@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, remember we spoke about dishonest scholarship in an earlier thread.
Is dishonest scholarship what we were discussing "in an earlier thread"? Really?!? ...
Do you not notice how you refer to "dictionaries" as if the discussion had been about the definition of the word "generation," and then how you begin using the word "interpretation" and go on to refer to the English language definitions of the words contained in Webster's dictionary as "English interpretations"?
Again, @Vidqun, I don't want to be hurtful, or say anything that would make you feel insulted or hurt your feelings, but like I told you in that thread, there does seem to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those who translated the NWT from "Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" into its "English equivalent," and specifically as to the NWT translators word choice with respect to the Greek word genea. If you were discussing "dishonest scholarship" with me, fine, but I wasn't aware of it since I was the one that intimated to you that there seemed to be a question in your mind as to the scholarship of those that translated the NWT.
There is a difference, however, between the definition of a word and the interpretation of a word. You seem to not know that these two words -- "definition" and "interpretation" -- are not synonyms of one another, but have very different meanings. I'm really not comfortable discussing this with you, because you don't seem to be in possession of a sufficient knowledge of the English language and your inability to comprehend fundamental concepts compels me to beg off from discussing this topic further with you.
@smiddy:
You never commented on my post on Matt.ch.1 vs 17 which clearly identifies a generation as 48 years long ,2 such timespans ( generations ) have already passed since 1914. { 1962 and 2010 }
I didn't comment, because I couldn't take what you posted seriously. You wrote the following:
So from Abraham to jesus their were 3 lots of 14 generations,which = 42 generations
Abraham was born about 2018 BC
Jesus was born about 2 BC
a difference of 2016 years
2016 years divided by 42 generations =48 years
Which incidentally coincides with what jesus stated in prophecy concerning the destruction of jerusalem in 70 AD , well within a generation timespan of 48 years.
You arbitrarily decided to divide the number of years between Abraham's birth and Jesus' birth, or 2016 years, by the 42 generations mentioned in Matthew's gospel at Matthew 1:17 averaging 48 years for each generation, when Luke's gospel at Luke 3:23-28 indicates that there are 76 generations from Adam's creation to Jesus' birth, which when these 4,024 years are divided by 76 averages roughly 53 years per generation, except that the people in the first ten generations (through Noah) had pretty long lifespans that greatly exceeded 53 years. No one would do what you did here.
@Vidqun:
Djeggnog, allow me to delve into some "honest interpretation."
I'm really not interested in what you are calling "honest interpretation."
Because of being followed by a negative connotation in most cases of NT use, the emphasis should be on the sinfulness of the people, rather than the "genealogical" element. One should therefore not view the word "generation" as a chronological marker, but rather as a qualitative noun.
Ok.
2. Almost all the remaining NT genea-passages speak of "this generation" (he genea haute). This construction in Greek, with the demonstrative regularly following its noun, is clearly the equivalent of haddor hazzeh....
It is interesting that the OT does not know this stereotyped phrase in its NT sense.... In these passages the temporal, "genealogical" element is completely absent. The emphasis lies entirely on the sinfulness of this class, this type of people.
3. In Jesus’ discourse about the future the phrase clearly bears this second meaning: Mk. 13:30; Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32. Indeed, in every other NT passage where haute forms part of this phrase, it has the same pejorative character. But since the discourse refers to this genea "passing away", the temporal, genealogical element is also present, though of secondary importance.
You have here quoted from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which is a good resource in that it can be used to provide an understanding of the meaning of the words contained in the Greek text of the Bible, but your focusing on what this dictionary says about "the temporal, 'genealogical' element" suggests to me that you are neither familiar or competent to discuss this topic with me.
The fact that don't seem to be able to use your own words in articulating your point of view convinces me that you are merely repeating what things you have read in this dictionary according to your own understanding, which is hardly more than obtains from attending high school. Pretentiousness only works to a point and you reached that point in that other thread in which we exchanged posts regarding the meaning of the Greek word genea.
What you have quoted is an interpretation of a theological body, and not just a definition of the word "generation," and many of the conclusions one finds in this resource are based on theological beliefs not shared by Jehovah's Witnesses. You may not realize this, but the word "Theology" in the title of this work is what informs that the definitions it provides have a theological bent.
You provided a quote from this dictionary which indicates that where Jesus uses the Greek word haute (as in he genea haute), it has "the same pejorative character" as contained in certain other Bible passages without realizing that Jehovah's Witnesses, too, once shared this view in thinking that when using the word "generation" at Matthew 24:34 that Jesus was referring to the generation of wicked people.
As a body of Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses are guided by holy spirit and so we have taken a very different approach when reading Matthew 24:34 than the approach taken by the theologians of Christendom, who are not guided by God's spirit and have rejected the applying a "pejorative character" to the word "generation." Consequently, our interpretation of Matthew 24:34 is based on how "generation" is used at Exodus 1:6.
@iCeltic:
Jehovah's Witnesses playing with words again, there's a surprise. More evidence of why 99/100 it's useless even discussing things with them as sensible adults. No discussion, they are right and everyone else is wrong. Apparently.
Evidently.
@djeggnog
