That is indeed what you do. When this technique is used to rationalize inconvenient truths, in this instance verses in the bible,
I don't find it them inconvenient truths Why would I find them inconvenient?
it becomes an example of equivocation.
Well, yes. I avoid because I don't and can't know and I have found passages that put another spin on them per say. I've conceded that you are most likely correct.
Once again, the witnesses/listeners to the described event of the return of Jesus in great power and glory for all the tribes on earth to see are told that some would be alive to see it happen. Simple as that. Undeniable.
I'm not confirming or denying. Maybe I'm not simple? Because the Son of God said something He said was true and you say it isn't, I have to look for attributing factors to both sides and consider where the Son of God is being misunderstood by you. He's God so obviously you are misunderstanding Him. I am likely as well. The Christians aren't really a huge concern as they are human and of course it's easy to understand that they can and do misinterpret Jesus Son of God.
Which is exactly what the first Christians believed. Then because the prophesy failed came the need to keep pushing the event further and further into the future....and here we are, two thousand years later.
It's more than two thousand years and anybody can push it even further. I'm not fussed about it as much as you and whoever are fussed about it. At one time this speck of dust in the cosmos wasn't here and at some time it will be gone. Why would I be fussed about it?
