γενεά geneá and the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer

[claninja]

I just barely understand the gist of what you are saying. Not a criticism, just saying 'have pity'!

Haha no worries!

Basically a concordance tells you what English word the Greek was translated into and where to find.

A lexicon will often provide a more comprehensive definition, and assign verses to said definition.

So for example, thayer’s lexicon lists several definitions for genea: birth, family of same stock, multitude living at the same time, and age. Thayers assigns Matthew 24:34 to the definition “multitude living at the same time”. Matthew 24:34 is not listed under any other definition. Thus thayers states it means “multitude living at the same time” in the context of Matthew 24:34.

However, if you use thayer’s lexicon to argue genea in Matthew 24:34 should mean family of same stock, you are using thayer’s incorrectly, as Thayer does not list Matthew 24:34 under the definition family of same stock.

A word does not mean all of its definitions in every instance. In other words genea does not mean birth, family of same stock, multitude living at same time, and age in Matthew 24:34. Thayer has assigned genea Matthew 24:34 to “multitude living at same time”. However, if you were to select another definition from thayers to apply, like family of same stock, because you don’t like how thayer’s assigned genea in Matthew 24:34, that would be the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

This is not to prove that thayers is the ultimate authority of what genea means in Matthew 24:34. It’s only to demonstrate the correct way to use thayers.

 

[Davidpt]

This has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is about correctly using a concordance and lexicon.

What resource are you using to understand the Greek word genea?

One resource I use is a Strong's. But the way I use it is like such. The Greek word in question in a passage, whatever that might be at the time, I then see where it is used elsewhere in Scripture. I look for senses, which can be determined via context. One sense genea can mean is morally. For example--Philippians 2:15

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Where I then see genea in this sense being connected with 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3, for instance. Where it is crystal clear, at least to me anyway, by comparing 2 Peter 3 with 2 Peter 2, that it is the world of the ungodly that passes away during the day of the Lord. And since both Matthew 24:34 and 2 Peter 3 involving something passing away, it the ungodly that shall pass away once everything has been fulfilled. Thus this generation is meaning the world of the ungodly in Matthew 24:34.

After all, per that block of context Matthew 24:34 is part of, it's not like one can't make a connection to 2 Peter 3.


Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


It is absurd that this can't be, thus is not connected, to 2 Peter 3 and the day of the Lord. My view then has this generation including both Jews and Gentiles, rather than Jews only. Since it is absurd that the world of the ungodly only pertains to Jews but no Gentiles. One is being anti-semantic by making Matthew 24:34 to only be involving the Jews. 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3 do not agree with that conclusion.

As to lexicons, I don't need any of them nor to I consult any of them. I use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Granted, in some cases though I am using Scripture to interpret Scripture, I can still be wrong about some things at times. Yet, in my mind, in regards to my interpretation of Matthew 24:34, the chance of me being incorrect is zero.

 

[Davidpt]

I don’t know if you noticed this but saying the morally corrupt, unbelieving world-order (that was prior to the cross) continues until all eschatological prophecy is fulfilled, actually would agree best with the preterist view.

Amill would say Satan was bound after the cross so the world-order was changed, as all power was given to Jesus after the cross.

Premill would say the world-order changes when Christ returns and sets up His kingdom to rule with the rod of iron.

A preterist might say the world-order of the old covenant lasted until all prophesy got fulfilled as in Luke 21:22.

I seeing it being more a possibility that Premil can maybe not be true,. But even so, that doesn't mean my view aligns with Preterism if Premil is not true. It would mean it aligns more with Amil who are not also Preterists, if Premil is not true.

 

[grafted branch]

1. When did/does the old covenant end?
2. When did/does the new covenant begin?
3. When did/does "the last days" begin?
4. When will "the last days" finish?
5. When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
6. What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?
7. When is the "end of the age"?
8. When is the day of redemption?
9. When did/does "this age" arrive?
10. When did/does "this age" end?
11. When did/does the new heavens and new earth arrive?
12. When did the kingdom of God begin?
13. When did/does "the age to come" arrive?
14. Is the second coming of Christ a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
15. Is the resurrection of the dead a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?
16. Is the judgment of all a past event, an ongoing process or a literal physical future climactic event?

Please list the Scriptures you believe support these?

I’m not going to provide answers to your list. But let me ask you this, should we look at the context of a word first in order to determine its definition or should we look at all the definitions of a word first and allow those definitions to help define the context?

 

[grafted branch]

I seeing it being more a possibility that Premil can maybe not be true,. But even so, that doesn't mean my view aligns with Preterism if Premil is not true. It would mean it aligns more with Amil who are not also Preterists, if Premil is not true.

Ok, I’m not pushing the preterist view on you here but I thought it was interesting that AI interpreted Matthew 24:34 in such a way that almost nobody would completely agree with.

 

[Davidpt]

Ok, I’m not pushing the preterist view on you here but I thought it was interesting that AI interpreted Matthew 24:34 in such a way that almost nobody would completely agree with.

That was not the ai interpreting Matthew 24:34. That was the AI polishing my interpretation of that verse. I provided my interpretation of Matthew 24:34 and how I see it connecting with 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3, for instance. IOW, I provided a lot of context to the AI in regards to why I interpret Matthew 24:34 in the manner I do. The AI then polished it for the sake of clarity, since there are some that argue I'm hard to follow at times, thus not being clear at times.

 

[grafted branch]

That was not the ai interpreting Matthew 24:34. That was the AI polishing my interpretation of that verse. I provided my interpretation of Matthew 24:34 and how I see it connecting with 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3, for instance. IOW, I provided a lot of context to the AI in regards to why I interpret Matthew 24:34 in the manner I do. The AI then polished it for the sake of clarity, since there are some that argue I'm hard to follow at times, thus not being clear at times.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[WPM]

I’m not going to provide answers to your list. But let me ask you this, should we look at the context of a word first in order to determine its definition or should we look at all the definitions of a word first and allow those definitions to help define the context?

We should let the Bible speak for itself, we should let other similar Scripture corroborate it and we should let context determine how we understand it.

 

[grafted branch]

We should let the Bible speak for itself, we should let other similar Scripture corroborate it and we should let context determine how we understand it.

Sure, so when a preterist puts forth all the corroborating scriptures that Christ was to soon come, why would you reject a 70AD coming? Wouldn’t a 70AD coming qualify as the Bible speaking for itself, letting scriptures corroborate, and the context then determining how we should understand it?

 

[claninja]

One resource I use is a Strong's. But the way I use it is like such. The Greek word in question in a passage, whatever that might be at the time, I then see where it is used elsewhere in Scripture. I look for senses, which can be determined via context. One sense genea can mean is morally. For example--Philippians 2:15

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1.) Strong's Concordance contains a "defintion" or gloss/sense. For genea, it has multiple glosses/sense - generation, age, nation, time:

• 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.

2.) Strong's concordance also lists where the glosses are in the Bible. Below is from blue letter Bible's online Strong's. If you were to click on the blue hyper link for "generation (37x)" it would show you the 37 verses were genea is translated into english as generation in the KJV. Matthew 24:34 is included in that list. Notice, the glosses are the same as the list below:

• The KJV translates Strong's G1074 in the following manner: generation (37x), time (2x), age (2x), nation (1x).
  • Verily I say unto you, This generation G1074 shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

3.) In the preface of Strong's, he wrote that these brief and simple dictionaries are not meant to replace lexicons. So if you are not willing simply to accept the Strong's gloss of "generation" for matthew 24:34, but want a more robust explanation of what generation means in mathew 23:34, you can turn to Thayer's lexicon. Thayer's lexicon tells us that genea means "whole multitude of men living at the same time" within the context of Matthew 23:34.

• 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 γενεὰν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17, (ἑβδόμη γενεὰ οὗτός ἐστιν 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 τίς διηγήσεται, 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 ἐξ αὐτοῦ 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 ἀρχαίων from the generations of old, from ancient times down, Acts 15:21; εἰς γενεὰς 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 (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 τὰς γενεὰς 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]).

What is not meant to be done using these tools is to say, "hey look, Strong's concordance says genea can mean nation, there fore genea means nation in mathew 24:34", especially when strong's does not list genea as nation in matthew 24:34, but generation.

What is also not meant to be done with these tools is say, "hey look, Thayer's explains that genea can mean metaphorical race, therefore genea means metaphorical race in matthew 24:34," especially when Thayer's does not list matthew 24:34 under metaphorical race, but under "multitude living at the same time".

All that being said, if you say your source for determining the meaning genea is Strong's or Thayer's but you don't actually use the defintion or usage they provide but instead cherry pick a different definition from a different context in order to support your theology, you are committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer by using these tools incorrectly. In otherwords you don't actually agree with your source, your cherry picking your source.

 

[WPM]

Sure, so when a preterist puts forth all the corroborating scriptures that Christ was to soon come, why would you reject a 70AD coming? Wouldn’t a 70AD coming qualify as the Bible speaking for itself, letting scriptures corroborate, and the context then determining how we should understand it?

• There is no ancient historic proof of Jesus coming in “the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “a great sound of a trumpet” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “lightning” coming “out of the east” and shining “unto the west” (Matthew 24:27) at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof that “every eye” seeing Jesus come at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof that man’s “redemption” drew “nigh” (Luke 21:28) through the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• We all know that “Heaven and earth” did not “pass away” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:35).
• There is no ancient historic proof of the sun being “darkened, and the moon” not giving “her light” at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of stars falling at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of angels gathering the elect at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “all the tribes of the earth” did “mourn” or that all “all kindreds of the earth” wailed because of Jesus through the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7).
• There is no ancient historic proof that the coming of Titus in AD 70 was “the end” of any “age” or the beginning of any age” (Matthew 24:3).
• There is no ancient historic proof of believers being glorified with a body like Jesus glorified body at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (2 Thessalonians 1:10).
• There is no ancient historic proof of being judged at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46).

That is because Preterism is a delusion. It is an elaborate fallacy. It reminds me of Mormonism. It is an invention of man. It is fake history. It is a false teaching.

No, this will all happen at the one final future climactic coming of Christ.

 

[jeffweeder]

• There is no ancient historic proof of Jesus coming in “the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “a great sound of a trumpet”
• at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “lightning” coming “out of the east” and shining “unto the west” (Matthew 24:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “every eye” seeing Jesus come at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof that man’s “redemption” drew “nigh” (Luke 21:28) through the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• We all know that “Heaven and earth” did not “pass away” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:35).
• There is no ancient historic proof of the sun being “darkened, and the moon” not giving “her light” at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of stars falling at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of angels gathering the elect at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “all the tribes of the earth” did “mourn” or that all “all kindreds of the earth” wailed because of Jesus through the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7).
• There is no ancient historic proof that the coming of Titus in AD 70 was “the end” of any “age” or the beginning of any age” (Matthew 24:3).

That is because Preterism is a delusion. It is an elaborate fallacy.

No, this will all happen at the one final future climactic coming of Christ.

Good post. Very convincing.
There is no ancient historic proof of believers being glorified with a body like Jesus glorified body either, - for obvious reasons.

 

[grafted branch]

• There is no ancient historic proof of Jesus coming in “the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “a great sound of a trumpet”
• at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “lightning” coming “out of the east” and shining “unto the west” (Matthew 24:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “every eye” seeing Jesus come at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof that man’s “redemption” drew “nigh” (Luke 21:28) through the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• We all know that “Heaven and earth” did not “pass away” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:35).
• There is no ancient historic proof of the sun being “darkened, and the moon” not giving “her light” at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of stars falling at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of angels gathering the elect at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “all the tribes of the earth” did “mourn” or that all “all kindreds of the earth” wailed because of Jesus through the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7).
• There is no ancient historic proof that the coming of Titus in AD 70 was “the end” of any “age” or the beginning of any age” (Matthew 24:3).

That is because Preterism is a delusion. It is an elaborate fallacy.

No, this will all happen at the one final future climactic coming of Christ.

It seems you rely heavily on ancient historical proof. In Matthew 2:16 we have the account of Herod killing all the children two years old and under. Since there is no ancient historical proof outside of the Bible that this happened, would you say anyone who believes this literally happened is delusional?

And how about Noah’s flood? All the ancient historical evidence found by geologists points to a local, not a global flood. Do you rely on ancient historical evidence to guide you when you study the book of Genesis?

 

[claninja]

Good post. Very convincing.
There is no ancient historic proof of believers being glorified with a body like Jesus glorified body either, - for obvious reasons.

Strawman arguments often can be convincing.

 

[WPM]

Good post. Very convincing.
There is no ancient historic proof of believers being glorified with a body like Jesus glorified body either, - for obvious reasons.

Good one! I added that and another to the list.

 

[WPM]

It seems you rely heavily on ancient historical proof. In Matthew 2:16 we have the account of Herod killing all the children two years old and under. Since there is no ancient historical proof outside of the Bible that this happened, would you say anyone who believes this literally happened is delusional?

And how about Noah’s flood? All the ancient historical evidence found by geologists points to a local, not a global flood. Do you rely on ancient historical evidence to guide you when you study the book of Genesis?

You have no historic or biblical corroboration for your error. You have no ancient testimonies, no archaeological proof. You have no ancient manuscripts. Nothing. Preterists make it up as they go. Your obsession with the coming of Titus and AD70 is blinding you to the truth. It is nauseating. You have a miserable focus. How sad! Neither the coming of Titus nor AD70 were the focus of the OT Law or the prophets. Neither are they the focus of Jesus and the NT writers. This is the obsession of the heretical Full Preterists. You twist text after text, word after word, and truth after truth, to support your fixation.

These all rather point to Christ, the cross, the resurrection, the reign of Christ, and His one final future glorious climactic return.

 

[grafted branch]

You have no historic or biblical corroboration for your error. You have no ancient testimonies, no archaeological proof. You have no ancient manuscripts. Nothing. Preterists make it up as they go. Your obsession with the coming of Titus and AD70 is blinding you to the truth. It is nauseating. You have a miserable focus. How sad! Neither the coming of Titus nor AD70 were the focus of the OT Law or the prophets. Neither are they the focus of Jesus and the NT writers. This is the obsession of the heretical Full Preterists. You twist text after text, word after word, and truth after truth, to support your fixation.

These all rather point to Christ, the cross, the resurrection, the reign of Christ, and His one final future glorious climactic return.

Alright, what your response is telling me is that all your points about no historical proof of a 70AD coming just fell apart because you yourself don’t need historical proof for your own beliefs.

 

[WPM]

Alright, what your response is telling me is that all your points about no historical proof of a 70AD coming just fell apart because you yourself don’t need historical proof for your own beliefs.

So you have nothing!

 

[claninja]

• There is no ancient historic proof of Jesus coming in “the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “a great sound of a trumpet”
• at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:31).
• There is no ancient historic proof of “lightning” coming “out of the east” and shining “unto the west” (Matthew 24:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “every eye” seeing Jesus come at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof that man’s “redemption” drew “nigh” (Luke 21:28) through the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• We all know that “Heaven and earth” did not “pass away” at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:35).
• There is no ancient historic proof of the sun being “darkened, and the moon” not giving “her light” at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of stars falling at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
• There is no ancient historic proof of angels gathering the elect at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:27).
• There is no ancient historic proof that “all the tribes of the earth” did “mourn” or that all “all kindreds of the earth” wailed because of Jesus through the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7).
• There is no ancient historic proof that the coming of Titus in AD 70 was “the end” of any “age” or the beginning of any age” (Matthew 24:3).
• There is no ancient historic proof of believers being glorified with a body like Jesus glorified body at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (2 Thessalonians 1:10).
• There is no ancient historic proof of being judged at the coming of Titus in AD 70 (Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46).

That is because Preterism is a delusion. It is an elaborate fallacy.

No, this will all happen at the one final future climactic coming of Christ.

all these strawman arguments aside, what lexical resource do you use for position in how genea should be understood?

I would be very interested in which lexicon states Genea should be understood as “family of same stock” or race in Matthew 24:34, if you could provide?

 

[WPM]

all these strawman arguments aside, what lexical resource do you use for position in how genea should be understood?

I would be very interested in which lexicon states Genea should be understood as “family of same stock” or race in Matthew 24:34, if you could provide?

We have talked about this many times. Search this site and you will see evidence.

Now, will you try and rebut the facts above you avoided?