Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Commenting On "This Generation" - Mark 8:38;9:1; Matthew 24:34

I've been in discussion with a regular commenter on John W. Loftus' blog named Shane. We have been going back and forth on a post Loftus did regarding how do we know our worldviews are right or wrong. You can read the original posts and comments here. I wrote a response to that post here and you can read the exchange there. I challenged Shane to go to scripture and really check to see if there is an unambiguous interpretation. He has brought up two scriptures.

Mark 8:38-9:1 (New International Version)

38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9

 1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

 And

Matthew 24:34 (New International Version)

34I tell you the truth, this generation[a] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Footnotes:
  1. Matthew 24:34 Or race

Shane believes that both scriptures are talking about Jesus' second coming and would say that it shows that Jesus could not be a prophet or what we claim because Jesus did not return during the lifetime of those who heard Jesus make the prophecy in person.  It's interesting to me that Shane thinks that Jesus is talking about the same thing in both passages although they are two different contexts at two different times.

I appreciate District Superintendent Harvey Burnett chiming in on the text for Mark. I agree with him. His answer is in the comments section for the post on my blog again found here. The only thing I would add to what his said is don't use the New Living Translation for exegesis. It's a paraphrase not a real translation. "generation" in Mark 9:1 does not mean  the same things as Matthew 24:34.  Elder Burnett did such a great job I see no reason to add to his explanation for why Jesus was not saying that the the Kingdom would be manifested physically in the lifetime of his first disciples.

Instead, let's turn our focus to the the context of Matthew 24.  Verse 34 is in context of Jesus answering a question of his disciples. Jesus issued a prophecy in verse 2. Look at verses 1 and 2.

 1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

In verse 3, the disciples wanted to know two things: when would the temple be destroyed  and when would his coming be and the end of the age?

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Verse 4-34 is Jesus answering the question. Here is where things get interesting. Historically there has been 3 interpretations and one of them is Shane's that Jesus is talking about the end of the world. The other ones make more sense,.Either Jesus is talking about a real historical event - the destruction of the temple - that would happen in the lifetime of those present, or the disciples were asking about the end of the world and the temple destruction. It is my opinion that verse 34 is talking about the destruction of the temple when Jesus says "these things". So here is the question. Was Herod's temple destroyed during the the lifetime of those present when this prophecy was given? Yes. This prophecy cold be dated towards the end of Jesus' earthly ministry just before he was crucified and resurrected. - say 30 AD. The Jews rebelled against Rome and the Romans didn't take kindly to that in 70 AD. They destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jews ceased to exist as a political nation until 1948 AD! This fact is well attested in history - Roman history and in Josephus.  Because the destruction was never mentioned anywhere else other than in this context (Olivet Discourse), some people think that the entire New Testament should be dated before 70 AD.

I already know what the counter argument is so let me raise it myself. How can we say that Jesus is right about no stone being left one on top of another  if the "Wailing Wall" is still here today? Simple. The Wailing Wall is part of the huge platform that was built to give the builders a level surface on which to build the temple in a remarkable, almost unreproducible feat of ancient engineering. When Jesus spoke this prophecy he wasn't referring to the platform, he was talking to the buildings that had stood on top of the platform. Jesus was probably standing on that platform when he said this. Therefore Jesus was right....validating Himself as prophet, king, and Lord because had He been wrong than everything else He ever said is suspect. It's just following the evidence where it leads. Jesus was not saying that there were those listening to him at that moment who would see his second coming, he was saying that they would live to see the destruction of the temple.

Now the thing to remember is that not everyone agrees with me that Matthew 24 points to any future fulfillment as well as to 70 AD. I was in an online written debate with my friend Mike Felker who believes that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD and is not talking about the second coming at all. I disagree, but there are many people who would agree with them. I believe Jesus was talking about 60 AD and events beyond the time we now live. You can read that debate by going to the last post at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/apologetic-front-my-last-response-to.html and in that post is links to all the other posts. The interesting thing is that the answer to this question is not essential doctrine. What I mean by that is you can either endorse my interpretation or Mike's and still be orthodox. It's not a salvation issue. That's not saying that it's not important. I mean I would like to know which viewpoint is right but that is how I see it now. The truth is all we have to do is wait and we will see which one is right when Jesus returns. If Mike is right, Shane is wrong while Mike and  I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.. If I'm right, Shane is wrong while Mike and  I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.With Elder Burnett's assist on the texts form Mark, it is obvious to see that Shane misinterpreted the scripture.  Either way the Bible is right.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

55 comments:

  1. Marcus.

    If you read matthew 24:3-31, the disciples ask Jesus "what will be the signs that will signal your return and the end of this world"!

    Reading through these scriptures Jesus goes on telling them what the signs will be. He even instructs them saying "Don't let any one mislead you" amd "Whe you hear of wars and rumors of wars don't panic" and "you will be arrested and persecuted", there are many, many more.

    It is evident Jesus was indicating that the disciples would be around for the end!

    Whats more, Jesus says in verse 31- "I tell you the truth, this generation shall surely not pass away before all these things come to pass"!

    I think a simple reasoned look at this will reveal your error.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you read the whole post? and the Debate? I don't think so. You haven't responded to anything I said. I know what you think. It's wrong. The point was for you to tell me why I'm wrong. I agree with you that Jesus was speaking partly about the future and I went into why and where. But he is also talking about 70 AD. Explain why he isn't. By 70 AD many of them had been arrested and persecuted. Some of them were even killed. You must do much better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marcus.

    Regardless if some were persecuted in AD, does nothing to change the fact that the second coming had not happened yet....?....nor have all these things come to pass yet....?

    Therefore, His disciples are not around for His return, that was the question they aked Him....?

    Nontheless i'll check out the debate before I comment further on Matthew.

    I noticed you did not give an explaination for Mark 8-9:1.
    What say you about that scripture?

    Also, I noticed you sepersted the end of Mark 8 from 9:1.

    Like I said to Harvey, you of all people should know that, when the bible was translated from the Greek, there was no chapters or verses.
    It was one long story meshed together. chapters and verses were not added till later on to make reading it easier to read.

    Its actually disingenious for the church to seperate Mark 8 and 9, obviously to clear up the discrepency!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Marcus.

    Well if im right you and Mike are both wrong and your lives are being wasted on a 2000 year superstitious belief.

    You say my interpretation is wrong, and you substantiate that by saying either you or Mike must be right because the bible is true....?

    All you are doing is using circular reasoning.
    It goes like this- "the bible has to be true one way or another, why?, because it is the word of God, well how do you know its the word of God?, I know because the bible says so, well how do you know the bible is true?, because its the word of God....round and round we go!

    You are utterly telling me Im wrong, not because of reasoned logic, not because of evidence, but because you hold the bible as an un-flaging, infallible truth!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marcus.

    Let me put it to you and Harvey this way. You are saying that as of Matthew 24 is in regards to the destruction of the temple which occured in 60-70 AD.
    And when Jesus says "this generation" He was meaning that the disciples would be alive to see it.

    The problem for you is that in verse 3, the disciples ASK Jesus, "WHAT WILL BE THE SIGNS OS THE LAST DAYS AND YOU RETURN"?

    From there, Jesus tells them what the signs will be, and He actually instructs them saying things like,

    -"Do not let anyone decieve you"
    -"YOU will here of wars and rumors of wars".
    -"YOU will be arrested and persecuted".
    -"pray you flight will mot be in winter".
    -"See I have warned you about this ahead of time".

    There are more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry for the spelling mistakes

    ReplyDelete
  7. No I'm saying you are wrong because the Bible does not say what you are saying it says. You still have to explain why it doesn't say what I am saying it says. I'm not separating Mark 9:1 from Mark 8:38 but you are separating it Mark 9:1 from the rest of Mark 8. I didn't say much much about Mark 9:1 because Elder Burnett answered you and I agree with him.

    The one thing I would add is

    Shane, Jesus is not talking about his second coming in Mark 8. He referred to it in Mark 8:38 but it's not the point Jesus is making. Mark 9:1 is about the point he is making. Read the whole context of the end of Mark 8.

    34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

    Jesus is talking about living this thing - this life as one of his followers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Each of these instances you bring up shows us that these same things can be applied to the time of 70 AD and the future. There were

    -false teachers
    -wars and rumors of wars".
    -arrests and persecution".

    and there will be more.

    You haven't proven that Jesus was not referring to 70 AD but solely his second coming. Try harder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marcus.

    Oh man....yes....read the scriptures you have them posted above.

    Mark 8:34-37 Jesus is talking about the price of discipleship.
    Then as of verse 38 He makes reference to His second coming, he says "I will also be ashamed of him when I come in the glory of My father with the holy angels".

    Now tack on Mark 9:1 which says- "Jesus WENT ON TO SAY, I tell you the truth, some standing here will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power".

    It is obvious Mark 9:1 is in conjuncture to Mark 8:38.

    Please, tell me what Mark 9:1 has to do with the verses prior the Mark 8:38, since they are dealing only with the price of discipleship?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Marcus.

    Try harder?

    I see what your doing here, you are trying to say that the end days that Jesus is refering to have been going since 70 AD right up till now.

    So in effect your saying the end times have been going on for the last 1940 years....?

    But what your really trying to do is have it both ways.
    You recognize the fact that Jesus is speaking of some future events that in no possible way the disciples would live to see.
    Which in effect makes verse 34 faulty, and incorrect.

    But to do away with the descrepency your trying to say it all began within the life time of the disciples, namely 70 AD.

    Wow the lengths you people will go to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marcus.

    I see what your doing here in regards to Matthew 24.

    You recognize that some of the events Jesus is refering to could not possibly happen within the life time of the disciples, which in effect makes verse 34 faulty and incorrect.

    So to do away with the discrepency, you are trying to say that the end days Jesus is talking about actually began around 70 AD, in a time when some of the disciples would still be living.

    You are also saying then, that the end days have been going on for the last 1940 years....?

    Wow, the lengths you people will go to!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marcus.

    The first comment did not show up at first, so I had to rewrite it, but now it did show up....?...pick one they are the same, or delete one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Marcus.

    Here is another example to back up my point.

    Matthew 10:22-23 Jesus said "And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel!

    Explain that away!

    ReplyDelete
  14. First off you can't assume something I mean something I didn't say. I did not say that Jesus was saying that the end of days is from 70 AD to now and beyond. I mean what I said. Jesus was talking about 70 AD and further in the future. You can't combine Mark 9:1 with Matthew 24. Prove you can. They ain't the same time or context.

    As for Matthew 10:23-23 why do u use the "New Living Translation" (NLT)? IT's a parapharse not a viable translation and it gave you the wrong translation. From now on in our discussions you should use the KJV, NIV, or the the New American Standard. Bringing the NLT is like bringing a pocket knife to sword fight - annoying.

    The New American Standard says

    23"But whenever they (A)persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel (B)until the Son of Man comes.

    Again you said the Bible says something it does not say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shane,what is being communicated is that they would not finish going through the cities of Israel until Jesus comes in the second coming...and they didn't and we still haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Marcus.

    Yes and the new american standard realizes the issue with this scripture and therefore changed the wording!

    In regards to your post over at the other link, You are missing the point altogether. I realize that Mark 8:38 is part of the prior scriptures, but 8:38 (as we agree refers to Jesus second coming) and Mark 9:1 says it will happen within the life time of the disciples.

    I know you think my logic is based on misinterpretation.
    I think your logic is circular.

    I think at this point its asfe to say we should agree to disagree.

    I do have more scriptures if you care to compare more?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Marcus.

    You say I said something the bible does not say........whatever.....you take certain scriptures at face value, but the ones that are contrary, you say have some other alternate meaning and not what the text tells us at face value!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm, not being circular because although Mark 8:38 refers to the second coming in context of how you follow Jesus, Mark 9:1 is about living as Jesus' disciples! How is that circular. Your interpretation requires ignoring the context of the passage. That makes your interpretation wrong.

    If you have more scriptures go ahead and post them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shane, I have a Greek New Testament. The NLT is not translating correctly...the KJV, NIV, and NASB all agree.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marcus.

    I dont care what bible I use, the one I've been referencing from just happens to be the NLT. I checked on line into the KJV and the meaning was the same just said slightly different.

    No....I dont believe Im wrong here at all, the words Jesus apparently used in Mark 9:1 refer more to Mark 8:38 and the second coming, then to living the christian life, I really dont know where you get that from.

    Regardless of how much you persist in thinking your right I dont buy it!

    ReplyDelete
  21. You should care what translation you use because not all translations are great. Some are better than others. I looked at the KJV,NIV,and NASB and their wording matches the Greek much better. I'm not saying that Mark 9:1 refers to living the Christian life to avoid the problem you have but because that is the context of the verse - the same as Mark 8:27-38

    ReplyDelete
  22. Marcus.

    You admit that within all those scriptures that in Mark 8:38, Jesus is refering to His second coming....why can't you just admit that He was still refering to it in the very next verse....Mark 9:1.................?

    O wait, I know why, because that would mean Jesus was wrong and we cant have that can we....?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Marcus.

    Here is another biblical issue.

    Acts 9:7- "They stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one".

    Acts 22:9 (regarding the same story) "they saw the light but did not hear the voice".


    Both descriptions contradict eachother. According to one the men with Saul saw no one but heard the voice.
    According to the other they did hear the voice.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Marcus.

    Here's a piece of information.

    The NIV version and the NAS version try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase as "did not understand the voice". But the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the NT as "hear", "hears", or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understood".

    I nfact, the word "understood" is occurs 52 times in the NT, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo".

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shane, what is the context of Matthew 8:38? Can you answer that. What did Jesus say about his second coming?

    As for your issue with Paul's conversion on the way to to Damascus I'll have my answer posted by tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Marcus.

    I dont care what the context was, it doesn't matter what the context was man!

    Im focusing on an issue with one single scripture.

    I dont care why Jesus said it, I care what it says.

    Im saying that Jesus refered to Himself as coming in the Glory of His father with the holy angels.
    If Jesus is not refering to His second coming in that verse then what the hell else is He refering to?

    The very next scripture (Mark 9:1) Jesus drives the seriousness of His warning home by saying "Truly I say, some standing here will not die until they see the Kingdom of God arrive in power.
    Therefore, showing He was mistaken!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mistaken? ROFL!!!!!! My goodness. Look at what you wrote, Shane!!!

    "I dont care what the context was, it doesn't matter what the context was man!

    Im focusing on an issue with one single scripture.

    I dont care why Jesus said it, I care what it says."

    This why you don't understand what you are reading. If someone is writing what you are saying don't you want them to look at why you said what you said?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Marcus.

    No, lol I dont want them to look at what I said.
    Im only dealing with the contents of 8:38!

    Does really matter why Jesus talked about His return?
    Does it matter what the previous verses were about and why they insighted Jesus to discuss what He would dp when He returned?

    NO....it does not,those things are beside the point....lol
    Im only dealing with WHEN Jesus said He was coming back, WHEN, and only WHEN!

    ReplyDelete
  29. You don't read anything else like that, Shane, do you? Why would you? Without a context how do you know what it is being said?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Marcus.

    Verses 34-37 Jesus is talking about the price of discipleship, what they need to know and do as disciples.

    As of verse 38, Jesus warns them about not being ashamed of Him or HE WILL BE ASHAMED WHEN HE RETURNS.

    Then in the next verse Mark 9:1, He goes on to say His return will be in the liftime of some of the discples!

    I am focusing on when He said He would return, not the context of Mark 8:34-37.

    You believe Mark 9:1 is Jesus continuing His point from Mark8:37, but I think it is in conjuncture to Mark 8:38 and the timing of His return!

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, Shane, I'm saying that verses 38 and Mark 9:1 are continuing his point from verse 34-37.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Marcus.

    Yep....ok....Marcus.

    You are stubbornly glued to your one track way of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You have admitted to not caring about context or any of the rules of reading comprehension. You can't read something like that and expect to get anything coherent.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Marcus.

    I already explained the context of those scriptures, I dont expect you to agree, but you keep appealing to context as if I dont know what they say?
    I already explained what I see in my 11:04 comment?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Your explanation is wanting because why would you say context stops at verse 38 and changes. Jesus did not say anything to let the listeners know he was now talking about something different. The passage is not stream of consciousness. It's a narrative with a chronological order and context.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Marcus.

    My explaination is what the scripture says....?

    You already admitted that Mark 8:38 Jesus is refering to His return?....if this is the case then why isn't Mark 9:1 also refering to His return?

    Seriously Marcus, put the verses together.....

    Mark 8:38," if anyone is ashamed of Me and My message, then I also will be ashamed of him when I return in the glory of the father with the holy angels".
    Mark 9:1, Jesus went on to say, "Truly I tell you, some standing here will not die before they see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power".

    As of Mark 9:2, the story goes on to a different thing altogether!

    And yes, I do think Jesus talked about His return because of the previous teaching He was giving them, but I do think He was definitely speaking of His return and He was wrong on the timing?

    ReplyDelete
  37. If im wrong about this, then please explain to me how Mark 8:27-Mark 9:1 is suppossed to be taken.

    If im wrong I would love to hear you interpretation of these scriptures and how it makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I did explain it. but I will do so again. In Mark 8:38 it directly follows verse 37 and before. This is the consequence of what happens if you don't do verses 34-37. Then 9:1 put a cap on the whole discussion to the cost of being a disciple - a promise that their faithfulness would be rewarded by seeing the Kingdom of Go arrive. Does the Kingdom arrive when Jesus returns or at some other point in history? It arrived when the church was birthed. It arrived when Jesus was resurrected - to which they witnessed. No Jesus was not wrong. You are.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Marcus.

    This is your assumption!

    What does Mark9:1 have to do with the church being birthed, or the resurrection?

    If this is what Jesus meant about the kingdom of God, then why would he say "some of you standing here will not die before the Kingdom of God arrives in great power"?

    Marcus, how long was Jesus ministry.....?....about 3 years?
    So why wouldn't the disciples be alive in 3 years or less from the time Jesus told them that.....?

    Of course they would be alive to see those things you mentioned......why wouldn't they?

    This is obviously theological invention, I've actually heard this interpretation before, and it was originally thought to be this way by the Catholic church.

    There is other christians who say Jesus was actually talking about His transfiguration on the mount because that is what takes place next in Mark 9:1, but that does not hold up either.

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's not an assumption. You are making the assumption that Kingdom of god automatically means the second coming. Can you show that every place the Bible uses the kingdom of god it's referring to the second coming? no.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Marcus.

    You didn't answer my question, why would Jesus say some of the disciples would still be alive when this (kingdom) came if He was refering to events that took place 3 years or less after He said that?

    Why wouldn't they be alive?......were they expected to die within three years.....were they really old or something....?

    ReplyDelete
  42. No, Jesus The events of the resurrection and the birth of the church all happened with in their lifetimes. But some off them didn't make it....Judas didn't make it! And it sure is true that not everyone who was listening to Jesus was going to make it. Any number of thing could have happened to cut some of their lives short to with in the short time in which the resurrection and the birth of the church would take place. Your appeal doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Marcus.

    Sorry Marcus, I find your response begging!

    My appeal makes alot more sense then what you just wrote here.

    Think about it.

    Jesus exactly said SOME of you will Not die.

    Its evident to me by taking the context of how Jesus says it, He was meaning most would probly die and some will still be around, meaning some far off event.
    Not the reverse like you are trying to say, that some (Judas, maybe some other unnamed people) will die but most will be around.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's not begging...if some will not die that means that some would. You are reading what you want into it

    ReplyDelete
  45. Marcus.

    And your not reading what you want into it?

    Im not trying to defend anything here, you are, that is why its more likely you would read what you want into any descrepency.

    Im not defending atheism because im not an atheist, im agnostic, im not sure where I stand on there being a creator or not.

    I simply do not believe the bible is divine or the truth of our existence (if true at all).

    ReplyDelete
  46. That is the claim you are making that I'm disagreeing with. You said that the Bible is not true and I'm saying that it is true. You are making a claim and you have to back it up. You have not backed it up.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shane, if you don't think you have to defend the position that the Bible is false then why are you trying to explain why you think its false?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Marcus.

    When or where did I ever claim the bible is false?
    How can I know for sure it is false?

    I believe it is false, and I have been giving reasons to show why I believe it is false!

    You on the other hand are making the absolute claim and saying "the bible IS true".
    Therefore the burden of proof is you pal not me.

    Also, you said "you have not backed up your claim"!

    According to who Marcus....?....according to you and others like you?
    Are you actually that arrogant to think that your views are completely right and im completely wrong?

    All your doing Marcus, is disagreeing with anything that does not harmonize with your beliefs.
    And since your mind is all shut up with these concepts you simply say, "nope Shane's wrong"????

    Anyone can do that, I can say "nope your wrong Marcus", does that prove anything?

    You have been giving your opinions and backing them with reasons you believe it, I also have been giving my opinions and my reasons!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Marcus.

    I never said I didn't want to defend the position that the bible was false, I said I was not defending atheism because im not an atheist?

    Why do you keep falsely asserting these things?

    You challenged me to compare scripture and that is what I've been doing.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I never said you were defending atheism. If you don't know if the Bible is true then how can you say I'm wrong. I thought that we agree that if there are conflicts in the Bible then it's false. You claim that there are conflicts therefore you are claiming that it is false. I haven't argued my opinion. I have been reading the text, and showing the historical and cultural contexts which you keep ignoring. You are not wrong because I think you are wrong. You are wrong because you say the Bible says things it's not saying.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shane, if I wrote "Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here," you would know what I mean because you are in my cultural space and context. Would anyone before 1966 get the reference? How about 2000 years from now? Wouldn't you want anyone reading your words to look at the context in which you wrote them or said them?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Marcus.

    You make a good point in regards to 2000 year old context and cultural space, and I understand that.
    But the thing is, is that, the fact that your comment here even applies to the bible, is a good indication that it is not the word of an all mighty God.

    If the bible is the infallible, inerrant, word of God, set forth for the salvation of all of mankinds souls,.........then why should these issues you bring up about cultural space and context even apply to it?

    There sould be absolutely no reason we have to dissect, compare, find original Greek/Hebrew, and apply textual criticism to it!

    The fact that we even have to take these measures to get an accurate understanding (or at least some understanding) is evidence to me that the bible is not a divine source!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Marcus.

    Basically, I am confident that the bible is not a divine book, and I believe there is errors within it. So yes, I do claim its falsity in a way.
    But unlike most christians, I do not claim to know the exact truth about it, or the exact truth about anything.

    I think people who say they KNOW....they KNOW the bible is 100 percent true.....they KNOW.....every word in it is of God....I think anyone who does that is an untrustworthy individual!

    I can understand someone's absolute confidence and honest sincere belief in the bible or anything for that matter, but once people start saying they KNOW things that they really dont know, thats when I doubt there character and their belief!

    You may say, "well Shane, how do you know, maybe your wrong and some christians really do know the bible is totally true"?

    To this I would say, "No one today, was around to witness any of the events that happened in the bible".

    "No one was around for the creation/formation of the earth, or the events claimed in Genesis".

    "The bible is only one concept of God among many religions, and the existence of a God period, is debatable".

    "No one alive today was around to witness any of the claimed miracles of Jesus."

    Therefore, nobody today can claim with absolute certainty that the bible is 100 percent accurate in all things.
    Anyone who does this is not being honest.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shane, can you 100% claim that God does not touch the lives of people today and change lives. And is changing us to be more like Christ? No. That is what the Bible says. I'm only 35 years old. I wasn't there when Lincoln gave the Gettysberg Address. I wasn't there when George Washington and the Army were at the Potomac. I wasn't there when Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon? I never talked to Alexander the Great or Aristotle. How do I know they existed. All the textual documents we have about ancient people were were written several ceturies after they lived by people we know didn't know them - much more time than between the Gospels and Jesus' life. Those texts are all copies of copies and we have many times fewer copies than we do for the New Testament. Why do you accept any of these other things that you can't be 100% sure of by the same standards you are using to say the Bible is false? By the same standard of honesty, you have to throw out everything we say we know about history before video cameras and copy machines.

    ReplyDelete