Evidence for God from Science

NET


16:25 For whoever wants to save his life35 will lose it,36 but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 16:26 For what does it benefit a person if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life? Or what can a person give in exchange for his life? 16:27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 16:28 I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” 17:1 Six days later Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John the brother of James, and led them privately up a high mountain. 17:2 And he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 17:3 Then Moses and Elijah also appeared before them, talking with him. 17:4 So Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you want, I will make three shelters — one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!” 17:6 When the disciples heard this, they were overwhelmed with fear and threw themselves down with their faces to the ground. 17:7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Do not be afraid.” 17:8 When they looked up, all they saw was Jesus alone.

42<NOTE=811sn Several suggestions have been made as to the referent for the phrase the Son of Man coming in his kingdom: (1) the transfiguration itself, which immediately follows in the narrative; (2) Jesus' resurrection and ascension; (3) the coming of the Spirit; (4) Christ's role in the Church; (5) the destruction of Jerusalem; (6) Jesus' second coming and the establishment of the kingdom. The reference to six days later in 17:1 seems to indicate that Matthew had the transfiguration in mind insofar as it was a substantial prefiguring of the consummation of the kingdom (although this interpretation is not without its problems). As such, the transfiguration would be a tremendous confirmation to the disciples that even though Jesus had just finished speaking of his death (in vv. 21-23), he was nonetheless the promised Messiah and things were proceeding according to God's plan.

Jac3510 wrote:PL,

I read through the article, and as familiar as I am with preterism, I genuinely don't know what the view is on Nero's mark. If Nero was the beast (and I do believe that he was a type, much the same as Antioch Ephiphanes was in the 4th century BC), then it follows that the people would have had to have his mark on their right hand or forehead. Or is this allegorical, because I don't know anything about him requiring the people to tatoo his name on them?

It is allegorical, just as the binding of the law on the forehead and hand in Deut. 6:6-8. To be marked required total allegiance, in both mind (head) and deed (hand).

puritan lad wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:PL,

I read through the article, and as familiar as I am with preterism, I genuinely don't know what the view is on Nero's mark. If Nero was the beast (and I do believe that he was a type, much the same as Antioch Ephiphanes was in the 4th century BC), then it follows that the people would have had to have his mark on their right hand or forehead. Or is this allegorical, because I don't know anything about him requiring the people to tatoo his name on them?

It is allegorical, just as the binding of the law on the forehead and hand in Deut. 6:6-8. To be marked required total allegiance, in both mind (head) and deed (hand).

He's right, it's allegorical, 'nuff said, topic closed.

numeral2_5 wrote:

puritan lad wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:PL,

I read through the article, and as familiar as I am with preterism, I genuinely don't know what the view is on Nero's mark. If Nero was the beast (and I do believe that he was a type, much the same as Antioch Ephiphanes was in the 4th century BC), then it follows that the people would have had to have his mark on their right hand or forehead. Or is this allegorical, because I don't know anything about him requiring the people to tatoo his name on them?

It is allegorical, just as the binding of the law on the forehead and hand in Deut. 6:6-8. To be marked required total allegiance, in both mind (head) and deed (hand).

He's right, it's allegorical, 'nuff said, topic closed.

Haha, thanks Num . . . I wasn't going to do this. I was just going to keep that little nugget of info for myself, but sense you bring it up . . ., as I said in another thread:

Jac3510 wrote:Hmm . . . so what you are saying is that Jesus was never crucified, He certainly didn't raise from the dead, that there is no sin, nor sin nature, that there was no flood of any kind, local or not, nor a tower of babel, that the prophets' accounts are mythological, and that there was never an exodus from Egypt?

Of course you aren't saying that, so why do I ask? The reason is that the moment you start taking things as allegorical that are not explicitly stated to be as such (i.e., the kingdom of heaven being a mustard seed, or the beast with seven heads), then you have destroyed any basis you may have for a rational, consistent interpretation of Scripture. After all, if I don't want to believe that Jesus was resurrected, then I can claim allegory. If I want to believe that Judaism was a sixth century cult, then I can argue that the exodus event was a myth.

In hermeneutics (the science of interpretation), we learn to interpret Scripture in its literal, historical, and grammatical settings. If you don't consistently do this, then you have absolutely no defense for any doctrine you choose to believe.

So, it's not allegorical . . . 'nuff said

See, the beautiful thing is that I absolutely NEVER interpret Scripture allegorically unless I am told by the text it is so . . . of course, that's what "literal" means.

I guess if in order to defend your doctrine you have to say that certain parts of the Bible that clearly contradict your position don't really mean what they say, then have fun. I prefer to take God at His word

God bless

I'm glad you feel that way...

Revelation 1:1
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,"

Now unless you are prepared to defend the idea that a literal beast with literally seven heads and literally 10 horns is going to literally rise out of a literal sea, you may want to reconsider this stand.

PL: I do not want to change my stance. See the thread I just started in the Bible forum regarding biblical interpretation.

As for the verse you cite, the word "shortly" can refer to one of three things here. First, it can be saying that ALL the events in the book of Revelation will happen in all a short time from when they are written. This must be rejected because the GWT judgement has not yet happened. Next, it could refer to some of the events happening in a short period of time from when it was written . . . from here, we can debate at what point that breaks. And lastly, it can refer to the events happening at some unknown point in the future, with "shortly" being a reference to God's view of time, for we know He does things in His time.

I take a combination of the second and third positions. Some of the things in the Revelation did happen immediately. The letters to the seven churches were fulfilled in that same generation. But, there seems to be a break at 4:1. You, I suspect, would argue that everything has happened save Rev. 21. But, that is totally arbitrary on your part, to say that the second advent hasn't happened yet. After all, if everything in the book must happen soon, then even the Second Coming, which is in the book, is included!

Secondly, we know a day is as a thousand years for God and a thousand years is as a day. So, it is fruitless to try to bind God to a human time-frame.

Besides all of that, we also should note it is not at all uncommon for their to be partial fulfillments of prophecy. A great example is the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This is the child promised to the virgin through Isaiah, and yet, the fulfillment came in Christ. Antioch Epiphanes serves as another historical example. He clearly is the little horn of Daniel 11, and yet, he did not do everything the little horn is said to do . . . he was a partial fulfillment, and the little horn will be fulfilled completely in the Antichrist. And so, we see the Nero is a type of antichrist who partially fulfilled many prophecies, but was not the Antichrist himself. That man will come later.

As for the word "signified", I have no problem with that. It just means "communicated" or "made known.". It only occurs six times in the Bible . . . four times by John, and twice by Luke. You won't find any reference to allegory:

Joh 12:33 This he said, signify ing what death he should die.

Joh 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signify ing what death he should die.

Joh 21:19 This spake he, signify ing by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Ac 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Ac 25:27 For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.

Re 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:

So . . . yeah, I still hold to my position. Allegorize = bad. Literal reading = good

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Secondly, we know a day is as a thousand years for God and a thousand years is as a day. So, it is fruitless to try to bind God to a human time-frame.

However, the fact remains that we have passages with words like "shortly" and "soon". Although you can try to explain these sorts of passages with the day<->thousand years concept, it brings up the question of why God would inspire these writers to use such words in the first place. Your position claims that references to time frames are meaningless, so why are they included at all? Is God being purposefully misleading?

Also important is the fact that the Bible was written for humans, not for God. John did not write Revelation to inform God about all the subjects He was supposedly ignorant on, after all. We should interpret passages in the Bible with this in mind. The Bible does not say that "a day is as a thousand years for man and a thousand years is as a day."

First, I'm not 100% sure about the passages that talk about Jesus returning "soon." I just know that it was the expectation of the apostles and the first generation that Christ would return for them. That's why Paul had to write what he did in 1 Thess 4:13-18. So, I'm just going along, for the sake of argument, with the idea that the traditional understanding is correct, although I need to examine those verses.

Second, we can question the validity of a promise to return soon based on nothing more than Jesus' assertion that even He didn't know when He was coming back! (Matt. 24:36). How can Jesus have promised to return "soon" when He didn't know when He would be back? Was He making an assumption? Was He lying?

Third, even if the previous two questions are well accounted for, we know that Jesus hasn't come back yet. People use the "soon" argument to support preterism and particularly to kill the idea of a rapture. But, even in the Preterist view, the Second Advent is still in the future, so it falls to its own arguments.

Fourth, the particular issue you objected to in my post was actually more of a passing comment . . . it was sandwiched between two fairly solid answers to the objection in general.

But, rather than just explain things away, let's deal with the specific questions in the post. Why would God inspire the writers to use the word "soon" if He didn't mean it? Again, I preface this answer with the reminder that it doesn't matter how I answer, because the preterist has to deal with the same question! But, I would contend that God wants Christians to be watchful and ready. So, He says, "I'm coming back quickly. Be ready!" This is not at all without precedent. Check out Matt. 24:42 and Matt. 25:13. And, of course, it is "soon." Two thousand years, in the scope of eternity, is the blink of an eye!

I would object the idea of timeframes being meaningless. It makes all the meaning in the world. If Jesus had said, "Now, I'm going to come back one day, but it's going to be a long time by human standards!" . . . what would that do to what He had to say about being ready?!?

So we see that the important thing for the disciples is to be ready for the coming of Christ at any time, and this is just as true for us today as it was for them 2,000 years ago. The promise of His quick return makes it all the more important and urgent.

Lastly, I agree that the Bible was written for humans. It was written for believers, specifically. But don't take redactic criticism too far. The Bible is not written to give us an exhaustive answer to all of our questions. It's not meant, in fact, to answer our questions at all, but to instruct us in the areas in which we need to be instructed. In fact, the funny thing about the "thousand year" thing is the context in which it was quoted:

• First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:3-9, NIV)

Beautiful, isn't it? Peter is specifically dealing with the question of the apparent delay in Christ's return . . . after all, didn't He say He'd be back "soon"??? And what did Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, say? He says that God isn't slow . . . that He is being patient . . . and that for God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.

So, if that's the answer God wanted humans to have, I think it's a pretty safe bet to go with it

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:First, I'm not 100% sure about the passages that talk about Jesus returning "soon." I just know that it was the expectation of the apostles and the first generation that Christ would return for them. That's why Paul had to write what he did in 1 Thess 4:13-18. So, I'm just going along, for the sake of argument, with the idea that the traditional understanding is correct, although I need to examine those verses.

1 Thess 4:13-18 is a really interesting passage, in that it mentions the resurrection (which partial preterists hold to be future) but still uses the "we" form. Full preterists hold that all prophesy has been fulfilled, so they would really like this passage. I'm not exactly sure what gives. Perhaps PL is more familiar with particular partial preterist interpretations of this passage.

Jac3510 wrote:Second, we can question the validity of a promise to return soon based on nothing more than Jesus' assertion that even He didn't know when He was coming back! (Matt. 24:36). How can Jesus have promised to return "soon" when He didn't know when He would be back? Was He making an assumption? Was He lying?

The fact is that He did make some promises.

Matthew 24:34 (WEB) wrote:Most assuredly I tell you, this generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished.

Especially see:

Matthew 16:28 (WEB) wrote:Most assuredly I tell you, there are some standing here who will in no way taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Try to explain the latter with the "day is a thousand years."

The fact is that Jesus did promise that something would happen in the lifetime of his disciples, even if you try to argue that He couldn't.

One argument might say that Jesus's statement was a reference to a different event from the "this generation" statement, but the proximity of the passages and the context seem to contradict this. It could be that Jesus did not know the particular time, but did know that it would be in the lifetime of the particular people He was talking to. There's also a footnote in the NIV that some manuscripts do not include "the Son," although I wouldn't immediately claim that it shouldn't be there.

Jac3510 wrote:Third, even if the previous two questions are well accounted for, we know that Jesus hasn't come back yet.

Depends what you mean by "come back." Many preterists consider the abolition of the Old Covenant to be a form of "coming back."

Jac3510 wrote:People use the "soon" argument to support preterism and particularly to kill the idea of a rapture. But, even in the Preterist view, the Second Advent is still in the future, so it falls to its own arguments.

Partial preterists claim that "soon" refers to certain events, but not others. We don't see one monolithic block of prophesies taking place at one particular time, as futurists and full preterists do, but rather we see a collection of different prophesies to be fulfilled at different times. We would say that "soon" refers to passages of judgment and the end of the Age (of Law), but not to the final Resurrection and coming.

Another answer is "full preterism", but its insistence on a spiritual Resurrection is often considered heretical. Full preterism basically holds that all prophesies have been fulfilled. It's also called "hyperpreterism" by some.

Jac3510 wrote:But, rather than just explain things away, let's deal with the specific questions in the post. Why would God inspire the writers to use the word "soon" if He didn't mean it? [...] But, I would contend that God wants Christians to be watchful and ready. So, He says, "I'm coming back quickly. Be ready!" This is not at all without precedent. Check out Matt. 24:42 and Matt. 25:13.

To me, this would seem that Jesus was lying to teach a particular behavior. I don't like an interpretation of the Bible that has Jesus lying to His disciples, or at least deceiving them by using wording they would probably misinterpret.

Jac3510 wrote:And, of course, it is "soon." Two thousand years, in the scope of eternity, is the blink of an eye!

From God's perspective, yes. However, it's not how a typical audience would take "soon." Through this argument, you can argue that the deceit of Jesus was not an all-out lie. However, I still refuse to accept that Jesus would even deceive.

Jac3510 wrote:I would object the idea of timeframes being meaningless. It makes all the meaning in the world. If Jesus had said, "Now, I'm going to come back one day, but it's going to be a long time by human standards!" . . . what would that do to what He had to say about being ready?!?

This would not give Jesus an excuse to deceive His disciples. Of course, the alternative of not saying anything about the timeframe would always be available.

Jac3510 wrote:So we see that the important thing for the disciples is to be ready for the coming of Christ at any time, and this is just as true for us today as it was for them 2,000 years ago. The promise of His quick return makes it all the more important and urgent.

Even if a lie has positive consequences, it remains a lie.

Jac3510 wrote:Lastly, I agree that the Bible was written for humans. It was written for believers, specifically. But don't take redactic criticism too far. The Bible is not written to give us an exhaustive answer to all of our questions. It's not meant, in fact, to answer our questions at all, but to instruct us in the areas in which we need to be instructed.

That still doesn't mean God would lie.

Jac3510 wrote:In fact, the funny thing about the "thousand year" thing is the context in which it was quoted:

• First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:3-9, NIV)

Beautiful, isn't it? Peter is specifically dealing with the question of the apparent delay in Christ's return . . . after all, didn't He say He'd be back "soon"??? And what did Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, say? He says that God isn't slow . . . that He is being patient . . . and that for God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.

We've still got Matthew 16:28, which is not addressed by this passage. And this passage could be a pre-70 writing that was fulfilled in 70. Scoffers did claim that Christianity was bogus because Jesus hadn't returned when He said He would, like in Matthew 16:28. They were living a life of Judaism in Jerusalem just as always - until the Romans came and destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.

Alternatively, it could be referring to people in the "last days" before an as-yet future final worldwide judgment.

Concerning the promises Jesus made . . .

I didn't say He couldn't make promises about the nature of His return. I said He couldn't make promises about the time of His return! The biggest area you and I will disagree is in Matthew 24:34. I think you will have a greater problem than I will. In English, it seems to imply that Jesus is talking about the people living in His day, and so the promise would be that everything in the Olivet Discourse would be accomplished within that generation. The problem is that everything DIDN'T happen . . . I don't recall the Second Advent. So, you have to figure out some way to explain away "all these things." Hint, the Greek word "all" means "all"

I take the passage very different. For me, "this generation" refers to people who reject the gospel, regardless of what age they live in. The Greek phrase for "this generation" is he genea toutou (I think that's right . . . the last word might be in the wrong case. I'll look it up later). It occurs six times in the book of Matthew and always has a purjorative sense. If you have access to the JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society), find the Spring '95 edition. There is an article detailing this postion.

Now, if this is the correct understanding of "this generation", then I can take "all" to mean "all." Jesus is saying that unbelievers will always be with us until the end comes. After that, they no longer will, which is exactly what we see in the rest of prophecy.

As for Mattew 16:28, I take that as a reference to to Transfiguration. So, it did happen to some of those standing there.

Now, again, I put forward the argument, because you didn't deal with it: how could Jesus have promised to return soon if He didn't know when that would happen?

As for Jesus and/or God lying by using "soon," that's just a matter of interpretation. I don't take it as deceptive at all. You are basing the argument on the assumption that "soon" relates to human time. Against this, I have provided Scripture clearly demonstrating the contrary. Peter was dealing with this very question. God was apparently "slow" in His promises, so Peter says, "No, for a day . . . " yada, yada.

I say it again, if that's what God told Peter to say, it's good enough for me.

Jac3510 wrote:In English, it seems to imply that Jesus is talking about the people living in His day, and so the promise would be that everything in the Olivet Discourse would be accomplished within that generation. The problem is that everything DIDN'T happen . . . I don't recall the Second Advent. So, you have to figure out some way to explain away "all these things." Hint, the Greek word "all" means "all"

Many partial preterists believe that everything in Matthew 24, or at least everything preceding that verse, did happen. They take the "coming in the clouds" to be the reference to the Son of Man passage in Daniel, and to Jesus finally demonstrating the power prophesied, through His destruction of the Old Covenant. See for instance here. All full preterists by definition believe that Matthew 24 has been fulfilled in its entirety.

Jac3510 wrote:I take the passage very different. For me, "this generation" refers to people who reject the gospel, regardless of what age they live in. The Greek phrase for "this generation" is he genea toutou (I think that's right . . . the last word might be in the wrong case. I'll look it up later). It occurs six times in the book of Matthew and always has a purjorative sense. If you have access to the JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society), find the Spring '95 edition. There is an article detailing this postion.

If you take it figuratively like that, please don't call it "literal." I don't see anywhere in the passage that that is implied, and in the other occurences in Matthew the context indicates the perjorative sense.

Even with the perjorative sense, Matthew 23 indicates that Jesus wants to judge this generation. See Matthew 23:36. This judgment came in 70 A.D., within the lifetime of those He was speaking to. The idea that "generation is perjorative" integrates nicely with either preterist position, and having perjorative connotations doesn't mean that the word lacks its literal meaning.

I also note that I have seen at least three or four different interpretations of this passage from futurists. So much for the idea that literalism always breeds consensus.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, if this is the correct understanding of "this generation", then I can take "all" to mean "all." Jesus is saying that unbelievers will always be with us until the end comes. After that, they no longer will, which is exactly what we see in the rest of prophecy.

Nice way to allegorize the words of Jesus. Hey, you're taking a phrase's connotation and claiming it to be the only meaningful definition. Is this not the same as allegorizing?

Jac3510 wrote:As for Mattew 16:28, I take that as a reference to to Transfiguration. So, it did happen to some of those standing there.

Why would He make such a trivial prediction? Didn't the Transfiguration happen pretty soon after He said that?

Jac3510 wrote:Now, again, I put forward the argument, because you didn't deal with it: how could Jesus have promised to return soon if He didn't know when that would happen?

Do you know the date of your own death? Didn't think so. Neither do I.

All right, then. Let's meet for lunch in 500 years. We very well might both be alive then, since we don't know the dates of our own deaths.

Jac3510 wrote:As for Jesus and/or God lying by using "soon," that's just a matter of interpretation. I don't take it as deceptive at all. You are basing the argument on the assumption that "soon" relates to human time.

Jesus was talking to humans. Peter was writing after Jesus had died and his teachings had spread. So you're saying that people were only deceived for a few decades, and that made the deception OK?

Jac3510 wrote:Against this, I have provided Scripture clearly demonstrating the contrary. Peter was dealing with this very question. God was apparently "slow" in His promises, so Peter says, "No, for a day . . . " yada, yada.

Other interpretations of the passage exist. Though it doesn't discuss 2 Peter 3:8, some of the surrounding text is analyzed by Holding here.

For the "Matthew 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration" argument, I quote Dee Dee Warren (from http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warr ... #matt1627a). She's talking about Matthew 16:27-28.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain..... Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen "it" is near. What is "it"? Luke equates "it" with the "Kingdom of God." The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS. Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are seemingly inescapable. Thus ~ Matthew 16:28 gives us then the definition of "this generation not passing away," it means "some of those standing there will not taste death until..."

This CANNOT mean the Transfiguration as some try to do to avoid the obvious implications here. Why? Two reasons at a minimum. Verse 28 does not stand alone. It is intimately connected with verse 27 which CANNOT be said to refer to the Transfiguration. Second, the Transfiguration happened only 6 days later. Can you imagine that Jesus would say something so inane as "some of you standing here will still be alive in six days"? I bet ALL of them were still alive. Jesus introduced this prophesy with His most solemn.... "Most assuredly I say." That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff, not inane prophecies that even Jean Dixon would have a shot at getting right. He must have been speaking about an event that was far enough in the future that many of his listeners would be dead, but not so far away that all of His listeners would be dead.

jerickson314 wrote:For the "Matthew 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration" argument, I quote Dee Dee Warren (from http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warr ... #matt1627a). She's talking about Matthew 16:27-28.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:This combination of verses tells us exactly what time frame Matthew 24:34 is referring to. Let me explain..... Matthew 24:33 mentions that when all these things happen "it" is near. What is "it"? Luke equates "it" with the "Kingdom of God." The Kingdom of God would be near, AT THE DOORS. Matthew 16:28 tells us that there were some standing there that would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom. The parallels are seemingly inescapable. Thus ~ Matthew 16:28 gives us then the definition of "this generation not passing away," it means "some of those standing there will not taste death until..."

This CANNOT mean the Transfiguration as some try to do to avoid the obvious implications here. Why? Two reasons at a minimum. Verse 28 does not stand alone. It is intimately connected with verse 27 which CANNOT be said to refer to the Transfiguration. Second, the Transfiguration happened only 6 days later. Can you imagine that Jesus would say something so inane as "some of you standing here will still be alive in six days"? I bet ALL of them were still alive. Jesus introduced this prophesy with His most solemn.... "Most assuredly I say." That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff, not inane prophecies that even Jean Dixon would have a shot at getting right. He must have been speaking about an event that was far enough in the future that many of his listeners would be dead, but not so far away that all of His listeners would be dead.

Note the following wesel words:

* 'seemingly inescapable'

* 'This CANNOT mean the Transfiguration'

* 'obvious implications'

* 'It is intimately connected with verse 2'

* 'CANNOT be said to refer to the Transfiguration'

* 'Can you imagine...?'

* 'That ALWAYS introduces very heavy and profound stuff'

* 'He must have been speaking about...'

These are the words of assertion, not proof. The entire argument is heavy on rhetoric, light on exposition.