Ulrich

In the 24th Chapter of Matthew (v. 34), we find the following quote: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

In a discussion in the EoG forum we have touched on this quote, and exactly what it means. I am told that the original greek from which the wording "this generation" is derived can mean subsequent generations as well as the current generation to which Jesus was speaking. Can anyone here provide any feedback on whether this is actually the case, and whether or not such an interpretation is generally regarded as correct?

Toto

Matthew 24:34 & Genea: What The Scholars Say from the Infidels Library.

Ulrich

Thanks Toto, that should help quite a bit!

Toto

The author, Mark Smith, claims that no Christian will debate him on the issue after he tied them up in knots.

Timetospend

I do not like the interpretation of genea in Matt. 24:34 as "race" or something other than an actual generation. While most would agree that "race" is probably not the correct interpretation, it is certainly a possible one. While I must admit to falling asleep a couple of time in trying to read the article, I suspect that the only reason why no one has chosen to debate the guy is from a lack of interest.

Thanks,

Johnny Skeptic

If the Bible had been written more clearly, there would no need to debate what it means.

If God were to show up in person, he could easily interpret the Bible himself.

You have no choice except to claim that God only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another human tells them about it, and that God only wants people to have enough food to eat if another human gives them enough food to eat. Of course, no rational person would believe that a loving God would act like that, but that is what you have to claim.

Timetospend

While I know that most on this site will disagree, I think that the Bible is very clear in its core message. While you might not believe the Bible, it suggests that God did show "up in person," and was crucified for the effort.

I think that God can send his message to anyone he wants:
Rev 14:6

Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth — to every nation and tribe and language and people.
NRSV

Civil1z@tion

Having read this I'm beginning to wonder what other alternative interpretations Christian apologetics have made? For instance, I was in a debate with an Evangelical Christian once who said that the bible was completely consistent with itself. He had some pretty ingenoius answers for the (many) biblical contradictions I came up with. One explanation in particular just threw me for a loop. I pointed out two passages one which said Joseph's, "father" of Jesus, dad was named Jacob (Matt 1:16) and another which states Joseph's father was named Heil (Luke 3:23). His first response was to check the passages in his Bible to make sure I hadn't made the contradiction up. Since they where there (and he hadn't heard of this one before) he said he needed to talk to his preacher to check up on this one. In my ignorance for the ability of "true believers" to justify their beliefs, I thought I had him beat. But noooooo. Next day he comes back and says that in those times people could have two names (not as in first name surname, which they didn't have, but two first names). In retrospect I should have questioned why Joseph's dad is the only one in the bible to have this but the sheer insanity of that proposition rendered me speechless. I wonder just how much of this apologetics, magical-contradiction-solving stuff is at least semi-legimate and how much is total bs.

Joan of Bark

Hey Civil, one thing you'll learn when debating Bible apologists is that they can make any contradiction go away with enough convoluted logic. The only way to counter this is to claim that the same can be said of any book ever written, or any statements ever made. Hell, I have an argument that shows that Hitler loved the Jews!

I would suggest that you counter your antagonist by finding an example of a contradiction in the real world (like my Hitler one), and point out how it can be reconciled. You won't convince him that the Bible is BS, but you might put some doubt into his mind as to the force of his justifications. Many arguments are possible, but not probable or convincing.

Solitary Man

His response is quite blatantly BS considering that not only are two different names given, but two different irreconcilable genealogies!