, for you to actually stay on topic?We are discussing Matthew 24 and the signs.You have admitted the signs are for his followers to know when the end times are to arrive as well as the second coming of Jesus.Now, if I said to you, I'm having a surprise party for my wife and I do not want anyone to show up while she is home. So I'm going to give a sign that is has gone. That way everyone knows to come into the house before she arrives again.That sign will be when you see my car backed into my driveway, with a bicycle on the ground in front of the car.Would this be a good sign Jay?

There are many threads on here that deal with your comments. The Bible is actually quite wrong on many instances.

Submitted practically same message twice. Deleted it here.Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

Sigh.......Once again I ask you to answer my questions (from my previoius post) and stay on topic.We are discussing Matthew 24.Do you think you can do that?Just to rub it in that you have absolutely no idea about concept and evidence:The "them" refers to all nations.There isnt a time frame mentioned. Therefore, based just upon that scripture you have no idea what the time frame is.See how simple this is?Therefore, we have to go where there is a time frame.Back to Matthew 24.Now, are you going to actually address my previous questions or should I stop?Just let me know. Debating you is very frustrating.

As I thought Jay.After all this dancing around, you still would not stay on Matthew 24. The very reason is that its obvious.Hence why you kept bouncing around, pulling scripture out of context, preaching, building one strawman after another (unless you looked up the defintion, I honestly do not believe you know what one is). I asked in post 312 (in which we were discussing Matthew 24) and it took you to post 369, with myself asking 20 times what the signs are for. Instead of even addressing Matthew 24, you bounced around throughtout the Bible. Bringing up your own scripture which has nothing to do with Matthew 24, talking about your thoughts on said scripture (usually not understanding the context) and then moving unto another piece of scripture in another book.Notice everyone you debate dropped out? Notice they all all said either that you were preaching, not addressing the issue, ignoring the question or not understanding the context?Why do you think that is?Even after you finally answered my question, I asked to focus on Matthew 24 and asked one simple question with an example.In your very next post, you ignored Matthew 24, went right to Matthew 28 (where you obliterated context again) and ignored my question.You are just a rude person. Great Christian example.I did keep going though. Although I admit its frustrating, but I do get some odd kick out of it.So, you want to bow out. I dont blame you. Matthew 24 is a huge Bible blunder.You want to stop debating? No problem. If you at anytime wish to debate again (although I use that term loosely), let me know. I truly wish there was a moderator to keep things short and precise and to move this debate along. Most of these posts are pointless.If you wish to continue. Matthew 24.You let me know. If not, take care.