Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist

1/9/2017 4:19:11 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
virgomoon Greenwood, IN 64, joined May. 2010	It seems that in his search for a Preterist scholar mindy keeps coming back to Adam Clarke, who is not a Preterist scholar. I don't really know but it seems there are no Preterists scholars else mindy might be able to quote from them. He keeps doing it... This from just a few days ago. Adam Clarke says... This same Jesus - Clothed in human nature, shall so come in like manner - with the same body, descending from heaven by his sovereign and all-controlling power, as ye have seen him go into heaven. Thus shall he come again to judge the quick and the dead. It was a very ancient opinion among Christians, that when Christ should come again to judge the world he would make his appearance on Mount Olivet. Some think that his coming again to destroy the Jewish nation is what the angels refer to. See a connected account of the different appearances of Christ at the end of this chapter. CLV Ac 1:11 who say also, "Men! Galileans! Why do you stand, looking at into heaven? This Jesus Who is being taken up from you into heaven shall come thus, in the manner in which you gaze at Him going into heaven." There is no indication of a time when this era shall end or begin. 10 years, 1000 years, or 10,000 years there is nothing in the Scriptures that will tell us when it will happen. mindy pretty much makes that part up. Whatever is convenient for his doctrine. CLV Re 19:11 And I perceived heaven open, and lo! a white horse. And He Who is sitting on it is called "Faithful and True," and in righteousness is He judging and battling. Adam says... A white horse - This is an exhibition of the triumph of Christ after the destruction of his enemies. The white horse is the emblem of this, and Faithful and True are characters of Christ. See Rev 3:14. In righteousness he doth judge and make war - The wars which he wages are from no principle of ambition, lust of power, or extension of conquest and dominion; they are righteous in their principle and in their object. And this is perhaps what no earthly potentate could ever say. Clearly, he acknowledges that Jesus will return after the events of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 1 to18) have ended. He seems to have no trouble looking to these events as future events, and not past ones. Things which must shortly come to pass - On the mode of interpretation devised by Wetstein, this is plain; for if the book were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the prophecies in it relate to that destruction, and the civil wars among the Romans, which lasted but three or four years, then it might be said the Revelation is of things which must shortly come to pass. But if we consider the book as referring to the state of the Church in all ages, the words here, and those in Rev 1:3, must be understood of the commencement of the events predicted; as if he had said: In a short time the train of these visions will be put in motion His idea of a "generation" does not match mindy's. Shall come upon this generation - E??? ??v ?e?ea? ta?t??, upon this race of men, viz. the Jews. This phrase often occurs in this sense in the evangelists. "this race of men" seems to be the definition that Adam Clarke is going by. This is Elias, which was for to come - This should always be written Elijah, that as strict a conformity as possible might be kept up between the names in the Old Testament and the New. The Prophet Malachi, who predicted the coming of the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah, gave the three following distinct characteristics of him. First, That he should be the forerunner and messenger of the Messiah: Behold I send my messenger before me, Mal 3:1. Secondly, That he should appear before the destruction of the second temple: Even the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, ibid. Thirdly, That he should preach repentance to the Jews; and that, some time after, the great and terrible day of the Lord should come, and the Jewish land be smitten with a curse, Mal 4:5, Mal 4:6. Now these three characters agree perfectly with the conduct of the Baptist, and what shortly followed his preaching, and have not been found in any one else; which is a convincing proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah. I don't believe that most Christians really think John the Baptist was Elijah... He shall go before him - Jesus Christ, in the spirit and power of Elijah; he shall resemble Elijah in his retired and austere manner of life, and in his zeal for the truth, reproving even princes for their crimes; compare Kg1 21:17-24, with Mat 14:4. It was on these accounts that the Prophet Malachi, Mal 4:6, had likened John to this prophet. See also Isa 40:3; and Mal 4:5, Mal 4:6. CLV Mt 22:8 "Then he is saying to his slaves, `The wedding, indeed, is ready, yet those invited were not worthy. "The wedding, indeed, is ready..." is spoken of in the context of this parable. As such it cannot mean the wedding it literally ready. Yet the wedding feast is for Israel and not the Gentiles. 'pateo' (or in English, to trample (literally or figuratively)) is mentioned 5 times in the bible. Each time it is represented by a different tense. It did not mean "to set foot on" when Jesus was here as suggested by the "English - Greek Lexicon" by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. It did not mean to trample in disdain or contempt. It did not mean to walk. It seems these preterists like to have their Smorgasborg of definitions and eat at it too. Now here is another preterists who like his Strongs with a Plus. The funniest part to me is when they try to pronounce the words from a dead language. Both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are considered dead languages, That's because there is no one alive that can speak them. So these so-called scholars try to come up with their own pronunciation. I have been corrected more than one by novice Biblers who think they know how these words are pronounced. The fact is, no one on this earth knows how they are pronounced. And your guess is as good as mine. The true Strongs entry is... _____Strong's_____ G3162 machaira makh'-ahee-rah probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, i.e. dirk; figuratively, war, judicial punishment. Without the question marks (?). CLV Re 1:3 Happy is he who is reading and those who are hearing the word of the prophecy, and who are keeping that which is written in it, for the era is near. Near denotes a conditional proximity. The kingdom of the heavens was near during the early part of our Lord's ministry. It was postponed by His rejection. It was near again when proclaimed by the apostles but once more rejected by the nation of Israel. Peter writes "the consummation of all things is near" (1Pet 4:7), yet nearly twenty centuries have passed and the consummation or end is still future. This has been explained to mindy, although he likes to ignore what he has no defense for. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
1/9/2017 5:00:33 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
mindya Vancouver, BC 65, joined Jan. 2009
1/9/2017 5:47:19 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	(((There is no indication of a time when this era shall end or begin. 10 years, 1000 years, or 10,000 years there is nothing in the Scriptures that will tell us when it will happen. mindy pretty much makes that part up. Whatever is convenient for his doctrine. ))) Of course there is an indication. Matt 24:30 then shall appear the sign of the Son of man In heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory 34- verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled matt 16:27 For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with hos angels, and then He shall reward every man according to his works 28- verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory and in hos fathers and of the Holy angels. 27 - but I tell you of a truth there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God mark 8:38 whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the son of man he ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his father with all the holy angels Mark 9:1 And He said unto them verily I say unto you that there be some of them standing here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Luke 21:31 so likewise ye, when ye see these things co.e to pass know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand 32 verily I say unto you this generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. Mark 14:62 and jesus said, I am and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven There is plenty of indications of when that would take place. That generation, before some of them died, and even the high priest would see it also. Playing the word game with "generation" doesn't work. Because not only did he use generation, he also said " some standing there would not die till all was fulfilled" Then of course, it isn't hard to see how generation is used in the bible, just pick out a bloodline and see how it reads, now these are the generations of so and so. But these very same verses also show your error in another part, of maybe is was someone you quoted. (((Near denotes a conditional proximity. The kingdom of the heavens was near during the early part of our Lord's ministry. It was postponed by His rejection. It was near again when proclaimed by the apostles but once more rejected by the nation of Israel. Peter writes "the consummation of all things is near" (1Pet 4:7), yet nearly twenty centuries have passed and the consummation or end is still future. ))))) "Near" doesn't denote a conditional proximity. Something is either near, or it isn't near, But according to the verses given above, Matt 16:28 verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom These would not die till they saw him in his kingdom Luke 9:27 but I tell you of a truth there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God These would not die till they saw the kingdom of god Mark 9:1 And He said unto them verily I say unto you that there be some of them standing here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. These would not die till they seen the kingdom of God come with power So the notion that the coming of the kingdom was postponed is false. Unless you think Jesus lied. Then of course even Jesus himself said this Luke 17:21 neither shall they say lo here or lo there, for behold, the kingdom home of God is within you. People today are waiting of a visible kingdom good to come, and that's exactly what the Pharisees were asking about, and when it would come. He told them, Luke 17:20 the kingdom of God cometh not with observation And I dare say he would tell those still looking for a visible kingdom good the samething
1/10/2017 11:09:02 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from looptex1: Of course there is an indication. CLV Mt 24:29 "Now immediately after the affliction of those days the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not be giving her beams, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory. Without verse 29 to help explain isn't verse 30 a bit redundant? Jesus will return when we see the Son of Mankind in heaven? Quote from looptex1: matt 16:27 For the son of man shall come in the glory of his father with hos angels, and then He shall reward every man according to his works Are the angels hoes? Fascinating. Are you typing all these out? Quote from looptex1: Playing the word game with "generation" doesn't work. Because not only did he use generation, he also said " some standing there would not die till all was fulfilled" Game? The word 'genea' doesn't mean the same thing today as it did when Jesus was here. That is kinda typical of all words. They change in meaning over time. All you're doing it trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Quote from looptex1: Then of course, it isn't hard to see how generation is used in the bible, just pick out a bloodline and see how it reads, now these are the generations of so and so. OK. Can you give us an example of how 'genea' is used as a "bloodline"? Quote from looptex1: "Near" doesn't denote a conditional proximity. Something is either near, or it isn't near, The word "near" denotes conditional proximity. Even if you say it doesn't. Of course, I was quoting from a scholar. Again, these words were not used the same way they are used today. Thousands of miles and thousands of years will make a language very different from what you are used to. CLV Mt 16:28 Verily I am saying to you that there are some of those standing here who under no circumstances should be tasting death till they should be perceiving the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom. This prediction was fulfilled about a week later when He took His most intimate disciples with Him and they saw His power and presence and were spectators of His magnificence (2Pet 1:16). It is fitting that, at this juncture, there should be some plain intimation of the postponement of the kingdom. In the record the promise is immediately followed by its fulfillment, but there is a week's delay. Another cycle must run its course before the proper conditions reappear which precede the kingdom. A. E. Knoch More from the same scholar. loopy... Do you know what Etymology is? Do you know what a Concordance is? Mindy didn't. I had to educate him. And I am happy to do it. But all he is able to do is laugh. Maybe he keeps his Nitrous Oxide next to his beer?
1/10/2017 11:39:39 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	It seems Mr. Knoch had alot to say about Acts 24:15.I guess you just gotta know where to look... The former resurrection is the first of a series of two. The latter resurrection occurs at the great white throne judgment, more than a thousand years later, for the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years may be finished (Rev.20:5,6,11). The introduction of this explanatory statement seems a little abrupt and uncalled for until we examine previous teaching on this subject. We must see that, before this, there was little or no distinction between these two resurrections before we appreciate the special effort here made to separate the former from the latter. (Dan.12:2, CV). Yet a closer glance at this very passage is enough to destroy the idea that both enter a period of blessing. Whenever the unbelievers may be raised, they cannot enter an era like the thousand years. There is judgment in it, but it is always swift and condign. Even at the end, the apostasy is tolerated only long enough to come to a head. But those in Daniel are roused to eonian reproach and repulsion. There is no hint of any probation. Indeed, it would be contrary to the plain prediction to expect them to enter life, in the same sense as the other class, during the eons. So long as the eons last, one of these classes will have life, the other eonian reproach and repulsion. So much is clear in Daniel. There are two different classes, and the duration of this distinction is clearly indicated, but the time of the resurrection of each class is not divulged. Almost everyone imagines that, since both are mentioned in the same breath, they must occur simultaneously. The memory of Isaiah 61:2: "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God," should prevent us from any such deduction. Rather, since we know, from our Lord's example and other passages, that the day of vengeance will follow the acceptable year, we should infer that the class which is mentioned last follows the former. This, of course, is only an inference, but it has a precedent, and the other inference has not even that. We know, from later unfoldings, that these two classes are raised in the order given, but separated by a thousand years. This indefiniteness as to the time of the resurrections is not confined to the Hebrew prophets. Even Paul, before Felix, speaks of a "future resurrection of the just as well as the unjust" (Acts 24:15). Our Lord separates them but slightly, when He says, the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will be hearing His voice, and those who do good things shall be going out into a resurrection of life, yet those who commit bad into a resurrection of judgment (John 5:29). Let us note that He, as well as the messenger in Daniel, mentions the former resurrection first. Both speak of the rousing of two kinds of people, but only the Lord mentions two kinds of resurrections. It is the function of the Unveiling to amplify and clarify these earlier unfoldings. Our inference may only lead us astray. Previous revelation was not explicit as to the time periods. This is the reason that we read of a "former" resurrection and are warned that the rest of the dead have no part in it. The somewhat vague statement in Daniel needs elucidation. _______________________________________________________________________ From this it will be seen that the term out-resurrecp305 Attaining to the Out-Resurrectiontion} is a name for the thought expressed in the phrase raise out or from among (Matt.17:9; Mark 6:14; 9:9,10; 12:25; Luke 16:31; 24:46; John 20:9; Acts 10:41; 13:34; 17:3,31; Eph.5:14). We avow, as Paul did before Felix, "that there is to be a future resurrection of the just as well as the unjust" (Acts 24:15). "All who are in the tombs will be hearing His voice, and those who do good things shall be going out into a resurrection of life, yet those who commit bad into a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28,29). These resurrections do not occur at the same time. There is at least a thousand years between them. Therefore it is necessary that the former should be an out-resurrection, for the rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years are finished (Rev.20:5). It is also evident that, should a resurrection occur even before this, it also would be an out-resurrection. It is important to note that Scripture does not distinguish these by a special phrase. We never read of an "out-resurrection from among the saints." All are simply from among the dead. It is evident from this that out-resurrection is for believers only and leads to eonian glory, in contrast to the latter resurrection, which leads to judgment. In the out-resurrection we will be sinless, and lead a life of perfect conformity to the will of God. This is the ideal to which our present life should conform. What would we not give to be as we will be when vivified! To serve as we will in that glorious time! What is more practical than to seek to attain it now? ____________________________________________________________________________ Both Peter and Paul recognize that Christ was the One specified by God to be the Judge of the living and p231 The Hidden Thingsthe dead (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim.4:1). When Paul addressed Felix, the governor of Judea, at the time Paul was taken into custody, he included in his defense the statement that "...there shall be a resurrection...for both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15). In his epistle to the Romans (2:12) he charges that "whoever sinned without law, without law also shall perish, and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged." That those who have been given the law shall be judged by it, few would question. But those who have not been given the law will also stand in judgment because they have neglected the testimony of creation (Rom.1:20) and of their own conscience (Rom.2:15,16). The assurance that this judgment will be utterly just stems from God's ability to "be judging the hidden things of humanity" (Rom.2:16). Our corrupt contemporary courts are limited to admitting into evidence only those things which can be seen and proven by external evidence, or the faltering testimony of what witnesses have seen. Yet God strips away all outward appearances and pretentious false facades, and reveals the hidden things. ____________________________________________________________________________ We avow, as Paul did before Felix, 1. that there is to be a future resurrection of the just as well as the unjust" (Acts 24:15). "All who are in the tombs will be hearing His voice, and those who do good things shall be going out into a resurrection of life, yet those who commit bad into a resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28,29). These resurrections do not occur at the same time. There is at least a thousand years between them. Therefore it is necessary that the former should be an out-resurrection, for the rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years are finished (Rev.20:5). It is also evident that, should a resurrection occur even before this, it also would be an out-resurrection. It is important to note that Scripture does not distinguish these by a special phrase. We never read of an "out-resurrection from among the saints." All are simply from among the dead.
1/10/2017 12:30:52 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Well hello bigD Funny, was thinking of Cayce just the other day and thought of Virgo. He really nailed it in regards to the melting polar caps, almost dead on. Anyway, pass on my regards to her. [Edited 1/10/2017 12:31:48 PM ]
1/10/2017 3:02:26 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from mindya: Evidently when mindy uses the word "done" it means something different than what our modern day word "done" means. Kinda like the word used for "generation." Quote from mindya: There seems to be some confusion about the Greek word "genea" - some claim that the koine Greek "genea" does not mean the same thing that the modern word generation means. It seems mindy is the one confused. He still thinks he can take an Ancient term and give it a modern definition. Just like putting a round peg in a square hole. _____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). Strongs says 'genea' means an age by implication. Not exactly what we think of as a generation. It does not say "a generation by implication. It says "an age by implication." Get a reading primer. The KJV translates this word as "generation"... sometimes. Then his defense is from a modern day dictionary, Merriam-Webster. We are not defining the English term "generation" here. We are defining the Ancient Greek term 'genea.' So far, no claims are refuted. Perhaps he has confused the Ancient Koine Greek term 'genea' for another Ancient Greek term, 'gennema.' _____Strong's_____ G1081 gennema ghen'-nay-mah from G1080; offspring; by analogy, produce (literally or figuratively). This word the KJV also translates as "generation"... sometimes. OR... _____Strong's_____ G1078 genesis ghen'-es-is from the same as G1074; nativity; figuratively, nature. Another word the KJV translates as "generation"... sometimes. OR... _____Strong's_____ G1085 genos ghen'-os from G1096; "kin" (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective). Another word the KJV translates as "generation"... sometimes. No wonder mindy is so confused. Quote from mindya: (Mat 24:34 KJV) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Some claim that the events described by Jesus in his previous statements did not ALL happen, So he even admits that two scholars (Adam Calrk and A. E. Knoch) do not agree with him. Maybe he needs to go back to school? "genea houtos" is not a phrase used in the Ancient Koine Greek text. Quote from mindya: We all due respect to Adam his choice of "this race, i.e. the Jews" is wrong. In this case, it is based on his Methodist viewpoint/theology. Nonetheless, I believe in most other areas he has written an excellent commentary. I am getting a kick out of this. mindy the preterist is saying that A. Clarke and A. E. Knoch are wrong. No explanation, just wrong. It seems loopy tried that trick earlier. It didn't work then and it won't work now. And, as I have mentioned before, Adam Clarke is NOT a preterist and his commentary reflexs that. mindy and loopy are wrong. So by using the KJV he is interpreting the text based on an erroneous understanding of the term 'genea'. Again, he is wrong. Quote from mindya: Again I don't think the definition of "genea" needs any explanation. Of course not. All we have to do is disregard what the Concordance and the Scriptures say and have it your way. phffft. Quote from mindya: I can't find any usage in the NT that uses the Greek "genea" to refer to a stock or race. That's funny. I thought he just gave us a few. CLV Mt 24:34 "Verily, I am saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by till all these things should be occurring. CLV Lk 11:32 Men, Ninevites, will be rising in the judging with this generation and they will be condemning it, for they repent at the heralding of Jonah, and lo! more than Jonah is here! Quote from mindya: Case dismythed. It seems he has developed a lisp.
1/10/2017 4:18:30 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
mindya Vancouver, BC 65, joined Jan. 2009
1/10/2017 5:30:34 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	It seems these preterists like to have their Smorgasborg of definitions and eat at it too. Now here is another preterists who like his Strongs with a Plus. The funniest part to me is when they try to pronounce the words from a dead language. Both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are considered dead languages, That's because there is no one alive that can speak them. So these so-called scholars try to come up with their own pronunciation. I have been corrected more than one by novice Biblers who think they know how these words are pronounced. The fact is, no one on this earth knows how they are pronounced. And your guess is as good as mine. This is 100 % bigD, his personality, virgo was never dogmatic like that. Virgo loves Edgar Cayce, and you know what? Cayce is a bit of a ,,,,, wait for it,,,, Preterist, partial one though! Yep, I cannot make this up. Cayce’s Visions of the Future That are Yet to Happen The year the battle of Armageddon will occur in the spirit realm (may be happening already) Cayce predicted that the so-called “Battle of Armageddon” described symbolically in the Bible would begin in 1999. Cayce foresaw that this “battle” will not be a war fought on Earth. Rather, it will be a spiritual struggle between the “higher forces of light” and “lower forces of darkness” for 1000 years of Earth time. The reason for this struggle is to prevent souls from lower afterlife realms from reincarnating to Earth. By preventing souls from the lower afterlife realms from reincarnating to Earth, only enlightened souls will be permitted to reincarnate. The result will be 1000 years of building a world of peace and enlightenment. After 1000 years, souls from lower afterlife realms will be permitted once again to reincarnate to Earth. By this time, the so-called “kingdom of heaven” will have been established on Earth. There is a possibility of a World War III Cayce foresaw the possibility of a third world war. He spoke of strife arising near the Davis Straits, and in Libya, and in Egypt, in Ankara, and in Syria; through the straits around those areas above Australia, in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. Given the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the tensions in the Middle East right now, such a war could certainly be a possibility. Since the Middle East unrest and the war against Libya this prophecy stands in the picture, this is the proof that Edgar Cayce really had a vision about this third world war, but it can still be stopped ! Like all prophets say : The future can always be changed by humanity, God gave them a free will !!! The year of the second coming of Christ (may have already happened) Cayce often maintained that humanity would soon experience a “day of reckoning.” He predicted the year of the second coming of Jesus to be 1998. Critics who are not very familiar with the Cayce material have pointed out that 1998 has come and gone and the second coming has not occurred. Such critics wrongly expect the second coming to happen when Jesus appears in the sky with a chorus of angels while Gabriel blows a horn and dead bodies crawl out of their graves. The Edgar Cayce Predictions - alamongordo homepage www.alamongordo.com/the-edgar-cayce-predictions/ Maybe I should do a study, Cayce verse Bulinger? And let the real Virgo stand up.
1/10/2017 5:59:19 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	Quote bigd ""Are the angels hoes? Fascinating. Are you typing all these out?"" That was supposed to say "his", and yes, I type most of my responses out. I do c/p sometime, but normally is just as quick to type it out. quote bigd ""Game? The word 'genea' doesn't mean the same thing today as it did when Jesus was here. That is kinda typical of all words. They change in meaning over time. All you're doing it trying to fit a round peg in a square hole."" I understand that words can take on new meanings over time. quote bigd ""OK. Can you give us an example of how 'genea' is used as a "bloodline"?"" Ok, Matt 12:39 CLV Yet He, answering, said to them, "A generation, wicked and an adulteress, for a sign is seeking, and a sign will not be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. was he referring to time asking for a sign or the people Generation is that verse is 1074 in strongs Genea from 1085 by implication an age, (the period or the people Genoa 1085 from 1096 "kin" literal or figurative, individual or collective now, in the new testament the word generation has been used only 36 times 30 times it is 1074 from 1085 genea- an age, the period or the person. 4 times it is 1081 from 1085 Gennao-to procreate, figurative to regenerate 1 time it is 1078 from the same as 1074 Genisis-nativity, figurative nature And finally 1 time it is 1085 from 1096 "Kin" literal or figurative, individual or collective. Take notice how all those other words, they trace back to 1085 Now for a few more verses showing how generation is used Matt. 1:17 CLV Then all the generations from Abraham till David are fourteen generations, and from David till the Babylonian exile are fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian exile till the Christ are fourteen generations. If you will back up and read the 1st 16 verses, it is nothing but names, this one begat that one, that one begat another. These are generations and it isn't time passing by, it is each step in the lineage is a different generation. And that particular use of generation there is 1078 Genisis-nativity figurative nature - generation Matt 23:26 CLV Verily, I am saying to you: All these things will be arriving on this generation." ONCE AGAIN 1074 MARK 8:11-12 CLV And out came the Pharisees, and they begin discussing with Him, seeking to see from Him a sign from heaven, trying Him." 12 And sighing in His spirit, He is saying, "Why is this generation seeking for a sign? Verily I am saying to you, If there shall be given to this generation a sign ONCE AGAIN 1074 But pay close attention to 11, the Pharisees were seeking a sign and what did he say? Why is this generation seeking for a sign? He was speaking of the people, not time And of course we can do this all day long, 30 of the verses that have used the word "generation" are this same word, including the verses in Matt 24:34, mark 13:30, Luke 21:32 all of these, are 1074 and all say this generation shall not pass, and with the previous verses given, it should be plain what Jesus meant when he used the word generation "genea" Quote bigd ""The word "near" denotes conditional proximity. Even if you say it doesn't. Of course, I was quoting from a scholar."" It doesn't matter if he is a scholar, near is not condition, near can be a proximity, because proximity is area or distance. Quote bigd ""CLV Mt 16:28 Verily I am saying to you that there are some of those standing here who under no circumstances should be tasting death till they should be perceiving the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom. This prediction was fulfilled about a week later when He took His most intimate disciples with Him and they saw His power and presence and were spectators of His magnificence (2Pet 1:16). It is fitting that, at this juncture, there should be some plain intimation of the postponement of the kingdom. In the record the promise is immediately followed by its fulfillment, but there is a week's delay. Another cycle must run its course before the proper conditions reappear which precede the kingdom. A. E. Knoch "" Wrong, first thing one should ask, if only "some" would not taste of death, which ones died in the next few days? Unless I'm mistaken, there were 11 disciples and Mary the mother of jesus in the upper room, meaning all lived till after that event and not just some. But the real kicker is this. If Knoch believes that, Matt 16:28 was fulfilled on the mount of of transfiguration, then he must also believe that Jesus come with the glory of the father and all the holy angels. why? Mark 8:38 whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation of him also shall the son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his father with the Holy angels Mark 9:1 And He said unto them verily I say unto you that there be some of them standing here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him peter and James and John and leadeth them up into a high mountain. .......... it's the same story, same time line So does knock believe Jesus has come in the power of the father with the angels? If not, then he can't claim matt 13 was fulfilled six days later. quote bigd " " you know what Etymology is? Do you know what a Concordance is?"" No, I don't know what an etymology is without looking it up. yes, I know what a Concordance is and I have one. Strong's exhaustive concordance
1/10/2017 6:24:58 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	And of course we have this one. Colossians 1:26. CLV the secret which has been concealed from the eons and from the generations, yet now was made manifest to His saints, now the kjv says it this way, even the mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from generations but now is made manifest to his saints. Now matter which we read, we see the reference of time "eons and age" and then we see the reference to the generations.
1/10/2017 6:36:41 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
mindya Vancouver, BC 65, joined Jan. 2009
1/11/2017 11:16:44 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	And BigD is still not a Virgo. Here form Virgo`s profile, and you can read her past threads and posts. am very interested in the Edgar Cayce material; What separates ye from seeing the Glory even of Him that walks with thee oft in the touch of a loving hand, in the voice of those that would comfort and cheer? For He, thy Christ, is oft with thee. Doubt, fear, unbelief; fear that thou art not worthy! Open thine eyes and behold the Glory, even of thy Christ present here, now, in thy midst! even as He appeared to them on that day! Edgar Cayce Reading 5749-6 And all of a sudden, she is pushing the same stuff as bigD, that goes against what Cayce taught? Lets look at how Cayce interpreted Revelations: Marriage of the Lamb The union of the body and mind with the Christ consciousness Word of God The Gnostic "logos," the Christ consciousness, the fully evolved pattern for humanity Lake of Fire The subconscious mind's area of repression, the "id" The first resurrection The reincarnation of advanced souls to Earth Gog and Magog Worldly influences The dead in judgment Reincarnating souls Hell Remorse, self-condemnation, guilt and frustration The second death The destruction of all man-made unevolved conditions 12 tribes of Israel, 12 gates, 12 angels, 12 foundations, 12 disciples The 12 basic patterns of the human personality as revealed in the Zodiac Temple of God The superconscious mind, the Christ consciousness New Jerusalem The evolved soul in one-ness with divinity Edgar Cayce, Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife www.near-death.com/paranormal/edgar-cayce.html And all of a sudden, she is supposedly pushing Knoch stuff, and the CLV? So, "Virgo ", was Cayce right, or Knoch?
1/11/2017 12:32:40 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 47, joined Jul. 2014	Marriage of the Lamb The union of the body and mind with the Christ consciousness Word of God The Gnostic "logos," the Christ consciousness, the fully evolved pattern for humanity Lake of Fire The subconscious mind's area of repression, the "id" The first resurrection The reincarnation of advanced souls to Earth Gog and Magog Worldly influences The dead in judgment Reincarnating souls Hell Remorse, self-condemnation, guilt and frustration The second death The destruction of all man-made unevolved conditions 12 tribes of Israel, 12 gates, 12 angels, 12 foundations, 12 disciples The 12 basic patterns of the human personality as revealed in the Zodiac Temple of God The superconscious mind, the Christ consciousness New Jerusalem The evolved soul in one-ness with divinity what a load of crap.
1/11/2017 1:57:17 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	CLV Col 1:26 the secret which has been concealed from the eons and from the generations, yet now was made manifest to His saints, _____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). An age. It says, "by implication, an age." So the word "eons" (aion) is also "an age." And so, according to Col. 1:26, this secret is concealed for the ages. Stressed by using the word twice in different terms. Quote from looptex1: It doesn't matter if he is a scholar, near is not condition, near can be a proximity, because proximity is area or distance. It matters. It means that he has more knowledge than you do. And the word "near" in not used that way in English. But you have no idea how it was used in Ancient Koine Greek. You were not there. What makes sense to you is not always the truth. CLV Mk 8:12 And sighing in His spirit, He is saying, "Why is this generation seeking for a sign? Verily I am saying to you, If there shall be given to this generation a sign!" _____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). Jesus meant those of this age will not be given a sign. That fact is Jesus already had given signs. He walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the dead. Quote from looptex1: But the real kicker is this. If Knoch believes that, Matt 16:28 was fulfilled on the mount of of transfiguration, then he must also believe that Jesus come with the glory of the father and all the holy angels. I don't understand why you need to make assumptions about what Mr. Knoch believes. You have no idea what Mr. Knoch believes. And you have no idea what I believe. No matter what you are trying to project, you cannot read the minds of men. Quote from looptex1: why? Mark 8:38 whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation of him also shall the son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his father with the Holy angels Mark 9:1 And He said unto them verily I say unto you that there be some of them standing here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him peter and James and John and leadeth them up into a high mountain. .......... it's the same story, same time line So does knock believe Jesus has come in the power of the father with the angels? If not, then he can't claim matt 13 was fulfilled six days later. So now you are asking, rather than telling? I thought you already knew what he believed? Did you not say... Quote from looptex1: then he must also believe that Jesus come with the glory of the father and all the holy angels. This is what we call an assumption. An assumption is... 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: 2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Dictionary.com It seems to me that if you are going to make assumptions about Mr. Knoch, perhaps you are making assumptions about the Scriptures as well. Not a good policy for interpreting the Scriptures. Now I asked if you knew what Etymology is for a reason. I also asked if you knew what a Concordance is for a reason. I could tell you what Etymology is, but I would rather that you look it up yourself, and see it for yourself. Etymology is a science. A study. It is NOT a game. I am sure mindy has a Strong's Concordance. In any case, I know that he has used a few that are on-line. And even if you own one, that doesn't necessarily follow that you know what it is or how to use it. A Concordance is like an Ancient dictionary. If you used and Ancient Koine Greek dictionary, do you think all the words would match an English Dictionary? I can tell you right now, they will not. Yet you have insisted that words like "near" and "generation" will match their English counterpart. 'genea' is not the same word as "generation" 'genea' is not the same word as 'gennema,' 'genesis,' or 'genos,' no matter what mindy says. And 'eggus' is NOT the same word as "near." Ancient Greek is not English, and many of these words are not used the same way as they are in Modern Day English. Now please, do not interpret my comments as anyone being stupid. That is not my goal and not even within my ability. I have been doing Bible Reseach for many years and I have had some training in it. Now I teach it. And I have found that proof of what a word means must come from a Scriptural and Secular source. This idea that the only way to tell what a word means is by how it's used in the Scriptures doesn't cut it. There are just too many idioms involved. Then you are using half-way measures. No wonder you are not getting it right.
1/11/2017 2:12:48 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Quote from iam_resurrected: Marriage of the Lamb The union of the body and mind with the Christ consciousness Word of God The Gnostic "logos," the Christ consciousness, the fully evolved pattern for humanity Lake of Fire The subconscious mind's area of repression, the "id" The first resurrection The reincarnation of advanced souls to Earth Gog and Magog Worldly influences The dead in judgment Reincarnating souls Hell Remorse, self-condemnation, guilt and frustration The second death The destruction of all man-made unevolved conditions 12 tribes of Israel, 12 gates, 12 angels, 12 foundations, 12 disciples The 12 basic patterns of the human personality as revealed in the Zodiac Temple of God The superconscious mind, the Christ consciousness New Jerusalem The evolved soul in one-ness with divinity what a load of crap. We agree on something. Its what Virgo follows though, and bigD is pretending to be her here. So he must endorse that !
1/11/2017 2:25:09 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
iam_resurrected Reno, NV 47, joined Jul. 2014	I see some of it and even though Mindya blocked me I still agree with his term of rapture. I have no quarrel over believing the resurrection when Christ returns is that of the dead in Christ. those alive in Christ will already be here and the dead shall rise up to be with us to be with Him.
1/11/2017 2:57:38 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Your kid? Laughing boy here is laughing so hard he just can't se to get this Bible Research right. _____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). mindy says... Quote from mindya: From Strong's we have: 1 - a generation, by implication (the period of the persons) Is a "generation" an "age" or not? According to mindy, it's not. But it seems he thinks he is smarter than the scholars... When I pointed out that both Adam Clarke and A. E. Knoch agrees that the word "generation" does not mean what mindy says it means, he said... Quote from mindya: From Strong's we haveWe all due respect to Adam his choice of "this race, i.e. the Jews" is wrong. Mr. Adolph Knoch would also disagree with Adam Clarke as Knoch's comment To this, I would add James Strong. That's three. From My Cousin Vinny. But I refer to Fred Gwynne's role as Herman Munster when I say... mindy is a friend of mine he resembles Frankenstein when he does the Irish jig he smells more like Pork Pig. Quote from isna_la_wica: Its what Virgo follows though, and bigD is pretending to be her here. Oh yeah. It's part of my sinister plot to take over the world. First I masquerade as virgomoon. Quote from isna_la_wica: Anyway, pass on my regards to her. On more than one occasion she has expressed concern over your drinking problem. How is that working for you? Are you drinking every day now? I know how Sat nite can turn into a weekend. Then Thursday is almost a weekend. Wednesday is Hump Day so we need to add that day. Monday is "hair of the dog" day. How do you justify Tuesday? Been there and done that. I have been sober now for about 28 years now. Thanks to the grace of God and the fellowship of AA.
1/11/2017 4:40:24 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	big D On more than one occasion she has expressed concern over your drinking problem. How is that working for you? Are you drinking every day now? I know how Sat nite can turn into a weekend. Then Thursday is almost a weekend. Wednesday is Hump Day so we need to add that day. Monday is "hair of the dog" day. How do you justify Tuesday? Been there and done that. I have been sober now for about 28 years now. Thanks to the grace of God and the fellowship of AA. Nice try. Isaiah 54:17 ? New International Version no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me," declares the LORD. Since you are pretending to be a Edgar Cayce follower here on this thread, then one can assume you agree with him? So, you no longer preach the false doctrine of soul sleep? You, attack Preterism here, but Edgar Cayce taught that Jesus has returned in a reincarnated form. He has been, according to Cayce: Amilius, Adam, Enoch, Hermes, Melchizedek, Joseph was the son of Jacob, Joshua, Asaph, Jeshua, Zend. Jesus and now an "unknown": This one, he thought would return in 1998, but to be fair he said he was not sure about that. So, how do you reconcile your confusing stance? How can one be so dogmatic and angry at any that do not agree with Knoch or Bullinger? While you pretend to be be some one, who follows beliefs that oppose your self? Why were you not just honest, come out and say, hey, I want to get around my block and attack people, so got my girl friend to post this for me? Sooner or later, you need to man up BigD.
1/11/2017 5:51:54 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
mindya Vancouver, BC 65, joined Jan. 2009	(this post has been flagged as inappropriate, sorry.)
1/11/2017 7:05:47 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from isna_la_wica: Nice try. What is it you think I tried? Quote from isna_la_wica: Isaiah 54:17 ? CLV Isa 54:17 Any implement formed against you shall not prosper, and any tongue which rises against you for judgment you shall condemn. This is the allotment of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness is from Me," averring is Yahweh. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have judged no one. Quote from isna_la_wica: Since you are pretending to be a Edgar Cayce follower here on this thread, then one can assume you agree with him? What makes you think I want to be an Edgar Cayce follower? You guys sure make alot of assumptions. Quote from isna_la_wica: So, you no longer preach the false doctrine of soul sleep? I am not sure what you mean by "soul sleep." I don't preach. Quote from isna_la_wica: You, attack Preterism here, No, I haven't. I have attacked the idea that preterism is Scriptural. It is not. As far as I'm concerned you can believe anything you like. Quote from isna_la_wica: but Edgar Cayce taught that Jesus has returned in a reincarnated form. He has been, according to Cayce: Amilius, Adam, Enoch, Hermes, Melchizedek, Joseph was the son of Jacob, Joshua, Asaph, Jeshua, Zend. Jesus and now an "unknown": This one, he thought would return in 1998, but to be fair he said he was not sure about that. I don't believe that. Quote from isna_la_wica: So, how do you reconcile your confusing stance? How can one be so dogmatic and angry at any that do not agree with Knoch or Bullinger? While you pretend to be be some one, who follows beliefs that oppose your self? I am neither confused nor "mad." Besides, only dogs get mad. But you sounds a bit mad yourself. Quote from isna_la_wica: Why were you not just honest, come out and say, hey, I want to get around my block and attack people, so got my girl friend to post this for me? I didn't want to get around the block. I have blocked you and mindy because you guys make no sense. Quote from isna_la_wica: Sooner or later, you need to man up BigD. Man up? I am more of a man than you are. I don't need alcohol to stand on my own two feet.
1/11/2017 7:07:50 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	I don't know, mindy. It seems to me that you are the one who is mad. It is you who are laughing and making insulting posts. Maybe you need another beer. Or more of that Nitrous Oxide? Or maybe you can get ludlow to share his LSD with you.
1/11/2017 7:40:34 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	Man up? I am more of a man than you are. I don't need alcohol to stand on my own two feet. Then why are you hiding behind your Ladies profile? Its a pity you refuse to allow your strengths to control your weaknesses. Here you are, having blocked half the forum, but you cannot let go, can you? You are fluent verbally, can be straight forward , you relish knowledge and have high expectations for your self. But all that is lost, with you here on this thread pretending to be some body else, and hiding behind her, so you can carry on arguments. BTW, you do not approve of my efforts , when I research and use Strongs? That is too bad, not for me but for you. I am not the one claiming I am the expert. That is just not part of my personality type. .
1/11/2017 8:02:31 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	mindy and isna have been blocked because they are not able to stay on topic.
1/11/2017 9:21:17 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	Quote bigd (( It matters. It means that he has more knowledge than you do)) Wrong, it does not necessarily mean he has more knowledge. Most of the time, sure, a scholar would be more knowledgeable about a subject than the average person. But even then, just because someone is a scholar, doesn't mean they are correct. Otherwise there would not be scholars who disagree with each other. Now back to the topic at hand. It seems that your argument is that genea, translated to generation doesn't have the same meaning as our use of generation today. Well you incorrect. here is once again from the strongs concordance 1074 genea from 1085 By implication an age (the period or the persons) It seems that all your seeing is 'age' and forgetting 'the period or the persons' If we're serious about finding out how genea is used, we have to look at ALL the ways it is used and not only genea "age" as in "the period" Genea was also use when giving the lineage in matt 1:17 So all the generations "genea" from Abraham to David are fourteen generations "genea" Now is he speaking of 14 "genea" as "age" the period, or 14 "genea" as "age" the persons? It doesn't take a scholar to figure that one out. For those who may not know, I'll give the definition of implication. Implication. .. the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated. "the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible" synonyms:suggestion, insinuation, innuendo,hint, intimation, imputation so "genea" by implication, age, (the period or the person) Did you notice that "by implication" means, a conclusion that can be drawn from something. Well the conclusion in matt 1:17 is that "genea" in that particular scripture does have the same meaning of generation and the way we use it today. And even strongs allows for that conclusion. "Genea" by implication, age, (the period OR THE PERSONS) And that's exactly how we use the word generation in 2017 let's go to Hebrews 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation "genea" and said they do always err in their heart and they have not known my ways. was he grieved with that "genea" age (the period) Or with "genea" age, (the persons)? But it even gets more definitive than that, Heb. 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest. that generation, that genea, could not enter. Who couldn't enter? Was is all the persons, or specific persons? Numbers 14:29 Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me. 31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. 33 And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your wh*redoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. There is the "genea" he swore in his wrath would not enter. and they are separated, by genea, generation, the same way we count generations today. With these verses also, we can come to the conclusion, the implication that "genea" in Hebrews 3:10 is in fact "genea" age, (the persons) quote bigd ((Jesus meant those of this age will not be given a sign. That fact is Jesus already had given signs. He walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the dead.)) Isn't that kind of putting words in the mouth of jesus? But, you are correct, he was talking about the people, and he referred to them as a generation, a "genea" age, (the persons) just like Matthew did with the 14 "genea" generations, each begat, begat another genea, or generation. quote bigd (( don't understand why you need to make assumptions about what Mr. Knoch believes. You have no idea what Mr. Knoch believes. And you have no idea what I believe. No matter what you are trying to project, you cannot read the minds of men.)) I'm not making assumptions, I'm making implications. As for reading minds, my kids think I can. quote bigd ((( Now please, do not interpret my comments as anyone being stupid. That is not my goal and not even within my ability. I have been doing Bible Reseach for many years and I have had some training in it. Now I teach it. And I have found that proof of what a word means must come from a Scriptural and Secular source. This idea that the only way to tell what a word means is by how it's used in the Scriptures doesn't cut it. There are just too many idioms involved. Then you are using half-way measures. No wonder you are not getting it right))) I didn't think you were calling anyone stupid. As for getting it right, I think I've got it pretty clear in this case.
1/12/2017 1:40:12 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from looptex1: Quote bigd (( It matters. It means that he has more knowledge than you do)) Wrong, it does not necessarily mean he has more knowledge. Most of the time, sure, a scholar would be more knowledgeable about a subject than the average person. But even then, just because someone is a scholar, doesn't mean they are correct. Otherwise there would not be scholars who disagree with each other. I have had this same argument with someone once before. Of course, anyone can be wrong. That's only human. But the chances of an "average person" being wrong are much higher. This is something I don't quite get. You say they do not have more knowledge and then you say they do. Which is it? Can you give me an example of an idiom? Just something off the top of your head? A scholar can do that pretty quickly. You still have not answered the question, "What is a Concordance?" A scholar could have answered that pretty quickly too. Scholars do have more knowledge than the average person. And here we are talking about Biblical knowledge. And A. E. Knoch, James Strong, and Adam Clarke all agree that the word 'genea' is not used like the English word "generation." That's three scholars that say you are wrong. So let's look at the Strong's entry again... _____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). Now, if all it meant was "a generation" there would be no other explanation accompanied. It would just say "a generation" period. But there is more. It is implied to be the age or time period defined by a period OR persons. We see "age" as a very long time. But that is not necessarily how it is seen in Ancient Koine Greek. One thing we do know; an age has a beginning and an ending. So these "generations" can be defined by persons. A Nation, or a race, a certain religious people, or even people born during a certain time (much like we use it today). But a "generation" can also be defined as a time period of some kind. Like, how long will this eon last? Or, how long until the sun goes down? Or, how long until Easter? These could all be considered a "generation." This word 'genea' is pretty close to our English word "generation," but not exactly. Now if 'genea' serves so well as the English word "generation," why does the KJV need 3 other Ancient Greek terms to call "generation"? Why translate 'gennema,' 'genesis,' or 'genos,' as "generation"? There must be some reason that 'genea' wasn't used. So anyway, Matthew 17:1 fits in nicely with the definition of 'genea' as well as "this generation" meaning the apostate Jews. CLV Mt 24:34 "Verily, I am saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by till all these things should be occurring. Also please see my thread... Bart and the Word "Generation" https://DateHookup.dating/thread-1462589.htm It also contains proof that the word 'genea' is not used exactly the way we use the English word "generation." Quote from looptex1: quote bigd (( don't understand why you need to make assumptions about what Mr. Knoch believes. You have no idea what Mr. Knoch believes. And you have no idea what I believe. No matter what you are trying to project, you cannot read the minds of men.)) I'm not making assumptions, I'm making implications. When you talk about Mr. Knoch's beliefs you are making assumptions. Quote from looptex1: As for reading minds, my kids think I can. When I was a kid my mom used to tell us she had eyes in the back of her head. One day she pulled back her hair so we could take a look. I'll be damned if it didn't look like there were eyes there. Quote from looptex1: I didn't think you were calling anyone stupid. Thank you. Quote from isna_la_wica: You, attack Preterism here, He said that like it was a bad thing. LOL
1/12/2017 3:50:33 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	_____Strong's_____ G1074 genea ghen-eh-ah' from (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons). Looking at these definitions next to each other, maybe it will help. The English Oxford Dictionary the word "generation" is a ... NOUN 1. All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: ‘one of his generation's finest songwriters’ 1.1 The average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, in which children grow up, become adults, and have children of their own: ‘the same families have lived here for generations’ 1.2 A set of members of a family regarded as a single step or stage in descent: [as modifier, in combination] ‘a third-generation Canadian’ 1.3 A group of people of similar age involved in a particular activity: 1.4 A single stage in the development of a type of product or technology: ‘a new generation of rear-engined sports cars’ [as modifier, in combination] ‘fourth-generation broadband’ 2[mass noun] The production or creation of something: ‘methods of electricity generation’ ‘the generation of wealth’ 2.1 The propagation of living organisms; procreation. In all of these definitions, they are talking about a "generation" being the people, and not the time period, as the Ancient Koine Greek's meaning is. And that is how I am used to using it. When we speak of a generation we are talking about the people of that generation. Not a time period, or as Strongs puts it, an age. The X generation. The Baby Boomer generation. The Millennial generation. These are all groups of people, not time periods. In English, it's the people, not so much the time period. In Ancient Koine Greek, it's the time period and not so much the people. CLV Hb 3:10 Wherefore, "I am disgusted with this generation, and said, `Ever are they straying in heart; Yet they know not My ways.' 11 As I swear in My indignation, If they shall be entering into My stopping--!'" Paul is talking about the time period of the Apostate Jews. And that time has not yet ended. The word 'genea' is Ancient Koine Greek, not Ancient Hebrew. The Ancient Hebrew terms are different than the Ancient Greek terms. So throwing them into the mix is just confusion. Besides that, Numbers 14:29 does not contain the word "generation." 'genea' is not used in the OT. Quote from looptex1: that generation, that genea, could not enter. Who couldn't enter? Was is all the persons or specific persons? Remember Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:31? Jesus came for the Jews, not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not invited to the gospel until Paul came along. So He is talking about the Apostate Jews. That is those Jews who have rejected Him. There is also a remanent of Jews who still believe in Him. And that is also true, even today. So when we say "Jews," I think it's important that we make that distinction.
1/12/2017 5:16:50 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	The last two post you have made, I agree with. The only place where I disagree is where you said this. CLV Hb 3:10 Wherefore, "I am disgusted with this generation, and said, `Ever are they straying in heart; Yet they know not My ways.' 11 As I swear in My indignation, If they shall be entering into My stopping--!'" Paul is talking about the time period of the Apostate Jews. And that time has not yet ended.)))) And here is why I disagree. ((1. All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: ‘one of his generation's finest songwriters’))))) I see and realize farther down the line in the definitions is says this. ((1.3 A group of people of similar age involved in a particular activity) But I don't see, those Jews that were apostate, being a different generation from those who were not apostate. and for paul to have meant this, ((Paul is talking about the time period of the Apostate Jews. And that time has not yet ended.)) He would have had to be speaking of all jews alive at that time, or claiming 2 generations, 1 apostate and 1 not. and it would be the samething when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass" But when 1.1 is used it all lines up. When I read generation, or I say generation, I am speaking people, their age. like my grandmother's generation, mothers generation, my generation, my kids generation that is five generations But I also realize how a new product like x-box came along, then x-box the Second generation, the new was considered a different generation. Look at genesis, now I k now it's a different word, and hebrew, but let me poi t something out I took note of during our discussion. I don't have a bible handy So I winging it here. In Genisis-nativity is says, these are the generations when God made everything. They used the plural here, so I was wondering, was each day recognized as a different generation? I can see how it could be. Each day, was a new day, but each day brought something new. same thing with lineage generations. Each new birth, brings forth a new generation. With the old and new covenant, a day ended, and a new day began. well, I'm still at work trying to finish up so I can go home.
1/13/2017 9:03:20 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from looptex1: ((1. All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: ‘one of his generation's finest songwriters’))))) I see and realize farther down the line in the definitions is says this. ((1.3 A group of people of similar age involved in a particular activity) This is a modern definition. Right? It does not describe the Ancient Greek term 'genea.'
1/13/2017 2:13:46 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
looptex1 Chatsworth, GA 49, joined Jun. 2008 online now!	Quote from bigd9832: This is a modern definition. Right? It does not describe the Ancient Greek term 'genea.' yes, this would be a modern definition. But does not in places, use it in the same manner? When given the generations from David to christ, did he not use the people when defining each generation? Would that not be this, All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: ‘one of his generation's finest songwriters Abraham, and anyone born around that same time would be a generation. Isaac, and anyone born around that same time would be a generation Jacob, and anyone born around that same time would be a generation. Is that not correct? The same scripture, does it not portray this, A set of members of a family regarded as a single step or stage in descent: [as modifier, in combination] ‘a third-generation Canadian’ abraham was 1st generation Isaac was 2nd and Jacob being 3rd . Now of course, that's not saying that's the only way it is used. As I was typing this, I think I may see what your saying. I'll use this generation shall not pass, and you tell me if this is what your saying. Example 1 This genea "age" as in time, shall not pass till ect. Ect. Ect. Example 2 this genea "age" as in people shall not pass. In example 2, you are putting "all" jews, or "all" of apostate israel into "one" generation of people rather than multiple generations because of age. I.e. father, son, grandson, and so on. Is that correct? And since there are still Jews who are apostate, that genea "age" as in people have not passed. is that correct?
1/13/2017 9:49:18 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
prophetic774 Winter Haven, FL 67, joined Feb. 2011 online now!	AMAZING TREASURES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION Preterists claim that everything in Revelation has already been FULFILLED{????} Revelation 1:1-3: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must take place. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John, who testifies to everything he saw--that is the WORD OF GOD and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it!! Revelation 1:4,5: Grace and peace to you from Him who is, and who was, and who is to come and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful Witness... To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins BY HIS BLOOD!! Revelation 1:19: Jesus said to John, "Write therefore what you have seen, what is NOW{Revelation chapters 2 & 3} and what will TAKE PLACE LATER {The rest of Revelation} Revelation 2:17: Jesus says, "To him who overcomes...I will also give him a white stone with a NEW NAME written on it known only to him who receives it!!" Revelation 3:19-21: Jesus says, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him and he with Me! To him who overcomes, I will give the right to SIT WITH ME on My throne, just as overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. NOTE: Jesus Christ our Savior is called the LAMB 30 times in the book of Revelation. Revelation 5:6,9: Then I saw a LAMB, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne...You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because You were slain , and WITH YOUR BLOOD You purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation!! NOTE: 666 is called the BEAST 36 or 6X6 times in the book of Revelation. Revelation 13:5-10: The beast will exercise his authority for 42 [30-day} months {Or 1260 days}.... He will be given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he will be given authority over EVERY* tribe, people, language an nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose name have not been written in the Book of Life belonging to the LAMB who was slain!! Revelation 12:11: They overcame him by the BLOOD OF THE LAMB and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death!! It is interesting to note that the MARTYRS and the 24 elders are the only saints mentioned as awake and speaking in heaven during the Great Tribulation in Revelation! Revelation 7:9;13-15: I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the LAMB. They were wearing WHITE ROBES... Then one of the elders asked me, "These in WHITE ROBES who are they, and where did they come from? I answered, Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they {Martyrs} who have come out of the Great Tribulation, they have washed their robes and made them white in the BLOOD OF THE LAMB! Therefore, they are before the throne of God and serve him night and day and night in His temple, and He who sits on the throne will spread His tent over them! Revelation 14:14-16: I looked, and there before me was a white cloud and sitting on the cloud was One like a Son of Man with a crown of gold on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to Him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time has come. for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So He who sitting on the cloud swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was harvested. {See Matt 24:29-31 & I Thess 4:16,17} Revelation 19:6-8,11,13,14,19,20: Hallelujah! For the Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him glory! For the wedding of the LAMB has come and His bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean was given her to wear.... I saw heave standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose Rider is called Faithful and True...He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following Him riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen white and clean... Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and His army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. {See Rev 13:11-17} The two of them were thrown ALIVE into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Rev 20:10 And the devil , who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. WE {Not including Preterists}ARE ALL WAITING FOR THE NEW EARTH, THE NEW HEAVENS AND THE HEAVENLY NEW JERUSALEM!! Revelation 21:1-5: Then I saw a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH, for the {present} first heaven and first earth had PASSED AWAY, and there was NO LONGRER ANY SEA. I saw the Holy City, the NEW JERUSALEM, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making EVERYTHING NEW!" Then He said, "Write this down, for these words are TRUSTWORTHY and TRUE!" Revelation 22:1-6: Then the angel showed me the river of the Water of Life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb {Jesus} down the middle of the great street of the City. On each side of the river stood the Tree of Life, bearing 12 crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month... The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the City, and his servants will serve Him. They will see His face and His name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night!! They will not need the light of the lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. The angel said to me, “These words are TRUSTWORTHY and TRUE!!” Revelation 22:16,18,19: "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches.... I warn everyone who hears the words of the Prophecy of this Book. If anyone {like Louie} ADDS anything to them, God will add to him the plague described in this Book {{Which includes eternal hell} And if anyone TAKES WORDS AWAY**{Like Preterists} from this Book of Prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the Tree of Life and in the Holy City {The New Jerusalem}which are described in this Book!!"
1/15/2017 6:33:57 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	Quote from looptex1: yes, this would be a modern definition. But does not in places, use it in the same manner? Words change in meaning over time. And over distance. There is no physical connection between America and the Middle East. So the languages aren't really connected. Do you think you can buy anything here in America with coin from the time and place where Jesus was from? Or find a store where Mary might have shopped from? Why would the words of that time be used today, and visa versa? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are written in Ancient Hebrew. That is another and different language, and the rules of Ancient Koine Greek will not uphold in Ancient Hebrew. It just seems natural to you because you are used to English. You are set in your ways. It is hard for you to accept that the language that Jesus and His disciples used was so foreign. But this is just factual, nothing more. No religious implications. No "holy" language. Just an ancient and foreign language. You know as well as I do, His ways are not our ways. I think you have got it. Your examples are good. It is the time of the people. And the people are apostate Jews. Those Jews who have rejected Jesus.
2/3/2017 8:54:10 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010
2/3/2017 10:11:58 AM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
bigd9832 Chicago, IL 64, joined Oct. 2007	The cup of cheer is going to ruin this forum.
2/3/2017 11:56:30 PM	Adam Clarke Is Still Not A Preterist
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010

wichita hookups

megaperosnals