γενεά geneá and the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer

[claninja]

It is not implausible to recognize that the definition of "generation" in Matthew 24:34 incorporates the elements of both race and time. Ethnic Jews (the race element) living when Jesus prophesied, were destroyed within a generation (the time element) in 70 AD.

There's room for both.

This is not really the issue with the OP though. The issue is how to use a lexicon properly.

Many on this website will appeal to thayers to say “Genea can mean family of same stock”. This generic statement is true. Thayer’s definition number 2 states “ family of same stock”.

The problem is the next step. Thayer’s lexicon is a tool that lists the broad meaning of words AND THEN lists verses under each meaning demonstrating how the word is used in a specific context.

So for example, thayer’s provides the meaning of “family of same stock” and then lists verses under this definition as to where you will find this meaning in the NT. However, Matthew 24:34 is NOT found under this definition. Therefore thayer’s has not designated it to mean “family of same stock”. Instead Thayer listed Matthew 24:34 under “whole multitude living at the same time”. That is how Thayer’s defined it in the context of Matthew 24:34.

This is not to say that Thayer’s has the absolute authority as to what genea means. This is only to say that if you are going appeal to thayer’s, then use it properly. It’s absurd to appeal to thayer’s, and then completely disagree with it, cherry picking it, and committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

What would be extremely useful, is if someone could provide another lexicon that defines genea, in the context of Matthew 24:34, as family of same stock, instead of abusing thayers.

 

[claninja]

The word genea means:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaphorically a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

I have no disagreement that the word genea can mean all those things in the same way that you can open a dictionary and the English word green can mean: sick, vegetation, inexperienced, a color, etc… but I would never argue that green can possibly mean both color and inexperience in the same contextual sentence……

That being said, What lexical source did you pull these definitions from?

Different translations and Bible scholars interpret it in different ways. A broad objective study of this subject will show that you cannot limit its meaning to a 40-year generation as Preterism must to sustain its school of thought.

Unrelated to the OP. The OP is about the proper use of a Concordance and Lexicon.

If you don’t actually agree with Thayer, why appeal to it in the first place? Why not just provide an another lexicon that defines genea as “family of same stock” in Matthew 24:34?

It can equally and fairly broadly describe time-periods (a literal generation or age) or natural descendants (a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits or men of the same stock). The root word for genea is genos (Strong’s 1085), which means race, kindred, offspring, family, stock, tribe, nation, i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people.

It can figuratively describe a category of people who share the same identity. Both the Greek words genos and genea can refer to race or group of like-minded people.

Acts 13:26 talks about “children of the stock [Gr. genos] of Abraham” and Philippians 3:5 those “of the stock [Gr. genos] of Israel.” The Bible is here speaking in a natural sense.

The root word of genos is ginomai (Strong’s 1096), which literally means to gen-erate.

It can also refer to a space of time occupied by a particular generation of people.

2 fallacies here:

Root word fallacy:

• the mistake of assuming that a word’s meaning in a particular passage is determined by its etymology (its root components) rather than by how the word is actually used in context. In other words, genos doesn’t determine the meaning of genea.
  

Illegitimate totality transfer:

• the error of taking the entire range of possible meanings of a word and reading all of them into a single occurrence of that word. In other words, a word can have multiple meanings, but that doesn’t mean you can apply any meaning to it
  

It could also describe “a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character … especially in a bad sense, a perverse nation.” This seems to best fit the overall background of the Lord’s message. This is supported by the context of Christ’s teaching in the preceding chapter (Matthew 23:32-36). There, Jesus takes His listeners right back in time to the first reprobate in the natural lineage of Israel – Cain. He carries the resistance through the different ages right up until the hypocritical Pharisees that were before Him.

Another complete misuse of thayer’s lexicon. The lexicon shows us the near in sentence semantic clues as to when genea is being used as “family of same stock”.

When used of lineage: Genea is plural

• the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου,

When use metaphorically, genea has a descriptive next to it like “wicked”, “perverse” or “faithless”

• 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).

Is genea in Matthew 24:34 plural to demonstrate lineage? Is genea in the Matthew 24:34 modified by a descriptive?

But if you don’t actually agree with Thayer, why are you appealing to it in the first place if only to misuse it?

Why not just provide another lexical resource that lists genea in Matthew 24:34 under “family of same stock” instead of providing all these logical fallacies that you are applying to thayers?

 

[claninja]

You will get nothing but silence from preterists on these questions because, like Premils, when their beliefs get challenged like this, they go silent.

Why would I respond to 16 constructed points completely unrelated to the OP?

WPM is completely free to start a new thread geared towards preterists.

 

[WPM]

I have no disagreement that the word genea can mean all those things in the same way that you can open a dictionary and the English word green can mean: sick, vegetation, inexperienced, a color, etc… but I would never argue that green can possibly mean both color and inexperience in the same contextual sentence……

That being said, What lexical source did you pull these definitions from?



Unrelated to the OP. The OP is about the proper use of a Concordance and Lexicon.

If you don’t actually agree with Thayer, why appeal to it in the first place? Why not just provide an another lexicon that defines genea as “family of same stock” in Matthew 24:34?





2 fallacies here:

Root word fallacy:

• the mistake of assuming that a word’s meaning in a particular passage is determined by its etymology (its root components) rather than by how the word is actually used in context. In other words, genos doesn’t determine the meaning of genea.

Illegitimate totality transfer:

• the error of taking the entire range of possible meanings of a word and reading all of them into a single occurrence of that word. In other words, a word can have multiple meanings, but that doesn’t mean you can apply any meaning to it

Another complete misuse of thayer’s lexicon. The lexicon shows us the near in sentence semantic clues as to when genea is being used as “family of same stock”.

When used of lineage: Genea is plural

• the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου,

When use metaphorically, genea has a descriptive next to it like “wicked”, “perverse” or “faithless”

• 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).

Is genea in Matthew 24:34 plural to demonstrate lineage? Is genea in the Matthew 24:34 modified by a descriptive?

But if you don’t actually agree with Thayer, why are you appealing to it in the first place if only to misuse it?

Why not just provide another lexical resource that lists genea in Matthew 24:34 under “family of same stock” instead of providing all these logical fallacies that you are applying to thayers?

This is all bias noise. I refer you back to my last post.

Please answer the avoided points/questions above.

 

[claninja]

This is all bias noise. I refer you back to my last post.

Please answer the avoided points/questions above.

1.) the OP is about how to properly use a lexicon/concordance. Your post did nothing to address that.

2.) I asked a clarifying question as to what your lexical source was. You didn’t provide an answer. I can’t fully respond if you don’t provide your source, as the OP is about how to properly use lexical sources.

3.) you committed multiple fallacies: root word fallacy, and illegitimate totality transfer, cherry pick - assuming you used thayers, though you have not confirmed your source.

These were addressed, but your MO is often deflection, so I’m no too surprised this was your response.

 

[claninja]

Thanks for proving my point with the laughing emoji @WPM

So then correct me if I’m wrong, @Davidpt @Spiritual Israelite @WPM ….

You all appeal to thayers for the broad definitions it supplies for genea but then reject thayers for defining genea in Matthew 24:34 as “whole multitude living at the same time”?

 

[covenantee]

This is not really the issue with the OP though. The issue is how to use a lexicon properly.

Many on this website will appeal to thayers to say “Genea can mean family of same stock”. This generic statement is true. Thayer’s definition number 2 states “ family of same stock”.

The problem is the next step. Thayer’s lexicon is a tool that lists the broad meaning of words AND THEN lists verses under each meaning demonstrating how the word is used in a specific context.

So for example, thayer’s provides the meaning of “family of same stock” and then lists verses under this definition as to where you will find this meaning in the NT. However, Matthew 24:34 is NOT found under this definition. Therefore thayer’s has not designated it to mean “family of same stock”. Instead Thayer listed Matthew 24:34 under “whole multitude living at the same time”. That is how Thayer’s defined it in the context of Matthew 24:34.

This is not to say that Thayer’s has the absolute authority as to what genea means. This is only to say that if you are going appeal to thayer’s, then use it properly. It’s absurd to appeal to thayer’s, and then completely disagree with it, cherry picking it, and committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

What would be extremely useful, is if someone could provide another lexicon that defines genea, in the context of Matthew 24:34, as family of same stock, instead of abusing thayers.

I concur, and I've always subscribed to Thayer's definition i.e.
"the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34;"

Until I see otherwise, I'll remain confident that Thayer's Greek scholarship exceeds any of ours.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

An arrogant assumption and bizarre non sequitur.

Why is that? That's how you come across to me. Just being honest. I'm sorry that you are offended by someone giving an honest opinion.

Modern English translations are not the original text; they are interpretations of the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. By quoting an English Bible, you are already relying on someone else’s exegesis and translation decisions, just as using a lexicon is.

If you claim that using a lexicon is ‘trusting a human source’ while quoting an English Bible is not, that’s inconsistent. Every modern translation inherently relies on the scholarship found in lexicons and grammars to convey the original text.

The Greek word "ge" is translated as "earth" in both Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 24:35 in a vast majority of English translations. You obviously don't trust the English Bible translations as much as you trust Joseph Thayer.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks for proving my point with the laughing emoji @WPM

So then correct me if I’m wrong, @Davidpt @Spiritual Israelite @WPM ….

You all appeal to thayers for the broad definitions it supplies for genea but then reject thayers for defining genea in Matthew 24:34 as “whole multitude living at the same time”?

Yes, that is correct. So? Giving all the possible definitions for a word isn't really based on someone's doctrinal beliefs, but choosing which definition applies to any given verse can definitely be affected by one's doctrinal beliefs.

Now, what I'm saying here is in relation to him associating "genea" in Matthew 24:34 with the Jewish people living at the time Jesus was speaking. I do allow for the possibility that He was talking about a group of people (Jews or wicked people in general) who are alive at the time when He comes again.

Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The Greek word "houtos" is translated as "this" in verse 34. It can also mean "the same". So, I believe Jesus could have been saying here that the same people who "see all these things" that would indicate that His still future second coming is near, will not pass until all those things are fulfilled. Or He could be talking about the generation in terms of a time period (a generation of 30-40 years) not passing until all of the things that indicate His second coming is near are fulfilled. Regardless, scripture is clear that Jesus would only come a second time, not also a third time as you believe. And when He comes, it will be in the same manner as He ascended to heaven, which was bodily and visibly. That clearly did not happen in 70 AD. Why you don't take things like this into consideration, I will never know.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It is not implausible to recognize that the definition of "generation" in Matthew 24:34 incorporates the elements of both race and time. Ethnic Jews (the race element) living when Jesus prophesied, were destroyed within a generation (the time element) in 70 AD.

There's room for both.

If you interpret it to be talking about the Jews living at that time long ago, then how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31 as relating to a future time? The context strongly suggests that the second coming of Christ and gathering of the elect would occur when "this generation" is fulfilled.

 

[WPM]

Until I see otherwise, I'll remain confident that Thayer's Greek scholarship exceeds any of ours.

You do know he disagreed with the position of biblical inerrancy?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The wicked hopeless generation of Gentiles, prior to the cross, passed after the cross, at least according to the Amill position.

What are you talking about? Please explain what you mean here.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now hold on a minute, on the one hand SI says there is a clear difference from before the cross as compared to after the cross concerning the morally corrupt, unbelieving, without hope Gentles.

Do you disagree with that?

And WPM is saying there was no difference, that morally corrupt, unbelieving, natural world order will always be the same until every eschatological prophecy is fulfilled.

He did not say anything to contradict what I was saying. You, like many here, have poor reading comprehension skills.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is not really the issue with the OP though. The issue is how to use a lexicon properly.

Many on this website will appeal to thayers to say “Genea can mean family of same stock”. This generic statement is true. Thayer’s definition number 2 states “ family of same stock”.

The problem is the next step. Thayer’s lexicon is a tool that lists the broad meaning of words AND THEN lists verses under each meaning demonstrating how the word is used in a specific context.

So for example, thayer’s provides the meaning of “family of same stock” and then lists verses under this definition as to where you will find this meaning in the NT. However, Matthew 24:34 is NOT found under this definition. Therefore thayer’s has not designated it to mean “family of same stock”. Instead Thayer listed Matthew 24:34 under “whole multitude living at the same time”. That is how Thayer’s defined it in the context of Matthew 24:34.

This is not to say that Thayer’s has the absolute authority as to what genea means. This is only to say that if you are going appeal to thayer’s, then use it properly. It’s absurd to appeal to thayer’s, and then completely disagree with it, cherry picking it, and committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer.

What would be extremely useful, is if someone could provide another lexicon that defines genea, in the context of Matthew 24:34, as family of same stock, instead of abusing thayers.

This is complete nonsense. It's one thing to use that resource to see various definitions of a word. But, it's another thing altogether to trust Joseph Thayer's opinions on which definitions apply to which verses. To put your trust in him for that is no different than putting your trust in everything someone says within a Bible commentary.

 

[claninja]

Why is that? That's how you come across to me. Just being honest. I'm sorry that you are offended by someone giving an honest opinion.

you are making assumptions with limited information. Just because I don’t tout how much I pray for understanding online, doesn’t mean I don’t pray - that’s a non sequitur. Additionally, It’s a highly arrogant assumption to make about my personal and private prayer life of which you know nothing about. How come you are always making personal swipes instead of addressing the actual issue?

The Greek word "ge" is translated as "earth" in both Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 24:35 in a vast majority of English translations. You obviously don't trust the English Bible translations as much as you trust Joseph Thayer.

This is not related to the OP. The OP is about how to properly use a lexicon/concordance. “ge” being translated as earth vs land, in Matthew 24:30, is unrelated if NOT present in thayer’s lexicon, because AGAIN, the OP is about how to use a lexicon when you appeal to it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

you are making assumptions with limited information. Just because I don’t tout how much I pray for understanding online, doesn’t mean I don’t pray - that’s a non sequitur. Additionally, It’s a highly arrogant assumption to make about my personal and private prayer life of which you know nothing about. How come you are always making personal swipes instead of addressing the actual issue?

I do address the issue. I'm just giving my opinion as to what must be the reason that you misinterpret so much scripture. It's not because of a lack of effort. I think you rely too much on your own wisdom or the wisdom of others and you seem to think that people like Joseph Thayer are always right. That's not the case.

This is not related to the OP. The OP is about how to properly use a lexicon/concordance. “ge” being translated as earth vs land, in Matthew 24:30, is unrelated if NOT present in thayer’s lexicon, because AGAIN, the OP is about how to use a lexicon when you appeal to it.

It's apparently about using it in a way that includes not being allowed to question Joseph Thayer's understanding of any verse of the Bible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why would I respond to 16 constructed points completely unrelated to the OP?

WPM is completely free to start a new thread geared towards preterists.

Ah, so this thread has nothing to do with you trying to promote your preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:34? You expect us to believe that?

 

[covenantee]

If you interpret it to be talking about the Jews living at that time long ago, then how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31 as relating to a future time? The context strongly suggests that the second coming of Christ and gathering of the elect would occur when "this generation" is fulfilled.

If you interpret "generation" to refer to the Jewish race, then what is the applicable duration? Is it until Christ returns?

It cannot be until Christ returns, because today the Abrahamic genome is ubiquitous within the human race, and thus "generation" encompasses the entire human race.

Which I don't believe that it does.

 

[covenantee]

If you interpret it to be talking about the Jews living at that time long ago, then how do you interpret Matthew 24:29-31 as relating to a future time? The context strongly suggests that the second coming of Christ and gathering of the elect would occur when "this generation" is fulfilled.

I believe that verse 29 can be interpreted as shown in the examples below.

I'm still attempting to reconcile verses 30-31.


The destruction of Babylon. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 13
1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

The destruction of Idumea. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 34
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

The destruction of Egypt. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Ezekiel 32
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt...
7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God.

The destruction of Jerusalem. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

 

[WPM]

I believe that verse 29 can be interpreted as shown in the examples below.

I'm still attempting to reconcile verses 30-31.


The destruction of Babylon. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 13
1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

The destruction of Idumea. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 34
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

The destruction of Egypt. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Ezekiel 32
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt...
7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God.

The destruction of Jerusalem. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Is 2 Peter 3 the same? Is there any of this that is literal in your opinion?