Atheists... Your life is pointless

So what?So what?So what?

Exactly.

So what?

Good humors!

It may well be that the definitions of terms to me like meaning, purpose, and value (I'm kind of using them interchangeably) is a huge part of the way I'm arguing, but perhaps the same is true for you. I could be wrong, but what you call value seems to be automatically subjective and self-ordained. By that definition, then of course an atheist's life can have value, because the value is not a real objective thing, it is merely perceived by him on a whim. I have always understood value to be real and objective, something that is true wether an individual perceives it or not. Subjective value is, to me, a ludicrous concept. How can that be valuable? So the definition problem certainly goes both ways. We've been talking over each others heads.

Well, I only mentioned the book to show that have have done research into atheistic argumentation and he was following the same line of reasoning that you are. It is the most widely read book on atheism of recent years. If you do read it though, be cautioned that nearly every time Smith mentions Bible verses, he twists them or takes them out of context to make some awful, far-fetched interpretation. It is either on purpose or because he just doesn't understand scripture.

The universe either began or has existed forever. It had a beginning, then everything can trace itself back to a common origin before which there existed, literally, nothing at all; but, from nothing, nothing comes, so without God the universe didn't begin. So it has existed forever? Imagine that you have a goal to reach, and that there are an infinite number of steps that must be taken to reach that goal. Will you every reach the goal? No. What about the step right before the goal? No, because there are an infinite number or steps before it. The same is true of the step before the step before the goal... and before that, and on down the line. If the universe has existed forever, then we could never be in this moment, because there would have been an infinite(never-ending) number of moments, a never-ending amount of time, before now. Therefore, the universe must have begun. Therefore God must exist. The very fact that we are here, now, discussing proves it.

Yes, that is from the Bible, from Exodus. It was just a plausible possibility to answer the question, "Who gave God meaning and value?" For me to explain all of the numerous reasons that I say I know these things to be true. I could tell you the books that convinced me and tell you about the people and experiences, but I can't right now. :wink:

Spoken as one thoroughly trained in the art of hoop dancing. Come on over to

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2355000#2355000
or
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1795928#1795928

and demonstrate your skills.

I'm amazed at how people can say things like "...he twists them or takes them out of context to make some awful, far-fetched interpretation..."

The bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions. How can one not have "far-fetched interpretations" of a book that is so full of contradictions?

I don't think the definition problem goes both ways but fair enough if you do. I'll certainly try to be more clear in this post if that helps. For the record though, and this is why I'm suggesting it doesn't go both ways....



...this doesn't represent my position at all, plus, you simply dislike my definition, I'm suggesting you are using the word itself in poor context. The reason I questioned your usage of certain words had nothing to do with the usage in a human context but merely that you were stretching them to cover God, you're simply in no position to attach words like value and meaning anywhere near God as far as I'm concerned. That was my problem and still is. Meaning to me, comes about through many different areas of influence as I tried to point out when I talked about being "fed" meaning by those around us, this being a more "forceful" approach. I also mentioned "subconscious" meanings that have already been fashioned deep in our psyche that influence us, these meanings are based on cultural leanings as opposed to individual ones.

Very often the difference between objective and subjective could be looked at in terms of confidence levels or group consensus, so what makes something more valuable is not merely our own feelings but the current thinking of the masses. I think man, in the global sense, has shown he is more than capable of attaching meaning and deep value to ideas or beliefs through the way societies/citizens work together and influence one another, through the moral shifts we see and also the dramatic changes that sometimes occur when change is needed rapidly (Yes we're fallible! Why make an appeal and claim to the intrinsically unknown to make one feel more secure in this sense though?). The growths you see in culture, technology or ethics are due to a value or meaning that cemented itself in the minds of it's citizens due to a mass backing. Suggesting meaning becomes automatically subjective just because God isn't around to lay the law would be ludicrous.

What I don't get though is why you think invoking God to explain the origins of meaning makes meaning objective? You can't know God exists no matter how many books you've read or how many good arguments you've heard, your belief in God can become stronger on the back of those things though, sure. When it's a belief however, it's subjective, and your subjective belief just happens to entail casting your net so far out as to imply objectivity through some ultimate observer. I tried to point this out earlier...



...but you don't seem to want to play ball. There's no objectivity in your idea of "meaning", none whatsoever.

Then you mentioned this argument about the universe as if it was a proof of God's existence, at best, I'd say it's simply a demonstration of the limits of human knowledge. "Therefore God exists"? That is a massive jump there. Here's an idea to think about though, if God is the creator of the universe, he is beyond time & space, or at least he was at some point, assuming he isn't himself, part of a larger universe. If this is the case, the time & space part, then explain how he would have "created" the universe outside the domain of time-space? To create something is to manifest a "thing" within the bounds of time & space, by definition, a "thing" must have some co-ordinates regarding location and is perceivable through some rate of change, again, based on location. So the very idea of a human being claiming God "created" the heavens and the earth is meaningless, our words are inadequate, at best (assuming there is something) God is wordless and indescribable. This is just me waxing lyrical in some ways but I really think it's worth considering.



Well that's cool regarding talking about the books, people and experiences that convinced you, there's no need to tell me anything. All I'm saying is that all these things don't allow you to know God exists, they simply provide you with a perceived & subjective base, upon which you believe God exists (however strong and steadfast this may be). It's because of what their beliefs actually entail that, anyone who believes God exists, when this forms a crucial element of who they are and what they stand for, shouldn't be so damning of anything less than objective value, when in reality, this is such a hard thing to pin down and rarely has much part to play at all in the feelings/emotions that go into forming beliefs themselves.

Mesquite, I'm just able to handle the discussions I am in to move to something that huge right now, but maybe later. :wink:

Cicerone, go ahead, start by naming something from the Bible that you are sure is a contradiction.

Ashers, this is quite a good reiteration of how our semantic problem does go both ways. To me, use of words like value have no meaning in a strictly human context. If my definition automatically streches over God, then your meaning automatically makes him uneccessary. Of course if value has possibility in a purely human context then God is not required to ordain meaning, but to me a purely human context cannot possibly have meaning. So you see that it is a two-sided problem of definition. To be fed meaning by others is still subjective and man ordained. You said: I also mentioned "subconscious" meanings that have already been fashioned deep in our psyche that influence us, these meanings are based on cultural leanings as opposed to individual ones. Fashioned by what or whom? The majority or the "masses" do not constitute objectivity because society does not have objective authority. They are just groups of humans with an agreement on their own subjective values. Society suffers the same pitfalls as nature and man already have in previous arguments.

God would make meaning objective because he would automatically the objective authority over his creation. You state the agnostic position that it cannot possibly be known, but have not argued for this position at all. If logic proves something, then it is true and can be known to be true. About the argument for God's existence, the conclusion logically follows from the premise. You can refute it by either showing ambiguity, a fallacy, or a false premise. If not, the argument and its conclusion stand.

God may well have created space and time and would therefore not be limited by them or the conditions of working within them. If what you say about "creating" and the inadequacy of language is true, then at worst it's an amorphism of something we can't grasp, but I do not think that is the case because I dispute the premise that a thing must be in space and time by definition and that God "creating" is meaningless. Why can't God cause/create something within space and time?

Again, you must argue for your position that it cannot be known.

(If you are taking the position of universal skepticism, Smith's book had an excellent section about just that which may be worth a look)

Contradictions
God good to all, or just a few?
War or Peace?
Who is the father of Joseph?
Who was at the Empty Tomb?
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
Which first--beasts or man?
The number of beasts in the ark
How many stalls and horsemen?
Is it folly to be wise or not?
Human vs. ghostly impregnation
The sins of the father
The bat is not a bird
Rabbits do not chew their cud
Insects do NOT have four feet
Snails do not melt
Fowl from waters or ground
Odd genetic engineering
The shape of the earth
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
Earth supported?
Heaven supported too
The hydrological cycle
Order of creation
Moses' personality
Righteous live?
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Jesus' last words
Years of famine
Moved David to anger?
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
God be seen?
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD
Tempts?
Judas died how?
Ascend to heaven
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
How many time did the cock crow?
Who killed Saul
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
Does every man sin?
Who bought potter's field?
Who prophesied the potter's field?
Who bears guilt?
Do you answer a fool?
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
Marriage?
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
Judging
Good deeds
For or against?
Whom did they see at the tomb?
God change?
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
Who's sepulchers?
Strong drink?
When second coming?
Solomon's overseers
The mother of Abijah
When did Baasha die?
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Who was Josiah's successor?
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
What did they give him to drink?
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Ah. Now the semantic problem makes more sense, thanks for clarifying, this certainly didn't seem to be your position in your previous post. I think there's a real problem with your idea of meaning in a strictly human context though. The human context is all we have here to discuss. Show me how these words (value etc) are so different to the rest of our language as to have any less meaning in a human context than the rest of the dictionary. Right now it really seems that if you view these words as meaningless in a strictly human context, your words and posts on this site start to become meaningless.

Presumably you'll argue that there is another context, a context involving God, this is your belief though, no matter how you twist it. Your entire thinking seems to rest on the idea that God exists, if he doesn't then he cannot be objective and since you can't know he exists he most certainly ISN'T objective. Once again, the universe argument, at the very best, implies a creator but it doesn't prove that one exists which is exactly what you need to make your thinking work. To make myself more obvious, not that I haven't stated this a few times already, I'm refuting your argument by both ambiguity and relevance. Your argument is ambiguous because your conclusion does not automatically follow, far from it. Because of this, it also loses it's relevance. For example, I could say everything you have in that argument and claim at the end that, the universe MUST have begun by accident. This follows just as easily from what you said, the reason why you might not think so is because your entire thinking seems to be based upon a belief in God.



I happily admit society suffers certain pitfalls, my suggestion is not that a collective set of subjective feelings creates objectivity, merely that you are doing a great injustice to societies ability to create meaning and value for themselves which itself, stands on firm ground, not unshakable ground, but very often firm. The meanings in the above quote are fashioned by OUR subconscious which is highly influenced by outside influence, i.e. society or the collective has a great impact upon what we often think.

Do you not understand my time-space problem? I've never said God cannot causes/create something in time-space? What I have said is that our words have a basis and common usage IN time-space and that the word create, which was founded by human beings, intrinsically describes creation in a time-space domain. To talk about God and creation then, because God IS beyond time-space, is ludicrous. The word creation is not fit to describe such a thing. Again, I state that God is beyond time-space in order for him to have ever done this "creating" in the first place. Again though, you need to show that God created the universe in order for him to have this objectivity, I am saying you are in a position to do no such thing.



NO. YOU must argue that it CAN be known. Let's not forget why this started. You made an assertion about God and I challenged it, it is like somebody asserting God exists versus someone who denies this. The asserter must demonstrate their claims NOT the other way around. The universe argument rests on a massive leap on your part, there is no way this logically proves God exists and created the universe. By the way, I really take issue when you say things like I have not argued "for this position at all" when this last post of yours is almost the first time you have actually responded to specific things I've said instead of glazing over them.

cicerone imposter,

You forgot to mention Matt24:34

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Read in context, it clearly states that the return of Christ and the end of the world is to take place during the lifetime of the disciples. This seems not to have been the case ergo a contradiction with reality.

psw, Thanks for your addition; it's only one of many that shows contradiction in the bible, but that doesn't seem to phase those people of religion. Mystery.

As a matter of fact, I remember going to christian church in my youth, and they continued that same message, that the second coming is upon us. I'm now 71 years old, and not waiting. I'm now an atheist while all my siblings are still christians.

Ashers, I hope to have time to reply in the coming days, but can't right now.

Cicerone, you'll have to show that in the format of passage A says __________ which contradicts passage B which says _________. Then I can answer much better.

Pswfps, it may be useful to note that the Hebrew word translated as generation could just as easily be translated as "race". Here is some more info that may help:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PNT: 24:34,35 Till all these things shall be fulfilled. Some hold that all these things, in Mt 24:32,33, refer only to what was said of the fall of Jerusalem, ending with Mt 24:28. Others have contended that the phrase includes the second coming, but refers directly to the end of Jerusalem, which was a type of the end of the world. I believe, rather, that all these things embraces all thus far predicted, and that this generation means the Jewish race, instead of only those then living. The Greek word, genea, so rendered is used in the sense of race in the Greek classics, and as examples of such use in the New Testament, Alford points to Mt 12:45 Lu 16:8. Christ has described the awful end of the Jewish state; after such a destruction and scattering of the remnant to the ends of the earth, all the examples of history would declare that the Jewish race would become extinct. Christ, however, declares that, contrary to all probability, it shall not pass away until he comes. They still exist, 1850 years after the prediction, distinct, but without a country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WES: 24:34 This generation of men now living shall not pass till all these things be done - The expression implies, that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was. For the city and temple were destroyed thirty - nine or forty years after.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHC: 24:29-41 Christ foretells his second coming. It is usual for prophets to speak of things as near and just at hand, to express the greatness and certainty of them. Concerning Christ's second coming, it is foretold that there shall be a great change, in order to the making all things new. Then they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds. At his first coming, he was set for a sign that should be spoken against, but at his second coming, a sign that should be admired. Sooner or later, all sinners will be mourners; but repenting sinners look to Christ, and mourn after a godly sort; and those who sow in those tears shall shortly reap in joy. Impenitent sinners shall see Him whom they have pierced, and, though they laugh now, shall mourn and weep in endless horror and despair. The elect of God are scattered abroad; there are some in all places, and all nations; but when that great gathering day comes, there shall not one of them be missing. Distance of place shall keep none out of heaven. Our Lord declares that the Jews should never cease to be a distinct people, until all things he had been predicting were fulfilled. His prophecy reaches to the day of final judgment; therefore he here, ver. 34, foretells that Judah shall never cease to exist as a distinct people, so long as this world shall endure. Men of the world scheme and plan for generation upon generation here, but they plan not with reference to the overwhelming, approaching, and most certain event of Christ's second coming, which shall do away every human scheme, and set aside for ever all that God forbids. That will be as surprising a day, as the deluge to the old world. Apply this, first, to temporal judgments, particularly that which was then hastening upon the nation and people of the Jews. Secondly, to the eternal judgment. Christ here shows the state of the old world when the deluge came. They were secure and careless; they knew not, until the flood came; and they believed not. Did we know aright that all earthly things must shortly pass away, we should not set our eyes and hearts so much upon them as we do. The evil day is not the further off for men's putting it far from them. What words can more strongly describe the suddenness of our Saviour's coming! Men will be at their respective businesses, and suddenly the Lord of glory will appear. Women will be in their house employments, but in that moment every other work will be laid aside, and every heart will turn inward and say, It is the Lord! Am I prepared to meet him? Can I stand before him? And what, in fact, is the day of judgment to the whole world, but the day of death to every one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and-

Preterists defend their interpretation by pointing out that (1) Christ was speaking specifically to His disciples in reply to their questions in verse 2 (Jesus tells them "you will hear", v. 6, and "when you see," v. 15). (2) The immediate context of the passage requires a near fulfillment. With respect to the timing of these events, Jesus declared, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (v. 34). (3) The destruction of the great temple by multiple armies under Roman command in A.D. 70 fits Jesus' description exactly: "Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (v. 2).
The tribulation spoken of by Jesus in verse 21 is said to be beyond anything that has been or will be, so how could such a tribulation be fulfilled already?1 First, the carnage surrounding the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was massive indeed. Jewish historian Josephus estimated that 1.1 million Jews were slaughtered. Second, Gentry notes that the larger and more important aspect of this tribulation was the covenantal significance of the loss of the temple: the holy judgment of God for the crucifixion of His Son by the Jews.2 The covenantal implications to Israel are noted in the parable of the vineyard, where Christ warned, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder" (Matt. 21: 43,44).
Futurists argue that the prophecy in verse 29 has not been fulfilled: "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." Preterists respond that the sun, moon, and stars symbolize governments (Gen. 1:14-16). For a modern example, Americans have fifty stars on their flag symbolizing fifty state governments. Preterists contend that the strict literalism of futurists misleads them because they fail to understand the scriptural use of these terms in a prophetic context. For example, the fall of Babylon to the Medes in 539 B.C. was prophesied in terms of the sun, moon, and stars going dark (Is. 13:9-10); the fall of Edom was prophesied in terms of the heaven wearing away and the sky rolling up like a scroll (Is. 34:4); Amos foretold of the destruction of Samaria (722 B.C.) by saying the sun would go down at noon and the earth would go dark in broad daylight (Amos 8:9); and the destruction of Egypt involved pr ophecy of darkened sun, moon, and stars.3 Jesus used the same terminology in Matthew 24, perhaps even quoting these passages.

more at http://www.bible.ca/H-Mt-24-destruction-jerusalem-70AD.htm

Furthermore, Christ says "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." He could be speaking of his own resurrection, or John's revelation of the coming of the kingdom later. The coming in 24 could be the coming of the Holy Spirit soon after Christ's ascension. Now go ahead and try again to prove contradiction. :wink:

Oh yeah, and since the prophecy is two-fold (destruction of Isreal and tribulation), then we know that that current generation was alive at the fall of Jerusalem and in terms of the tribulation, read the passage and think of it this way: This generation (the generation alive at the start of the tribulation will still be the genration alive at the end of the period alive. For "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short."

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

God created all them animals and insects, but didn't know much about them.

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Never met a Christian yet who didn't bugger up biology.

Run 4 fun,

The original was written in ancient Greek although the alleged words would have been spoken in Aramaic. I think you have two main problems to overcome with your line of argument:

1) You are essentially saying that during the Greek/English translation, the translator made a bad job of it; that the English word "race" would have been better. Now, given the numerous extant English translations, one has to wonder why the Greek "genea" is consistently and without exception translated as the English word "generation." If there could be any translatory doubt in the mind of the experts involved, one would expect some mention of the word "race" either in the actual text of some translations or at least as a cautionary footnote. I have seen nothing of the sort.

2) The early Christians believed that the return of the Son of Man was imminent, fully expecting the apocalypse during their lifetime. Paul writes as such not to mention the various apocryphal texts to support this view.