Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[claninja]

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.

There is no basis that “ge” is required to be understood as the entire earth in Matthew 24:30 just because “ge” is also found in Matthew 25:35. Proximity to the same word and broader context are not the sole means by which a word is to be understood. It’s why lexicons omit Matthew 24:30 from being defined as the whole earth. It’s why you will find English translations of Matthew 24:30 with “land”. It’s why you will find even some futurist commentators that argue “ge” can mean land in Matthew 24:30.

please understand, my argument is simply that there is nothing grammatically or contextually that requires it to be the entire earth. Based on the absence of Matthew 24:30 in lexicons when it comes to how “ge” should be defined in that context, It’s possible it could mean broader than the land of Judea, but it’s NOT required to.

 

[claninja]

Did you miss that part about “blueletterbible.org” being a good resource?.

No………it’s why I stated in post 338 “copied from blue letter Bible” in regards to strong’s concordance and thayer’s lexicon.

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

I don’t think you do. If you understood how to use Thayer’s lexicon correctly, you wouldn’t have applied definition 2b (“race”) to γενεά in Matthew 24:34. Thayer does not assign that verse to 2b. He explicitly classifies Matthew 24:34 under definition 3 — “the whole multitude of men living at the same time.

By incorrectly using thayer’s lexicon, you are committing the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer”.

 

[Aunty Jane]

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.

Matt 24:3 ....Jesus’ disciples asked him a very important question.....
“Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (NASB)

Strong’s breakdown of this verse is as follows....
“Tell G3004 us, when G4219 will these G3778 things G3778 happen, G1510and what G5101 will be the sign G4592 of Your coming, G3952 and of the end G4930 of the age?” G165

The word “coming” is used here, according to the translations widely accepted in Christendom. But is this what the disciples actually asked?

The word in Greek is “parousia” which has a much broader meaning than “coming” (“erchomai”).

Paul illustrates this in Phil 2:12, where he states unambiguously....
“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence [parousia] only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. (NASB)

Since his “presence” is contrasted with his “absence”, it is clear that this word can be translated as “presence” and the context would indicate what is intended.

Jesus further words in Matt 24, show us another word that means “coming”.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. . . . .“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming (“erchomai”). . . . .For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming (“erchomai”) at an hour when you do not think”. (Matt 24:36, 42, 44 NASB)

In Greek we see this word is “erchomai”....the most famous use of this word is contained in the Lord’s Prayer.....”thy Kingdom come”.....something yet future. Whereas a “presence” is something that has already taken place.

If you were at a gathering and you noticed that a friend was present.....he is at the gathering, but you didn’t see him arrive. “Parousia” encompasses both the arrival and presence of someone.

Paul also uses this word “parousia” in 1 Thess 3:13...
“so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the [fn]coming G3952 of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.”

The footnote there reads “presence”. Many other verses carry the same footnote.

So translating “parousia” as “coming” gives a false impression, as his “coming” is connected with his judgment, but that is at the end of his presence, not the beginning.....he gave a detailed “sign” of very obvious world events to indicate when his “parousia” began.

We have been living with them since the “Great War” of 1914 when this unprecedented event engulfed the world at a time when world peace was expected. It involved the whole world in a war that no nation had ever experienced, on such a scale. All the other parts of the “sign” are all being experienced to this day.

Translation when it goes astray, can give all sorts of wrong impressions.....what the churches are expecting is not what Jesus said at all....only careful Bible students will see what is obvious. It’s hidden in plain sight, revealed to those with the eyes of faith.

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.

Indeed....very interesting times, when the “sheep and the goats” will be clearly separated....not resembling one another at all.....as in Jesus’ other illustration of the “wheat and the weeds”, all are growing together in the world, but separated only at the time of the harvest, which is looming as we speak.

Since “few” will be found on the road to life, (Matt 7:13-14) it is clear that the majority are on the wrong road, but they are oblivious as to its destination. At the end they will be offering their excuses to their “Lord”.....but he will not accept them. (Matt 7:21-23)

Pause and reflect.....in a world ruled by the devil, nothing is as it appears to be....(1 John 5:19)
If they can make Jesus appear to be a wicked blasphemer, deserving of death....imagine what picture they will paint of his true disciples at this “time of the end”....”just like the days of Noah” (Matt 24:37-39)

History repeats right under our collective noses.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There is no basis that “ge” is required to be understood as the entire earth in Matthew 24:30 just because “ge” is also found in Matthew 25:35.

Yes, there is. Both verses relate directly to the same event, which is the second coming of Christ. Do you deny that?

Proximity to the same word and broader context are not the sole means by which a word is to be understood. It’s why lexicons omit Matthew 24:30 from being defined as the whole earth. It’s why you will find English translations of Matthew 24:30 with “land”. It’s why you will find even some futurist commentators that argue “ge” can mean land in Matthew 24:30.

It clearly doesn't. The context of both verses is in direct relation to the second coming of Christ. Why would one verse speak of the second coming of Christ in a local context and one in a global context if they are both talking about the same event? It makes no sense to interpret "ge" one way in one of the verses and another way in the other verse when they both relate directly to the same event. Either Christ's second coming was a local event, in which case both verses would be referring to the land of Israel or Jerusalem, or His second coming is a global event, in which case both references to "ge" would refer to the planet earth.

my argument is simply that there is nothing grammatically or contextually that requires it to be the entire earth.

I disagree. How many times do I need to tell you that? No matter how many times you try to say otherwise, I will continue to disagree. I don't find your argument to be convincing at all.

Based on the absence of Matthew 24:30 in lexicons when it comes to how “ge” should be defined in that context, It’s possible it could mean broader than the land of Judea, but it’s NOT required to.

That's your opinion that I disagree with.

 

[Aunty Jane]

No………it’s why I stated in post 338 “copied from blue letter Bible” in regards to strong’s concordance and thayer’s lexicon.

Just to be clear...blueletterbible.org is a resource that contains both Concordance and lexicon entires.
It lists all the scriptures where any particular word is found, which gives us context, as well as definitions.
This is a reliable resource.....one that allows us to read and compare.

I don’t think you do. If you understood how to use Thayer’s lexicon correctly, you wouldn’t have applied definition 2b (“race”) to γενεά in Matthew 24:34. Thayer does not assign that verse to 2b. He explicitly classifies Matthew 24:34 under definition 3 — “the whole multitude of men living at the same time.

By incorrectly using thayer’s lexicon, you are committing the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer”.

Ooh...that sounds serious .....but truthfully, you seem to put great store by what Thayer’s Lexicon has to say.....when I have to ask, who was Thayer?...and for what reason do we have to accept what he says is gospel truth?

According to a Google search...
“Biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world at the present time has only one unabridged lexicon of the Greek New Testament at its disposal, Joseph Henry Thayer's "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," first published in 1886 and in a corrected edition in 1889.”

Are you going to tell me that linguistics has not advance markedly since this publication (over a hundred years old now) was released? Who said Thayer got it right when he had to edit his own work only three years later...?

If you have “the big picture” that the Bible presents, of Christianity from its beginnings until now, history attests to the accuracy of the Bible’s predictions.....Jesus said that ”weeds” would be sown by the devil, in the world, masquerading as “wheat”.....an apostasy.

When were these “weeds” “sown” ? Not recently.....and the hopelessly fractured state of the Christian church is a fair indication of the absence of God’s spirit, which unites Christ’s disciples....it does not divide them. (1 Cor 1:10)

We can trace all the rot back to the second century.....because it was the apostles who were acting as a “restraint” to this “apostasy” which was “already at work” at the end of the first century.....so it was held back until the last of the Christian Scriptures was penned by the apostle John.

What was to take place after that? Paul foretold that a “man of lawlessness” would arise in the future....but when was he to begin to manifest...?

“And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming (parousia). The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thess 2:6-12 ESV)

Once the restraining influence was “out of the way” the rot set in, and eventually advanced over the whole world....still masquerading as the genuine article, even though those who call themselves “Christians” today, are not only fighting against each other, but are seen to be breaking every command that Jesus gave.

There can only be one truth, and if that was lost centuries ago, how can we get to the real truth when the counterfeit has existed and been accepted by the masses for so long....and if you rely on sources influenced by the doctrines of an apostate church....what then?

 

[jeffweeder]

It clearly doesn't. The context of both verses is in direct relation to the second coming of Christ. Why would one verse speak of the second coming of Christ in a local context and one in a global context if they are both talking about the same event? It makes no sense to interpret "ge" one way in one of the verses and another way in the other verse when they both relate directly to the same event. Either Christ's second coming was a local event, in which case both verses would be referring to the land of Israel or Jerusalem, or His second coming is a global event, in which case both references to "ge" would refer to the planet earth.

Well put.
If they are different events then Jesus would have made that clear. He didn't once distinguish between his one coming with another coming of his.

He most certainly saw his second coming as a final climactic global judgment on the last day..

 

[claninja]

Yes, there is. Both verses relate directly to the same event, which is the second coming of Christ. Do you deny that?


It clearly doesn't. The context of both verses is in direct relation to the second coming of Christ. Why would one verse speak of the second coming of Christ in a local context and one in a global context if they are both talking about the same event? It makes no sense to interpret "ge" one way in one of the verses and another way in the other verse when they both relate directly to the same event. Either Christ's second coming was a local event, in which case both verses would be referring to the land of Israel or Jerusalem, or His second coming is a global event, in which case both references to "ge" would refer to the planet earth.


I disagree. How many times do I need to tell you that? No matter how many times you try to say otherwise, I will continue to disagree. I don't find your argument to be convincing at all.


That's your opinion that I disagree with.

Doesn’t really matter about your subjective opinion that it’s REQUIRED to be understood in a broader sense , as objectively there are NT translations that translate ge as “land”, lexicons omit Matthew 24:30 from a broader context, and many theological commentaries argue it can mean land in that context.

 

[TazzJazz]

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?

No, that's not what He was implying. The implication was that He was at least 1800 years old! That was crazy --- to them.

You know how we know that that was the reason they wanted to stone Him? Because if those Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming, by claiming to be their God Yahweh, Jesus would have been chased forever! But He wasn't. In the very next chapter -- John 9 -- Jesus is walking freely among the Jews.
There was no 'statute of limitations' on that crime.

 

[claninja]

Just to be clear...blueletterbible.org is a resource that contains both Concordance and lexicon entires.
It lists all the scriptures where any particular word is found, which gives us context, as well as definitions.
This is a reliable resource.....one that allows us to read and compare.

Ooh...that sounds serious .....but truthfully, you seem to put great store by what Thayer’s Lexicon has to say.....when I have to ask, who was Thayer?...and for what reason do we have to accept what he says is gospel truth?

According to a Google search...
“Biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world at the present time has only one unabridged lexicon of the Greek New Testament at its disposal, Joseph Henry Thayer's "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," first published in 1886 and in a corrected edition in 1889.”

Are you going to tell me that linguistics has not advance markedly since this publication (over a hundred years old now) was released? Who said Thayer got it right when he had to edit his own work only three years later...?

If you have “the big picture” that the Bible presents, of Christianity from its beginnings until now, history attests to the accuracy of the Bible’s predictions.....Jesus said that ”weeds” would be sown by the devil, in the world, masquerading as “wheat”.....an apostasy.

When were these “weeds” “sown” ? Not recently.....and the hopelessly fractured state of the Christian church is a fair indication of the absence of God’s spirit, which unites Christ’s disciples....it does not divide them. (1 Cor 1:10)

We can trace all the rot back to the second century.....because it was the apostles who were acting as a “restraint” to this “apostasy” which was “already at work” at the end of the first century.....so it was held back until the last of the Christian Scriptures was penned by the apostle John.

What was to take place after that? Paul foretold that a “man of lawlessness” would arise in the future....but when was he to begin to manifest...?

“And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming (parousia). The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thess 2:6-12 ESV)

Once the restraining influence was “out of the way” the rot set in, and eventually advanced over the whole world....still masquerading as the genuine article, even though those who call themselves “Christians” today, are not only fighting against each other, but are seen to be breaking every command that Jesus gave.

There can only be one truth, and if that was lost centuries ago, how can we get to the real truth when the counterfeit has existed and been accepted by the masses for so long....and if you rely on sources influenced by the doctrines of an apostate church....what then?

The lexical information from blueletterbible is from Strong’s concordance and Thayer’s lexicon. It doesn’t seem you are aware of this either, as in one instance you claim blueltterbible is a reliable source but also “who is Thayers……”

You are one that quoted from Thayer’s originally in 327 as to what genea means:

“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”

But you were cherry picking and thus committing the fallacy of illegitimate totatily transfer by appealing to thayers from blue letter Bible. Notice, Matthew 24:34 is not listed under the definition you provided. I copied this directly from blue letter Bible, which uses thayers as its Greek lexical source:

• 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).

Instead Matthew 24:34 is listed under the definition of “whole multitude living at the same time”. Copied directly from blue letter Bible, which uses thayers for its lexical source:

• 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;

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Doesn’t really matter about your subjective opinion that it’s REQUIRED to be understood in a broader sense , as objectively there are NT translations that translate ge as “land”, lexicons omit Matthew 24:30 from a broader context, and many theological commentaries argue it can mean land in that context.

Your opinion doesn't matter to me, either, so we have that in common.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, that's not what He was implying. The implication was that He was at least 1800 years old! That was crazy --- to them.

LOL. Wrong. He clearly did not look that old and it's insane to think He could have been claiming that. I guarantee that none of them thought He was claiming that. You are just denying the obvious truth here that He was claiming to be God and they thought He was being blasphemous. Are you a Jehovah's Witness, too?

You know how we know that that was the reason they wanted to stone Him?

We can't know that because it's totally ridiculous to think any of them would be that stupid to think He was trying to claim He was 1,800 years old. But, even if any of them were that dumb, why would that be something to make them want to kill Him? That makes no sense.

Because if those Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming, by claiming to be their God Yahweh, Jesus would have been chased forever! But He wasn't. In the very chapter -- John 9 -- Jesus is walking freely among the Jews.
There was no 'statute of limitations' on that crime.

Wrong. Do you not understand that God can influence people however He wants at any time He wants to? Read this...

John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. 30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.

Why do you think that no one laid hands on Jesus in this instance despite many wanting to kill Him? Because God supernaturally prevented them from doing so because it was not yet His hour/time.

 

[Aunty Jane]

But you were cherry picking and thus committing the fallacy of illegitimate totatily transfer by appealing to thayers from blue letter Bible. Notice, Matthew 24:34 is not listed under the definition you provided. I copied this directly from blue letter Bible, which uses thayers as its Greek lexical source:

• 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).

Wow..... Your total concentration on Thayers is why I used it to prove you wrong....
There are a range of meanings to the word in question....and you yourself are cherry picking...

The definition has to fit in with what the rest of Scripture says....your chosen definition clearly does not.

The generation alive in Jesus’ day are not the ones alive when he returns....we are in “the last days” right now, anticipating Christ’s return to eliminate the “goats” from the world, and to get all things restored back to the way they were meant to be in the beginning. (Rev 21:2-4)

You seem to be blinded to the big picture if you interpret Scripture without it.

Instead Matthew 24:34 is listed under the definition of “whole multitude living at the same time”. Copied directly from blue letter Bible, which uses thayers for its lexical source:

• 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;

That is only one definition, which is clearly inaccurate.

In all the scriptures you cited the meanings are clearly identified by the context....which make it clear what is intended for the audience to whom it was directed.

Your pedantic approach to “words” instead of correct interpretation, leads you down the wrong path.

 

[claninja]

Wow..... Your total concentration on Thayers is why I used it to prove you wrong....
There are a range of meanings to the word in question....and you yourself are cherry picking...

The definition has to fit in with what the rest of Scripture says....your chosen definition clearly does not.

The generation alive in Jesus’ day are not the ones alive when he returns....we are in “the last days” right now, anticipating Christ’s return to eliminate the “goats” from the world, and to get all things restored back to the way they were meant to be in the beginning. (Rev 21:2-4)

You seem to be blinded to the big picture if you interpret Scripture without it.

That is only one definition, which is clearly inaccurate.

In all the scriptures you cited the meanings are clearly identified by the context....which make it clear what is intended for the audience to whom it was directed.

Your pedantic approach to “words” instead of correct interpretation, leads you down the wrong path.

Open an English dictionary and you’ll see that the word “green” can mean a color, nausea, vegetation, inexperience, and more. But no one claims the word carries all of those meanings in every sentence. That would be absurd.

The same principle applies to Greek, and a lexicon goes even a step further:

A lexicon is not a buffet where you choose whichever definition best fits your theology. A lexicon classifies meanings by context, showing how a word is used in specific passages. If you ignore that, you’re simply misusing the tool.

Take genea in Matthew 24:34. In Thayer’s, that verse is explicitly listed under the meaning “the whole multitude of men living at the same time.” Thayer does not place Matthew 24:34 under the meaning “family, race, or stock.” Therefore, according to Thayer’s own categorization, genea in Matthew 24:34 does not mean “family of the same stock.” It means exactly what Thayer says the contextual usage is: the contemporaneous generation.

If you insists otherwise, you’re not following the lexicon properly — you’re overriding it by cherry picking.

So since you seem to not actually agree with Thayer’s, what would be more beneficial is if you could actually provide a lexicon or dictionary that lists “Genea” in Matthew 24:34 under the definition of “family of same stock”, instead incorrectly using thayer’s.

and you yourself are cherry picking...

Maybe you don’t know what cherry picking means either?

Under the context of Thayer…..

It would be cherry picking to argue genea means only “multitude living at the same time” if Matthew 24:34 was listed under both “multitude living at the same time” AND “family of same stock”.

It would be cherry picking to argue genea means “family of same stock ” if Matthew 24:34 was listed under only “multitude living at the same time” but not “family of same stock”.

It would NOT be cherry picking to argue genea means only “multitude of same stock” if Matthew 24:34 was listed under only “multitude living at the same time” but not “family of same stock”.

 

[Aunty Jane]

A lexicon is not a buffet where you choose whichever definition best fits your theology. A lexicon classifies meanings by context, showing how a word is used in specific passages. If you ignore that, you’re simply misusing the tool.

I couldn’t agree more.....this is why we have to examine the context and see how a particular word is used in other Scripture. Context demonstrates how any given original language word is to be understood by those to whom it was directed.

Take genea in Matthew 24:34. In Thayer’s, that verse is explicitly listed under the meaning “the whole multitude of men living at the same time.” Thayer does not place Matthew 24:34 under the meaning “family, race, or stock.” Therefore, according to Thayer’s own categorization, genea in Matthew 24:34 does not mean “family of the same stock.” It means exactly what Thayer says the contextual usage is: the contemporaneous generation.

Again you refer to Thayer’s, as if his is the only definition that is acceptable to you or to anyone else. Who said?
Does it stand to reason that “genea” can only mean what Thayer suggested in that verse?
Did all the things Jesus spoke about in Matt 24 occur in that one generation.....IOW, did we see unprecedented war or food shortages or earthquakes in one place after another....?
Did Christ return and restore all things in the first century?

All those things Jesus listed were a “sign” of his return.....and we are still waiting for the judgment that comes with his Kingdom taking over rulership of this earth, as Daniel prophesied to take place in “the time of the end”. (Dan 2:44; Daniel 12:1-4; 8-10)
We are in the final days of “the time of the end”, when the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind is about to be unleashed.....(Matt 24:21) Many can feel it coming.....do you?

So since you seem to not actually agree with Thayer’s, what would be more beneficial is if you could actually provide a lexicon or dictionary that lists “Genea” in Matthew 24:34 under the definition of “family of same stock”, instead incorrectly using thayer’s.

By consulting what we already have, it is plainly evident that “genea” does not fit the definition that Thayer gave....those alive in Jesus’ day did not witness what we are witnessing in these last days on the scale that the first century Christians endured. His words are no longer fulfilled just in a single geographical location...but on a global scale. What will soon take place, will engulf the whole world.

Maybe you don’t know what cherry picking means either?

Seriously....shift your focus to what is actually happening in the world right now.....what do you see as to the outcome?
What did Jesus mean when he taught us how to pray...? “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”?
What will the “coming” of the Kingdom mean for the whole world, where Christianity has spread since the first century?

Under the context of Thayer…..

Thayer is not God and his words and opinions are not Scripture...why do you treat them as such?

Who has educated you? Do you understand why Jesus did not choose educated men (by Jewish standards of the day) to be his apostles? Such an education would have been a hinderance to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to whom Jesus was sent. These humble apostles, like their Teacher, did not resemble their proud religious leaders who treated them like dirt...but appealed to them with hope and love. “The Fine Shepherd” had sent them out to search for the precious lambs who were lost because the shepherds neglected them.

Do you understand why he chose Saul to be an “apostle to the nations”? He was the exact opposite of the 12 in his education...”a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees”? But in Greek culture education was valued as the philosophers argued endlessly on a level where an uneducated man would have been lost. The apostle Paul held his own with the educated Pharisees (he was from that background) as well as the educated Greeks who tolerated him because he spoke on their level. His mission was specific.

So education has its benefits in the right setting....just be careful who you listen to....and do your homework.
Everything of importance in the Bible is without contradiction. If there is contradiction, it’s the interpretation that is lacking.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Did Jesus actually say that the "tribes of the WORLD" would see his coming, or only the tribes "of the land" (Israel)?

Matthew 24:30 KJV
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.

Matthew 24:30 CLNT
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory.

It doesn't matter what Jesus meant per se because he only shows up in Israel, (comes out of the Eastern Skies) and he can be seen everywhere on earth because of TV, so tech. you could say everyone on earth, but the 1/3 will be burning (The Americas) and probably not watching TV. Jesus is always talking about only Israel, that was his calling, unto the lost sheep only. In the book of Revelation, it was to all mankind on earth. But, therein lies another problem, Jesus nor Daniel via God/Man in Linen/Angels ever stated that the Little Horn/AC/Beast would ever rule the Whole Earth, it was saying the Whole Landmass being spoken about in the parameters God set forth in Prophesy, the 10 Horns and the 7 Heads and 10 Horns (Four in Daniel because he leaves off Egypt and Assyria who wee past powers and many misunderstand the Little Horn is a 5th Beast).

Those 7 Heads represent only Kingdoms that rule over the Mediterranean Sea Region (MSR) in every case, it was never a World Wide Kingdom even though Nebuchadnezzar was said to rule over where every man lays his head in Daniel chapter 2 and Alexander the Great in the same chapter was said to rule over the Whole Earth, well of course God is never wrong, so since God cannot be wrong, we have to reconcile our understandings, God thus can only be speaking about a certain parameter, the Beast Kingdom PLUS the MSR in each case. So, why was Alexander the Great's Greece Beast said to conquer the Whole Earth or Landmass via the 7 Heads and 10 Horns when Greek never conquered eve half of the MSR Coastline, unlike Rome who conquered it all? Because the Last Beast is a MAN who is born in Greece (Dan. 8:9 mandates this) and comes to power in the E.U. (10 = Completion, thus the 10 = the E.U. completely reviving the Roman Beast when they conquer with the AC/Little Horn as seen in Dan. 11:40-43)



Dan. 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee(Persia), and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

So, neither Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon nor Alexander and Greece ever conquered the whole world, and as seen above Greece did not even conquer the WHOLE LANDMASS being spoken about, so what gives? Because God cannot lie !! See Below Rome and then the Little Horn's Kingdom



Notice how Rome conquered every square inch of the Landmass God was speaking about, but Greece never did, even though Gid stated the Third Beast would conquer the Whole Earth (Landmass being spoken about also) so what gives? God is hinting that this will be fulfilled later on, in the end times.



So, Dan. 8:9 says the Little Horn is born in Greece by the directions he conquers TOWARDS. Dan. 7:7-8 says the Little Horn comes up amidst the 10 (is born in the E.U.) and boom, Greece is in the E.U. When we look at the European Neighborhood Policy (an AGREEMENT or Covenant) we see the E.U. has current 7 year agreements (I joke not read it) with Israel and THE MANY (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya) as seen above on the ENP map. Now since Dan. 8:9 says he conquers TOWARDS the East (Seleucus/Turkey) and TOWARDS the South (Egypt/Ptolemy) we can read Dan. 11:40-43 and see the whole Little Horn/Beast/AC conquering of the above Orange Nations and Light Blue Turkey by the King that comes from the Northwest Corridor (Greece and the E.U.) and in short it reads like this, he will conquer MANY COUNTRIES than he conquers Israel, so Turkey, Lebanon, Syria and much of Jordan (not all) must fall, THEN Israel falls, THEN it says Egypt and Libya and back then that was all of North Africa, so the E.U. Little Horn (Dark Blue) Conquers Turkey, Israel and every nation in Orange (THE MANY) and e REEVIVES The old Roman Beast Landmass, the Beast that suffered the Mortal Wound is now HEALED !! Now guess whom that passage says cannot be conquered? Ammon, Edom and Moab, or the Petra/Bozrah area where the 1/3 of Israel who repents flees unto.

Now we know why Greece Conquers the WHOLE LAND[MASS], the end time Beast is a Grecian by birth just like Antiochus his forerunner was. In the End both the Greece and Roman Empire are sorta rebirthed. Maybe all of them are a part, because BY BLOODLINE, he will also be an Assyrian. So, some Iraqi or Turk from 2700 years ago (Assyrian Empire) whose family migrated to Greece, is born in Greece and comes to power in the E.U.

 

[claninja]

I couldn’t agree more.....this is why we have to examine the context and see how a particular word is used in other Scripture. Context demonstrates how any given original language word is to be understood by those to whom it was directed.

how are you determining how the original language was meant to be used and understood?

Again you refer to Thayer’s, as if his is the only definition that is acceptable to you or to anyone else. Who said?
Does it stand to reason that “genea” can only mean what Thayer suggested in that verse?
Did all the things Jesus spoke about in Matt 24 occur in that one generation.....IOW, did we see unprecedented war or food shortages or earthquakes in one place after another....?
Did Christ return and restore all things in the first century?

All those things Jesus listed were a “sign” of his return.....and we are still waiting for the judgment that comes with his Kingdom taking over rulership of this earth, as Daniel prophesied to take place in “the time of the end”. (Dan 2:44; Daniel 12:1-4; 8-10)
We are in the final days of “the time of the end”, when the greatest tribulation in the history of mankind is about to be unleashed.....(Matt 24:21) Many can feel it coming.....do you?

I don’t speak first century koine Greek, so I must rely on teams of scholars, linguists, etc… to translate the Bible into English. Even translators use lexicons, for example, the bdag lexicon was used by Vern Poythress when he worked on the ESV translation. (Bdag has genea in Matthew 24:34 as multitude living at the same time, and the esv translates genea to generation).

What source are you using to understand Greek words and their meaning besides your own private interpretation of the English?

By consulting what we already have, it is plainly evident that “genea” does not fit the definition that Thayer gave....those alive in Jesus’ day did not witness what we are witnessing in these last days on the scale that the first century Christians endured. His words are no longer fulfilled just in a single geographical location...but on a global scale. What will soon take place, will engulf the whole world.

What do you mean by “consulting what we already have”? What are you consulting to determine genea does NOT mean “multitude living at same time” in Matthew 24:34?

You seem to be using your own interpretive framework of the English in order to determine that genea cannot mean generation in Matthew 24:34?

Jesus disciples did witness wars, famine, persecution, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, many falling away from the church, the rise of prophets and false Christs, and the destruction of Jerusalem. That’s not even up for debate historically.

The disciples living through the son of man coming on the clouds, depends on what the phrase means. If it refers to the literal, visible, and bodily descension of Christ, then no, they did not live through that. If the son of man coming on the clouds is simply an allusion to Daniel 7:13 AND is being used similarly to how God descended multiple in the OT on the clouds to judge nations and kingdoms, then yes the disciples lived through that.

Thayer is not God and his words and opinions are not Scripture...why do you treat them as such?

Who has educated you? Do you understand why Jesus did not choose educated men (by Jewish standards of the day) to be his apostles? Such an education would have been a hinderance to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to whom Jesus was sent. These humble apostles, like their Teacher, did not resemble their proud religious leaders who treated them like dirt...but appealed to them with hope and love. “The Fine Shepherd” had sent them out to search for the precious lambs who were lost because the shepherds neglected them.

Do you understand why he chose Saul to be an “apostle to the nations”? He was the exact opposite of the 12 in his education...”a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees”? But in Greek culture education was valued as the philosophers argued endlessly on a level that an uneducated man would have been lost. The apostle Paul held his own with the educated Pharisees (he was from that background) as well as the educated Greeks who tolerated him because he spoke on their level. His mission was specific.

So education has its benefits in the right setting....just be careful who you listen to....and do your homework.
Everything of importance in the Bible is without contradiction. If there is contradiction, it’s the interpretation that is lacking.

This has nothing to do with properly using a lexicon or concordance.

 

[Aunty Jane]

how are you determining how the original language was meant to be used and understood?

By taking the whole Bible into consideration, we get “the big picture”....because it’s one story, with one author.....written over hundreds of years by many inspired secretaries. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

The big picture is like the one on a jig-saw puzzle box, that helps us put all the pieces where they belong....we would be lost without it. Sometimes we will have clusters of pieces in the vicinity of where they belong, but it’s not till you link those clusters that more of the big picture is revealed.

In the broad view, we see that what was lost in Genesis is restored in Revelation. Everything in between was an object lesson on the value of obedience and the serious consequences of disobeying the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe.

Through God’s chosen nation, we learn more by how he handled their disobedience and were punished, than the times when they repented and were blessed. Through their whole history, we see who Yahweh is and always has been in his expectations regarding his children, both human and angelic, now inextricably bound together we are all involved in one very valuable lesson......the outcome of which determines the eternal destiny of every one of us.

I don’t speak first century koine Greek, so I must rely on teams of scholars, linguists, etc… to translate the Bible into English. Even translators use lexicons, for example, the bdag lexicon was used by Vern Poythress when he worked on the ESV translation. (Bdag has genea in Matthew 24:34 as multitude living at the same time, and the esv translates genea to generation).

OK, so now we get to the human element used in translation.
What were the religious leanings of the translators....who actually taught them the doctrines of the early church?...and which came first? The doctrine or the translation that seemed to justify it?

If the translators already had a “picture” painted by the church to sway their translation to support “church” teachings, who was going to argue with them if the church itself was corrupted? Jesus and the apostles warned of this corruption.
In the early centuries when these doctrines were formulated, so much was adopted from paganism that swayed the translators to imply what the original Scriptures never did.

Three prime examples of this are...
1) The trinity. Not a single statement by either God or his son teach that they are one and the same God.
Triads of gods were common in pagan religions. Egypt for example had their triad long before Abraham’s time. The Greeks had hundreds of gods, often in triads......but right from Israel’s beginnings, their God was very different to those that the nations worshipped...he was only ever a singular entity. (Deut 6:4) Only the true faith was monotheistic.

2) Immortality of the soul. Again a pagan idea incorporated into Christian teachings by an apostate church.
There is not a single verse in the Bible where the words “immortal soul” appear side by side.
The ancient Jews did not believe in “life after death” because that was the lie satan told in the garden.....that they “surely will not die”.....the only way he got to promote that lie was to suggest that the humans go on living in another realm, and in a different form....but strangely that idea is absent from any Bible teaching. There is no “heaven or hell” as opposite destinations for the human race and never was.
Jews were taught about “resurrection”...which is a return to life, not a continuation of it somewhere else. They believed that the dead ‘slept’ unconscious in the grave until Messiah was to call them back to life as he demonstrated with his friend Lazarus. (Eccl 9:5, 10; John 11:11-14) Where was Lazarus before Jesus resurrected him?

3) Hellfire. The place where the wicked are burned in flames for all eternity.....you have to have an immortal soul that lives on after death to experience any kind of suffering. Since the Jews were never taught about such things, As a Jew, Jesus never taught about them.
His reference to “Gehenna” was well understood by his Jewish audience, but the doctrines of the church promoted a cruel and sadistic god, rather than the kind and loving one portrayed by his son.....the one who knew him best of all.

It’s no coincidence that all of Christendom, with few exceptions, adopted all of those teachings. None of them originate from Scripture, except by suggestion based on how the Bible is translated.....bias is very evident when you do your research.

 

[Aunty Jane]

What source are you using to understand Greek words and their meaning besides your own private interpretation of the English?

My brotherhood accept Westcott and Hort’s translation of the Greek Scriptures. But we all know that scholars disagree with one another, so we have to have a good knowledge of Scripture to determine who are supporting church doctrines, and who are translating the words and phrases true to the original languages.

This is why I like the blueletterbible site so much. It gives a clear indication by how any word is translated in all the places where it appears, to show us the range of meanings in context.
So understanding how the word or phrase is used in those other verses gives us the bigger picture....and shows us where bias is evident.

What do you mean by “consulting what we already have”? What are you consulting to determine genea does NOT mean “multitude living at same time” in Matthew 24:34?

I was alluding to the glaringly obvious dual prophesy of the last days of the Jewish system and the coming of Jesus Christ as judge of all the earth. These are the ends of two different parallel systems. The first was witnessed in the first century with the destruction of the Temple and the dismantling of the corrupted Jewish system.
Jesus pronounced sentence on them in Matt 23:37-39....and God chose a new nation to serve his interests on earth....”the Israel of God” of whom Paul spoke, (Gal 6:16) was not natural Israel, but spiritual Israel made up of both Jewish and gentile disciples of Christ.

The ones alive in the first century of that “generation” of spiritually anointed Christians, could clearly not still be here almost 2000 years later. But this dual prophesy speaks of those anointed ones being still alive on earth when Jesus returned....so the meaning cannot be what Thayer and others suggested. We see all features of the “sign” Jesus gave to alert his disciples that he was already here, so the features of that sign would be in evidence to indicate when the “last days” began.
He did not tell us when they would end. (Matt 24:37-39)

All indications in the world right now, show us that “the end” will be soon. What is it the end of exactly?

You seem to be using your own interpretive framework of the English in order to determine that genea cannot mean generation in Matthew 24:34?

The Bible interprets itself but only if you allow it to.....many cannot let go of their indoctrination in order to see a very simple truth...what God starts, he finishes.(Isa 55:11) If you know how it started....you know how it ends. What beginning did God give to the first humans? That is what Jesus’ sacrifice gives us back.

Jesus disciples did witness wars, famine, persecution, the gospel going to the whole oikoumene, many falling away from the church, the rise of prophets and false Christs, and the destruction of Jerusalem. That’s not even up for debate historically.

Nor will it be debated by me......but a dual prophesy works. One monumental event in one specific geographical location on earth, in the early history of the church, would be mirrored and eclipsed by something that would be global in scale and more devastating that anything that happened in first century Jerusalem.

The coming tribulation will be worse than anything experienced by mankind to date (Matt 24:21).....so contemplating that fact gives us an idea about what we are facing, and how important it is to see through the devil’s deceptions to the real issues......the reality of the Kingdom...what it is.....why it is necessary....and who will rule with Christ in that heavenly ‘government upon his shoulders’. (Isa 9:6-7)

What is the purpose of the Kingdom?

The disciples living through the son of man coming on the clouds, depends on what the phrase means. If it refers to the literal, visible, and bodily descension of Christ, then no, they did not live through that. If the son of man coming on the clouds is simply an allusion to Daniel 7:13 AND is being used similarly to how God descended multiple in the OT on the clouds to judge nations and kingdoms, then yes the disciples lived through that.

You see how easy it is to get lost, when you have a ‘clouded’ view of the big picture? (pun intended)

Daniel was written about the “the time of the end”....not just for the early days of Christianity, because Jesus himself said that the “good news (gospel) of the Kingdom will be preached in ALL the inhabited earth for a witness to ALL the nations, and then the end wil come”. (Matt 24:14) This was part of the “sign”...the great commission....(Matt 28:19-20) a global preaching work that Jesus said he would be backing.....the churches are missing in action in this work......it was a command, not a recommendation.

This is the showdown.....the actual end of this system of world governance as we know it, since Daniel also foretold.....speaking of the last ruling powers of this world....
”In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”.

Don’t we have to ask those with your viewpoint...has this already taken place?

This has nothing to do with properly using a lexicon or concordance.

As I said.....
“...education has its benefits in the right setting....just be careful who you listen to....and do your homework.
Everything of importance in the Bible is without contradiction. If there is contradiction, it’s the interpretation that is lacking.”

There is ‘education’ that is beneficial and there is ‘education’ that is based on false beliefs....Jesus demonstrated the difference in his day.....we have to see the difference today, as the devil is very busy trying to take as many down with him as he can......he can only do that if we let him. He already has the “unbelievers” but does he also have the “believers” who are convinced that his counterfeit church system is the real McCoy? They will be the last the know. (Matt 7:21-23; 2 Thess 2:9-12)

 

[claninja]

By taking the whole Bible into consideration, we get “the big picture”....because it’s one story, with one author.....written over hundreds of years by many inspired secretaries. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

The big picture is like the one on a jig-saw puzzle box, that helps us put all the pieces where they belong....we would be lost without it. Sometimes we will have clusters of pieces in the vicinity of where they belong, but it’s not till you link those clusters that more of the big picture is revealed.

In the broad view, we see that what was lost in Genesis is restored in Revelation. Everything in between was an object lesson on the value of obedience and the serious consequences of disobeying the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe.

Through God’s chosen nation, we learn more by how he handled their disobedience and were punished, than the times when they repented and were blessed. Through their whole history, we see who Yahweh is and always has been in his expectations regarding his children, both human and angelic, now inextricably bound together we all, are in one very valuable lesson......the outcome of which determines the eternal destiny of every one of us.

OK, so now we get to the human element used in translation.
What were the religious leanings of the translators....who actually taught them the doctrines of the early church?...and which came first? The doctrine or the translation that seemed to justify it?

If the translators already had a “picture” painted by the church to sway their translation to support “church” teachings, who was going to argue with them if the church itself was corrupted? Jesus and the apostles warned of this corruption.
In the early centuries when these doctrines were formulated, so much was adopted from paganism that swayed the translators to imply what the original Scriptures never did.

Three prime examples of this are...
1) The trinity. Not a single statement by either God or his son teach that they are one and the same God.
Triads of gods were common in pagan religions. Egypt for example had their triad long before Abraham’s time. The Greeks had hundreds of gods, often in triads......but right from Israel’s beginnings, their God was very different to those that the nations worshipped...he was only ever a singular entity. (Deut 6:4) Only the true faith was monotheistic.

2) Immortality of the soul. Again a pagan idea incorporated into Christian teachings by an apostate church.
There is not a single verse in the Bible where the words “immortal soul” appear side by side.
The ancient Jews did not believe in “life after death” because that was the lie satan told in the garden.....that they “surely will not die”.....the only way he got to promote that lie was to suggest that the humans go on living in another realm, and in a different form....but strangely that idea is absent from any Bible teaching. There is no “heaven or hell” as opposite destinations for the human race and never was.
Jews were taught about “resurrection”...which is a return to life, not a continuation of it somewhere else. They believed that the dead ‘slept’ unconscious in the grave until Messiah was to call them back to life as he demonstrated with his friend Lazarus. (Eccl 9:5, 10; John 11:11-14) Where was Lazarus before Jesus resurrected him?

3) Hellfire. The place where the wicked are burned in flames for all eternity.....you have to have an immortal soul that lives on after death to experience any kind of suffering. Since the Jews were never taught about such things, As a Jew, Jesus never taught about them.
His reference to “Gehenna” was well understood by his Jewish audience, but the doctrines of the church promoted a cruel and sadistic god, rather than the kind and loving one portrayed by his son.....the one who knew him best of all.

It’s no coincidence that all of Christendom, with few exceptions, adopted all of those teachings. None of them originate from Scripture, except by suggestion based on how the Bible is translated.....bias is very evident when you do your research.

How does a modern day english speaker, who does not speak nor read first century koine Greek, get the big picture without English translation teams?

 

[claninja]

My brotherhood accept Westcott and Hort’s translation of the Greek Scriptures. But we all know that scholars disagree with one another, so we have to have a good knowledge of Scripture to determine who are supporting church doctrines, and who are translating the words and phrases true to the original languages.

This is why I like the blueletterbible site so much. It gives a clear indication by how any word is translated in all the places where it appears, to show us the range of meanings in context.
So understanding how the word or phrase is used in those other verses gives us the bigger picture....and shows us where bias is evident.

I was alluding to the glaringly obvious dual prophesy of the last days of the Jewish system and the coming of Jesus Christ as judge of all the earth. These are the ends of two different parallel systems. The first was witnessed in the first century with the destruction of the Temple and the dismantling of the corrupted Jewish system.
Jesus pronounced sentence on them in Matt 23:37-39....and God chose a new nation to serve his interests on earth....”the Israel of God” of whom Paul spoke, (Gal 6:16) was not natural Israel, but spiritual Israel made up of both Jewish and gentile disciples of Christ.

The ones alive in the first century of that “generation” of spiritually anointed Christians, could clearly not still be here almost 2000 years later. But this dual prophesy speaks of those anointed ones being still alive on earth when Jesus returned....so the meaning cannot be what Thayer and others suggested. We see all features of the “sign” Jesus gave to alert his disciples that he was already here, so the features of that sign would be in evidence to indicate when the “last days” began.
He did not tell us when they would end. (Matt 24:37-39)

All indications in the world right now, show us that “the end” will be soon. What is it the end of exactly?

The Bible interprets itself but only if you allow it to.....many cannot let go of their indoctrination in order to see a very simple truth...what God starts, he finishes.(Isa 55:11) If you know how it started....you know how it ends. What beginning did God give to the first humans? That is what Jesus’ sacrifice gives us back.

Nor will it be debated by me......but a dual prophesy works. One monumental event in one specific geographical location on earth, in the early history of the church, would be mirrored and eclipsed by something that would be global in scale and more devastating that anything that happened in first century Jerusalem.

The coming tribulation will be worse than anything experienced by mankind to date (Matt 24:21).....so contemplating that fact gives us an idea about what we are facing, and how important it is to see through the devil’s deceptions to the real issues......the reality of the Kingdom...what it is.....why it is necessary....and who will rule with Christ in that heavenly ‘government upon his shoulders’. (Isa 9:6-7)

What is the purpose of the Kingdom?

You see how easy it is to get lost, when you have a ‘clouded’ view of the big picture? (pun intended)

Daniel was written about the “the time of the end”....not just for the early days of Christianity, because Jesus himself said that the “good news (gospel) of the Kingdom will be preached in ALL the inhabited earth for a witness to ALL the nations, and then the end wil come”. (Matt 24:14) This was part of the “sign”...the great commission....(Matt 28:19-20) a global preaching work that Jesus said he would be backing.....the churches are missing in action in this work......it was a command, not a recommendation.

This is the showdown.....the actual end of this system of world governance as we know it, since Daniel also foretold.....speaking of the last ruling powers of this world....
”In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”.

Don’t we have to ask those with your viewpoint...has this already taken place?

As I said.....
“...education has its benefits in the right setting....just be careful who you listen to....and do your homework.
Everything of importance in the Bible is without contradiction. If there is contradiction, it’s the interpretation that is lacking.”

There is ‘education’ that is beneficial and there is ‘education’ that is based on false beliefs....Jesus demonstrated the difference in his day.....we have to see the difference today, as the devil is very busy trying to take as many down with him as he can......he can only do that if we let him. He already has the “unbelievers” but does he also have the “believers” who are convinced that his counterfeit church system is the real McCoy? They will be the last the know. (Matt 7:21-23; 2 Thess 2:9-12)

This is what's so confusing about your posts. You keep saying you like blueletterbible but then you seem to reject Thayer's. Are you not aware that BlueletterBible.org's source for lexical information is Thayer's?