GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Does the English text of "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 mean two different things? (TyRockwell vs. Darth Xena)

[Geek Eclectic]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

Does the English text of "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 and 24:34 mean two different things?

TyRockwell will be defending the affirmative and Darth Xena will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as TyRockwell makes his first post. The debate will last five rounds.

This debate is taking place here, (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=105322) and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. The debate participants may not participate in this thread until their debate is concluded.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

:popcorn:

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

It should be pointed out that we have a counseling center for Ty since he chose to challenge DDW on eschatology and we have a medical unit for after the debate.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

:popcorn:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Here lies Ty.....

[gharfish]

Here lies Ty.....It might not be that bad. "Even the losers get lucky sometimes !" (Who is this "Ty" ?)

[gooner]

Here lies Ty.....

tko Round 1. :lol:

[dizzle]

Ty inquired with me when my post might be up - I didn't commit to any time frame as my lifestyle just doesn't permit me to do so. I have started my opening statement and have not forgotten. My husband and I have plans this weekend, but if I have the free time, I will try to finish this weekend.

[President-Elect $cirisme]

File this one under:

itsatrap

[dizzle]

dang

[President-Elect $cirisme]

BTW, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be posting in this thread. :tongue:

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

what the heck? why is dee dee posting in her commentary thread?

her house is corrupt!!!! baninate!!!!

[Geek Eclectic]

itsatrap:stunned: Where did you learn that? Do you know what that means??? And here I thought I was the only one here familiar with some of the more disturbing internet memes.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I've read the two posts. I think the outcome is clear. One guess who I think is right.

But more than that, the quality of the arguments is markedly different in each case. I read Ty's post wondering if he'd use a particular circular argument that's so common from futurists in this debate. Sure enough, there it was, naked for all to see:
Jesus foretold the believer's time of persecution, even placing it before the days of vengeance, because just as Jesus said in Matthew 23:34,part reason for the wrath was to be the way "this generation" would treated Jesus' prophets, wise men and teachers in "the beginning of sorrows."

That beginning did not end in 70 AD, or in the first centuries thereafter. Though, by standing firm in the faith, a believer could get through the time of great tribulation that began and was to be worse than any time of tribulation after the beginning of sorrows. Matthew 24:21
OK, so we know it doesn't refer to first century events, because (somehow) we already know that the persecution spoken of did not happen in the first century.

How round is a circle, Ty? Not nearly as circular as that argument.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, so we know it doesn't refer to first century events, because (somehow) we already know that the persecution spoken of did not happen in the first century.

How round is a circle, Ty? Not nearly as circular as that argument.
Correction, I used the wrong term in my summary of the argument. Ty's argument was more like this: OK, so we know it doesn't refer to first century events, because (somehow) we already know that the "sorrows" spoken of did not happen in the first century.

There, better? The circularity is exactly the same, however.

[eschaton]

So what's going on with the debate? Is it over?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It was over before it even started.

[JonLanceBarker]

Ty just doesn't realize it yet.

[Geek Eclectic]

Am I the only one who noticed the "purple cow" moment in the latest post? :teeth:

[gooner]

Am I the only one who noticed the "purple cow" moment in the latest post? :teeth:

:huh:

what's a purple cow moment?

[Geek Eclectic]

what's a purple cow moment?
This (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/purplecow.html) will explain everything. :wink:

[gooner]

This (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/purplecow.html) will explain everything. :wink:

:thumb:


got it

[gooner]

Am I the only one who noticed the "purple cow" moment in the latest post? :teeth:

I noticed this

My opponent characterizes ‘this’ as a ‘near demonstrative’ word. Note that according to the definition I used above, ‘near’ is not always a component of the meaning of ‘this.’ Take the example: “I was walking down the street when I heard this explosion.” Was the explosion near? The sentence does not say it was near, only that it was heard. No near/far connotation is required in the example of ‘this’ used in place of an indefinite article for emphasis.

I think TY is going to argue that Jesus used this in place of the indefinite article.....therefore giving us.....a generation shall not pass away till all these things take place
:lol:

[Geek Eclectic]

That's not the statement I was talking about, but it's good, too. :hehe:

[Jin-Roh]

I'm sorry, am I the only one who thinks that Ty has a serious formatting/organization problem? His opening statement seemed kind of garbled and messy. His responce was worse.

[John Reece]

From this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2188373&postcount=4):
I consulted someone revered widely, who told me that while the word for “generation” is exactly the same in both references, the word for “this” in Matthew 23:36is Strong’s #5026, whereas the word for “this” in Matthew 24:34is Strong’s #3778.

One does not need to know Greek to see that the numbers refer to a single Greek word (source here (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=3778)):

5026. taute tow'-tay, and tauten tow'-tane, and tautes tow'-tace dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778. houtos hoo'-tos, including nominative masculine plural houtoi hoo'-toy, nominative feminine singular haute how'-tay, and nominative feminine plural hautai how'-tahee from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

The sense of the word rendered "this" is exactly the same in both 23:36 and 24:34. The only difference (indicated by inflections/spellings distinguishing grammatical functions in the respective verses) is that in 23:36 the term rendered "this generation" is in a prepositional phrase ("upon this generation") in the predicate of a clause; whereas in 24:34 the term is the subject of a clause: "this generation shall not pass away till all these things take place".

There is absolutely no difference in the sense of the word (demonstrative pronoun used as an adjective = "this") in the respective verses.

[David_A_Reed]

I'm late joining the audience -- sorry! I was preoccupied with other matters -- will try to tiptoe in quietly. Anyway, it seems like we're in an intermission. But I wouldn't miss this for the world. By the way, although I'm an historicist, not a preterist, I'm rooting for Dee Dee.

David

[Geek Eclectic]

Dee Dee Warren's latest post is up, guys!

[Nang]

Dee Dee Warren's latest post is up, guys!

I have a question to put to Dee Dee, or anyone else who is familiar with Dee Dee's preterist teachings, regarding a statement she made in this last post, and I quote:

"that is not how the Biblical context uses “generation,” and such a use of “generation” cannot be extended out into the indefinite future."

I assume by "Biblical context" Dee Dee refers specifically to the Matthew references upon which this debate centers.

But just to be sure I understand correctly, I ask whether Dee Dee restricts the usage of "generation" from being "extended out into the indefinite future" in all Biblical contexts? IOW's are there not times when the term "generation" indeed is extended out into the indefinite future and beyond the immediate context? (i.e. Psalms 14:5, 22:30&31, 24:6, 112:2, and I Peter 2:9&10)

Thanks,
Nang

[John Reece]

I ask whether Dee Dee restricts the usage of "generation" from being "extended out into the indefinite future" in all Biblical contexts? IOW's are there not times when the term "generation" indeed is extended out into the indefinite future and beyond the immediate context? (i.e. Psalms 14:5, 22:30&31, 24:6, 112:2, and I Peter 2:9&10)

No, there are not times when the sense of the term "generation" extends into the indefinite future, if by the term "indefinite" you mean potentially hundreds of years.

The use of the term may extend beyond the immediate context, but only in the sense of a future generation or generations understood as people living contemporaneously within a normal human life-span or a series of such periods of time (indicated by plural forms of the word).

You cite 1 Peter 2:9-10,. a text in which the word genea ("generation") does not occur. The word in the text is, rather, genos.

All the references you cite in the Psalms are renderings of the Hebrew word DWR (dōr) which does not share the etymological history of the Greek words genea and genos.

It would make this post too long to deal with all of the references to texts in the Psalms simultaneously, so I'll just deal with Psalm 14:5,. which is rendered in the NRSV as "There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the company [DWR (dōr)] of the righteous." Some versions (notably the Revised English Version) use the word 'assembly' for dōr'.

There is no persuasive case to be made for taking the word in the context of Psalm 14:5. to mean anything extending — in terms of time — beyond the normal sense of dōr, which is that of people living contemporaneously within a normal human lifespan.

[Nang]

No, there are not times when the sense of the term "generation" extends into the indefinite future, if by the term "indefinite" you mean potentially hundreds of years.

The use of the term may extend beyond the immediate context, but only in the sense of a future generation or generations understood as people living contemporaneously within a normal human life-span or a series of such periods of time (indicated by plural forms of the word).

You cite 1 Peter 2:9-10,. a text in which the word genea ("generation") does not occur. The word in the text is, rather, genos.


Leaving aside the Hebrew for the moment, is not "genea" a deriviative of "genos?"

So what profound difference would exist between the two words?

Both are from "ginomai"
which would denote "kinsmen" being brought forth or wrought, correct?

And in the N.T. context, might that not include all the church body of Christ saved throughout the age since the time of Christ's cross until His return?

Or is that the simple point?

The time between advents is being drastically abbreviated?

Not arguing, really. Just interested in the restriction Dee Dee imposed upon the term, and whether it is applied throughout Scripture.

Nang

[John Reece]

Leaving aside the Hebrew for the moment, is not "genea" a deriviative of "genos?"

No, genea is not a derivative of genos: both are derived from gignomai, the Attic form from which the verb ginomai was derived.

Be that as it may, with regard to renderings of DWR (dōr), it is not legitimate to disregard the meaning of the word being rendered (in this case, dōr) in favor of 'the root fallacy':
"One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, the meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the root or roots of a word." — D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies.

So what profound difference would exist between the two words?

In the OT, genos was used as a rendering of (M (‘am) = people.
mYN (mīn) = kind, species.
ZR( (zera‘) = seed, offspring, descendants
In the NT genos is used for family, offspring, race, nation, kind, sort, class.

In the OT, genea is used as a rendering of DWR (dōr) = circuit, lifetime, generation (from a man's birth to the birth of his first son; the totality of (adult) contemporaries; a time with its noteworthy events and people) (Holladay).

In the NT genea is used for generation : (a) of the contemporary members of a family ; (b) of all the people in a given period, especially of the Jewish people [in a given period] ; (c) the period covered by the life-time of a generation, used loosely in plural of successive ages (Abbott-Smith).

In the Bible, the words genos and genea are not used interchangeably, and their meanings in any given context is not determined by their common etymology, but rather by the way the biblical writers used them as renderings of their respective Hebrew source words, which are words that do not share a common etymology.

[SlapShot]

Thanks again to John Reece for making this subject a bit easier to understand.

[Nang]

No, genea is not a derivative of genos: both are derived from gignomai, the Attic form from which the verb ginomai was derived.

Be that as it may, with regard to renderings of DWR (dōr), it is not legitimate to disregard the meaning of the word being rendered (in this case, dōr) in favor of 'the root fallacy':
"One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, the meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the root or roots of a word." — D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies.



In the OT, genos was used as a rendering of (M (‘am) = people.
mYN (mīn) = kind, species.
ZR( (zera‘) = seed, offspring, descendants
In the NT genos is used for family, offspring, race, nation, kind, sort, class.

In the OT, genea is used as a rendering of DWR (dōr) = circuit, lifetime, generation (from a man's birth to the birth of his first son; the totality of (adult) contemporaries; a time with its noteworthy events and people) (Holladay).

In the NT genea is used for generation : (a) of the contemporary members of a family ; (b) of all the people in a given period, especially of the Jewish people [in a given period] ; (c) the period covered by the life-time of a generation, used loosely in plural of successive ages (Abbott-Smith).

In the Bible, the words genos and genea are not used interchangeably, and their meanings in any given context is not determined by their common etymology, but rather by the way the biblical writers used them as renderings of their respective Hebrew source words, which are words that do not share a common etymology.

So can you explain to me the basis for teaching that Peter used different Hebrew "source words", than used by Matthew and Luke, when he spoke and used the word "genos" (rather than "genea")?

How is Peter's teaching foundationally different than Matthew's and Luke"s.

Nang

[gharfish]

For the futurist, the word can have the primary meaning there in ch. 24 and the prophecy still not be a failed one: He didn't bodily return in a generation's time, "as promised." (Just a reminder.)

[John Reece]

So can you explain to me the basis for teaching that Peter used different Hebrew "source words", than used by Matthew and Luke, when he spoke and used the word "genos" (rather than "genea")?

You introduced 1 Peter 2:9. into this discussion by citing it as an example of a usage of genea in the sense of "race" in the New Testament, when in fact genea does not occur in 1 Peter 2:9.

I have explained the biblical usage of the respective words, without saying or even implying that any Hebrew source word was being referenced by the use of genos in 1 Peter 2:9,. wherein the author of the text wrote "You are a chosen race [genos], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

The fact that in 1 Peter 2:9. genos is used in a sense that is demonstrably the same as that of a Hebrew word (ZR() rendered by genos in the Greek Old Testament (Ezra 9:2) provides absolutely no basis for interpreting the usage of genea in Matthew as though it were a synonym of genos (as I explained here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2238709&postcount=32)).

[John Goddard]

If Ty is saying there is a difference between "this generation" of Pharisees he was talking to, as opposed to "this generation" who would see things he spoke of happening thousands of years later, he is correct.

There are also two signs of Jonah given in Matthew 12:39 and Matthew 16:4, one about 3 days for the first century, and one about 3 days = 3000 years for the end times.

[Geek Eclectic]

:rofl: I suppose it was only a matter of time until you found this thread.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I'd rather Ty had focused on "the end of the age" than "this generation"

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

It should be pointed out that we have a counseling center for Ty since he chose to challenge DDW on eschatology and we have a medical unit for after the debate.

I left dispy-ism before I came to TWEB, and for that I am grateful. I wouldn't have wanted to debate D squared on this, seriously.
No offense meant to Ty.

[John Goddard]

It's like a prophet telling Jews in the First Temple "YOU ARE BAD FIGS, THIS GENERATION IS WICKED AND THE TEMPLE IS COMING DOWN!"

Then a little later describing a wicked generation of Jews who would lose their Temple and be exiled.

So how would you be so sure the second description was also only about the First Temple, and not a further prophecy about the fall of the Second Temple?

Same situation here.

[dizzle]

I have posted my closing and am done. Ty's behind got tanned raw.

[David_A_Reed]

I have posted my closing and am done. Ty's behind got tanned raw.Amen! Great job, Dee Dee.

David

[gooner]

I have posted my closing and am done. Ty's behind got tanned raw.


:lol:oh yeah


I thank the audience for their patience in reading through this debate. I hope my opponent has learned that formal debates require much more forethought and structure than he has given in this presentation.

I do hope so.