Search results

My argument is not false as it’s not an appeal to popularity or tradition —it’s an appeal to consistent, evidence-based linguistic analysis. It is a fact that the majority of dictionaries, lexicons, scholarly commentators, and English translations render genea as generation - a group of people...

I did.

It’s not an assumption. It’s based on the vast majority of dictionaries, lexicons, biblical commentaries, and English translations recognizing genea means a generation, as in a group of people living that the same time, in the context of the Olivet discourse. I think CS Lewis was referring...

This is not really accurate at all. In Greek, ἐν + dative noun = inessive meaning. In other words ἐν + dative = place or location. Christ in (ἐν) you is the correct translation. ἐν does not mean “for/on behalf of”. That would be a different Greek preposition - ὑπέρ, and it would be followed by...

Revelation’s use of Old Testament allusions—such as those in chapter 18 concerning Babylon (drawn from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel)—does not demand that the new referent (whether Rome, apostate religion, first-century Jerusalem, or another corrupt power) literally fulfill every detail of the...

Alcazar was likely the first to systematically apply preterism "to revelation", but he was not the first to apply preterism to the olivet disourse nor daniel. Alcazar held that Revelation 1-11 was about the first century conflict between church and Jewish synagoge, and that chapters 12-19 were...

solely from a contextual and grammatical standpoint, the wheat does not turn into a tare nor vise versa. The parable is simply not about repentance and coming to Christ, whether earlier or later. It’s about delaying the removal the tares until harvest, so that the wheat isn’t prematurely...

No, I’m confused because You said you got the meaning of genea as “family” from Strongs. Where does Strongs exhaustive concordance define genea as “family”? I can’t seem to find that in Strongs concordance? I pasted Strongs “definition” in the previous post and it didn’t say family...

Within the context of the parable, Wheat and tares don’t change into each other. The delay in harvest is NOT to give tares more time to become wheat. Instead, pulling up a tare prematurely may result in the harvester accidentally pulling up the wheat and burning it, as both plants look...

Strongs exhaustive concordance contains 1-2 word glosses of Greek words in regards to how the KJV translates it into English , not exhaustive contextual definitions. Even strong, in the preface of his dictionary, stated that his definitions are brief and further use of a lexicon should be used...

That’s not how lexicons work.

Genea means generation, as in group of people living at the same time: 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...

If wheat refers to all righteous of mankind in general and tares refer to all unrighteous of mankind in general, why would removing the unrighteous prematurely, also hurt the righteous, if this harvest refers to the 2nd coming at the end of the age? I mean Then they were never really wheat...

So in vs 24, the word "having sown" is a verbal participle, which means it acts more as an adjective. Its an aorist active participle in the dative case. While aorist can often, but not always, indicate the "past", its aspect is one of completion (and not continuous). So it renders it as "the...

Well, when we consider the parable of the wheat and the tares - prematurely uprooting the tares may uproot the wheat as well (matthew 13:29). This seems to be an agricultural reference as to how wheat and tares may look very similar prior to the harvest. It could be possible that the falling...

Contextually: A tare cannot become wheat or vise versa, And wheat, prior to maturation, is just about indistinguishable from a tare until the harvest. So much so, that prematurely removing the tares will also uproot the wheat - Matthew 13:29 Interpretively: Looking at Matthew 13:29, IF the...

i think you hit the nail on the head Wheat and tares are hard to distinguish when they are young. It’s when they are maturing, closer to harvest, that the wheat can be more easily distinguished from the tare. I think Jesus’ audience would have recognized that with the statement- “let them grow...

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa. But how about this: Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away. Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

I think there is decent evidence for both sides, although the majority of modern scholarship, including even some Christian scholars, hold that 2 peter was most likely pseudography. 2 Peter was not officially included into cannon until the 4th century, so for several hundreds years after...

I mean, it does seem you were intentionally trying to rile him up, which I don’t think is appropriate either.