Per minute 25 and this generation. when Gary brought up the use of the word "generation"? And he said that in every instance generation is used it's always used in reference to the immediate audience and people in that culture and time? And then he challenged the futurist position which says that in Matthew 24 the term is used differently in this one place? So basically he's arguing for internal consistency with vocabulary. Same problem exists when we talk about Jesus' referring to the coming of the Son of Man. There is only one reason and one event in the New Testament where The coming of the Son of Man is expected. And that is at the end of the age. Therefore it cannot be argued that there are two different concepts of the coming of the Son of Man in the New Testament.

Oops I hit the return button. This term is best understood as referring to the empire which ruled over God's people since the time of Daniel. The four kingdoms in Daniel depicted by the statue in the beasts become that entity which "oikumene" and and body embodies. It should never be translated as world. Two examples of this are Acts 17:25 and Revelation 3:10.

At minute 34, Gary discusses the use of the Greek term, "oikumene" and how translating it as "world" is not the best choice. Even translating it as "inhabited earth" is no more a solution to the problem. This is due to the simple fact that the entire earth at this point was inhabited; South America was inhabited, Australia wasn't having it, China was in habited, northern Europe was in habited, etc.