Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[claninja]

Bad translation of this verse. The word "First" applies to the verb "to shew light unto the people and to the Gentiles" - NOT to the verb "rise from the dead".

I’m not so sure any of this is right. “Rise from the dead” is not a verb, it’s a noun in the Greek . Neither the noun “rise from the dead” nor the verb “to shew” match in case, number, and gender with the adjective “first”. So first wouldn’t be modifying either of those.

• “Adjectives describe or further define nouns (and pronouns). An adjective must agree with its noun in GENDER, NUMBER, and CASE.” (Adjectives: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)

 

[3 Resurrections]

I’m not so sure any of this is right. “Rise from the dead” is not a verb, it’s a noun in the Greek . Neither the noun “rise from the dead” nor the verb “to shew” match in case, number, and gender with the adjective “first”. So first wouldn’t be modifying either of those.

• “Adjectives describe or further define nouns (and pronouns). An adjective must agree with its noun in GENDER, NUM

The word "first" modifies the infinitive verb phrase "to proclaim light unto the people and to the Gentiles". The word "first" does NOT modify the infinitive verb phrase "to rise from the dead". Some translations recognize this. Some don't.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The verse equally can be translated as, "Verily I say unto you, THAT generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Many people use "this generation" as supposed proof Jesus meant the one he lived in and was speaking to but that is faulty since the word equally can mean "that" so we would have "that generation".

However, grammatically, the antecedents to “all these things” in vs 34 are the events of the Olivet discourse, and contextually, this includes the temple destruction. Therefore Jesus’ generation is still the likely subject of “this generation”.

What if you are both correct?

What if Jesus was referring to his elect?...his “chosen ones” were a distinct “generation” of God’s Holy Spirit, and according to Scripture, members of that “body” would still be on the earth at the time of his return. So if that “generation” which began with his apostles, was to continue up until the time of Christ’s return to take them to heaven, you would both be correct.

Not all Christians are heaven bound....only those with “the heavenly calling”. (Heb 3:1) These are to be “kings and priests” ruling with Jesus in his Kingdom (Rev 20:6)......but over whom are they to rule and act as priests?

The pattern is in ancient Israel....only the Levites could be priests, and only those of the tribe of Judah could be kings.....but Jesus was appointed as High Priest in God’s Kingdom, as well as being the appointed King...this was by God’s decree (according to the manner of Melchizedek who was both a king and a priest in Abraham’s day).
The whole nation operated under that arrangement. Both guided the nation, as these ones represented God to his people....in rulership and worship.

If these ones are the “generation” of whom Jesus spoke, then we would expect their choosing to extend up until the time the Bible indicates...when all those features of the “sign of Christ’s presence” (parousia) would have been fulfilled....in our day...in “the time of the end” that Daniel prophesied....the time for the coming of the Kingdom we have been praying for these last 2000 years. (Dan 2:44)

 

[claninja]

The word "first" modifies the infinitive verb phrase "to proclaim light unto the people and to the Gentiles". The word "first" does NOT modify the infinitive verb phrase "to rise from the dead". Some translations recognize this. Some don't.

Where are you getting your info from? For one, I've never heard of an "infinitive verb phrase". Also, adjectives modify nouns and pronouns........so I'm not understanding your argument that it modifies a "verb phrase"..........

Additionally, "to rise from the dead" contains NO verbs in the greek text : εἰ (as: conjunction) πρῶτος (first: adjective-NMS) ἐξ (through: preposition) ἀναστάσεως (resurrection: noun-GFS) νεκρῶν (dead: adjective-GMP). So to call "to rise from the dead" a verb phrase, seems completely wrong.

**Adjectives must agree in gender, number and case with its noun**

• “Adjectives describe or further define nouns (and pronouns). An adjective must agree with its noun in GENDER, NUMBER, and CASE” (Adjectives: Part I – Ancient Greek for Everyone)

the adjective "first" has a gender of male, a case of nominative, and number of singular. So the noun it modifies should have a gender of male, a case of nominative, and a number of singular.

 

[claninja]

So if that “generation” which began with his apostles, was to continue up until the time of Christ’s return to take them to heaven, you would both be correct.

The greek word for generation is genea, and it does not mean what you are proposing.

from thayer's greek lexicon: 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34;

 

[ewq1938]

What if you are both correct?

Not possible because Jesus spoke of one generation seeing all the things he described, not two generations seeing them. Since two events described was the second coming and rapture and those events have not happened, we know he spoke of a future generation that would see all the things he described. Maybe that generation is now, maybe not.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The greek word for generation is genea, and it does not mean what you are proposing.

from thayer's greek lexicon: 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34;

Sorry, but it has a much broader meaning than that.....

“genea”.....

that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

1. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character” (Strongs)

Are these chosen ones not “members of a genealogy” in a metaphorical sense?

It most certainly can mean exactly what was suggested.....but it just doesn’t fit your narrative, apparently....

We have to be honest in our study of Scripture because as we can clearly see on these boards, interpretation can run amok. There can be a long list of different interpretations.....so who has the truth?

We have to evaluate what we read and compare it with other Scripture, because God’s word does not contradict itself....it’s men’s ideas that have done that, but that is what was foretold by Jesus and the apostles....an apostasy took place in the early centuries, followed by a time of complete ignorance, whereby “the church” got away with murder (literally) stifling any resistance to church imposed authority.

What emerged from the Reformation was not a uniting of Christ’s disciples, but a constant dividing of them. All took along the Catholic church’s false doctrines.....none of which were based on the Bible at all, because the church disputed “sola scriptura” so that they could add or invent whatever they wanted to, and pass it off as “Christianity”. It never was!
Look at what Christendom has become! If Jesus was to arrive tomorrow, who would he claim as his own? They can’t all be right....but the majority might all be wrong. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)

Not possible because Jesus spoke of one generation seeing all the things he described, not two generations seeing them. Since two events described was the second coming and rapture and those events have not happened, we know he spoke of a future generation that would see all the things he described. Maybe that generation is now, maybe not.

You missed the point....there are not “two generations”, because all of the “chosen ones (saints/elect) are of the same “generation” as in being individually ‘generated’ by God’s spirit, to be adopted as his sons.....the “brothers” or “body” of Christ.

The ones in their graves “sleeping” were to “rise first” when Christ returned. Does he arrive twice?

Read Paul’s description about the timing of these events....read what it actually says...not what you think it says.....the timeline is there.

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1 Thess 4:13-17....ESV)

Those chosen first will not be raised ahead of those who find themselves on earth at the end of the last days. They are raised as one body in one period of time.....the time of Christ’s “presence” (parousia).
His “coming” as judge, will be at the end of these days. His return is in two stages. “The dead in Christ” are raised during this time period, and the general resurrection of the dead (John 5:28-29) does not take place until Christ is ruling with the elect in his Kingdom.

It’s amazing how many scenarios people can come up with to furnish evidence for their own ideas or those they have adopted from others....but the confusion created is the devil’s work.

 

[ewq1938]

You missed the point....there are not “two generations”, because all of the “chosen ones (saints/elect) are of the same “generation” as in being individually ‘generated’ by God’s spirit, to be adopted as his sons.....the “brothers” or “body” of Christ.

That's not what generation means in the OD. It is a group of ppl alive at the same time that witness all the events described.

The ones in their graves “sleeping” were to “rise first” when Christ returned. Does he arrive twice?

That's a grave misunderstanding of what the two comings of Christ are.

t’s amazing how many scenarios people can come up with to furnish evidence for their own ideas or those they have adopted from others....but the confusion created is the devil’s work.

More amazing that ppl that speak of that don't realize it might apply directly to themselves...

 

[Aunty Jane]

That's not what generation means in the OD. It is a group of ppl alive at the same time that witness all the events described.

The definition of this word is not at all what is understood in Christendom...which is why there is such a lot of debate about it. The “generation” are clearly Christ’s disciples...his elect who began to be gathered in the first century, but true to prophesy, the church went completely off the rails from the second century onward. What “the church” became was certainly not what Jesus started....not even a slight resemblance.

During the dark ages things only got worse until the Reformation, which did not unite Christians in the world but continues to this day to divide them.....hopelessly. But at least we all have access to God’s word. Today there is no excuse for ignorance as Daniel foretold....”knowledge would increase”. (Dan 12:4)

There were centuries where genuine Christians were thin on the ground, and if they dared to speak out about the church and its corrupt practices, they did to these brave disciples exactly what they did to Jesus...they silenced them! (John 15:18-21; Matt 23:37-39)

When the last days began, with Christ’s “presence” (not his coming) all the features of the “sign” he gave were in evidence. (Matt 24:3-14) There is no point in providing a detailed “sign” regarding monumental world events, if his return was something everyone could see.

Returning “in the same manner” as they saw him leave, meant that the world at large would know nothing about it. Only Jesus apostles saw him leave....and he disappeared into a cloud.

Luke 17:20-21....ESV...
“Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

What did Jesus mean? To whom was he speaking?
He was addressing the Pharisees, of whom he said “their heart is far removed from me” so when he said that the Kingdom was not coming in obvious ways, he alluded to the fact that it’s King was standing there right in front of them, but they failed to see him.

He then went on to describe the way it was going to be....

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” (Luke 17:26-30 ESV)

It would have taken many years for the ark to be constructed and Noah’s work was ridiculed as he preached righteousness to the wicked ones who taunted him. Jesus said it would be the same again when he returned. Ample time has been given to this world to shape up or ship out....the majority will not survive the time of trouble that is about to be unleashed...just like the days of Noah.

That's a grave misunderstanding of what the two comings of Christ are.

It’s what the Scriptures themselves make clear. His quiet arrival would not go unnoticed by the ones who have been granted “insight and understanding”, which was promised in Daniel’s prophesy. (Dan 12:1-4; 7-10)
The return of Jesus Christ has a two fold fulfilment. His arrival at the beginning of the last days and his judgment meted out at the end of those days.....he has been here for over 100 years, separating people like sheep and goats.....by the time of his judgment, every soul on earth will have made their choices....and Jesus will know in which category they have placed themselves.

More amazing that ppl that speak of that don't realize it might apply directly to themselves...

I couldnt agree more....so won’t it be an interesting time just ahead of us? Jesus knows who we are, even if we do not.....and the majority will be stunned at their rejection. (Matt 7:21-23) Who will be among the “few”.....time will tell.

 

[ewq1938]

The return of Jesus Christ has a two fold fulfilment. His arrival at the beginning of the last days and his judgment meted out at the end of those days.....he has been here for over 100 years, separating people like sheep and goats.

LOL....no, his return is not in stages over centuries and he is not been here for 100 years. That is as false of a teaching as any false teaching you stand against is, maybe even worse than those other teachings. None of that is biblical. It's pure deception and false teaching but it's in great company since there is so much of that everywhere. It all seems to be growing lately. Interesting times we live in.

 

[claninja]

Sorry, but it has a much broader meaning than that.....

“genea”.....

that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

1. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character” (Strongs)

Are these chosen ones not “members of a genealogy” in a metaphorical sense?

It most certainly can mean exactly what was suggested.....but it just doesn’t fit your narrative, apparently....

We have to be honest in our study of Scripture because as we can clearly see on these boards, interpretation can run amok. There can be a long list of different interpretations.....so who has the truth?

We have to evaluate what we read and compare it with other Scripture, because God’s word does not contradict itself....it’s men’s ideas that have done that, but that is what was foretold by Jesus and the apostles....an apostasy took place in the early centuries, followed by a time of complete ignorance, whereby “the church” got away with murder (literally) stifling any resistance to church imposed authority.

What emerged from the Reformation was not a uniting of Christ’s disciples, but a constant dividing of them. All took along the Catholic church’s false doctrines.....none of which were based on the Bible at all, because the church disputed “sola scriptura” so that they could add or invent whatever they wanted to, as pass it off as “Christianity”. It never was!
Look at what Christendom has become! If Jesus was to arrive tomorrow, who would he claim as his own? They can’t all be right....but the majority might all be wrong. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)

Strong’s is mainly a concordance listing all the possible meanings and translations of a word in the KJV, and should not be relied upon solely as lexicon or dictionary because it doesn’t provide the usage or full definition within in a specific context.

In other words, It’s inappropriate to pick out one of the word’s glosses/meanings, as provided by strongs, and apply it how you personally see fit without consulting a lexicon.

Lexicons and dictionaries should be used in addition to concordances in order to understand what a word means in a given context. And thayer’s lexicon tells us that genea means a generation or “whole multitude of men living at the same time” in the context of Matthew 24:34.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1074: γενεά

γενεά, γενεάς, ἡ (ΓΑΝΩ, γίνομαι (crf. Curtius, p. 610)); the Sept. often for דּור; in Greek writings from Homer down;
1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; (others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above).

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήνδέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage).

4. an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years (Herodotus 2, 142, et al.; Heraclitus in Plutarch, def. orac. c. 11), or ὁ χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ γεννωντα παρέχειτόν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννησας(Plutarch, the passage cited); in the N. T. common in plural: Ephesians 3:5 (Winers Grammar, § 31, 9 a.; Buttmann, 186 (161)); παρῳχημέναις γενεαῖς in ages gone by, Acts 14:16; ἀπό τῶν γενεῶν for ages, since the generations began, Colossians 1:26; ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων from the generations of old, from ancient times down, Acts 15:21; εἰς γενεάς γενεῶν unto generations of generations, through all ages, forever (a phrase which assumes that the longer ages are made up of shorter; see αἰών, 1 a.): Luke 1:50 R L(דּורִים לְדור, Isaiah 51:8); εἰς γενεάς καίγενεάς unto generations and generations, ibid. T Tr WH equivalent to וָדור לְדור, Psalm 89:2; Isaiah 34:17; very often in the Sept.; (add, εἰς πάσας τάςγενεάς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Ephesians 3:21, cf. Ellicott at the passage) (γενεά is used of a century in Genesis 15:16, cf. Knobel at the passage, and on the senses of the word see the full remarks of Keim, iii. 206 (v. 245 English translation)).

 

[Aunty Jane]

Strong’s is mainly a concordance listing all the possible meanings and translations of a word in the KJV, and should not be relied upon solely as lexicon or dictionary because it doesn’t provide the usage or full definition within in a specific context.

Sorry, but it does.....blueletterbible.org is a great resource......because every scripture where that word is used, is quoted for reference. Seeing how that particular word is used in other verses is a great way to see how a word can be used in other contexts and it is good to contemplate the differences.....giving a much wider view of the linguistics.

I am not a fan of the KJV as I find it stiff and difficult to follow...it’s a dead language and only confuses new Bible students. Modern translations mirror advances in linguistics that are missing the the KJV.

In other words, It’s inappropriate to pick out one of the word’s glosses/meanings, as provided by strongs, and apply it how you personally see fit without consulting a lexicon.

I have not done that. IMO, it’s inappropriate to ignore all the other meanings to a word or sentence without seeing all the possibilities that must agree with the rest of Scripture, not just a favoured doctrine.
To do that stunts perceptions and inhibits other possibilities. blueletterbible.org gives a full range of meanings for the serious Bible students. To ignore them is to be spiritually blinded.

Lexicons and dictionaries should be used in addition to concordances in order to understand what a word means in a given context. And thayer’s lexicon tells us that genea means a generation or “whole multitude of men living at the same time” in the context of Matthew 24:34.

So out of your quotes....show us where my post was outside of these definitions....

“others make the collective sense the primary significance”

“the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy”

“metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character”

“from the generations of old, from ancient times down,”

“for ages, since the generations began”

“unto generations of generations, through all ages”

So according to your own sources, the “generation” that Jesus spoke about, could have been any of those.....not just about those living at that time.

Seriously, did you read your own quote?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, not one clear verse produced by Jesus or his Father stating the unequivocal fact that they are three gods in one entity, able to talk with one another, be in three different places at the same time, and know things that others don’t know, and even have separate wills to the others…..please explain how that is “one God” because Jesus never did.

You are completely lacking in discernment because you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. You need to come out of Jehovah's Witnesses and ask God for wisdom so that you can find the truth.

You fail to differentiate between Christ's humanity and His deity. He is both God and man at the same time. How can you not even know why the Jews wanted to kill Him? They believed He was committing blasphemy by claiming to be God. Like you, they didn't believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so they thought anyone like Jesus claiming to be God was committing blasphemy.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

See how they wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to exist even before Abraham, implying that He is God? They knew He was equating Himself with God, not only by claiming to have seen Abraham and to have existed before Abraham was born, but they knew He was referencing the following passage as well.

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

If there was one verse, this would be a closed subject, but because there isn’t a single statement, it still rages….centuries old now….and still not settled.

It has been settled for a long time. You have only yourself to blame for closing your eyes to the truth.

Jesus will settle it once and for all….that is a fact.

You do know what “unequivocal” means ….?

Then perhaps explain how Jesus can refer to his Father as “my God” even in heaven….? (Rev 3:12)

Hold on, you called them “unsaved” not me. Everyone who is dead is in one of two places according to Scripture……Sheol/hades or Gehenna….those in one of those places will be resurrected…those in the other will not.….so, which is which?

What “graves” are these?….are the unsaved dead in there too? What word is used in Hebrew and Greek for this place and how was it understood by Jesus‘ Jewish listeners?

You seem very confident in your assessment here….but to resurrect “all the dead” means that they were all still dead and in their graves…..right? If Jesus calls them out of their graves.….even those in watery graves will come back to life. (Rev 20:13-14) and then death and hades will be thrown into gehenna…..so do you understand the meaning of those terms as Jesus’ audience did? Or are you going by the misinterpretation of Christendom’s churches in their immortal soul doctrine? Where are the dead before Christ resurrects them? Where was Lazarus before Jesus called him out of his tomb? (John 11:11-14)

Then tell me how is God’s justice is served by punishing people who lived and died before Christ came, or who were born into nations where the true God was not known….those who didn’t know God, and were not in a position to know him? Does God punish people for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Look up the word “judgment” and see that it can mean a trial, just like it does in our justice system, loosely based on the Bible. Witnesses are called, and testimonies given to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Who is the judge? It is the one who called them to life. He will judge whether they deserve to continue living, or are sentenced to “the second death”….which is the “lake of fire”.
Why is it called “the second death”?…because it comes after the first…the one inherited from Adam. There is no resurrection from the lake of fire (Gehenna)…..which is not “hell”.

Since this is a judgment period, some will not pass the judgment, and will forfeit their lives during the thousand year reign of the Kingdom….a time period where all the dead will have a chance to regain the perfection of Adam and his wife before sin entered into them. The condemnation comes after they are raised, based on their life choices after that, not before. Christ has paid the price to redeem them, so they are raised with a clean slate, as it were.

Can you tell me what “cult“ brainwashed you, since Christendom (what is accepted by the masses as “Christianity”) has been in existence since Roman Catholicism was a pup…..Have all your own doctrines been a product of that foretold rebellion (apostasy)?

2 Thess 2:1, 3…
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, Let no one deceive you in any way. . . .For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction”. (ESV)

None of the doctrines that came out of the RCC have their origins in Christ’s teachings….but you have been told that your doctrines are sound, when in actual fact they were manufactured long before you or I were born. The indoctrinated/brainwashed calling their opposers, indoctrinated/brainwashed….goes all the way back to the Inquisition.…which simply mirrored the Pharisees, proving that when satan rules the world, his old tricks still work so well for him, he doesn’t need to change his tactics much.

Paul told us to beware of overconfidence…(1 Cor 10:12) it still applies.

When the resurrection of the dead occurs (John 5:28-29), the judgment of all people will immediately follow. No amount of your gibberish can change the truth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sharing the same broader context doesn’t force a word to carry the same meaning. Greek usage depends heavily on the immediate sentence-level semantic clues, not merely the general topic of the passage.

In Matthew 24:35, the contrast between ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ makes the broader meaning more clear. (Though I tend to think Matthew 24:35 is being used in the same way as Matthew 5:18). Matthew 24:30 lacks any such markers—no ‘heaven and earth,’ no ‘ends of the earth,’ no idioms that broaden ge beyond the regional sense typical of prophetic/apocalyptic discourse.

And I completely reject the “appeal to possibility” fallacy you offered. Speculating about how the whole world might see the event—because Jesus could make Himself visible globally—doesn’t establish the meaning of the word. Possibility isn’t evidence of absolute truth, and logistics don’t necessarily determine lexical definition.

And I completely reject whatever this is that you're trying to do to support your view, either. It's obvious to me that Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 24:35 have the same context, so there is no basis for thinking that the earth in one verse relating directly to His second coming has a different meaning than the earth in the other verse relating directly to His second coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are attempting to deny that the Rev. 11:8 verse was speaking about Jerusalem when it mentions "the great city...where also our Lord was crucified". Jerusalem was where Christ suffered and then died.

Scripture says He was crucified outside of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). I accept that. You don't.

Personally, I believe His cross was positioned on the crest of the Mount of Olives, facing the eastern gate of Jerusalem, which John referred to as "the great city " (which "that great city" also referred to Mystery Babylon in Rev. 17:18).

The translation I gave you about the Mount of Transfiguration had Christ's death taking place "IN Jerusalem". Other translations say "AT Jerusalem". But the "great city" in question is still Old Jerusalem, regardless.

So, the deduction is "the great city" where Christ was crucified = Jerusalem = "that great city" = Mystery Babylon.

Nope. Your argument is not even a tiny bit convincing. The Book of Revelation is not about the nation of Israel or the earthly city of Jerusalem, it is primarily about Jesus and His church as well as the enemies of Jesus and His church.

 

[CTK]

Aunty Jane said:
So, not one clear verse produced by Jesus or his Father stating the unequivocal fact that they are three gods in one entity, able to talk with one another, be in three different places at the same time, and know things that others don’t know, and even have separate wills to the others…..please explain how that is “one God” because Jesus never did.


For what it is worth....


Christians have spent two millennia trying to speak faithfully about the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob after the cross. The impulse has often been to “explain” how Jesus is God, how the Father is God, and how the Spirit poured out at Pentecost is God—while insisting there are not three gods. This narrative takes a simpler path. It doesn’t try to slice God into parts; it listens to how God Himself defined His nearness in the first three commandments—whom we worship, how we approach Him, and how we bear His Name. The first three commandments were never meant to be just the first three “thou shalt nots.” They are God’s own explanation of how He would draw near to us, reveal His true Image, and make us bearers of His Name. And so, whether Jew or Gentile, we are not asked to invent clever illustrations of the Trinity or to reduce the mystery of God into a triangle, a chord, or three candles burning as one. Nor are we asked to solve the puzzle of “three Gods in one.” God Himself has already given us His definition—clear, sufficient, and living—in His first three commandments. This is not a Christian invention; it is the Bible’s own story from Eden to His return.

Before Sinai, the one LORD was already making Himself known as Father, Spirit, and Son. The Father is the unseen source who calls, commands, blesses, and judges— “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” The Spirit draws near without form—hovering over the waters, breathing life, guiding by cloud and fire, and speaking from flame so that Israel could later say, “we heard a voice but saw no form.” And the Son is present from the beginning as the Word through whom all things were made, often recognized in the tangible, face-to-face encounters God gave His people. Many Christians see Him walking in Eden “in the cool of the day,” visiting Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre, wrestling with Jacob who says, “I have seen God face to face,” standing before Joshua as the Commander of the LORD’s army, appearing as the fourth figure “like a son of the gods” in the furnace—and meeting Hagar in her distress, where she names Him “the God who sees me.” These scenes are not human-made images; they are God-given revelations preparing for the day the true Image would say, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

At Sinai, that same pattern was inscribed into Israel’s life. The Father’s voice sounded from fire and cloud to give the Ten Words—Israel heard the words but saw no form. On the mountain, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders “saw the God of Israel” and ate and drank in His presence—a seeing Christians understand as the pre-incarnate Son, the true Image who can be seen without consuming those who see. Then, in the camp, the glory filled the Tabernacle; the LORD spoke with Moses from above the mercy seat and shared His Spirit to empower and guide. This is exactly what the first three commandments teach: first, whom we worship—the one LORD who claims our allegiance; second, how we approach—without carved images, because God chooses to be present by His Spirit, not by substitutes we control; third, how we bear His Name—not emptily or falsely, because God was preparing a true Image who would come with the Father’s Name in Him and make us bear that Name in truth. The order matters. Before the Messiah appeared, the second word guarded Israel from filling the waiting with idols; the true Image had not yet come, so God kept His people close by voice and Spirit.

After Sinai—and especially after the incarnation—the order is fulfilled in practice. When Jesus came as the exact Image of the Father, Israel no longer had to imagine what God is like or fear that an image of their own making might creep in. The second commandment did not vanish; it reached its goal. Idolatry is silenced not mainly by prohibition but by presence—the true Image stands among us. Having shown us the Father, the Son then sends the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to dwell within, writing God’s ways on the heart so we can truly bear the Father’s Name. We still worship the one LORD alone, but our approach is no longer a guarded distance; it is a Spirit-indwelt life shaped by the Son who bears the Name and places that Name upon us. So the scriptural order remains, yet its fulfillment reorders our experience: before the Messiah, the commandments guarded and guided until the true Image appeared; after the Messiah, the danger of substitutes is ended by His appearing, and the third word blossoms as God’s own Spirit makes us faithful carriers of His Name.

And here is the point for today. To our Jewish friends: Christians do not worship three gods. We confess the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—no other—and we believe that the same God has chosen, from Eden onward, to draw near as unseen Voice, formless Presence, and a visible Fellowship that does not destroy the beholder. To Christians: we do not need to invent new diagrams, clever metaphors, or complicated symbols to defend a “triune” theory. God has already spoken for Himself. He set the pattern in the first three commandments—whom we worship, how we approach, how we carry His Name—and then He walked that pattern through history: the Father commanding and claiming; the Son visiting Hagar, dining at Mamre, meeting Jacob, standing with the faithful, revealing the Father perfectly in the fullness of time; and the Spirit hovering, filling, guiding, and finally indwelling at Pentecost. One God, drawing near in three ways according to His plan, not ours. If we honor that order and that story, we can say with confidence—without reducing mystery to a math problem—that the LORD is one, that He has made Himself known, and that nothing more clever than His own Word is needed to believe it.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You are completely lacking in discernment because you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed by the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. You need to come out of Jehovah's Witnesses and ask God for wisdom so that you can find the truth.

Do you understand that the brainwashed are the ones telling others that they are brainwashed? LOL.
What were the Pharisees guilty of? Whom did the masses of the Jewish people follow? Why did they choose to follow God’s enemies and reject their own Messiah? Who are doing the same today? Can you discern who are the “few” and who are the “many” who are judged by the one who is the champion of truth....the awful, uncomfortable and difficult truth that leads to life. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)

You fail to differentiate between Christ's humanity and His deity. He is both God and man at the same time.

Not one Scripture categorically says so....or you would have provided them by now.
The definition of “theos” in Greek doesn’t just mean “God” with a capital “G”.

Giving Jesus that title doesn’t mean that he has equal deity with his Father, as the scriptures clearly show, this word can be a reference to angels, human judges in Israel or any divine personage. Look up the word in a good Concordance. John 1:1 isn’t saying what you think it does. There are two “gods” mentioned in that verse and only one of them is Yahweh. (ho theos)

How can you not even know why the Jews wanted to kill Him? They believed He was committing blasphemy by claiming to be God. Like you, they didn't believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so they thought anyone like Jesus claiming to be God was committing blasphemy.

It is clear why the Jews wanted to kill him...he was showing up their leadership as the hypocritical frauds that they were......read Matt ch 23 to see what Jesus said about them.....any wonder they wanted him dead!
But they had no power to execute him under Roman law, so when the charge of blasphemy failed to move the Roman governor, he wanted to release Jesus as he found him innocent of any charge deserving of death, so the Jews turned on Pilate and threatened to accuse him of treason to Caesar. He caved, and handed Jesus over to the Jews to have him executed, washing his hands of the whole affair.

The Jews just wanted an excuse to silence him, as they did to all the prophets whom God sent to correct them. (Matt 23:37-38)

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

See how they wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to exist even before Abraham, implying that He is God? They knew He was equating Himself with God, not only by claiming to have seen Abraham and to have existed before Abraham was born, but they knew He was referencing the following passage as well.

Did they? Since in Hebrew, Exodus 3:13-15 never actually said that God’s name was “I Am”....I will beg to differ.

Here is how the Jewish Bible translates this passage....

13 And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"		יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:
14 God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"		ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:
15 And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.		טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:

Since God’s name was not telling the Jews that he merely existed, (because they already knew that as Israelites descended from Jacob), the God they already knew existed, was telling them what he would “be” or “become” to this people, who would come to know him in ways they had never experienced before.

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

That is not what he told them, and Exodus 3:14-15 has no connection at all with John 8:58.
Jesus was answering a question about his age, not his status as a deity.
He simply responded to a past tense question with a past tense answer “before Abraham was born “I have been” or “I was”.....answering a past tense question with a present tense answer makes no sense unless there is a motive behind it.

It has been settled for a long time. You have only yourself to blame for closing your eyes to the truth.

Or “the church” “closed its eyes to the truth” a long time before you or I were even born.
From whom did this doctrine of three gods in one entity, originate? The Roman Catholic church......and you believe them? Do you accept Mary as the mother of God? Do you believe in purgatory or hellfire? Immortal souls that depart from the body at death to go to either heaven or hell? All these came from the RCC....not from Scripture. None of them are true.

When the resurrection of the dead occurs (John 5:28-29), the judgment of all people will immediately follow. No amount of your gibberish can change the truth.

Your own gibberish is not substantiated by Scripture. When the general resurrection of the dead occurs, it will be after the separation of the “sheep from the goats”, so that those who come back to life will have no opposition to combat in that new world of righteousness. All opposers by then will have been dispatched. Rev 21:2-4 will have its fulfilment.

 

[claninja]

Sorry, but it does.....blueletterbible.org is a great resource......because every scripture where that word is used, is quoted for reference. Seeing how that particular word is used in other verses is a great way to see how a word can be used in other contexts and it is good to contemplate the differences.....giving a much wider view of the linguistics.

No, Strongs CONCORDANCE doesn’t. You seem to be confusing a concordance with a lexicon. Strongs concordance provides simple glosses for the word known as “Strongs definitions”, and where these glosses are found in the Bible. Basically, it tells us all the English words that the Greek word was translated into and where to find them in the Bible.


Copied directly from Strong’s CONCORDANCE off blueletterbible:

• “Strong’s Definitions
  γενεά geneá, ghen-eh-ah'; from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):—age, generation, nation, time.
  

  ---

  KJV Translation Count — Total: 42x
  The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).”

I have not done that. IMO, it’s inappropriate to ignore all the other meanings to a word or sentence without seeing all the possibilities that must agree with the rest of Scripture, not just a favoured doctrine.
To do that stunts perceptions and inhibits other possibilities. blueletterbible.org gives a full range of meanings for the serious Bible students. To ignore them is to be spiritually blinded.

You actually have. Many words have different meanings in different contexts. Unlike a concordance, Lexicons provide a more robust definition and usage of word within a specific context. Thayer’s lexicon tells us that genea = generation (multitude of people living at the same time) within the context of Matthew 24:34 - see below, highlighted in red. You seem to argue that genea should follow the definition and usage of thayer’s 2b) below, but Matthew 24:34 is NOT listed there.

In other words, contrary to how a lexicon is intended to be used, you are cherry picking which definition you want in order to support your theological framework.

If Matthew 24:34 was listed as a usage in 2b, then you would have a solid argument.

See below, THAYERS LEXICON, copied from blue letter Bible

STRONGS G1074:
γενεά, -ᾶς, ἡ, (ΓΕΝΩ, γίνομαι [cf. Curtius, p. 610]); Sept. often for דּוֹר; in Greek writings from Homer down;
1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus 3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; [others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above].

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;
a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζειν Ῥαχάβην κ. τὴν γενεὰναὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17, (ἑβδόμη γενεὰ οὗτόςἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).
b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; [Acts 2:40].

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); Luke 21:32; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γεν. ταύ., Luke 11:31; τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίςδιηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 Sept.) [but cf. Meyer, at the passage].

4. an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years (Herodotus 2, 142, and others; Heraclitus in Plutarch, def. orac. c. 11), or ὁ χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξαὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας(Plutarch, the passage cited); in the N. T.common in plural: Ephesians 3:5 [Winers Grammar, § 31, 9 a.; Buttmann, 186 (161)]; παρῳχημέναις γενεαῖς in ages gone by, Acts 14:16; ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν for ages, since the generations began, Colossians 1:26; ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίωνfrom the generations of old, from ancient times down, Acts 15:21; εἰς γενεὰςγενεῶν unto generations of generations, through all ages, forever (a phrase which assumes that the longer ages are made up of shorter; see αἰών, 1 a.): Luke 1:50 R L (דּוֹרִים לְדוֹר, Isaiah 51:8); εἰς γενεὰς κ. γενεάς unto generations and generations, ibid. T Tr WH equivalent to וָדוֹר לְדוֹר, Psalm 89:2; Isaiah 34:17; very often in the Sept.; [add, εἰς πάσας τὰςγενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Ephesians 3:21, cf. Ellicott at the passage] (γενεά is used of a century in Genesis 15:16, cf. Knobel at the passage, and on the senses of the word see the full remarks of Keim, iii. 206 [v. 245 English translation]).

So according to your own sources, the “generation” that Jesus spoke about, could have been any of those.....not just about those living at that time.

Seriously, did you read your own quote?

From your response, It’s apparent that you are unaware that 1.) a concordance is different than a lexicon and both are used for different purposes 2.) a lexicon provides a more robust definition and usage of a word within a specific context.

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, Strongs CONCORDANCE doesn’t. You seem to be confusing a concordance with a lexicon. Strongs concordance provides simple glosses for the word known as “Strongs definitions”, and where these glosses are found in the Bible. Basically, it tells us all the English words that the Greek word was translated into and where to find them in the Bible.


Copied directly from Strong’s CONCORDANCE off blueletterbible:

• “Strong’s Definitions
  γενεά geneá, ghen-eh-ah'; from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):—age, generation, nation, time.
  

  ---

  KJV Translation Count — Total: 42x
  The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).”

You actually have. Many words have different meanings in different contexts. Unlike a concordance, Lexicons provide a more robust definition and usage of word within a specific context. Thayer’s lexicon tells us that genea = generation (multitude of people living at the same time) within the context of Matthew 24:34 - see below, highlighted in red. You seem to argue that genea should follow the definition and usage of thayer’s 2b) below, but Matthew 24:34 is NOT listed there.

In other words, contrary to how a lexicon is intended to be used, you are cherry picking which definition you want in order to support your theological framework.

If Matthew 24:34 was listed as a usage in 2b, then you would have a solid argument.

See below, THAYERS LEXICON, copied from blue letter Bible

STRONGS G1074:
γενεά, -ᾶς, ἡ, (ΓΕΝΩ, γίνομαι [cf. Curtius, p. 610]); Sept. often for דּוֹר; in Greek writings from Homer down;
1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus 3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; [others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above].

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;
a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζειν Ῥαχάβην κ. τὴν γενεὰναὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17, (ἑβδόμη γενεὰ οὗτόςἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).
b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; [Acts 2:40].

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); Luke 21:32; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γεν. ταύ., Luke 11:31; τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίςδιηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 Sept.) [but cf. Meyer, at the passage].

4. an age (i. e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), the space of from 30 to 33 years (Herodotus 2, 142, and others; Heraclitus in Plutarch, def. orac. c. 11), or ὁ χρόνος, ἐν ᾧ γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξαὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας(Plutarch, the passage cited); in the N. T.common in plural: Ephesians 3:5 [Winers Grammar, § 31, 9 a.; Buttmann, 186 (161)]; παρῳχημέναις γενεαῖς in ages gone by, Acts 14:16; ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν for ages, since the generations began, Colossians 1:26; ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίωνfrom the generations of old, from ancient times down, Acts 15:21; εἰς γενεὰςγενεῶν unto generations of generations, through all ages, forever (a phrase which assumes that the longer ages are made up of shorter; see αἰών, 1 a.): Luke 1:50 R L (דּוֹרִים לְדוֹר, Isaiah 51:8); εἰς γενεὰς κ. γενεάς unto generations and generations, ibid. T Tr WH equivalent to וָדוֹר לְדוֹר, Psalm 89:2; Isaiah 34:17; very often in the Sept.; [add, εἰς πάσας τὰςγενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων, Ephesians 3:21, cf. Ellicott at the passage] (γενεά is used of a century in Genesis 15:16, cf. Knobel at the passage, and on the senses of the word see the full remarks of Keim, iii. 206 [v. 245 English translation]).



From your response, It’s apparent that you are unaware that 1.) a concordance is different than a lexicon and both are used for different purposes 2.) a lexicon provides a more robust definition and usage of a word within a specific context.

Something that receives starts or beginnings, perhaps.

 

[Aunty Jane]

From your response, It’s apparent that you are unaware that 1.) a concordance is different than a lexicon and both are used for different purposes.

Did you miss that part about “blueletterbible.org” being a good resource?....it covers all the bases....including the many verses where the same word is translated in different ways.
This is not just about Strongs Concordance....I suggest you look it up.

blueletterbible.org

2.) a lexicon provides a more robust definition and usage of a word within a specific context.

I know....that is exactly why I said what I said.