PDA

View Full Version : Supposedly Failed Prophecy



AntiMaterialist
March 31st, 2004, 09:24 AM
Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."




Matthew 24

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

What is the explanation for these two Biblical verses? Are they a result of mis-translation? They seem to indicate Jesus was supposed to come back a long time ago - yet, obviously, he didn't. As I have a hard time imagining the editors/compilers of the Bible leaving such an apparently self-defeating claim in place, I find myself inclined to believe this is the result of translation errors. Could any of you elighten me on this?

chadn737
March 31st, 2004, 03:01 PM
Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."


There are two interpretations of this verse, neither of which refer to the second coming of Christ. One belief is that Christ is refering to the transfiguration. The other is that he is refering to the resurection and his reign as the head of the church.



Matthew 24

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

In this verse it is believed that this generation refers to a future generation that will be around when the signs began to appear. The way it is worded does not necessarily mean that he was refering to the generation listening to him, but to the generation present when all the signs appear.

kwinters
March 31st, 2004, 03:22 PM
Huh?

Neither of those 'explanations' make sense.

kwinters
March 31st, 2004, 03:28 PM
From Farrell Till:

"I have a tendency to underestimate Roger Hutchinson. After each exposure of the absurdities in his latest attempt to resolve a biblical discrepancy, I think that surely his embarrassment has been so complete that he will not risk further humiliation, but as his latest what-it-really-meant explanation of a glaring biblical discrepancy shows, he is back for still more.

This time, he is riding to the rescue of Jesus himself, who promised that he would return before the generation living then had passed away. Since the promise failed to materialize, biblicists like Hutchinson have been saddled with the burden of trying to convince rational readers that Jesus didn't really meant what he clearly said.

Specifically, Hutchinson's latest venture into Never-Never Land was prompted by Brian Rainey's explication of the word genera (generation) in Matthew 24:34, where Jesus said that "this generation" would not pass away until various events accompanying his second coming had been "accomplished." Elsewhere, Rainey has replied to Hutchinson's "solution" to this problem, but I'd like to have a piece of the action too. I seem to have a character flaw. When a biblicist puts his foot into his mouth, I can't resist the temptation to shove it even farther in, and Hutchinson has certainly put his foot into his mouth on this issue.

The statement in dispute is clear enough: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Matt. 24: 34). The problem arises from the obvious fact that "these things" that Jesus referred to were signs and wonders that would accompany his second coming, which he had described in the verses immediately preceding this statement. Since Hutchinson seemed to agree in his article that the "language [in this passage] is similar to that found in Revelation 6:12-13," which "describes the end of the world," there is no need for me to waste time analyzing Matthew 24 to show that Jesus was clearly talking about signs and wonders that would accompany his second coming and the end of the world. This is a point that Hutchinson has apparently conceded.

The only task before us, then, is to determine what Jesus meant when, after having described events that would accompany his second coming, he said to his apostles that "this generation" would not pass away until all "these things take place." The most sensible interpretation is that he was simply telling his disciples that their generation (the people living at that time) would not pass away until he had come again, but Hutchinson can't accept the most likely meaning of the statement, because the promise didn't happen. He, in fact, even used the failure of the promise as an argument that "this generation" couldn't have meant the generation contemporary to Jesus.

The language describes the end of the world. These events have not occurred and certainly did not occur in the first century. Consequently, the generation that is contemporary to these events could not yet have lived. The events described in Matthew 24:15-31 will all be experienced by one generation. That generation will be living when the world comes to an end (p. 6).

We see here that Hutchinson has resorted to an old familiar inerrantist tactic. He has attempted to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming biblical inerrancy. In this case, he is arguing that if Jesus predicted that "these things" would happen at a certain time, they would necessarily have happened at that time, but since they didn't happen in the lifetime of his contemporaries, Jesus couldn't have meant that these were "things" that the people living at that time would see; otherwise, there would be an error in the Bible, and there are no errors in the Bible. In other words, Hutchinson has begged the very question that he is obligated to prove. His fallacious reasoning fails to consider even the possibility that Jesus could have made a prophecy that failed."

Full article at
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2000/2/002rides.html

kwinters
March 31st, 2004, 03:30 PM
See also

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/3/023basic.html