judge

All the NT writers thought that they were in the 'last days" back then. Here is an example

Hebrews 1.

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

doubtingthomas

Thanks, this is exactly the sort of stuff I was looking for. The comparison between Jesus' prophecy and that of Smith's was also very interesting.

doubtingthomas

I'm not entirely familiar with what preterism teaches, but it would seem to me that one would come into several problems with this interpretation; especially if you believe that the bible as we have it today is the inerrant word of God.

For one all of the disciples seemed to think that they were in the last days. The author of 2nd Peter ,for instance, does not answer the detractors of the second coming by saying that Jesus only meant that a judgement would come on their society, instead he says that "a day is as a thousand years with the lord." It would seem then that either the bible is errant or preterists have misinterpreted this passage in an attempt ,like the author of 2nd Peter, to dodge the obvious implications of Matthew 24.

judge

That seems a new idea as well. Did Paul think he was writing the "inerrant word of God" or a letter to some people he knew?
IOW long afterwards some people began to call various writings the "inerrant word of God"

How have preterists interpreted this passage?

doubtingthomas

From what I understand they believe that his coming referred to the desturction of jerusalem in 70 AD. And that,as you said, his coming was simply judgement visited upon the of jerusalem; not the final sort of judgement at the end of the world that most christians think this passage is referring to.

Godless Wonder

So the on average all the mothers were 40 years older than their children? That's what "generation," as a unit of time means to me, the average difference in ages between the parents and their children. Forty years does not seem a likely value to me.

doubtingthomas

Well my original question came about after reading R.C. Sproul's "The Last Days According To Jesus". I'm far from being an expert on these matters as some of the people here are, so I decided to put Sproul's claims to the test here. He claims in the book that a generation was around 40 years, and everything that I have read concerning this makes similar claims. If someone has any evidence to the contrary, however, I would love to hear it.

Bumble Bee Tuna

the wording "this generation shall not pass" to me means that some group of people alive in a particular age range will not die off before the event. He is either talking about the people his own age, or perhaps the people being born around the time of the statement. Whichever group it is, to me, that wording means that age group of people won't die off before the event. So I wouldn't go by the age differential between mothers and children, I would go by life expentancy.

-B

WinAce

Thanks, although I didn't intend to smack anyone in particular. Nevertheless, I know I did something right when, with your level of NT knowledge, you still use that smiley

Always glad to help a friend.

doubtingthomas

Apparently I misunderstood you in my first response. I wasn't saying preterists misinterpreted 2nd Peter, the passage I meant was Matthew 24.