demoninho

What do the original texts say, are they in greek or arameic? I know the NT was not written in hebrew but greek and arameic, but from what i have heard hebrew is very specific about verbs, gender and personal pronouns. Is arameic just as specific as hebrew (the 2 being related and all)?

Family Man

In this text, the "you" cannot refer to humanity as a whole. As a pronoun, "you" must refer to some entity that Jesus interacting with. The only possible candidate are the apostles. Had Jesus said something along the lines of "Ah, humanity, the difficulties you will endure in those distant days." then "you" could refer to humanity. As there is no indication in the text that he was doing anything of the kind, the only possible conclusion is that "you" refers to the apostles.

Yes, I am virtually certain that Jesus was talking to the apostles. The only other possible explanation is poor communication skills, a very odd attribute for a god to possess.

Rhaedas

I'd be interested to know if earlier translations had the same setting as the KJV and later, because as said before, the apostles had asked a direct question referring to what "they" will see, and so Jesus sat down and answered them directly. He made no mention of his statements applying to all humanity, he was talking to those around him. Had the apostles opened with "what will your followers, now and in the future, see" then Jesus' answer could be seen much more as a open ended prophesy.

And that's the problem...as in many passages in the bible, there's a bit of vagueness, some room to adapt to various interpretations. Not the best way textually to spread a specific message. If this was a divinely inspired message, then surely it would have been seen a problem in the future, and "this generation" would have been clarified as to what it referred towards. God's choice of using verbal and written text passed down over the years through various languages (and edited no less) was not a good decision. He made man, he should know better than to trust us to get it right.

Of course, Jesus could have been clearer when he actually spoke, and the vagueness was let in when the writer wrote about it. But if that's true, what else may be not entirely accurate?

demoninho

I think it's the vagueness and contradictions which are the real strenght of the bible. This way you can interpret anyway you like.

judge

Hiya!

Here is the aramaic of mark. It is the same as english I think.http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch13.pdf

Wayin

If the end was to happen 2000 + years down the track, why would the following writters use a 'present tense' wording in the following verses regarding "the end" & "you"?


Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Hebrews 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:


Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.


But the memory remains,
Wayin

Autonemesis

edited by moderator

SpaceMonkey

I agree with Autonemesis. I thought Magus was a little vicious in his response, when I read it.

I think the defensiveness is quite telling. Touching a sore spot perhaps?

Nevertheless, try to be a little less angry, the pair of you.

Peter Kirby

[MODERATOR]
I have edited Magus55 and Autonemesis in an attempt to keep the tone cordial.
[/MODERATOR]

best,
Peter Kirby