Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus lie ?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 271 of 300 (358587)
10-24-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Legend
10-24-2006 4:04 PM


Re: another possible explanation - not really!
Equinox writes:
OK, I'm a little confused, between Jaywill and RR, there seem to be two fundamentalist explanations of the verse.
He's a little confused that we are not exact clones of one another and put forward different rationals questioning his premise.
I for one have said nothing yet about the word generation.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Legend, posted 10-24-2006 4:04 PM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Equinox, posted 10-24-2006 4:56 PM jaywill has not replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 272 of 300 (358589)
10-24-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jaywill
10-24-2006 4:13 PM


Remember when each book was written
quote:
If Jesus was wrong (lying or not) where is the discussion by the apostles in Acts, or in the epistles, or in Revelation, or anywhere correcting for, apologizing for, or otherwise making up for the misspeaking?
quote:
Would you present your evidence that any of the early disciples noticed the error that you think you notice?
There are at least two reasons why such evidence cannot logically exist.
First, the statement in question about Jesus is that this generation (or some of you standing here) will not die before the parousia. Thus, if any of the disciples are still around to discuss anything, then their generation hasn’t passed away yet, so the disciples, by definition, can’t find a problem with the statement while they are alive. So of course they didn’t talk about how it failed. That’d be like you talking about how you had died.
Secondly, we don’t appear to have anything, not a single jot or tittle, written by a disciple of Jesus. The gospels are all anonymous (the names were tacked on by the Catholic church long after the books were written), and the epistles that claim to be by disciples are forgeries (OK, 1st peter is very slightly controversial, but that’s the best of the cases). So even if they had been logically able to discuss the problem (which they weren’t), we may well not know. The Acts was written around 80 to 90 CE, when “some of those standing here” could well have still been alive (though very old).
Interestingly, we DO have plenty of evidence of *early Christians* discussing the problem that Jesus clearly had said the parousia would come soon, and it hadn’t come even after a long time. We see this in the Gospel of John, which was written about 65 years after Jesus’ death, in places like Jn 21:21, where excuses are made for the lack of any 2nd coming yet.
Another good example is 2pet 3:4 (written around 100 years after Jesus’ death), where whoever wrote the book describes how many Christians were beginning to doubt the idea that Jesus would come again. It’s important to remember that the Bible wasn’t put together until the 4th century, and you are talking about the time hundreds of years before that. So they had some books here and there, some of which would end up in the Bible and some that wouldn’t. They had rumors and guesses, stories and ideas. So discussion was difficult.
I hope that makes things more clear. Have a fun day-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2006 4:13 PM jaywill has not replied

Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 273 of 300 (358591)
10-24-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by jaywill
10-24-2006 4:37 PM


Re: another possible explanation - not really!
OK, so clarify things for me. Do you think RR is off his rocker in claiming that 'genea' means race, or instead do you think RR is wrong because he doesn't think that the transfiguration was the fulfillement of Jesus' statement?
Thanks-
Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by jaywill, posted 10-24-2006 4:37 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 274 of 300 (358596)
10-24-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Legend
10-24-2006 4:26 PM


Re: What the Bible Actually Says eh ?
We've been through this before. By the time that error became obvious the disciples were dead and buried and the gospels were in circulation.
The easiest way to deal with the error at that stage was to do what you're doing now. Pretend that Jesus meant something else to what he said.
I think you simply have no adaquate apprehension of the nature of Christ's kingdom.
Peter says they did not follow cleverly devised myths. You say they did follow them.
Peter says that their witness to the majesty of the Lord Jesus gives them the ground to forewarn the others of the power and coming of Christ.
Notice what else Peter writes: (the authenticity of Peter's epistels is probably off topic)
"Knowing this, that in the last days mockers will come with mocking, going according to their own lusts and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Pet. 3:3,4)
How do I know that you Legend are not among the mockers predicted to come in the last days? You look at the demise of the early disciples and ask "Where was the promise of His coming? He lied. Or He made a mistake."
Maybe you are one of the "mockers" that Peter warned the Christian church about. Perhaps your superficial comprehension of Christ's kingdom is the cause of your mocking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Legend, posted 10-24-2006 4:26 PM Legend has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 275 of 300 (358601)
10-24-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Equinox
10-24-2006 12:42 PM


Re: another possible explanation - not really!
OK, I'm a little confused, between Jaywill and RR, there seem to be two fundamentalist explanations of the verse.
I am not a fundamentalist, don't insult me again.
The two explanations you are refering to, are from different notes, I have explained quite clearly what I think it is pesonally, and what the notes, and commentaries say it is, and I also understand how legend and purpledawn feel. Brian is in left field.
[q]So my question is - do the fundamentalists who think that Jesus was talking about the transfiguration condemn the other fundamentalists for changing the meaning of the word "generation"? And conversely, do the fundamentalists who change the word "generation" into "race" condemn the others for changing the text of the Bible to refer to the transfiguration?[/qs]
Whoever condemns anyone, is not a Christian, so who cares?
s that the case here? For instance, Here RR is arguing that "genea" doesn't mean "generation",
I can see your reading comprehension is lacking also. I am not saying that genea means this or that, but that it can mean this or taht. I amnot dealing in absolutes.
I can find "genea" meaning "race" if I look specifically at Christian apologetics sources - as RR points out.
I don't know who wrote that web page, but the notes and commentaries I have provided have been around for years, and they donot even agree with each other.
But know this, if what Jesus says is going to come to pass, then we are talking the word genea out of context from the entire chaptor.
If we are mis-understood, and those things have passed already, then genea means a period of years 30-100.
If A and B are incorect, then Jesus was a liar, He was not just wrong.
Legend and I aren't ignoring them. I've read them all - I just don't find them convincing.
Thats your choice, and your opinion.
I've also read the whole book of Mormon
Who cares?
It's not about "trusting legend" - it's about the evidence, and the words in the Bible.
yes, and the evidence for me is the Holy Spirit. That makes me a witness for Jesus.
quote:
acts 1
7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Ever hear the saying "can I get witness?" that was a jooke for me, until I felt what I believe to be the Holy Spirit.
There are thousands and thousands of people who sincerely believe that the sun goes around the earth. Does that mean that the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is weak? Of course not.
Maybe it does, what is your point of reference?
BTW, I am an amatuer astronomer, so I do not say that lightly.
Lastly - I thought you were going by the voices you heard inside, not human knowledge
another proof of your poor reading comprehension.
I intially gave my impression from the Holy spirit, then went on to study it, and share what other valid sources say. It just so happens that my first impressions match what the some of the sources say. For me, that is enough for me to take what Ifeel, as the meaning, until something else proves it wrong. I remain open minded.
well, sure - that's what legend has done over and over. The verse immediately before is talking about the 2nd coming, for instance.
LMAO, you don't see this sentence you wrote as a clear contradiction?
Sure you can. My mother told me it was going to be sunny once, and it rained. I don't think my mom lied to me
You mother did not claim to be the son of God, and the walking truth, or a prophet. You know a prophet by his prophesies.
If Jesus was wrong, then He was a liar.
Seeing the Bible as containing some errors will preserve your faith,
yes, I totally understand that.
PS - just noticed jaywill's edit to add the 2Pet line. 2Pet is a topic for a whole other thread, since scholars (Christian and non-christian) agree that 2 Pet wasn't written by Peter, as jaywill claims, but rather is a later forgery (a pseudepigraph). A good overview of that discussion is here:
Yes, I question why the bible was put together, and why. For some it is an insiration of the Holy Spirit. I could never understand that, until I felt the Holy Spirit, then it all became clear in an instant.
I do believe you can find God's word in the bible, and maybe you should just leave it alone. Maybe we should just focus on what is important, and that is loving God, and loving others.
but studying these verses, can lead to two things. If you are an unbeliever, it will reinforce your unbelief, and then maybe God will harden your heart further, and the other is if you allow God to speak to your through the verses, then the verse can mean something different every time you read it, that is the power of the bible, and of god, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. But you must stay to what is true, in order for that to be right, and good.
condemning people just doesn't cut it. How dare you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Equinox, posted 10-24-2006 12:42 PM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2006 9:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 276 of 300 (358602)
10-24-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Legend
10-24-2006 4:18 PM


Re: It's time to put your cards on the table
Please point out the posts where you've substantiated this claim.
It's in all the notes, and in the context of the entire chaptor, but yet you still choose to ignore it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Legend, posted 10-24-2006 4:18 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 7:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 277 of 300 (358708)
10-25-2006 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by riVeRraT
10-24-2006 5:51 PM


Re: It's time to put your cards on the table
Legend writes:
Please point out the posts where you've substantiated this claim.
riverrat writes:
It's in all the notes, and in the context of the entire chaptor, but yet you still choose to ignore it.
I've reviewed the thread and I still can't find a single reference to Greek texts or any other evidence that shows how the definition of the word "genea" had a broader meaning back then than it does now.
If you know where these posts are you'd have no difficulty in pointing them out.
Where is this evidence that shows that the word "genea" had a broader meaning back then ?

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 10-24-2006 5:51 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 10:20 AM Legend has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 278 of 300 (358739)
10-25-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by riVeRraT
10-24-2006 5:50 PM


Can Doesn't Mean Does
quote:
I can see your reading comprehension is lacking also. I am not saying that genea means this or that, but that it can mean this or that. I am not dealing in absolutes.
As I showed in Message 260, Yes "genea" can mean something other than a period of 30-33 years. It can mean a group of people living during the same period of time. But it doesn't allow for the passage of almost 2000 years. That would take the word "aion" (age) not "genea" (age).
The possible meanings of "genea" do not cover the idea that what Jesus spoke of to "that" generation has yet to happen.
quote:
But know this, if what Jesus says is going to come to pass, then we are talking the word genea out of context from the entire chaptor.
The author was consistent with his use of the word genea in the Book of Matthew. It was used to denote a group of people or human timeframe.
quote:
If we are mis-understood, and those things have passed already, then genea means a period of years 30-100.
Not really a good way for an audience to figure out who the author was talking about. The author of Mark had an audience of 65-80ce. Jesus supposedly spoke this phrase in about 30ce. Most of the twelve were already gone. I believe John is supposedly the only one left who had heard the statement in Matthew 24. Notice that the Book of John doesn't use the word genea at all and it was written after Mark and possibly Matthew.
So if John was the author of the writing of the same name and someone who had heard the infamous statement in question, does his writing address the situation Jesus was talking about.
quote:
If A and B are incorect, then Jesus was a liar, He was not just wrong.
I still don't see that what you are saying shows intent to deceive, which is what is needed if one is to say that Jesus lied.
Like I've said before. Jesus didn't write the statement, so worse case scenerio, the author lied. The author may have had intent we don't know about to have Jesus say what he said.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by riVeRraT, posted 10-24-2006 5:50 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 10:26 AM purpledawn has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 279 of 300 (358745)
10-25-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Legend
10-25-2006 7:17 AM


Re: It's time to put your cards on the table
riverrat writes:
It's in all the notes, and in the context of the entire chapter, but yet you still choose to ignore it.
I've reviewed the thread and I still can't find a single reference to Greek texts or any other evidence that shows how the definition of the word "genea" had a broader meaning back then than it does now.
If you know where these posts are you'd have no difficulty in pointing them out.
I will for the last time give an overview of everything I have provided. This includes an explanation of the context of the entire chapter, and examples of the notes I provided, as well as the definition of the word genea....again. Then I would like to phase out of this thread, since I do not expect you to acknowledge any of it.
From Message 27
Matthew knew what was meant bu the word generation, and these verses set the stage for what is in context.
quote:
quote:Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
So one one hand He is saying the gospel will not be preached before the end, and the other hand He says it will. So obviously we don't understand what He meant. This does not make Him a liar. Your evidence of Him being a liar is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. You have to take the whole bible into consideration when making these accusations.
The NIV study bible explains that 10:23 verse as this:
Jesus' saying here is probably best understood as referring to his coming in judgment on the Jews when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D.70.
Just because we don't understand what He meant by what He said does not make Him a liar.
You are acting a literalist. You are more concerned with the actual words of the bible, instead of the word of God, and having the Holy Spirit speak to your heart, and let you know what is meant.
from Message 46
John knew what was meant by the word generation.
quote:
quote:14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Well this hasn't happened yet, but we are real close to it happening. So John clearly knew that it wasn't his generation, but this generation.
from Message 50
Two distinctly different meanings from the word generation, and from the interpreted word of genea.
quote:
Throughout the gospels the same word ("genea") is used to the same effect, e.g.:
(Matt 1:17) "...fourteen generations from Abraham to David".
(Matt 12:41),"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it:...."
A perect example of two different meanings of generation. It's all in the context in which you say it.
In MAtt 1:17 it is referring to family generations, which change at the birth of every new set of siblings. Could be periods of 20 years, give or take.
In Matt 12:41 they are talking about a whole group of people living during a specific time, it doesn't matter how many times children have children. Could be a period of 100years, give or take.
Then from the same message, the actual definition of the word generation:
quote:
quote:gen·er·a·tion (jn-rshn) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "generations" [P]
n.
1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor: Mother and daughters represent two generations.
2. Biology. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: asexual generation of a fern.
3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
4.
1. A group of individuals born and living about the same time.
2. A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes: “They're the television generation” (Roger Enrico).
5.
1. A stage or period of sequential technological development and innovation.
2. A class of objects derived from a preceding class: a new generation of computers.
6. The formation of a line or geometric figure by the movement of a point or line.
7. The act or process of generating; origination, production, or procreation.
Tell me, just how many years is the television generation going to last?
from the same message, some questions you did not answer:
quote:
Great, who was Paul writing too then?
What was John talking about in Revelation?
No-one know the time except the Father,
All the end time prophecies, like the earth turning to fire,
Armageddon?
There are way too many references to a time that stretches way beyond just their generation, and speaks to our generation, of living under Christ.
from Message 52 a verse that you supplied that helps define the word genea in context, and makes it clear that we are still waiting for these things to happen, before the end of "this generation" has come to an end.
quote:
Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. ( Luk 21:32 )
In Message 85 it was pointed out again where I gave definitions for what the word generation can mean. I referred back to this message more than once in the thread.
from Message 119
quote:
We could still be in that generation.
I don't know if you know what the lexicon is, but it has the word generation in the verse Matthew 24:34 described as this:
genea ghen-eh-ah': a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.
From the Life Application Bible Commentary in Message 146
Which you choose to completely call fake and lies, but failed to really prove them wrong, other than by just using your own words.
Come to think of it, I don't think you have provided any outside sources to back up what you are saying.
from Message 146 They explain both definitions of the word generation, so should make them at least half right, yet you call them totally wrong, which makes you close minded.
in Message 147 we have the legend dictionary, I guess.
Message 216
and finally Message 251
To be fair, and honest, I post the notes and commentaries from several different sources, and they don't agree. And that is what we need to be about this subject and the meaning of the word genea. You seem to be all one-sided, where as I am willing to be open to other possible explanations.
Further more, the word "generation" is a noun. The word "this" is a pronoun which does not give a definite explanation to what is meant by the word generation.
Were as in the verse "an adulterous generation" the word generation is defined by the word "adulterous". The word "adulterous" is an adjective which describes the noun. Seeing that the definition of the word genea can mean several things, including "age" or "time" then I see now reason to set an absolute time limit to the word genea as it is used in CONTEXT in the entire chapter of Matthew 24.
Lastly, it is my opinion that if you seek the heart of the Father, then you will be willing to accept the meaning of the word genea as meaning a period of time longer than 30-100 years. If you do not seek God, or wish to have your own God, then you won't. This is not a new argument, from researching it a bit, I can see that it has been argued for years about this verse. There has never been a clear answer, as there is never a clear answer with anything as subjective as God, and the bible. The only one that can clear it up for you is God.
But if you are truly a person who believes in the scientific method, and a true logical thinker, then you should NOT be approaching the definition of genea from an absolute view. This would contradict your own beliefs, and why the BS alarm is set off inside of me.
If it is possible that 2+2 does not = 4, then why can't the word genea, as it is used in context, and after reading all the definitions, and putting the whole story together, mean a period of time longer than 30-100 years. The word genea could have easily meant "Race" or "tribe" or "age".
The Greek bible is third hand information. It is not even the original language. If God wanted us to know what it means, then we must at least ask God.
About the only absolute that I can glean from this discussion, is that we are not sure what is meant. Any other assumption, is just that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 7:17 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 12:44 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 283 by Legend, posted 10-25-2006 12:54 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 280 of 300 (358746)
10-25-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by purpledawn
10-25-2006 9:54 AM


Re: Can Doesn't Mean Does
The author of Mark had an audience of 65-80ce. Jesus supposedly spoke this phrase in about 30ce.
We cannot take only one verse and assimilate what the audience understood. If we take into account all that was said, then the audience may have thought something different than what you are proposing.
I still don't see that what you are saying shows intent to deceive, which is what is needed if one is to say that Jesus lied.
If we take into account all that was said by Jesus, then if He was wrong, then He was a liar. Jesus was not a "good moral character". If He was, then He was a liar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2006 9:54 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2006 12:10 PM riVeRraT has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 281 of 300 (358773)
10-25-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by riVeRraT
10-25-2006 10:26 AM


Re: Can Doesn't Mean Does
quote:
We cannot take only one verse and assimilate what the audience understood. If we take into account all that was said, then the audience may have thought something different than what you are proposing.
We don't just take one phrase, we take the entire book and how the author wrote and used the word "genea". As I showed you, the author uses it to refer to the people of the time, not some extremely long period of time. When this author refers to an extremely long period of time he uses "aion".

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 10:26 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 5:02 PM purpledawn has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 282 of 300 (358777)
10-25-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
10-25-2006 10:20 AM


let's finish with this silliness
thanks for the reply, I appreciate the effort you put into it.
I asked you for evidence to justify your assertion that the word "genea" (generation) had a broader meaning in ancient times than it does now. Some Greek text -from the Bible or outside it- using the word "genea" to denote a whole nation or something lasting for 2000 years would have done nicely.
You provided:
quote:
(Matthew 24:14)"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."
Riverrat writes:
So one one hand He is saying the gospel will not be preached before the end, and the other hand He says it will. So obviously we don't understand what He meant. This does not make Him a liar. Your evidence of Him being a liar is not beyond a shadow of a doubt. You have to take the whole bible into consideration when making these accusations.
Matt 24:14 uses the word "ethnos" (plural "ethnoi" ) which is rightly translated as 'nations'. No argument there. What's this got to do with anything ?
quote:
Revelation:
14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Riverrat writes:
Well this hasn't happened yet, but we are real close to it happening. So John clearly knew that it wasn't his generation, but this generation.
?? John thought what he thought. Where's the word "genea" (generation) mentioned here ? How is that related to the evidence I asked you to provide?
quote:
(Matt 1:17) "...fourteen generations from Abraham to David".
(Matt 12:41),"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it:...."
Riverrat writes:
A perect example of two different meanings of generation. It's all in the context in which you say it.
In MAtt 1:17 it is referring to family generations, which change at the birth of every new set of siblings. Could be periods of 20 years, give or take.
In Matt 12:41 they are talking about a whole group of people living during a specific time, it doesn't matter how many times children have children. Could be a period of 100years, give or take.
I've answered this before and I agreed with you! That's exactly what I've been saying all along: 'generation' always refers to a specific timeframe! I think 100 years is pushing it a bit (people lived shorter lives then) but it's not far off the mark.
That's exactly what Jesus is saying in the synoptics: "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. " !
I'll even give you 100 years as the timeframe, heck, make it 200 (I'm in a good mood). Have these things come to pass in that period? err........NO!
quote:
quote:gen·er·a·tion (jn-rshn) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "generations" [P]
n.
1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor: Mother and daughters represent two generations.
2. Biology. A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism: asexual generation of a fern.
3. The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
4.
1. A group of individuals born and living about the same time.
2. A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes: “They're the television generation” (Roger Enrico).
5.
1. A stage or period of sequential technological development and innovation.
2. A class of objects derived from a preceding class: a new generation of computers.
6. The formation of a line or geometric figure by the movement of a point or line.
7. The act or process of generating; origination, production, or procreation.
thanks for the definition - it proves my point! I fail to see any mention of "2000 years"! Or "as long as it takes"!
Instead I see: "A group of individuals born and living about the same time " and "A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes". (emphasis is mine)
Thank you!
Riverrat writes:
Tell me, just how many years is the television generation going to last?
It just finished. It lasted about 40 years. We're now into the 'Internet generation', or haven't you noticed ?
QED.
P.S In summary, you haven't provided a single piece of text where the word 'generation' is used to denote a whole nation, 2000 years or something not referring to a specific period in time. On the contrary, you've provided many quotes that show the total opposite (and I thank you for that). Now would be a good time to retract your statement..

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 10:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 5:22 PM Legend has replied

Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 283 of 300 (358779)
10-25-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
10-25-2006 10:20 AM


I just noticed these beauties!
Riverrat writes:
If it is possible that 2+2 does not = 4, then why can't the word genea, as it is used in context, and after reading all the definitions, and putting the whole story together, mean a period of time longer than 30-100 years. The word genea could have easily meant "Race" or "tribe" or "age".
you're really sinking now.
2+2 = 4, not 3, not 5!
'Black' means black, not red or white!
'this generation' means the set of people listening at the time, not race or tribe!
Riverrat writes:
The Greek bible is third hand information. It is not even the original language. If God wanted us to know what it means, then we must at least ask God.
cool...I'm dashing off to burn my Bible then!
P.S ...............I just asked God...... He said "if you want to know what Jesus meant, then READ THE SODDIN TEXT ". Sorry!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 10-25-2006 10:20 AM riVeRraT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 300 (358793)
10-25-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Equinox
10-20-2006 4:38 PM


Re: Exegeisis
quote:
Yep, and I agree that exegeisis, in general, is not a good thing. But, I also think we should not read the Bible literally. You have to interpret what it means, critically, and the intentions of the reader, or there purpose for interpretation, seems to determine if there should be an 'i' in there or not.
I agree that a literal reading is not always right (see esp the song of solomon). However, I don't think the intentions of the *reader* should ever change what the *writer* meant.
That's not what I meant. I was just saying that the intentions of the reader are what determine if it is exegesis or exegeisis.
quote:
Sure (CatSci), jesus does use figurative language - but that doesn't mean we can just call anything we don't like "figurative language" and proceed to creatively "interpret" it.
Of course not everything, but as far as the Bible goes, I'd say we can do that with most things. I also think thats how we are supposed to read it.
Most? The Bible is over 80% old testament, with Jesus's parables occupying only a small fraction of the whole Bible.
Shit, that's my fault. Sometimes when I type Bible, I mean New Testament. And even then, I still don't know that we can say 'most'. Its one of those things where you know what your'e thinking but you don't know what you're saying typing. My point was that Jesus said a lot of weird stuff that can't be taken at face value. I think your reading the verse in question too literally.
For instance, it seems clear both from the text and from acts that the stories of Jesus' miracles were intended to describe real events, same for the exodus, the egyptian plauges, the ascension etc. Whether they are real or not is another discussion, but it seems clear that the author *inteneded* them to be believed.
I think those events were real. They seem to be written about like they were meant to be real. But Jesus' parables are sometimes obviously not real events (and sometimes not). I think that what you think Jesus meant be the comming of his kingdom is not what he meant. By what you are describing it to be, as a physical kingdom (or Jesus flyin around with angels), and when you take it to happen, like, real soon, it certainly makes Jesus look like he is wrong.
As I mentioned before, since I think Jesus was a human and not an omniscient God, I don't think he lied either, any more than Einstein did when he objected to Quantum Mechanics by saying "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein was just plain wrong - QM works and has stood the test of experiment after experiment. That doesn't mean Einstein is some dummy - it just means that he guessed incorrectly in that case.
Well I think Jesus was God so it makes sense that we'd interpret this verse differently. I think you are reading it too literally, at face value, and not understanding what Jesus was implying, or alluding too.
One can either abandon the dogmatic belief in #2 and #3, OR, one can abandon logic and rationality. It's a choice each of us can make for ourselves.
Heh I abandon logic and rationality. I mean, we're talking about God here. I could logically conclude that god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't.
quote:
So, I think he must have been talking about some kind of spiritual death, like...
Does that answer feel honest to you? From that answer, it seems that the choice I just talked about has been made in favor of the Bible and not in favor of logic, evidence, and rationality.
It does feel like an honest answer, yes. I think it is important that Jesus was without error. If I can interpret one verse from the Bible and read it literally enought that Jesus was with error, then I'd say that it must not be the way it was suppose to be read.
The mental gymnastics and wiggling needed to keep it up are things that I'm very familiar with - I did it myself for years. As more and more things like this surfaced, it became more and more mentally uncomfortable for me to say to myself that I was intellectually honest, while twisting the words as the need arose. I finally couldn't fake it anymore, and gave up on the idea that the Bible is all good and all correct.
I don't think the Bible is all good and all correct (esecially the Old Testament but thats a diffrent topic). I do think that Jesus was all good and all correct though. I haven't found anything that suggests otherwise, although this thread is the closest I've gotten, which is why I was interested in it. I wouldn't do severe enough mental gymnastics to deny an error of Jesus just to maintain my belief. In fact, I'm still looking for errors (sortof challenging my faith).
The verse in question and the interpretations offered do not convince me. I don't think you are interpreting it correctly, although you've done an excellent job of providing the reasons for your interpretation. I just don't see it that way. I'm not being dishonest with myself to maintain belief, I just don't think Jesus was talking about reigning in a kingdom in the immediate future here on Earth. With the way he spoke figuratively and spiritually about other things, I think he was speaking similarly in this verse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Equinox, posted 10-20-2006 4:38 PM Equinox has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 285 of 300 (358818)
10-25-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by purpledawn
10-25-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Can Doesn't Mean Does
What about when he refers to race?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2006 12:10 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by purpledawn, posted 10-25-2006 8:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024