TheDiddleyMan

Hello. I am 18 and I'm new here. I was wondering what you people would think about this article. I suppose I will post the link. Ken Gentry tries to justify the idea that the prophecies of the second coming were not including in the "this generation" prophecies, even though the rest were. I am curious to see what you guys would think, or if there were any responses.

<a href="http://forerunner.com/beast/X0003_Gentry_on_Matthew_24.html" target="_blank">http://forerunner.com/beast/X0003_Gentry_on_Matthew_24.html</a>

Thanks!
The Diddley Man

Asha'man

Hi DiddleyMan, welcome to II. Feel free to stop by the Welcome forum and introduce yourself.

My first response: extremely complicated analysis should not be necessary. If the text had a perfect supernatural entity as its source, then the correct meaning would be blindingly obvious to any human that read it. However, since the plain reading of this verse clearly contradicts reality, believers have to go to extreme measures to find an alternate reading that could still be true.

Gentry’s attempt to separate the two sections of text isn’t convincing to me, but I am not much of a scholar of that type of stuff. His analysis seems constrained by the fact that his conclusion has already been reached, and he is just searching for support.

CX

I think Asha hit it pretty well on the head. This passage poses problems for inerrantists and literalists (and really anyone who views the text of GMt as inspired).

It is clear from this text that AMt is redacting AMk's "mini-apocalypse" in GMk 13. The redactional gloss in GMk 13:14 "let the reader understand" is taken up by AMt in GMt 24:15 showing the literary relationship.

AMt is expanding on a theme initially concieved by AMk. Consequently Gentry's entire argument about "transitional verses" in GMt is specious since it is clear from the text of GMk that early Xians thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetimes and so AMk (or possibly the author of an earlier tradition AMk is using) places that prediction in Jesus' mouth.

Plus if we look at the early writings of Paul we see the same theology, namely that Jesus was going to return in the lifetime of those 1st century Xians. That he didn't creates a dramatic need for apologists to explain the failed prediction in the mini-apocalypse.

The usual argument is that the Greek word GENEA can be translated as race which is absurd. It clearly denotes people of the same familial degree or men living in the same time period or sometimes an "age" (30-33 years the average life expectancy of a 1st century palestinian). Gentry's argument is even more strained in my opinion when the actual meaning of the text is plain unless one is theologically opposed to the plain meaning.

If I were you I wouldn't waste much time on such tortured apologetics.

Kosh

Just out of curiosity, why did you feel it
necessary to add that bit about your age?

TheDiddleyMan

Kosh, I am not sure why I posted my age. Is that bad? I dunno...I just thought I'd let you guys know a bit about me... Actually, (more about me...) I was a Christian for five years and in the past two weeks gave it all up. I found that after five years of reading theology and some apologetics, I was as unsure of my beliefs as I was when I started, or at least not as sure as I felt I should have been. You'd think, considering eternity supposedly rests on these beliefs, that they'd be more obvious.

Anyhow, I've found some great (and not so great) material in the Secular Web's library. All of Robert Price's work (especially Beyond Born Again)are fabulous. I identify with a lot of what he talks about. I look forward to being an active participator in these discussion groups and I thank you all for the warm reception!!

The Diddley Man

Kosh

Here's a good summary of that:

"Would a loving God force you to choose your
fate for eternity based on circumstantial
evidence?"

CX

I didn't figure it was that weird you mentioning your age, just sort of your way of saying hi. I notice the younger someone is the more apt they are to talk about their age. I'm roughly 137,987 days old not counting leap years. Anyway you may catch some flack from people for the next little while about losing faith. Don't fret eventually they'll all just feel sorry for you for being an irredeemable heathen and not mention it anymore. I'd recommend reading:

Bertrand Russell "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671203231/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Why I Am Not A Christian</a>."
Thomas Paine "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806505494/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The Age of Reason</a>"
Carl Sagan "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark</a>"
Burton Mack "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Who Wrote The New Testament?</a>"
John Dominic Crossan "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060616628/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.</a>"
Richard Dawkins "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618056734/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Unweaving The Rainbow.</a>"

Those are just to start. There's a zillion other fascinating and important titles for the studious unbeliever.

{Edited to add links to books - Pantera}

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Muad'Dib

Wow... 137,987 / 365 makes you just over 378 years old! You're almost as old as my granddad!

CX

I said "roughly". I was only off by just better than 1 order of magnitude. I mean come on 378 years, 378 months, what's the difference?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Kosh

Duh, he was counting in OT Genesis days!

Cowboy, isn't about time to begat someone?