Will Obama say "So help me God" ?

[Kulindahr]

The Bible says all life on earth was created in 6 days.

No, it doesn't. You're making the same mistake the fundies do: imposing an alien literary type on the text.

The Bible says people lived to be 900+ years old. We know this to be physically impossible.

Not having been there to observe it... no, we don't. We just know that we don't live that long, and if anyone has, how it happened.
We used to know that light being affected by gravity was physically impossible, too.

The Bible says that giants up to 40 feet tall once roamed the earth. This is completely unsupported by any other real historical, anthropological, or archeological findings.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The Bible says a global flood covered the earth to the tallest mountain peaks. We know this to be impossible. There is not anywhere close to that much water on the earth and even if their was it would have extended so far into the atmosphere that it would have killed all life. Noah would have been riding the ocean in space, lol. Furthermore, the rate at which the water would have to have precipitated to accumulate that much would have boiled the oceans and turned it into vapor anyway. Also, the idea that all species of the world could fit onto a boat the size of the ark (and cared for for 40 days inside) is outrageous.

• If by "earth" you mean the globe, no, the Bible doesn't say that.

• Um... the flood is reported to have killed all life -- so what's the problem?

• "In space"? And you're talking like you know something about science. Assume for the moment that water did cover the highest peaks on the globe, then calculate what happens to the atmosphere, and get back to me.

The Bible clearly regards the earth as flat. It talks in many places about the "four corners of the world" and says that the earth's foundations are held up on pillars. Clearly the writers lacked any basic understanding of the shape of the earth.

So?
It isn't trying to teach anything about any of that; those aren't scientific claims or even statements. Do you look for science in Shakespeare, or Dickens?
As well tell meteorologists they know nothing about the solar system because they talk about "sunrise" and "sunset".

They also clearly regard the earth as the center of the solar system.

Not at all. Aristotle and Ptolemy did, but the Bible doesn't really care.

The Bible clearly regards the stars as small objects close to the earth in the sky. The stars "falling to the earth" is repeatedly mentioned. Such a phrase is entirely nonsensical given our modern understanding of stars.

Again wrong -- unless you are to show me where the Bible says that stars are either small or close.
The phrase about stars falling to the earth comes in two different kinds of literature, and neither one is trying to teach anything about stars; one is trying to speak in eschatological terms, and one is speaking in common sense terms -- just like every other culture in the world, including ours today, speaks of "shooting stars" or "falling stars".

The Bible is wrong about biology in more than one instance. It says that insects have 4 legs and that rodents chew their cud. Both statements are false.

The first of those is intriguing. I heard a paper given once that argued that the ancients regarded all animals as having four legs, so that ants were seen as four-legged with two arms... miniature centaurs or something like that. Given the way the legs are arranged on many insects, that's not an unfounded perspective, since the front pair functions as arms in many instances.

The second one is always good for a chuckle. I have occasionally thought about delving into the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament or another such source to see if there isn't something off in the translation of "chews the cud", but it's not much of a big deal.

I could go on and on, that's just all I can remember off the top of my head lol.

Well, off the top of your head, it appears you've soaked up a lot of stuff from standard propaganda sites that haven't done their homework.
Sad, really -- it's another instance of taking in information without applying research or logic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unfortunately that doesn't solve your problem.

For example, Jesus claimed more than once that he would return within the lifetimes of his immediate followers.

Did it happen? No.

I've never seen where He did so. Got any references?

 

[Kulindahr]

That is exactly what I mean. If you are going to tell me that parts of the Bible are metaphorical, then why can't the whole thing be?

That's playing the same game the literalists do: imposing an outside literary genre (although "metaphorical is more a grammar matter than a literary) on the text.
You have to start by looking at the text and asking what kind of literature it is. If you'd done that, you wouldn't have raised any issues from Genesis 1 or two, because knowing what sort of literature it is puts all scientific matters to rest.

In Revelation it says that not one single character of the Bible is false or can be changed. If that is not true, then why should I believe any of it?

Actually, it doesn't. That tag near the end is a standard line for eschatological texts especially at that period in time, and it applies only to the work in which it is included, not to the whole collection. If you'd done any research at all, you'd know that the book of the Apocalypse has been included in several different places in the New Testament over the centuries, which fact alone would tell you that the warning doesn't apply to the whole book.

 

[G-Lexington]

^ Jesus in fact says that he himself (or He Himself) doesn't know the day of his return. He says "Only the Father knows the day."

* -Or the return of the kingdom of God. I don't have a Bible in front of me to look up the actual quote - Kul hopefully will have my back.

Lex

 

[G-Lexington]

>>>In Revelation it says that not one single character of the Bible is false or can be changed.

If I remember correctly, this was a rather standard phrase put into written works at the time. Remember - back then, all copies were done by hand, letter by painstaking letter. Because of this, occasionally, people would misspell or accidentally (or, yes, purposefully) change things when the copy was being made. The comment is early Christian code for "Look, I went to a lot of trouble to write this thing out - don't fuck around with it and alter it any, OK?"

Lex

 

[hotatlboi]

Not having been there to observe it... no, we don't. We just know that we don't live that long, and if anyone has, how it happened.

Uh... assuming we were the same species then, yes we do. It's very basic science.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are again failing to exercise logic. What is the more logical explanation? That the part about giants is a fable (apparently you already acknowledge that parts of Genesis are), or that giants really did exist but we just have no evidence of them (despite having MUCH evidence of most of the other ancient civilizations mentioned in the Bible. It's this kind of basic logical thinking that seems out of reach for the religious.

If by "earth" you mean the globe, no, the Bible doesn't say that.

So you hold the position that the flood was a local one then?

Um... the flood is reported to have killed all life -- so what's the problem?

This is a problem with your previous statement though. If the flood was local, how could it have killed all life on earth apart from Noah?

"In space"? And you're talking like you know something about science. Assume for the moment that water did cover the highest peaks on the globe, then calculate what happens to the atmosphere, and get back to me.

I'm speaking of exactly that. Those calculations say that the amount of water would have boiled the oceans and the atmosphere as a result.

So?
It isn't trying to teach anything about any of that; those aren't scientific claims or even statements. Do you look for science in Shakespeare, or Dickens?

What I'm saying is, when those kinds of scientific errors supposedly come from God (as in God is speaking), that shows he is not all knowing.

Not at all. Aristotle and Ptolemy did, but the Bible doesn't really care.

Again what I am saying is that shows there was no more advanced knowledge available in the writing of the Bible than there was in any other ancient book. If an omniscient being had really inspired it, I should hope there would be.

Again wrong -- unless you are to show me where the Bible says that stars are either small or close.

I already did. You just rejected it out of a complete failure to logically analyze the text. That implication follows directly from how that phrase is used.

The first of those is intriguing. I heard a paper given once that argued that the ancients regarded all animals as having four legs, so that ants were seen as four-legged with two arms... miniature centaurs or something like that. Given the way the legs are arranged on many insects, that's not an unfounded perspective, since the front pair functions as arms in many instances.

Again, when it supposedly comes from the mouth of God, yes it is. How could God be so fundamentally misinformed about the creatures that he created? LOL

The second one is always good for a chuckle. I have occasionally thought about delving into the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament or another such source to see if there isn't something off in the translation of "chews the cud", but it's not much of a big deal.

You just completely fail to get this. Coming from God describing HIS creation incorrectly? What does that say about what God knows? Again, using LOGIC it says that the writer of that probably was not an all powerful being who created that creature and therefore would have had complete and intimate knowledge of it.

Well, off the top of your head, it appears you've soaked up a lot of stuff from standard propaganda sites that haven't done their homework.
Sad, really -- it's another instance of taking in information without applying research or logic.

You are the one not applying logic. Your entire post is the standard Christian failed position of trying to prop up the numerous errors in the Bible to save your faith, despite more evidence than you should need to logically reject them. And none of my information comes from "propaganda sites". It comes from books by well respected scholars. How many non-Christian books on biblical analysis have you read? I find that the answer among Christians is most often 0, because they are simply unwilling to open their minds to any information that does not already fit within their belief system.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ Jesus in fact says that he himself (or He Himself) doesn't know the day of his return. He says "Only the Father knows the day."

The specific day yes. But he clearly indicated the period. That's why he extorted his followers to be watchful for his return, since they didn't know when it would be, but they expected to witness it.

 

[hotatlboi]

I've never seen where He did so. Got any references?

well I think it's pretty humorous that you've never seen those if you actually have read the Bible you claim is the most important book ever written, but sure I'll see if I can dig them up for you.

 

[hotatlboi]

Here's a few:

Matthew 10:23, When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:27-28, For 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. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

John 21:22 (speaking of John), Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Matthew 24:34 (Jesus speaking of his coming), I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

A clear and logical reading of these texts says that Jesus was clearly suggesting to his followers that he would return within their lifetimes, unless his goal was deception, which is impossible if he is perfect and could not tell a lie.

 

[G-Lexington]

Well, I'll take the easy one.

>>>John 21:22 (speaking of John), Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

I'm assuming you're saying that since he suggests that since Jesus says that he might want John alive when he returns, that implies that Jesus's return is due in the current generation. But that's a pretty big stretch. The main point being made is "My relationship with John is irrelevant - you need only worry about my relationship with YOU."

And where's that part where Jesus says he's the Son of Man again?

You might as well point out that the Bible claims that pi equals 3. Because it does. OK, it doesn't claim it, but it implies it. It says a circular pond is "ten cubits across" and "thirty cubits around" (or some such). This means that the diameter was 10, and the circumference was 30 - so pi equals 3. But pi is 3.1415926 (or so).

For some fundies, this in fact proves that pi IS 3. They're pretty fundie (even among fundies) to make that claim, though.
For some skeptics, this proves that the Bible is fallible and thus a tissue of lies.
For most people, it just means the writer wasn't giving exact measurements.

Lex

 

[hotatlboi]

Well, I'll take the easy one.

That's the problem though. You can't "take the easy one" and ignore the rest. Reading that verse in context with the others, I think the simplest explanation is that he meant exactly what he said. If not, then you have to invent all sorts of other alternate meanings for the other verses.

Occam's razor seems anathema to Christians. The question I am asking is "what is the most likely correct interpretation of those verses (and there are others), when looked at together in context. To me the easy and simple answer is the one I stated. Jesus expected his return to be soon to the time when he lived.

I agree that the main point of that verse is what you said, but as I said above I think Jesus suggested this both directly and indirectly on several occasions. That verse was obviously one of the indirect ones.

 

[construct]

Here's a few:

Matthew 10:23, When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:27-28, For 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. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

John 21:22 (speaking of John), Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Matthew 24:34 (Jesus speaking of his coming), I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

A clear and logical reading of these texts says that Jesus was clearly suggesting to his followers that he would return within their lifetimes, unless his goal was deception, which is impossible if he is perfect and could not tell a lie.

You're really pretty good at this stuff. I may disagree on particular points, but I agree with the general thrust of the argument you are in process of presenting.

I would say, though, that the gospels themselves are particularly incoherent on the "return" doctrine. It is possible that at least some of these references are about the post-resurrection appearances. Some might refer to events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Others appear to refer to another event that didn't happen. So your general point that Jesus was just wrong about all this is, in my opinion, correct.

Thanks for taking the trouble to make a detailed account of this stuff. I long ago lost patience with it.

 

[FirmaFan]

No, it doesn't. You're making the same mistake the fundies do: imposing an alien literary type on the text.

I guess that kind of makes it hard to figure out what the bible really said when it was first written. Something that can be misconstrued so heavily is not something that people should be basing their faith on.

Not having been there to observe it... no, we don't. We just know that we don't live that long, and if anyone has, how it happened.
We used to know that light being affected by gravity was physically impossible, too.

Ah, the old "you can't disprove it" argument. That kind of rebuttal is specifically what spawned the creation of the celestial teapot and the floating spaghetti monster. The celestial teapot orbits our sun just between the orbits of earth and mars, but it is so small it can not be detected, so its existence can never be disproved. While many religious have taken these arguments way out of context, the teapot and spaghetti monster were used for one purpose: to show that simply because something can not be disproved (like how we weren't there when man lived for 900 years), that does not elevate the probability that it could be true to a point that is equal to the probability of it being false, or even elevate it to a point where it can ever be considered a possibility.

It's quite amazing, too, that we found evidence for gravity effecting light, and changed our whole understanding about the universe. But, whenever new evidence goes against something the bible has claimed about the origins of life or the universe, it's bad science just out to get religion and should not be accepted as fact, and should not be the ONLY theory taught in public schools. Instead, disclaimers should be issued about these theories directing students to religious theories with no scientific merit. Science is an ever evolving understanding, allowing for revisions of our knowledge based on an ever growing collection of evidence. When has the bible ever allowed for such change?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

See above - it doesn't mean the probability that it might be true is anything but infinitesimally small to the point that where it's considered impossible.

• If by "earth" you mean the globe, no, the Bible doesn't say that.

• Um... the flood is reported to have killed all life -- so what's the problem?

• "In space"? And you're talking like you know something about science. Assume for the moment that water did cover the highest peaks on the globe, then calculate what happens to the atmosphere, and get back to me.

The problem with the flood is not that it killed all life, the problem is that a global event of that proportion WOULD leave behind geological evidence of its occurrence. However, there is none. Geologists have been able to trace back geological events from all parts of the earth several million years, yet no evidence of a flood is found anywhere and since it was global, you would see the same event in every location ever studied, but you don't. That IS evidence it did not occur.

So?
It isn't trying to teach anything about any of that; those aren't scientific claims or even statements. Do you look for science in Shakespeare, or Dickens?
As well tell meteorologists they know nothing about the solar system because they talk about "sunrise" and "sunset".

If you are saying not to look for facts in the bible as you wouldn't in Shakespeare or Dickens, then I completely agree, it is not a factual text, and should not be taken as such. As it is really the only "evidence" of god, why then, do people still believe in god? Because they believe it as truth (at least in some part). Just as those same people pick-and-choose which verses should be followed strictly (classic example - Leviticus saying both homosexuality and wearing cotton with wool are abominations, but only one had a state proposition about it), they pick and choose which verses are facts, and which are metaphors. If you think any part of the bible is true, then I would argue that you are a person to look for facts in Shakespeare or Dickens.

Well, off the top of your head, it appears you've soaked up a lot of stuff from standard propaganda sites that haven't done their homework.
Sad, really -- it's another instance of taking in information without applying research or logic.

Unfortunately, all claims about what the bible has been said to have said are actual interpretations people have made from the bible (unless you want to argue that the creation museum in Kansas doesn't exist). It is not false propaganda against religion, all claims you have argued against have been made by people of faith, and not some rambling person on the street - people of religion in high power positions, including President of the United States. And as far as instances of taking in information without applying reason or logic, that is the definition of religion. That is exactly what you are doing when you say you believe in god.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is that the bible is taken very very literally.

Which is to say, it's taken ignorantly.

The most extreme being creationists who believe that every last word of the bible is proven, historical fact.

And unfortunately, since they're reading it ignorantly, most of what they vehemently insist is fact wasn't meant to be taken that way -- at least not as what the word means in our frame of reference.

But, as many will argue, they are a minority, and, since it is only a small minority, the generalization of religious fundamentalism that I continually group all people of religion into is false.

They're a loud, obnoxious minority, too, which doesn't help -- listen to the media, and you'd think they're almost all the Christians there are.
Of course, they don't apply it consistently.... <sigh>

My generalization stops at those who believe no part of the bible is actual fact, and who simply use it, like you've described above with any work of fiction, as an inspiration to teach or to be moral (even then, morality is not sourced from the bible, otherwise, offering your daughter up for rape would be considered righteously moral, proof that morality from the bible is filtered by one's own bible-free morality).

Believing that no part of the Bible is actual fact is demonstrably false, so that's just as ignorant as the literalists.
BTW, using that example as representing Biblical morality shows that you don't know how to read it, either -- which is really sad, because it's quite simple: use common sense.

However, once any part of the bible is taken as literal fact, my fundamentalism generalization applies. Even those who answer "yes" to the simple question "are you going to heaven" or "do you believe in god" have allowed their minds to be open to the threads of logic that can lead to all things bad about religion. Do all go that far? No. Do all have the potential to? Yes.

Sorry, but that's wrong. There are many things in the Bible which are literal fact, some stated that way as propositions, others as casual information. And accepting them that way doesn't lead to any impairment in reason or logic whatsoever -- though claiming that it is so, does.
What leads to "all things bad about religion" is imposing an alien worldview on the Bible. It doesn't matter if you read it literally, treat it as a textbook, pretend it's trying to teach science, or anything else; do anything but read it as what it actually is, and you're screwed.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Jesus in fact says that he himself (or He Himself) doesn't know the day of his return. He says "Only the Father knows the day."

* -Or the return of the kingdom of God. I don't have a Bible in front of me to look up the actual quote - Kul hopefully will have my back.

Lex

>>>In Revelation it says that not one single character of the Bible is false or can be changed.

If I remember correctly, this was a rather standard phrase put into written works at the time. Remember - back then, all copies were done by hand, letter by painstaking letter. Because of this, occasionally, people would misspell or accidentally (or, yes, purposefully) change things when the copy was being made. The comment is early Christian code for "Look, I went to a lot of trouble to write this thing out - don't fuck around with it and alter it any, OK?"

Lex

It's his own return to which he refers -- which negates all claims that he said he'd be back in those people's lifetimes. It's likely that many early Christians thought so, or hoped so, but he never said it.

As for that little phrase in the Apocalypse, it wasn't just Christian; it occurs clear back as early as the time of the Maccabees, several centuries before Christ. It was put there because of what you say, but also because there was a trend, that continued on for a long time, for people to, well, redact works they came across and present it as genuine -- one of the reasons the early church didn't accept willy-nilly all the books that talked about Jesus. It was a way of saying, "Copy the thing, the whole thing, and nothing but the thing", and referred specifically to the scroll (originally) it was on.

 

[hotatlboi]

Sorry, but that's wrong. There are many things in the Bible which are literal fact, some stated that way as propositions, others as casual information. And accepting them that way doesn't lead to any impairment in reason or logic whatsoever -- though claiming that it is so, does.

I'll agree with this. Yes there are things in the Bible that are fact. But there are also other things that are demonstrably false, and failing to recognize this does lead to such an impairment.

 

[hotatlboi]

It's his own return to which he refers -- which negates all claims that he said he'd be back in those people's lifetimes.

Huh? Please explain, that makes no sense. Of course it's his own return to which he speaks. But he didn't return within those people's lifetimes. So how does that negate his claim that he would?

Unless by "negates" you mean "proved false" then yes I would agree.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are again failing to exercise logic. What is the more logical explanation? That the part about giants is a fable (apparently you already acknowledge that parts of Genesis are), or that giants really did exist but we just have no evidence of them (despite having MUCH evidence of most of the other ancient civilizations mentioned in the Bible. It's this kind of basic logical thinking that seems out of reach for the religious.

No, I applied logic: if you didn't observe it, you don't know.
The trouble is here that you're treating science like a religion, assigning it some sort of omniscience that it doesn't have. In your reasoning you included a fallacy, which tells me you're not reliable as far as logic goes.
BTW, the term "fable" doesn't properly apply to anything in Genesis. There's legend, and there's myth, but I can't recall offhand anything that would fit as fable.

So you hold the position that the flood was a local one then?

I didn't say what position I hold, other than that the Hebrew word there can mean anything from "our little country" to "the entire world", and has not just purely geographical but also political and religious meanings. In the context of the Deluge account, it probably means "the world I'm familiar with", because that tends to be the meaning when there's nothing in the context to indicate otherwise.

This is a problem with your previous statement though. If the flood was local, how could it have killed all life on earth apart from Noah?

I was just pointing out your inconsistency.

I'm speaking of exactly that. Those calculations say that the amount of water would have boiled the oceans and the atmosphere as a result.

Now you're mixing two things you said. Your claim was that the water would get so high that Noah would have been in space. In fact, the rise of the sea by but a few miles would have had only a small effect on sea-level atmospheric pressure, which is what I recommended you calculate.

What I'm saying is, when those kinds of scientific errors supposedly come from God (as in God is speaking), that shows he is not all knowing.

Again what I am saying is that shows there was no more advanced knowledge available in the writing of the Bible than there was in any other ancient book. If an omniscient being had really inspired it, I should hope there would be.

Do you expect God to sit down and try to teach a semi-nomadic people all the modern sciences before attempting to speak to them (just to satisfy your standards)?

I already did. You just rejected it out of a complete failure to logically analyze the text. That implication follows directly from how that phrase is used.

The first sentence there is a lie: all you did was make an assertion. The Bible uses the same concept we do -- shooting stars, falling stars.

Again, when it supposedly comes from the mouth of God, yes it is. How could God be so fundamentally misinformed about the creatures that he created? LOL

See above. I'll also add this question: why would God want to get them seriously sidetracked?

You just completely fail to get this. Coming from God describing HIS creation incorrectly? What does that say about what God knows? Again, using LOGIC it says that the writer of that probably was not an all powerful being who created that creature and therefore would have had complete and intimate knowledge of it.

I "get" quite well that you're trying to impose your own worldview on literature so old that we don't even have categories similar to a great deal of what's there.
First, you ignored the possibility that "chew the cud" might be a weak translation of a different concept entirely, one which includes that idea of ours but also more. You're also demanding that the Bible be something it never claims to be: a science textbook.
If I'm talking to someone on the street who needs my help, I don't start out by addressing all the errors and misconceptions in his worldview or understanding, I get to the point, and use his terms and language so he'll understand. That's only logical.

You are the one not applying logic. Your entire post is the standard Christian failed position of trying to prop up the numerous errors in the Bible to save your faith, despite more evidence than you should need to logically reject them. And none of my information comes from "propaganda sites". It comes from books by well respected scholars. How many non-Christian books on biblical analysis have you read? I find that the answer among Christians is most often 0, because they are simply unwilling to open their minds to any information that does not already fit within their belief system.

You are definitely singing with a chorus, here -- or you're very, very bad at reading. I had rejected it all, then by study realized I'd been wrong -- just as you are wrong. I realized that what I was really rejecting was ignorance and arrogance.

How many books? A couple of dozen, anyway; they were required reading for theology, biblical history, church history, and other courses I've taken.

The real problem here is that you're trying to force the Bible into an alien framework, and that causes things to appear as errors that aren't.

 

[Kulindahr]

well I think it's pretty humorous that you've never seen those if you actually have read the Bible you claim is the most important book ever written, but sure I'll see if I can dig them up for you.

I've translated the entire thing from its original languages. It reads much different in them, especially because it's full of concepts we don't have, in ways that give it a far deeper, richer understanding of existence than our poor accountant's approach.

Hmm... did I say the Bible is the most important book ever written?
Care to tell me where and when?

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's a few:

Matthew 10:23, When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:27-28, For 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. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

John 21:22 (speaking of John), Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

Matthew 24:34 (Jesus speaking of his coming), I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

A clear and logical reading of these texts says that Jesus was clearly suggesting to his followers that he would return within their lifetimes, unless his goal was deception, which is impossible if he is perfect and could not tell a lie.

"Clear and logical"?
No, straightjacketed and narrow.

For starters, tell me both the range of meaning and possible uses of the word rendered as "generation" at that time and place.