sotto voce

Did any contemporaries mention this supposed error?

So the records of miracles were records of events merely out of the ordinary. Like many occurrences regarded as actuality. Nothing to justify lack of belief there.

"Truly, this age will not pass before all these things are fulfilled." Iow, Jesus will return to judge the world before it ends.

I take this as refusal to support the allegation, and unacceptable posting practice, too.

AtheistGamer

Why does that matter?



I didn't simply say they were out of the ordinary. First you strawman me by having me say that miracles are impossible. Now you strawman me by misquoting me as saying that miracles are merely out of the ordinary.

Just so you understand me I am saying that miracles are out of the ordinary, and unlikely, and unbelievable. They have all of those qualities to the extreme.

Would you believe something if it contained a report that godzilla attacked new york? Of course not. So why believe the gospels?



Actually the word being translated as age here is genea. It doesn't mean age. It means generation. The proper translation is the one I gave earlier.



I supported the allegation with a link to a video, because I don't feel like typing a twelve paragragh book just for you. How is this unacceptable posting practice? Who gets to define what is acceptable posting practice in the first place?

sotto voce

If no contemporaries mentioned an error, why did they not mention it?

That's what you wrote, in effect. So, by this criterion, the miraculous can be no bar to faith.

The translation you used uses the same word for 'age'.

AtheistGamer

Fallacy one, argument from silence. Fallacy two, appeal to best made up explaination in opposition of simply saying I don't know.

That's not what I wrote. You either misunderstood me, or strawmaned me on purpose.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1074&t=KJV

1) fathered, birth, nativity

2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy

b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character

1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation

3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time

4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

http://biblelexicon.org/matthew/24-34.htm

generation γενεὰ genea 1074 race, family, generation from ginomai

sotto voce

Phoney nonsense, as any policeman will confirm.

Give it any name you like, contemporaries, who wanted the church exterminated, did not object; or if they did, they did it very quietly.

Does that make sense?

I did neither.

That'll do.

spin

No, it won't. This is not a choice of what will suit your desires best.

The definition includes the fundamental notion, "fathered" (or "sired"). From this there are two basic derivatives given--derivative because the base is a verb form, while these are used as nouns--, one literal ("(that which is) fathered"), and the other figurative ("(the current living bunch, ie all who have been) fathered (and are alive)"). One opts for the figurative only after considering the literal and finding sufficient contextual grounds for doubting the literal use. Regardless, once you come to grips with the Greek term, you should realize that you are working from an ambiguity that only exists in English. Fudging about the English translation doesn't help you understand the text, which apparently you still don't.

Translating the word as "age" then using a different meaning of the term than is found in Greek is deceitful and merely helps obfuscate the original Greek. This is apparently done not to clarify but to suit the apologetic tendencies of the translators.

AtheistGamer

Or they did object, and no record of their objections survived the nearly two thousand year span from them to us. This is the problem with trying to use an argument from silence in history. There is no way to tell silence apart from muffled cries for help.


Does what make sense? Are you talking about your appeal to the best made up explaination, my explaination of the fallacy you are commiting, or choosing to say I don't know?




If you are not going to engage what I actually say, and simply attempt to read between the lines adding your own interpretation to my posts then there is nothing to discuss on the point of whether miracles are believable.

For the sake of argument let's say Jesus means nation in this particular verse. I'll pretend not to know that the greek word for nation is ethnesin. What perverse nation would that be? Well it would be the Roman Empire.

Roman Empire is not still around. Check.

Jesus not returned yet. Check.

I could go into an explaination of how Daniel 7 ties into all of this, and I could quote the epistles to show that Jesus' early followers were already making excuses for why he hadn't returned yet, but I'll let you respond to what I've already written first.

sotto voce

So the Sanhedrin, populated by wealthy Herodians and Sadducees, backed by the mighty Roman Empire, was suffocated by a few fishermen? I like that. Monty Python missed a trick, there.

The majority of people from the time of speaking to the Second Coming.

AtheistGamer

*sigh* Suffocated by the passage of time, not suffocated by their contemporary opponents. Are you capable of responding to what someone actually says within context?

Nation does not mean a group of people spanning thousands of years, who speak different langauges, live in seperate territories, and operate under hundreds of different governments. In fact I can't think of a more opposite definition of nation than the one you are using. You might as well claim that a circle is a square.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation

na·tion   /ˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled[ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

sotto voce

'muffled cries for help'??????

'But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.' 1 Pe 2:9 NIV