John Kesler

If one asserts that a passage should be interpreted in a nonliteral manner, it is his or her responsibility to demonstrate this, and to be specific about what the symbols represent. Declaring a passage "apocalyptic" isn't sufficient.

Julian

IIDB does not 'use' any particular bible, it all depends on the discussion and who is writing the post. Those who can read Greek generally use NA27/UBS4 and those who refer to English translations tend to use whatever is available over at www.biblegateway.com or other such sites. KJV is generally brought up when christians post here and base their arguments on that particular version. People here are free to use whatever bible they choose and will then have to endure a corresponding level of mockery.

Julian

Decypher

What I responded to:

Looking back over the posts, the claim that prophecy had failed seems to have been based on the "this generation" issue. This is what I assumed you were talking about.

But anyway, a time limit on Old Testament prophecy (for a Christian, from a Christian basis) could be created by the New Testament predicting something that would require the events to have to happen within a certain time.

Decypher

Firstly, does Paul not make the claim?

Secondly, you say that the problem is:

"What's the problem with this interpretation you say? Simply that the Roman Empire and the nations comprising it show virtually no evidence of the populace having had any awareness of the gospel story at all during those first three centuries"

There needs to be a problem with this interpretation beyond it merely being an error. Presumably you would need to argue that Jesus would never have predicted that the "whole world" (Roman Empire) would have heard the gospel so soon? Whatever, you certainly need something more than mere error.

Decypher

Sheshbazzar, could you respond to this?

Sheshbazzar

Yours is not a new argument, it is my perception that the "argument" you are making, has been made repeatedly, from beginning, from the very day these things were first spoken, and heard, and from the very day that these words were first written, and read.
As strange as it may seem, given the position I have been defending, that actually, I do agree, -to a degree- with your argument in spite of holding fast to my "futurist" convictions.
Which I'm sure sounds like an impossible contradiction, to in effect be supporting of both positions. Allow me to explain.
The Galilaean (by what ever name you may choose to call Him) was quite the "Hellfire and Brimstone" type of preacher, and His speeches were aimed at stirring up the conscience of His audience, and achieving an immediate and heartfelt response from His listeners;
That is He wanted them to "REPENT! on the spot, "NOW! is the accepted time", "TODAY! if you will hear My voice". No preacher employing this tactic is going to let His listeners get off thinking that they might have even another day left in which to make a choice, or a few more weeks to give up that sin or vice that they have engaged in for decades.
I believe that He, (or the Gospel writers) chose the words very carefully to always inculcate a fear in the hearers and readers that an immediately impending doom was already hanging heavy over their heads.
Certainly He would not have allowed His hearers to go upon their way and depart from His presence, thinking that they still had years left ahead of them in which to "get their act together".
If you were to attend a "Hellfire and Brimstone" service tonight, the stress would be on the immediacy of The Judgment and the need to REPENT!NOW! even though the preacher himself might expect at least a few more hours, days, weeks, months, years, or even for generations to pass before the coming of The Judgment Day.
So, Yes, I do agree, and believe that His speech, and the NT were so composed as to put a "fear of YHWH" into the hearts of the people, and to convince them standing there that theirs was the generation that would experience "ALL of these things", and to so also convince and convict each and every succeeding generation, that "THE TIME IS SHORT", even as any "old time" fundamentalist preacher or denomination goes on preaching to generation after generation, that "THE END is at hand".
Being so convinced, we are called to "search the Scriptures", and therein we find the prophecies such as Zech. 14, and Psalm 22:27 and Psalm 64:9, and perceive that there still remain a few things on the agenda yet to be accomplished.
Now with respect to the "apocalyptic" passages in the Gospels, it is my belief that these sayings were originally spoken in Aramaic, with the time tense deliberately kept ambiguous, but whatever the language, they were carefully contrived to convince the listeners that they of "this (then present) generation" would be the ones who would "see all these things" (but they didn't)
Or to put it another way, He was a great "motivational speaker" whose mission was to motivate His listeners, and to get them moving and shaking immediately, NOW!, any slip of the tongue that would have allowed them to think that they had the luxury of time for "thinking it over" or taking their time about spreading His Gospel would be at odds with the urgency that He was laboring to inculcate.
Now I also appreciate that your position is that these things didn't happen, and thus the prophecy's failed then, in that generation, and that they ain't never gonna happen in any generation. That I believe otherwise is what makes me a "believer", and your unbelief is what makes you an unbeliever.
My desire is for peace on all the earth, and for good will to prevail among all men, that men would go to war no more, and that no person would ever again suffer under abuse nor go to bed hungry; Ah, but I KNOW that I am foolish to desire such things in a world that is filled with hatred, suffering and greed, but fool that I am, still yet I yearn for all that is just and good.
Will He come? I know not, yet I live in that hope, for the coming of a Greater Authority and Power that no corrupt men nor government can at all withstand, who will bring justice and peace in all the land.

Sheshbazzar

While the "whole world" may have been conceived by some as limited to only the boundaries of the Roman Empire, even in those days most well traveled and educated men were aware of many countries and nations that were not part of the Roman Empire, if Paul thought that the boundaries of the Roman Empire actually comprised the "whole world" then he was mistaken, even by the measure of knowledge that was readily available at that time.
Methinks in all of this that Paul was engaging in a little hyperbole, particularly
in regards to how far the message had spread, and how well it was known.
Certainly there were known even to him "creature(s) under heaven" that were not located within the bounds of the Roman Empire.
I do not believe that it was, or is, the will of ha'Elohim to exclude from His plan and from His mercy all of the people of the nations of the earth that were not, or are not within the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
If Paul's conception of the "whole world" and the "whole earth" was indeed so limited and constrained, then it was a perceptional myopia on his part, that however need not imply that ha'Elohim's view and plan was likewise so limited and constrained, For He spoke of the "whole world" and His plans for it before there was even such a thing as the "Roman Empire".

Decypher

Jesus would speak in such a way as to try and convince people of something false!? If you are really saying that, then even if Jesus wanted to save souls, does the dishonesty not look like seriously questionable behaviour?

And the fact is, we are told to judge Jesus on the criteria of whether his prophecies come true. If Jesus is misleading people about which generation will see the end then he is shooting himself in the foot!

Decypher

The Bible doesn't seem (on this occasion, at least) to use "all the world" as we would understand it. "All the world" can't here mean the whole planet, everywhere inhabited. Presumably "all the world" is being used for the Roman Empire.

Does anyone know of any evidence that the entire Roman Empire was ever involved in a census around that time?

Decypher

Another argument for the meaning of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 being about "this present generation" is found with Matthew 16:27-28.

It makes an equivalent prediction about the timing of the event as in Matthew 24:34, if Matthew 24:34 is talking about the present generation. There is a harmony between them in that circumstance. And this is, I believe, very strong evidence for the meaning of Matthew 24:34.

A Christian can always try and deny that Matthew 16:27-28 (Or 16:28 at least) is about the second coming, and there are a few different interpretations that they use as I have previously mentioned. However, Matthew 16:27-28 (and parallel verses) have a stronger correspondence with Matthew 24 (and parallel chapters) than with anything else in the Bible.