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)

[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 [hebrew]DWR[/hebrew] (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

• [hebrew](M[/hebrew] (‘am) = people.

• [hebrew]mYN[/hebrew] (mīn) = kind, species.

• [hebrew]ZR([/hebrew] (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 [hebrew]DWR[/hebrew] (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 [hebrew]DWR[/hebrew] (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

• [hebrew](M[/hebrew] (‘am) = people.

• [hebrew]mYN[/hebrew] (mīn) = kind, species.

• [hebrew]ZR([/hebrew] (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 [hebrew]DWR[/hebrew] (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 ([hebrew]ZR([/hebrew]) 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).

[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.

[Little Shepherd]

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

[Bill the Cat]

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

[TheAnalogman]

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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

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.