Same word, different case. I picked up Luke 11:30.
Ah. I was operating off of Mat. 24:34, since that was the passage in question. In any case, you've still not explained the significance you find in the Greek haute/taute that forces a meaning of "generation" rather than "people" in all uses of the word genea.
I think you are mistaken. The message of Jonah preached to Nineveh was, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Nineveh did repent and God spared the city, i.e., that city at that time. There was no future Jonah to preach to the city at some later date.
So? Why wouldn't Jonah's appearance and warning remain a sign to succeeding generations of Ninevites? After all, is not Yeshua's Resurrection a sign to us, even though it has not been repeated in our time?
. . . yet Israel did not repent and they were judged; that generation --- not some far future one.
Those specific people, yes. But again, we could still say, "that people --- not some far future one" and the sentence would still be true. So once again, you fail to demonstrate that genea must refer to a period of time rather than a people related by blood.
But that's not the phrase used in Deut 1:35 is dowr
Again, so what? You're arguing from a conclusion that you've not yet substantiated, that Deu. 1:35 is the passage being referenced by the Lord, or that He was using the Hebrew word dowr. He could have, as I've already substantiated from the LXX and you have yet to disrpove, been using the Hebrew word moledet, which is also translated genea at least twice.
To suggest, as futurists do, that a far future generation of Jews are destined to receive the wrath of God (Luke 19:41-44; 21:22) is a great injustice to the Word of the Almighty.
Is it really impossible for you to argue for preterism without creating such a blatant strawman?
I'm not suggesting that the future generation of Jews will receive the wrath of the Almighty for the sins of the first century--indeed, I believe that God will give them His special protection during that time of wrath per Rev. 7. However, I believe that the Jews as a people and the true Ekklesia as a whole will both be persecuted together in the years leading up to the Second Coming, so as to refine us and to prepare Israel to receive her proper King. That's no more God's wrath than those Christians who are dying in the Sudan are suffering God's wrath.
Indeed, I believe that God's wrath will come after (or as a part of) the Second Coming, when He will gather the Ekklesia on the clouds of heaven (Mat. 24:31, 1 Th. 4:15-17) even as defends Jerusalem from the same clouds (Joel 3:15ff, Zec. 9:14 & ch. 12-14).
Even pretrib recognizes that while God pours out His wrath on the world, He does so on Israel only to the point of bringing them to repentance and reliance on Him. Indeed, pretrib argues that this is the point of the whole 70th Week.
You seem awfully unaware of what Premill in general and Dispensationalism in particular teaches for one who is so certain that it should be rejected, if I may say so.
From post #157:
Perhaps I’m missing something, but where does Paul use genea auth in the context of 1 Cor. 1:22?
You are indeed missing something. Did I say Sha'ul used genea haute? No. I said that he took a phrase Yeshua used to describe genea haute and said that it referred to the Jews as a people, in contrast to the Greeks as a people.
The context makes it clear the subject -- “that generation” (genea ekeinh) -- is the specific generation of Jews who wandered and died in the wilderness because of their sin against God.
Indeed--and it is used to translate dowr in Psalm 95. However, as I've repeatedly demonstrated and you have yet to answer, genea can be used to translate more than just dowr from the Hebrew, and is used to translate "family" elsewhere.
You're committing a linguistic fallacy in assuming that there is always some kind of one-for-one correspondence in two words in two different languages--this despite being shown from multiple examples that such is not the case with genea, which can have two different but related meanings, both of which I submit are true in the Olivet Discourse and Yeshua's other uses of the word.
don’t need to address anything yet since you have not demonstrated from the Scripture any discernable ambiguity on Jesus’ part.
Most certainly I have, and simply sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly so as not to hear it (metaphorically speaking, of course) doesn't change that one whit. To repeat, I've shown,
1) That at least two mainline lexicons, Vine's and Thayer's, agree that the underlying idea of genea is one of begetting, both as in measuring time and in regards to being part of a family or people. In fact, you acknowledge that this is the case, but are reduced to arguing, "well, most translations render it my way."So far, TC, you've concentrated on the peripheral support to my argument (points 3 and 4) and have barely even attempted to counter the main argument (points 1 and 2)--and with all respect, simply citing the majority of English translations amounts to a fallacious appeal to popularity (or maybe tradition), not to an actual exegetical argument.Translations, of course, must pick one or two words to best convey the idea behind a native word, and therefore often lose the nuance or connotation a word brings, not to mention alternative possible meanings. That's why the Analytical-Literal Translation, to name one, gives "race" as an alternative translation, and why we use lexicons to better understand the original words rather than simply relying on English translations.
2) That genea is used twice in the LXX to translate moledet, "family," and that the related word genouph is used several times more to translate "family" or "people."
3) That your own counter-example backfires, since genea taute is compared to the Ninevites, a people, not to a specific generation of Ninevites. You've at least tried to argue this point, but to my mind you have not yet done so successfully.
4) That Sha'ul apparently understood the defining phrase "seeks after a sign" to refer to the Jewish people as a whole (contrasted with the Greeks as a whole) rather than simply as the trait of one generation pitted against the next. Your attempts to argue this point so far indicate that you have not understood it.
God bless.
From my vantage point:
You have been unable to demonstrate from the text how Jesus was ever “consistently ambiguous” as you have claimed. Your “analysis” is based on merely quoting one verse from Christ where He uses the phrase “this generation”.
You have failed to appreciate that the word “generation” alone is different in context and meaning that the phrase “this generation” or “that generation” or “this evil and adulterous generation”. You have only resorted to interpretation by lexicon rather than actually dealing with the text of the Bible.
In keeping with your lexicon justification, you have failed to deal with the phrase “this generation” in Deut. 1:35 and how it was particular to the generation of Jews that died in the wilderness for their sin against God. The parallel to events in Jesus’ day with the sin of the Jewish nations is striking. Again, the significance of the phrase vs. a mere lexicon analysis of the word is necessary to get Jesus’ correct meaning.
You have failed to appreciate the contrast of “this generation” of Ninevah vs. “this generation” of the Jews and the significance that Jesus placed on the prophetic image of Jonah to that generation vs. Himself to “this generation”. The clear meaning of Jesus is that that generation of pagan Ninevites actually repented at the preaching of Jonah ("Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"), but “this generation” of Jews refused to repent when one greater than Jonah had appeared with an even greater sign, His own resurrection from the dead after three days. The prophetic result; “this generation” of Jews would be destroyed.
As I pointed out, Paul’s mention of “asking for a sign” wrt the Jews does not change the meaning of the gospels or make Jesus “consistently ambiguous”. That specific generation of sign-seeking Jews was about to feel the wrath of God because they had been given the only sign they needed to believe the gospel and repent.
You have failed to recognize the significance of God’s commandment in Exodus 20:5 and Deut 34:7 regarding punishment to the “third and fourth generation” and how that obviates any future judgment of divine wrath against the Jewish “race”.
These seem to be major items that really need to be addressed before we can move on.