[Quixicated emphases]
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/on-solid-ground
This Generation
DeMarsays[3]that the burden of proof for my taking "this generation" differently than he does is on me. This is what I demonstrated in the article that DeMar is responding to.[4] DeMar-as he did in our recent debate-ignores interaction with the details of my substantial argumentation and primarily just repeats "this generation," as if in a catatonic state [RATHER TYPICAL OF PRETERISTS/REPLACEMENTARIANS]. DeMar, held captive by his a priori allegiance to the preterist system, appeals to D. A. Carson who I had quoted. Because I had quoted Carson in one book, DeMar goes to another book and suggests that I should believe what Carson says there. If I don't, then DeMar portrays me as somehow inconsistent. Yet, if DeMar were held to the samestandard, I could produce many instances where he favorably quotes someone he agrees with, but would not agree with them in other instances.
Using DeMar's logic, it would mean that he should agree with all that the quoted individual espouses. For example, DeMar favorably quotes full-preterist J.Stuart Russell in his book Last Days Madness.[5] Based upon DeMar's standard, this would mean that he must also adhere to full preterism, since Russell held that position. Either DeMar is inconsistent when he quotes favorably Russell or he must believe, like Russell, in no future second coming and no future bodily resurrection.
DeMar quotes Carson's commentary on Matthew as supporting his view of "this generation," in Matthew 24:34, as if this somehow upstages me. It is true that Carson favors DeMar's view of "this generation" in the debate passage. However, Carson does favor my understanding that Matthew 24:27-31 refers to afuture event-Christ's second coming. Carson says,
Here are references to the Son of Man's coming angels gathering the elect, trumpet call, clouds, glory,tribes of the earth mourning, celestial disturbances-all unambiguously related to the Second Advent. It seems very doubtful, to say the least, that the natural way to understand vv. 29-35 is a reference to the Fall of Jerusalem. .. .
Daniel 7 portrays something glorious and wonderful, the end of the pagan emperor's reign; but a.d. 70 marks success by the pagan emperor.[6]
This is one of the points that I have consistently made with DeMar, that Matthew24:27-31 did not happen in a.d.70. Therefore, "all these things" of verse 34 were not fulfilled in the first century. In the debate and in my article,[7] I provided an extensive discussion of why "this generation" in verse 24 must be future. Part of the reason why is that "all these things" were not fulfilled by the first century Roman invaders. I have given an interpretation of Matthew 24 that provides a consistent understanding of the details of verses 4-34. Yet DeMar, blinded by his preterist bias, finds only what his system will allow him to see. We have in Carson, one who agrees with DeMar's view of "this generation," yet, unlike DeMar, is honest enough to admit that the language of verses 27-31 must reference a future second advent.
INCREDIBLE.
Actually, that is how it works. Those who make big claims need to make their case. For thousands of years, no one has interpreted "this generation" as "that generation" until Dispensationalism came along. Now Dispensationalists just assert their wild claims as truth and then wave off the millennia of scholarly research that confirms that "this generation" means, quite literally, "this generation".
But Dispensationalists are special. Since their promoters are largely unskilled, and illiterate in terms of the original languages, theology, doctrine, literary forms, culture et al, we can't expect coherent and reasonable answers. We are expected to answer the fool according to his folly, and this folly is horrible hermaneutics and unsubtantiated claims.
When Jesus Christ said "Assuredly, I say to you..." (v34) Dispensationalists, without any support whatsoever say that Jesus really meant "Assuredly I say to Americans thousands of years from now". When our LORD said "this generation", Dispensationalists, without any support whatsoever demand that Jesus meant "that generation [thousands of years from now]".
When we read in the prolog of Revelation "these things must shortly take place" the Dispensationalist declares by fiat that it really means "these things will take place thousands upon thousands of years from now" (1:1). When God literally said that Revelation was for "His Servants" (1:1), Dispensationalists categorically reject that and claim that Revelation is really only for the Reprobate (who already hate God and would never receive God's blessing).
The argument they make is total fiction. They claim that the word used in this passage, γενεα, can only mean "nation" even though "generation" has the article which means a literal generation of people, not a nation.
But here is an interesting fact. Dispensationalists admit through their own predictions that "γενεα" literally meant 40 year generation of people. Proof? In the claims that Jesus Christ was to return on the Feast of Trumpets in 1988, 40 calendar years after the UN formed the secular nation Israel. Their main evidence that 1988 was the year? Why Matthew 24:34 - "this generation".
You see, the fortune tellers want it both ways. First they easily trick you into agreeing that Matthew 24:34 means "this nation" so that you will interpret "flee to the hills of Judea" as not a literal thing, but have a metaphorical meaning. Then once you accept the bogus proposition that "this generation" can only mean "that generation", then they perform the bait-and-switch and say "this generation" really means "the generation that is living at the time the secular nation of Israel is carved out of the M.E. by the UN.". We are pretty far past the "40 years" of a standard generation. Then 2008 came by, and no return of Jesus, so the modified definition of generation = "sixty years" proved to be yet another lie by the fortune tellers.
What now? Are we going for 100 years? How about 950 which was the life span of your typical antediluvian? How many times are you going to let these Phalse Profits keep feeding you crap and garbage?
Personally, I beleive that you will easily scoff down whatever they feed you because you love it because its fresh, hip and doesn't require any biblical training. You can take a look at any calamity, troop movement, or weapon development and boldly declare that you are an authority on how and why it happened when you don't even have a clue. It is so much better to reject the Holy Scriptures as being the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and far more fun believing that it is a guide to identifying the antichrist and Day Planner for the Reprobate. Using Scripture to grow and be perfected is boring. Abusing Scripture and making parlor games out of Bible Codes and matching articles and op-eds from the NYT with OT prose only requires a fertile imagination and utter contempt for Spiritual Truth.
And your hatred for the Elect is well documented in this thread and in many others. It is marked by constant insults, slander and deliberate mischaracterizations - abuse that we rarely see even from the hard-core atheists.
By their fruits ye shall know them.