There is a gap between that of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27.

Spiritual Jew · Jan 6, 2022

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
.
LOL. He was also saying that is not true, if you read the rest of what he said about it. He was saying we cannot take it up literally as "two halves of the Spirit".
No worries. Not serious.

But, he was using the fact that there aren't two halves of the Spirit as a reason why Zechariah 14:8 can't be figurative. In other words, he was using that to back up his contention that the verse can't be figurative and has to be literal, which I don't see as being a valid argument. So, I think you're still missing the point. But, whatever. We can move on.

Zao is life · Jan 6, 2022

Spiritual Jew said:
But, he was using the fact that there aren't two halves of the Spirit as a reason why Zechariah 14:8 can't be figurative. In other words, he was using that to back up his contention that the verse can't be figurative and has to be literal, which I don't see as being a valid argument. So, I think you're still missing the point. But, whatever. We can move on.

Yes we'd better move on. LOL. Before people get worried.

DavidPT · Jan 6, 2022

Spiritual Jew said:
But, he was using the fact that there aren't two halves of the Spirit as a reason why Zechariah 14:8 can't be figurative. In other words, he was using that to back up his contention that the verse can't be figurative and has to be literal, which I don't see as being a valid argument. So, I think you're still missing the point. But, whatever. We can move on.

You understood my argument correctly, but even if it was meaning figurative, the text still has to make logical sense over all. "Half of them" recorded in the text still has to be meaning the living waters. That means whatever one takes the living waters to represent, half of the living waters shall go out from Jerusalem toward the former sea, and half of the living waters shall go out from Jerusalem toward the hinder sea.

If Living waters is meaning the Spirit, that same text above would be saying this---half of the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem toward the former sea, and half of the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem toward the hinder sea.

No one could think the Spirit has two halves since the Spirit is omnipresent. I'm not saying anyone actually thinks the Spirit has two halves, it is what their interpretation of this verse is causing the text to say, something nonsensical rather than something making sense of the text. Even if the text is to be understood in a figurative sense, the Spirit simply can't fit the text since it makes nonsense of the text over all.

And it shall be in that day, that the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem----thus far it's not making nonsense of the text yet---half of the Spirit toward the former sea, and half of the Spirit toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be---now it's making nonsense of the text.

Spiritual Jew · Jan 6, 2022

DavidPT said:
You understood my argument correctly, but even if it was meaning figurative, the text still has to make logical sense over all. "Half of them" recorded in the text still has to be meaning the living waters. That means whatever one takes the living waters to represent, half of the living waters shall go out from Jerusalem toward the former sea, and half of the living waters shall go out from Jerusalem toward the hinder sea.

You're requiring something symbolic to be understood in a literal way. That makes no sense.

If Living waters is meaning the Spirit, that same text above would be saying this---half of the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem toward the former sea, and half of the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem toward the hinder sea.

We're talking about the Holy Spirit here. You're acting as if the Holy Spirit can only be in one place at a time and would have to be divided in half to go to more than one place at a time, which is ludicrous. The Holy Spirit can be in an unlimited number of places at the same time. Interpreting it figuratively does not mean that half of the Spirit would go towards the former sea and half of the Spirit would go toward the hinder sea. So, there is no issue with interpreting it as the preaching of the gospel going out to the Jews through the power of the Holy Spirit and going out to the Gentiles in the power of the Holy Spirit at the same time since the Holy Spirit can obviously be in more than one place at a time.

No one could think the Spirit has two halves since the Spirit is omnipresent. I'm not saying anyone actually thinks the Spirit has two halves, it is what their interpretation of this verse is causing the text to say, something nonsensical rather than something making sense of the text. Even if the text is to be understood in a figurative sense, the Spirit simply can't fit the text since it makes nonsense of the text over all.

You think it doesn't make sense that the Holy Spirit could be in more than one place at a time? Why? You said yourself that the Spirit is omnipresent, so you're contradicting yourself here.

And it shall be in that day, that the Spirit shall go out from Jerusalem----thus far it's not making nonsense of the text yet---half of the Spirit toward the former sea, and half of the Spirit toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be---now it's making nonsense of the text.

To me, you're making nonsense of how the Holy Spirit works and of how figurative or symbolic text works.

claninja · Jan 6, 2022

DavidPT said:
I'm not meaning a small gap. I'm meaning one that consists of 2000 years or so, this assuming the coming recorded in verse 27 happens within our lifetimes.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Most ppl propose that the parallel of Luke 21:20 is Matthew 24:15-26. So let's examine that and see if that is indeed the case.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Let's skip ahead to verse 29.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Obviously, the tribulation of those days meant are meaning what is recorded in verse 15-26 above. It even clearly calls it tribulation in verse 21. It couldn't be any clearer then, that this great tribulation in verse 21 is what is meant by the tribulation of those days in verse 29. Yet, some will dispute even this. But why? What other tribulation days could it possibly be talking about if that is what this chapter was just talking about prior to verse 29?

If we make Matthew 24:21 parallel to Luke 21:20, this presents a cpl of problems, such as the following. Matthew 24:29 records---immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.

When did any of that ever happen immediately after the fulfillment of Luke 21:20 in the first century? That's one problem this interpretation presents. Some ppl are Preterists though, so maybe to them there are none of these problems I'm insisting that there is. But not everyone are Preterists, though. A lot of us believe, thus agree, that the coming recorded in Luke 21:27, and the coming recorded in Matthew 24:30, these involve the 2nd coming in the end of this age, not a coming in another sense involving Jerusalem in 70 AD instead.

The other problem this interpretation presents is this, keeping in mind what I have been arguing up to this point involving Matthew 24:29 and Matthew 24:21.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I have been arguing that the trib of those days meant in verse 29 is meaning the great trib recorded in verse 21. I have been arguing that nothing recorded in Matthew 24:15-26 involves Jerusalem in the first century since what is recorded in verse 29 never immediately followed any events in the first century.

I have also been arguing that there is a gap of at least 2000 years after the fulfilling of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27 in that same chapter. If Matthew 24:15-26 is parallel to Luke 21:20, where then is this same 2000 year gap between what is recorded in Matthew 24:29 and the coming recorded in verse 30? There is no 2000 year gap between those verses. Obviously, there is a gap of some kind, but it couldn't possibly be a gap involving thousands of years.

In Luke 21:20 the 2nd coming is still several thousand years away. In Matthew 24:29, which is immediately after the trib of those days recorded in verses 15-26 in this same chapter, the 2nd coming is not still 2000 years or so away. It's at the door instead. Thus the other problem this interpretation presents if Matthew 24:15-26 is assumed the parallel of Luke 21:20.

The apostles often quoted from the LXX, so i think it’s an import version of the OT to use when studying. I find this translation interesting because it actually mentions the temple complex (Hieron):

Daniel 9:26-27 (LXX) And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations. 27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple (Hieron) [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

it seems luke is drawing from vs 26, while Matthew is drawing from vs 27:

luke 21:20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near.

matthew 24:15 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’adescribed by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand),

So, are these about completely different events, separated by 2,000 plus years? I find it unlikely, as:

luke makes no mention of an AOD on a future temple, following the desolation of the city and sanctuary. In other words, luke mentions vs 26 of Daniel, but then should mention vs 27 following it some time after the time of the gentiles, if it is a 2nd event, but he doesn’t. This leads me to believe that Daniel 9:26-27 is employing Hebrew parallelism, and thus both vs 26 and 27 are about the same event. Thus matthew, a Jew, employs vs 27, but Luke, a gentile, employs vs 26. Both being about the same event.

DavidPT · Jan 6, 2022

claninja said:
So, are these about completely different events, separated by 2,000 plus years? I find it unlikely, as:

luke makes no mention of an AOD on a future temple, following the desolation of the city and sanctuary. In other words, luke mentions vs 26 of Daniel, but then should mention vs 27 following it some time after the time of the gentiles, if it is a 2nd event, but he doesn’t. This leads me to believe that Daniel 9:26-27 is employing Hebrew parallelism, and thus both vs 26 and 27 are about the same event. Thus matthew, a Jew, employs vs 27, but Luke, a gentile, employs vs 26. Both being about the same event.

This still presents a problem if the coming in both accounts, verse 27 in Luke 21, and verse 30 in Matthew 24, is meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. That would mean a gap of at least 2000 years once Luke 21:20 is fulfilled until that of the coming recorded in verse 27. In Luke 21 it still involves the times of the Gentiles and the captivity into all nations after verse 20 is fulfilled until that of the coming recorded in verse 27.

If we compare this to Matthew 24, assuming verses 15-26 parallel Luke 21:20, this would indicate that verse 29 in Matthew 24 is meaning right after Luke 21:20 is fulfilled, thus leading into their captivity into the nations.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

As can be seen here, what follows the trib of those days is not their captivity into all nations but is when the sun shall be darkened, etc. IOW, we're in the time of the 6th seal(Revelation 6:9-17) at this point. Then after this period of time we then see what is recorded in verse 30, the same coming recorded in verse 27 in Luke 21. Like I have already pointed out, the gap between Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in Luke 21:27 is far greater in length than the gap between what Matthew 24:29 records until that of the coming in verse 30.

Even if we assumed the coming in both chapters fits Preterism rather than futurism, where then is their captivity into all nations recorded in Matthew 24 after verse 29 and before that of the coming in verse 30? In Luke 21 it records they go into captivity into all nations before the coming in verse 27 occurs.

Timtofly · Jan 6, 2022

Hammster said:
I asked what did you think it proves?

The current 3 generations were judged, regardless of 70AD.

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

Hammster · Jan 6, 2022

Timtofly said:
The current 3 generations were judged, regardless of 70AD.

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

You can’t have a “current 3 generations”.

claninja · Jan 7, 2022

DavidPT said:
This still presents a problem if the coming in both accounts, verse 27 in Luke 21, and verse 30 in Matthew 24, is meaning the 2nd coming in the end of this age. That would mean a gap of at least 2000 years once Luke 21:20 is fulfilled until that of the coming recorded in verse 27. In Luke 21 it still involves the times of the Gentiles and the captivity into all nations after verse 20 is fulfilled until that of the coming recorded in verse 27.

If we compare this to Matthew 24, assuming verses 15-26 parallel Luke 21:20, this would indicate that verse 29 in Matthew 24 is meaning right after Luke 21:20 is fulfilled, thus leading into their captivity into the nations.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

As can be seen here, what follows the trib of those days is not their captivity into all nations but is when the sun shall be darkened, etc. IOW, we're in the time of the 6th seal(Revelation 6:9-17) at this point. Then after this period of time we then see what is recorded in verse 30, the same coming recorded in verse 27 in Luke 21. Like I have already pointed out, the gap between Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in Luke 21:27 is far greater in length than the gap between what Matthew 24:29 records until that of the coming in verse 30.

Even if we assumed the coming in both chapters fits Preterism rather than futurism, where then is their captivity into all nations recorded in Matthew 24 after verse 29 and before that of the coming in verse 30? In Luke 21 it records they go into captivity into all nations before the coming in verse 27 occurs.

Matthew 24:29 states the signs in the heavens and the coming of the son of man on the clouds occurs “immediately” after the TRIBULATION of THOSE DAYS. In other words vs 29 occurs immediately after the great tribulation.

Luke has the signs in heaven and the coming of the son of man on the clouds of heaven as occurring after the days of vengeance, and the great distress on the earth and wrath against Israel ( trampling of Jerusalem, Jews being slain by the sword and lead into captivity).

therefore, I would argue the days of vengeance/great distress upon earth and wrath against Israel (trampling of Jerusalem, slaying and leading of Jews into captivity) = the great tribulation.

Now, going back to Luke. Luke does not mention the city and sanctuary being destroyed (Daniel 9:26) followed by a long period of time and then the AOD occurring (Daniel 9:27). IF Daniel 26 was a different event than Daniel 27, you would think Luke would have mentioned a future AOD following the destruction of the city and sanctuary. However, Luke, paralleling Mathew and mark, calls the city and sanctuary being destroyed (daniel 9:26) “the days of vengeance” which fulfills ALL THAT IS WRITTEN, and with this very statement, cements that Daniel 9:26 is the same event as Daniel 9:27.

how can a future AOD fulfill Daniel 9:27, if the armies surrounding Jerusalem to desolate her (Daniel 9:26) are the days of vengeance to FULFILL ALL THAT IS WRITTEN?

Timtofly · Jan 7, 2022

Hammster said:
You can’t have a “current 3 generations”.

You don't have parents or children? You solely are the only generation, yourself. It must have been lonely just being you? You seem to think, only one generation can exist at any given time. That is not reality. You still have not even defined the generation you claim to know everything about. Only 40 to 60? Only 20 to 40? Only infants to 20? Which one is this unique generation that only existed at the Olivet discourse? There are always 3 generations running concurrently.

Timtofly · Jan 7, 2022

claninja said:
Matthew 24:29 states the signs in the heavens and the coming of the son of man on the clouds occurs “immediately” after the TRIBULATION of THOSE DAYS. In other words vs 29 occurs immediately after the great tribulation.

Luke has the signs in heaven and the coming of the son of man on the clouds of heaven as occurring after the days of vengeance, and the great distress on the earth and wrath against Israel ( trampling of Jerusalem, Jews being slain by the sword and lead into captivity).

therefore, I would argue the days of vengeance/great distress upon earth and wrath against Israel (trampling of Jerusalem, slaying and leading of Jews into captivity) = the great tribulation.

Now, going back to Luke. Luke does not mention the city and sanctuary being destroyed (Daniel 9:26) followed by a long period of time and then the AOD occurring (Daniel 9:27). IF Daniel 26 was a different event than Daniel 27, you would think Luke would have mentioned a future AOD following the destruction of the city and sanctuary. However, Luke, paralleling Mathew and mark, calls the city and sanctuary being destroyed (daniel 9:26) “the days of vengeance” which fulfills ALL THAT IS WRITTEN, and with this very statement, cements that Daniel 9:26 is the same event as Daniel 9:27.

how can a future AOD fulfill Daniel 9:27, if the armies surrounding Jerusalem to desolate her (Daniel 9:26) are the days of vengeance to FULFILL ALL THAT IS WRITTEN?

Matthew put the order in reverse.

The order is the Second Coming, then the Great Tribulation, and then the AoD. Jesus got to the end:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

That was the end. Then right before the end:

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place."

Then before that:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

And before that can happen this happens:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

General everyday tribulation has happened for the last 1991 years. It is spelled out in these verses:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

The church has seen this over and over again over the last 1991 years. The first and only sign of the very end is the Second Coming.

Or at the least these verses, yet no one agrees what they even mean:

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Hammster · Jan 7, 2022

Timtofly said:
You don't have parents or children? You solely are the only generation, yourself. It must have been lonely just being you? You seem to think, only one generation can exist at any given time. That is not reality. You still have not even defined the generation you claim to know everything about. Only 40 to 60? Only 20 to 40? Only infants to 20? Which one is this unique generation that only existed at the Olivet discourse? There are always 3 generations running concurrently.

I have parents and children. So do some who are 10 years older and some who are 10 years younger. Which one of these do you want to use?

trophy33 · Jan 7, 2022

Timtofly said:
The first and only sign of the very end is the Second Coming.

This is not too biblical.

1. Not of "the very end", but of the end of their age.

2. There were some more signs:
"...what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Mt 24:3)

Jesus' answer:
a) many false messiahs
b) wars, famines, earthquakes
c) persecution of His apostles/disciples (by Jews, by Romans)
d) increased wickedness (Caligula, Florus, Nero)
e) gospel preached in the whole known world (from Spain to India)
f) abomination of desolation (the statues of Caligula in synagogues and then in the temple or possibly stealing the temple treasury by Florus).

DavidPT · Jan 7, 2022

Hammster said:
I have parents and children. So do some who are 10 years older and some who are 10 years younger. Which one of these do you want to use?

If someone in 2000 AD was speaking to a group of ppl, and that some were born in the 40s, some born in the 60s, and some born in the 80s, and then simply said this generation shall not pass until this and that happens 40 years from now, which generation would he be meaning?

The point I'm trying to make here, since we don't know the age of everyone living at the time, who some of you are applying this generation to, well 40 years from then, assuming 70 AD, one generation could have already passed away before then if some of them were well into their senior years already, 40 years prior to 70 AD, thus making Jesus a false prophet concerning the ones who were already well into their senior years at the time, since He said this generation shall not pass away before all is fulfilled first, yet their generation does pass away before all is fulfilled. Except He said this generation shall not pass away until after all is fulfilled first.

trophy33 · Jan 7, 2022

DavidPT said:
If someone in 2000 AD was speaking to a group of ppl, and that some were born in the 40s, some born in the 60s, and some born in the 80s, and then simply said this generation shall not pass until this and that happens 40 years from now, which generation would he be meaning?

I think you are taking it too mathematically. I think that "this generation" simply means (or is kind of synonymous to):
"There are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
Mt 16:27

Some of those standing there could be in their 15, in their 20's, in their 30's, in their 40's and even some in their 60's could make it. But certainly none of them could make it till today.

Hammster · Jan 7, 2022

DavidPT said:
If someone in 2000 AD was speaking to a group of ppl, and that some were born in the 40s, some born in the 60s, and some born in the 80s, and then simply said this generation shall not pass until this and that happens 40 years from now, which generation would he be meaning?

The point I'm trying to make here, since we don't know the age of everyone living at the time, who some of you are applying this generation to, well 40 years from then, assuming 70 AD, one generation could have already passed away before then if some of them were well into their senior years already, 40 years prior to 70 AD, thus making Jesus a false prophet concerning the ones who were already well into their senior years at the time, since He said this generation shall not pass away before all is fulfilled first, yet their generation does pass away before all is fulfilled. Except He said this generation shall not pass away until after all is fulfilled first.

“This generation” is 40 years. And all of those things happened with the 40 years. There’s really not much more to say.

parousia70 · Jan 7, 2022

DavidPT said:
If someone in 2000 AD was speaking to a group of ppl, and that some were born in the 40s, some born in the 60s, and some born in the 80s, and then simply said this generation shall not pass until this and that happens 40 years from now, which generation would he be meaning?

Were there Multiple generations present when God did this?:
Numbers 32:13
So the Lord’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

Or when He said this?:
Psalm 95:10
For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’

Which of the "multiple generations" that you assert were simultaneously alive at that time was God meaning?
Were there not people who were Born 20-30 years apart that God still included as among "that generation" that, by His own sure word, He relegated to 40 years?

Scripture Assigns a specific time span for multiple generations:
Matthew 1:7
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

How could the above math work in your view, if at any given moment, there are multiple generations?

How could there only be 14 generations between Babylon to Christ if we employ your view?
Answer: There' Can't.
However, if we employ God's own sure word about the 40 year length of a generation, then 14 generations works perfectly.

claninja · Jan 7, 2022

parousia70 said:
Were there Multiple generations present when God did this?:
Numbers 32:13
So the Lord’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

Or when He said this?:
Psalm 95:10
For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’

Were there not people who were Born 20-30 years apart that God still included as among "that generation" that, by His own sure word, He relegated to 40 years?

Scripture Assigns a specific time span for multiple generations:
Matthew 1:7
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

How could the above math work in your view, if at any given moment, there are multiple generations?

How could there only be 14 generations between Babylon to Christ if we employ your view?

and guess what word the LXX uses for “generation” in those very same OT passages?

“genea”

parousia70 · Jan 7, 2022

claninja said:
and guess what word the LXX uses for “generation” in those very same OT passages?

“genea”

Oh snap!

Must be tough to make genea mean "Jewish Race" here...

"From Abraham to David there are fourteen Jewish races"

Timtofly · Jan 7, 2022

Hammster said:
I have parents and children. So do some who are 10 years older and some who are 10 years younger. Which one of these do you want to use?

Your argument. Waiting for your explanation. Which one is "that generation"? It cannot be all three at the same time.

There is a gap between that of Luke 21:20 and the coming recorded in verse 27.

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency