CJD

Hi Tod,

Then we will have little to say to each other. I, for one, think the whole point of the bible in general is theological, and getting at the meaning involves applying the tools of textual criticism. It is not baseless, it is learning how to read (just like you would any other piece of literature).

Ah, I stand corrected. I just didn't see it there. Truth be known, it's hard for me to care for the same reasons you apparently do that the author(s) of Kings wrote one thing while the author(s) of Samuel implied something else. Once again, your enterprise betrays a disregard for what the authors might have intended in writing what they did in the way they did. At any rate, if you're not willing to engage in "baseless speculation," how can I continue?


Best regards,

CJD

Magus55

No, Jesus says some standing there shall not pass away until they see the kingdom of God. John, for example saw the Kingdom of God in his vision of revelation. He saw God's kingdom in its glory.

Javaman

But you saw these posted earlier by Tod, right?

Matthew 24
34 Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.
Matthew 16
28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'
Matthew 10
23 `And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.

Tod

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CJD
Hi Tod

Hi ; )

Then we will have little to say to each other. I, for one, think the whole point of the bible in general is theological, and getting at the meaning involves applying the tools of textual criticism. It is not baseless, it is learning how to read (just like you would any other piece of literature).

I didn't mean that the whole bible isn't generally theological in nature, only that the passage in question doesn't seem to have a theological bent, but more of an introductory meaning.

Ah, I stand corrected. I just didn't see it there. Truth be known, it's hard for me to care for the same reasons you apparently do that the author(s) of Kings wrote one thing while the author(s) of Samuel implied something else. Once again, your enterprise betrays a disregard for what the authors might have intended in writing what they did in the way they did.

I don't know exactly what you mean by my "enterprise," but to clarify exactly what my goal is: my goal is to attack the doctrine of inerrancy as invalid. My stance is that the Bible is not perfect, infallible, accurate in all ways, nor containing no contradictions. Now, if you don't hold to the doctrine of inerrancy then my argument is not directed to you. If you can accept an inconsistency between the statement in I Kings and the story laid out in the last chapter of II Samuel then there is no reason to debate. Whether or not you care about such an inconsistency is beyond the scope of my "enterprise," since I personally don't find people's religious beliefs in of themselves as the root of harms I perceive from Christianity but rather the doctrine of inerrancy.

I do feel the need to pick a nit with your use of the word "imply" above. Your use of that word is nitpicky in of itself. True, the account in II Samuel doesn't specifically say that David did something that wasn't "right in the eyes of the Lord," but you can see that it is saying the same thing in different words.

If you saw me yelling and cursing at somebody that I then attacked with physical violence, and then told somebody else that I only "implied" I was angry because I didn't specifically say "I'm angry at you" to the person I was yelling at and attacking, it would be a bit of an understatement.

Yes, that is what I'm saying, it is an understatement to say that the author of II Samuel only implied that Yahweh was angry at David. David says "I have committed a grave sin by doing this...I beg you to forgive your servant for this fault, for I have acted very foolishly. (vs 10), He next was given a choice of three punishments, and one of those punishments was carried out, involving the death of 70,000 people. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the fact that David clearly did something not "right in the eyes of the Lord!"

Magus55

You have to remember the Bible was written thousands of years ago, in basically archaic languages ( Aramaic is archaic, and ancient Hebrew I don't believe is identical to modern Hebrew, although may be wrong on that). You have to study the Bible with that in mind, knowing what you are reading today is a translation. And while the translations have an extremely small error rating, they probably aren't as clear as if you read them in the original languages, because not all of the grammar and language translates the exact way it was intended to be written.

And as I've said before, Jesus is not late. He is never late on His promises. The passage you atheists love to use to say Jesus is late, is not talking about the generation of the Apostles because in context, He was discussing the end times. And unless you can show me records of all the supernatural end time events happening within the last 2000 years ( which definately would have been recorded), it isn't an error. It doesn't require "twisting". In context, its not difficult to see Jesus is not referring to the Apostles in Mat 24.34.

The other passage, Mat 16:28 just says some of them standing here shall see the Son of Man in His kingdom. John saw that in His revelation vision. No where in that verse, does Jesus say it had to happen physically on Earth. He just said they would see it, which they did.

Doctor X

The author of Revelation was not one of the disciples.

Rather obvious given the appeal to appreciate the proper context and time with regards to texts.

--J.D.

Javaman

So, if we grant you that he was talking about the end of times, your only argument is that he can't have meant exactly what he said... only because the end of times has yet to come???

That doesn't appear to be in my translation (or any that I'm familiar with). I'll try to find it unless you want to provide it.

Javaman

I've looked some more, but I got sidetracked by your post... the relevant part is the "shall not taste death until" stuff. I don't see how you can get around it. The only exception to this dying part that I could find out of 15 translations is:
Matthew 16
28This isn't pie in the sky by and by. Some of you standing here are going to see it take place, see the Son of Man in kingdom glory." The Message (MSG)
Every other tranlation is some variant of the YLT that I posted earlier. That is the point.

Magus55

And thats my point. They saw the kingdom of God before they died, but not necessarily physically on Earth. They saw the Kingdom in Heaven. The verse doesn't require the kingdom with God and angels physically being on earth, it only requires that they see it.

Abel Stable

I think this contradiction isn't very viable. As Magus demonstates, christians have an airtight response. Catholics are confident that Jesus' return is in the eucharist. Apologists pretty much have this one covered.