GBS, I do not have time to read all of this before I head off to work, but in the first few paragrapsh I came across this statement.Originally Posted by grandbassslayer
The above passages indicated some of the Twelve would be alive and witness the Lord’s return and the establishment of His kingdom. The challenge of these passages is to understand when the prophecy was or will be fulfilleded​
Prophecy Fulfillment Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16.28). Matthew 17.1-9 And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (Mark 9.1). Mark 9.2-8 But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God (Luke 9.27). Luke 9.28-26
My response to that satatement without writing a small book as "he, she" did is this:
The actual challenge is not Jesus' words (there are some (not all) standing here who will not die until you see me coming with power, in my kingdom, with all the angels, and will reward each man) on face value but rather believing him. Faith matters when it comes to Jesus' proclomation that some standing there in front of him in the first century, would not taste death before he came.
Claiming Jesus did not know what he was talking about, that is the real challenge. That one statement is why Atheist and Agnostics can make a valid claim as to Jesus not being devine nor the scriptures being inspired and even worse makes him a false prophet. The atheist and agnositc know the bible and the greek languge far greater than the average bible reader. They know what the greek says and means, they know the hundreds of OT and NT quotations far better than most christians.
The writer then makes the same error most commentators do and reference the transfiguration as a fullfillment of Jesus' words.
1. The transfiguration occured about 7 days later. How silly would Jesus' comment be "some standing here wont die in the next 7 days " until you see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom? If Jesus' return (second appearing) were gonna happen within a generation (40 years), then Jesus' comment makes perfect sense, not all of them would be alive 40 years later.
2. The author of the article knows if he had quoted the entire chapter and its context his argument that the transfiguration satisfies "some standing here would not taste death" would be almost laughable. Here I will quote part of the passage as to why he didnt.
27 For 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 they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Why split up Jesus' commentary ? Every scholar knows that the Angels did not show up at the transfiguration. Nor did Jesus' "reward every man according to what he had done "
One thing the writer of the article does know is this :
Most people who read it do not know the bible well enough to show his claims in the article are false. And most readers of his article will not take the time to be a Berean and find out if what he says is true.
Last edited by godsdozer; 09-19-2020 at 07:14 AM.
lol you need to learn tact.
Explain please ?
Your last paragraph is demeaning, and its true because "you say so" I guess.... many people disagree with your opinion, many agree with it. We have to able to converse on that understanding. I have read the passages plenty ans reach a different conclusion than you.
Thanks,
You posted the article, I repsonded to the misinformation contained in the first few paragraphs.
Would you comment on the transfiguration and how it would be a fullfillment of Jesus ' statement as your aritcle claims? ..............some standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom
dialouge would be benificial to all who read here.
Misinformation? Its tough to have a dialogue that way.
gbs,
I figured this was going to head this way. You come to my thread and post a article that has false doctrine in it. I provided my commentary / exegesis to the first few paragraphs of your article.
You then proceed to make a post saying I need "tact", "I am demeaning", " its true because I say its true" without ever addressing the point of the argument.
I know the reason you can not respond to my post #7 because there is no biblical defense to my origional post therefore you attack me instead. The readers can see through what you are doing.
For the readers............Here is another quote from the article presented here in this thread.
"In each of the above passages, Jesus stated “this generation” would not end until the Day of the Lord occurred and the Lord returned. What did Jesus mean by “this generation?” The word “generation” is γενεά. It means a race of people, people living during a particular time, an age. In this case, the most straightforward meaning is of people living at a particular time. The next question becomes, what does “this” mean? Did Jesus mean the Jews of His day or something else? Before addressing this question, let us examine some more passages."
My response:
One of the foundation stones of dispensationalism in particular and futurism in general is the claim that “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 either refers to a future generation (“the generation that sees these signs”) or the Jewish race. Norman Geisler, in his critique of Hank Hanegraaff’s The Apocalypse Code, argues that the Greek word genea should be translated “race.” He writes: “as virtually all acknowledge, it can mean ‘this [Jewish] race’ will not pass away — which it has not. Greek experts Arndt and Gingrich acknowledge that the term genea can have an ethnic use of ‘family, descent, . . . clan, then race’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 249, emphasis added).”
Notice that Geisler says “can have.” The problem is, there is no place in the NT where genea is translated as “race,” and the lexicon cited by Geisler does not point to a verse where “race” would be the appropriate translation.(1) Moreover, Geisler does not tell his readers that the Greek-English Lexicon that he cites also states that genea (generation) means “the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Generation, contemporaries.”(2) The passages referenced as examples of the “generation” definition are Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 where the text reads “this generation.”
I’m surprised that Geisler would even consider the genea-as-race argument. While the Scofield Reference Bible takes this position, almost no one today, including dispensational authors, argue that “this generation” should be translated “this race.”
Reasons for Rejecting “This race” as the correct translation of “this generation
There are at least four problems with translating genea as “race” instead of “generation.” First, as we’ve seen, the Greek word used in Matthew 24:34 is genea, a word that in other contexts means “generation.” Try using “race” where “generation” appears in these verses: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32.
Here’s Matthew 1:17 where I’ve translated genea as race: “So all the races from Abraham to David are fourteen races; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen races; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen races.”
Geisler even admits that in other contexts genea means “generation,” but claims that it can have a different meaning in a “prophetic context.” What is the basis for this line of argument? Where are the examples? He never tells us.
Second, if Jesus wanted to say that “this race will not pass away until all of these things take place,” He would have used the Greek word genos to clear up any possible confusion. He uses genea (“generation”) not genos (“race”) in Matthew 24:34.
Third, there is a logical problem if genea is translated “race.” Since “race” is a reference to the Jewish race, Matthew 24:34 would read this way: “This Jewish race will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then Jewish race will pass away.” This doesn’t make any sense, especially for a premillennialist like Geisler who believes the Jews will reign with Jesus for a thousand years after the period described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
Fellow dispensationalist Stanley Toussaint dismisses Geisler’s line of argument:
“A second interpretation, held by a number of futurists, affirms that the noun γενεά means race, that is, the Jewish race. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich give ‘clan’ as a primary meaning, but they list only Luke 16:8 as an illustration in the New Testament. It is difficult for dispensational premillennialists to take this view because this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return: ‘This race of Israel will not pass away until the Second Advent.’ But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium in order to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.”(3)
Fourth, each and every time “this generation” is used in the gospels, it refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The use of the near demonstrative “this” locks the time of “this generation” that was near to Jesus. If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He would have said “that generation,” as in, “that generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Consider what these Bible commentators say about the meaning of “this generation”:
A. Carson: “[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.”(4)
William Sanford LaSor:“If ‘this generation’ is taken literally, all of the predictions were to take place within the life-span of those living at that time.”(5)
John Lightfoot: ““Hence it appears plain enough, that the foregoing verses are not to be understood of the last judgment, but, as we said, of the destruction of Jerusalem. There were some among the disciples (particularly John), who lived to see these things come to pass. With Matt. xvi. 28, compare John xxi. 22. And there were some Rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these things, that lived until the city was destroyed.”(6)
Thomas Newton:“It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation.”(7)
William Lane:“The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark ‘this generation’ clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.”(8)
Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida: “[T]he obvious meaning of the words ‘this generation’ is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning.”(9)
John Gill: “This is a full and clear proof, that not any thing that is said before [v. 34], relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and the end of the world; but that all belongs to the coming of the son of man in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.”(10)
John Nolland: “Matthew uses genea here for the tenth time. Though his use of the term has a range of emphases, it consistently refers to (the time span of) a single human generation. All the alternative senses proposed here (the Jewish people; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs; wicked people) are artificial and based on the need to protect Jesus from error. ‘This generation’ is the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries.”(11)
Norman Geisler needs to take a second look at his claim that “this generation” can be translated as “this race.” All the evidence points to the generation Jesus was addressing and not the “Jewish race” throughout history.
Reply With Quote