Haven wrote:
[color=olive]LilytheTheologian[/color] wrote:
[
Replying to post 163 by Danmark]
It’s not embarrassing in the slightest. And thank you for asking an intelligent question in a thoughtful and calm manner. It is a question that has confused several who have not studied ancient languages.
Once again, it would be helpful in exegesis if you knew Koine Greek. Apparently, John Loftus does not know how to read and interpret it, either. “Genea� or “generation� was often used as a synonym for “genos,� which means “race,� “stock,� “nation,� or “people.�
The words of Jesus are more properly translated, and ARE translated in some newer translations of the Bible, as “This RACE shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled.� HAS the human race passed away? No.
I'm no Koine Greek expert (I read a little, but I'm nowhere on your level admittedly), but I think the context makes clear that he's referring to a generation.
Your statement about "genea" is true (it's etymologically related to our English words "kind" and "kin"), but in the context in which it appears in that verse, it clearly refers to a generation of people living at the time.
Why would Jesus refer to the entire human race in this passage? Wouldn't a return of Jesus after humanity had gone extinct be absurd? Wouldn't it be plainly obvious that he would return before human extinction? So why would he say such a thing? It would not be obvious, however, for Jesus to return within the generation of people alive during his ministry. A statement like this, therefore, would help clarify the time frame of Jesus' return (to a generation, not a day or hour, so there is no contradiction).
What's more, that isn't the only place where Jesus predicted his own return in the lifetime of first-century individuals. We also have Matthew 16:27-28, which explicitly has Jesus claiming that some standing there won't taste death until the Son of Man (which Christians presume to be Jesus, although this is debatable) returns in power and glory. It's hard to take that any other way than a first-century
parousia.
Edit: I listed the wrong Greek verse (for some ridiculous reason!).
Here is Matt 16:28 in Greek (I knew something wasn't right!)
28ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες ο� μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ�ώπου ��χόμενον �ν τῇ βασιλείᾳ α�τοῦ.
[color=brown]Lily[/color] wrote:Many of the misunderstandings in exegesis come about from the tendency to substitute modern English without even a basic understanding of the nuances of the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Almost every so-called Bible “discrepancy� can be cleared up by studying the original language. This is one of them.
I respectfully disagree, but that's a topic for another thread (I'd actually love to discuss this with someone who has some knowledge of the original Biblical languages).
You might read Koine Greek as well as I. I don’t know your reading level, and Greek was never my favorite subject, nor were the ancient Greek philosophers. I thought they would be, but no. I actually preferred Aramaic to Greek.
I have to admit, to someone who is not a biblical scholar, even to someone who is a devout reader of the Bible, that is a confusing passage. Many of the things Jesus said are confusing to today’s readers, although not quite as confusing to ancient readers/listeners.
There is parallel in Chapter 9 of Mark (it's found in Luke as well) that you are probably familiar with. Admittedly, Matthew wrote a much smoother Greek than did Mark, which was really very rough, but Mark’s Greek comes to the point better than Matthew’s, so I prefer Mark’s. Both are describing the same event. In Mark 9 Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God present with power.� The key word is "present."
Clearly, in translation, that seems like Jesus is talking about the Second Coming. However, if you reference the Greek (Koine Greek, for those who do not know, was everyday Greek.), it means there are some standing there (“here�) who will see a presentation of the Kingdom of God. And what did Christ do? He took Peter, James, and John up on a mountain and they experienced the transfiguration. Appearing with Jesus was the prophet Elijah and Moses, who were seen speaking with Jesus.
During the transfiguration, Jesus was glorified, just as he will be glorified during his Second Coming and as the resurrected faithful will be glorified at the Second Coming. Moses was there to represent all of those who had died and would be resurrected from Sheol, or “Abraham’s bosom,� as it was commonly known. Elijah, who was taken up to heaven without suffering the death of the body, was representative of those who will still be alive when the actual Second Coming does occur, those who will not have to suffer the death of the body. The fact that Moses is there indicates to some that he had become subservient to the New Covenant.
What happens next? God the Father comes on a cloud and says, “This is my Beloved Son,� and an exhortation to pay attention to what he says. What Peter, James, and John (who were chief among the apostles) had experienced was the Second Coming in microcosm. The transfiguration was a glimpse of what was to come. When? No one knew. Why did Jesus do this? I can’t say with certainty, but it appears that he wanted his chief apostles to get a better idea of just exactly who he was and to learn that the Old Covenant had passed away and had been replaced by the New Covenant. Theologians in different parts of the world, at different times, have not agreed entirely on what everything in the transfiguration represents.
Regarding my previous post, I don’t believe myself that Jesus was referring to the entire human race, and I didn’t mean anyone to take what I wrote as implying the entire human race, only that some people would still be living when Christ established his kingdom. (There are religious sects that believe the Second Coming will not occur until the human race dies out, and Christ will then resurrect all. I’m not one of those persons.) People are divided on exactly what he meant. Perhaps he was referring to the Israelites or to those who would come to follow him and form his Church, which seems more likely to me. It’s an ambiguous saying, I grant you that. Much of what Christ said, on first, or even fifth reading, was ambiguous. Biblical scholars spend a lifetime studying the Bible, and there is still more to learn.
