IBelieveInHymn

The words Jesus used could have either meant generation or race. This is similiar to "hate" equals "love lesser than."

graymouser

You have objections that you simply have not dealt with to either of these attempted translations. Stop repeating the same thing over and over and over and address them.

IBelieveInHymn

I've already explained it. We know Jesus didn't speak greek. He spoke Aramaic. Bible experts have included the word Jesus would have used in that verse, and they come to the conclusion where he used the word "sharbeta" in aramaic meaning "race."

Greek copyists translated generation.

Jesus said No one knows of that hour or day.

He didn't say I will return in your lifetime.

Why would he say that, if he said No one knows?

graymouser

We don't know that Jesus said anything. What we have are copies of the Greek NT, which use γενεα. The Syriac copies of the NT that we do have don't support your ad hoc thesis, because $RBT) is also used for "generation" in Matt. 1:17, which is the same problem that you have with γενεα in the Greek. In either case, Christian apologists have made this incredibly weak case - not "Bible experts." No credible biblical scholars stand by a "race" gloss in Matt. 24:34. (And this is a field where the majority are Christian believers.) You have not dealt with any of these issues.

This is an assertion of Aramaic primacy, which is an unfounded and unsupported hypothesis. In any case it doesn't help your unfounded gloss of "race."

This is a lie. Matt. 16:28 clearly says that some of his listeners "will not taste death" before the coming of the Son of Man in glory.

I already explained this to you: he gave a time frame ("this generation," before some of his listeners would die) and said that no one knows the day or hour. That doesn't mean know one knows the century, as he has already provided that.

IBelieveInHymn

Did Jesus speak in Greek or not?


What death? Earthly death? Life after death? The Ressurection? Jesus could have meant anything in that verse. You are pointing fingers without a clue.


This generation could easily mean 'this race.' And according to the words Jesus would have used, it would have been "sharbeta." Like I've saud, it would either translate to Generation or Race. I'm not disputing that. The Greek copyists translated "Generation."

Jesus used words with various meanings. This is why many modern atheists are baffled. Jesus spoke in a language that is no longer in existence, so it's easy for modern atheists to mistranslate his words to fit their argument.

spin

You may assume that the words were originally delivered in Aramaic, but that is only unsupported claptrap. One starts with a tenet that has no justification, ie the earnest belief that the event happened, but it is another assumption. The text written in Greek yields no substratum of a Semitic language.

Very interesting, but there is no factual basis to inject the Aramaic into a text written in Greek, despite your desire to do so.

It is interesting that this argument has to turn its back on biblical usage and look at classical writers. That in itself should discourage you from such wayward efforts.

We have clear precedents in the gospels for the meaning of h genea auth. The Matthean version was adapted from Mark 13:30. That gospel has the same phrase at 8:12, "Why does this generation seek a sign?" Do you seriously want to suggest that should be "Why does this race seek a sign?" You wouldn't. Your position is merely an attempt to fiddle the text, because you don't like what it clearly says. So the following has no philological basis:

Can you find one example where genea in the new testament has to mean "tribe/people/race"? Have you found one commercial translation since the KJV that translates it that way? Doesn't that make you reconsider? Of course not. But see below...

We frequently see literalist christians who talk themselves into believing that their rationalizations are true. Psychologically, it's understandable. You don't want to believe that there are problems with the infallible book, so you will protect it.

Jer 31:36
If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

That's pretty despiccable usage, IBelieveInHymn.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The cuckoo in the nest, trying to steal what is rightfully someone else's.

You have shown that you don't understand the original language, so to talk about the "uneducated eye" is attempting to point out the speck in someone else's eye when you have a log in your own.


spin

Sai

"Modern atheists" are not baffled. We are not the ones with 38,000 different subsections to a cult that is based on an imaginary person's words.


What is funny about your extreme flexibllity of translation and meaning is that these words.... which presumably were important... are impossible for anyone to understand. "word with various meanings". Who did you say was doing the mistranslating to suit their purposes? Surely not ALL 38,000 subcults.

Athiests dont even have a "purpose'. We can look at the words...like the description of noahs ark... and its no problem to see that its a fairy tale that could not possibly be true. That aint true, (talk about an error!) so why trust any of it?

All the xtians seem to think they have their special urim or thummim to give them the true meaning, unlike them other xtians who have false urmis and get it all worng.

spin

It may be true that Jesus didn't speak Greek, but you just don't know.

It may be true that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but you just don't know.

The Greek "translator" didn't have any trouble with $RBT) in Mt 24:30. Perhaps it wasn't the same translator who made the error you claim four verses later in 23:34.

Copyists don't translate.

Why did the writers of Daniel say "three and a half years", then "two thousand 300 evenings and mornings" (ie 1150 days), then "1290 days", then 1335 days"? Easy: they were written at different times. Same answer to your question.


spin

graymouser

I don't know. You don't know. All anyone knows is that what we have are Gospels which were originally in Greek. You can't do translation by making up an imaginary original - you have to work with the documents that really exist.

But it doesn't matter. You have the same problems with $RBT) as you do with γενεα in Matt 1:17 and 11:16, which you have yet to address. Both are used at many other places in the gospel to mean "generation." You are doing eisegesis, trying to read a poor gloss into Matt. 24:34 for purely theological motives.

Jesus was making a prophecy to the people around him. He was quite clear about them "not tasting death" before the coming of the Son of Man in glory. Even if you don't think that the earthly death is the final one, it takes a mind wrapped up in apocalyptic fantasy to read anything but the plain meaning here. Again, you're doing eisegesis and reading your own theology into the text rather than reading what the text says.

I didn't mistranslate anything. Every Christian Biblical scholar (apologists and preachers don't count), from the most theologically liberal to the most theologically conservative, consistently translates Matt. 24:34 with the plain and usual meaning of "generation." It would be very convenient for any conservative Christian translator to use "race" in this context, for exactly the argument you lay out here, but they don't, because it's such an obvious ad hoc choice to fit a particular theology that it would do harm to their reputation to even think about it. Check any conservative translation. They don't agree with you.

Also, you still fail to understand why the two prophecies (a general time frame but a rejection of a specific time) don't contradict one another at all. That's just ridiculous - the day and hour can be unknown but that doesn't mean the decade, century and millennium are unknown. Specifics no, general yes.

Joan of Bark

Yet all the modern translators use 'generation' and 'hate' in every Bible. Again I ask, why would they use these translations if other words make more sense?