An Atheist's Misinterpretation

[Yorzhik]

OK. Tell us: How can all of the above be true?

In regards to the OP; Jesus was talking about the generation he was talking to. But just like God didn't get what he expected from the Jews, Jesus didn't get what He expected from that generation.

"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. 4“What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? 5“So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. 6“And I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, but briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it.” 7For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress," (Isaiah 5:3-7)

 

[Angel4Truth]

In his book "The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity", Mike Davis says that, for him, the deciding factor about Christianity came down to Matthew 24:34.

If Jesus was Divine, He would not have made this prediction which obviously did not come true 1900 years ago. Either the Bible is untrustworthy or Jesus was wrong. Because of this the case against Christianity is "closed".

I, of course, like the KJV so here it is:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

No, He was talking about the generation that sees all the things He was describing, the question posed to Him in context what would be the signs of the end.

This statement alone makes it clear it didn't refer to the immediate listeners.

4 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

[daqq]

No, He was talking about the generation that sees all the things He was describing, the question posed to Him in context what would be the signs of the end.

This statement alone makes it clear it didn't refer to the immediate listeners.

4 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Yes it is to his immediate listeners but not only to them but to all:

Mark 13:28-37 KJV
28. Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
29. So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36. Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are companion passages both containing portions of the greater Olivet Discourse, (Luke also divides the Olivet Discourse up into several different chapters, like book ends). One absolutely must combine the different versions of the whole discourse to receive the greater overall picture. These things therefore speak not of a physical temple building made with the hands of men but rather speak of supernal things, which occur to each and every true disciple of Yeshua each in his or her own appointed times, (when a son is born into the kingdom) because the words of Yeshua will not pass away as he states even in this very same portion of the discourse. You are/have your own fig branch which is supernal in meaning, or even the branch of whatever genos of tree you are likened to such as stated in Luke 21:29, ("even all the trees") whether for the good first-ripe fig, or whether for the evil "Assyrian" genos-kind. When therefore your own branch becomes tender and begins to put forth his foliage; lift up your head, for the summer of your harvest is at hand, even at the doors. :crackup:

 

[George Affleck]

No, He was talking about the generation that sees all the things He was describing, the question posed to Him in context what would be the signs of the end.

This statement alone makes it clear it didn't refer to the immediate listeners.

4 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Please see my post 32 in response to this from a person who believes there are mistakes in the Bible.

 

[George Affleck]

Meaning of Jer 8:8

Meaning of Jer 8:8

In response to Muslims, unbelievers and those who think the scriptures have errors; Jeremiah does not say, in Jer 8:8KJV, that certain O.T. scribes altered the scriptures.

This meaning is out of place in the context of Jeremiah's subject matter. He complains of the people; "they hold fast deceit", "no man repented him of his wickedness", "every one turned to his course", "my people know not the judgment of the LORD." If the scribes had indeed changed the writings, God could not rightfully blame the people.

Jeremiah's accusation was not that they had bad copyists and inaccurate writings, but that the respected leaders and teachers who were so diligent in copying, were not teaching what they were copying. This is the same complaint made by Jesus in Matthew 23 of the scribes and Pharisees.

The thrust of Jeremiah's statement is; How can you say, “We are wise! We have the law of the Lord”? The truth is, those who teach it have used their teachings to make the law say what it does not really mean. Its deceitfulness and fraud.

To use plain language, God, who gave the law, might just as well have given gibberish instead of truth for all the good it is doing for these people at this time in history. And the scribes might just as well put down their pens because its all a sham.

It would be a wise thing to use this verse as a test of how faithfully your Bible version presents Jeremiah's original thought.

 

[aikido7]

In his book "The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity", Mike Davis says that, for him, the deciding factor about Christianity came down to Matthew 24:34.

If Jesus was Divine, He would not have made this prediction which obviously did not come true 1900 years ago. Either the Bible is untrustworthy or Jesus was wrong. Because of this the case against Christianity is "closed".

I, of course, like the KJV so here it is:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

There was an early tradition that basically held as true the quotations in the New Testament that supposedly showed Jesus predicting his return during his followers' lifetime.

Paul, too, who wrote his letters around the year 50 AD--the earliest New Testament writings--believed the same thing: the Lord would come back before his generation passed away.

Needless to say, after the scandal of Jesus's execution and death, the day of his "return" was moved further and further ahead.

At his death the sky was not filled with trumpets and angels. Instead, the earth was filled with weeping and disillusionment.

As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, prophets were not clairvoyants. They were great men who called their nation to account, much as the modern prophet Jeremiah Wright did. They cursed Israel before God. And Wright cursed America before God.

 

[Desert Reign]

This is more correctly how the passage should read unless of course you do not mind the Teacher of Righteousness looking foolish so that you can keep your own apparent 70AD paradigm:

Matthew 24:1-4
1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, PAY NO HEED to all these things! verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4. And Jesus answered and said unto them, TAKE HEED that no man deceive you.

:sheep:

Unfortunately your entire argument is falsified by your impossible (and indeed naive) translation of verse 2 above. Because in Greek you cannot make a negative command (i.e. a prohibition) with the use of "Οὐ βλέπετε". Negative commands must use "μὴ", not "Οὐ". "Οὐ βλέπετε" can only mean 'Do you not see...?' You can get a basic lesson in Greek grammar here since you obviously need one.

So when you ask

We have in Matthew 24:2 "ou blepete", (negative) and again in Matthew 24:4 "blepete" (positive) but the form blepete is identical so why are they rendered differently in most all English translation-interpretations?

The answer is because the translators knew what they were doing and you do not. Because in the first instance 'blepete' is indicative whereas in the second instance it is imperative. The forms just happen to be the same. However, the negative imperative cannot no way no how be formed in the way you suggest. The negative imperative would be μὴ βλέπετε.

And when you suggest that the answer to your question is

It is clearly because of flesh minded physical paradigm blinders and because they fail to notice that their interpretations, (and indeed interpret is what they have done) make Yeshua look foolish

it is you who who look foolish and you who have the blinder. So now is your chance to repent and not be the dog who returns to its own vomit.

 

[csuguy]

In response to Muslims, unbelievers and those who think the scriptures have errors; Jeremiah does not say, in Jer 8:8KJV, that certain O.T. scribes altered the scriptures.

This meaning is out of place in the context of Jeremiah's subject matter. He complains of the people; "they hold fast deceit", "no man repented him of his wickedness", "every one turned to his course", "my people know not the judgment of the LORD." If the scribes had indeed changed the writings, God could not rightfully blame the people.

Jeremiah's accusation was not that they had bad copyists and inaccurate writings, but that the respected leaders and teachers who were so diligent in copying, were not teaching what they were copying. This is the same complaint made by Jesus in Matthew 23 of the scribes and Pharisees.

The thrust of Jeremiah's statement is; How can you say, “We are wise! We have the law of the Lord”? The truth is, those who teach it have used their teachings to make the law say what it does not really mean. Its deceitfulness and fraud.

To use plain language, God, who gave the law, might just as well have given gibberish instead of truth for all the good it is doing for these people at this time in history. And the scribes might just as well put down their pens because its all a sham.

It would be a wise thing to use this verse as a test of how faithfully your Bible version presents Jeremiah's original thought.

Here is the KJV version of the verse that you are relying upon: How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

Your interpretation is reliant upon this bad/unclear translation. This is how the New Kings James Version reads: How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

NIV: “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

NASB: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Across these various translations, including the New KJV written in modern English, it is plainly declared that the scribes handled the Word of God falsely. This carries a different connotation from saying that the pen of the scribes is in vain, like we see in the KJV.

And if you try to say that the original KJV is THE standard and that the rest of these are wrong - then you establish my point that the scriptures are not immune to human error and corruption.

 

[daqq]

Unfortunately your entire argument is falsified by your impossible (and indeed naive) translation of verse 2 above. Because in Greek you cannot make a negative command (i.e. a prohibition) with the use of "Οὐ βλέπετε". Negative commands must use "μὴ", not "Οὐ". "Οὐ βλέπετε" can only mean 'Do you not see...?' You can get a basic lesson in Greek grammar here since you obviously need one.

So when you ask

The answer is because the translators knew what they were doing and you do not. Because in the first instance 'blepete' is indicative whereas in the second instance it is imperative. The forms just happen to be the same. However, the negative imperative cannot no way no how be formed in the way you suggest. The negative imperative would be μὴ βλέπετε.

And when you suggest that the answer to your question is



it is you who who look foolish and you who have the blinder. So now is your chance to repent and not be the dog who returns to its own vomit.

Uh-huh, and are you next going to say with a straight face that the apostolic writers never break any of your modern rules? They break them all of the time. And it is "blepete me", as in verse four, and "me blepete" appears nowhere, (though you are probably not too concerned about word order). You are already way too steeped in what you esteem as modern scholarship with its modern rules but that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God, (Luke 16:15) and if you suppose that statement does not apply to modern "Christian scholars" then go read exactly to whom it was that the statement was made in that passage and think again. The apostolic writings were not written to modern day "cream of the crop" scholars, (steeped in trinitarianism) but rather to plain ordinary everyday people. In addition ou blepete only occurs in one other place so you really do not have much to go on to support your claim because in that place the context clearly reveals that there are multiple ways of "seeing", as in perceiving, and the primary way in which Yeshua speaks concerns supernal and spiritual things, (because, as he says, his words are Spirit and they are Life, and again, his words shall not pass away). Likewise everyone knows that languages always evolve over time. The Olivet Discourse has nothing to do with the physical temple building made with the hands of men being physically destroyed by the physical Roman armies in 70AD.

Also you did not address the final punch line statement of the full Olivet Discourse in the Matthew version which tosses your entire paradigm out the window. Here it is again in plain English:

Opening question from the disciples:

Matthew 24:3 RSV
3. As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

Final statement and answer to the opening question:

Matthew 26:1-2 RSV
1. WHEN JESUS had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples,
2. "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified."

So much for your paradigm: out the window and into the Gehenna burn pile.
The Good News Gospel is Messiah, and him crucified, and him resurrected.

 

[daqq]

Here is another place that disputes what you say Desert Reign:

Matthew 22:16 KJV
16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Matthew 22:16 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν λέγοντες Διδάσκαλε οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις καὶ οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός· οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/22-16.htm

"οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις" ~ "for you do not regard", (give heed, pay heed).

And as for the context of that statement you might also want to try the same yourself some time. Perhaps then you would not be allowing such highly esteemed scholars to tell you that when the disciples pointed out the glorious workmanship and stones of the Temple Yeshua then asked them if they saw the stones they were pointing out to him. Put yourself into the text and perhaps also then you might see that what you are suggesting, or rather what you are trying to force upon others so that you may keep your paradigm, is both offensive and buffoonery.

 

[Aimiel]

In his book "The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity", Mike Davis says that, for him, the deciding factor about Christianity came down to Matthew 24:34.

If Jesus was Divine, He would not have made this prediction which obviously did not come true 1900 years ago. Either the Bible is untrustworthy or Jesus was wrong. Because of this the case against Christianity is "closed".

I, of course, like the KJV so here it is:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

You cannot quote a portion of Scripture without context and expect understanding...

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Obviously Jesus was talking about Israel. When Israel became a nation, this countdown began.

 

[Desert Reign]

Here is another place that disputes what you say Desert Reign:

Matthew 22:16 KJV
16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Matthew 22:16 Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν λέγοντες Διδάσκαλε οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις καὶ οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός· οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/22-16.htm

"οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις" ~ "for you do not regard", (give heed, pay heed).

And as for the context of that statement you might also want to try the same yourself some time. Perhaps then you would not be allowing such highly esteemed scholars to tell you that when the disciples pointed out the glorious workmanship and stones of the Temple Yeshua then asked them if they saw the stones they were pointing out to him. Put yourself into the text and perhaps also then you might see that what you are suggesting, or rather what you are trying to force upon others so that you may keep your paradigm, is both offensive and buffoonery.

So you choose your own vomit. The buffoonery is entirely your own.

Yes, as you say:

"οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις" ~ "for you do not regard",

Which is indicative and NOT imperative! Your point was that it had to be imperative.

 

[daqq]

Negative commands must use "μὴ", not "Οὐ".

Also I never said it was a "command" but rather that one statement was negative and one statement was positive. You are simply trying categorize the statement into something it is not and put me into a position which I do not hold so you can use it against what I have said. Again, as stated two or three times now, Yeshua says in the same passage that his words shall not pass away: so why would he give a "commandment" which concerns physical stones or a physical temple building made with hands which he says in the same breath would not be left standing one stone upon another? If his words are eternal then how should one keep such a commandment after the temple was destroyed? It is not a commandment but more of an admonishment not to regard such physical things as having anything to do with the Gospel of the kingdom of God, (as he also says in many other places such as when he says "My kingdom is not of this world").

 

[Desert Reign]

Also I never said it was a "command"

Some people call it revisionism. I shall call it what it is: a lie.

Because you said that verse 2 should be translated

PAY NO HEED to all these things!

Which is a command. Or imperative in grammatical terms. Οὐ βλέπετε can in no way ever be translated as 'Pay no heed'. You should stop digging deeper and deeper holes for yourself. On top of never having studied a Greek grammar book, you make claims to be able to better translate ancient Greek than those who are experts in the language. Then you have to lie your way out. You are a wolf.

 

[daqq]

So you choose your own vomit. The buffoonery is entirely your own.

Yes, as you say:



Which is indicative and NOT imperative! Your point was that it had to be imperative.

Ha, I had a feeling that was coming but you must have posted this while I was writing the above post. I did not say it was a command. That is your straw-man which you have now attempted to force into what I have said. See above post.

 

[daqq]

Some people callit revisionism.I shall call it what it is: a lie.

Because you said that verse 2 should be translated

PAY NO HEED to all these things!

Which is a command. Or imperative in grammatical terms.

It was bolded and capitalized for YOUR BENEFIT and not to say it was a COMMANDMENT. You MUST believe that the words of Yeshua will never pass away or you will not understand what is a commandment and what is not, (and perhaps that just might be why it is worded the way it is, ya think?). Likewise if you truly believed that the words of Yeshua will never pass away then you would not believe the very things you do about the Olivet Discourse. :crackup:

 

[truthjourney]

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:9-14[/INDENT]

We know the gospel wasn't preached throughout the whole world by 70 AD.

Was the gospel preached to every creature?
Is this authentic scripture? Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Paul said the gospel was preached to every creature. Do we agree with him? Col. 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
It seems to me that Matt. 24:14 agrees with what Paul said in Col. 1:23.

Also Revelation speaks about things that must shortly take place. Rev. 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

 

[Desert Reign]

It was bolded and capitalized for YOUR BENEFIT and not to say it was a COMMANDMENT. You MUST believe that the words of Yeshua will never pass away or you will not understand what is a commandment and what is not, (and perhaps that just might be why it is worded the way it is, ya think?). Likewise if you truly believed that the words of Yeshua will never pass away then you would not believe the very things you do about the Olivet Discourse. :crackup:

Look, it has nothing to do with whether or not you bolded it. You are completely missing the point. It is simply a fact that 'Pay no heed...' is a command. I suggest you go away and read a decent basic grammar book and learn the difference between indicative and imperative and how they are reflected in ancient Greek. Judging from your above statement, I now doubt that you have any concept of this. Yet another reason why you are not in a position to retranslate ancient Greek differently to what hundreds of translators have done before you.

I'd like to conclude this by saying that you and Rev Testament are not the first people to accuse me of arrogance because I happen to know ancient Greek. It sounds like jealousy to me. And all you want to achieve is to destroy that which is good. I am not arrogant in the slightest but if you come into a public forum spouting off technical sounding stuff which you know nothing about then you must also be ready to be called up for it. Because if it comes my way, I will not allow people like you to deceive others by inventing nonsense.

 

[daqq]

Look, it has nothing to do with whether or not you bolded it. You are completely missing the point. It is simply a fact that 'Take no heed...' is a command. I suggest you go away and read a decent basic grammar book and learn the difference between indicative and imperative and how they are reflected in ancient Greek. Judging from your above statement, I now doubt that you have any concept of this. Yet another reason why you are not in a position to retranslate ancient Greek differently to what hundreds of translators have done before you.

I'd like to conclude this by saying that you and Rev Testament are not the first people to accuse me of arrogance because I happen to know ancient Greek. It sounds like jealousy to me. And all you want to achieve is to destroy that which is good. I am not arrogant in the slightest but if you come into a public forum spouting off technical sounding stuff which you know nothing about then you must also be ready to be called up for it. Because if it comes my way, I will not allow people like you to deceive others by inventing nonsense.

Jealousy? It is YOU who launched multiple assaults against multiple people all at once here in this thread. And "PAY NO HEED" is the same as "PAY NO ATTENTION". Just because someone shouts something does not make it a command. And once again I did not say what you say I said, ("take no heed") so it is abundantly clear who is continually perverting what others have said and, no doubt, you do the same with the words of the Teacher to suit your mindset.

If someone says to the readers in this thread, "Pay no attention to Desert Reign", do you consider that a command to everyone who reads it or is simply an admonishment? I say it is an admonishment, advice, suggestion, but you have clearly said it is a commandment to all. Not only do you subvert the Scripture but apparently you do not even understand English.

 

[Desert Reign]

Jealousy? It is YOU who launched multiple assaults against multiple people all at once here in this thread. And "PAY NO HEED" is the same as "PAY NO ATTENTION". Just because someone shouts something does not make it a command.

'Pay no heed' is telling someone to do something (or not to do something in this case). When you tell someone to do something, we call that a 'command'.

In grammar it is called an imperative.

In Greek, imperatives are dealt with by changing the verb ending. In English, it is done in several ways, including by adding an exclamation mark. In English, 'Go!' is the imperative but 'You are going' is the indicative. 'Go!' is telling someone to do something, which we also call a command. 'You are going.' is not telling anyone to do anything but it just a statement of fact. 'Are you going?' is a question but it is still indicative because it is asking a question about a state of fact.
In English (modern English at least), negative imperatives require an auxilliary verb:

'Do not go!', 'Do not pay attention!'

Anyone can see that the form of the negative imperative is quite different to the positive imperative.

Are you with me so far?

In Greek, the singular imperative of blepo is blepe and the plural imperative is blepete.
In Greek, the singular indicative is blepeis and the plural indicative is blepete. Negatives are formed by addition of the word ou (not).

In Greek, negative imperatives, as in English, are formed differently. These are prefixed by adding the word 'me' instead of the word 'ou'. Your invented translation was 'Pay no heed to...'.
This would be rendered in Greek as 'me blepete' because it is a negative imperative.
The actual Greek text is 'ou blepete'. Because it is 'ou' and not 'me', it cannot possibly mean 'Pay no heed...' Rather it means 'You do not see' or 'Do you not see?'

This is learnt in the third or fourth lesson of a beginners Greek class.

You have no humility and I don't expect you to accept this basic explanation. But I am on record as telling you it in black and white and I also earlier posted a link which explained it in more detail. It is basic Greek and English grammar. If you cannot accept it but still need to peddle your own wares, invented by only yourself, believed on by only you, motivated by only ambition to be the dunce of the class, then that is your loss.