- Christogenea Saturdays
TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 23
In our last presentation, of Proof 44 in this list of 100 proofs, we discussed particular passages in the Gospel of John where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. While we did not discuss every possible error of interpretation in John, we sought to address the passages which would change one’s view of Scripture, and potentially one’s entire worldview, once they are translated properly and understood correctly within the context of the entire Scripture. With these interpretations which we uphold to be correct, all of the seeming conflicts and inconsistencies within Scripture vanish, God is no longer the hypocrite which the denominational churches make Him out to be, and we can know that God is true. So now, continuing with Proof 44, we will endeavor to do this same thing in the so-called Synoptic Gospels, which are Matthew, Mark and Luke.
44) continued: Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in Matthew, Mark and Luke
While there are not a lot of mistranslations or misunderstandings in the Synoptic Gospels, there are some critical ones, and we have already spoken about some obvious misunderstandings. For example, where in Matthew 3:7 we see John the Baptist calling certain of the Pharisees and Sadducees a “generation of vipers”, the word translated as generation is γέννημα, which literally means offspring. So in essence, John is calling the parents of these men vipers, and not the men themselves. The same phrase appears where Christ used it in the same manner of His adversaries in Matthew chapters 12 and 23. The use of the phrase proves that there is an actual race of men referred to as vipers in Judaea at the time of Christ, or both He and John are mere slanderers, the parents of these men not being present to defend themselves against the accusation.
So now we will begin in Matthew chapter 5 with:
Fiery trials in this world? Or eternal destruction?
The King James Version of Matthew 5:22 reads: “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.’ The phrase hell fire appears one other time in Matthew, in chapter 18, and three times in Mark chapter 9. But we also see the same Greek word translated merely as hell in Matthew chapters 10 and 23, Luke chapter 12 and James chapter 3.
This word, hell, is problematic because it was translated from two different Greek words, one being γέεννα and another being ἅδης. In Classical and Hellenistic Greek, ἅδης or Hades is the underworrld abode of the dead, the place where their spirits were imprisoned after they passed from this world. It is referred to as a prison in 1 Peter 3:19, where Christ went to the “spirits in prison” so that “was the gospel preached also to them that are dead”, as he repeats in 1 Peter 4:6. The Greek word ἅδης was sometimes transliterated as Hades, but in Luke chapter 16, Acts chapter 2 and Revelation chapters 1, 6 and 20 it was translated as hell. It is ἅδης, and not γέεννα, which is thrown into the Lake of Fire in Revelation chapter 20.
However γέεννα is not a Greek word at all, and neither does it appear in the Septuagint. Rather, it is a Hebraism used by Christ which was written or uttered in Greek in the New Testament period.
In Jeremiah chapters 7 and 19 and 32 we see references to the “valley of Hinnom”, and we will read one from chapter 32: “35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.” The valley of Hinnom, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, is mentioned six times earlier, in the historical books of Scripture.
Understanding this distinction between these two words is important, because the Scriptures promise that all Israel shall ultimately be saved, while we see these warnings from Christ that the souls and bodies of sinners may be destroyed in “hell fire”, as the King James Version often translated γέεννα, or gehenna. Yet the word γέεννα is evidently a compound word, where the first part, γέ-, is derived from the Greek word γῆ, which is land, and the latter portion comes from the Hebrew form of the name Hinnom. While there is no set method by which the phrase “valley of the son of Hinnom” is written in the Greek of the Septuagint, in two places in 2 Chronicles, chapters 28 and 33, it is Γαιβενενομ or Γαι-βαναι-εννομ, and dropping the word for son that would be Γαι-ενομ or Γαι-εννομ. Eliding the first diphthong “αι” and dropping the “μ” we have γέεννα.
Once that is realized, we may see that the references to destruction in hell fire in the King James Version are all references to the destruction of the earthly body, the body and the soul, or life, but not to the destruction of the eternal spirit. Just as the children of Israel had burned their own children in the land of Hinnom, Christ was warning that people could face similar trials in this life. So we may see once again how a proper translation of a term can help to change one’s entire view of Scriptures. This is also what Paul of Tarsus was describing in 1 Corinjthians chapter 3, that even if all a man’s works were tried and destroyed in the fire, he himself, his eternal spirit, would be saved through the trials of fire. In 1 Peter chapter 1, the apostle spoke at length about the fiery trials which the Faith would bring to the disciples of Christ in this world, and Christ in those passages concerning hellfire was also warning of that same thing.
Simon the Canaanite?
In the King James Version in Matthew 10:4 we see “Simon the Canaanite” mentioned among the twelve apostles. But from ancient times, the Canaanites were accursed, the children of Israel were commanded to kill them all, and when they failed, the children of Israel were told that because of that failure, the Canaanites would be to them “pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell” (Numbers 33:55). Later, in Joshua chapter 23 we read: “13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.”
But then there are ultimate promises in Scripture that one day all of the Canaanites would be destroyed, such as in Zechariah chapter 14, in the final passage of the book of that prophet: “20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.” We await the fulfillment of those words to this day, but we should know that they certainly shall be fulfilled.
Now the circumstantial evidence reveals to us that Judas Iscariot was a Canaanite, being an Edomite, as Christ had said that He purposely chose one devil among the twelve, and Judas was used in that role to be His betrayer. Doing that, Christ spared one of His Own from bearing that burden, as the Scriptures prophesied that one of His friends would betray Him, so he chose one of His enemies to be His earthly friend for that purpose, and of course the role which Judas would fulfill was temporary.
But if we believe that a Canaanite was chosen by Christ to fulfill the positive role of an apostle who would actually take the Gospel to His people, then God is a hypocrite, and we can be dismissive of His words in the Old Testament concerning the Canaanites, since they would no longer matter.
But the truth is that Simon was not a Canaanite, although the Greek manuscripts of Matthew were divided on the reading of this passage at an early time. Here in Matthew, the ancient codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are nearly equal in antiquity, have Canaanite and Cananaean respectively, and they each have roughly equal support from manuscripts which are nearly as old. But in Mark 3:18 where this same list is given, all of the ancient codices have Simon as a Cananaean, except the Codex Alexandrinus which has Canaanite (and which is wanting most of Matthew's gospel including this chapter). Then the Codex Ephraemi Syri, also called Ephraemi Rescriptus, which is very close to and usually agrees with the Alexandrinus, has Simon as a Cananaean, so even the Alexandrian tradition is split on this matter. [Note that in the 19th century those two manuscripts were identified as “Alexandrian” but are now called the “Byzantine Text Type”.] The Codex Alexandrinus is esteemed to have been a significant source, if not the only source, for the Majority Text.
The Codices Vaticanus and Ephraemi Syri have Cananaean in both places, Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, and the Codices Sinaiticus and Washingtonensis being split in both places, here the preponderance of the evidence, considering both Matthew and Mark, is that Simon was a Cananaean. Luke calls Simon “the zealot”, which many errant commentators take that as a meaning of the word “Canaanite”, however this is highly unlikely. The Hebrew word for Canaan, according to Strong’s Concordance, comes from a verb meaning to humiliate. It is much more plausible that Simon was from the city Cana, not far from Nazareth in Galilee, where Yahshua attended the wedding which is described in the opening chapters of John's gospel, and therefore he was a Cananaean, and that “zealot” was just a nickname. In John's Gospel at 21:2 there is a Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, who is also mentioned by John 5 times in chapter 1, at verses 45-49. But Nathanael is not mentioned at all in the other gospels, and this is that man of whom Christ had said “Look! An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!” It is therefore certain that these two men were one and the same, Simon Nathanael, the zealot of Cana. (It must be mentioned that some commentators believe Nathanael to be Bartholomew instead, which has no corroboration.) In any event, Simon was not a Canaanite, and God is not a hypocrite. Simon was from Cana in Galilee.
The so-called “Great Commission”
We read in the King James Version the last passage of the Gospel of Matthew, from chapter 28: “16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
But here the rendering of the Greek phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη as “all nations” is dishonest, where the presence of the definite article requires it to be translated as “all the nations”. According to Liddell & Scott, the Definite Article was used to specify individuals, and they explain that it must be recognized in places where it is so used, specifically giving examples from the Homeric writings, where at an early time it was also used as a Demonstrative Pronoun. So they also explain that the Definite Article was used “not only with common Appellatives, Adjectives, and Participles, to specify them as present to sense or mind, but also frequently where we use the Possessive Pronoun” and then “in a generic sense, where the individual is treated as a type” or “of outstanding members of a class”. So the use of the definite article elucidates the fact that Christ intended the Gospel for certain nations, and not just for any nations. Those certain nations are defined in the words of the prophets and in the later epistles of Paul, Peter and James.
There is not much more I can say concerning significant mistranslations or misunderstandings in Mark which we have not already discussed in Matthew. But there is a passage at the end of Mark which we should discuss.
This is from the King James Version of Mark chapter 16: “14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
Now some of these things in this passage have no other witness in Scripture, and being nonsense they must be rejected. But the truth is, that they were almost certainly not a part of Mark’s Gospel in the first place. The last twelve verses of Mark, from verse 9 through 20, are found no earlier than the Codex Alexandrinus. They are not found in the earlier Codices Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, nor in several earlier Latin or Syriac sources, nor in the writings of several of the earlier so-called Church Fathers. The Codices which do have these verses, the Alexandrinus, Washingtonensis, Ephraemi Syri and Bezae, contain considerable differences from one another, and some of them are of considerable length. Some later Greek manuscripts, from the 9th century, rejected this long ending and evidently added a short ending of their own to the Gospel of Mark.
That being said, we reject both endings of the Gospel of Mark as spurious additions, and would rather see Mark’s gospel end at verse 8, where it appears to be incomplete. However I would like to address the phrase κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, or “proclaim the Gospel to every creature”, as it is in the King James Version.
Even if we accepted this clause, which we should not because it is part of a spurious addition, it does not say what the denominational churches think it says. In the words πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει, or “every creature” we have a singular adjective translated as every, and a singular definite article accompanying a noun translated as creature, which is κτίσις or properly, creation. Liddell & Scott define κτίσις as “a founding, foundation… loosely, equal to πρᾶξις, a doing, an act… a creating, the creation of the universe… [and finally] that which was created, the creation…” The Definite Article indicates that a particular creation is meant.
But Paul of Tarsus certainly did not always use the term to refer to the entire creation of God, and Christ could not have expected his disciples to preach the Gospel to serpents, monkeys, apes, goats or dogs. In Romans chapter 8 Paul used the same term, κτίσις, where he wrote “38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature [κτίσις], shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The context of the passage is set in the preceding verses, where Paul had said “36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” So it is evident that he was speaking only of the children of Israel, and they being one “creature” or one creation as opposed to other classes of beings or particular phenomena which God had also created. So even if we accept the clause in Mark chapter 16, it is not necessarily correct to interpret it as a command to preach the Gospel to anyone other than the children of Israel, which would contradict other things which Christ had said, as well as many other statements of the prophets and the apostles. So now we shall move on to the Gospel of Luke.
The purpose of the Gospel
While each of the apostles of Christ opened their Gospel accounts with a peculiar theme, John being the most complex of them all, Luke stressed the experiences of Mary and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and the pronunciations of the fulfillment of the promises to the fathers. So we shall read from Luke chapter 1: “67 Then Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying: 68 “Blessed is Yahweh the God of Israel, that He has visited and brought about redemption for His people, 69 and has raised a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant, 70 just as He spoke through the mouths of His holy prophets from of old: 71 preservation from our enemies and from the hand of all those who hate us! 72 To bring about mercy with our fathers and to call into remembrance His holy covenant, 73 the oath which He swore to Abraham our father, which is given to us: 74 being delivered fearlessly from the hands of our enemies to serve Him 75 in piety and in righteousness before Him for all of our days. 76 And now you, child, shall be called a prophet of the Highest: for you shall go on before the face of Yahweh to prepare His path. 77 For which to give knowledge of salvation to His people by the dismissal of their errors, 78 through the affectionate mercies of our God, by whom dawn visits us from the heights 79 to shine upon those sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet in the way of peace.’ 80 And the child grew and was strengthened in spirit, and was in the wilderness until the day of his manifestation to Israel.”
Luke was a companion of Paul in several of his journeys, and once Paul was arrested Luke remained with him, evidently for the duration of Paul’s life. He must have had the information concerning the identification of the tribes of Israel and the meanings of the Old Testament propheices concerning Israel which Paul had been teaching, and it is also very likely that where Paul referred to the Gospel in his writings, he was referring to this Gospel as it was compiled by Luke. So we must note that Luke must have known that the coming of Christ was certainly a fulfillment of the promises of Yahweh to Israel, and that those promises – as they are found in the Law and the Prophets, were made only to Israel, and were exclusive of all others. This is evident throughout Luke's writings, both here in his Gospel and in Acts, however the distinction is blurred by bad translations and misunderstood words. So we must keep Luke’s understanding as it is reflected in his record of the words of Zacharias in mind where we encounter the same theme later in his writings.
The purpose of the Gospel reiterated
Our next encounter with that theme is found as the infant Christ is presented in the temple, in Luke chapter 2: “25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Sumeon and this man was righteous and devout, expecting the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it was forewarned to him by the Holy Spirit, not to see death before he should see the Anointed Prince. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and in there being introduced to the parents of the child Yahshua, upon their doing that which is according to the custom of the law concerning Him, 28 then he took Him into his arms and praised Yahweh, and said: 29 ‘Now release Your servant, Master, in peace according to Your word: 30 Because my eyes have seen Your Salvation, 31 which You have prepared in front of all the people: 32 a light for the revelation of the Nations and honor of Your people Israel!’”
So once again, the scope of the purpose of Christ was limited to the children of Israel, the seed of those same fathers to whom the promises were made, where Luke himself had attested that by anticipating the Messiah, Sumeon was “expecting the consolation of Israel”. But the King James Version of verse 32 reads: “A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel”, so we will discuss that passage.
The phrase φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν found in verse 32 here is “a light for the revelation of the Nations”, and it may have been rendered “a light for a revelation of the Nations”. The word ἀποκάλυψις (602) is a noun, meaning an uncovering, a revelation (Liddell & Scott). The rendering found in the King James Version which says “A light to lighten the Gentiles”, translates the noun ἀποκάλυψις as a verb, which is incorrect and inexcusable. Furthermore, the King James rendering would require that the noun for nations be in the accusative case, in order to be a direct object of the non-existent verb, which it is not. The New American Standard Bible properly renders ἀποκάλυψις as a noun, but perverts it another way, by translating it as if it were in the Genitive Case rather than the Accusative. Apparently all of the translations twist the meaning of the words to conform to their doctrine rather than address what it actually means.
In chapter 4 of his epistle to the Romans, Paul defined the faith which Abraham had as being the belief in the promise of Yahweh, that his offspring would become many nations. Here we see that it is the light of the Gospel which would make those nations manifest, and certainly it did once the people of Europe became known collectively as Christendom. As Yahweh in the words of the prophet Isaiah had promised to call the prisoners, the captives of Israel, out of darkness, this wonderful truth of the Christian Israel fulfillment of prophecies of Scripture is therefore hidden in this mistranslation in the King James Version, and other versions of the Bible.
So we shall read our translation of verse 32 once more: “a light for the revelation of the Nations and honor of Your people Israel!” Although it is not properly a hendiadys, which is a grammatical construction that employs a definite article and different nouns which refer to the same entity, the Nations and the honor here certainly both belong to “Your people Israel”, meaning the Israel of Yahweh. The Israelites were prophesied to leave Palestine at an early time (2 Samuel 7:10; 1 Chronicles 17:9; Genesis 28:14) and to become many nations (Genesis 35:11, et al.). These things certainly happened, as it is revealed by a study of ancient history that many of the Greeks, Romans, Trojans, Phoenicians, etc. descended from Israelites migrating out of Palestine before the Assyrian captivity, and that the Parthians, Scythians, Kimmerians (Kelts), and others all descended from the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity. Along with certain Japhethite tribes, such as the Ionians at Athens whom Paul addressed in Acts chapter 17, these Israelites made up the population of Europe, and they are the White Europeans of today, as opposed to the later Arab and Turkic invaders. To them did the Apostles bear the light of the gospel, and in them is found Christendom, fulfilling the Old Testament prophesies which concerned the true Israelites, but not the Jews or any of the other races.
A woman of the tribe of Asher
Mention of this woman of Asher is found in Luke 2:36. At least some Jewish commentators have used this single woman to claim that representatives of all twelve tribes of Israel were among the Judaeans practicing Judaism in Palestine, all of which are now Jews, which is certainly not true. Just like they claim the extermination of six million Jews out of a few Typhus deaths in a work camp, they get millions of Jews in Judaea from this one woman who was never a Jew.
While most of the children of Israel lost their tribal identity in captivity, not all of the tribe of Asher was taken into captivity. It is apparent in Scripture and in history that the ancient city of Tyre was a city in territory belonging to the tribe of Asher. While the Tyrians submitted themselves as tributaries to the Assyrians, the Assyrians did not destroy the city, but later, when they revolted against the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar came and destroyed only the mainland portion of the city, and left the island portion intact as he was not able to reach it, and therefore he was unable to destroy it. During the Persian period, many Tyrians spread themselves back to the mainland, and as Herodotus describes them in the 5th century BC, they built and manned many ships for the Persian navy as it invaded Greece. Later, upon the coming of Alexander, the island city was finally destroyed, but we can see how Tyrians who maintained their Israelite Identity as Asher may have remained throughout the 7 centuries from the Assyrian captivity to the time of Chrisst.
The next clause is also found recorded very similarly in Matthew chapter 23, and our contention with it is the same, so we saved it for Luke.
The race of Cain
Luke 11:45-52: “45 Then replying one of the lawyers said to Him ‘Teacher, saying these things You also insult us!’ 46 So He said ‘And to you lawyers, woe! Because you load men with burdens hard to bear, and these burdens you touch with not one of your fingers! 47 Woe to you! Because you build the monuments of the prophets, and your fathers killed them! 48 Therefore you are witnesses and you consent to the works of your fathers, because they killed them, and you build. 49 For this reason also the wisdom of Yahweh says: ‘I shall send to them prophets and ambassadors, and some of them they shall kill and they shall persecute’, 50 in order that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the foundation of the Society should be required from this race, 51 from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias who was killed between the altar and the house. Yeah, I say to you, it shall be required from this race! 52 Woe to you lawyers! Because you have taken the key of knowledge, you do not enter in yourselves, and you prohibit those who are entering in!”
The Greek word γενεὰ (1074) is “race, stock, family...also a tribe, nation...2. a race, generation...” (Liddell & Scott) and in the King James Version it is more often than not rendered generation, as it also is here, and in the sense in which we use generation today it stands in defiance of the context and the most basic meaning of the Greek word. In this context, where we have references to sons and fathers both near and remote, which we see in verses 47 and 48, and where events from both the remote past and the recent past are in focus, in reference to Abel and Zacharias in verse 51, the word must be rendered race. It simply cannot be referring to merely a single generation, or as we may define the term, a mere portion of a race which exists at any particular time.
Speaking of an evil race, this brings us to another mention of such a phenomenon, in:
The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward
Luke 16:1-9: “1 Then He also said to the students: ‘There was a certain wealthy man who had a steward, and he had suspected him of squandering his possessions. 2 And calling him he said to him ‘What is this I hear about you? Give me an account of your stewardship, for you are no longer able to be steward.’ 3 And the steward said to himself ‘What shall I do, that my master has taken the stewardship from me? I am not able to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I know what I shall do, in order that when I have been removed from the stewardship they shall receive me into their houses!’ 5 And calling on each one of those indebted to his master, he said to the first ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said ‘A hundred baths of olive oil.’ So he said to him ‘Take your records, and quickly sitting down write fifty.’ 7 Next he said to another ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said ‘A hundred kors of grain.’ He says to him ‘Take your records and write eighty.’ 8 And the master praised the unrighteous steward because he did wisely, because the sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light are towards their own race. 9 And I say to you, shall you make for yourselves friends from the riches of unrighteousness, that when you should fail they may receive you into eternal dwellings?’”
The parable of the unrighteous steward is very poorly understood, because the concluding verses are very poorly translated. Some denominational commentators even claim that Yahweh justifies stealing, in order to uphold the veracity of the King James Version and other translations of this passage! They would rather call God a liar, than imagine their precious King James Version may be wrong. So our contention here is with verses 8 and 9, and an examination of them shall reveal a very different meaning in this parable from what most Bible studies and commentaries suggest.
Concerning the text of Luke 16:8, as we have said several times already, γενεά (1074), is defined as “race, stock, family” and therefore it is race here and not, as it may be in some contexts, “a race, generation” or an “age, time of life”, or as we say, generation. This is evident without resorting to any other Biblical references, but from the full statement here alone, which we shall endeavor to explain.
The Greek language of the full clause, ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτὸς εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν εἰσιν, which we translate “Because the sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light are towards their own race”, shall be examined here, inspecting each Greek word or phrase in the order which it appears in the sentence.
ὅτι is commonly because, and οἱ υἱοὶ is the sons. As the phrase is in the Nominative case it is therefore the subject of the clause.
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is of this age, the pronoun τούτου referring to what precedes. The word αἰῶνος is the Genitive singular of αἰών (165), which is age here. According to Liddell & Scott the word is “a period of existence...an age, generation...a long space of time, an age...a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period...”. It is the source of our English word eon, and usually in the New Testament it infers a long period of time, and so it may be presumed to be equivalent to the span of many generations, as we use that term today. Therefore, if αἰών infers such a long space of time here, which is the natural meaning of the word, then γενεά must be rendered “race”, since many generations would be required to fill “this age”. Yet if αἰών infers a shorter duration, a single generation or an era, γενεά still must be rendered as race, lest the use of the word is redundant and it becomes meaningless. The King James Version translators must have realized this predicament, and here, as they did elsewhere, they rendered αἰών as world, a meaning that the word certainly does not have! αἰών can only refer to a period of time, and it is not a reference to space or to any physical object.
φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ is translated are wiser than, but may have been are wiser beyond. The word are comes from εἰσιν, which is the last word of the clause. The word εἰσιν is the third person plural form of εἰμί (1510), which is they are. This arrangement is common in Greek, which orders its words quite differently than English. ὑπὲρ is a preposition which is properly over or beyond what follows, but here it is not rendered as such, the comparative form of φρόνιμος (5429), wiser, and the conjunction than, and so are wiser than, being sufficient to express the meaning in English.
τοὺς υἱοὺς is once again the sons but here the phrase is in the Accusative case, which distinguishes the noun as the object of a verb or of certain prepositions, here it is the object of the preposition ὑπὲρ or beyond, which is rendered as than in the text.
τοῦ φωτὸς (“of light”), the Genitive singular of φῶς (5457), the Genitive is a case that expresses possession, source, or measurement, and here the sons, the preceding noun, belongs to it, so it is the sons of light.
εἰς (1519) is a preposition used only with the Accusative case, as it is here with τὴν γενεὰν which follows, and is properly “into, and then to” and also among other things “...at...with...to or towards...in regard to...for” (Liddell & Scott). In certain contexts it may sometimes be rendered in, but it is not commonly in. Liddell & Scott give one example, where in English we would say “to look in the face”, rather than the literal at or towards the face. The in where it says “in their generation” here in the King James Version would be properly expressed with ἐν (1722) and the Dative case, and not with εἰς and the Accusative, as it is found here.
τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν (“their own race”), or literally “the race that is of themselves”, the two occurrences of the Definite Article τὴν and the noun γενεὰν are all in the Accusative case, and therefore they are both objects of the preposition εἰς. While the Article τὴν is the Accusative singular, the pronoun ἑαυτῶν, of themselves, or here their own is a Genitive plural (ἑαυτοῦ, 1438) and “reflects back to the subject” (MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion, p. 104). Therefore here τὴν γενεὰν belongs to one party only, the “sons of this age”, who are the subject of the clause, and so the word γενεὰν must again be rendered race, and not generation, since both “the sons of this age” and “the sons of light” are obviously contemporaneous, sharing the same period of time, while they are obviously not a part of the same generation, but they are of two different races. While such number and case mismatches are rare, the Article τὴν is Accusative singular while its noun ἑαυτῶν Genitive plural. Yet this is done expressly in order to avoid confusion, to show the relationship between ἑαυτῶν and τὴν γενεὰν here. The result is that there is no question that τὴν γενεὰν (“the race”) belongs to ἑαυτῶν (“of themselves”), referring to the subject of the clause: “the sons of this age”.
εἰσιν the final word here, is the 3rd person plural of the verb to be, εἰμί (1510), and so is they are, or are here. It may be protested that the word are appears twice in the English version here, and that is true. “As in classical Greek, so also in the N.T. εἰμί is very often omitted” according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (εἰμί, VI., p. 180 col. B), and so it must be supplied in English as often as it is found wanting, yet admittedly this process of supplying the verb can be quite subjective.
So we read Luke 16:8 to say: “And the master praised the unrighteous steward because he did wisely, because the sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light are towards their own race.” Here it should now be manifest, that this verse is describing the “sons of this age” and the “sons of light” as two separate races, which have vied with each other throughout the age, just as Genesis 3:15 forebode that they would. Once we translate this passage correctly, we realize that it is indeed a parable about the two seeds of Genesis 3:15, and that it is not a parable about Yahweh our God approving of the breaking of His Own commandment: “Thou shalt not steal”.
Now to turn our attention to the text of Luke 16:9, “And I say to you, shall you make for yourselves friends from the riches of unrighteousness, that when you should fail they may receive you into eternal dwellings?”. This verse is very naturally read as a question, which is found in neither the King James Version nor the NA27 nor any other of the versions which I’ve seen. In fact, if one checks the websites where they present all of the popular translations in parallel, none of them read this verse as a question (http://bible.cc/luke/16-9.htm). Rather, many commentators use this verse as a statement, to justify the wicked methods of the dishonest steward, which amount to stealing! So much drivel has been written concerning this verse, because its being a rhetorical question has been overlooked by so many, and because they twist the translation of the verse which precedes!
The construction of the verbs here very naturally makes a rhetorical question, where a verb of the Indicative mood is followed by a verb of the Subjunctive mood. ποιήσατε, the Future Indicative of ποιέω (4160), is “shall you make...?” Later the verb ἐκλίπῃ, Aorist Subjunctive of ἐκλείπω (1587) is “when you should fail” preceded by ὅταν (“when”), and it may be written “when you might fail”. The verb δέξωνται is the Aorist Subjunctive of δέχομαι (1209), here followed by ὑμᾶς (“you”) and being in the 3rd person plural, “they may receive you”, or “they might receive you”. A similar pattern is found at Galatians 6:5. The Indicative Mood, as ποιήσατε is here, is often used in interrogation (MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion, p. 43), and even without an interrogatory particle. This is also often done by Luke (and it is recognized by both the King James Version and the NA27), at 4:34; 7:19 and 20; 9:54; 12:51; 13:2, 4, and 15; 14:3; 20:4; 22:48; and 23:3; and at Acts 5:28; 16:37; 21:37; 23:3 and 4; 25:9; and 26:27.
Biblical evidence that in context this interpretation is the correct one is quite plain. First, the commandment states that “Thou shalt not steal”, and Christ is certainly not endorsing embezzlement here. Second, it is certain that the friends of the unrighteous steward cannot receive him into any “eternal dwelling”, for only Yahweh himself can do that! Third, the subsequent verse at 16:13 plainly states that one cannot serve both Yahweh and riches simultaneously. So the obvious answer to the question asked here in verse 9 is “No!” The real lesson here is that the unrighteous steward, evidently one of the “sons of this age” (v. 8), acted as those of his race are expected to act: craftily, because they have no reward hereafter. The sons of light, the true Adamic Israelites, should not do as the others (note Matthew 7:16-20). The Israelite’s eternal dwelling is with Yahweh, and there is none other. He should store his treasure there (Matt. 6:19-21; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:16-21 and 31-34), since worldly riches, mammon, mean nothing (i.e. Heb. 11:26).