Timing of the abomination of desolation

[Randy Kluth]

My point is that encyclopedias give a broader picture, than a single quote from a private person's opinion.

Jesus' generation were dead by 40AD.

You are confusing facts with biased opinions.

No, children alive in the time while Jesus was still alive could live another 60 years or so, and could easily see the 70 AD destruction of the temple, just as Jesus said. If you don't think those children belonged to Jesus' "generation," then you don't know what "generation" means.

It can have several different applications, and this is certainly one of them. I'd say you're completely biased if you deny this.

In the wilderness God said that nobody in the generation that were adults refusing to enter Canaan would enter Canaan. This was not the whole generation that was alive at that time, but only the part of that generation who were adults were denied entry.

Since they were in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died out, and it excluded children under 20, that means a generation, as used, refers at least to those who live 60 years. Those under 20 were not excluded from that generation, but only from the part of their generation who were adults.

Encyclopedias provide a broad picture, but they are not always reliable. And they are certainly subject to bias.

 

[Truth7t7]

Thanks Marty for the additional detail!

Birds of a feather flock together "Preterism" in 70AD fulfillment

 

[Truth7t7]

However, it literally *means* that what happened in 70 AD was what he said would happen. That is by Scriptural authority, quite literally.

Diderot's Encyclopedia is a good example of biased use of encyclopedias, which claim to be objective, science-based facts of the world. If you think encyclopedias aren't biased, you've not been trained well enough in critical thinking. That is tantamount to saying, as a child, my Dad can beat anybody up and is never wrong!

Jesus Christ spoke of a "Future" generation that would be eyewitnesses of the signs and his literal "Future" second coming

Randy you continue to teach "This Generation" was fulfilled in 70AD, when scripture clearly proclaims its a "Future Generation" unfulfilled

1.) What is near even at the doors?
The future second coming

2.) What is the day and hour no man knows?
The future second coming

(This Generation) Is A Future Generation, That Will Be "Eyewitnesses" Of The Future Second Coming

Matthew 24:33-37KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Birds of a feather flock together "Preterism" in 70AD fulfillment

Marty and I disagree--he is a Partial Preterist, and I am not. Good Christians can disagree agreeably. Maybe that will teach you something?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus Christ spoke of a "Future" generation that would be eyewitnesses of the signs and his literal "Future" second coming

Randy you continue to teach "This Generation" was fulfilled in 70AD, when scripture clearly proclaims its a "Future Generation" unfulfilled

It does *not* teach a "future generation." Jesus said "this generation." Why are you saying is says something else?

1.) What is near even at the doors?
The future second coming

Jesus brought judgment in his own generation, and judgment is always near to the sinful world. Our deliverance is therefore always near. The 2nd Coming, however, has been anything but "near." Do you define 2000 years as something that was "near" or "at the door" in 33 AD? That was ancient history. So Jesus must've been talking about the close proximity of his judgment, after he dies. That happened in 70 AD, and it happens all down through the ages.

2.) What is the day and hour no man knows?
The future second coming

I agree. We are not to know the times and the seasons. Nobody knows the precise day and hour of Christ's return.

(This Generation) Is A Future Generation, That Will Be "Eyewitnesses" Of The Second Coming

Matthew 24:33-37KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus said "this generation" will see not his 2nd Coming but the Birth Pangs that would precede and lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the main thing he introduced, leading up to the Olivet Discourse. And that was his answer about when the fall of Jerusalem would happen. It would happen in "this generation," ie in his own generation. This is not a "future generation."

 

[Truth7t7]

Marty and I disagree--he is a Partial Preterist, and I am not. Good Christians can disagree agreeably. Maybe that will teach you something?

You're also a partial preterist, birds of a feather flock together

You believe and teach that Matthew 24:15 in Daniel's AOD was fulfilled in 70AD when Roman Armies surrounded Jerusalem,100% Preterist

You believe and teach "This Generation" in Matthew 24:34 was fulfilled in 70AD, 100% Preterist

 

[Truth7t7]

Jesus said "this generation" will see not his 2nd Coming but the Birth Pangs that would precede and lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the main thing he introduced, leading up to the Olivet Discourse. And that was his answer about when the fall of Jerusalem would happen. It would happen in "this generation," ie in his own generation. This is not a "future generation."

Your claim is "False"

Jesus stated "This Generation" would witness the signs and actual second coming, "All Being Fulfilled"

The scripture below is simple and very easy to understand, if one doesn't have a preterist 70AD bias in fulfillment

Matthew 24:33-37KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Truth7t7]

So Jesus must've been talking about the close proximity of his judgment, after he dies. That happened in 70 AD, and it happens all down through the ages.



I agree. We are not to know the times and the seasons. Nobody knows the precise day and hour of Christ's return.



Jesus said "this generation" will see not his 2nd Coming but the Birth Pangs that would precede and lead up to the fall of Jerusalem. That was the main thing he introduced, leading up to the Olivet Discourse. And that was his answer about when the fall of Jerusalem would happen. It would happen in "this generation," ie in his own generation. This is not a "future generation."

Your claim is false as you bend and twist scripture

(Know that it is near, even at the doors) pertains exclusively to the future second coming of Jesus Christ, and has absolutely nothing to do with a 70AD judgment as you claim

Bend, Twist, Tear, the simple truth of GODS Holy words

Matthew 24:33-37KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Keraz]

You are fooling yourself by thinking that any physical temple built in Jerusalem could possibly be something that Paul would call "the temple of God". That idea is as foolish as it gets.

So what Paul said in 2 Thess 2:4 was mistaken?
Far from any of Paul's writings as placed in the Holy Bible, to be wrong, the proper answer is that you are wrong.

Paul knew the OT Prophesies about a new Temple before Jesus Returns, you obviously don't. I suggest you read and inwardly digest: Haggai 2:20, Zechariah 1:16 & 8:9-10, Isaiah 2:2-3 and many others.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your claim is false as you bend and twist scripture

(Know that it is near, even at the doors) pertains exclusively to the future second coming of Jesus Christ, and has absolutely nothing to do with a 70AD judgment as you claim

Bend, Twist, Tear, the simple truth of GODS Holy words

Matthew 24:33-37KJV
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus said his Kingdom was "near" during his earthly ministry. It was "near" because he was near. And where he is, the coming of the Kingdom will follow eventually.

If you think "near" means that his Coming was about to take place 2000 years ago, you must also believe the earth is flat.

No, I'm not a Partial Preterist, and no I don't bend and twist Scriptures. Jesus explicitly said his Coming was "near," not indicating it was about to take place, but rather, that his very presence signaled imminent judgment for the Jewish People and for any nation opposing God.

Jesus also said that "this generation" would see the fall of Jerusalem. I don't make that up. I didn't twist it. On the other hand, you deny he said this, or twist what he said to say something else.

It's unfortunate that you have to get bent out of shape simply because I have a different opinion than you. Why not shake hands as brothers, if you are really a brother? Why not just agree to disagree, as other practicing Christians here do? Are you a real Christian? If so, why are you so immature, with all of the anger and name-calling?

 

[Timtofly]

No, it isn't. Luke 21 is Luke's account of the Olivet Discourse. It's the same discourse as Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13. It's not as if there are two Olivet Discourses.

He didn't mention them as being past. He was quoting things Jesus said well before 70 AD about what was going to happen in the future as of the time Jesus was speaking. It's not Luke talking there in Luke 21 about things that happened in the past. It's Luke quoting things Jesus said well before 70 AD when He talked about things that would happen in the future as of the time He was speaking.

Neither did Matthew or Mark because Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20 are parallel accounts to Luke 21:20-24. Luke didn't mention the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel because his audience was Gentiles and they would not have been familiar with Daniel's prophecy. So, he spelled it out to them as to what it was about.

Just private opinion. Luke did not spell out the AoD. Luke told his readers exactly why they fled. There was no AoD in the first century. It is still future. So you all can keep claiming full fulfillment of the OD, and you would all be wrong. The Greeks knew as much about the AoD from Daniel as the Hebrews did. They inflicted the AoD on the Jews. You don't think Luke's Greek readers were as just as knowledgeable of their own history as the Hebrews? The two nations had been intertwined ever since the Greeks took over the third kingdom after Alexander defeated the Medes and Persians.

 

[Timtofly]

No, children alive in the time while Jesus was still alive could live another 60 years or so, and could easily see the 70 AD destruction of the temple, just as Jesus said. If you don't think those children belonged to Jesus' "generation," then you don't know what "generation" means.

It can have several different applications, and this is certainly one of them. I'd say you're completely biased if you deny this.

In the wilderness God said that nobody in the generation that were adults refusing to enter Canaan would enter Canaan. This was not the whole generation that was alive at that time, but only the part of that generation who were adults were denied entry.

Since they were in the wilderness for 40 years until that generation died out, and it excluded children under 20, that means a generation, as used, refers at least to those who live 60 years. Those under 20 were not excluded from that generation, but only from the part of their generation who were adults.

Encyclopedias provide a broad picture, but they are not always reliable. And they are certainly subject to bias.

You obviously don't know what a generation is. They were having children every 15 years. The life expectancy was only 35. That people lived into their 40s and 50s were exceptions to the norm.

Those entering the promised land in Moses' day were 2 generations killed off. There were some in their 40s. There were some in their 30s. Parents, children, and grandchildren under 20. 40 years was to kill off 2 generations. Even those 21 could not enter, even if they had parents still alive. Name one person alive the week of the Cross still alive in 70AD. Paul was about 10 years younger than Jesus. John Mark was probably a child if he was there at the Mt. Of Olives. I think James and John were the youngest disciples, but would any one here care to say they were teenagers much less only 10 or 11? If Jesus had married, at 33 he would have already had at least 1 teenager. So which generation are you really referring to? The generation born in 4BC? The generation born in 20AD? Or the Generation who lived between 40 and 70AD, and that is 30 years. Another generation would have been born in 60AD. And that is being conservative at every 20 years when it was probably closer to 15 or 16 years.

Even Paul was dead in 65AD. Paul was not even alive to confirm the armies in 66AD.

Once again a generation is not a set amount of years. It is how soon people on average give birth. They were young, when they only were expected to live 35 years. 15, 16, 17 was about the halfway point. People did not wait until 35 to have one child and then die.

Besides you are comparing life from about 1400 years prior to the first century. Just because it is Scripture does not mean it can apply to a totally different world. People in Egypt had greater life expectancy at the time. They were closer to the period when humans lived for hundreds of years.

The first century through the dark ages were the worst years for life expectancy. Not that people lived better or longer from the Reformation on. Government and control over vast empires did not exact a toll like the Greeks and Romans demanded to hold their empires together.

 

[covenantee]

For discerning students of the Word:

Matthew 24
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Had Jesus been referring to a future generation, He would have used the word that, as He did in verse 36 to refer to a future day.

The Greek ekeinos, which translates to that, includes the future in its definitions and descriptions.

But instead Jesus used the Greek haute, which translates to this, and which includes nothing future in its definitions and descriptions.

Delusionist dispensational futurism strives desperately to replace this with that.

Unsurprisingly, it risibly errs.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You obviously don't know what a generation is. They were having children every 15 years. The life expectancy was only 35. That people lived into their 40s and 50s were exceptions to the norm.

As I said, there are several applications of "generation." You are using today's version of "generation," viewing contemporaries at about the same age.

But the Bible uses "generation" for those alive at the same time, sharing a common experience, even if it covers the entire length of a person's life. For example, in the Wilderness experience Israel does not require a common school age. People over 20 died in the wilderness, but those under 20 shared with them a common experience in the wilderness. This was how the Bible defined "generation"--it didn't use *your definition.*

Those entering the promised land in Moses' day were 2 generations killed off.

The Bible doesn't say that. Please provide a quote?

There were some in their 40s. There were some in their 30s. Parents, children, and grandchildren under 20. 40 years was to kill off 2 generations. Even those 21 could not enter, even if they had parents still alive. Name one person alive the week of the Cross still alive in 70AD.

The Apostle John.

Paul was about 10 years younger than Jesus. John Mark was probably a child if he was there at the Mt. Of Olives. I think James and John were the youngest disciples, but would any one here care to say they were teenagers much less only 10 or 11? If Jesus had married, at 33 he would have already had at least 1 teenager. So which generation are you really referring to? The generation born in 4BC? The generation born in 20AD? Or the Generation who lived between 40 and 70AD, and that is 30 years. Another generation would have been born in 60AD. And that is being conservative at every 20 years when it was probably closer to 15 or 16 years.

Based on the Wilderness model, all those alive when Jesus said this were part of the same generation and part of the same experience of societal sin at the time. They all had that common experience, and children born in Jesus' time would certainly carry on the sins of their parents at that time. They would not be protected as the children in the Wilderness were.

The disciples were likely in the early 20s. So they would be in their 50s in 70 AD if they hadn't died.

Even Paul was dead in 65AD. Paul was not even alive to confirm the armies in 66AD.

Yes, dying does not stop one from being part of a generation!

Once again a generation is not a set amount of years. It is how soon people on average give birth. They were young, when they only were expected to live 35 years. 15, 16, 17 was about the halfway point. People did not wait until 35 to have one child and then die.

"Generation" has flexible usage, and today it is most often applied to those roughly the same age. But biblically, it was applied as a group of contemporaneous people sharing a common experience, such as going through the Wilderness or engaging in sin presently taking place in the society. It does involve a period of years, since the people have to be alive at the same time in order to be a single generation. It at the most would cover the years from a birth to the death of the longest living person in any age.

I don't expect you to acknowledge anything I say or believe. That is your mode of operation, to completely deny anything that challenges your own beliefs.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Just private opinion. Luke did not spell out the AoD. Luke told his readers exactly why they fled. There was no AoD in the first century. It is still future. So you all can keep claiming full fulfillment of the OD, and you would all be wrong. The Greeks knew as much about the AoD from Daniel as the Hebrews did. They inflicted the AoD on the Jews. You don't think Luke's Greek readers were as just as knowledgeable of their own history as the Hebrews? The two nations had been intertwined ever since the Greeks took over the third kingdom after Alexander defeated the Medes and Persians.

What a ridiculous argument! You're saying that the Greeks, because they were somehow associated with the Syrian, Antiochus 4, that they knew about AoDs? Or am I misreading you here?

Clearly, assigning the term to hostile enemies does not force them to acknowledge the derogatory term! They would certainly not feel they were an "abomination," since they didn't subscribe to Israel's worship under the Law. Nor were the Syrians Greeks--they just tried to force Hellenism upon the Jews to force them to commit sacrilege against their own religion.

But again, I'll go back to the same argument you keep failing to acknowledge. Between "stand firm" and "flee to the mountains" is something Jesus told his disciples to "see."

In all versions this is true. Why would Jesus be telling his disciples to see one thing in Matthew and Mark's version, and another thing entirely in Luke's version? Doesn't make any sense at all.

And yet that is what you're claiming, that because the words used are slightly different in these versions they must be talking about something else! Do you understand what "paraphrasing" means? Describing an Abomination of Desolation is the same thing as describing pagan armies desolating! What Matthew and Mark described as the thing to be "seen" is exactly the same thing Luke described was to be "seen!"

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Jesus said his Kingdom was "near" during his earthly ministry. It was "near" because he was near. And where he is, the coming of the Kingdom will follow eventually.

If you think "near" means that his Coming was about to take place 2000 years ago, you must also believe the earth is flat.

OK, post this in scriptures for me to rebut. If you are referring to Rev. 1:1 the word used for shortly doesn't mean "shortly come to pass" as in time, it means in a short burst of time, in haste, quicky. The word TACHOS is the Greek word used there, we get our English word TACHOMETER (Zoom, zoom, zoom) from there.

In Rev. 22:12 the verb form TACU is used, Jesus says I come QUICKLY. But we see the exact same word used in Matthew. For example, it’s used in Matthew 28:8: it says of the women at the tomb, “So they departed quickly from the tomb.” That’s the word translated “quickly.” In other versions it is translated soon. But, as we can see, in Matt. 28:8 it means quickly, so Jesus, who has told us only the Father knows the day and hour he is coming on, is in essence saying at that point in time, when the Father sends me, I will come QUICKLY, IN HASTE, FAST as in Zoom, zoom, zoom. It doesn't mean soon !!

Also, the Generation that sees all of these things in the Fig Tree parable has to be about those living in the final seven (7) years because ONLY THOSE Jews can see the last sign that turns the Sun and Moon dark. So, those who see ALL THE SIGNS (or the last sign which completes all of the signs) will be the last Generation, of course, that is really a simple prophesy that men make difficult by not thinking it through.

So, show me where all Jesus said his coming was NEAR in Scriptures. We can go from there. Not saying there are not English versions that say things that look like this, but since Jesus himself says only the Father knows we need to look at these verses in depth. In truth people like Mr. Truth can't add it all up.

Food for thought.

No, I'm not a Partial Preterist, and no I don't bend and twist Scriptures. Jesus explicitly said his Coming was "near," not indicating it was about to take place, but rather, that his very presence signaled imminent judgment for the Jewish People and for any nation opposing God.

Most of the time the word means something else. They don't dig deep enough, which is why I can overcome their points every time.

 

[Timtofly]

For discerning students of the Word:

Matthew 24
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Had Jesus been referring to a future generation, He would have used the word that, as He did in verse 36 to refer to a future day.

The Greek ekeinos, which translates to that, includes the future in its definitions and descriptions.

But instead Jesus used the Greek haute, which translates to this, and which includes nothing future in its definitions and descriptions.

Delusionist dispensational futurism strives desperately to replace this with that.

Unsurprisingly, it risibly errs.

Except the parable of the fig tree, is about Israel becoming a nation. So it was that generation.

Parables don't have generations, they are not tangible. They are just stories explaining real life scenarios. So the real generation is what happens in real life, not in a parable, and not when the parable came out of Jesus' mouth.

The real life experience of the fig tree blooming is when Israel becomes a nation. The next event after that is the Second Coming. Then the book of Revelation happens after the Second Coming and the 7th Seal being opened. They don't all happen at the same time in parallel. It has been 74 years since Israel has become a Nation. There are people still alive on earth. When those people are all dead, then you all can declare this chapter a failed future prophecy.

So Preterist are still premature on their jumping to all their conclusions. Until all current 90 year olds are all dead, Preterist just need to be patient.

 

[Randy Kluth]

OK, post this in scriptures for me to rebut. If you are referring to Rev. 1:1 the word used for shortly doesn't mean "shortly come to pass" as in time, it means in a short burst of time, in haste, quicky. The word TACHOS is the Greek word used there, we get our English word TACHOMETER (Zoom, zoom, zoom) from there.

In Rev. 22:12 the verb form TACU is used, Jesus says I come QUICKLY. But we see the exact same word used in Matthew. For example, it’s used in Matthew 28:8: it says of the women at the tomb, “So they departed quickly from the tomb.” That’s the word translated “quickly.” In other versions it is translated soon. But, as we can see, in Matt. 28:8 it means quickly, so Jesus, who has told us only the Father knows the day and hour he is coming on, is in essence saying at that point in time, when the Father sends me, I will come QUICKLY, IN HASTE, FAST as in Zoom, zoom, zoom. It doesn't mean soon !!

Also, the Generation that sees all of these things in the Fig Tree parable has to be about those living in the final seven (7) years because ONLY THOSE Jews can see the last sign that turns the Sun and Moon dark. So, those who see ALL THE SIGNS (or the last sign which completes all of the signs) will be the last Generation, of course, that is really a simple prophesy that men make difficult by not thinking it through.

So, show me where all Jesus said his coming was NEAR in Scriptures. We can go from there. Not saying there are not English versions that say things that look like this, but since Jesus himself says only the Father knows we need to look at these verses in depth. In truth people like Mr. Truth can't add it all up.

Food for thought.


Most of the time the word means something else. They don't dig deep enough, which is why I can overcome their points every time.

Thanks for the questions! It's a little complicated, and that's why I sort of bunched all of these concepts of "nearness" together. Jesus' main Gospel message was the "nearness" of his Kingdom. But later he argued that he wasn't saying he expected his Kingdom would appear imminently. I could quote those for you.

Other passages speak of him standing "at the door." This sounds like the threat of judgment, which can happen at any time. Other passages speak of his coming "quickly," which is what you were talking about. Sounds reasonable to me.

So answering your question is a matter of unravelling these different descriptions. My argument was just to dispel the notion of his Imminent Coming, which is what Imminency Teachers teach. Jesus could *not* have been "imminent" over the last 2000 years! But that is their argument. That was what I was focused on.

 

[covenantee]

So it was that generation.

Then why didn't Jesus say that generation?

He did say that day.

Explain, using the Greek, please.

 

[Timtofly]

As I said, there are several applications of "generation." You are using today's version of "generation," viewing contemporaries at about the same age.

But the Bible uses "generation" for those alive at the same time, sharing a common experience, even if it covers the entire length of a person's life. For example, in the Wilderness experience Israel does not require a common school age. People over 20 died in the wilderness, but those under 20 shared with them a common experience in the wilderness. This was how the Bible defined "generation"--it didn't use *your definition.*

No I am not. I said a generation is every time a firstborn happens, on average every 20 years.

The Bible doesn't say that. Please provide a quote?

You don't think any one over the age of 40 left Egypt? Moses and Aaron were around 80 years old. 3 generations if not more left Egypt as one group. 2 generations had to die, before those 20 and under could enter. In those 40 years, two more generations were born. Those 20 year olds had children and grandchildren. That is just common sense.

The Apostle John.

I doubt John ever physically died. He was an eyewitness to the future and is not a third witness. He is one of the two witnesses killed by the beast. How many times does he have to die? Time travel is hard to unravel. Technically John already died in the future at some point returning to Patmos. Like Elijah we are never told when Elijah literally died on earth if ever. Unless he is the other witness besides John.

Based on the Wilderness model, all those alive when Jesus said this were part of the same generation and part of the same experience of societal sin at the time. They all had that common experience, and children born in Jesus' time would certainly carry on the sins of their parents at that time. They would not be protected as the children in the Wilderness were.

The disciples were likely in the early 20s. So they would be in their 50s in 70 AD if they hadn't died.

Yes, dying does not stop one from being part of a generation!

I doubt all of the disciples were 10 years younger than Jesus. Still they all would be dead, Peter was. Peter was said to live between 1 and 68AD. About 5 years younger than Jesus.

"Generation" has flexible usage, and today it is most often applied to those roughly the same age. But biblically, it was applied as a group of contemporaneous people sharing a common experience, such as going through the Wilderness or engaging in sin presently taking place in the society. It does involve a period of years, since the people have to be alive at the same time in order to be a single generation. It at the most would cover the years from a birth to the death of the longest living person in any age.

I don't expect you to acknowledge anything I say or believe. That is your mode of operation, to completely deny anything that challenges your own beliefs.

I have no beliefs to challenge. I challenge theology that is in addition to the Word of God.

I understand you want a generation to be a common experience. I was not alive in 1948. I cannot experience that generation. I was born on June 10th 1967. I guess that week was important to Israel and Jerusalem. Yet my generation would be the 80's or 90's according to you. That is the experience I have in common with people.