IAP Political Forum

C.S. Lewis wrote: "Say what you like," we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false.  It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime.  And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing.  Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion.  He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.'  And he was wrong.  He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."   

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.  Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."  The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side."

New to this site, have tried to get serious answers to questions about the Olivet Discourse from Christian websites and forums. Any attempts at resolving the problem with this verse always fail to take into account the totality of the words spoken by Christ in this discourse. Does anyone have a way of adressing this, without omitting or rewriting what the bible contains?

Could you tell me what verse exactly that is from?  As I am no bible scholar, I don't know.  But long before I could ever address any questions about this statement, I would need to read it in it's entirety.  So I could see the context.

The Olivet discourse is a passage found in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew (24), Mark (13) and Luke (21).

the passage he is quoting is V 34 

but what does he really mean by the word 'pass' he didn't say pass away.  He said this generation shall not pass but that Heaven and Earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass away.

 
Does pass mean to die?  Is that clarified here? 

The passage and it's meaning is vague at best and there can be much reaching from both believers and non believers a like here.

I see no way of providing a completely satisfactory explanation that removes all the difficulties in these passages given you prerequisites.  You are correct that this is the one, of perhaps less than six difficulties, that cannot be completely resolved. Within Christian apologetics there are several viewpoints alone.  CS Lewis' voices just one of them.

There is confusion over exactly what "these things" Jesus referred.  There is confusion over what was meant by "this generation" also. 

Given the uncertainty, is is unclear that the first statement contains an error or simply represents misinterpretation on CS Lewis' and now also on your part.  To your second point, there are several other occasions where Jesus is said to have acknowledged that as the son, his knowledge was limited by what the Father wished to reveal.  In other words, he often indicated his human qualities, which included limits.

So in summary you have indeed reintroduced one of the very few genuine Bible difficulties.  I note that many modern Bible footnotes alert to reader to this issue.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The words "this generation" as you no doubt are already aware of, are very difficult to dismiss as anything other than the people living at the time, due to the Greek words that are used, and their other instances of use elsewhere in the bible. The point about the limits of Christ's knowledge is excellent but does not offer a solution to the implied problem of false prophesy. If Christ's knowledge/limitations were limited to the point permitting false prophesy, that would pose serious challenges to accepted Christian doctrine.

No it does not offer a solution, and I hope you didn't get the impression I was attempting to suggest that Christ's human qualities allowed for error on his part.  My response was intended to avoid the idea that there might be two problems here.  Again I agree with you that, given your prescription that no alterations in the transcribed words are allowed, the difficulty in the first phrase cannot be fully resolved.

again I might add that many have stated that the Bible has been dictated and written by man thus there will be errors in this.  I do believe that there are.... but if I am to believe in the Bible and in the existence of God then I am to believe in the redeeming power of God and thus it really doesn't matter.

To further clarify "pass" it is usefull to note the what the scriptures say:

NIV Matthew 16:27-28) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. [28] I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

It is difficult to interpret "pass" as anything other than die.

Thank you for your directness. How do you personally resolve this? Does it pose a challenge to your faith? How do you interpret it?

But do you think though for a moment that when we die we actually do see Christ and we do see all that has been foretold?  It's possible now isn't it?  It also says that there will be much that is not explained and much that we will not know... Thus saying I walk by faith not by sight.

I think I understand your point, though there seems to be no basis for assuming that is what Jesus was saying in those verses., and I also understand your point about the Bible being written by man and thus subject to human error.  But by trying to explain this by saying the Bible is flawed and may not be trusted on such an important point cant be a satisfactory conclusion for a Christian.

Yes faith goes beyond reason and logic. In my opinion unless a person has had the experience of being stripped of both, losing all of the normal support and comfort of ones ego and it's creations, of having the core of your soul exposed, it is difficult I think for ones soul to be touched by the presence of God. It is difficult to know that God is with us. Once you have, then you know there is more than the material universe, though it is very difficult to express that to the likes of someone like the troll who visited this thread, just to spew hate.

 But how we define our faith, the name we call God, the person we worship, is defined by our faith in the scriptures also. The bible must be depended upon in order for a Christian to be rooted as a Christian.

YOu are correct. So, what we have is a split in the religion into Partial Preterism, Full Preterism, and Futurism.

All make Jesus out to be not a Lord, but a Lunatic or Liar.

Refer to  Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24:34, Matthew 26:64, and Rev. 1:1-3.

So, how do you reconcile it, assuming you hold the "Faith"?  If, in fact, the X'n only has interpretation from subjective experience, then where do they get the assurity of the Word?

I don't reconcile it. I'm not sure how anyone does. Maybe with the exceptions of those factions you mention, nobody does. It's either ignored, swept under the carpet of the subconscious or unknown by most Christians and thus not a problem. Plus to answer your question on a more general basis, in my opinion only a very small portion of the human race make decisions about their world view based on points of logic like this. I think this is true for lapsed Christians, former Christians who are now atheists. If you ask one, they will tell you it was an accumulation of skeptical questions, but I really doubt it. The impulse beneath the questions was emotional. Maybe the atheist couldn't bear the guilt. Or needed to liberate himself from the moral requirements for one reason or another, whatever, the drive is emotional.

For me , my intellectual questions are my way of trying to find a valid way to articulate my faith. Faith that is rooted in an emotional experience that serves as the basis for my epistemology.

I resolve it by recognizing that I (and anyone else for that matter) am rarely able to fully understand every point the author of any book makes.  Whether that is partially due to an error on the part of the writer or editor or publisher, I cannot say.  I do know that I am not perfect.  When I look at the Bible in total, it is remarkably clear and consistent so a handful of difficulties does not change that.  In fact it is consistent with overall doctrine since we humans are delegated accountability for such things and thus you would expect the Bible to share characteristics that are contained in all writing.

I further note that of all the reasonable interpretations, none change Christian doctrine except the one that has Jesus making a false claim, but based on the second phrase, it is not valid since we have him clearly saying that he does not know when the end times occur. 

This does not challenge my faith except in the sense that it encourages me to take the time to know what I believe and why I believe it.  It encourages me to get to know doctrine and the Bible including all the difficult passages so I am able to give an account for what I believe.

I interpret these passages by noting a distinction between the time of Christ's Kingdom and his return.  I note that "these things" most likely refer to the other events Jesus also described that seem to be separate from the ending of the current age.   I agree with CS Lewis that the apostles seemed to think the ending Jesus spoke of would occur in their lifetime.

Hi Shipwreck, welcome to the site.

I'm in agreement with RF so I'll just add that I think Christians have to learn to deal with a certain amount of mystery (i.e. free will vs God's sovereignty).  While these types of things certainly don't help with apologetics they are humbling and force us to rely on God to fill the gaps.

I'll also add, though you probably already knew this, every generation believed it would be their generation that would welcome Christ back.  While their belief of his return may have been a mistake, the sense of urgency may be exactly what God wanted.

Are those passages from the Bible you think is fake, or your "real" bible?

On that subject, you have questions pending.

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=418.0

Any other site would call you on crossing threads for flaming. You all have alot trash floating around here, and some pretty negligent garbage men, (cleaning crew?) maybe they're all smoking dope and to stoned to deal with the trolls. Anyway thanks Reasoned Faith and Jesus is my Piolt and Targo, for some solid replies.

What was cut that you feel is worthy of remaining?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the "Forum Civility" sticky at the top.

Tell us which post did not meet the criteria?

You are new here and obviously do not know the history...also feel free to peruse the Archives to get a flavor for what once was.

Nothing wrong with crossing threads in this manner.  And I didn't see any flaming.  A reminder that questions are unanswered is fairly harmless.

Not sure what you feel could be better done, but new people that want moderating done their way tend to have short shelf lives.  Hopefully you can overcome these control issues and enjoy posting.  We can always use fresh voices as sometimes it seems like the issues are the same ones we have talked about a dozen times already.

Please recalibrate your sarcasm meter to accept Zuk's indomitable wit.  He wasn't attacking you.

EDIT - I'll also add that Zuk believes smileys are gauche and that we can see his beaming demeanor through the internets.

I suppose if we were just to take the Bible at face value then we would naturally find flaws and discord with it.  But if, as you have pointed out, your soul has been touched by the presence of God then it's hard to walk away and it's natural to believe anything is possible. 


I believe there is a point that you're wanting to make Shipwreck.... you have started this thread off with a verse that alludes to the Bible being flawed yet you write like you believe.  I can't help but think you are either testing to see what side of the fence people 'play' on or you have something that you're searching for.

I personally don't doubt the existence of God, don't doubt that He created the universe.  My only doubt comes in when I think of what man potentially has done to the word of God.  But again I say if God is so powerful and mighty and we are to believe this.  Then we are also to believe that He is able to redeem all.  If I believe that then really it doesn't matter what has been written in the Bible b/c God is able to do so much more than we can, and He can redeem it. 

I don't tend to dwell on the  details.

Also Shipwreck you must realize that the members here at IAP have been together for sometime and I suppose we know their little idiosyncrasies and are therefore not as offended when they pop up as say a new member.

Zuki meant no harm... he's just too smart for his own damn good

now Daedalus aka barney knows more than you would think he does.....

 

Wouldn't he almost have to?

are you referring to barnes here? 

I know that Bible scholars look to the Greek translation as many things do not translate very well from Greek to English:

> >Would you please help with the correct translation
> of Mat 24:34> >

> >The Greek says:
> >AMHN LEGW UMIN OU MH PARELQE H GENEA AUTH EWS AN
> PANTA TAUTA GENHTAI
>       (should be:PARELQHi hH GENEA hAUTH)
>
> >I was surprised to find conjunctive, and "an"
> particle, instead of
> >future (according to the versions I've read) It'd
> be interesting for
> >me what is your proposal for literal translation as
> well.
> >
> >I think that the particle "AN" makes the meaning
> little different
> >from defining *historical* points of beginning and
> end (for ex. the
> >sec. half of the I-st c.). Perhaps Jesus of
> Nazareth speaks rather of
> >period of continuance, e.g. less than 30 yrs, not
> mentioning the
> >historical point of beginning? Which would mean
> that we could only
> >get from here an idea of *how much time* those
> events would take, but
> >in now way *when* exactly they'd begin and,
> respectively, end ?
>
> "Truly I tell you, this GENEA will not pass until
> all these things have
> taken place."
>
> The real question is precisely what hH GENEA hAUTH
> was intended to  mean.
> Here's what NET note on it says:
> =====
> "This is one of the hardest verses in the gospels to
> interpret. Various
> views exist for what generation means. (1) Some take
> it as meaning "race"
> and thus as an assurance that the Jewish race
> (nation) will not pass away.
> But it is very questionable that the Greek term v
> (GENEA ) can have this
> meaning. Two other options are possible. (2)
> Generation might mean "this
> type of generation" and refer to the generation of
> wicked humanity. Then
> the point is that humanity will not perish, because
> God will redeem it. Or
> (3) generation may refer to "the generation that
> sees the signs of the end"
> (v. 30), who will also see the end itself. In other
> words, once the
> movement to the return of Christ starts, all the
> events connected with it
> happen very quickly, in rapid succession. "

Found Here (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-June/025578.html)

Patton wrote:

Patton THANKS for that and zuki thanks for catching that it didn't post and sharing it!

BTW, it may be of interest that Mat 24:36 says ""of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels in Heaven, nor even the Son, but the Father only"

"The Son" was editted out in amny manuscripts because they couldn't understand why Jesus (God) wouldn't know what God is thinking.


Also, later in Mat. he recounts that Jesus drinks wine at the crucifiction after Jesus claims in at the Last Supper that he won't taste wine until he is in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 26:29).... Uh, ooops, wrong again Jesus! ;)


Not to mention Mark 14:62 never happened (and considered one of the few phrases that Jesus actually said.)


The Bible is not a prophesy, it is a collection of books, letters and poems, written by people with emotional experiences and celebrating the unknown. I only see trouble ahead when people seek to find secrets , codes, prophesies or other mystical things in religious texts.  Take it for what it is: spiritual writings of our ancestors in a superstitious age.

Some scribes seemed to feel they could take liberties while other clearly did not.  The manuscripts of those who did not were generally carried forward.  There are only three or four examples where scribes seem to have carried forward a significant change.  None of these changes the meaning or doctrine.

Your point in mentioning this is to claim that the Christian narrative evolved.  However the reality is that it is documented that doctrine and tradition is the same now as that conveyed in the documents used by the Church as early as 100 AD.



Oh come now.  Your complaint is transparent.  Jesus refused the wine offered during the Crucifixion.



Such profound insight you have that know what was said in the trial in front of the Jewish Religious leaders over 2000 years ago.  But let's say Mark erred in that Jesus said this but not at the trial.  How does this demonstrate your point since examples like this are few and far between?  Your view is that the entire document evolved so this kind of thing should be the rule not the exception.  The evidence shows that only minor variations in witness narratives exist.  the same kind of variation you see when independent witnesses testify today.

Hi Shipwreck.  I too am new here and find that some people will talk seriously and sensibly, while others are just self-satisfied slimeballs who enjoy stirring things up.  You can usually tell one type from the other: the good guys usually initiate things or try to put a positive case; the others simply go for attack and negativity.  And most are a mixture of the two.  Twas ever thus in the world.... this forum just reflects how people are all over.

Wasn't it vinegar?

In the first case it was literally "fruit of the vine" in the second it was "old wine" surmised by some to be vinegar and often this term was used for vinegar since it was common for Roman Soldiers at that time to drink vinegar mixed with water.  Since both were written by Matthew, clearly he differentiated the two by using different terms.  It seems  he understood there was a difference.

Early manuscripts say "wine with gall", and some scribes changed it to vinegar.
They changed it to make Jesus's "prophesy" come true. After all, it would be strange for them to change it to a more difficult reading.

One really has to wonder how many "prophesies" were handled in this way - especially when Paul had 40 years to spin stories about how Jesus was prophesized in the OT.

As we see from religious people today, they are willing to lie and cheat as long as it helps "the cause". Consider also the rewriting the Vatican did, or the King James version.

Barney, you know the difference between taste & drink, right?

You mentioned Matthew 27:34

& Matthew 26:29


No need to "change it" as most understand the difference.

Good point. regardless of the word choice, there is no contradiction either way and therefore no incentive to change it. 

So how does one use the few inconsequential changes that occurred from 220 AD through 1200 AD to project or estimate changes that might have occurred between 45 AD and 115 AD when the Gospels are corroborated as existing as they do in the 220 manuscript?  What is the basis to claim they were redacted during this time period by Jews who unlike the Roman Christians had a strong tradition of scripture preservation in unaltered form?

RF, this doesn't change the point!  There were scribes that changed it to say "vinegar" to help Jesus out. This is the very point that you should be concerned about. There were scribes who changed the other passage to say he didn't drink it.


BTW, for other people who aren't familiar with apologetics. You have just witnessed it in fine fashion.

For example:  John 19:28-29 says Jesus drank vinegar just before he died.

Mark says "And they tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it."

Wine with myrrh, gall, vinegar... drank or didn't....
All diferrent stories, but the important thing for Fundi's is that Jesus is proven wrong - no matter what.

taste and drink.
Do you know the difference between vinegar, wine, myrrh and gall?

And, btw, other translations use vinegar as a fullfillment of Psalms:
  So, you have good Xian folk telling people that a prophesy is fullfilled based on a change from scribes that you have accepted.

So who is telling the truth here boys?  How accurate are your "eyewitnesses?"  How well do you know that the Bible is the one you should be reading?

Exactly, there are different accounts. They are all different and manuscripts have been found that are different.


See above, and for more, consider the hyslop(sp) that they tried to get Jesus to drink from in John - a clear embellishment to allude to the preparation of sacrificial lambs (it is a reedy plant that they use to splatter blood on people - it is not absorbant and a poor method to let a dying man drink some vinegar.)

Why vinegar?  Why would you give a dying man vinegar and not wine?

(BTW, the words are very close: Greek "ozos" and "oinos"




Oh, and here is ANOTHER perspective of apologetics:

http://www.yrm.org/wine_or_grape_juice.htm

They are saying that it was wine, but he drank grape juice during passover.

Which is it?

And, can you see why we see religion as silly - that people are actually absing their dinner on these interpretations?

You would if you were taunting him, and making his death as miserable as you could.

He was offered the vinegar/wine with gall from the Roman soldiers who had nailed Him to the cross and shoved a spear in His chest.

People get hung up on words, and that's OK...I understand, because that's what they have to work with.

I find concepts, ideas and the message more important than individual words.

I agree that ideas are important, but ideas are transmitted through language: words.
plus, the idea or concept I am trying to discuss is that the Bible was:
1. written after the fact, using highly symbolic language
2. was written by superstitious people who seem to have never met Jesus.
3. written by copying other people's accounts
4. written with more and more embellishment.
5. through copying, errors (deliberate or not) were introduced.
6. the earliest copies of the manuscripts are generations old.
7. myth can grow rapidly (note mormonism, scientology, and the MANY early xian cults that sprang up.  in fact, some books in the bible are an attempt to stop the rampant mythologizing in the churches Paul had set up: he warns people of false prophets, and "wrong" interpretations or teachings.  And then consider the gnostics... etc, etc.
8. And more, but my thumbs can't type fast enough  ...

anyhow, ideas are important, but words get us there - and in this case, focusing on the one word and the changes it had HIIGHLIGHTS the idea/concept

Let's have a closer look at these scribes, because I think it matters a great deal.  So who exactly and when was the the text changed?  Was it a redaction or a translation change?  Please provide sources since I cannot find any direct verification for these changes.



Please repeat all of this and for the words in question use the language from the original manuscript.  Translations into english are often imprecise.  One translator will use vinegar, while the other will use wine when the original greek or hebrew  meant "old wine".  It does no good to confuse the issue by using translations.

When I get the time, or you can, since you seem interested - help me out.

BTW, it does highlight, tho, that xians are willing to intepret and translate the text in any numbers of ways. There are people going to a church right now who are being lied to by their clergy.

Wow, those who choose a slightly different translation that does not change the context are now liars?

As to providing help, I am unable to.  I have checked the Lexicons and can find none of this inconsistency you alledge.  The Lexicons indicate the Hebrew word in Psalms is indeed wine vinegar or soured (strong) wine.  The Greek words indicate "sour wine" and vinegar mixed with water as was customary for Roman Soldiers to drink.

I find nothing to indicate the Greek words were changed to these words used to describe the drink often associated with the Roman soldiers.

it isn't "sour wine mixed with vinigar", vinigar IS soured wine.
(French word "vini agre" = "wine sour".

So, it was wine, soured, and probably mixed with water. It was wine. Bad wine, but wine nonetheless.

You argument is interesting and I appreciate you taking the time, but on the other hand I find it quite amusing.  You're pretty much doing the equivalent of arguing with people that think StarWars is real.  To top things off you're doing the equivalent of arguing that Han Solo couldn't have made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs!

If Jesus drank Wine or Vinegar or whatever doesn't matter in the least.   The Bible is FICTION.  You know this.

True, but I like Star Wars.... ;D

OK, then those scribes who supposedly changed the words in later manuscripts (that you can't seem to identify) actually did not change the word (or at least the meaning) at all and your original argument collapses. 

John 19:28-30

Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.



1. Jesus drank wine after he said he wouldn't.
2. Later copies show that they changed "wine" to "vinegar" in Matt. (because it was a close match) to avoid the problem.

You can't have it both ways barney.  Were the words changed or not?  If they were changed, provide the evidence.  What words were contained in the earliest copies?  Let's deal with the facts.

The earliest instance of Matthew that includes 26:29 is p53 in c.260.  Then, in the 3rd or 4th century p37. They say fruit of the vine.

The earliest Matt 27:34 is in the Codex Vaticanus in 325-350.  The other is Sinaiticus a little later.

Piecing together the scraps of paper to find the earliest mention is tough since there is so little that exists of these books before the Church created their official copy.  One might say it is like an inferior fossil record.


So, it says "wine" oinos, which, as you will recall, is what Jesus turned water into - allegedly - not vinegar, or cheap wine "oxos".


btw, this is the version of the Bible that one scribe writes in the margins to another:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html


Oh, and here is commentary:
http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B40C027.htm#N34

Note that:
1. Jesus drank wine, whatever you want to call it despite his pledge that he wouldn't.
2. That scribes changed the word oinos to oxos, which is up to speculation WHY they changed it, but it seems obvious that they were trying to make Jesus look good, or to accord with Psalms.


BTW, here is something I offer, that RF never will: Sources.

http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/ntmss.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/text-signs.html
http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/d2.htm
http://www.katoliko.com/history.htm
http://www.greekbiblestudy.org/gnt/main.do?mainContent=true
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTPapyri.htm
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html#pap
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=greek&type=begin&layout=&formentry=1&lookup=oinos


And here are different versions from different Bibles:


Note the reference to Psalms.


So, RF, if the original says "oinos" why are many Xians LYING and keeping the changed "oxos"?



Notice, the atheist (me) gives more attention and care to the Bible than the Xian (RF) who only CLAIMS that the Bible is true, based on Faith.


P.S.: I would like RF to explain how the bible is known to be complete and correct when it was written almost 300 years later based on scraps of papyrus like this:

(http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/NRWakademie/papyrologie/PKoeln/PK4274r-4298r.jpg)