The 2 wars in Rev 19 and 20. Same wars, or different wars?

[DurbanDude]

However, Psalm 2:9 is as follows from the LXX (the Greek Septuagint translation):



And here is an English translation of Psalm 2:9 from the LXX (an English translation of the Septuagint):



Yep.

And so, it seems that the word ποιμανεῖς --which seems to be "poimoina" and so on -- has to have a range of meaning that includes shepherding, ruling, and breaking; I suppose that shepherds do "rule and break" and so on. At any rate, here is what Thayer's Greek Lexicon indicates:




And apparently, all of these "concepts" are present in the various translations and so on--since the Greek word represented by the English words in red below is ποιμανεῖς:



And so, the words in red above seek to provide the range of meanings in the Greek word "poimoina" from the Greek Old Testament (LXX).

But in Psalm 2:9, a parallel concept is in bold black: dash, crush, smash, shatter and so on.



(go to the next post . . .)

I'm still not getting your focus on Psalm 2, we are talking about the Greek word "Poimona" in Rev 19, no matter how you try to justify it in your own mind, that particular word does not have a wide meaning, despite your concentration on another different word in Psalm 2 that has a similar context.

How the Greeks happened to translate the Hebrew of Psalm 2, is a little irrelevant to this discussion, that's like looking at the Chinese translations to get a better understanding. The NT was written in Greek, so we take the Greek meanings, the OT in Hebrew so we look at the Hebrew meaning, I don't see why we should consult any other language than the original language because to translate from Hebrew to Greek to English is more chance of getting it wrong than Hebrew into Engklish. I believe you are getting too complicated here to try to justify your position.

Now, I am no Greek scholar, but it seems that in Psalm 2:9, the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls"--Jesus Christ the Shepherd King/Priest--will break, shepherd, or rule the wicked among the nations one day--and will smash, dash, crush, or shatter them with an iron rod . . .

And Rev. 19:15 is based on Psalm 2:9 . . .

Hey that's what I'm saying. Jesus will break them, strike them, and rule them/shepherd them. Thanks for the agreement!

[billy-brown 2]

I'm still not getting your focus on Psalm 2, we are talking about the Greek word "Poimona" in Rev 19, no matter how you try to justify it in your own mind, that particular word does not have a wide meaning, despite your concentration on another different word in Psalm 2 that has a similar context.

How the Greeks happened to translate the Hebrew of Psalm 2, is a little irrelevant to this discussion, that's like looking at the Chinese translations to get a better understanding. The NT was written in Greek, so we take the Greek meanings, the OT in Hebrew so we look at the Hebrew meaning, I don't see why we should consult any other language than the original language because to translate from Hebrew to Greek to English is more chance of getting it wrong than Hebrew into Engklish. I believe you are getting too complicated here to try to justify your position.

Well, perhaps you are right about that. But you were saying that you did not know why certain English translations used the word "rule" in Psalm 2:9:

Well I have to admit, that was quite a good comeback , showing that bible translators actually use the two words interchangeably. I don't know why the Youngs and the Rheims bibles chose that word "rule", because looking at the Hebrew the word just seems to mean break/injure/do evil/harm, with no hint that it means to "rule". Maybe that's why those two translations aren't really that popular with that level of inaccuracy.

And I was suggesting a possible reason: the English LXX has the word "rule" in Psalm 2:9.

And the Greek LXX has the word "poimainō" and so on in Psalm 2:9.

And the LXX is a very important translation, yes?

Also, you mentioned this as well: that my explanation on this below

In other words, the notion of

"rule(ing)" with a rod of iron

in Rev. 19:15 should be understood as

"break(ing)" with a rod of iron

from Psalm 2:9, because this is one of the specific Old Testament references that John the Revelator has in mind when he is writing Chapter 19 of the book of Revelation.

was ridiculous--and I agreed with that:

This is actually really funny, because I already explained to you that the word "ruling" means to shepherd. You are now equating "breaking" with "shepherding", basically two opposite concepts. With this kind of symbolising of language, it makes a mockery of language itself, when you can say "nurturing" is a symbolic word for "breaking". This kind of taking an actual mentioned biblical word like "poimaino" and saying it symbolically represents the opposite of what it means is simply a staggeringly inaccurate way of looking at the wording of the bible.

poimainō
to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a) to rule, govern
1) of rulers
2) to furnish pasture for food
3) to nourish
4) to cherish one's body, to serve the body
5) to supply the requisites for the soul's need

Jesus ruling over the nations after the second coming may not appeal to your viewpoint, however the word "poimaino" is undeniably there in Rev 19:15 and your explanation is simply ridiculous. I do not use strong emotional language like this normally , but really? Just discarding a word's meaning and saying it means the opposite is scraping the barrel of defending your view.

But then you mentioned this:

Yes they are broken and shattered with a rod of iron, however they are ALSO shepherded with a rod of iron, two different words with different meanings that CANNOT have the same meaning.

But it is this precisely what we have to reconsider, because it seems that you have just suggested below the opposite apropos Psalm 2:9 and Rev. 19:15. Remember, you wrote this:

Hey that's what I'm saying. Jesus will break them, strike them, and rule them/shepherd them. Thanks for the agreement!

And I wrote this:

Now, I am no Greek scholar, but it seems that in Psalm 2:9, the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls"--Jesus Christ the Shepherd King/Priest--will break, shepherd, or rule the wicked among the nations one day--and will smash, dash, crush, or shatter them with an iron rod . . .

And Rev. 19:15 is based on Psalm 2:9 . . .

And of course, this entire dialectic is the reason why I feel that Rev. 19:15 is a judgment verse--and based on Rev. 2:9. And we might want to review this post on that actually . . .

[billy-brown 2]

BB2, you still can't change the meaning of words in order to make them fit with one's view. Plus, you can't make your understanding of that word fit with Revelation 2:26-27. It is clearly Jesus giving this power over the nations unto the one that overcometh.

Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


Clearly there are at least 4 distinct entities in this verse. 1..The 'he' would have to be the overcomers. 2...the 'them' and 'they' would have to be the nations. 3...The 'I' would have to be Jesus. 4...And the Father would have to be the Father. Look at the verse again. What does it say? even as I received of my Father. Doesn't that then agree with Psalms 2? And doesn't Revelation 2:26-27 show that Jesus rewards the overcomers with this same power over the nations?

But divaD,

Are you aware that there are some translations of Rev. 2:26-27 that have Jesus making reference to Psalm 2:9 and so on? I mean, look at the CAPITAL LETTERS on the reference below in the applicable verses:

Rev. 2
26‘He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;
27AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;
28and I will give him the morning star.

In other words, Jesus is making reference to Psalm 2:9 in terms of the fact that we who overcome will share with Him in authority. And actually, we do that already:

Eph. 2
4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

And so, if we are not seated with Christ NOW, then how do we sit with him later . . . ?

[DurbanDude]

Well, perhaps you are right about that. But you were saying that you did not know why certain English translations used the word "rule" in Psalm 2:9:



And I was suggesting a possible reason: the English LXX has the word "rule" in Psalm 2:9.

And the Greek LXX has the word "poimainō" and so on in Psalm 2:9.

And the LXX is a very important translation, yes?

Also, you mentioned this as well: that my explanation on this below



was ridiculous--and I agreed with that:



But then you mentioned this:



But it is this precisely what we have to reconsider, because it seems that you have just suggested below the opposite apropos Psalm 2:9 and Rev. 19:15. Remember, you wrote this:



And I wrote this:



And of course, this entire dialectic is the reason why I feel that Rev. 19:15 is a judgment verse--and based on Rev. 2:9. And we might want to review this post on that actually . . .

Still don't get you. You seem to agree with me that we should rather look at the original languages, and at the same time you are telling me how important the Greek translation of Hebrew is.

You seem to say that Rev 19:15 is not referring to shepherding and at the same time you say that Psalm 2 also means to shepherd and want to relate the two events together.

Anyway let's just agree to disagree, I feel we have both put forward our position, and if we continue we will just be going in circles.

[billy-brown 2]

Still don't get you. You seem to agree with me that we should rather look at the original languages, and at the same time you are telling me how important the Greek translation of Hebrew is.

Well, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament authors a lot--even more than the Original Hebrew OT Bible, so . . .

You seem to say that Rev 19:15 is not referring to shepherding and at the same time you say that Psalm 2 also means to shepherd and want to relate the two events together.

I am saying what you are saying (I think)--that shepherding is ruling, and ruling is breaking, and so on. In other words, it's ποιμανεῖς--which seems to be "poimoina" and so on; I thought we agreed on that.

Of course, this would mean that the following verses is about the judgment wrath of God--since Jesus is King/Shepherd/Priest:

Rev. 19
15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Anyway let's just agree to disagree, I feel we have both put forward our position, and if we continue we will just be going in circles.

Okay . . . I think?

Didn't we agree on some things though?

[John146]

So were do you say it is, if not a physical location?

Throughout the entire world.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

This can't reasonably be a literal physical gathering to one physical location on the earth. How could a number "as the sand of the sea" all gather in one relatively small location? So, it has to be figuratively referring to Satan and his followers uniting together in an attempt to kill all saints throughout the world. You know that is Satan's ultimate goal to destroy the church so why would this be about anything about Satan's attempt to utterly destroy the church?

The dragon, beast and false prophet, with all their kings and armies of the nations are physical, so why not the place of battle?

Is it speaking of a literal dragon, literal beast and literal false prophet (aka second beast or beast of the earth)? No. So, why does Armageddon have to be an isolated literal physical location rather than figuratively referring to a spiritual event occurring throughout the entire earth? How about Babylon? Is that referring to the earthly city of Babylon? I don't believe so and most would say it's not, so why does Armageddon have to refer to the earthly physical location called Armageddon?

Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Who are they that are given white and clean fine linen, which were in heaven and followed the King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

I believe that would be the souls of the dead in Christ and His angels. The following passages show that the dead in Christ and His angels will come with Him at His second coming:

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Matt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

[John146]

The other point I make is that this 'gathering' (Rev 16) happens with the sixth bowl being poured out. If this was a gathering around the camp of the saints (Rev 20) then the saints would have been subjected to the first five bowls of God's wrath. That would mean that the night had overtaken them.

Is God able to protect His saints from His wrath while they are on the earth? Of course He is able to do that. He has done it many times before. How many of His people who were slaves in Egypt were affected by the plagues He sent down on Egypt? None. How about Noah and his family or Lot and his family? Did God need to take them off of the earth to protect them? No. So, I completely disagree with what you said here.

[John146]

Mystery Babylon, the woman/harlot is specifically defined as a city in Rev 17:18, so you are right that the woman is symbolic of a city. Yet continuously there is a war associated with the second coming and this war is described in more literal terms with no obvious symbolism involved.

I disagree. I think the symbolism is obvious. Not much we can do about having such different perspectives.

So my method of interpretation I believe differs, yet on the sound principle that verses are to be literally interpreted unless the symbolism is obvious.

Whether we think it's obvious or not doesn't determine whether it can be symbolic or not. So, I don't really see that as being a very sound principle. What we have to determine is whether or not a literal interpretation fits the rest of scripture and I don't see a literal physical gathering for war taking place in a relatively small location as fitting the context of the rest of scripture regarding Christ's second coming or even the book of Revelation itself.

I have heard you say that the two 3.5 year periods of Daniel 9:27 are literally 3.5 years,

There are no 3.5 year periods mentioned in Daniel 9:27. It refers to "one week" which most of us see as referring to a period of seven years. But interpreting "one week" as seven years is not interpreting it literally as "one week" would normally be understood as seven days. So, I don't see your point at all here.

yet the 3.5 year period mentioned in Revelation is figurative, that kind of inconsistency I believe should cause one to reconsider one's methodology.

I'm not being inconsistent at all. In the case of Daniel 9 it's referring to the final week of a contiguous 70-week prophecy. Even you don't take the weeks literally and see them as referring to seven years rather than seven days. So, should I accuse you of not being consistent with your literalism? I don't believe the 42 months, 1,260 days and "a time, and times, and half a time" mentioned in Revelation have anything to do with the 70 week prophecy so how I interpret those has nothing to do with how I interpret Daniel 9:27.

I see nothing wrong with using that wider application of the meaning of "pas" to Rev 13:8 as well. I don't understand this principle of consistency that you mention, if a word has two possible meanings we should use context and not consistency to decide which meaning applies. To use consistency would then wipe the alternative meaning out the bible, and reduce a word that has two meanings to a word that has one meaning, which just does not make any sense if in fact the Greek dictionary lists two meanings for that word.

Oh, so when I question your consistency then it's a problem. But it's okay for you to question my consistency. I see.

Can you explain why you would criticize my supposed inconsistency earlier and then turn around and point out that it's not about consistency but about context? Make up your mind. What is more important, consistency or context? I would vote for context though consistency can be important, too. I only referred to Rev 13:16 for evidence of how Rev 19:18 should be interpreted IF the context of each verse is the same as far as who the all men which include "small and great" and "free and bond" are. And I believe the context is the same in that sense. The ones who will be destroyed at His coming are the same ones who are worshiping the beast at the time.

[billy-brown 2]

(footnote . . .)

The following set of verses below from Rev. 19 are based on Psalm 2:9, and reveal the mighty judgment power of our Shepherd/King/Priest Jesus: that He will break/strike/rule/shepherd all who will be gathered through Satanic deception to the great war of the day of God Almighty.

Rev. 19
15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

And the phrase indicating that there is one war is key--the singular tense phrase in Rev. 16:14:

Rev. 16:14b . . . to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

So, how is all of this possible? Well, Jesus is KING, SHEPHERD, PRIEST, and THE WORD OF GOD . . .

[Raybob]

I'm not sure if this is just a head-in-the sand approach? Rev 19:15 says they will be shepherded. The verse simply means that nations that are struck will be subsequently ruled over, this is what the text says and its not difficult to understand, its not easily contradicted as shown by the arguments in this thread.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(Rev 19:15)

All i see here is that nations are smitten as he rules but His ruling is with the treading of the "winepress of the fierceness and wrath" of Almighty God. I see the wrath of God with the winepress on the nations. You see "shepherding". We must be reading different bibles. You see God pouring out His wrath as gently shepherding with a rod. I see it as total destruction. I wonder why the rod needs to be made of iron if people only need gentle prodding now and then?

[DurbanDude]

I am saying what you are saying (I think)--that shepherding is ruling, and ruling is breaking, and so on. In other words, it's ποιμανεῖς--which seems to be "poimoina" and so on; I thought we agreed on that.

Not completely, I believe the Hebrew word ie Psalm 2 is referring to breaking, however the Greek word used there has a wider meaning which confuses the issue if you focus on that Greek word because the original Hebrew word did not actually mean ruling. So I disagree with your point there, Psalm 2 means breaking, not ruling, despite the Greek translation.

This is different to Rev 19:15 in which the Greek word is clear on shepherding and does not m ean breaking,however is used after another Greek word "to strike".

This is the simple case from the original languages, a situation that you have confused by focussing on the Greek translation of the OT. I'm in an English speaking world, I quote from the English bible, this does not mean its better than the original language, the fact that Greek was popular during NT times and so they used the Greek bible, does not mean its more accurate than the original Hebrew.

Didn't we agree on some things though?

Sorta but not really Thanks for the chat

[DurbanDude]

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(Rev 19:15)

All i see here is that nations are smitten as he rules but His ruling is with the treading of the "winepress of the fierceness and wrath" of Almighty God. I see the wrath of God with the winepress on the nations. You see "shepherding". We must be reading different bibles. You see God pouring out His wrath as gently shepherding with a rod. I see it as total destruction. I wonder why the rod needs to be made of iron if people only need gentle prodding now and then?

that word "rule" means to shepherd in Greek. You cannot shepherd people with death. That does not make sense.

Jesus strikes the armies of the nations (which he shall rule over), and treads the winepress of those armies.


This winepress is outside Jerusalem, its not across the whole earth:
Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

[Raybob]

that word "rule" means to shepherd in Greek. You cannot shepherd people with death. That does not make sense.

Jesus strikes the armies of the nations (which he shall rule over), and treads the winepress of those armies.


This winepress is outside Jerusalem, its not across the whole earth:
Rev 14:20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

This is how we know this is symbolic language. When the Lord 'rules' people that reject Him, what type of "ruling" would you call it, other than total destruction?

[divaD]

This is how we know this is symbolic language. When the Lord 'rules' people that reject Him, what type of "ruling" would you call it, other than total destruction?

The following link always provides accurate translations for the most part. Notice how they translate 'rule.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...Tpdf/rev19.pdf

And like DurbanDude just pointed out, it is nonsensical to shepherd one unto their death. So that means someone is misunderstanding to rule with a rod of iron. And my guess would be that it's not premils who are misunderstanding this, since we're sticking to the Greek and it's definition, which means to shepherd.

[John146]

The following link always provides accurate translations for the most part. Notice how they translate 'rule.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...Tpdf/rev19.pdf

And like DurbanDude just pointed out, it is nonsensical to shepherd one unto their death. So that means someone is misunderstanding to rule with a rod of iron. And my guess would be that it's not premils who are misunderstanding this, since we're sticking to the Greek and it's definition, which means to shepherd.

You are sticking with the meaning of the word as it is associated with shepherding without a rod of iron, though. The meaning of ruling with a rod of iron is different than ruling without a rod of iron but you make no distinction between the two, which I believe is a mistake on premils part. The following does not describe ruling with a rod of iron as shepherding at all, unless you think Christ dashing people "in pieces like a potter's vessel" is a description of shepherding.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

What is your understanding of verse 9 in this passage? It seems to me that whatever ruling with a rod of iron means is described here.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And in this verse ruling with a rod of iron is associated with Christ smiting people and treading them in the winepress of God's wrath. Does that sound like a description of shepherding to you or a description of destruction?