'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

You are interested only in a battle of attrition. You "reply" but don't really say anything other than the implied "I believe!!!!" and twisting scripture to try to fit your dogmatic theological view.In 1 Thessalonians, Paul continually counts himself among the "we" he mentions, and he is talking to a particular group of people, LIVING IN HIS OWN TIME.Nowhere is the rest of the passages of interest is there any indication that Paul has stopped talking about himself as part of "we", nor are there any indications that he suddenly stopped talking to only those who the letter is addressed to and to whom the entire rest of the letter addresses specifically and started talking to people some 2000 or more years in the future.You are forced to try to save Paul from being an apocalypticist, which is what his own words show him to be (sorry if you don't know what an apocalypticist is: maybe you should read up on it), so you make up putative changes in time and audience. A straight reading supports me and counters you.BOTTOM LINE:1. We have shown passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will come, with His angels, etc.,(a) before some of those standing there with Him have tasted death (Matthew 16:24, 27-28)and(b) during the current generation. (Matthew 24:27, 30-34)2. You need to show us an equal number of passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will NOT come, with His angels, etc. , until some 2000 or more years in the future. Until you do that, you lose. It's that simple. Edited by gragbarder, : No reason given.

You are interested only in a battle of attrition. You "reply" but don't really say anything other than the implied "I believe!!!!" and twisting scripture to try to fit your dogmatic theological view.In 1 Thessalonians, Paul continually counts himself among the "we" he mentions, and he is talking to a particular group of people, LIVING IN HIS OWN TIME.Nowhere is the rest of the passages of interest is there any indication that Paul has stopped talking about himself as part of "we", nor are there any indications that he suddenly stopped talking to only those who the letter is addressed to and to whom the entire rest of the letter addresses specifically and started talking to people some 2000 or more years in the future.You are forced to try to save Paul from being an apocalypticist, which is what his own words show him to be (sorry if you don't know what an apocalypticist is: maybe you should read up on it), so you make up putative changes in time and audience. A straight reading supports me and counters you. BOTTOM LINE:

​

1. We have shown passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will come, with His angels, etc.,

​

(a) before some of those standing there with Him have tasted death (Matthew 16:24, 27-28)

​

and

​

(b) during the current generation. (Matthew 24:27, 30-34)

​

2. You need to show us an equal number of passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will NOT come, with His angels, etc. , until some 2000 or more years in the future. Until you do that, you lose. It's that simple.

quote:

---

Matthew 16:27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
The transfiguration occured right after this.

​

Please show me:

​

1) The angels that were present.
2) Those standing before Jesus in Matthew 16 who died before they could witness the transfiguration.
3) Where it states Jesus rewarded mankind for their actions at the transfiguration.

​

Thanks.

---

One would think that that would end the matter, but as we've seen with Jay, it won't.

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.
1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death in the passage.

---

quote:

---

BKE:
Here is a reference - (Jesus mentions judgement and resurrection also so this is no stretch):
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power." Revelation 20:6

---

Thanks for showing us that you can’t read. Here's what was said that you replied to ...

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
Nope, the "Second death" attempt fails too.
1) It involves changing what the Bible says. Jesus didn’t say anything about a second death IN THE PASSAGE.

---

Now, show me where Jesus says anything about the second death IN THE PASSAGE of interest (not from a book at the opposite end of the New Testament, written by a different author, who wrote much later.)

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
2) If for the sake of argument we temporarily accept that Jesus meant a second death to see if that holds, it doesn’t.
a. That change would mean that Jesus was saying that SOME of those DISCIPLES standing there with Him would be going to suffer the second death. That’s not consistent with the rest of the New Testament in which only ONE DISCIPLE (Judas Iscariot) would have suffered a second death.

---

quote:

---

BKE:
Peter was sifted like wheat and except for Jesus' restoration and forgiveness would have suffered the same fate as Judas.

---

But Peter DIDN’T! So your attempt fails.And of course, you didn’t even attempt to counter this problem with Christians distorting the verse to make it say a second death.

quote:

---

Gragbarder:
2) If for the sake of argument we temporarily accept that Jesus meant a second death to see if that holds, it doesn’t.

​

​

b. NO ONE would taste the second death before the Son of Man returned, so it would not make sense to indicate that only SOME would NOT, because that implies that SOME WOULD.

---

Another Christian apologist bites the dust = fail

You are interested only in a battle of attrition.In 1 Thessalonians, Paul continually counts himself among the "we" he mentions, and he is talking to a particular group of people, LIVING IN HIS OWN TIME.Nowhere is the rest of the passages of interest is there any indication that Paul has stopped talking about himself as part of "we", nor are there any indications that he suddenly stopped talking to only those who the letter is addressed to and to whom the entire rest of the letter addresses specifically and started talking to people some 2000 years in the future.You are forced to try to save Paul from being an apocalypticist, which is what his own words show him to be (sorry if you don't know what an apocalypticist is: maybe you should read up on it), so you make up putative changes in time and audience. A straight reading supports me and counters you. BOTTOM LINE:

​

1. We have shown passages where Jesus indicates that Son of Man will come, with His angels, etc.,

​

(a) before some of those standing there with Him have tasted death (Matthew 16:24, 27-28)

​

and

​

(b) during the current generation. (Matthew 24:27, 30-34)

​

2. You need to show us an equal number of passages where Jesus indicates that the Son of Man will NOT come, with His angels, etc. , until some 2000 years in the future. Until you do that, you lose. It's that simple.
Edited by gragbarder, : No reason given.

quote:

---

ringo:

​

[DPowell,] If He was talking about "that" generation, why would He say "this" generation?

---

Maybe Jesus dropped out before 3rd grade?

quote:

---

DPowell: Citing the KJV is not a good way to promote your Biblical scholarship.

---

And? I already know of the problems with the KJV, so don’t for a minute delude yourself into thinking that you have taught me something. But hey, if you have distort things so that you can feel good about yourself ...I rarely quote from the KJV, and only did so here as part of quoting from 6 different version of the Bible. But hey, nice of someone as "honest" as you to leave out that little fact!I suppose that if you cannot address the real issues, and have to stoop to implicit distortion, I should be glad: it’s a sure sign you know you have already lost to me.

quote:

---

DPowell: When he speaks of "this generation" not passing away, he is speaking of the generation in which all of the signs begin to take place.

---

Wrong, for two reasons.1. To paraphrase ringo:If Jesus meant THAT generation, then why did He say THIS generation?Here we see that once again the Christians have to avoid what is actually written in the Bible and substitute for that reality some fabrication.2. Let an atheist school you on the Bible

quote:

---

Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with the angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’
(Matthew 16:24, 27-28)

---

Jesus was clearly talking about the generation to which He was speaking, not some indeterminate generation some 2000 or so years in the future.

quote:

---

DPowell:
This [the transfiguration] is a complete and coherent answer to the initial question.

---

Um, no, it is neither.The original question/problem still stands and shows Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible by what it claims He said, to be a false prophet.

quote:

---

DPowell:
My point about the KJV was that it was the only translation that did what you wanted it to do.

---

And your point is invalid! It was the first time and it remains invalid even with your attempt to save it.Here are 3 other versions I listed — in that very same listing that I used the KJV in - that also supported my position ...

quote:

---

d. NRSV includes "nor the Son", but notes that "Other ancient authorities lack nor the Son".

​

e. The NIV has "nor the Son", but notes "Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son."

​

f. The ESV has "nor the Son", but notes "Some manuscriptes omit nor the Son".

​

So you don't even have solid Biblical backing for Jesus not knowing the day and hour (let alone the generation).

---

It is NOT just the KJV that notes the ambiguity/discrepancy with whether or not nor the Son was originally included. There are also notes in the NRSV, the NIV, and the ESV.That you intentionally selected just the KJV — and then continue to manipulate and distort - only shows that you are being disingenuous. Edited by gragbarder, : No reason given.

quote:

---

DPowell:
As to why Jesus said "this" generation as opposed to "that" generation in Matthew 24, I would say a couple of things: First, according to vv. 36-39, Jesus does not claim to be speaking in specifics with regard to times and dates;

---

Jesus is talking to a particular group of people, and that tells us what this generation refers to. In such a context:1. The word this would refer to the generation to whom He was directly speaking; it is they who would be this generation.2. The word that would be used to refer to some other time’s generation. If Jesus were speaking of a future generation some 2000 years or so in the future, then that would have been the correct word to use.But according to the Bible, Jesus uses this and not that — which supports my position and counters yours.I see how desperately you want to change what the Bible actually says, in order to try to save it from itself. But realize that when you try to do so, you are implicitly admitting that you reject the Bible.

quote:

---

DPowell:
[As to why Jesus said "this" generation as opposed to "that" generation in Matthew 24, I would say a couple of things:] second, Jesus says "this generation" because it is the specific generation of which He has been speaking for 20-something verses.

---

No, that doesn’t change how the words this and that are used. this would refer to the current generation (to those to whom He was speaking) and that would refer to some other generation (such as some generation existing some 2000 or so years in the future). Too bad for you that the Bible has Jesus saying this generation (supports me) instead of that generation (would support you).Further, the statement just before the verse of interest has Jesus saying this ..

quote:

---

So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

---

Jesus is clearly talking to those to whom He is talking — YOU, and not THEY.What the Bible actually has Jesus saying:
YOU and THIS generation.What you so desperately wish the Bible had Jesus saying:
THEY and THAT generation.

quote:

---

DPowell:
Koine Greek is a little freer in its movement between cases and tenses than you and I might be if we were writing this all in 21st century English. Remember, additionally, that Jesus would not have been speaking this in either English or Greek, but Aramaic, so we are kind of getting this third-hand. This stuff aside, look at the movement between past tenses (v.32), future tenses (the majority of the verbs), and present tenses (vv.6, 8, 16) in the verbs. There are aorist (generally speaking in the past) tense verbs translated in the past, some translated in the present, but all speaking toward the future, etc.

---

Easily dismissed. The 6 various versions of the Bible I have quoted from ALL SIX OF THEM— EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, WITHOUT EXCEPTION - says This, not That.

quote:

---

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
(KJV)

​

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
(NASB)

​

Truly I tell you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period) will not pass away till all these things taken together take place.
(AMP)

​

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
(ESV)

​

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
(NIV)

​

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
(NIV)

---

Clearly the natural and best translation is this, not that.PS: Please don’t be dishonest again and try to claim that (1) I am not familiar with the problems with the KJV, or (2) that I am relying only on the KJV for this point.