I've heard several times where generation is used to describe more than just 30-40 years.  Cultural traits can be separated by generations.  Christianity is a culture and can be put into a generation.



I'll go with answer 3) God's a genius(Read verses 42-44).  Christ, in his coming to earth, did submit himself to the father who has His own mind seperate from Christs(and own thoughts), and who, as the Father, has taken the role of the final authority in regards to certain issues of extreme importance, like the coming of Christ in judgement on Israel.  The importance is shown in that God the Father knows while no other part of the trinity knows -- it, like all of scripture is accomidated to us. Christ in effect says, this is such a huge thing that will happen, that WE (the trinity) have decided that only the father will determine the date.

The Greek word that was translated "generation" is also translated "age."

Also, I forgot to point out that Jesus does say someone would see the Son of Man return to his Kingdom, which happened.  How do you think we got Revelations?

Even if we went with age tehre have been multiple ages since tehn by anyones reconing- it was the iron age, we moved to the medieval age to teh rennasaince age to teh age of exploration and the age of discovery or scientific age and into teh age of industry and the space age.
... admittedly teh most recent ages have been shorter that is typical but certainly more than one age has past.

Also seperated minds limiting knowledge is teh best you can coe up with? After all all knowing can encompas definitions in which everything *knowable* is known, but things which are unknowable remain unknown (liek quantum location-speed in heizenburg's uncertainty theorum)

Yeah, like I said, it's a paradigm thing.  For you it's an issue of it can mean "age," because if it can then it's clearly better than the impossible option of Jesus being wrong, so must be the right one.  For me, either option is possible, and it's just a question of which is the more natural reading.


As you like.  Not inconsistent with either of the other two options (and also doesn't address the dilemma).


So is it a mistranslation in the english, then?  Should it say "age" rather than generation?  Why did the translators choose "generation" if "age" was the more accurate translation?


Heh!  Seems like a bit of a loop hole to me, but to each their own.

Silveroak, the "is that the best you can come up with" line wasn't really necessary in your last post.  I don't think it needs to be removed, but just wanted to put in a little "keep it friendly guys" note in here so things don't escalate.

When I read it the first thing that comes to my mind is the same generation you think of, but I won't stop there.  I'm forced to find a better understanding.  It seems you are reading it hoping for evidence of Jesus being wrong.  It makes perfect sense for Jesus to mean the Christian Generation/Church Age which the world is still in.



You'll have to take that up with a Biblical Scholar.




How so?  (Rev. 22:8) John did see the return of Jesus to his Kingdom.  It's what the whole book is about.

At this point, being in a debate supporting the position that that is what it means obviously that is to a degree the case. However I can also remember when I first read that line, when I was about 12 thinking "Wait a xecond, that obviously didn't happen".
I also find it interesting how many people who will insist that the days in genesis have to be litteral because that is what the words say find convoluted reasons this verse means something other than what it says.
It also seems to me that if there was a better translation that people trying to sell copies many generations after the words were uttered would have found them.

If the books are corrupt like your GNB than they remain to allow Satan's agents to say "See, Jesus is wrong.  If he was wrong than he couldn't possibly be a savior."

And I think that if there is a Satan with actual human agents on Earth they would have far better uses for their time than publishing a reprint of the bible that is at best moderately successfull in hopes that it will snare a few more people into doubting the bok they are translating. They could, for example, have been inspiring a new branch of radical protestantism whose vhemance and rhetoric would be offensive to most people, thereby driving more people away from the message they espouse, at the same time teaching them that they are unquestionably right and need not repent any actions or words taken on behalf of this faith, so that 'we don't need to ask forgiveness killing witches, God wants us to kill them" leaves them with major unrepentant sins come judgement day.
Fred Phelps would be a role model of disruptive infiltration tactics if I were an agent of satan.

In reply to silveroak (msg #40):

Radical protestants?.. like the Mormon Church?

I wouldn't limit myself to such dillineations. The people I created would be radicalized versions of every denomination, caught up in their hatred of every other denomination to make sure that as many people as possible became disgusted with the whole thing. If I were an agent of Satan I would be supporting Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, anyone who wanted to publish a book picking on some other group and decrying them as evil and anti-christian. I would be suggesting to them new groups that could be fronts for evil for them to crusade against, and creating as much friction and divsion amongst people assosciated with the Faith as possible. Lead them to speak poison and hurt each other in the name of God so that reasonable people will want nothing to do with it.
Hmmm... sounds like an interesting possibility for a game...

Exactly, this is just what I was saying (and by the by, thanks for your candor; I'm not sure many others even realize they're doing this).  Your prior beliefs (ie, your paradigm) 'force' you to find a better interpretation of the words, because the most obvious one doesn't match with what you believe.  That's the paradigm issue I was talking about.  And I'll wager that Heath is "forced to find a better understanding" of the Joseph Smith prophecies that you linked to earlier.


Not really in this case, no.  Either interpretation fits fine with my beliefs.  Your interpretation just leaves an open-ended as-yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecy.  No trouble with that fitting into my beliefs.  I'm in the situation where either answer fits with my beliefs just fine, so I'm not "forced" to pick anything other than one that looks the most obvious in this case.

However, since you've brought it up, why would it be wrong for me to do so?  Would it be any different than you reading it hoping for the opposite?  Why is it okay to be "forced" to have a different understanding in your case, but not for someone who reaches a different conclusion?  I don't mean these as rhetorical questions, but rather would ask you to give them some real thought.  I agree that intentionally seeking out an interpretation that makes Jesus wrong would be a bad way to go about reading the bible.  But I'd also say that intentionally seeking out an interpretation that makes Jesus right would be a bad way too.  You seem to feel differently, but why?


To you it does, because the other options is ruled out by your prior beliefs.  To someone who doesn't start with those beliefs, it makes more sense to just take the meaning it looks like it has when you first read it.  Not much way around it, really, but it's worth realizing that different prior beliefs will lead to different ideas on what makes "perfect sense."



Hmm, this seems an odd answer to me.  You feel you have a "better understanding" of what was said then the biblical scholars, apparently without knowing why the scholars have the position they do.




Because if someone says "you'll see this" I tend not to take it to mean "one of you will have a dream about this."  Seems like a "read the fine print!" kind of prophecy to me.  But like I've said, different paradigms will lead to different views on that.

Makes for an easy prophecy threshold "And you will see the heavens open and the voice of destiny will proclaim to you the rightness of my message. Now everybody take your LSD and go sleep on the roof."

Curious, there is some statements against American about the style of posting he is using isn't the best method.

Which made me think about what you think would be a better approach.

What approach do you think would change your viewpoint about Jesus being the savior of the world?

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg #45):

Approach? I suppose that I, personally, respond poorly to folk taking an authoritative approach and best to those that take an almost familial voice (although not my family! Funny how that works). I can't say that voice alone does it, but it certainly helps.

To be clear, I'm asking for what would help.

I think people do like to have control, and when someone comes in and asserts it, it could rankle people who desire that control.

To begin with I'd need to be convinced that the world needs saving...

That should be easy. What is salvation? Simply put, it's having Jesus taking your punishment so that you do not have to pay the price that is due.

1 Peter 2:24
24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

Now, even if you do or do not believe, if that is true, your belief doesn't actually make it true or not true.

So now since I think it reasonable to agree that belief or proof does not make something true or not true, then the basis of salvation in this case is a reference to Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus did live, and He did give Himself up in payment for our sins, then salvation is possible if you so choose.

I can't make any sense of that statement. Is there another way that you could put that that is an argument for the world needing saving?

Also, I'm not convinced that something like salvation is limited to Jesus Christ.

I don't follow. The context is salvation through Jesus Christ. The original question is "What approach do you think would change your viewpoint about Jesus being the savior of the world?"

In the context that salvation is due to Jesus accepting the payment for what actions a person has done.

What other actions would you feel are payment in full?

That's just it: The sins of the world are, from my perspective, balanced by the good done on a daily basis. You might talk about scope and scale (the killing of a village not being equal to giving someone a hand out to the car with a heavy package), but I don't think the two are really that far apart on the scales, and I certainly don't believe God would find them very different either.

Therefore the world lacks the need for a savior and God, being infinite and all-knowing, wouldn't send one.

Ok. Let's say you know more than an all knowing and all powerful God. Though I have to admit, why would you know more than an all knowing God? I'm not sure what basis you use to say killing a village of people is near equal to helping a person out of their car?

Is there any particular reason we should accept a basis that premise other than you believe it? Would that mean if actual evidence other than your belief might be more credible if you have little support other than belief?

Keep in mind, I'm still looking for an approach on what would help change your view on this matter.

I'm not saying that I know more than God. I'm saying that God, knowing more than us pitiful humans, would see the clear lack of need for a savior. If I can see it, and I'm an idiot comparatively, than he would.

It does not necessarily follow that all acts of good are equal if all acts of evil are equal, I suppose. I don't see why that shouldn't be the case though. The cumulative good done in the world, I believe, outweighs the cumulative evil. Thus, no need for Jesus, no savior, no salvation.

I get you're saying you could think it up. However, thinking it up doesn't mean that's true. Certainly you;d have to agree that there are plenty of others who are thinking differing and counter ideas. How can everyone thinking them up make it true?

Again, from the context that Jesus Christ is our savior, could an all knowing God not choose to have a need for a savior?

Aren't you assuming that there are equal amounts though? But how do you determine more good acts than evil acts?

Well, God moves in mysterious ways, so I suppose that it's possible that he knows something about the nature of mankind that requires us to have a savior without needing a savior. Some sociopsychological need perhaps?



Sure. Are you assuming that the balance swings the other way? My glass, despite the efforts others have made, remains half full. I believe that people are basically good.